A Word in Edgewise

Home » Posts tagged 'Matthew'

Tag Archives: Matthew

The Great Commission: All Nations?

On this edition of the podcast, “Exegetically Speaking,” Dr. Ed Stetzer, dean of the School of Mission, Ministry and Leadership at Wheaton College, discusses the Great Commission (Matt 28.19-20) and what Jesus meant when he sent his disciples to “all nations.”  Our phrase “all nations” may not adequately capture the Greek phrase panta ta ethne.  Ed StetzerGive us seven minutes and we’ll change the way you think.

Here is the URL:

http://exegeticallyspeaking.libsyn.com/great-commission-all-nations

or click here.

Human Flourishing

Dr. Jonathan Pennington, associate professor of New Testament and director of the doctoral program at Southern Seminary, has written an important, new book on the Sermon on the Mount.  The title is The Sermon on the Mount and Human Flourishing: A Theological Commentary (Baker Academic, 2017).  You can find a link to Amazon here. The book is not exactly new; I’ve known about it for about a year now.  But it is new to me and perhaps to many of you.  Human Flourishing Pennington

Pennington is regarded broadly as an expert on the Gospel of Matthew.  Now, on the way to writing the prestigious Pillar Commentary on the whole Gospel, he paused and wrote an extensive theological commentary on the Sermon.  The Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7) is probably the best known sermon of Jesus.  Oscar Brooks called it “the inaugural address” of Jesus because it laid out the platform for the kingdom of God.

At the heart of Pennington’s book, as the title shows, is an interpretation of the beatitudes and the Sermon as what we would call today “human flourishing.”  Essentially, what wisdom is needed and what virtues must be cultivated in order for humans–or in this case, Jesus-followers–to flourish.  He begins by re-translating the beatitudes (Matt 5.3ff) in a manner like: “Flourishing are the poor the spirit, . . . “; “Flourishing are those who mourn, . . . ”  You get the idea.  He moves the Greek word makarios out of the category of “happy” or “fortunate” or “blessed.”  While the term “human flourishing” may be anachronistic, it is heuristically valuable and gets at the heart of what is the good life and good society.

One of the most important features of the book is Pennington’s commitment to join together the Jewish wisdom tradition with Greco-Roman virtue ethics.  Rather than seeing these as discrete aspects of Galilean/Jewish culture, Pennington invites us to see these as mutually instructive.   He makes a good case for it.  But wisdom here is not just “this worldly,” it also has an eschatological dimension as well.  It is thoroughly Christ-centered and kingdom-focused.

Pastors and scholars have been writing on the Sermon for years.  My first encounter with a book devoted largely to it was Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s book The Cost of Discipleship.  I am not sure the trend will end, but I do think that Pennington’s book is likely to become one of the most significant books on the sermon for years to come.

To get the book, click here.

 

Why is Jesus’s Genealogy Different in Matthew and Luke?

I had the privilege in 2014 of giving the Hayward Lectures at Acadia Divinity School in Nova Scotia.  While there I met a young scholar who is working on various topics in the Gospels.  His name is Danny Zacharias.  He had recently finished a project on the question of why Matthew (ch. 1) and Luke (ch 3) have different names in their genealogies of Jesus. Some point to this as a contradiction  which cannot be solved, thus undermining the reliability of the Gospel accounts.  Others see the differences as a matter of purpose and focus. Matthew starts with Abraham and moves forward to Jesus to show that Jesus is the true son of Abraham, the embodiment of Israel.  Luke starts with Jesus and moves back through Abraham to Adam, demonstrating that Jesus is the Savior of all sons of Adam and daughters of Eve.   One traditional “answer” has been that Matthew has Joseph’s genealogy while Luke records Mary’s. Not all, of course, think this is the case.

Dr. Zacharias offers an intriguing approach to the question.  Here is a link to a brief video he did a few years back:

http://www.dannyzacharias.net/blog/2014/10/1/why-is-jesus-genealogy-different-in-matthew-and-luke 

I think you may find it helpful.  If so, please let him know.

 

 

 

Figural Reading . . . the Old in the New

Last year I had the great honor of being on a panel discussion at the Lanier Theological Library with some leading scholars.  The topic was “Figural Reading . . . the Old in the New.” Richard Hays had written an important book on the topic entitled, Reading Backwards: Figural Christology and the Fourfold Gospel Witness (Baylor University Press, 2014). That was the topic of our discussion.  It is an outstanding conversation hosted by Mark Lanier.

Richard Hays (Dean, Duke Divinity School)
Lynn Cohick (Professor, Wheaton College)
Carey Newman (Director, Baylor University Press)
David Capes (Professor, Houston Baptist University)
Mark Lanier (Moderator)

Here is a link to the site:

http://www.laniertheologicallibrary.org/seminar-videos-2/

The discussion takes place over 1 hr and 43 minutes.  If you’re interested in how NT writers read, interpreted and used their Bible–what we call the Old Testament but specifically the Greek version of the Old Testament–this will be a good video to watch.

I’m humbled and gratified to be a part of these conversations.

 

 

 

The Virgin Birth: what did Mary provide?

Now that the 12 days of Christmas are in full swing, I want to propose what I think will be a controversial reading of Matthew’s account of Jesus’ virginal conception and birth.  Consider it a theological thought experiment if you like, but it is an attempt to take seriously Matthew 1:20.  The first Gospel says no more about the topic but what he does say is clearly suggestive:

“Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife, for the child conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.” (Matthew 1:20)

Now immediately, we must set aside any modern notions of conception, for though Matthew and his audience would have been aware generally of how babies were made, they were not versed fully in the biology of it.   The Greek word translated “conceived” in most modern translations does not mean what moderns mean when they think scientifically regarding conception.  So we must not insist that it carry the full freight of our biological knowledge.  The word simply means “to bring forth.”  The same word was used earlier in the chapter dozens of times to refer to how fathers bring forth children: e.g., “Abraham was the father of Isaac, and Isaac the father of Jacob” (Matthew 1:2a,b).  The King James read: “Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob” (Mat 1:2 KJV).virgin-mary-and-jesus

If we assume for a moment that Matthew was aware of at least some of the biological processes involved, would he have thought that Mary provided the ovum or was Mary for him more like a surrogate mother, a vessel in whom the Christ-child, Emmanuel, was destined to grow?  If Mary provided the ovum, who or what supplied the seed?  I suggest Matthew’s account should be interpreted as making Mary Jesus’ surrogate mother not his biological mother.

Now to be fair neither Matthew nor his audience could have been familiar with the notion of an “egg” as we know it.  Not until the invention of the microscope were humans able to see the mico-world.  Instead they viewed the woman’s womb as the ground upon which the seed could be planted.  They were after all an agricultural people so many of their life images were drawn from agriculture.  If the seed found favorable “ground,” then a child would result.  If a woman’s womb were “barren,” then the couple remained childless. 

Let”s be clear.  Matthew does not see her pregnancy as a sexual act.  In fact, the way he tells the story it is obvious he is trying to distance his account from any notion of sexual intercourse.  Perhaps that is because during his days charges were being made by Jesus’ opponents about his legitimacy; or more likely in my view, Matthew had a theological and apologetic purpose.

According to the first evangelist, Mary is a virgin and stays a virgin up to the time of Jesus’ birth (Catholics and many other faithful believers say forever).  Furthermore, the child which will come forth from her is “from the Holy Spirit” (likely a genitive of source governed by the Greek preposition ek).  Matthew must have been aware of Greek myths and pagan stories of gods coming down and having sexual relations with women and giving birth to semi-divine beings (e.g., Hercules).  His account of Jesus’ miraculous birth is meant to distance Jesus’ origins as far as possible from these pagan notions.  That which is in Mary is from the Holy Spirit.  Full stop.  It is the work of God in her from start to finish.

Reading Matthew’s account in this way makes it possible to view Jesus as a new Adam in line with other NT writers (e.g., Paul in Romans 5, 1 Corinthians 15 and the Gospel of Luke in particular).  The genealogy of the third Gospel (Luke 3) begins with Jesus and traces his lineage all the way back to Adam (cf. Matthew’s geneaology which begins with Abraham and ends with Jesus: Matthew 1).  Jesus is therefore the Son of Adam, who is none other than the Son of God..  The God who said, “Let there be light” and light “became” can surely say, “Let there be a child in the womb of my loyal servant, Mary,” and make it so.  Adam was the product of adamah (Hebrew for “earth”) and the breath (Spirit) of God (Genesis 1-3).  Jesus, son of Mary, was the product of the Holy Spirit, according to Matthew.  Mary did not provide the biological raw materials. What she did provide–by common agreement with God–was a nurturing place or “ground” for the Christ child to grow and develop.  Natalogists can explain to us all that the woman’s body provides a child that grows within her.  Once implanted there is a great deal of exchange that takes place from the mother’s body to the baby’s. Needless to say, “we are wonderfully made.”

Now some may wonder whether reading Matthew’s account in the way I propose detracts from Jesus’ full humanity.  How could Jesus be fully human if he did not have a biological mother the way we moderns understand it, that is, in sharing Mary’s DNA?  Well was Adam “fully human”?  He had no mother.  His wife was to become the mother of all the living.  God sculpted Adam from the earth and breathed into him the breath of life and he became a living soul, fully human.  The analogy I suggest we consider here is new creation and new Adam.  What was in Mary was “from the Holy Spirit” start to finish.

Now if we take Mary’s role as surrogate rather than biological mother, we do not detract one bit from her ultimate significance in the story of salvation.  She remains the virgin mother in whom a miracle has taken place to bring forth a son who is properly called “Emmanuel” (God with us).  All of the honor due Mary as theotokos (“the Mother of God”) is not set aside by this reading of Matthew.

%d bloggers like this: