Bible Topics

Moses has the focal position in the whole story of the OT.

Matthew was a Jew. He was a tax collector. He appreciated the importance of Moses in the story of his people. Matthew was a renegade according to the Jewish leaders of his day because he worked for Rome. He despised the leaders of the Jews of that day and delighted in giving the full curse in as pronounced by Christ.

Luke as a medical doctor and is concerned with the total healing power of Christ's message. He stresses the kindness of Christ. John sees the picture all the way to the beginning. For him, Christ is the true Adam. He sets mankind on a path that can achieve the harmony and peace God intended from the beginning.

As I think of leadership in the NT, the notion all boils down to the "Koinonia," the real sharing with each other. Luke stresses this point in the opening verses of Acts, and says it was the secret of the power and success of those first Christians.

In Peter's picture, in his letters especially, the key note is always to have the reason for the hope that is in you. This fits the picture of Peter. Hope meant always looking forward to what could and should be done.

Matthew sees leadership in the empowering of yourself with the strengths of a king. He describes this fully all the way through his Gospel in a logical unemotional pattern. Jesus is the fulness of Moses. Jesus is the Leader, the Liberator, the Lawgiver. His work will make every person (seed) no matter how small, into a big tree to bear fruit galore.

John sees the leadership as the Shepherd, out in front, knowing and leading. Paul does not contribute much because he was usually "raising hell." The positive parts of his letters are the work of Luke.

The TV program dated the heyday of the Greek from 2000-1500 BCE. I recalled how important these dates were. The Hyksos or non-Egyptians took over the rule of Egypt about 1700 B.C. There was definitely a Greek influence here. Then the native Egyptian came back about 1259 B.C. and enslaved all foreigners.

The Egyptians were noted for their building and writing but they did not have the influence on thought of the Greek philosophers. The LXX (Septuagent) translators were a group of Greek-speaking scholars in Egypt. They had a facile command of Hebrew and Greek. They were also well aware of the great Greek philosophers.

For centuries the Greek translation of the OT took precedence over the Hebrew text. Most translations of the Bible used by theologians up to 1942 were all faulty translations of the Greek.

For a long time, Virgil's poetic descriptions of the Sun, Moon and stars and the vault of the sky were considered the astronomical science of the Roman world. They are not. Virgil was a great poet and presented the world in keeping with poetic license. All educated Romans read his works but when they wanted to take over more of the world, they read Caesar's Gallic Wars. The Roman civilization produced great writers in spite of its elitist/slave society and all the destruction of human rights. Only certain people had the privilege of being "citizens" and only citizens counted as people. Peasant and slaves were always expendable.

This is the world into which the ideals of Jesus Christ came. He taught the value of every human being and the necessity of "sharing" at all times. It took the Christian society just short of 3 centuries to establish this ideal. In 313, Constantine accepted Christ and the Roman philosophy began to change. 13 years later, 326, there was a fully structured church and the return to paganism began.

The various orders of monks and nuns were founded by men and women to re-establish the basic Christian ideal. In every case, within a few generations, reform was needed because the structure was destroying the ideal. Right now, the structured church is feeling the effects dramatically in the closing of seminaries and monasteries.

I look more and more into the message of Christ. Once we get rid of the "divinity" ideas we can see Jesus for what he really was: a very bright boy from a working class family. He saw the mess that had developed in the world and saw how the leaders of his people failed to lead. He and John Baptist discussed these ideas and finally decided to do something about it.

The first Christians caught the message and the ideals and the enthusiasm. The only problem was Paul - the convert rabbi! He never did understand the true picture. The Christians in Rome decided to get rid of the problem by sending him out of the area. Paul was a domineering, cantankerous, self-pitying know-it-all. Fortunately, Luke edited all his letters and they contained some positive ideas.

The Old Moses was Liberator, Lawgiver and Leader. Then Matthew develops the picture of Christ as the New Moses.

Matthew's Gospel is used more than the others in theology and in the Liturgy. This usage is clearly the result of reducing the Gospel to scholastic syllogisms. The real parallel between the Old torah and the New is not developed. The fact that the word "basileia" should be translated as "kinging" rather than "kingdom" is constantly overlooked. Vogt stressed this at the PIB. I brought it up at a CBA meeting and Barney Ahern and others jumped at the concept. They had never heard of the translation and yet it is in every Greek grammar. "eia" in Greek shows action, like "ing" in English.

Moses has importance for the western and near-eastern world. He was well prepared for his life's work as an Egyptian prince and as a nomadic shepherd in the desert.

Moses had the insight to see what needed to be done, the foresight to know when to do it, and the hindsight to learn from successes and failures. The law that he worked out in the Ten Commandments has never been surpassed and is still the basis of all human law and society. His presentation of a "Deity" is one that can be used by anyone. He presented him as the one who is the origin of this universe, who continues to care for it, and toward whom everything moves to reach fulfillment.

Then Moses lay down the basic rules that are needed to achieve this goal. He did not make a lot of rules but only those needed to keep order and achieve success. After his time the teachers and leaders multiplied rules and regulations. The Prophets saw the wisdom and simplicity of Moses and kept trying to bring the people back to it.

My head was really full of ideas during the night. They seemed to be rolling over each other and tagging one another to see if they fit together. The central position of Moses in the OT is just as forceful as the central position of Jesus Christ in the NT. The major fact that runs through the whole picture is that the New Moses wanted to avoid the exclusiveness of the Old People of God. The Israelites took up the fertility cults of the people around. The Prophets hammered away at keeping the Israelites on a separate wave length. They were to be totally separate from the society around them.

The new Moses, Jesus Christ, wanted just the opposite. They were to be recognized by their sincere kindness toward each other and toward all the people among whom they lived. The final cup of wine and the dipping in of the bread was the symbol of this sharing.

The old Torah was still in vogue as far as it touched their lives and was brought forward. The central event of the life of Israel, the exodus from Egypt, was commemorated each year by the Passover meal. Jesus kept the meal but dropped its old meaning and said it was to be remind the Christians of Jesus. Paul talked about the new freedom but he is actually the source of a lot of OT customs.

The plan of Jesus worked. In about 270 years, the Christians overcame the persecution of the Romans and converted the Emperor. The Romans marveled at how the "Christians loved everyone."

I see how the book of Genesis fits into the picture now. The story of Israel starts with Moses and the deliverance from Egypt. The whole of the history of mankind up to that point is summarized in Genesis. We can easily see how this whole Genesis story is borrowed from existent stories of other people. Then it is retold from the viewpoint of one only God, Yahweh, and fertility cults are banned. The first actual writing of the story was in the time of Solomon and was very short. Successive editings added details.

My head is filled to overflowing with new ideas about the basic message of Christ. Once we see him and John B as two young men living in the midst of the legalistic milieu of the Jewish leaders and the domineering, destructive ideas and ideals of the Romans, they make good sense.

Christ saw that his ideas were quickly accepted but the basic ideal was missed. The world had to be changed. Lasting change is achieved only from the inside out. So his whole message boiled down to his followers interacting by kindness and consideration on the society in which they lived. They would be recognized by their kindness and generosity toward each other. They would restore human dignity by their sharing and kindness (Koinonia). The huge churches (buildings) throughout the world are the symbol of the "dead weight" that oppresses the world in the name of religion.

The link between Old and New is the "cousins" as Luke presents them. Jesus is the first of the New Teachers. He stresses an easy formula for changing the whole world. That formula is personal sharing with all the people in your life. Luke stresses this picture as a doctor-soteria/health. Matthew sees "kinging"- basileia. John stresses huisthesia -sonship- the fatherhood of God in the brotherhood of man.

The prophets sought to establish the "people of Yahweh." They worked toward establishing an oasis in the midst of a huge desert. The oasis failed and the desert was still dry.

Christ broadened the vision to the whole world. He was offering as his parting gift the "Holy Breath" (Holy Spirit.) A new creation was to take place. It was to include the entire world. It was to replace the original "creative breath" which had been tainted by the failure of mankind. Christ's followers were to bring the world to "completion."

The world is to accomplish its original purpose. That's the work that has to be done and this is the thread I have to weave through it.

John Baptist (JB) is talking about the people of Yahweh and what they have to do to carry out their mission. So he is primarily concerned with the goals, ideals, and laws set by Moses. JB is looking back. Christ is convinced that the sights have to be set in the future. The Chosen people have failed to carry on their vocation. Now the appeal has to be put out to the whole world. The new stage is not preparation but fulfillment. The end of the world (The Telos) will come only when people bring it about. The world is to end in the sense that the cherry blossom reaches its goal when the cherry is produced. Then the cherry goes on to carry out its work.

The idea of terror and destruction is all from the Apocalypse and is a description of the Roman tyranny of the first centuries.

John Baptist (JB) is a prophet and is concerned primarily with the straightening out of his people. He is a moralist and a seer: a prophet in both senses of the word. Christ is concerned with the whole world. He sees the basic truth about the human race. They have to develop the "Holy Spirit" or breath to take the place of the selfish or tainted spirit of the first Adam. This Holy Spirit is true sharing of all people with each other.

I read through my commentary on John 13, yesterday. Chapters 13–17 of John are a gold mine for the teaching of Christ. Chapter 17 is John's version of the Our Father. It is really a great development of the meaning, purpose and manner of prayer.

Each time I read this 4th Gospel story, I start with the picture of John's first meeting with Christ. He was 13 or 14 years old. He was busy cleaning up the nets to get out fishing on his dad's boat. By temperament, he was a "boanerges" - a "son of thunder." He was a sharp kid and always on the cutting edge wanting to get things done. The Gospels say clearly he was a favorite of Christ. On Easter Sunday, he took off and arrived at the tomb, first. Then he hesitated to barge right in, so he waited for Peter. In many ways, he was like Daniel and the 3 teenagers in the OT.

He lived beyond the turn of the 1st century. Then his Gospel story was published, about 125 AD posthumously. What a reunion that crew must have had when he died. Everyone was there ahead of him and in came John - "big grin on his face" and a simple "what's up?"

I read John's Gospel and his letters. I have Letter to Hebrews with that disk because we don't know who wrote it but I think it is closest to the ideas and style of John. However, it does not have the clarity of ideas or expression found in John. It clearly is in a class by itself, but it has always been accepted as canonical even by the earliest Fathers of the Church. So it was left in the Canon by Trent. Its one contribution is about the priesthood of Christ being "according to the order of Melchisedeck." Therefore, it precedes the Levitical priesthood.

I was reworking the composition "Who did Jesus Think He Was." He did not want to be called the Messiah because of the militaristic connotation of that term with his contemporaries. He was a bright boy and young man who saw the need to establish personal responsibility that had been stressed so much by Ezechiel. He realized he would run afoul of the Jewish leaders - as he did. He knew that the ritual of the Temple, Sabbath and Feasts was empty show and parades. He knew the final outcome would be a Roman trial and execution. He knew his work would continue only if he had a strong nucleus of dedicated followers who caught his "Spirit."

The key to his success was the raising of Lazarus from the dead and then his own resurrection. The Apostles finally caught his "Spirit" after he was gone and the work continued.

You said you used to believe in god and a plan, etc. You still do. You believe in the basic principles of cause and effect. You always ask, "What happened here?" "Why did this happen?" That is all that is meant by God in the thinking of early people. They looked at the whole world around them and they knew there had to be someone or some thing in charge of all this. They called this person or thing "Number One." They knew nothing about it or him or her except in the world about them.

Gradually, the whole notion of a supreme being evolved. This being was called El, Elohim, Elihim in the semitic world; Theos in the Greek world; Deus in the Latin World; Gott or God in the German world. Gradually, people developed stories about this supreme being.

The Hebrews called him Yahweh (He causes to be) and developed a picture of Father and children. The Hebrews were primarily interested in what he would or could do for them. Finally, when they were destroyed except for a handful, Ezechiel, one of their teachers, talked about a human being's personal responsibility to self and others and Yahweh. This idea grew and slowly became the official outlook of the Hebrews or Jews.

Jesus picks up from that point. He keeps alive the notion of Father - but his emphasis is on the responsibility to self and others. So much does he emphasize this that he says "anyone who says he loves God whom he can't see and does not love his neighbor whom he can see is a liar." "By this shall all people know that you are my convinced followers in the love you have for each other." - You still believe this! A lot of the "pious rot" developed by theologians and the church never was true.

I've mulled over this whole picture of Mary & Joseph. Mary was a great Jewish mother and Christ gave her public credit for the start she gave him. Joseph was a regular father and husband but he died before Jesus was of age. The first Christians honored Mary but she had no special authority. Luke makes a special point of emphasizing that he talked of Mary about the early years.

John was the young man to whom Jesus entrusted Mary as he was dying.

I've been analyzing the Gospel according to John. The first collection of John started with the wedding feast at Cana. John wanted to point out what established the confidence and belief of the Apostles in Christ. After the 7 sections or weeks of the new Creation had been developed, then the Intro was written. This does not come until about 125 AD.

The big question in the writer's mind was "Who or What is Elohim or God?" After studying every preceding presentation, they concluded he was the Speaker or the Word. When he spoke, things happened. Finally, this Speaker took visible human shape in the form of a man who lived right with us.

He was a man who could speak and things happened. He spoke and water became wine. He spoke and bread and fish multiplied. He spoke and a corpse, Lazarus, came out of the tomb. He was visible human evidence of the power of this Speaker. He is the new Adam and Mary is the new Eve. Now mankind had a second chance to develop what the Word or Speaker gave us.

How did John prove this? He didn't. This is one explanation of the universe which became popular and spread. The value and power of the theory is quickly lost by taking it as a scientific explanation of the universe and denying the science that developed. Now there is intellectual conflict where there should be harmony and growth.

You were talking about starting your own religion. You would need some special objective or goal that all followers understood, wanted and worked for. You would have to decide on the key ideas or principles necessary to attain this goal. Then you would have to decide when and where you would meet and how people would be introduced into your group.

Christ did the same thing and ran into absolute opposition. He picked his followers on whom to build and the church was off and running. Rome opposed the whole program and literally tried to kill the followers. Pagan Rome finally accepted the ideas and ideals of Christ and the church was off and running. Then the leaders lost sight of the goals and organized the program to a static death.

Last night, as our host watched wrestling on TV, I felt like I was sitting in the coliseum in Rome in the 2nd-1st centuries B.C. The upper crust of the Roman world was entertained by the gladiatorial bouts. The fighters were picked from among the slaves and given special treatment as long as they put on a good fight. They fought with swords or daggers or knives. They wrestled each other and wild cats, especially lions imported from Africa. The fate of a loser was decided by the whim of the crowd. Thumbs up means you lived for another bout. Thumbs down meant you died on the spot. The lions, of course, took care of any person they bested.

From about 60 AD to 313 AD the Christians were frequently substitutes for the bouts with the lions. The Apostolic Fathers left us many descriptions of the bravery and the suffering of these people.

The Biblical picture on personal responsibility is interesting. When the story of Israel got started, the people were ready to blame and fight each other, to fight between families and especially between tribes. They were a motley "herd" and the first leaders and teachers all stressed unity and family and peace. This evolved into a sense of "corporate responsibility" in which no one was at fault. The people blamed all their troubles on their ancestors.

This approach changed officially with Ezechiel at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 BC and the neo-Babylonian captivity. From that time on all the official teaching stress was laid on the individual and his/her accountability for actions. Jeremiah, at the same time, said the Old covenant is washed up. The New and Eternal Covenant will be "written on the heart of each individual." That was the official position when Christ arrived on the scene.

However, the Pharisees (Separatists) blamed Rome for all problems. The Scribes were their minions and they explained the whole Torah in this fashion. So the people began to look for a Messiah who would crush Rome and put Israel on top again.

John Baptist and Christ realized how ridiculous this teaching was. They took it upon themselves to preach and teach individual responsibility. This truth is the core of Christian life. If a sense of individual responsibility is truly established the wrongs of the world can be righted.

I can see how John became a favorite of Christ and was not resented by the others. He would have been 13 or 14 at the time of his calling. He was called a "son of thunder," "boanerges" (teenager) by Christ. This meant he was a talented teenager who did not hesitate to speak up on any topic. He lived to be 100 and was well into his 80s when he wrote the Apocalypse. The book is in the style of Ezechiel and Jeremiah and an outright attack on the whole Roman system.

He was pursued far more than Paul by civil authorities. John is called the "Apostle of Love" but love for him is a living dynamic force that changes the world one person at a time. John is given credit as a martyr even though he died a natural death.