History Of Christianity

As I continue my theological studies, it amazes me how much I don't know but desperately desire to know.

God's word is embedded with life, love, freedom, and promise. It's exciting to look into his word and see your reflection in his love.

I present this page to share with you what I learn in my studies.

Please feel free to share with us your knowledge as well. That's how we all grow together as a Christian family...

Blessings,

Janice F. Baca

Studies from NT Wright

(New Testament Theologian)

I HIGHLY recommend his instructions to you:

NT Wright Site

The Gospels of Mark and Matthew

Here are some points which Marie Noonan Sabin references:

• In order to read and truly understand the Gospel of Mark, one must understand first some Hebrew ideals, norms, and lifestyles. The Jews think differently than Christian. They also study Scriptures differently than Christians as well. One tool used by the Jews to interpret and study Scripture is Midrash. Midrash is a way of interpreting, writing, defining, and learning Scripture. It’s also a way of life. The term midrash, in reference to genre, is also a hermeneutical technique and attitudes that first appeared in the Oral Torah. One Rabbi explained to me that to midrash is to have a manner and method of deep theological discussion which brings about a deeper meaning of the Scripture.

• Midrashic imagination is taking Scriptural interpretation and putting it into a visual definition which is well understood by the Jews, providing the Jews a picture, basically. This picture gives the Jews a vivid understanding of the interpretation and it may point to Scriptural references. Another method of interpretation is the mashal is an illustrative parable; “a compact exegetical narrative constructed out of elliptical scriptural allusions, in a compressed way imitating the allusive fabric and the dialectical arrangement of the large homily.” The author of Mark portrays Jesus as the living mashal, whose life, death, and resurrection are an exegesis of the Jewish Scriptures, whose meaning is not obvious but unfolding in time. In other words, he reveals himself throughout Scriptures when read through the Hebrew understanding.

• The author of Mark was very knowledgeable to the Hebrew method of interpreting Scriptures. In fact, the author used Midrash and Midrash Imagination expertly to speak volumes beyond words to the population he was attempting to reach. Chances are that Mark was writing specifically to the Jews. He was appealing to the Jewish imagination and understanding and speaking a language that established a vivid understanding of previous Scriptures without really speaking of them. It was basically a language that only the Hebrews would know and understand. However, to gain a better understanding, one must really know not only how Hebrews thought, but know more about the author and his intent as well.

• Ecclesiastical History cites that Bishop Papia, stated “’Mark as the author of the earliest gospel and linked him to Peter.” He was probably the interpreter of Peter and there is proof that Mark was a Jew - a Greek-speaking Jewish Christian who also understood Aramaic. However, it is uncertain who the author of the Gospel of Mark really is.

• On the other hand, Telford argues that Mark was writing to the gentiles because Mark explained Jewish customs and wrote in a koine Greek which is an informal Greek, not the classical Greek as one would expect. His argument points to the idea that Mark was not writing to the Jews at all since he believes these behaviors would contradict this fact. Although there are disagreements as to who the author of the Gospel of Mark is, it appears he certainly wrote with the Hebrews in mind using a profound Midrash imagination to appeal to an audience who would understand his language.

• Sabin highlights the opening verse of the Gospel of Mark which uses an astounding midrash imagination that sends a strong vivid message to the Jews when properly interpreted. “The beginning of the good news of Jesus Christ, the Son of God” (NIV), Mark 1:1. In the midrashic interpretation, beginning, without the “a” or “the” before "beginning", signals the same opening statement as in the book of Genesis. Genesis also being a codeword for wisdom, Sabin explains, is well known throughout the Torah and Talmud. Therefore, the interpretation, “Jesus Christ, Son of God,” properly translated into the Hebrew mindset is “Yeshua, anointed son of God.” The word “anointed” in Hebrew is mashiah. This will be explained a little later as well.

• Sabin explains that Mark 4:2-8, the seed parable was not written as an allegory. David Stern who discusses the mashal form describes it as “an illustrative tale.” The fixed point-for-point explanation is different from the mashal. A possibility is that the explanation may be considered a nimshal instead. A nimshal is something added onto the mashal to indicate its historic context. In other words, it appears as a historical context added onto an illustrative tale.

• Sabin walks through a reading in the Jewish context. Mark 11:12-14, 20-25 is the Scriptural reading of the parable of the fig tree. When Jesus first sees the tree, it does not have fruit because it is not yet the season for figs. When read in the exegetical interpretation, one may gather a completely different understanding, one of hopeless and disappointment. However, in the Jewish context Sabin explains this was not meant to be the least be a sign of hopelessness, but a sign of God’s return. In the Jewish tradition, the Prophets, Song of Songs, and the Midrash speak of the fig tree as a sign of God’s kingdom. Jesus perhaps is commanding the fig tree to bloom as a sign of the end of times. Or perhaps, as Sabin argues, the imagery could be suggesting yet another fig tree. She states that it suggest all humanity will be restored to the Garden. This provides a completely different view when one reads with the Hebrew context.

• In the Gospel of Mark, Jesus is described as “the anointed one” (christos, messiah). Burton Mack, the word “messiah” is a range of conceptions. It is not so much a title in the late prophetic and apocalyptic literature “as an epithet used to designate someone in a rage of roles whose function is seen to be essential for fulfillment of the divine purpose of the Covenant community. Jesus is also clearly designated as the “Beloved Son” which echoes the biblical stories which reflect the most ancient Jewish liturgy and midrash such as in Genesis 22:2 when God says to Abraham, “Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love”. In comparison of the two parables, it provides a connection between the messages Jesus was speaking to the message that was given in Genesis. This establishes a fuller picture of beloved son and connects Jesus to the Hebrew Scriptures understood by the Jewish community as well.

• At one particular point, Sabin reminded readers that Jesus raised up women. Chapters 1-7 in Mark described three healings: the demoniac, the mother-in-law, and a leper. Since women were relegated to the outer courts of the Temple and only had their relationships through their fathers or husbands, Jesus hit a particular nerve in healing the mother-in-law, which is also an ancient joke as well. Mark depicts a new attitude toward women which was emerging in Early Judaism. The woman whom Jesus healed became no longer anonymous or only known through their husbands and fathers, but rose up with her healing and became a diakonos, disciples of Jesus. Sabin continues and describes three significant women of whom Jesus heals. Then she walks through the Hebrew interpretation of the rereading of the three women who witnessed the crucifixion. The two Mary’s reappear again later in Scriptures; Mary Magdalene, and Mary, the mother of James and the third person. Salome, remind the readers of the other Salome who danced for John the Baptist’s head. This repetition seems to convey the message of transformation when properly interpreted. Not only is this a message of transformation, but it also provides a great hope for women who have felt the burden that perhaps they are not as worthy to become a disciple of Jesus. Jesus came to give hope restored.

• In comparing Mark to the other gospels, Sabin argues that Mark preserves the Jewish theological context of Jesus much more clearly than the other Gospels as he offers a valuable balanced perspective. Examples are that Matthew ends his Gospel with a definitive prescription for salvation as Mark leaves the meaning of resurrection open and allows room for God to reveal his message. Also, John ends his Gospel on faith and ministry of individuals as Mark maintains an open-endedness to the meaning of the Gospel. Matthew shows that Jesus is the fulfillment of the teachings of Moses. Luke takes that meaning to suggest the Hebrew Scripture predicted these events of Jesus. Lastly, John makes Jesus qualities as the scriptures themselves. However, it is only Mark who offers the midrashic understanding s the scriptural word can be fulfilled over and again. Jesus who referred to himself as “Son of Man”, a concept in Mark referring to generic human beings, came in a way to reveal himself to all people.

• Jesus humbled himself and became like us walking the earth and giving a message of hope. The Gospel of Mark, properly interpreted, provides an astounding interpretation which opens a new world of understanding. Christians in the right understanding cannot hate their Jewish brother in their own right. In fact, how can one call themselves Christian and hate the Jews? Sabin’s goal is to reunite the Christians and Jews using the tools at hand properly interpreting Scriptures as originally intended by the Apostles and the Hebrew community. One cannot adopt the Greek method of understanding and interpretation when interpreting Hebrew understandings and understand the true message spoken by the Apostles. Thus, Sabin’s book brings Christians back to the baseline of understanding beginning with one Gospel; the Gospel of Mark.

From Anthony Saldarini’s book Matthew’s Christian-Jewish Community:

• The Gospel of Matthew has been “recognized as the most Jewish of all the gospels” in beliefs, lifestyle, and in Jewish customs. However, Matthew’s group was labeled as a deviant group by various Jewish communities and leadership. Although it is true that Matthew’s texts dispute Jewish leaders on viewpoints and practices, he does emphasize the authority and teaching of Jesus using sophisticated techniques while at the same time giving detailed attention to Jewish practices and customs.

• If one were to compare at a distance the synoptic gospels, looking through the Greek eyes, each book would appear nearly the same with only minor differences. Although, I have to add, looking from the Geek lenses, it seems to set into motion an idea which seems to not only destroy the Hebrew roots of our Christian faith, but also destroy the very faith or community we should be a part of. In reality, when comparing the gospels through the Hebrew lenses they are far from the same, and Christianity has a bit of catching up to do.

• Through the Geek lenses, one could say the Gospel of Matthew was written for the Gentiles or even by a Gentile. Some have even theorized the gospel was written to develop a new religion with a new people to replace those who were disobedient to God. However, the true meaning of the Gospel of Matthew was well stated in Saldarini’s comment that Matthew promotes “a perfected or fulfilled Judaism brought to its goal by the long-awaited Christ”. It wasn’t the intent neither to develop a new religion nor to destroy their value system. The intent was to correct some already misguided practices in Jewish understanding and then bring them into what will be the New Covenant with Yeshua the Christ. Matthew handles these issues with strength and excellence and does not, in any way, give up his Jewish beliefs and values.

• It should also be noted that the Gospel of Matthew was read and preserved by the second-century Christian community. Modern views are usually guided by this second-century Christian community rather than by what the gospel narrative means in the first-century Jewish context it was originally written. In the first century within Syria, where Matthew’s community was located, the boundaries between Jews and Christians were indistinct and not separate. The Jews and Christians should not be viewed as individual communities for that time period when in fact significant believers in Christ continued to live a Jewish life and remained in the community. It should be understood with caution to no bring into interpretation those things which were not meant to pollute the true interpretations.

• Some Christians believe that Christianity separated from Judaism in the 80s and 90s after the destruction of the temple. However, Saldarini clarifies that is not what happened. After the destruction of the temple, both the Jews and Christians became more guarded in their identities and basically “tightened their boundaries” with a heightened awareness regarding their foundational community of understanding. It should also be noted that the conflicts originally came from the gentiles who had difficulty identifying between the Jews and Christians as they were functioning as part of the same community and very much an integral part of the Jewish Community as a whole. The split between Judaism and Christianity occurred slowly over a very long period of time. It was well within the second century the identity of Christians and the Jews became more apparent as individual communities. The interpretation of the Gospel of Matthew became more understood as a Christian text than Jewish text during that time. It was also becoming interpreted that Matthew rejected his Jewish heritage. However, he did not reject his Jewish heritage, but embraced it and defended it.

• Although some argue that Matthew uses terminology which rejects his heritage and promotes a split of Judaism into a new religion, Saldarini skillfully walks through the exegesis of the gospel of Matthew and redirects the reader to evaluate this evidence. In fact, in the extended debates of Jewish laws, customs and practices, Matthew defends this view according to the Jewish custom as a part of the Jewish community. Even though the texts of Matthew are identifying the confrontation of the Jewish leaders in communities, he was friendly to the overall Jewish community. He identifies the individual people who are unable to absorb the message and were misled by their leadership. He was not separate from them, but certainly a part of them and their community as an active member.

Paul Wilbur Ministries

Worship with him! It is time you are set free!

Do you have a great story about this? Share it!

Click below to see contributions from other visitors to this page...

Jew and Gentile Under One Roof?  Not rated yet
Early on a Sabbath morning, two men in their best Sabbath clothes walked side by side into a large building filled with people. The first man, a Jewish-...

Artist Title Song Soundtrack Label › New Releases › Top Sellers › Future Releases › Bargain Bin › Music on DVD › Top Radio Hits Browse Categories: Classical, Country, Heavy Metal, Jazz, Rap, R&B, Rock/Pop, Soundtracks, Super Audio CDs

Greek and Hebrew Study References