Author: admin

Week 37  Matthew 27

After the Lord had been crucified & died & been buried the religious leaders came to Pilate. This time they wanted to post an armed guard at the Lord’s tomb. They told Pilate: we remember that while he was still alive that deceiver said, “After three days I will rise again”.
I check the cross-references for where Jesus actually said that. There they are: Matthew 16:21 & 17:22-23 & 20:17-19 (plus some in Mark & Luke). They make the point that the resurrection conversations were private & privileged – the Lord only told the disciples.
But somehow word got out. Maybe Judas told. Maybe an insider let the cat out-of-the-bag. But the leaders knew the story. And now that “that deceiver” was dead they didn’t want things getting out of hand with a fake resurrection story added to the mix.
In spite of all the miracles the Lord performed I don’t get any impression the religious people thought there’d be an actual resurrection. Even when the guard’s told them what had happened the leaders stuck with their Grave Heist narrative.
And it’s also a pretty interesting thing with the guards. Matthew says they actually saw a luminescent angel just before they fainted into unconsciousness. But the supra-world experience didn’t have any residual traction. They were paid-off. They changed their story. And that-was-that. Whatever impact the vision might have had they seem to have sublimated it. Who says seeing-is-believing?

Note: quote from Matthew 27:63 (NIV). See refs in Mark 8:31 9:31 10:32-34 Luke 9:21-22 18:31-34.

Week 37  Matthew 27

At the Lord’s trial Pilate was the presiding judge and a couple of things were perking in Pilate’s head. For one he was perplexed that Jesus refused to defend himself. And for two Pilate suspected that envy was the big motivator driving the religious leaders. So he sensed that something fishy dubious & questionable was going on.
But there was an added factor. Pilate’s wife told him about a dream she’d had the night before. Because of that dream she had – she told him – suffered a great deal today.
She also told him a) her own opinion about Jesus and b) what action she figured Pilate should take: don’t have anything to do with that innocent man.
So this left Pilate with his own suspicions and added to that was his wife’s dream.
It’s hard to know how seriously Pilate took the dream. On the one hand he did make a weak effort to cut Jesus loose (he publicly said he couldn’t find any crime Jesus was guilty of). But on the other hand he did turn the Lord over to the lynch-mob in the end.
Dreams are a bit tricky. They can have a pretty powerful psychic impact when they occur. Then the sun comes up and they can lose some of their punch.
I don’t figure there’s a general lesson here to act-on-your-dreams. But in retrospect his wife’s dream-advice was something Pilate should have paid more careful attention to.

Note: quotes from Matthew 27:19 (NIV)

Week 37  Matthew 24

Near the end of his life the disciples took the Lord aside privately and asked him a couple of forecastive-type questions:
Q#1: When will the temple be demolished?
Q#2: What are signals of the end of the age?
I don’t know exactly what the disciples were hoping for but my preference would have been for a fairly explicit answer. For example:
A#1: the temple will be destroyed 40 years from today.
A#2: I will return in 2458 AD.
But I don’t get my wish. The Lord forecasts only pretty generic events like the fact there’ll be:
wars & rumors of wars
famines & earthquakes
persecution hatred animosity betrayal
false & deceptive prophets. Like that.
Even though these tips do give me something to work with they don’t seem like very decisive forecasts. And to make things worse the second-half of the chapter says things like:
no one knows about that day or hour
it’ll be just like people in the time of Noah who knew nothing about what would happen until the rain actually began
you do not know on what day your Lord will come
the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him.
I’m not drawing any final conclusions today since other bible readers have extra opinions to add to the hopper.
But I do have one take-away: on the Do Know-Don’t Know Scale I figure I’m a lot closer to Don’t Know.

Note: quotes from Matthew 24:36 37-9 42 44 (NIV)

Week 37  Matthew 19

The Lord had a fairly restrictive view on divorce and the disciples wondered if it was better just not to get married. But Jesus pointed out that being single wasn’t the solution since not everyone could live a single (i.e. a non-sexual) life.
The Lord used eunuchs as an example. He said there were three types of eunuchs:
a) eunuchs born with a genital birth defect
b) surgically-altered eunuchs
c) free-choice eunuchs.
For eunuchs a) and eunuchs b) sexual-intercourse was a physical impossibility. Couldn’t be done.
But c) was different. The bible I usually read is a bit vague when it refers to eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs (even if that was the only version I had I’d have serious doubts the Lord was talking about a guy who personally elected to have actual castration surgery). So that’s why another version is clearer when it says that group c) have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven (i.e. they renounced sexual-intercourse). So I take group c) to mean hypothetical-eunuchization where a guy retains functional genitals but doesn’t use them for sexual-intercourse.
The majority view in the modern world is that a life without sexual-intercourse is basically impossible. And the Lord admits that not everyone can accept this teaching. But a minority – those to whom it has been given – have that capacity.
A qualified sub-set of people can live without sexual-intercourse for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.

Note: quotes from Matthew 19:11-12 (NASB & NIV)

Week 36  Matthew 16

The Matthew 16:24-28 paragraph is a pretty sober look-before-you-leap warning that the Lord tells his listeners. Think twice before deciding to follow me (or as he puts it: before you take-up-my-cross).
But what I notice today is that the Lord says that in the end he’ll: reward everyone according to what they have done (another version says ‘recompense’ in place of ‘reward’). The phrase is a quote from a psalm.
The margin also lists a few related references:
Will (the Lord) not repay everyone according to what they have done?
God will repay each person according to what they have done
Each of us will give an account of ourselves to God
For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each of us may receive what is due us for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad
The Lord will reward everyone for whatever good they do
Anyone who does wrong will be repaid for their wrongs
Everyone was judged according to what they had done.
The bible-consensus seems to be that the things I’ve done…things that I’m doing…things that I’ll eventually do… they’re all going to be assessed and compensated for in the end.
I get to decide for myself whether I figure a Final Compensation really is in-the-works. But if it is then what I’m doing with myself is worth keeping tabs on.

Note: quotes from Psalm 62:12 Proverbs 24:12 Romans 2:6 Romans 14:12 2 Corinthians 5:10 Ephesians 6:8 Colossians 3:25 Revelation 20:12 (NIV)

Week 36  Matthew 5

In his first long sermon the Lord told his audience something pretty important about himself and about the OT: do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
It wasn’t the Lord’s plan to scrap the OT. He intended to fulfil it. He didn’t figure it was a bad document. But it was an unfulfilled one. Some extra input was needed. Some fulfilling.
Fulfil isn’t an absolutely clear word to me but I think it means something like the OT needed to be completed…brought up to a condition of full realization…totally actualized…carried out…finalized.
At first I thought that fulfilment was explanation and I got that idea because the Lord used the example of murder and said the law against murder needed to include pre-homicide factors like anger jealousy pride envy hatred desire dissatisfaction and like that…explaining that there’s more to murdering someone than just murdering him.
But now I’m not sure that’s the point. The Lord said he’d come to fulfill the OT. Not to explain it (even though he did explain sometimes). To fulfil it.
Did the OT need fulfilling? Apparently. As good as it was as a stand-alone document it wasn’t fully adequate. It needed fulfillment. And whatever-all the Lord Jesus was responsible to do on earth OT-fulfilment was one of  his tasks.

Note: quote from Matthew 5:17 (NASB). Three other versions also said ‘fulfil’. JB Phillips said ‘completed’.

Week 35  Matthew

I get my reminder right away that I’m in a whole new situation.
Between Malachi 4 and Matthew 1 there’s a huge blank in the bible where about four centuries-worth of things have happened – language attitudes currency ideas international-relations social-practices empire-building – and I’m just dropped into that new & different environment. (About the only comparable gap I can think of in the bible is the story of Jacob’s family in Egypt. Between Genesis 50:16 and Exodus 1:1 an awful lot of water has gone over the dam.)
So anyway things start appearing in Matthew that are brand-new. They’re “where-did-this-come-from?” kinds of things.
For example baptism. Where did it come from? Matthew starts talking about it as if I know all about it.
Ditto for the appearance of two groups of people: Pharisees & Sadducees. Who were they? Where did they come from?
Ditto for synagogues. What’s a synagogue and what’s its function?
Finishing Malachi and then starting in on Matthew the next day is like living in a cave along the South Saskatchewan River valley in 1622 and then time-travelling to Medicine Hat in 2022. Things are quite a bit different. And no disrespect intended but Matthew isn’t all that helpful in explaining the changes (though I guess there’s no reason he should. They’re not changes for him).
So as I start into the NT this week I get my reminder that utilizing fewer mental resources isn’t my reward for finishing the OT.

Week 35  Matthew 1

Matthew opens with a list of names of the people in Jesus’ family-tree. While I scan them I realize that I recognize quite a few in the first eleven verses. I couldn’t recite them…but they’re familiar. The only ones that I don’t remember as being part of the family are Amminadab & Nahshon (but I admit that the only reason I recognize Ram & Salmon is the name-link to the animal kingdom).
There are some names I recognize but couldn’t place if they were out-of-context. For example I recognize all the names of the kings of Judah but if someone asked me about Joram or Jotham just out-of-the-blue I wouldn’t know if they were kings of Judah or Israel.
After verse twelve I don’t recognize Abiud Eliakim Azor Zadok Achim Eliud Eleazar Matthan & Jacob (the Zadok & Eleazar & Jacob that I do recognize are different OT characters). The reason I don’t recognize most of the names is because the OT Story pretty much ends with Zerubbabel and the return of exiles from Babylon. If I wanted to find out more about that quiet interval I’d have to go outside the OT. But obviously someone was keeping track of family names during those years and Matthew was able to plug them into chapter one.
I notice that three times Matthew includes the names of wives/moms. But they’re exceptions and I don’t know what to make of them.
And I see that Joseph is highlighted as husband-of-Mary.

Week 35  Ecclesiastes

I finished reading Ecclesiastes today and one of the verses near the end said: you do not know the activity of God who makes all things.
If someone asked “why-read-the-bible?” one answer would be: to learn things about the Lord. So having Ecclesiastes say that I don’t know the Lord’s activity could mean a) that there’s no point trying to find out about the Lord by reading the OT or else b) something that seems clear on the surface maybe isn’t so clear unless I scratch into the subsurface.
I’ll stick with b) for now. A simple modification of the phrase you do not know the activity of God could be you do not comprehensively know the activity of God. That makes sense since I notice the writer says a bit later: know that God will bring you to judgment. The Lord judging me is one of his activities. Which means I do know one of his activities. Therefore you do not know the activity of God doesn’t mean that I know absolutely nothing about his activity.
I don’t figure the writer is telling me something that’s incorrect – maybe he figures I shouldn’t need to be spoon-fed every single thing.
Anyway I’m relieved that I do know some things. But I’m less relieved that I don’t know very much.

Note: quotes from Ecclesiastes 11:5 9 (NASB). Month-end reading report: 77% completed; 75% of the year gone.

Week 35  Ecclesiastes

A couple of days ago I started reading Ecclesiastes. Then yesterday I realized I’d already read it back in June-July. So…to read or not to read? Since my reading is on-track I’ll reread. I’ll start Matthew on September 1.
Reading Ecclesiastes again isn’t a bad idea since it’s a thorny book to read. For example today I read that: it is the same for all people. There is one fate for the righteous and for the wicked…As the good person is, so is the sinner…This is an evil in all that is done under the sun, that there is one fate for all people. Another version says ‘one destiny’ in place of ‘one fate’.
The problem with the paragraph is that it sounds like it doesn’t make any difference if I’m good or bad since good people and bad people have the same fate. The way I live my life has no effect on my destiny. Which seems like a bible anomaly.
Anyway as I kept reading I saw this: anyone who is among the living has hope – even a live dog is better than a dead lion. It occurred to me that maybe that’s the one fate we share – we all end up dead. Of course I can’t say for sure that death is the Common Fate. But for now it’s a relief to discover an alternate way to think about a problematic bit of text.

Note: quotes from Ecclesiastes 9:2-3 4 (NASB & NIV)