Saturday, January 5, 2019

On Matthew 3:11 through Matthew 3:12

Hello.  You're here, finally, and now we can start.

This is an in-depth study of the morality of Jesus Christ as we can discern it through The Gospels.  If you're new and would like to be completely up-to-date, return to the Introduction first, here.

As I said last time, the post subsequent to this one will introduce the words of Jesus Christ to this work for the first time.  It's been three months of study and we're finally on the cusp of our subject.  I can't tell you how excited I am for this.

I'm almost as excited, though, to be presently spending our time with Jesus' companion and possible teacher, John the Baptist.  With The Baptist seems like the best place to be, as we prepare ourselves for the intricate and years long process of parsing and cross-referencing the recorded words of Joshua.

Last time, I was a little more personal with y'all.  I broke away from our collective "we" for a bit to try to explain anew the reason for this endeavor.  In the end, I feel that I did not pronounce my point very well.  I would like to supplement that writing with a caveat.

I am a person who makes moral compromises all of the time.  I am a person who has, in the past, made tremendous moral compromises that have had devastating results for my life, and the lives of those around me.  I have been in the back of a cop car more times than I can count.  I have had my head picked by more therapists and psychiatrists than I can remember.  I have, at times, fully rejected any moral code, and allowed myself to be taken under by a torrent of alcohol, drugs, and primate instinct.

I mentioned that I knew, for a fact, from experience, that applying aspects of Christian morality would push me closer to being who I prefer to be as a human.  This was a rather vague statement on my part.  It will remain relatively vague, but I would like to augment it some.

Here's the caveat: Christian morality, or the "Christian Program," as I'm seeing it in my head lately, is a list of standards and prescriptions.  That list includes items which vary in difficulty, for me, from super-easy to extremely-difficult.  When I said that I knew that applying aspects of Christian morality in my life would change it for the better based on experience, I should have written "very limited experience."  Because my experience with it is very limited.  Working the Christian Program perfectly at once seems impossible.  It likely is impossible.  I don't claim to be anywhere near that state.  As a percentage, maybe I hit 5% of the program on a good day.  That might be pushing it.

Please keep in mind that I come to you from a place of moral degradation and, if you like, "sin," not from a place of elevation.

The question to me is begged, then: "how do you know that applying the program works, if you haven't done it with totality?"

Because the program works in increments like that, I guess; do none of the program, get none of the results.  Do some of the program, get some of the results.  Do all of the program and...

...no one knows this part, I suspect.  Maybe we'll never know.  Bear in mind that it is an ideal, something I am far, far beneath.

All this is to plead the following, dear reader: please understand that my fervor for The Gospel is about my desperation to save myself from myself, and that I would keep writing this even if I knew that no one else would ever read it.

I hesitate to say it before we've worked hard to define the term, but I say it honestly whenever I pray: "I am a sinner."

I hope that makes sense...

Let's get back to our Gospel.

------------------------------
Matthew 3:11 through Matthew 3:12
11 I am baptizing you with water, for repentance, but the one who is coming after me is mightier than I. I am not worthy to carry his sandals. He will baptize you with the holy Spirit and fire. 
12 His winnowing fan is in his hand. He will clear his threshing floor and gather his wheat into his barn, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire.”
------------------------------


Remember, from last time, that John the Baptist is out in the desert by the Jordan, baptizing crowds of Jews who are coming out to him from all over the region.  Some Sadducees and Pharisaic elites have appeared, and he is in the middle of a rant directed at them.  He's accused them of being unworthy, and of philosophically hiding from obligation behind their Jewish heritage.

John says he is washing away sin with his baptism of water.  (Recall that baptism comes from the Greek "to immerse" or "to dunk.")  He says to the Pharisees and Sadducees: "I offer a cleansing from sin that is easy, in water.  But there comes another, greater than I, who will immerse you in fire to cleanse your sins."

So what can we say John is anticipating in this one who "is mightier than [him]?"  Verse 11 seems to have him saying "the one who is mightier than me will offer you respite from your sin, as I do, but his mechanism of freeing you from sin, you will find, is much more intense."

It seems within reason that John is still referring, albeit hyperbolically, to a coming Davidic King of the Jews that would usher in Jewish military triumph over the region and return the Jews to a sovereign and elevated state.

It is interesting and relevant that the word we have here translated as "spirit," in the original Greek of Matthew, was "pnevmati," which can be alternatively translated as a "blast of wind" or a "breeze" or a "current of air."  Let's keep that in the back of our mind for a moment.

In verse 12, we have the metaphor of an ancient worker's tool representing, perhaps, the military triumph of the coming King over those who do not stay in line with the law and the prophets.

We can talk more about the metaphor in a moment, but we ought to briefly "geek-out" here on the literal meaning of "winnowing fan."

In grain agriculture, when preparing produce for consumption, one must separate the chaff, or the "hull," of the plant from the kernel or "seed" inside.  The chaff, like the husk of an ear of corn, is not pleasant to eat and provides little nutritional value.  It must be separated from the portion of the plant that is pleasant to eat, and does have good nutritional value.

Today, in developed nations, grain hulling is done primarily by machines.  In ancient times, they had their own mechanisms, which are still used by many people today.

One way to separate chaff from seed on a small scale with only ancient technology is by the use of a "winnowing fan."  After the grain has been "threshed," or beaten in order to loosen the hull around the grains, the winnowing fan is employed.  The tool is nothing but a broad, shallowly concave "fan," made usually of woven plant materials.  Threshed grain is gathered into the fan and then tossed repeatedly into the air in a rhythmic sifting motion.  The wind in the air carries the light, broken, undesirable hull material away with each toss, while the heavier seeds fall back to the fan for easy recovery.

John says that the one who comes after him will separate the wheat from the chaff by a winnowing fan.  One imagines that a Jewish eschatologist at this time could only have been referring to the gathering together of God's chosen people in a wonderful earthly Kingdom of God, and the expulsion of non Jews from said Kingdom.

John's meaning here is not immediately and obviously apparent, and certain people will read into these verses a reference to "hell" and to "eternity."  I do not believe this is what was going on here, but that possibility is floating.

What we can see almost for certain is the Greekness of the author of Matthew shining through.  Verse 11 and 12 are all about the Greek conception of "the elements."  You remember the elements, right?  Earth, wind, fire and water?  We see every one of these ancient elements represented in these two verses.

He mentions "earth" in the "threshing floor."  He mentions "wind" in the "holy spirit" which we saw could be alternatively translated as "holy wind."  He mentions wind again, in the mechanism of the winnowing fan, blowing away the undesirable material.  He mentions fire twice, once in regards to the coming baptism and once in regards to the fate of the chaff.  And, of course, he mentions water when he refers to his own baptism.

These inclusions in the text indicate that the author is writing to an audience that is thoroughly Hellenized, in addition to Jewish, in makeup, and that he understands this well.  The use of these physical elements, now that we've identified it, works to ground the fiery preaching of John.  We can imagine that he is talking about things that will be physically real in the "there and then," not about intangible, metaphysical things.

These verses are mirrored almost exactly in Luke, and they appear in Mark in a reduced form.  The interesting one to read will be Mark's, for comparison, but that is long, long in our future.

These verses are dense, and packed with meaning and possibility.  We will not uncover all of it here and now.  Rest assured that we will have ample opportunity to rehash this.

We'll take our leave of this here, today.  Next time, some of the text we read will be in "red letter."  That is to say that, as we've already repeated, we will be dealing with words that are ascribed directly to Jesus Christ!

I am ready for this.  I hope you are too.  Please share this writing.

Love

-------------------------
To read what's next, click here.
To read what came prior to this, click here.

Tuesday, January 1, 2019

On Matthew 3:9 through Matthew 3:10

Welcome back to The Moral Vision.

If you're new, you can check out an Introduction to this work in the very first installment, here.

As a reminder to everyone, this study's purpose is to "find philosophical bedrock."  

What do I mean by "philosophical bedrock?"  I mean an understanding of life through human philosophy that is so deep and so strong that it cannot be dug up or dislodged or broken through by any mechanism.  I mean a common philosophy so firm and flat and broad that, upon it, humanity could easily build a temple to encompass all things, and a bridge to the universe beyond our galaxy.

I've looked far and wide, for decades, for philosophical bedrock.  It's a funny thing.  Everyone says they have it, yet none can show it.  

I've searched with a suicidal desperation.  Trudging through human philosophy is like walking through a quicksand of vanity: it all just falls away under the weight of life.  It's mesmerizing to gaze at, but none of it will hold your foot.  

My searching left me not just wanting, but deeply wanting; not just unsatisfied, but deeply unsatisfied.  I searched and searched until, one day, finally, thankfully, an old Russian novelist pointed the bedrock out to me from across history. 
So, why do I study Jesus specifically? 

Because, when Tolstoy pointed out the solid, infinitely massive slab of true philosophical bedrock, I was dumbfounded to find Jesus Christ standing alone, firmly upon it.*  

I have found no more stable ground anywhere in the world than this, under Christ's humble feet.

Frequently, because of the revolutionary nature of the Jesus that we meet in The Gospels, I have written, and will write, about an outward revolution.  Already, several times, we've had cause to compare the image of Jesus and his followers to modern Christianity in a way that should spark revolution inside those not crippled by myopia.  But I want to be very clear here (which I may not have been thus far): the outward revolution is secondary or perhaps even tertiary to my primary purpose.

The purpose here, for me, is to get myself completely out of this blasted philosophical quicksand.  There is a great inward revolution to be fought, before any other.

The outward is subordinate to the inward.  Without an inward revolution, there can be no outward revolution.

I study Jesus today because I need a better way to interact with the world around me.  I study Jesus today because I have verified, in my own life, that when I adopt aspects of his philosophy into my heart, for whatever period of time, my life changes.  I become, in fact, closer to the kind of person that I prefer to be.  

When I am mindful of Christ's program, I become full up of love and creativity and hope.  When I am mindful of Christ's program, the challenges of daily life and of the world at large appear tiny to me, so that bearing them seems effortless.  

I study Jesus to refine my understanding of his philosophical program.  More rigorous application of the program will increase, I believe, the goodness and livability of my life in general terms.  This is the primary purpose here.

I may speak frequently of an outward revolution, but please understand that the inward revolution is the true payoff here.  The revolution is against the self before it is against anyone else.

The payoff is a feeling of grace that leads one to be totally "ok" in one's own skin, or what I call "heaven."

Let's take a reading from The Gospel.

------------------------------
Matthew 3:9 through Matthew 3:10

9 And do not presume to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I tell you, God can raise up children to Abraham from these stones. 
10 Even now the ax lies at the root of the trees. Therefore every tree that does not bear good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.
------------------------------

Here we have a continuation of what John the Baptist was saying last time to The Pharisees and Sadducees who have come out to see him.

Today, the eschatology ratchets up a little more.  John the Baptist's message out in the desert is an apocalyptic one, indeed, and it may draw one's mind to the brimstone tent revivals of the old American South.  

In Matthew 3:9, John tells his visitors that, in the coming end-of-times, being Jewish alone won't be enough to save one from calamity.  He tells The Pharisees and Sadducees that they can't just relax in the belief that their salvation and happiness is assured them by God only on account of their lineage.  He says "God could put Jewish blood in these rocks here, if he wanted.  It's not your blood that is precious to him, and so it is not your blood that will earn you relief!  You must produce the fruit!"

The "good fruit" from 3:8 appears again in 3:10.  In 3:8, as you recall, he demands to see the good fruit from The Pharisees and Sadducees.  In 3:10, The Baptist uses trees as a metaphor for humans, and says that whatever tree doesn't produce the "good fruit" will be cut down and thrown into a fire.  As our understanding of first-century Jewish eschatology grows, verse 10 will make more and more sense.  These words, if recorded accurately, probably refer to a coming bloody military triumph of a Jewish King over foreign influences in Jerusalem; the coming of a "Kingdom of God."

Fire and brimstone, from The Baptist.

Tangentially, 3:9 and 3:10 may have come from the "Q" or "Quelle" source.  "Q" is a hypothesized early gospel writing that did not survive to modern times.  "Q-sourced" text is text that we find in both Matthew and Luke, but not in Mark.  In Biblical scholarship, one major school of thought is that Matthew and Luke were written with a copy of Mark and a copy of the Q-Gospel open in front of the respective authors, for use as source material.

When we get into the actual quoted words of Jesus, we will be taking careful consideration of where we think the words were initially recorded.  Frequently, that place will be the hypothesized "Q."  That said, we will be studying Q in detail frequently over the next few years.  For now, just know that today's reading from Matthew is not reflected in the older Markian Gospel.

We will retire of it here, today, with the first words in The Bible attributed to Jesus Christ just around the corner.  I don't mind telling you that they occur in Matthew 3:15, so we will read them here not next time, but the time after that.  

I hope you are as excited as I am.  Yay, bedrock!

Please share this writing.

Love.
-------------------------

* Tolstoy was actually kinda smug about it at times, but I don't hold it against the old timer.  I mean, he's dead and all.  Plus he wrote all them fancy novels...

-------------------------
To read what's next, click here.
To read what came prior to this, click here.

Monday, December 31, 2018

On Matthew 3:7 through Matthew 3:8

Hello, friends, and welcome to another edition of Bill Swerski's Superfans.  I'm Bob Swerski, fillin' in for my brother Bill.

No.  Wait.  Forget all that.  Let me start over.

Hello, friends, and welcome to another edition of The Moral Vision of Jesus Christ.  This will be the most exhaustive dissection of the morality of Jesus Christ you'll ever read.  Bring your open heart and mind.

Today, we have more John the Baptist on our plate.  We will dig straight in, exploring Matthew 3:7 and 3:8.  We will then briefly consider the possibility that John the Baptist had partaken in something called a "Nazirite Vow," which we will describe in some detail.

Let's get started.

------------------------------
Matthew 3:7 through Matthew 3:8
7 When he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them, “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? 
8 Produce good fruit as evidence of your repentance.
------------------------------

Last time, we learned who John the Baptist was, and deduced his take on contemporary society, which was that the whole system had gone pear-shaped and was not worth engaging on its terms any longer.

Today, among the crowds of Jews going out to be baptized by John, appear groups of Sadducees and Pharisees.  Remember that The Sadducees were a priestly elite class and The Pharisees were a popular movement that far outnumbered The Sadducees at the time of Jesus.

The phrasing of verse 7 seems to indicate that the multitudes coming out to be baptized were, generally, neither Sadducee nor Pharisee.  If this is the case, we are left to wonder who it was that was meeting John there on the banks of the Jordan.  

We can be certain that they aren't gentiles, as, shortly, John appeals to the multitudes' common ancestry in Abraham, demonstrating that John's followers are primarily Jewish.  

If the crowds didn't consist of Pharisees or Sadducees, then, based on what we know about first-century Palestinian-Jewish demographics, they would most likely have consisted of Essenes, Zealots, or some mixture thereof.  This, however, seems unlikely.  As you will recall, The Essenes were a monastic group who we believe were not prone to travel, and The Zealots were a sect of radical militants who advocated for war with Rome, having their minds firmly rooted in the material and present aspects of creation.  These facts probably preclude these groups from hearing or taking interest in John's cries.

It seems more likely that the crowds were, despite the phrasing in today's reading, made up primarily of people who identified with the Pharisaic tradition. We can see the "Pharisees" mentioned in verse 7 distinctly as Pharisaic elites - priests, clerics or administrators of some kind- and the crowds distinctly as Pharisaic commoners.  

To reiterate: the crowds going out to John probably did adhere generally to the Pharisaic oral traditions, but this fact is obscured here by vagueries in the text.  

A lot of our subject is thus obscured.

We digress.

John the Baptist is speaking to Pharisee elites, and Sadducees (who were all elite).  What does John have to say to this socially and economically elevated group who had, upon hearing of the "crazy baptist in the desert," trekked out of the safety of civilization to see him?  He says, approximately, "you don't belong here, you snakey jerks.  There's a storm a'comin', and you ain't supposed to know about it.  If you think you belong here, prove it to me by showing what good fruit your repentance from sin has earned you!"

Choice words from The Baptist.  John's statement begs several questions.  

Some questions that come immediately to mind are: 

   - Of what would "good fruit" consist?  

   - What is the exact nature of the impending storm or "coming wrath?"

   - By what mechanism has John become aware of the impending storm?

   - How would John have defined "repentance?"

   - How would John have defined "sin?"

Let's take these one at a time.

- Of what would "good fruit" consist? - 

One possibility is that "good fruit" would consist of spiritual gifts (inner peace, outer peace, joy, elation, transcendence, revelation, and the like) related to repentance and self-study, and that John is asking these people to prove their worthiness by displaying the rewards they've already earned by their righteousness in repentance.

Another possibility is that people were making offerings out in the desert by John's instruction, and that John was challenging these elites to make an offering with him and the crowd.

One might also see the "good fruit" as evidence in general of a piously lived life.  The text is definitely ambiguous here, so it's impossible to nail down definitive specifics.  As with so many things in history, we are left with a plurality of possibility.

- What is the exact nature of the impending storm or "coming wrath?" - 

As we've discussed, whenever we see eschatological thinking in first-century Palestine, we have to recall that the first-century Jew in Palestine was living through what would have absolutely felt like apocalyptic events.  Many Jews awaited a coming King in the line of David who would smash the Roman occupation of Jewish lands and usher in an era of plenty for The Jews, centered around a glorified Temple.  It stands to reason that the "coming wrath" would be the reckoning that Romanizers and the religiously lax would face with the triumphant Davidic King.  

- By what mechanism has John become aware of the impending storm? - 

The reader will forever be left grasping at this, I fear.  A traditional view is that John the Baptist received his teaching by the same mechanism that the prophets of old had received theirs: by divine or angelic inspiration.  There are countless such divine transmissions in The Old Testament to which one could refer to substantiate the possibility of this.  The more scholastic view would be that John's end-of-the-times message was an offshoot or amalgamation of one or more of the varying contemporary eschatological sects or movements within the Semitic religions.  

We must also face the possibility that Christian concepts from the late first century AD are being back-projected by the author of Matthew, and that John the Baptist said something substantially different than what The Gospel records.  We can dispel this possibility some by reading what our old friend Josephus said about John, which we will do before long, but not today.

- How would John have defined "repentance?" - 

Broadly, we can say that John would have defined "to repent" the same way the dictionary does today: to "feel or express sincere regret or remorse about one's wrongdoing or sin."

John is telling the multitude to turn their heart away from "sin," again, broadly.

The idea of repentance occurs dozens of times in The Old Testament.  The Jewish concept of the process of repentance evolved to be, in some cases, a very regimented thing.  Gates of Repentance, a thirteenth century Jewish ethical writing, for example, lays out a list of things one must do in order to consider themselves "repentant," including:

   - Regretting and acknowledging the sin or transgression.
   - Forsaking the sin or transgression.
   - Confessing the sin or transgression. And...
   - Praying for atonement.

We cannot tell if John meant a specific kind of regimented repentance, or merely the expression of "sincere regret or remorse."  We can be sure, though, that his use of the word repentance indicates that he feels the people he is talking to have sinned.

- How would John have defined sin?- 

It is most likely that The Baptist defined sin the exact way Jews had long traditionally defined it - as a transgression against any of the nearly innumerable laws of the Tanakh which had been handed down directly from God over the lengthy history of their people.  The author of Matthew certainly offers us no clue that John the Baptist has a view of sin that is different from this ancient definition.

From what we can ascertain in The Gospel, John clearly thinks of sin as both rampant and grave during his time.  He basically accuses everyone living in the region (or perhaps all of Judaica, or perhaps everyone in the world) of harboring unrepented sin.  Looking at the period in context, with the painful process of Hellenization recently complete in all of Palestine, and Rome breathing down everyone's neck, it's easy to see why some contemporary minds, John's included, looked at the situation and said: "we messed up somewhere.  This occupation and its tumult are what have come of our sin.  We must repent!"

We will find cause to study repentance and sin again and again in different contexts as we move forward.


-----

Next, let's take a look at another possible aspect of John the Baptist's life.  Let's take a look at "Nazirite Vows."  (We come to this discussion via the tutoring of a learned friend of mine, who mentioned it when we first started talking about John the Baptist the other day.)

"What are Nazirite Vows?" one may ask.  Well, you know I like etymology, so let's get that out of the way first.  "Nazirite" derives originally from the Hebrew "nāzar" which means "to separate or consecrate oneself."  That said, Nazirite Vows were vows of a kind of asceticism that existed within the Jewish tradition since early times.  The Nazirite Vows are described in The Book of Numbers, written in the fifth century BC.  The description is lengthy, so we won't read it here in its entirety.  To follow along, open up your Bible to Numbers and check out 6:1-21.

The Nazirite Vow was a vow that male or female Jews alike could take.  Like all vows, it was a promise to adhere to a set of obligations or austerities in order to attain some reward greater than what has been lost to the vow.

Austerities included in the Nazirite Vow:

Numbers 6:3 - "they shall abstain from wine and strong drink."

Numbers 6:4 - "they shall not eat anything of the produce of the grapevine; not even the seeds or the skins."  (That's right y'all, no raisins.)

Numbers 6:5 - "no razor shall touch their hair," and they will "[let] the hair of their heads grow freely."

Numbers 6:6 - "they shall not come near a dead person."  Explicitly, even if the corpse is family.

There are also a set of rules and some prescribed rituals for ending the period of one's vows, for whatever reason.

So, what's the reward for having taken these vows?  In my best estimation, the reward is the same intangible "close-to-Godliness" offered by so many such vows in so many such faith systems around the world.  In the words of the Book of Numbers, 6:8: "As long as they are nazirites they are holy to the Lord."

There has been some mix up over the centuries between "Nazarene" and "Nazirite," which is understandable, given that the Nazirites and Jesus were both kinds of ascetics.  As we see in The Gospels, though, Jesus did drink wine and he did go near dead bodies.  We can be fairly assured in saying that Jesus was not living under a Nazirite Vow during his ministry.

John the Baptist, however, is a different story.  The Gospels show John as not imbibing (Luke 7:33), and we have no account of him going near a dead body.  We can also stretch our knowledge of humankind a little and imagine that the man living in the desert eating locusts for breakfast hasn't had a haircut or a shave in a couple of weeks.  John, therefore, is a good candidate for a possible Nazirite.  We can say that the Biblical portrayal of John the Baptist doesn't, at least, rule him out of having been under The Nazirite Vow.

For the curious: everyone's favorite long-haired fellow from The Old Testament, Samson, was a "nazirite from birth" according to The Book of Judges.

The Rastafarian religion is built in part on Nazirite ideals, and the passages from Numbers that we read are cited by adherents as obligating one to grow dreadlocks.  Rastas also avoid drinking alcohol based on the Nazirite tradition.

The more you know!

I'm certain this will come up again.  For today, we'll thank my friend for introducing us to the Nazirites, and leave John the Baptist crying out in the desert.

Come back again, and please share this writing.

Love.
-------------------------
To read what's next, click here.
To read what came prior to this, click here.

Saturday, December 29, 2018

On Matthew 3:4 through Matthew 3:6

Hello, and welcome back to The Moral Vision of Jesus Christ.

If this is your first visit, you can check out the introductory installment here.  It will help orient you to our purpose.  

As a general reminder to everyone, our purpose is to pull back a dark and heavy veil that has, since the time of Christ himself, obscured his true and humble visage from the vast majority of his followers.  This writing is explicitly not for profit, and this work is to be considered "open source."

This writing is for the open-hearted.  This writing is for the revolutionary-minded.

Last time, we met John the Baptist.  I might have mentioned that The Baptist is probably my second favorite Gospel character.  Today, we're going to talk a little bit more about that character.  On that account, we'll start today with our reading.

------------------------------
Matthew 3:4 through Matthew 3:6
4 John wore clothing made of camel’s hair and had a leather belt around his waist. His food was locusts and wild honey. 
5 At that time Jerusalem, all Judea, and the whole region around the Jordan were going out to him 
6 and were being baptized by him in the Jordan River as they acknowledged their sins.
------------------------------


When one approaches the study of John the Baptist, one will do well to focus on a couple of specific "-isms": asceticism and baptism.  (It dawns on me that the average modern American reader might not know what this word "asceticism" means.*  For the uninitiated, asceticism is defined as "severe self-discipline and avoidance of all forms of indulgence, typically for religious reasons.")

Last time, we mentioned a possible connection between The Essenes, whom we learned about a few weeks ago here, and John the Baptist.  As we discovered, some see a link between the frequent ritual bathing of first-century Essenic communities and the baptism that John offered in the Jordan.  We also mentioned that John lived ascetically, much as The Essenes did.

Verse 4 today highlights some specifics about John the Baptist's asceticism.  We find John wearing an uncomfortable hair garment, rather than a soft fabric manufactured from wool, which would have been widely available in the area at the time.  His leather belt is mentioned specifically as well.  We will keep an eye out, but it would appear that the description of John's clothing is the most specific mention of one's attire we find in the entirety of The Gospels.  Scholars see this as evidence that what John was wearing must have been notably different from the contemporary standard.  His manner of dress sets him apart from the community he came up in.

Regarding John's clothing, notation in The New American Bible points us to 2 Kings 1:8, where we see the prophet Elijah described thus:
"He wore a hairy garment with a leather belt around his waist." 
We will discuss the prophet Elijah soon enough, as no picture of John the Baptist is complete without an understanding of this Old Testament personality.  We mention this here merely to highlight the fact that the text is being used yet again in a vain attempt to neatly place Jesus within the ancient Jewish tradition.

Just as we find John dressed in an unorthodox way, we find him eating an unorthodox diet.  The author of Matthew shows John eating "locusts and wild honey."  Again, the specificity of the passage leads us to an understanding that his diet was atypical and probably undesirable.

We can assume by the information in verse 4 that John has basically "dropped out" of society, and does not engage in the contemporary version of the rat-race.  The description reminds one of the modern street-philosopher, who chooses poverty and homelessness over what he sees as "wage-slavery," or perhaps of Diogenes, the early Greek Cynic philosopher, who deliberately denied property and lived on the streets among dogs.  John the Baptist is certainly a unique character, in the context of The Gospel.

Now let us turn our attention from John's asceticism to his baptism.

John is introduced to us in the wilderness, out by the Jordan river.  According to Matthew, everyone in the region was travelling to see John and to be baptized by him.  Perhaps the most compelling fact to understand here is that baptism, in the context of Judaism, barely exists at all.  Ancient mainstream Jews had some prescribed "ritual bathing" in their tradition, but that ritual bathing was far different from what we think of now as "baptism," and happened far less frequently than the ritual bathing done by The Essenes.  

Differences between Jewish ritualistic bathing and John the Baptist's baptism are myriad.  "Baptism" is understood by Christians generally as a "one time" event.  In contrast, the "ritual bathing" of ancient Judaism was something that could happen repeatedly, depending upon need.  Today, Christians generally see baptism as the regeneration or spiritual cleansing of a person as they enter the Church of Christ, and many understand baptism specifically as having the capacity to wash away sin.  Ancient Jews used ritual bathing to eliminate temporary "impurities," such as the impurity of having touched a corpse.  Many modern Christians see baptism as a prerequisite for "salvation," while ancient Jews had no such thoughts about their ritual bathing practices.

That said, whatever John was doing out by the Jordan, we can see it as innovative and outlier.  The people that followed him out to the desert did so seeking novelty, not tradition.

To understand why "the whole region around the Jordan [was] going out to him," perhaps it is best to pan out a little, here, and understand that the time of John the Baptist was a time of crisis for Judaism, and for Palestine in general.  Tensions were extremely high in the region, as Rome struggled to maintain control of a population who were prone to revolt and who refused to worship the Roman pantheon of Gods.  The rise of eschatological thinking during that period is well documented, and corresponds with the steady ratcheting-up of the imperial threat, which would have appeared existential to anyone who was paying attention at the turn of the millennium.  All of this speaks to John's beckoning in Matthew 3:2: “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand!”

In those days, the political and religious tensions would have been high enough that preaching a near-to-come revelation or an end-of-days would have appealed to both pessimists and optimists alike.  One can imagine the average faithful Jew in Jerusalem at the time lamenting that "something has to change" in the face of increasing external meddling with the most sacred Temple matters. It is easy to imagine John attracting the disaffected and marginalized of these people with his message of an impending change.

From what Matthew has given us thus far, John is what we can consider some kind of revolutionary leader.  We can say with certainty that this was the kind of person who "marched to the beat of his own drum."

As we've mentioned before, John the Baptist is perhaps the only character in The Gospel that Jesus is ever deferential toward.  Some scholars believe that Christ may have received his cosmology through the teaching of the ascetic.  It cannot be stressed enough how important this figure is in shaping our understanding of the true moral vision of Jesus Christ.

We have only a couple more installments of our study ahead of us before we finally first see the grown-up Jesus on the scene.  Next time, we will stay with John the Baptist as he confronts The Sadducees and The Pharisees, who will go out to see what all the hubbub is about.  The next several verses are particularly dense, and we may find cause to slow our narrative down some to make sure that we capture all the relevant data.  Soon enough, though, we will be reading in red-letter and really getting to know Joshua of Nazareth.

Please join us next time to continue to be a part of what will shortly become a real-world revolution in the style of Christ, and please share this writing.

Love
-------------------------

* I mean... they wouldn't, right?

-------------------------
To read what's next, click here.
To read what came prior to this, click here.

Monday, December 24, 2018

On Matthew 3:1 through Matthew 3:3

It's early in the morning on Christmas Eve, Anno Domini Two Thousand Eighteen.  I am awake because I'm always awake at a very early hour.  If not for the holiday, I'd be making my lunch and getting ready for work.  The holiday will afford me some extra writing opportunity, and I'm grateful for this.

I cannot wait to get to the part of this study in which we are reading and talking about the actual words of Christ.  I want you to know that the anticipation is killing me.  I derive an increasing amount of joy from my limited knowledge of The Man's words, and feel increasingly compelled to share those words with you.

Part of me wants to just skip to the red-letters, leaving the rest by the way.  That part of me I call "weakness."  Weakness is the bigger part of me, but I will not give in to it, on this single occasion.  All things must come in their due time, and they will come soon enough.

Until then, we will continue dancing around The Man and his delightful words.

You'll recall that, a few weeks ago, we read some of The Book of Acts.  We focused on Acts Chapter 2, wherein we saw "The Birth of the Church," learned of Peter's fiery Pentecost Sermon, and read the first words in the whole Bible that describe what it means to live a Christian life.

Let's reiterate those first words about Christian life from Acts, Chapter 2:
42 They devoted themselves to the teaching of the apostles and to the communal life, to the breaking of the bread and to the prayers. 
43 Awe came upon everyone, and many wonders and signs were done through the apostles. 
44 All who believed were together and had all things in common; 
45 they would sell their property and possessions and divide them among all according to each one’s need. 
Please note that the first Christians appear to live a Stateless, voluntary-communal life.  Please note that the first Christians do not appear to believe in property.

These are deep and historically rare philosophical and political concepts.

Please note the difference between this philosophy and that of the modern American so-called Christian.

The Book of Acts says more, so today we'll explore it a little more.  My interests have been piqued, as should yours have been.

I would call your attention to Acts, Chapter 4.
32 The community of believers was of one heart and mind, and no one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they had everything in common. 
33 With great power the apostles bore witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great favor was accorded them all. 
34 There was no needy person among them, for those who owned property or houses would sell them, bring the proceeds of the sale, 
35 and put them at the feet of the apostles, and they were distributed to each according to need. 
Wow.

"The community of believers was of one heart and mind?!"

"There was no needy person among them?!"

"...To each according to need?!"

Are we reading The Bible, or some kind of modern ultra-left political theory?

The narrative continues in Chapter 5 with God killing a husband and wife who conspired to enter the Christian community under false pretenses.  When they sold the land they owned and gave the money to the community, they secretly set some of the money aside for themselves.

God literally just snatches the life right out of the husband and wife for this transgression!

It is truly a wild scene.  Here, from Acts, Chapter 5:
1 A man named Ananias, however, with his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property. 
2 He retained for himself, with his wife’s knowledge, some of the purchase price, took the remainder, and put it at the feet of the apostles. 
3 But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart so that you lied to the holy Spirit and retained part of the price of the land? 
4 While it remained unsold, did it not remain yours? And when it was sold, was it not still under your control? Why did you contrive this deed? You have lied not to human beings, but to God.” 
5 When Ananias heard these words, he fell down and breathed his last, and great fear came upon all who heard of it. 
6 The young men came and wrapped him up, then carried him out and buried him. 
7 After an interval of about three hours, his wife came in, unaware of what had happened. 
8 Peter said to her, “Tell me, did you sell the land for this amount?” She answered, “Yes, for that amount.” 
9 Then Peter said to her, “Why did you agree to test the Spirit of the Lord? Listen, the footsteps of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out.” 
10 At once, she fell down at his feet and breathed her last. When the young men entered they found her dead, so they carried her out and buried her beside her husband. 
11 And great fear came upon the whole church and upon all who heard of these things.
You don't want to cross Peter, I guess.  Or, more to the point, you don't want to cross Jesus.

Acts presents even further evidence of the Stateless nature of the very first Christians.  Later in Chapter 5, we see the Apostles locked in jail for preaching in the name of Jesus and for performing "signs and wonders."  They escape from jail and head to The Temple in the morning to keep preaching.  The Sanhedrin - the high court of the Jewish people and client to the might of Rome - round up the apostles and question them sternly.

I love this part.  They tell Peter and the apostles, in Acts Chapter 5, Verse 28:
“We gave you strict orders [did we not?] to stop teaching in that name. Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and want to bring this man’s blood upon us.”
Peter and the boys reply simply, in Verse 29:
"We must obey God rather than men."
Boom.  There it is.  "We must obey God rather than men."

By the "rather than" phrasing, we can deduce that obeying God and obeying men are thought to be totally exclusive of one another.  One takes the place of the other.  They cannot exist together.

So...

The very very first Christians, the ones who actually knew Jesus, felt that it was their charge to reject human authority outright, and to replace it with the authority of God, which they had understood through the teachings of their recently executed leader.

Wow.

What are we reading?!

That's right, my friends.  Welcome to The New Testament.

If the modern American so-called Christians knew about this stuff, they'd have to find a new book to swear on.

Now, Matthew, Chapter 3.

 ------------------------------
Matthew 3:1 through Matthew 3:3

1 In those days John the Baptist appeared, preaching in the desert of Judea 
2 [and] saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand!” 
3 It was of him that the prophet Isaiah had spoken when he said:

“A voice of one crying out in the desert,
‘Prepare the way of the Lord,
make straight his paths.’”
------------------------------

Perhaps one of my favorite little lines of text from all of the Gospels is this "a voice of one crying out in the desert."  There is a poetry to it that takes me away. I love it, and digress.

Finally, The Baptist appears on the scene.  

Who is this "John the Baptist" guy?  

If you'll recall, this is the guy that some scholars believe was an Essene, the ascetic sect of Jews that had left Jerusalem and rejected the mainstream for a life of celibacy and ritual bathing.

Why do some people believe John the Baptist was an Essene?  Because, like the Essenes, he appears in The Gospel having rejected the mainstream, as we meet him preaching out in the desert.  He offers a baptism (Greek for "dunking"), while the Essenes bathed daily in order to maintain ritual purity.  He lives ascetically, as did the Essenes.  His cosmos center around an eschatology, as did that of the Essenes.

It is safe to say that, of the sects of Judaism existing at the time, John had most in common with The Essenes.  However, it won't prove exceptionally important to nail down John's sectual identity* at the moment.  That's more of a scholarly dalliance, although we will get to it eventually.  

The point we don't want to miss here is that we've just met perhaps the only guy in The Gospel that Jesus gives any deference to.  Jesus will, in fact, be baptized by this man.  If John can bestow blessings upon Jesus in the form of a baptism, then he must be, at least in some sense, more than Jesus.

We want to pay attention to The Baptist.  He preaches.  Crowds gather on the shores of the Jordan to hear him and be baptized by him.  I am giddy with anticipation.

Until next time, my friend.

Love
-------------------------

* Seven years of this and you are going to get tired of this joke's many variants.  I'm sorry.  I will try to keep it at a minimum.

-------------------------
To read what's next, click here.
To read what came prior to this, click here.

Sunday, December 23, 2018

On Matthew 2:22 through Matthew 2:23

Hello, friend, and welcome back to The Moral Vision of Jesus Christ, the most exhaustive Gospel study you'll ever read.  If this is your first time here, please avail yourself of the Introduction, which can be found here.

Today, we approach the final entry to our five-part series, Sects of Judaism Existing in Palestine at or Immediately Prior to the Time of Jesus.  You will recall that we've already covered The Pharisees, The Sadducees, The Essenes, and The Zealots.  Our last sect of study is The Christians.

Were I the reader, I might ask: "but sir, Christianity and Judaism are two different things.  What do you mean by calling Christianity a sect of Judaism?!"

Let's shed a little light on that, shall we?

Sects of Judaism Existing in Palestine at or Immediately Prior to the Time of Jesus - A Shallow Survey
Number Five: The Christians

It has been about a month now that we've been studying the first-century sects of Judaism.  As we embarked on this study, our purpose was to augment our understanding of the context of the philosophy of Jesus, which will begin emerging for us from Matthew very soon.  I am hoping that we will have accomplished this task adequately by the end of today's study.

We've met four sects so far, and, in meeting them, we have deepened our understanding of the ancient world Jesus existed in.  Things that unify the philosophies of all four of these sects are a belief in the written scriptures and laws of Judaism as represented by The Torah, and a belief that The Jews were God's "chosen people."

Due to critical interpretive discrepancies, all four of these groups were led to believe that their particular way of practicing Judaism was the only right way.  These severe beliefs led to a rise in sectarian violence in the first-centuries BC and AD as Rome pushed its way into Palestine, upending everything it touched.

And so we come to the final sect in our study: The Christians.

Recall that one Flavius Josephus has informed our study of sectarianism more than any other ancient historian.  Flavius Josephus was a Romano-Jewish historian who surrendered to, and eventually worked for, Rome.  He is one of the greatest sources of data we currently have about the era of Jesus Christ.

What does Josephus say about Christianity?  This, it turns out, is quite a loaded question.

If you ask certain scholars what Josephus said about Christians, you might hear them refer to Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18, Chapter 3.  The passage in question is as follows:
Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.
Wow.  Pretty glowing report, especially considering the fact that Josephus was not a proponent of the Jesus Movement.

Other scholars believe that Josephus' words were changed at some point between their writing and now.  Many believe that a passage describing the death of Jesus did exist in Josephus manuscript for Antiquities, but that it would have read something more like the following:
At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man. For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of people who receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following among many Jews and among many of Gentile origin. And when Pilate, because of an accusation made by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him previously did not cease to do so. And up until this very day the tribe of Christians (named after him) had not died out.*
That sounds a little closer to the mark.

Josephus would have written these words around 93 or 94 AD, twenty-four years after he'd personally witnessed Rome's brutal sack of Jerusalem.  Josephus mentions John the Baptist in another text, and "James the brother of Jesus" in yet another, but he says little to nothing about the Jesus Movement as it existed in the immediate wake of Christ's execution.

The best source of information we have on the group is The New Testament.

The Book of Acts shows the very first Christians living in Jerusalem among Jews, praying with Jews, and attending The Temple area everyday with their Jewish brothers and sisters.  The New Testament sees the first members of the Jesus Movement observing a plethora of Jewish holidays, festivals, and feasts.

All that is to say that the first followers of the Jesus Movement considered themselves Jewish first, and this would have remained true for at least a generation.  Most scholars look to 70 AD as the year when Christianity became Christianity, a thing separate and apart from Judaism.  Alternatively, some scholars might point to the 90s AD as the moment Judaism and Christianity finally became distinct.  At that time, Christians began lobbying Rome that they might be recognized as separate from Jews as far as it applied to the collection of the "Fiscus Judaicus," or "Jewish Tax."

As for the sect's beliefs about the afterlife, The Christians of The New Testament do not ever use the word "hell."  The New Testament contains passing references to "Gehenna," and to "Hades," and to the "netherworld," ambiguous terms from the Hellenized Jewish world of its time.  The first Christians were not concerned with getting into heaven or avoiding hell so much as they were concerned with the coming "Kingdom of Heaven."  The coming Kingdom of Heaven refers back to the "world to come" that The Pharisees believed in, and can be seen as a prophesied worldly event of great upheaval, even to the point of being "world-ending."  The Jesus Movement sect was an apocalyptic one in that it foresaw an immediate end to the world, as it currently existed, at the hands of the one true God.

Since the first Christians anticipated an immediate coming of the Kingdom of Heaven, they did not find occasion to write down much or perhaps anything about what Jesus had said or done.  It was a full twenty years after Jesus' death that we see the first Christian documentation.  The first-written book of The Gospel wasn't penned until ten years later still, in 61 AD.  That said, as any Christian will tell you, the Jewish holy scriptures remained forever integral to Christians.  We can say that, as a sect of Judaism, the Jesus Movement believed in the same written tradition as the other Jewish sects of the period, but embraced a new oral tradition unlike that of The Pharisees.

There is much more that could be said, but, in the interest of time, we will draw this to a close.  Before we go over the "must-remembers," please note that there are several other sects of Judaism that existed contemporaneously with Jesus that we will study in the future, outside of the five we've mentioned here.  This study was designed to lay down a shallow contextual framework upon which we can build an understanding of the philosophy of Jesus.  We will meet more of these peoples, and revisit the ones we've just met, again and again throughout the coming years.

Here are your "must-remembers:"

a)  The Jesus Movement believed in the written Jewish scriptures, as well as a brand new apocalyptic oral tradition.

b)  They eventually broke away from Judaism, becoming Christianity and spreading rapidly across the world.

c)  The Jesus Movement didn't seem to be afraid of a "Hell," exactly.  They did speak of a "netherworld," in Greek terms.  They frequently referred to "Hades," the underworld of ancient Greek mythology.  The ambiguously phrased "Kingdom of Heaven" is what they awaited and aspired to.

d)  The Jesus Movement was a popular movement that, at very first, enjoyed favor mostly among the common and marginalized people.  (It is worth noting that Christianity quickly attracted more upper-class adherents as it spread toward Europe.)

Next time: something completely different.

Now, let's get back to our Gospel.
 ------------------------------
Matthew 2:22 through Matthew 2:23
22 But when he heard that Archelaus was ruling over Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go back there. And because he had been warned in a dream, he departed for the region of Galilee. 
23 He went and dwelt in a town called Nazareth, so that what had been spoken through the prophets might be fulfilled, “He shall be called a Nazorean.”
------------------------------

It's not that we should be learning to distrust Matthew...

It's just that we need to keep the name "Shoehorn Matthew" in the forefront of our minds when reading this Gospel.

As the narrative at hand works to get Jesus out of Egypt and into The Galilee on all the right terms, we see yet more angelic dreaming.  Joseph, Mary, and Baby Joshua finally settle in the town of Nazareth.  

Matthew says that they settle in Nazareth so that Jesus will be fulfilling the words of the prophets, who had supposedly said that a messiah would be coming and that he would be called a "Nazorean."

The problem here is that the prophets never mentioned Nazareth.  Of this verse, notation in The New American Bible says the following:
The town of Nazareth is not mentioned in the Old Testament, and no such prophecy can be found there.
The notation goes on to try to connect the Matthew text to words that are phonetically similar to "Nazareth" in The Old Testament.  It admits that the similarities are "remote."

These verses have nothing to do with how we will eventually interpret the moral vision of Jesus.  We will retire of them here.

Next time, we begin Chapter 3, and meet one of my favorite Gospel personas: John the Baptist.  I'm very excited for that.  Until then, I bid you happy studies.

Love.
-------------------------

* This rendition comes to us second hand, originally from John Meier's A Marginal Jew, I believe.  Please correct me if you know better.

-------------------------
To read what's next, click here.
To read what came prior to this, click here.

Saturday, December 15, 2018

On Matthew 2:19 through Matthew 2:21

Hello, friend, and welcome back to The Moral Vision of Jesus Christ.

If you require orientation, please refer to the first posting of this writing here.

We've no time to waste, today, so we will jump right in to the fourth of our five part series on first-century Jewish sectarianism.  Here we go.

Sects of Judaism Existing in Palestine at or Immediately Prior to the Time of Jesus - A Shallow Survey
Number Four: The Zealots

Let's quickly review who we've met so far in our study.  We've met: 1) The Pharisees, the most popular ideological movement within Judaism at the time of Christ.  2) The Sadducees, a movement of the elite priestly class whose power was derived from The Temple.  And...  3) The Essenes, a movement of Jews who practiced asceticism, celibacy, and ritual purity.

Recall that these three constitute the main philosophies of Judaism as it existed around the time of Jesus.  However, the ancient Romano-Jewish historian, Josephus, also spoke of a "fourth philosophy."  That fourth philosophy was adhered to by a group of Jews we call "The Zealots."  

The philosophy of The Zealots was, in a word, "war."

Etymologically, the English word "Zealot" comes from the Greek "zēlos," which means "zeal or jealousy."  It is the most common translation of the Hebrew "kanai," which translates directly as "fanatic."  In a modern context, the word zealot denotes a fanatic of some kind.

The Zealots lived all around Palestine, and their heyday was from 6 to 70 AD.  The Zealots shared a common cosmology with The Pharisees, but differed with non-Zealot Pharisees in that they advocated for war against Rome, which had made a province of Judea in 6 AD.  In the sense that The Zealots were arguing for changes in public policy, i.e. "we should kick Rome out of Judea by military force," they can be looked at as a political movement, as well as a sect.

In the Gospel, Jesus does not interact with Zealots the way he does with Pharisees and Sadducees.  The Gospel is basically silent on The Zealots, except to tell us (in each of The Synoptics) that one of Christ's apostles was a Zealot.  This is most clear in Luke 6:15, where "Simon who was called a Zealot," is listed as one of The Twelve.  Notation in the New American Bible explains that it is not perfectly clear from the Gospel that Simon the Zealot was an actual Zealot.  The language is ambiguous as to whether Simon was zealous, or a Zealot.  We will chase that thread down later when we study the apostles each in detail.  Some scholars also believe that Paul of Tarsus was a Zealot, and that his Zealotry led him to his persecution of early Christians.  Again, we will chase this apostolic thread down later.

Josephus is our best source for information on The Zealots, but we must bear in mind that he was not a proponent of Zealotry.  He held them accountable, in fact, for Jerusalem's eventual ruin.  He felt that the Jewish-Roman War, which led to the destruction of The Second Temple in 70 AD, was caused by The Zealots.  Josephus was of the mind that the Jews ought to have tolerated Rome's dominion over Judea, up to and including participation in the census and payment of taxes.  To the contrary, The Zealots felt that the Jewish people had to be completely free, and were the constant advocates and instigators of confrontation between Jews and the Roman authorities.  Without The Zealots, there would not have been a rebellion, and The Temple might have remained.

The Zealots were so zealous that they did not mind spilling blood in the name of their cause.  The Sicarii, an ancient Jewish assassin's brotherhood (yes, an ancient Jewish assassin's brotherhood) were a sub-group of the Zealot community.  The Sicarii took their name from the small daggers they would use for targeted political killings.  These killings were designed to demoralize Roman sympathizers and embolden Jewish nationalists, and went on throughout the first-century AD.  The Sicarii terrorized and killed Jew and Gentile alike in the name of a liberated Jewish people.

The Zealot movement died out in the aftermath of year 70, as the Jewish people resigned themselves to their new reality.  Rome had had the final word.  

As for us, we can say that, of the four sects we have studied thus far, this sect had the least bearing on Jesus' philosophy.  Some modern pop-scholarship portrays Jesus as being a Zealot or a proto-Zealot.  It will become necessary to confront these ideas in detail some day, but I can tell you now that Jesus' philosophy was not compatible with that of The Zealots.

Here are your "must-remembers:"

a)  As far as scriptural validity, The Zealots believed whatever The Pharisees believed (which was that the oral traditions of their community were valid and supplementary to the Torah.)

b)  The Zealot movement died out when Rome took complete control of Judea around 70 AD.

c)  When it came to the afterlife, The Zealots again followed The Pharisees, believing in a coming resurrection of the faithful dead into a beautiful "world to come."  It is arguable whether or not they believed in a "hell."

d)  They were a nascent movement around 6 AD, and gained power steadily among the Jews until 70 AD.  Zealots had little to no sway over Temple affairs at any juncture.

The Zealots are another one of the many divisions of Jewish culture that existed during the Ministry of Jesus Christ.  The Zealots, and their presumably awesome cloak-and-dagger assassin's brotherhood, The Sicarii, are critical context for our understanding of Jesus' message.

Next time, our final first-century Jewish sect: The Christians.  (You read it right.)

Now, let's get back to our Gospel.

 ------------------------------
Matthew 2:19 through Matthew 2:21
19 When Herod had died, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt  
20 and said, “Rise, take the child and his mother and go to the land of Israel, for those who sought the child’s life are dead.” 
21 He rose, took the child and his mother, and went to the land of Israel.
------------------------------

And, just like that, Herod was unceremoniously dead.  Here, the angel of the Lord appears to Joseph in the fourth dream of divine data thus far, letting Joseph know that Herod is dead.  "It's safe to make your journey out of Egypt," he says.  So, Baby Jesus and his family went out of Egypt, in a kind of literary homage to the time their Israelite ancestors had been led out of Egypt by Moses, according to their traditions.

Again, this Flight to Egypt and subsequent Flight Out of Egypt likely never occurred, not least of all because Herod likely never ordered a massacre of babies.  And, again, the text points to the author's desire to emphasize Jesus' congruence with Judaism.  What better way to accomplish this than to show Jesus taking a course that is parallel with that of Moses, the great Jewish patriarch?

While Herod's death narrative in Matthew spans only three words, Herod's death narrative in Josephus' War of the Jews is quite lengthy.  It seems Josephus had a flare for this gruesome stuff.  It seems that he revelled in it.  About the illness that led to Herod's death, he says the following:
After this, the destemper seized upon his whole body, and greatly disordered all its parts with various symptoms; for there was a gentle fever upon him, and an intolerable itching over all the surface of his body, and continual pains in his colon, and dropsical tumours about his feet, and an inflammation of the abdomen, and a putrefaction of his privy member, that produced worms.
Oh man that's gross!  Did you see that?  I mean, it was all pretty gnarly, but, "a putrefaction of his privy member, that produced worms?!"  You know you're having a bad day when putrefied worms are crawling out of your privy member.

You do not want that!

Josephus continues on to describe what Herod wanted once he was resigned to his death. Apparently, Herod had the idea that, in order to increase and prolong the amount of mourning in the land after his death, he would gather "the most illustrious men of the whole Jewish nation, out of every village, into a place called the Hippodrome, and there shut them in." He gave instructions to subordinates to "send soldiers to encompass these men that are now in custody, and slay them immediately upon my death, and then all Judea, and every family of them, will weep at it whether they will or no."

Woah.  He wants to kill a bunch of the most important Jewish men in the land at the time of his death so that there will be true universal mourning.

Woah.

Herod deserves far more study.  I promise a multi-part, in-depth study of Herod at some point in the future.

As for Shoehorn Matthew, we'll have to retire of him here.

Join us next time.  Please share this writing.

Love
-------------------------
To read what's next, click here.
To read what came prior to this, click here.