Blog (4) Madelaine Crabtree

The gospel of Luke is obviously quite different from the two other gospels we have already read. In fact, “none of the specific stories of Luke’s narrative occur in Matthew, just as none of Matthew’s appears [in Luke].”¹ This makes me wonder, how do Christians reconcile these stark contradictions form gospel to gospel? According to Matthew and Luke, Mary and Joseph came from different hometowns, and Jesus has a different genealogy in each gospel. Without even going into the vast differences in the ways in which Jesus is portrayed and the details of his life, these basic contradictions would make it very difficult for me at least to interpret the bible from a faith-based perspective. I don’t understand how anyone can justify a literal interpretation of the bible, what with so many contradictions, and yet people do.

The crucifixion scene in particular casts Jesus in a different light. In Luke, Jesus remains calm and collected, conversing with the criminals being put to death next to him and even asking God for forgiveness for those heckling him. This crucifixion scene makes most sense to me in terms of teaching the importance of selflessness and faith in the unknown. Luke’s Jesus sets what seems like an excellent example of how early Christians might urge others to act; Jesus shows them that there is nothing to fear, not even death as long as they believe in the Lord. He also relays the message that everyone deserves forgiveness, and advocates for a “turn-the-other-cheek” mentality when he asks forgiveness for those doing wrong to him. This makes me wonder why Mark chose to portray Jesus as momentarily losing his cool and almost panicking as he is about to die on the cross. Luke’s messages during the crucifixion scene seem clear, but what was Mark trying to tell people by having Jesus question God?

1. Bart D. Ehrman, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to Early Christian Writings (New York: Oxford, 2000), 117.

Ehrman, Bart D. The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to Early Christian Writings. New York: Oxford, 2000.

Blog 4 James Leman

The Gospel of Luke is the only gospel with a formal introduction, in which the author explains his methodology and purpose. It states that many others have already "undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word." ^[1]

The Gospel According to Luke is written as an eyewitness account.[2] The purpose of Luke is to write a historical account,[3] while bringing out the theological significance of the history. The evangelist divides history into three stages: the first ends with John the Baptist, the second consists of Jesus' earthly ministry, and the third is the life of the church after Jesus' resurrection.[4] Luke portrays Christianity as divine, respectable, law-abiding, and international. Here, Jesus' compassion extends to all who are needy, women are important among his followers, he commends the despised Samaritans, and Gentiles are promised the opportunity to accept the gospel.[5] Although the gospel is written as a historical narrative, many of the facts portrayed there in are based on previous traditions of the Gospel and is thought by scholars to not be an actual historical account. Many scholars believe that like all of the other synoptic gospels, Luke used the Gospel of Mark to write his gospel.

---

[1] Bauckham,Richard, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses (Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2006), pp. 116-117.

[2] Ehrman, B.D. The New Testament, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004.)

[3] N. B. Stonehouse, The Witness of Luke to Christ (1951), pp. 24-45; H. J. Cadbury, The Beginnings of Christianity II, 1922, pp. 489-510; R. Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses (Eerdmans, 2006)

[4] "Biblical Literature." Encyclopedia Britannica. 2010. Encyclopedia Britannica Online. 06 Nov. 2010

[5] N. B. Stonehouse, The Witness of Luke to Christ (1951), pp. 24-45; H. J. Cadbury, The Beginnings of Christianity II, 1922, pp. 489-510; R. Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses (Eerdmans, 2006)

Blog 4 Jedanndrila Bushnell

After reading the Gospel of Luke and comparing it to Matthew and Mark I start to think about what would happen if the people who put the Bible together had decided to not include Luke’s gospel. I feel that the idea of Jesus as savior is a big part of the foundation of Christianity today. In church today people sing songs about how Jesus takes away the sins of the world. I have always known that the Bible has had many changes in it, but I never did know that people had written other Gospels and that there were people to decide which ones would go into the Bible. This makes me think even more critically. If this particular Gospel were left out all messages of salvation and being saved would possibly be eliminated.

Christians today are always asking people if they have been saved. So many Gospel and religious songs are about how we have been saved and how Jesus took away the sins of the world. One scholar said “Happily,within the hymnal there is a place for teaching and adoration, liturgy for confession and exultation, a time for explaining the way in which Jesus' death merits our salvation and a time for simply basking in the cross's glow by gazing upon our Savior's beauty.¹” A whole musical industry would basically have a totally different foundation. What would people write their songs on Jesus about if this Lukan Jesus was not so widely accepted?

As a Christian I find this a very important thing to think about. I feel that if I never thought of Jesus as a savior then I might as well have been a Jew. I feel that if Luke were eliminated Revelations might also be eliminated. Many Christians today try to convert people to Christianity by this idea of Jesus being a savior and cosmic judge alone. People are always warning people about the Day of Judgment to come. People today are always searching for the right path and for something to save them. As one scholar says, “People naturally seek not only eternal salvation, but liberation from all that ails them physically, spiritually, mentally, and emotionally.²” It seems as if this Lukan Savior Jesus matches with the society of today in that a majority of us want to be saved whether it be by Jesus, a physician, a priest, or a psychologist many people of today look for salvation.

[1] P. J. Scaer "Lukan christology: Jesus as beautiful savior," CTQ 69:1 (2005) 64.

[2] P. J. Scaer, "Lukan christology: Jesus as beautiful savior," CTQ 69:1 (2005) 67.

Bibliography

Scaer, Peter, "Lukan christology: Jesus as beautiful savior." Concordia Theological Quarterly 69:1 (2005): 63-74

Blog # 4 Jorge Morales

The Gospel of Luke, unlike any other of the gospels, focuses on quite controversial topics. Today, these continue to strike us significantly, highlighting unique elements from the author. The latter stresses the role of women from a very modern perspective. Luke emphasizes on high-ranking, wealthy, and wise women and basically points out how important these have been to the Christian movement by supporting Jesus and his disciples. Furthermore, Luke also highlights how education might have not just been reserved for the male community but also for those female willing and able to open up to new horizons. The passage of Martha and Mary, Luke 10: 38-42 [1] provides us with an insight on how relevant it might have been for certain individuals at that time to break with the traditional ideals in order to accomplish certain goals, in this case the teachings of Jesus. Certainly, this all resembles Luke's community and how women played an important role in such by not only engaging in social practices but academics as well. Although Luke points out how shocking it might have been at that time to go against household traditions, he also highlights how important it was to learn the word of the Lord, regardless of gender or social background. The latter mentioned is described in the passage where Martha reproaches about Mary's conduct and Jesus simply says how Mary has chosen over the best of the two options, either serving (following traditions) or learning (modern view). Moreover, it is quite interesting how familiar Luke's gospel is when it comes to the church's motto rooted in giving everything to the poor, being mercyful, and to follow sacrifices to achieve salvation. I'd be tempted to say this is one of the main reasons for such demands throughout Christian history.

Certainly, Luke's gospel is a break from the traditional scriptures that stress the established behavior based on rules and social practices. It brings about certain changes that call upon new ideals. Leaving everything behind to follow Jesus would be one of the most remarkable, along with what some feminist would call the empowerment of female figures, undoubtedly fundamental. Based on Luke's gospel, the following questions arise: What role specifically did women play in Luke's epoch? Who were the women mentioned in Luke? Was any of them a true figure and possible disciple of Christ? These are some of the doubts pending after exploring Luke's account.

1. Collins, John J. "Martha and Mary 10: 38-42." The Catholic Study Bible. Second ed. New York: Oxford UP, 2006. 1375. Print. New American Bible.

Bibliography

Ehrman, B.D. The New Testament, (New York, Oxford Press, 2004)

Blog 4 Sable LeFrere

What I found most interesting about the Gospel of Luke is his perspective of Jesus. As we all know, each gospel portrays Jesus in a different light. For Matthew, Jesus was seen as a Messianic leader. Mark portrayed Jesus more humanly and Luke sees him as a martyr, a person who sacrifices something of great value and especially life itself for the sake of principle.

According to Ehrman, "By the time Luke wrote his Gospel, there was already a long-standing tradition of Jewish martyrs who willingly, indeed sometimes eagerly, faced suffering and death for the sake of the law of God.1 From the beginning, Luke made a distinct emphasis about Jesus' character in his gospel. Jesus was to be a prophet and spokesperson for God that eventually would be rejected by his own people. With that said, L. Michael White brought "Jesus the martyr" into perspective for me when he compared Jesus' image to that of Socrates. "He's much more like a philosophic teacher... he's reasoned, he's dispassionate, he's a critic sometimes of society but he's certainly concerned about the way his teachings bear on society. And in the end he dies very much like Socrates."2 Jesus' death in Luke is just like a martyr's death. He went inexorably to the cross without any doubts or fears unlike Mark's Passion narrative. He knew his role and where it was going to lead him. At Jesus' crucifixion, Mark shows a very silent Jesus. His only words came at the very end when he yells out "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"3 On the way to his crucifixion for Luke, Jesus speaks to a group of women he sees weeping for him, he asks God to forgive those who are wrongfully treating him, and speaks to one of the criminals being crucified beside him. Also to show that he was a martyr for the cause, instead of asking God why had he been forsaken before he died as he did in Mark, in Luke, he offers a prayer saying, "Father, into your hands I commend my spirit."4, dying like a true martyr would.

1 White, Michael L. The Gospel of Luke: a novel for gentiles, (FRONTLINE, 1998)

3 Ehrman, B.D. The New Testament, (New York. Oxford Press, 2004), 134

3 Ehrman, B.D. The New Testament, (New York. Oxford Press, 2004), 104

4 Ehrman, B.D. The New Testament, (New York. Oxford Press, 2004), 135

Bibliography

Ehrman, B.D. The New Testament (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004), 121-139.

White, Michael L. "The Gospel of Luke: a novel for gentiles ." FRONTLINE. April 1998. Accessed 21 March 2012 <http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/story/luke.html>.

Blog (4) Alex Tabora

There are some key segments of the Gospel of Luke that form strong contrast between the other Gospels in the image of Jesus. According to David Hester's Expository Articles of Luke 4:1-13, there are three variations in the Lukan Gospel that are significant for Luke's intention. ¹First, Luke depicts Jesus as "full of the Holy Spirit" when he enters "the wilderness." The Matthean and Marcan Jesus on the other hand, describe the Spirit as an external force on Jesus that leads him. The passages depict the temptations of Jesus and the unique relationship of the Father to the Son. Jesus as the Son of God and the one "full of the Holy Spirit" bears the conflict as the One anointed by God to do battle in God's name. The second variation in the Lukan account occurs in verses 5-8. The discrepancies lie in the setting of this event. In Matthew, the scene of temptation is set on a "very high mountain." In Luke, Jesus is simply "taken up" and shown the kingdoms of the world. The third variation is the order of the temptations. Hester identifies that Matthew's third temptation is Luke's second, while Matthew's second temptation appears as Luke's final temptation. I wondered why the gospel authors thought it was necessary to rotate the order of the temptations and realized this was most likely due to the fact that Luke believed that the third temptation identified by Matthew was more important to emphasize and so believed it more sensible to have it placed second.

The Gospel of Luke, according to Ehrman's New Testament, identifies the gospel as a Greco-Roman biography of Jesus.² Something I found interesting about the Gospel of Luke identified by Ehrman is that the gospel is the only one of the four that actually presents a sequel, the Acts of the Apostles. The Gospel of Luke provides a sketch of the life and death of Jesus, while the book of Acts identifies the birth and life of the Christian church afterwards.

¹ Hester, David. Luke 4:1-13. "Expository Articles." (Interpretation Press, 1997.)

² Ehrman, B.D. The New Testament, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004.)

Blog (4) Allegra Hartman

The Lukean Jesus is incredibly unique in comparison to the Jesus illustrated in the Gospels of Mark and of Matthew. As "savior of the world," a divine prophet, Jesus is additionally responsible for portraying himself as a teacher, a philosopher, a social critic, and a social reformer. Jesus’s identity as the divine prophet is something he carries with him from birth, throughout his life, and into his death[1]. In his teachings, Jesus heavily emphasizes that in the end (which is not immanent[2]), God will reward those who have lived and served him righteously. Like we have been learning this week, in antiquity and honor/shame societies, an individual receives honor when he/or she gives away their wealth to those in need. Jesus blesses not only the oppressed; he also “castigate the rich and the oppressor[3]” by saying “Blessed are the weepers, they shall laugh…Woe to the laughing ones, for you shall weep[4]”. Jesus obviously is trying to confront many of the social ills of his time through the preaching of God’s salvation, yet Luke attempts to narrate how this salvation was rejected by many of the Jewish people, which is how Jesus’s message reached the non-Jews and Gentiles. The primary conflict in the Gospel of Luke is between Jesus and the religious authorities that are consistently portrayed in stark contrast to Jesus himself. This tension is ultimately culminated on the cross as Jesus is representative of a martyr. Nevertheless, Luke notes that everything happening to Jesus and how God’s message of salvation is changing is in accordance to the divine plan, and thus the ‘end’ will not immediately occur after Jesus’s death. Out of all the Gospels we have read this far, Luke's includes many more stories which I think help emphasize the main themes and messages of Jesus.

---

[1]Ehrman, B.D. The New Testament (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004), 132-3.

[2]Ehrman, B.D. The New Testament (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004), 138.

[3]Ehrman, B.D. The New Testament (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004), 138.

[4]Luke 6:21, 25, NAB.

Blog (4) Blake Bernier

I found it very interesting when reading about the Gospel of Luke how historical his preface was. Luke took time to explain his stories and his preface was compared to that of prefaces written by Greek historians. Unlike the other Gospels of Matthew and Mark, Luke begins with a formal preface. It is also recognized that there is a wide range of Greco-Roman literature being used. Another word that was used to describe Luke's preface was that it was "historiographic," meaning that it indicated that there was a lot of research that was done about these historical topics that were being discussed. I found it fascinating that  unlike the chapter on the Gospel of Matthew where it jumps right into how Jesus was perceived, the chapter on Luke was more focussed on letting the audience recognize how historical his Gospel is and the amount of work he did. "He shows a special concern, for example, to relate the history of Jesus to the broader historical events transpiring within the empire." [1]

It is known that each Gospel has depicted Jesus in a different way. In Mark he was seen as an authoritative leader, teacher, and healer and in Matthew he was depicted as the new Messiah who brought interpretation of God's law. Different then both of these, Luke's depiction of Jesus was that he was the rejected prophet. Luke explains this with his opening of the ministry. "As a visitor of the synagogue, in Luke, Jesus is given the opportunity to read and comment on the Scripture. He reads from the book if Isaiah, in which the prophet claims to be anointed with the spirit of God in order to "bring good news to the poor. . . to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind" (4:18-19)" [2] Now that Jesus has done this, he is seen to now be able to perform great miracles. A prophet was not seen to people back then as a mind-reader, they were seen as someone who was sent by God to his people; a messenger for God. In Matthew and Mark, there was recognition that Jesus was a prophet and relayed messages from God, yes. But the emphasis of Jesus being a prophet was much greater in Luke. He is born as a prophet, raised as a prophet, and dies as a prophet.

Lastly, Luke's Gospel is 50% more descriptive than the other Gospels. I find this interesting and wonder if it is because Luke is talking to many different types of audiences. We know this because of the use of references to different types of nationalities. However, many of these stories are only found in Luke and none of the other Gospels. I wonder if he felt the need to add in many things to make his stories apprehensive to his audience.


[1] Ehrman, B.D. The New Testament (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004), 125
[2]  Ehrman, B.D. The New Testament (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004), 131

Blog (4) Noelle Lyons

As the only two Gospels with an account of Jesus’ birth, Matthew and Luke are critiqued and compared between each other. Their narratives contain similar elements: Mary as a virgin mother, Joseph bringing his family to Bethlehem, and a group of strangers visiting Jesus after witnessing a sign from the Heavens. There are, however, many more differences that encourage biblical scholars to exercise the comparative method of criticism when pertaining to Jesus’ birth narrative.

Matthew’s Gospel begins with Jesus’ genealogy and the birth account is followed soon afterward. Luke’s Gospel, however, begins with an account predicting the births of John the Baptist and Jesus, as Mary visits her cousin Elizabeth while both are pregnant with these two great prophets of God. The birth narrative of John the Baptist follows this story, and then Jesus’ birth narrative is presented. Luke stresses the idea of Jesus as a Prophet throughout his entire Gospel, shown as early as the beginning passages. Jesus must be seen as the Messiah who was prophesied about, who will be treated wholly as a prophet, though he is much greater. The birth narrative in Luke is also very similar to the birth of the prophet Samuel, from which Luke clearly modeled his account. [1]

In both Gospels, Mary’s virginity is made very clear, but for different reasons. Matthew, as appealing to a predominantly Jewish audience, proposes this belief so that it fulfills the words of the prophet Isaiah. Luke, however, proposes Mary’s virginity to stress that Jesus is the Son of God, not of just a human man. [2] Luke wants to present Jesus as a prophet so that he is seen a great messenger of God, with the message of his salvation and of the kingdom of God.

The genealogy account, so prevalent in Matthew since it was told before Jesus’ birth narrative, traces Jesus’ ancestry to Abraham through his father Joseph. Luke also has a genealogy though it has discrepancies from Matthew’s and is traced back to God, showing the Jesus is not only for the Jews, but also the Gentiles. Luke’s genealogy account is also not presented until after Jesus’ baptism. Luke believes Jesus’ genealogy is important, but is not needed for the birth narrative, as he is presenting Jesus as a prophet.

Using a comparative method encourages the reader to understand the different emphases of the Gospel authors. Luke, through his birth narrative, is emphasizing the message to his community that Jesus is a prophet, while Matthew is presenting Jesus to his audience as the Messiah they have been waiting for. With the differences between the birth narratives, why are their elements mixed to create a cohesive birth narrative? Why do we not learn both separately and emphasize the elements at Mass? Do we not know how to reconcile the differences? If we cannot do this in the church, how do we do this individually?

[1] Ehrman, B.D. The New Testament (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004),

132.

[2] Ehrman, B.D. The New Testament (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004),

128.

Blog #4 Chelsey Richter

We have seen that the New Testament did not emerge as a single collection of 27 books immediately, but that different groups of early Christians had different collections of sacred books—not only different books, but different versions of the same book! Books in the ancient world could not be mass produced. Therefore, they were copied by hand and there was no other way. Since books were copied by hand, there was always the possibility that scribes would make mistakes and intentional changes in a book. Thus, today, we do not have the original books of the New Testament.[1]

In Luke’s account of the Jesus’ Passion is that He does not appear to experience any deep anguish over his coming fate. For a comparative example, we can look at Mark’s account where Jesus is said to become distraught and agitated. Jesus also tells his disciples that his soul is sorrowful unto death, in the Gospel of Mark. Also in Mark, Jesus prays 3 times to God to remove this cup from me, something that Luke does say in his gospel, but adds if you are willing. Luke’s Jesus is not fearful of his fate.[2] He knows that the end is not imminent.[3]

However, there is one verse in Luke that suggests that Jesus is in distress, Luke 22:43-44. But, was this verse originally in the Book of Luke? According to scholars, the important early manuscripts of the gospels of Luke lack these verses, but they were known to Christian writers of the second century and reflect tradition concerning the suffering of Jesus. Whether they were a part of the original text is debatable. [4] Verses 22:43-44 could have been added by scribes who felt uneasy over the fact that Jesus does not seem worried by his coming fate. Most translators are confident that these verses did not originally form part of Luke’s gospel but were later added by scribes because they did not appear in the oldest and many of the best manuscripts of the New Testament.[5]

---

[1] B.D. Ehrman, The New Testament, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004), 11.

[2] B.D. Ehrman, The New Testament, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004), 133.

[3] B.D. Ehrman, The New Testament, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004), 138.

[4] The New Oxford Annotated Bible, Oxford University Press, 2012.

[5] B.D. Ehrman, The New Testament, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004), 133.

Blog (3) William Stegbauer

In the book of Matthew, Jesus takes on a rabbinic trapping to legitimize himself as a spiritual authority to the Jewish peoples.  Given that a community was synonymous with a religious following, it’s both unique and unheard of that Jesus would be singled out amongst the community at that time to receive special instruction from John the Baptist.  In turn, it stands a further point of contrast from tradition that Jesus would pick John the Baptist as his spiritual liege rather than the established Levi priesthood tied with the accoutrements their tradition dictated.

Off in the miserable Judean wilderness we find a man touched by divine madness as much as a speeding bus touches an unobservant jay walker.  He dines on “locusts and wild honey”, wears a “camel hair” suit, and has a direct line of communication with the Divine[1].  In modern society we would view the rambling, raving homeless man doing the same routine both as a threat to our pleasant worldview and as a hallucinating psychotic.  But in the holiest of the Holy, the Temple, the priesthood makes a well respected social position for a man as well as allows for an active roll in Judean leadership on par with a lawyer does in today’s political and social circles. 

So why give this wild man spiritual authority?  He attracts multitudes.  Mathew had legions of followers seeking out this nutcase in 3:5.  John in turn seeks out Jesus lending spiritual authority to Jesus as John takes on the role of both teacher and then disciple. [2] We see in chapter 6 Jesus gets to his message of aesthetic lifestyle as a crux to understanding his teaching.  Monastic traditions of early church communities pick up these principles not in a Pelagian view trying to build the kingdom of heaven on earth but as a method to better observe Christ-like living.  Vows of poverty, celibacy, and the less common vow of silence allow an individual to abstain from earthly temptations which John observes and Jesus decries explicitly.   

Bibliography: Bowens, Lisa M. 2010. "The role of John the Baptist in Matthew's gospel." Word & World 30, no. 3: 311-318. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed March 6, 2012)

---

[1] NKJV Matthew 3:1-4

[2] Bowens, Lisa M. "The role of John the Baptist in Matthew's gospel." Word & World 30, no. 3 (June 1, 2010): 315. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed March 6, 2012).

Blog 3 Nic Lefebvre

    Throughout the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus used four different styles of teaching God’s Law for three different audiences.
    To the audience consisting of Pharisees, scribes, and other Jewish authorities, Jesus teaches that the laws they established have become traditions that are independent from the will of God. When speaking about one of these traditions Jesus says, quotes Isaiah saying, “‘This people honors me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching human precepts as doctrines.’” (1) Jesus challenges the intent of their enforced practices, and calling them hypocrites for teaching a rule to regulate behavior rather than to fulfill the will of God. Later, He will call these authorities hypocrites again for not practicing the rules they teach. Jesus exposes flaws within their doctrines, and emphasizes the need for pure intent in their practices.   
    For the gentiles, Jesus puts an emphasis on the importance of faith. The gentiles who come to Jesus are able to be saved by him because of their faith. When a gentile woman asks Jesus to save her daughter, at first he denies her because they are not children of Israel, but after demonstrating her faith, he says, “‘Woman, great is your faith! Let it be done for you as you wish.'” (2) He does not say whether they must follow all the Jewish traditions, but he does emphasize for them the golden rule; to love ones neighbor as oneself, and the need for a strong love of God.
    To his Jewish audience, probably the majority of Matthew’s audience, Jesus teaches both extreme commitment to faith as well as the Mosaic Law, but he restates the Mosaic Laws in a more strict manner. He says that the laws are to be followed more strictly then the Pharisees and Scribes if this followers with to enter the kingdom of heaven.
    To his disciples, Jesus is the most strict. Because of the parables and teachings he explains to them, he expects more from them and he tells them, “... ‘If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up the cross and follow me. For those who want to save their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake will find it. For what will it profit them if they gain the whole world but forfeit their life? Or what will they give in return for their life?” (3) By “bear the cross” , Jesus does not mean to merely deal with ones suffering, but rather to actively pursue suffering because of faithfulness to him. (4)
    These various styles of teachings can be seen as levels of commitment to God. It starts with traditions that are little more than mundane actions and ends with giving up all the desires of oneself and replacing their desires with the teachings of Jesus.


Works Cited




1. Matthew 15:8 (NAB)
2. Matthew 15: 28 (NAB)
Mathew 16:24-26 (NAB)
Poteet, Michael S. "Focus: Matthew 16:21-28: (Take Up Your Cross)." (Clergy Journal 84, no. 7, 2008), 47


Bibliography

Poteet, Michael S. "Focus: Matthew 16:21-28: (Take Up Your Cross)." (Clergy Journal 84, no. 7, 2008), 47

Blog 3 Kieran Harper

One part of the Gospel of Matthew that I found very interesting was the quote "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" in verse 7:12 (1). I had heard previously that this was where the "Golden Rule" had originated, but upon further research I learned that this was merely a reiteration of an already used phrase. Matthew uses the phrase as part of a moral lesson. Matthew 7 is spent not telling stories like many other parts of the Bible, but instead directly explaining a major concept of morality. 

The Golden Rule was stated in different forms by the Greeks, Confucius and in Jewish writings centuries before the time of Jesus (2). All of these sources of the rule state the same underlying meaning; the primary difference is only that the way Jesus supposedly said it is simpler, and therefore became more common. Another likely reason that it is more known in our society is the predominance of Christianity in our culture, making those teachings more likely to emerge in everyday life. 

Similar expressions are also present in the teachings of Islam and Buddhism, showing that this is a frequently recurring theme throughout religious morality. Matthew also provides another similar statement from Jesus to "love thy neighbor as thyself" in 22:39 (3) (4). The recurrence of this same principle, not only throughout Matthew but also throughout other religions and societies is what drew my interest. This certainly seems to be one of a handful of ideas that are almost unanimously agreed upon among different major religions.

¹ NRSV Matthew 7:1-13, 22:37-40

² B.D. Ehrman, The New Testament, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004), 110.

³ K.D.Stanglin, "The Historical Connection Between the Golden Rule and the Second Greatest Love Command” Journal of Religious Ethics, 33, no. 5 (2005): p 357-371.

4  NRSV Matthew 7:1-13, 22:37-40

Bibliography

New Revised Standard Version. Oxford University Press, 2010.

Ehrman, B.D. The New Testament. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. 

Stanglin, K.D. "The Historical Connection between the Golden Rule and the Second Greatest Love Command." Journal of Religious Ethics. 33. no. 5 (2005): p 357-371.