[Faith-talk] 9/26/16 Baffling Bible Questions Answered, and Info On How to Access Cjoy Internet Radio

[Paul Smith]

Hello and greetings once again to astute Bible students out there.  I 
hope that your day is going well, by God's matchless grace and His 
providential care.

Today we continue looking at the Gospel of Matthew with some 
information that I never considered personally, and I thought I knew 
everything about this book, but I don't.  Let's dive in, shall we?



Matthew 4:5-10

Question:  Matthew and Luke differ in the order of the three 
temptations experienced by Jesus.  They both cannot be right; one is 
obviously wrong--a biblical error.

Answer:  The answer to this objection, and others where a sequence of 
events differ in two Gospel accounts, is found in the fact that there 
is more than one way to appropriately order events in any historical 
record.  Some histories are written chronologically.  Others are 
written thematically; that is, events are reported in a sequence that 
develops the writer's theme rather than a strict temporal order.  We 
understand this as a methodological matter, and we surely do not accuse 
a thematic author of error simply because he treats events out of 
chronological sequence.  We would charge Matthew or Luke with error 
only if there was evidence that each claimed to be reporting the three 
temptations chronologically.

So the question is, do Matthew and Luke claim to report the temptations 
in temporal sequence? A look at the original Greek manuscript makes it 
clear that Matthew was writing chronologically.  He says, "then" (4:5, 
_tote) and, "again" (5-8, (palin).  These terms specifically indicate 
sequence.  So Matthew does claim to provide a chronological report of 
the temptations.  But Luke simply links the events by the Greek words 
_kai and _de, translated "and" (Luke 4:2,6).  These conjunctions have 
no specific chronological implications and link the temptations very loosely.

Rather than that the two accounts prove an error in the Bible, the 
original language makes it very clear there is no conflict and that 
Luke purposely and consciously abandoned chronological order to develop 
a thematic point.



Matthew 5:1-12

Question:  What does "blessed" mean, and how are these classes of 
people we would consider to be disadvantaged actually blessed?

Answer:  The Greek _makarios is sometimes rendered "happy" in modern 
versions.  But this misses the point of the underlying Hebrew concept.  
We might express it better in the interjection:  "Oh, the blessedness 
of ...." The basic idea is that the person who is blessed has been 
favored by God in some important way.

The Beatitudes do not claim that those who are poor in spirit, who 
mourn, or who hunger and thirst for righteousness are happy.  Rather 
they claim that such persons are better off than those characterized by 
opposite qualities.  Many books have been written exploring the exact 
meaning of such phrases as "poor in spirit" (Matthew 5:3).  The chart 
below summarizes likely interpretations of each Beatitude and the 
reason that a person characterized by this trait is blessed by God and 
better off than one who lacks it.

THE BEATITUDES

Poor in spirit (v. 3) utterly dependent on God--inherit God's kingdom.

Those who mourn (v. 4).  sensitive to and contrite for sins, will be 
comforted (see also Isa. 61:1-3).

The meek (v. 5), gentle, without malice to others, will inherit the (new) earth

Those who hunger and thirst for righteousness (v. 6)--eagerly desire 
personal righteousness and social justice--will be satisfied when 
Messiah comes and establishes both.

The merciful (v. 7)--show forgiveness and compassion--receive mercy from God.

The pure in heart (v. 8)--moral purity versus external piety--will see 
God (experience His presence).

The peacemakers--encourage reconciliation with God and others--model 
themselves on God and thus earn the description "sons."

The persecuted for righteousness--committed to what is right--enjoy now 
what it means to live in God's kingdom.



Matthew 5:13

Question:  How can salt lose its saltiness? What does this saying mean?

Answer:  In the first century A.D., salt was used not only to flavor 
food but also as a preservative.  Most salt was rock salt, obtained 
from salt marshes, and not the purified substance we know or that the 
ancient world derived from evaporated seawater.  This salt was mixed 
with soil, deteriorated under high heat, and was leached away by water. 
Thus, it lost its saltiness and became useless as a preservative.  
Jesus here warns His disciples that they can serve as a preservative in 
society only if they retain their virtue and refuse to adopt the 
world's low, changing moral standards.

And there you have your latest weekly look at Matthew's Gospel which I 
hope and pray was a blessing for you.

And now here's info on how to access cjoyinternetradio.com.
If you just want to listen to my God-directed radio show only without 
commenting live, just go to
http://www.cjoyinternetradio.com
and click on your player of choice.

If you'd like to be a fellow broadcaster along with me, hoping that 
Darryl Breff, the station owner and operator will open the conference 
line for any feedback, just use your phone, provided you have an 
unlimited long-distance plan, and call
218-548-1428
and, when prompted enter the code Jesus (53787) and hopefully you will 
be there.  After the quotes for tomorrow, in place of the news, I'll 
essentially repeat what I've written here, just in case you didn't jot 
down it for now.

And that will do for the weekly baffling Bible Questions Answered for 
now.  Until next Monday when, Lord willing the next installment in this 
series will be posted, may the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob just 
keep us safe, individually and collectively, in these last days in 
which we live.  Your Christian friend and brother, Paul