Bible Topics

The OT finally arrives at the notion of God as eternal and universal Father. The New Testament picks up this quality. If God is Father than all mankind is the family of the Father. The universal brotherhood of all people is in the Fatherhood of God. The teachings of the New Testament develop what this brotherhood has to be and how it is to be accomplished.

Now I can finish writing "Who Is God?" I like what has developed.

(Editor's Note: "Who is God" monograph is on this website.)

The more I read and study the writings of St. Paul, the more I am sure Luke had an editorial hand in all of them. Luke's Gospel stresses the place of women and their equality to counter the attitudes of Paul. There is no doubt Paul is a misogynist and the structured church took all his ideas and incorporated them into laws, especially in the 1918 Code.

We know the Infancy Gospel (Luke) was not part of the original Kerygma as is seen from the Didache and Mark's Gospel. These were written as introductions toward the end of the last century. Hence all these scenes of magic, annunciation, birth and shepherd and Angels would be literary creations to give an intro to the whole story. That would also explain why these scenes do not become important in Art until the time of Francis of Assisi and later.

You said you had not heard the theories about the early or introductory parts of Luke's Gospel. This was the first part of the Gospel story questioned as historical accuracy. These were being challenged when I first entered the field in Oc-oc in 1943. George Corbett presented a very good summary in Apologetics and was immediately challenged by Boucher, the scripture prof. George talked it over with John Zeller who was still alive and in Oc-oc. He came to class and gave a tremendous presentation.

Our oldest documents, Didache, Apostolic Kerygma, and Apostolic fathers, do not comment on these parts of the Gospel. Mark has introductory stories but starts right off with John Baptist preaching and baptizing.

As the Gospels according to Luke and Matthew were edited, the community or writers seemed to think an intro was necessary. So Matthew tells stories about kings and wisdom. Luke stresses stories of shepherd, angels and the importance of Mary as an educator and source of the ideas. John tells his story in relation to the whole creative plan and parallels the creative Word.

Once we realized the difference between western and Semitic history, this all made sense. The Apostolic Patres would be the only witness of the value from ancient times and they are not concerned with the question.

I realized that we have harmed the picture of Christ as a real man by talking about "prophecy." He talked about his suffering and death often because he was worried about it. He knew exactly what it would entail because he knew how much he antagonized the leaders, how much they hated him, and how the Romans put people to death. The voice talking from the sky is simply a way of saying he is the new Moses. The dove is saying he is the new Noah. The Son of Man is the hero of Daniel. The Son of God is the King of Israel. These are not presented as prophecies fulfilled but as categories of thought which the people saw in Christ from thirty to a hundred years after he died.

This is the first time I have spent so much time on Mark and I'm glad I am doing this work last. Because he wrote a generation or two earlier, and for a different audience, many of the developments of ideas are not present because the questions had not yet arisen.

I have finished the commentary on the 4 Gospels. It is a work I started in 1963 and did not finish because I couldn't find answers that satisfied me at that time. I was bound in by a lot of dogmas and theological opinions which I did not accept and could not dodge.

This time, I could read and explain freely according to the basic rules of all linguistic interpretation. I always thought the picture of Christ appeared to be pietistic or contrived or unreal and there was always this (topic of) dual natures in one person. With anyone else, such a personality would be called schizoid.

Now, Christ becomes a real person. He has no formal education in any school. He was the gifted kid. When he came in contact with the official teachers in Jerusalem, he was amazed at their interpretation of the Torah. He spouted off and the teachers listened. When he came home, he continued to mull over the big questions. His answers were more and more divergent. Finally, at age 30, he decided to speak his piece. Other men around him spread his ideas farther.

He worried about and was afraid of the violent end that would come soon. He knew what was coming. He was torn between his ideas and the opposition.

Mark will be the shortest commentary but the other three are about equal in length. I reviewed all 4 and am pleased with the results. They represent years of study, discussion and teaching.

The picture of Christ is as a very real man. I think he is the son of Joseph and Mary, like any other child. The word "parthenon" which Jerome translated as "virgin" is "queen-mother" everywhere else. The position of "queen-mother" was the second in all kingdoms.

Jesus himself was a gifted child, a Lone Crusader, and a fearless talker. He had insights into the real meaning of the Torah which he got from his family and community in the synagogue of Nazareth. At age 12, he learned how off-base the official teachers were and began his opposition. At age 30, he decided his passion was to work the whole nation. Only after his death did his followers see him as a great religious founder.

The title Gospel or Good News According to Matthew or John, tells us little. So I'll use something like this: Good News: You Can Live in a Kingdom; Good News: Salvation is for Everybody; Prayer Helps If you Do it Rightly; Women's Rights and Dignity Restores; The Good News: True Love Conquers All; True Love is Service.

These snippets touch the essence of the message immediately. Then subheadings will show how they are developed. None of the commentaries is long or tedious — yet each is thorough and solid.

We are told to imitate Christ who was a God-man. He was sinless. He couldn't even be tempted. Then how are we supposed to imitate him? Then came all the double talk about having the beatific vision but suspending the effects. It was like having the movie but not turning on the machine. Now I can show a Christ who was especially like Abe Lincoln — a man who had to make huge decisions and had to make them mostly alone.

I have thought and thought about who killed Jesus and the relationship of Christians and Jews. First of all, Luke tells us in Acts that the Christians continued to go to the synagogue or Temple for prayer services. However, they always ate their special meal together in one of their homes. The special part of this meal was that there were no clean or unclean foods. They ate what pleased the taste. Secondly, the special cup of bread dipped in wine was passed around at every meal instead of just at the Seder. Jesus had taught that a lot of dietary laws and ritual practices, especially about the Sabbath, need not be followed because they were Pharisaic interpretations and impositions.

In John's Gospel, the term "Jews" is used and always refers to the leaders in their opposition to Christ and is a term of disrepute.

Who put Jesus to death? Pilate ordered his death and Roman soldiers carried it out. However, all four of the Gospels stress it was because of the insistence of the Jewish leaders who stirred up the crowds. In fact, Pilate tried several times to get him freed but the leaders of the Jews insisted on the death penalty. They can't pass such a penalty and so they hand him to the Romans.

"Liturgy" means the "work of the people." The liturgy was to be the contribution of the people to the ritual of worship in contrast to the role of the priest. There was to be nothing ritualistic. It was to be as free and adaptable as the meals in various homes.

Who was Jesus Christ? Over the years, I have put in many hours looking for answers. The main problem, prior to a few months ago, was that I always started with a certain number of unestablished premises. He was the God-man. He was the second person of the Triune God. He became man. He sent the Holy Spirit, another God-person. He knew everything as God but he had to learn everything as man. The God and man were perfectly united in the one person yet knew everything without flashing it to the human mind. — When I questioned all of these, I was told the infallible Pope said I couldn't (question). — To say the least this was a jumble.

Now I start with the fact that he was a true human being who gradually became convinced he had to do something to put the world straight. He came to see the personal danger involved. He was frightened by the danger and ran time and time again. Finally, he figured he had laid the foundation well enough that he could afford to die. He was sure he would be raised from the dead in keeping with the Jonah story of the Old Testament.

He pondered the prophets — wise earnest men who preceded him and came to a deeper insight into their messages. He knew he was on the right track because he shared in the special curative powers of previous prophets.

We have four accounts of his life that were written before the last Apostle died. These we are sure were accepted as authentic accounts by the various communities. Now it is up to us to put these stories in their historical setting, learn what they have to say, and apply them to our world, today.

In Mark, Jesus is a challenger of the status quo — Jewish or pagan. He sees a need to shake society up and establish a new unity.

Luke comes from several aspects of society as he knows it. First, he is a medical doctor of the times and his first contact with the ideas of Christ came while he was treating Paul's illness. Luke's first notion is "Salwa." We translate that in theology as "salvation" and then start talking about the soul. Luke saw the notion as "health" — total health — physical, mental, emotion and spiritual. This was the first offering of Christ. Secondly, it applied to all people, poor and rich alike. Thirdly, it gave true human dignity and partnership to women.

Matthew saw everything as the full picture of what was promised. Matthew sees everything that precedes Christ as a sort of "negative" from which the true picture is to be developed. This developed picture will involve a "Moses" or leader who outlines the road to "happiness." It will present a "king" and "kingship" in a real and detailed sense. Jesus will be the Qoheleth, the Gatherer, through his "church." He will work toward real "sharing" by all people. He will establish the Fatherhood of God through the Brotherhood of man.

Finally, John says the whole picture boils down to "love" but love means honest service of each other in all details of life. This love and service will establish the "holy Spirit" or the bond of community among all peoples.

This was a huge picture and one which Jesus already glimpsed at the age of 12. He and John the Baptist talked about these ideas again and again. Finally, John started out to tell the world. Six months later, Jesus shows up. I don't think he intended any more than to join up with John. Then his ideas took over and mushroomed. He had to avoid the authorities. Finally, he could get away no more — so he decided to leave it to the followers.

His "tetelestai" or "it is consummated" in John means: "I've done my best! I've done all I can! Now the rest is up to you!"