Hello everyone, SLava Isusu Christu!

I would like to ask about the differences between the synoptic gospels and the gospel of John. What is/are the reason/s for the differences according to tradition and history? Are these differences important or do they only serve to deepen the understaning of the Christian mystery?

p.s. is it me, or are atheists really snobbish when it comes to religion?

Hey, Justin!

First of all, in a lot of cases, it's not just you; they are snobbish..."We're above that peasant nonsense."

As far as the difference between John and the rest of the Guys, I wrote a paper about this once. Can't find it now, but here's the basic jist of the idea.

While the Synoptics (the Guys) wrote more or less histories of Jesus (aimed at particular audiences, probably), John wrote a theology. He doesn't cite every thing that the Synoptics do...then again, the latter don't cite some of the things John does.

John has something like seven main sections, or some number like that. Each one starts out with an event/miracle, and then what follows is Jesus' teaching, which enlightens one as to the event/miracle that just happened. Hence, you'll have the feeding of the five thousand (I think) in chapter six of John, followed by the "Bread of Life discourse". Jesus' baptism is followed by his talks with Nicodemus and the woman at the well. It goes on like that. Each teaching of Jesus sheds light on the miracle or event that just happened; it's a theology of what just happened.

Outside of these seven sections, there's the account of the Passion and the Resurrection. Even here, you can see not just a historical narration, but the theology of what is happening as it is happening.

John is more theological than the Synoptics; these Guys mainly wrote biographies in comparison. I think, for this reason, Saint John is given the title of "Theologian" (isn't he?) in the Eastern Churches. I think the Western Church calls him Saint John the Divine (a divine was a theologian...at least that's what I read).

Hope this ramble has helped a bit...

[ 07-22-2002: Message edited by: Mor Ephrem ]

Indeed, Mor Ephrem, your comments are most appreciated and they illuminate quite nicely. Do you think that John was writing a Theological gospel with certain events not recorded otherwise because he wanted to stress their importance, or because the writers of the synoptics thought that these events were not biographically important.

Well, I think the reason John includes stuff the Synoptics don't is because the Synoptics were written earlier. If you go by the current scriptural scholarship, Mark was first, then Matthew and Luke later, and finally John. If you go by the preface to my Challoner NT, the gospels were written in the order in which they are found in the NT; in either case, John was written last. He probably knew the contents of the other gospels, and so included stuff that they didn't.

It would be a vast undertaking to re-write all of what the Synoptics had already written, and to "theologise" about it all. But by taking events that the others left out, and including Jesus' words which shed light on them, he was able to fill out the picture, so to speak.

Did the Synoptics feel that the events in John weren't important? I'm not sure. Some events, like the feeding of the five thousand and Jesus' baptism, are in the Synoptics. But others aren't. I think a lot of the gospel was preached by word of mouth, and so the written texts were written just to preserve the important stuff, with the hope that all the rest would also be passed on. Certainly, if we are to believe Saint John, the whole world couldn't contain all the books that would have to be written about all of Jesus' words and deeds. Hence, one couldn't set down a lot of things, and had to pick and choose. The Synoptics probably chose what they thought was necessary (each contains things the others don't, even though they share much of the same contents) and left stuff out. John probably knew what was and what wasn't included, and made his choices based on that.

“While the Synoptics (the Guys) wrote more or less histories of Jesus (aimed at particular audiences, probably), John wrote a theology. He doesn't cite every thing that the Synoptics do...then again, the latter don't cite some of the things John does.”

Wouldn't Mark, Matthew, and Luke be considered theologies too? Is the genre of a gospel merely biographical - a Life and Times of Jesus? The Synoptics include a Resurrection narrative, hardly a bio-graphical account since bios refers to earthly life and not a resurrection. Matthew and Luke include an Infancy narrative and Genealogy, which in themselves, actually try to make a theological point: Jesus was the One they were waiting for. If they were concerned about a "history' (something I think us contemporaries have an infatuation with) then Mt and Lk would have agreed on the details of Jesus' birth. They don't agree in the details; their nativity stories disagree greatly. But were they really interested in documenting historical data? Biographies aren't proclaimed, but homilies, sermons, and preachings are, hence the word given to all four: gospel or good news. John is very different from the Synoptics (Mt, Mk, Lk), but his literary structure or order is heavily based on the Elijah (Elias)-Elisha (Eleseus) cycles. Matthew seems to reflect a five-fold division of Jesus' teachings and a lot of Mosaic elements. Is this a Jewish scribe's attempt to convey a New Torah? If so, then Matthew was suggesting a theological revolution on par or greater than the Mosaic religion. Most of Jesus' life story (from his toddler years to the beginning of his ministry when he met John the Baptizer) is also missing. If a biography was the Evangelists' main concern, they did a poor job for they didn't care to document it. Mark doesn't even care about anything that happened in Jesus' life before his baptism in the River Jordan.


Joe

Dear Joe,

Your correction/clarification forces me to admit the secular nature of the paper I referred to in my first post. It was for an English professor, and was a literary analysis, with little/no religious consideration. Contradiction in terms, I guess, but I discussed the Gospels as literature, and not as Scripture, for purposes of the paper. So what I state above is more or less from that perspective. Your perspective is more complete, covering all bases, literary and theological. I, of course, defer to your greater knowledge of the Scriptures.

With my explanation given, I would really appreciate it if you could expand on what I quoted from your post above. I've heard a little bit about the "new Torah" stuff with regard to Matthew, but not enough to be able to know what it is; could you explain that? What are these five divisions you speak of? And what's with the "Elijah-Elisha cycles" with regard to John? I've never heard of that...thanks!

To the Catholic_Servant86:

Perhaps I can "shed some light" on your question:

As stated accurately in an earlier post, the Synoptics were written primarily to a certain audience. For example: Matthew is obviously Jewish flavored. One example supporting and showing this is when Jesus' ancestry is traced to Abraham, who was the first patriarch (FATHER) of Israel; in Luke's gospel, written to Gentiles, shows the ancestry of Jesus being traced entirely back to Adam. Which is correct? They both are since they are addressing the needs for different cultures. Mark's gospel does not mention Jesus' ancestry. The reason is simple: Mark's gospel was written to Roman citizens, which at that time was the melting pot of the world; so Mark had to write his Good News for all cultures and backgrounds to understand..he had no need to focus on a particular one as Matthew and Luke did.

John's gospel was written to give more of a personal and philosophical insight to our Lord. Knowing what the other 3 gospels contained, since his was the last one written, John did not have to concentrate on the events and stories that convinced the readers that Jesus was the Messiah. It is in this gospel ONLY where the true Lord's Prayer is given: John Chapter 17.

I hope this was of help. God Bless.

Walter Metrick
waltermetrick@aol.com

Dear Walter,

But with John's focus on the Logos et alia did he not then try to address the educated Hellenic crowd?

Did he not try to show that the faith of Christ is just as much the domain of the intelligent as well as the simple, reaching out to the "movers and shakers" of his time?

Just wondering.

Alex

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Orthodox Catholic:
[QB]Dear Walter,

>>>But with John's focus on the Logos et alia did he not then try to address the educated Hellenic crowd?<<<

It was once thought that John's Gospel was heavily hellenized, particularly because of its reliance on Logos theology and its light/dark dichotomies. However, in the last thirty years, with the publication of the Dead Sea Scrolls and other first century documents, we now recognize that John was firmly in the mainstream of first century Palestinian Judaism, and that in many ways, his Gospel is the most "Jewish" of the four. And while the redacted final edition may date to the last decade of the first century, there are definitely elements within it that are from the earliest strata of Tradition, so that the beginning of John may date to the 40s, making it the oldest of all.

Dear Stuart,

Yes, I always thought that the emphases in John reflected more classicaly Judaic theological perspectives than Hellenic.

Some recent research seems to suggest that the influence of Judaic thought and theology in early Christianity had a far greater role to play than Hellenic.

In fact, there seemed to be something of a concerted effort by some European biblical scholars to try and underscore Hellenism and underline for it a role in early Christianity that it simply did not have.

It seems to me that Jewish philosophy, the healthiest and most comprehensive from the holistic point of view, needs to be given a more central focus here and in our spiritual lives.

For me, when in the Brothers Karamazov mention is made of "loving life with your whole stomach," that is a good example of the passion and zest for life that comes from the Jewish heritage of Christianity.

Alex

"... his Gospel is the most "Jewish" of the four."

In our Synoptic Gospel class at my professor's home last night, we discussed this as well as how John's account of the Last Supper might be the best version. John's Gospel is also a series of chiastic structures.

For your studies:
http://homepages.picknowl.com.au/sherpub/book/threeb.html

[ 07-30-2002: Message edited by: J Thur ]

There is an important point that needs to be made:

It can become quite fruitless at times to get into these "intellectual" pursuits concerning Scriptures.

They were given to us to read and obey. If we intellectualize and theologize too much, we end up treating a Bible study as a critical reading and evaluation course at the local community college.

So let us learn it.....obey it......and proclaim it. The Protestants are already kicking our tails in knowledge, memorization, and evangelization.

Peace,
Walter Metrick

Dear Walter,

Amen to that!

Joe Thur's references to "chiastic" whatever had me going there for a bit . . .

I think it is great that we have such luminaries as Joe Thur and Stuart, but not every one is called to be a theological heavyweight.

I think we can leave the organization of our liturgical life to them.

I'll leave the preaching to people like you, if I may, unless either of the above promise to speak to our people more with Grade 12 type terminology.

Alex

Walter,

Take this simple test:

Using the Principle of Sola Scriptura, tell me how it was decided which books were to be considered scripture and included in the New Testament? Where in the NT text is a list of NT books? (The Table of Contents came centuries later and this is not the list I am talking about)

Don't intellectualize or theologize. Just use the Bible to get your answer. Let's discuss.

[ 07-31-2002: Message edited by: J Thur ]

Dear Walter,

To answer Joe's question, just use your basic hermeneutic paradigms within a contextual perspective predicated on interpretive notions whose norms are grounded in historicity.

See, simple!

Alex

I will reply as respectfully as I can:

First of all, I will not respond anymore to a "Sola Scriptura" methodology, or mentality, or approach, whatever word you choose; I did at one time (it was the Pentecostal fundamentalists who gave me the gospel of redemption which saved me from a 20-year bout with drugs and alcohol, no catholics at the time seemed to be interested enough or knew better enough to share their faith at a time I desperately needed it, I mention this just in passing).

Second, if you are trying to say that the church intellectually and theologically picked the books of the new testament I will have to respectfully disagree. My Bible has Jesus saying to the apostles that the "Holy Spirit will lead you into all truth"; so that is how the church fathers decided upon the NT books.

Now if the Holy Spirit wishes to intellectualize and theologize, He may go ahead..it is no business of mine...I will not tell the Third Person of the Trinity how to carry on His ministry


Peace,
Walter

"To answer Joe's question, just use your basic hermeneutic paradigms within a contextual perspective predicated on interpretive notions whose norms are grounded in historicity."

Alex,

Then you answer the question. Walter already discounted the Church as having authority to pick what it considered to be Scripture. He, of course, refuses to discuss the aforesaid "Sola Scriptura" based on his bad experience of not having any caring Catholic around twenty years ago when he needed them. I can understand how this might have disturbed him, but it still doesn't answer the question.

Before you blow off this seemingly pithy question, I should note that it was the stumbling-block question that many former Evangelicals had to answer truthfully before they found Catholicism or Orthodoxy. It all has to do with authority. Walter deflects this issue onto the Holy Spirit alone, but fails to note how Jesus did give authority to his Apostles. Another question while we are at it: Is Theosis possible only with the Holy Spirit or is the participation of Man needed (aka, 'synergy')? But that can be for another thread.

Walter also considers the participation of the Evangelists as like passive robots who allowed the Holy Spirit to do the real work. Sounds like a good answer, but he will then have to answer the skeptic's charge that the same Evangelists wrote too many contradictions in their Gospel accounts, which prove that the Gospels were just made up out of thin air. Will the Holy Spirit also be responsible for that?

Once again: Using the Principle of Sola Scriptura, tell me how it was decided which books were to be considered scripture and included in the New Testament? Where in the NT text is a list of NT books? (The Table of Contents came centuries later and this is not the list I am talking about). No need to apply any hermeneutic paradigms within a contextual perspective predicated on interpretive notions whose norms are grounded in historicity.

Sorry for getting off the topic of John's Gospel. But since this thread is about John's Gospel, maybe you and/or Walter can explain why he disagrees with Matthew, Mark and Luke as to what day the Last Supper was shared?

Joe

[ 07-31-2002: Message edited by: J Thur ]

First of all, it is obvious that John does not record all the details of the meal in and of itself. But the evangelist has provided us with certain words and actions that provides more insight to Jesus' behavior and nature...which is the thematic element of his gospel.

As Joe has pointed out, the chronology of John's is different than that of the Synoptics. John has the Last Supper occuring before the Passover, while the other 3 evangelists depict the Last Supper as the Passover meal.

One explanation could be that the Pharisees and other groups in Israel celebrated Passover a day earlier than, let us say, the Sadducees. Another explanation that theologians have used is there was 2 different calendars that were in use at this time. Support for this theory supposedly has been provided by the Dead Sea Scrolls. ( I am not that familiar enough with the Scrolls to actually quote verses supporting this, sorry.)

Other possibilities:
One of the calendars was figured by the solar year, the other calendar by the lunar year; or, there was a difference in days as recognized by the temple and that by the Qumran Essenes; or, Jesus, having been chastised by the temple priesthood and considered as a radical apostate, might have been forced to celebrate the feast at a different time thant the others.

Whatever answer we may opt for, I guess there can be no other conclusion than Jesus DID celebrate the meal with the apostles on Thursday evening, that the trial before Pilate and His crucifixion occurred on Friday...and later on Friday afternoon the Lord's Body was placed in the tomb.

St. John, however, focuses our attention on Jesus' washing the feet of the apostles. He also informs us that Jesus was certainly aware of the plot against Him (13:3).

This has been debated for some time among theologians whether John's meal was the actual meal or not; yet is appears that is occurs on the same night as the arrest and betrayal.

And as far as Joe stating that I made the evangelists out to be passive robots because they were led by the Holy Spirit...I give you Jesus' words:

"And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Counselor to be with you forever - the Spirit of Truth." (John 14:16)

"But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom my Father will send in my name, WILL TEACH you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you." (John 14:26)

"But when He, the Spirit of truth comes, He WILL GUIDE you into all truth. He will not speak on His own, He will speak only what He hears, and He WILL TELL YOU what is to come." (John 16:13)

"...do not worry beforehand about what you are to say. But say whatever WILL BE GIVEN TO YOU at that hour. For it will NOT BE YOU who are speaking but the Holy Spirit." (Mark 13:11)

I think passive robots was a bit too strong, don't you? I was merely giving praise to the Holy Spirit as being the One responsible for leading the Church to correctly select the writings which God wanted us to relish.

And my reason for warning about intellectualizing scripture studies is I have seen it happen many times in the past: An individual asks a sincere question, and those who respond can get off on a theological tangent, get sidetracked with other issues and forget all about the basic question....kinda what we did, huh?

Love and Peace
Walt Metrick

Dear Cantor and Mentor Joe,

Anyone, such as yourself, who can take a cynical comment such as mine and turn it around into a "snare" for scriptural consideration is not only a good teacher, but a great one!

Certainly, and without a doubt, "Sola Scriptura" falls on its own premises.

There is no biblical statement anywhere that affirms which of the many orthodox scriptural texts are part of the actual "Canon" of the New Testament.

That was entirely based on the judgement of the Church.

To accept the 27 books of the New Testament is to, at one and the same time, affirm the authority of the Church and submit to its inspired decision in this regard.

I frankly don't know about the discrepancy in John and the Synoptics.

I also don't understand why one Gospel states that Christ hung on the Cross for six hours rather than three.

I await instruction, Teacher!

Alex

Walter,

The above quotes are reassuring. Yet, many well-intentioned evangelicals claim that THEY are the ones backed by the Holy Spirit. How do we discern whether contradictory statements issued by evangelical preachers are due to their shortcomings or the Holy Spirit playing tricks on us?

Jesus' instructions in the four quotes you gave were directed only at his immediate disciples or Apostles (at the Last Supper discourse for John's quotes). They were not public discourses; the last public discourse in John being given in Jn 12.27-13.1. In John 14.16, Jesus responds to Thomas' question about knowing the way. In John 14.22, Judas (not Iscariot) asks why Jesus will disclose himself to them rather than the world. Both Thomas and Judas' questions are bookends to his main point of Jesus' manifestation of himself. Even Peter makes note of this in his speech in Caesarea. The role of the Holy Spirit, again, is spoken about in context of the disciples, the &#8220;chosen witnesses&#8221; per Peter (Acts 10.41). In John 16.13, Jesus' reference to the Holy Spirit is in relation to his disciple witnesses and not the public. Lastly, in Mark 13.11, the role of the Holy Spirit was discussed &#8220;privately&#8221; (Mk 13.3b) to Peter, James, John and Andrew (the Pillars of the Church) and not a public discourse. None of the four quotes you gave were public discourses; they were private addresses to his chosen disciples. Can anyone who simply picks up the Bible claim to have the Holy Spirit teach, tell, give and guide them in their interpretation? Can anyone simply take bread and wine and make it eucharist? Even the priest must "call down" the Holy Spirit (epiclesis) because even he doesn't have the power to change the offerings into our Lord's Body and Blood.

It is not so much that we go off onto &#8220;theological tangents&#8221; but that ordinary BIBLE-BELIEVING Christians do ask these questions. I remember a bunch of Baptist friends arguing over whether God can make a rock he can't lift? Isn't this intellectualizing? How did the Spirit lead many to conclude the end of the world would soon happen? How does one explain the Millerites, Mormons, Shakers, and Perfectionists? Millenialism, Post-Millenialism, and Dispensationalism?

Joe

Dear Joe,

That's all well and good.

But please remember I'm taking tomorrow off and you've yet to answer that issue about the time of the Last Supper.

You're not going to leave me in suspense for the next four days are you?

Alex

Dear Joe:

In response to:
Jesus' instructions in the 4 quotes you gave were directed only at his immediate disciples or Apostles...they were not public discourses...

For one, the Bishops of the early church received their office from the Apostles--Ignatius of Antioch makes this perfectly clear--so this promise from Jesus to the Apostles is transferrable to the Bishops....once again, this is how they knew which writings were "inspired" and would eventually make up what we now call the N.T.

Your question:
How do we discern whether contradictory statements issued by evangelical preachers are due to their shortcomings or the Holy Spirit playing tricks on us?

The Holy Spirit would NEVER play a trick on anyone, and I'm sure every devout follower of Christ knows that. The problem(s) may present itself (themselves) because of the difference between interpretation and application.

For example:
The rich young man that the Lord addresses in...hmmmm, we'll use Luke's version (18:18-23).
We are all familiar with this story. A rich young ruler asks our Lord what must he do to inherit eternal life. Jesus tells him, and he replies I have done all of these things. Jesus, however, recognizes his one flaw...his attachment to his possessions...so He tells him to sell what he has and give it to the poor. The young man does not care to hear this, so he walks away.

Now we must look at how an interpretation and application can differ depending upon the leading of the Holy Spirit...not church authority for example.

The interpretation would be as follows:
Each one of us is to put ourselves in the place of the young ruler; we tell Jesus what WE have done to inherit eternal life: I was baptized, I was confirmed, I received my first Holy Communion, I pray the Office and Rosary daily.....etc. But Jesus says to each and every one of us, "Ah yes, on the outside you look good, but you have this one flaw."

The application is where contradictions and disagreements may occur. Someone who is wealthy and is in bondage to the idolatry of money and possessions would need to take this passage literally; but someone who has a different flaw than this in their heart would NOT take this literally.

Here is where each individual must follow the leading of the Holy Spirit that will be different and unique than others. This is when evangelicals will disagree and even split with each other. There have hundreds (probably thousands) of churches and movements that have started this way: not understanding and/or tolerating the difference between interpretation and application.

The Holy Spirit may indeed give a million DIFFERENT applications of this message to a million different believers without the Holy Spirit ever contradicting Himself. Does this make sense?

We can end up putting God "in a box" if we just confine Him to church mandates. The church DOES have the authority to interpret the scripture passage, but it doesn not have the authority to tell the individual believer in what area of their life they are to apply it to...that is the conviction aspect/job of the Holy Spirit.

The rich young man obeyed all the Mosaic laws, he was under temple authority, yet Jesus shows us he was far from being a true follower. Our re-birth, regeneration caused by the Holy Spirit, makes us true Christians...not external rituals.

We must also take into account the Bible's admonishment of "do not enter into disputes with them" (Romans 14:1). Christians are going to disagree on things. At the time this was written, believers disagreed on what could be eaten: some thought anything and some thought only vegetables.
St. Paul goes on to write: "The man who will eat anything MUST NOT ridicule him who abstains from certain foods......each should be certain of his own conscience" (Romans 3-5).

What is in our conscience will come from the Holy Spirit. The times that we disagree can also be caused by each individual being on a different level of spiritual progress.

I have learned this in the bible studies I have attended/taught: I may say "let us turn to the book of Revelation" only to find that 1/2 of the people there do not even know where to begin to look for it. As a believer, they each possess the Holy Spirit, but that does not mean they each possess the same amount of spiritual wisdom/knowledge/awareness. This is why I think there can and will continue to be differences that appear to be contradictions.

Peace,
Walt Metrick

"Your question: How do we discern whether contradictory statements issued by evangelical preachers are due to their shortcomings or the Holy Spirit playing tricks on us? The Holy Spirit would NEVER play a trick on anyone, and I'm sure every devout follower of Christ knows that. The problem(s) may present itself (themselves) because of the difference between interpretation and application."

I agree the Holy Spirit will never play tricks on anyone, but I have witnessed Christian communities split over little issues - like if they should have individual cups for their 'communion' service or one single goblet; all depending on whether the Last Supper was a Passover Meal or a meal with one shared cup. Each side stated that THEY had the Holy Spirit on their side. But I agree with you that the difference may actually lie in the interpretation and application. I only have to think of the diverse practices of distributing communion in the Catholic and/or Orthodox churches! But at a different level, some Orthodox patriarchs have stated that there are "ontological" differences between Catholics and Orthodox. This is a different story.


"For example: The rich young man that the Lord addresses in...hmmmm, we'll use Luke's version (18:18-23). The application is where contradictions and disagreements may occur. Someone who is wealthy and is in bondage to the idolatry of money and possessions would need to take this passage literally; but someone who has a different flaw than this in their heart would NOT take this literally."

Why would the wealthy need to take it literally? Why would those with a different flaw not take it literally? If I was poor, I would take it literally because I would want those wealthy folks to distribute their riches a little bit more democratically. Think of those Enron employees who were not able to benefit from selling their stock, whereas the executives were able. If I was wealthy, I would want to brush off the literal request to pitch my wealth. Literal or not, maybe there is another interpretation that goes beyond the mere obvious: how about the superiority of Jesus' law over the commandments (the "old Law") ? Under the old Law the rich young man kept the commandments and still got rich, demonstrating that the Old Law didn't change much in the area of social justice. Jesus' New Law, the Law of the Beatitudes (Mt 5:3-12 // Lk 6:20b-26), asks for something more.

Now, things get muddier when we look at the differences (contradictions?) between Matthew's version of the Beatitudes and Luke's version. Luke includes only four Beatitudes (Lk 6:20b-23) and four Woes (Lk 6:24-26). Luke mentions "the poor" (6:20b) but Matthew mentions the "poor in spirit" (Mt 5:3a). Luke follows up with a Woe for those who are "rich" and their "consolation" (Lk 6:24) but Matthew doesn't. Luke mentions those who "hunger now" (Lk 6:21a) but Matthew mentions those who "hunger and thirst for righteousness" (Mt 5:6). Luke follows up with a Woe unto those who are "full now" (Lk 6:25a) but Matthew doesn't. In the first two cases, Matthew 'spiritualizes' the poor and the hungry; Luke doesn't. It would seem that Luke leans more towards social justice here-and-now, but Matthew is more spiritualized and not so demanding - almost vague. Continuing, Luke has Jesus bless those who "weep" (Lk 6:21b) and woes those who "laugh now" (Lk 6:25b). Matthew doesn't. Matthew goes on with more social-justice lite Beatitudes. It is no wonder why Matthew's Beatitudes are favored in churches. Too many stares would be given if we chanted Luke's version with his woeful nastygrams aimed at the rich.

There is an oddity between Luke's version (Lk 18:18-23) and Matthew's. Luke and Mark agree that Jesus' response was, "Why do you call me good?" (Mk 10:17b//Lk 18:19a) whereas Matthew asks, "Why do you ask me about what is good?" Matthew does not equate the good with Jesus; Luke and Mark do. Luke (and Mark) agree that the "good" that the "man" (Mk) or "ruler" (Lk) asks is Jesus himself. Matthew doesn't, for the "good" is a mere "deed" (Mt 19:16a). Now, this can lead to many interpretations, but if one begins with the rule of sola scriptura, one is fenced in. What is the good - Jesus or a deed?

Without considering whether the Holy Spirit aided me in my interpretation or not, and not using any authoritative pronouncements form the church, I have remained within the text of the Gospels alone. In the case of the Rich Young Man and the Beatitudes we are left with seemingly different takes on what constitutes a blessing/beatitude and what is good. How do we reconcile such contradictions if we remain in confines of the text? Those adhering to Sola Scriptura are caught between a rock and a hard place. Marcion took care of the contradiction problem in his own way.


"Here is where each individual must follow the leading of the Holy Spirit that will be different and unique than others."

It is quite unanimous that the Orthodox and Catholic churches have preferred Matthew's social justice lite to Luke's hit-the-wealthy-where-it-counts version of the Beatitudes for the Liturgy. We love to hear about the "poor in spirit," the "meek," those who "hunger and thirst for RIGHTEOUSNESS" (so Torah like for Matthew's scribal-like character), the "merciful," the "pure in heart," the "peacemakers," etc. We don't hear about the woes to the "rich," those who are "full now," and those who "laugh now." Is there a reason why we prefer the spiritualized version? I question how many monasteries on Mt. Athos were built with funds from the laity? Now, we can say, if we believe that the Evangelist Matthew was the same Matthew known as the tax-collector for watering down the bit about the wealthy here-and-now, but it can also be understood as a scribe's (a half-century later) desire to honor the Torah in a different light.


"The Holy Spirit may indeed give a million DIFFERENT applications of this message to a million different believers without the Holy Spirit ever contradicting Himself. Does this make sense?"

I agree. For those different applications begin right in the Gospels themselves! The Evangelists spoke to different communities and their versions (Gospel "according to") reflect that. It has been asked many times how the Universal Church can contain multiple theological Traditions and still remain one? We just have to look at the Gospels for the answer. The message proclaimed overrides the apparent contradictions. Literalism and Fundamentalism can't see the forest for the trees.


"The rich young man obeyed all the Mosaic laws, he was under temple authority, yet Jesus shows us he was far from being a true follower. Our re-birth, regeneration caused by the Holy Spirit, makes us true Christians...not external rituals."

Well put.

[ 08-03-2002: Message edited by: J Thur ]