Blog Assignment #12, Response to Question #3

The biblical passages detailing the feeding of five thousand, accounts of the Last Supper, and Jesus’ appearance before two of his disciples on the road to Emmaus all share similar themes regarding the celebration of the Eucharist. Through the descriptions of Jesus’ Last Supper set by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, a standard structure for a ritual meal is established. In this, Jesus foretells his death to the Twelve Apostles and invites them to share a meal of bread and wine with him. Respectively, these items represent Jesus’ body and blood, which he gives up for his people in order to ensure their salvation. In the same regard, Luke’s story of the feeding of five thousand showcases elements of this ritual meal with Jesus breaking five loaves of bread and successfully feeding five thousand of his followers. Symbolically, this story represents another instance in which Jesus gives himself to his disciples. In addition, Jesus’ appearance on the road to Emmaus encompasses Eucharistic themes in that he shares a meal with the two disciples he encounters, breaks bread with them, and offers a blessing. Ultimately, all of these instances are festive meals in that they celebrate Jesus’ love and sacrifice for humanity.

While there are many parallels between these stories, there are ways in which their content differs. For instance, there is no mention of wine, a central component in each account of the Last Supper, in the feeding of five thousand or the appearance on the road to Emmaus. Rather, the feeding of five thousand explains that Jesus distributes bread and fish among his followers, and the appearance on the road to Emmaus simply details him eating bread with the two disciples.

The stories also focus on establishing different theological messages. In the case of the feeding of five thousand with only five loaves of bread and two fish, the prominent message seems to be that God will provide for all who have faith in Him. On a different note, the accounts of the Last Supper seem to focus on Jesus’ eternal love, showcasing that he was willing to die for the sins of humanity. Finally, the message in accordance with Jesus’ appearance on the road to Emmaus encourages people to possess an unwavering faith in God and Jesus, for even when they cannot be seen or known to humans, they are present throughout all aspects of life. 

Blog Assignment #11, Response to Question #1

 

The lines from Psalm 82 do an excellent job of characterizing the underlying message within the film Of Gods and Men. This message is primarily displayed through the monastic community of monks presiding in Algeria. Essentially, these lines mean to praise the monks for their incredible service to God, while at the same time, remind them of their humanity. In terms of performing God’s will, have devoted their lives to him and are a highly respectable group. They pray, sing, and study in His name each day all while providing medical service and assistance to the impoverished citizens of Algeria. What makes the monks’ actions so worthy is their continual support of the Algerian community even though the culture and religious views of its citizens are different from their own. However, while the work of these men embodies God’s eternal love for all people, at their cores, they are still humans and ultimately die like them. One is able to observe this at the conclusion of the film, when seven of the monks are captured and executed by an Islamic fundamentalist group that has been threatening the Algerian town that their monastery resides in.

One of the main instances in which I see God during this film is during the final scene leading up to the monks’ capture. Here, they share a Last Supper of sorts through a blessed meal of food, wine, laughter, music, and most importantly, love for one another. I find this to be an incredibly joyous scene, especially when the monks begin to cry. It is here that the monks realize how thankful they are for the community and friendship they share, as well as God’s assistance in giving them the courage to remain in Algeria and serve its citizens.

This film expresses an interesting duality regarding how people of different faiths can live in harmony with one another while at the same time face horrific disputes. The monks have a wonderful relationship with the Algerian citizens, and it is clear that both parties respect each other’s beliefs. A prime example of this is when one an Algerian citizen named Nouredine invites all of the monks to his son’s khtana. While this invite showcases a benign relationship between Christian and Muslim parties, there are many instances which express the opposite. The citizens of Algeria embrace the monks, but the Islamic fundamentalist group does not. It views them as a threat to its way of life and unfortunately demonstrates the violent outcomes which often result from opposing religious viewpoints by capturing and executing the majority of the monks.

Blog Assignment #10, Response to Question #1

One of the most controversial issues within the early Church was in characterizing the type of being Jesus existed as. Primarily, disputes occurred regarding whether Jesus could simultaneously fulfill the role of being both fully human and divine. While some believed Jesus to only partially satisfy each state, evidence from Scripture as well as the arguments of Bishop Alexander and his deacon, Athanasius, ultimately refute these contentions and demonstrate Jesus’ symbiotic relationship with God in which he is entirely human and divine.

The Gospel of John reflects Jesus’ ability to completely fulfill humanity and divinity. John states, “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. All things came to be through him, and apart from him not one thing came to be” (John 1:1-3). Essentially, John is showcasing Jesus’ humanity by claiming that he is a product of God. Logical evidence of the human nature of Jesus permeates the Bible. For instance, Jesus hungers, thirsts, and grows tired just as humans do. Additionally, he is capable of expressing a complete range of emotions. However, while Jesus is human, he also possesses special properties which make him divine. John continues his writing to refer to Jesus as “…the only-begotten Son, who was in the bosom of his Father” (John 1:18). With this being said, Jesus was not simply created by God like other humans. Rather, he is an extension of God and, as such, possesses divine powers. Alexander is able to encapsulate Jesus’ complex properties quite nicely through combining two passages found within Paul’s writings; he reminds us that Jesus is “‘the one whom he [God] established as heir of all things, through whom he even made the ages’ (Heb. 1:2), but also [that] ‘in him were all things created, both in he and in heaven and on earth, the seen and the unseen, principalities and powers and dominions and thrones: all were created through him and in him, and he is prior to all’ (Col 1:16-17)” (Letter to Alexander, Paragraph 25).

In terms of Jesus’ relationship to God, Alexander makes it clear that “…the two matters, the Father and the Son, are indivisible from each other…” (Letter to Alexander, Paragraph 15). In essence, although Jesus is human, he is still a part of God, and as a result, he deserves equal amounts of praise and worship.  

Blog Assignment #9, Response to Question #1

There are many parallels which exist between the accounts of Christ’s Passion and Polycarp’s martyrdom. To begin, in both stories, the central figures face persecution from local authorities and flee the towns they are residing in in order to hide. In Christ’s Passion, Jesus leaves the city of Jerusalem his disciples and travels to the Mount of Olives to pray the night before his crucifixion. Similarly, in the account of Polycarp, the author states, “So he withdrew to a farm not far distant from the city, and there he stayed with a few companions, doing nothing else night and day except praying for everyone” (The Martyrdom of Polycarp, Chapter 5)… Another distinctive similarity between these stories is that both Jesus and Polycarp are betrayed by their allies. For Jesus, he is betrayed by Judas Iscariot, one of his chosen Twelve Apostles. Likewise, the author of Polycarp’s story details that “…the very persons who betrayed him were people of his own household” (Chapter 6). Finally, Polycarp’s story bears a slight resemblance to Christ’s Passion in that it contains allusions to the Last Supper. Just as Jesus shares a final meal with the Twelve Apostles, Polycarp, in a way, has one with his transgressors. When authorities come to arrest and execute him, “… he immediately order[s] that a table be set for them to eat and drink as much as they [wish] at that hour” (Chapter 7).

Polycarp accepts his death quite willingly and, in some ways, happily. One instance of this occurs when the police force him to dismount his horse so quickly that he bruises his shin. However, “…without even turning around, he [goes] on his way eagerly and quickly as if nothing [has] happened to him” (Chapter 8). Additionally, when Polycarp accepts his fate at the hands of the proconsul, “he [is] inspired with courage and joy, and his face [is] filled with grace” (Chapter 11)… The positive outlook Polycarp continually carries with him just moments before his death is truly an inspiration to other Christians being persecuted during this time. Through his unwillingness to give in to temptation, Polycarp demonstrates that the pain of human torture is but a small price to pay for entrance into God’s Kingdom and nothing compared to the everlasting horrors which are experienced by those who deny Christ.

A major change in Polycarp’s body is observed during his death at the pyre. It is said that his body looks “…not like flesh burning but like bread baking or like gold and silver being refined in a furnace” (Chapter 15). This exemplifies Polycarp’s holiness as well as the Lord’s support for him at the hour of his death. Additionally, the author notes that Polycarp’s martyrdom is “remembered by everyone” (Chapter 19) and “is spoken of everywhere, even by pagans” (Chapter 19), showing that his death shifted the attitudes of many toward belief in the Christian faith. 

Blog Assignment #8, Response to Question #2

Through his letters to various cultures, Ignatius conveys his priority in preserving community within the early Church. An example of this is observed in his letter to the Ephesians. Here, Ignatius writes, “If anyone is not inside the sanctuary, he lacks God’s bread” (Letter to the Ephesians, Chapter 5). Essentially, Ignatius is saying that people who do not participate in the Church’s practices do not have sufficient spiritual relationships with God. As a result, these people will be unable to receive the ultimate reward, entrance into the Kingdom of Heaven. Ignatius further stresses the importance of unity within the Church in his letter to the Magnesians. He states, “Do not, moreover, try to convince yourselves that anything done on your own is commendable. Only what you do together is right” (Letter to the Magnesians, Chapter 7). By this, Ignatius means that people cannot simply venture off on their own and worship God however they see fit. Uniform customs and traditions are what will allow people to come together and find meaning behind their faith.

Another major theme which Ignatius emphasizes is establishing a hierarchy with which to lead the Church. When examining the Church’s chain of command, he implores, “Let the bishop preside in God’s place, and the presbyters take the place of the apostolic council, and let the deacons (my special favorites) be entrusted with the ministry of Jesus Christ who was with the Father from eternity and appeared at the end [of the world]” (Letter to the Magnesians, Chapter 6). Ignatius’ proposed relationship between bishops, presbyters, and deacons is quite similar to the organization of a standard business corporation. The bishop can be seen as the chief executive officer (CEO), as he is regarded as “…the Lord himself” (Letter to the Ephesians, Chapter 6) and has ultimate authority over the state of the Church. The presbyters are similar to the board of directors because they consult, advise, and appoint the bishop, while also possessing a significant amount of control over the Church’s affairs. Finally, the deacons represent a company’s employees, as they work for the Church, but have no real stake in determining its policies.

In implementing an entirely new system of leadership, one of Ignatius’ main concerns is retaining the Church’s followers. Thus, in his letter to the Smyrneans, he expresses the dangers of going against the Church by claiming that separating from it is a “…source of mischief” (Letter to the Smyrneans, Chapter 8) and that “…those who wrangle and dispute God’s gift face death” (Letter to the Smyrneans, Chapter 7).

Blog Assignment #7, Response to Question #1

In Mark’s version of Jesus’ resurrection, the story begins with Mary Magdalene, Mary, the mother of James, and Salome bringing spices to Jesus’ tomb in order to anoint him. As the women ponder who will move the large stone which blocks the entrance to the tomb, they realize that someone has already pushed it aside. Upon entering, they encounter a young man in a white robe who they incorrectly presume to be Jesus. The man informs them that, while he is not Jesus, “‘…He [Jesus] has been raised…’” (Mark 16:6) and “‘…is not here’” (Mark 16:6)… He then encourages the women to spread the word that Jesus is alive and proclaims that Jesus will appear before them in Galilee.

The overall theological message in this passage cautions against those who refute Jesus’ existence and praises those who believe in him. This is exemplified when Jesus appears before Mary Magdalene and has his presence denied by those mourning his loss. When he is denied by his people a second time after presenting himself to two of his disciples, Jesus assembles his eleven apostles and “rebuke[s] them for their unbelief and hardness of heart” (Mark 16:14)… He then goes on to state, “‘Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned’” (Mark 16:16). Essentially, Mark is displaying the ultimate reward of an afterlife which people gain through being faithful to Jesus while at the same time highlighting the consequences for those who neglect and disobey the Son of God.

Mark’s account of the resurrection is largely consistent with his portrayal of Jesus as the suffering Son of God throughout his gospel. This is especially prevalent during Jesus’ ascension, in which Mark indicates that Jesus “…[is] taken up into heaven and [takes] his seat at the right hand of God” (Mark 16:19). This is one of the few descriptions of Jesus which Mark details in his final chapter and it is quite brief. Mark does not emphasize Jesus’ glory or personality in his writing but instead focuses on the core events of his life. As a result of this, audiences of Mark likely view Jesus as a relatively blunt and harsh figure who existed solely to suffer and die for their sins. Another aspect of Mark’s gospel which remains prominent within the story of Jesus’ resurrection is the notion that Jesus’ disciples are never fully aware of the extent of his power. In other gospel accounts, the disciples are eager to follow every command Jesus gives. However, in Mark’s interpretation of the resurrection, they appear to be lackadaisical in a sense, as they continually shrug off their master’s attempts to reach out to them after his death.

Blog Assignment #6, Response to Question #2

While Mark and John give very different accounts of Jesus’ last meal with his disciples due to their varying audiences, the stories share some resemblances. For one, in both versions of this story, Jesus is aware that one of his disciples will betray him stating, “‘…[O]ne of you will betray me, one who is eating with me.’” (Mark 14:18) in the Gospel of Mark and similarly, “[O]ne of you will betray me.” (John 13:21) in the Gospel of John. Parallels between Mark and John are also seen as Jesus predicts Peter’s denial. In Mark, Jesus states, “‘…[T]his very night before the cock crows twice you will deny me three times’” (Mark 14:30). Likewise, the Gospel of John depicts Jesus exclaiming, “‘…[T]he cock will not crow before you deny me three times’” (John 13:38). It is interesting to note the nearly identical language displayed in these two examples. The fact that Jesus’ announcement of his betrayer and of Peter’s denial is essentially the same in both Mark and John makes it seem very likely that the two writers either shared a source in writing these stories, or that John sampled some elements from Mark.

While there are certain connections between these stories, there are also many differences. To begin, Mark includes the story of Jesus breaking bread and sharing wine with his disciples, while John leaves this aspect out entirely. At the same time, there are features of John’s account which are exempt from Mark’s. For instance, John begins the story of Jesus’ last meal with Jesus washing his disciples’ feet. In Mark’s interpretation, there is no mention of any sort of washing. Another major variance between the accounts of Mark and John is apparent in Jesus’ announcement of his betrayer. While he merely mentions that one of his disciples will betray him in Mark, John reveals the betrayer’s identity to be Judas, as Jesus whispers this information to Peter at the table.

The different motivations of the authors when writing their gospels paint diverse pictures of Jesus. Mark’s account is short and mainly concerned with the events which take place at the meal. Through representing Jesus as the suffering son of God, one is able to observe Jesus’ portrayal as rather matter-of-factly and emotionless. In contrast, John’s gospel provides lengthy, detailed descriptions and emphasizes Jesus’ need for love and morality. A prime example of this occurs when Jesus gives his disciples a new commandment by stating, “‘…[L]ove one another. As I have loved you, so you also should love one another’” (John 13:34). Additionally, John’s characteristic of showing Jesus as the incarnate Word of God comes across quite often. Occurrences of this are seen during the foot washing of the disciples when John notes that Jesus is “…fully aware that the Father had put everything into his power and that he had come from God and was returning to God…” (John 13:3), as well as before giving the new commandment, when Jesus exclaims to his disciples, “‘Now is the Son of Man glorified, and God is glorified in him. [If God is glorified in him,] God will also glorify him in himself, and he will glorify him at once’” (John 13:31-32).

Blog Assignment #5, Response to Question #4

While Matthew’s parable of the wedding feast is in many ways similar to Luke’s, the two stories yield a few key differences. For starters, Matthew illustrates a feast of opulence, while Luke account is more modest in nature. In Matthew, readers are informed that the feast is being held by a king, and that the occasion is a wedding banquet for his son. However, Luke merely states, “…‘A man gave a great dinner to which he invited many’” (Luke 14:16). In this case, there is no description of the status of the man or of the feast which he is hosting.

Another major difference to be considered between the parables of Matthew and Luke is the way in which the intended guests respond to their invitations. In Matthew’s version, the king’s guests are invited twice by many servants. The guests ignore the first invitation and, upon receiving the second one, the majority “la[y] hold of his [the king’s] servants, [mistreat] them, and [kill] them” (Matthew 22:6). In Luke’s description, the man’s guests are invited a single time by only one servant, and instead of turning violent, they provide a multitude of excuses as to why they cannot attend.

Finally, the Gospel of Matthew differs from that of Luke in the way in which the intended guests of the feast are dealt with. Matthew details a rather violent occasion stating, “The king was enraged and sent his troops, destroyed those murderers, and burned their city” (Matthew 22:7), whereas in Luke, the guests who refuse the man’s offer are simply passed up, allowing room for a more humble audience to attend the feast.

Perhaps the variances in these two parables are a result of the different audiences which Matthew and Luke wrote to. Matthew wrote to the Jews, a group deeply concerned with religious tradition, whereas Luke wrote to the Greeks, who placed a greater emphasis on the pursuit of ideas and knowledge. In Margaret Nutting Ralph’s book entitled And God Said What?, she asserts that “[a] parable is told to personally criticize the person to whom the parable is told, to raise that person’s consciousness to a new level of understanding, to call that person to conversion and reform” (Ralph 211-212). With this in mind, the harsher punishment of the guests who reject the feast in Matthew seems to make sense. Matthew is interested in demonstrating the wrath God inflicts upon those who are disobedient of His laws and reject the kingdom of heaven. In contrast, Luke seems to be more concerned with the notion of who will gain a spot in the kingdom of heaven. In this parable, it appears that God favors those in need, as is seen by the fact that the poor, crippled, blind, and lame take the spots of the man’s previously invited guests at the banquet. 

Blog Assignment #4, Response to Question #2

The “messianic secret” is certainly a prevalent theme within the Gospel of Mark, and it primarily revolves around the great works which Jesus performs. Many examples of Jesus’ secretive nature regarding the idea of him being the Messiah are observed after he heals people. For instance, at the beginning of Mark, Jesus encounters a leper who begs to be cured. Jesus then touches the man, ridding his entire body of the leprosy, and soon after states, “‘See that you tell no one anything’” (Mark 1:44)… Another case of the “messianic secret” being displayed through healings occurs when Jesus treats a deaf man with a speech impediment and “…order[s] them [the people who had witnessed the event] not to tell anyone” (Mark 7:36). Additionally, after healing a man’s blindness, Jesus commands, “‘…Do not even go into the village’” (Mark 8:26) so that people will not be informed of his deed and presence in the area.

Aside from acts of healing, the “messianic secret” is displayed through many other wonders Jesus performs, one of them being the ability to wake people from the dead. When Jesus comes to the aid of a synagogue official who believes that his daughter has passed away, the “messianic secret” is demonstrated twice. The first instance is seen when Jesus “…[does] not allow anyone to accompany him inside [the house] except Peter, James, and John” (Mark 5:37)…, thus limiting the amount of people who will witness his deed. The second example, and perhaps the more obvious one, happens when Jesus wakes the girl and “…[gives] orders that no one should know this” (Mark 5:43).

One of the main reasons why Jesus is so secretive about his actions is realized when he exercises a demon. When Jesus travels to the territory of the Gerasenes, he cleanses a man who is being tormented by a demon named Legion. After this occurs, Jesus states, “‘Go home to your family and announce to them all that the Lord in his pity has done for you’” (Mark 5:19). Essentially, Jesus does not want people to know of his actions because he feels that God should be the true recipient of their praise. Jesus recognizes that his ability to perform such amazing feats is through God’s will, and therefore, wishes to give Him all of the glory, as opposed to himself.

Blog Assignment #3, Response to Question #2

I would summarize Amos’ message as a condemnation of the Israelites for their sins committed against God. While Amos uses a rather harsh tone in this passage, his overall purpose is to remind the Israelites that they are taking for granted all of the wonderful works God has done for them. According to Heschel’s article, “God is raging in the prophet’s words” (Heschel 5). Throughout the book, Amos makes his “…little understanding for human weakness” (Heschel 9) quite apparent, stating, “…I abhor the pride of Jacob, I hate his strongholds, and I will hand over the city with everything in it” (Amos 5:8)… This illustrates God’s discontent with the Israelites. He refuses to tolerate the injustice which permeates Israel any longer, and thus declares that “…She is fallen, to rise no more” (Amos 5:2)… However, while the majority of this text highlights God’s disdain for the behavior of the Israelites through the words of Amos, God also allows the prophet to displays His “…love and compassion for mankind” (Heschel 12). For instance, in Amos’ “First Woe,” he exclaims, “Seek good and not evil, that you may live; Then truly the LORD, the God of hosts, will be with you as you claim” (Amos 5:15). Here, one gets a glimpse of the special bond which all who do good works and repent for their sins can share with God.

In terms of imagery, Amos describes a series of symbolic visions which God has revealed to him. The first vision is that of a terrible locust swarm. This is then followed by a vision of God “…summoning a rain of fire” (Amos 7:4), as well as “…a wall built with a plummet” (Amos 7:7). In all of these visions, Amos seems to defend the people of Israel in asking who will protect them from these atrocities. However, God will “…forgive them no longer” (Amos 7:8), and decides to destroy Israel altogether.

The relationship between God and the rest of the world in this book seems to be a negative one. The passages juxtapose the sinful nature of humans with the perfection that is God. Ultimately, humans are flawed, and they will always be aiming to reach an impossible ideal. Furthermore, Amos in this book is serving as a transport for word of God, and is trying to convey His overall frustration with the evilness and corruption which exist in the world.