For the past two weeks, I've been leading a Bible study for students at Rider University (in Lawrenceville, NJ). We meet Thursday evenings; we look at the upcoming Sunday's Mass readings, and try to understand them in their context and their relation to each other, as well as apply them to our lives today.
Tomorrow we're looking at pericopes from Isaiah 25, Philippians 4, and Matthew 23. Do you see anything in these readings that stands out as applying in a particular way to college students? (Phil 4:12-13 reminds me of food and money in the college context...)
Showing posts with label bible study. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bible study. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 05, 2011
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
God does not grade on a curve
The readings for this coming Sunday all point to one common truth: the Lord is a just judge, an important thing to remember as we approach the month of November, with its days dedicated to all saints and all souls, and the Solemnity of Christ the King (which was originally celebrated on the last Sunday of October, right before those first November feasts).
The first (cf. Sir. 35:12, 18) and second (cf. 2 Tim. 4:8) readings make this abundantly clear. In the Gospel (Luke 18:9-14), the justness of the Lord's judgment is veiled in terms of a parable of two men who go to the temple to pray:
There are many ways to grade on a curve. Perhaps the most infamous way is the "bell curve", which reflects what should be the statistically-sound normal distribution of grades among a body of students, as shown on the right. Few students get As and Fs, more get Bs and Ds, and the most get the "average" grade, C. This grading scheme can be good or bad for students. It can be good because it means that the student who got the highest raw (uncurved) score on the exam is assured an A, no matter how objectively poorly he did. It can be bad because it means that if everyone in the class aces the exam, they are all merely "average" and get Cs.
The bell curve, and other forms of curving, make up for the defect of the students' mastery of the material by comparing them to each other. On a 100-question quiz, if no one gets more than 50 questions right, then that "failing" grade becomes an A. Regardless of the highest-scoring student's knowledge of what he is being tested on, he receives a passing grade, because he scored better than the rest of his class. Without the bell curve, the students are not compared to each other, but to the material covered on the exam; they receive objective grades based on their mastery of the material, not based on their relative performance.
In the parable which Jesus addressed to those who "were convinced of their own righteousness and despised everyone else," our Lord mentions a Pharisee and a tax collector (or "publican" in some translations). His audience, hearing the parable unfold, might have had the following impression: "A Pharisee! Gosh, they sure are holy, with their phylacteries and their praying in the Temple and their knowledge of the Scriptures. Ugh, and a tax collector? My neighbor Zacchaeus is one of those traitors, taking my hard-earned money and giving it the Romans... and probably taking a little of the top for himself as well. I'm sure Jesus wouldn't want to have anything to do with him."
The Pharisee compared himself to others, and believed himself to be better than them. As they heard the Lord retell the Pharisee's prayer &mdash "to himself," which might just be idiomatic, but is also quite a condemnation! — they could have thought, "I might not be as good as the Pharisee, but I too am at least better than that tax collector!" If they had to put the Pharisee and the tax collector on a scale and assign them letter grades, they would give the Pharisee an "A" and the tax collector an "F". And then, if they had to assign themselves a grade, they would certainly place themselves above the dreaded tax collector. Even if they got a "D", that was still a passing grade, right?
The tax collector's prayer was very different. He did not compare himself to the Pharisee or to anyone else. He compared himself to the divine law: "O God, be merciful to me a sinner!"
Jesus tells us that the tax collector, not the Pharisee, went home justified. The tax collector, comparing himself to the divine law and to God Himself, graded himself objectively; but the Pharisee, comparing himself to others, graded himself subjectively, on a curve; and God does not grade on a curve. Our justification and salvation are not determined by comparing our performance with others'. Our very need for justification and salvation are predicated on the great contrast between our conduct and God's law. It does no good to compare ourselves to one another; St. Paul did not write that "some have sinned and fall short of the glory of their neighbor," but that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." (Rom. 3:23) God is the standard, most perfectly embodied in His Son Jesus Christ, in Whom the God was able to show us, by His own example, obedience to Him.
So as we approach the month which reminds us of the Last Things, let us not say, "God, I thank you that I am not like that adulterer, like that thief, like that murderer..." but instead, "O God, be merciful to me, a sinner!"
The first (cf. Sir. 35:12, 18) and second (cf. 2 Tim. 4:8) readings make this abundantly clear. In the Gospel (Luke 18:9-14), the justness of the Lord's judgment is veiled in terms of a parable of two men who go to the temple to pray:
He then addressed this parable to those who were convinced of their own righteousness and despised everyone else.To explain this theme, and this parable, to the students at Rider University who attend the Catholic Bible Study I host, I began by asking if they have ever taken a class or an exam where the teacher graded on a curve.
"Two people went up to the temple area to pray; one was a Pharisee and the other was a tax collector. The Pharisee took up his position and spoke this prayer to himself, 'O God, I thank you that I am not like the rest of humanity—greedy, dishonest, adulterous—or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week, and I pay tithes on my whole income.' But the tax collector stood off at a distance and would not even raise his eyes to heaven but beat his breast and prayed, 'O God, be merciful to me a sinner.'
"I tell you, the latter went home justified, not the former; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and the one who humbles himself will be exalted."
There are many ways to grade on a curve. Perhaps the most infamous way is the "bell curve", which reflects what should be the statistically-sound normal distribution of grades among a body of students, as shown on the right. Few students get As and Fs, more get Bs and Ds, and the most get the "average" grade, C. This grading scheme can be good or bad for students. It can be good because it means that the student who got the highest raw (uncurved) score on the exam is assured an A, no matter how objectively poorly he did. It can be bad because it means that if everyone in the class aces the exam, they are all merely "average" and get Cs.The bell curve, and other forms of curving, make up for the defect of the students' mastery of the material by comparing them to each other. On a 100-question quiz, if no one gets more than 50 questions right, then that "failing" grade becomes an A. Regardless of the highest-scoring student's knowledge of what he is being tested on, he receives a passing grade, because he scored better than the rest of his class. Without the bell curve, the students are not compared to each other, but to the material covered on the exam; they receive objective grades based on their mastery of the material, not based on their relative performance.
In the parable which Jesus addressed to those who "were convinced of their own righteousness and despised everyone else," our Lord mentions a Pharisee and a tax collector (or "publican" in some translations). His audience, hearing the parable unfold, might have had the following impression: "A Pharisee! Gosh, they sure are holy, with their phylacteries and their praying in the Temple and their knowledge of the Scriptures. Ugh, and a tax collector? My neighbor Zacchaeus is one of those traitors, taking my hard-earned money and giving it the Romans... and probably taking a little of the top for himself as well. I'm sure Jesus wouldn't want to have anything to do with him."
The Pharisee compared himself to others, and believed himself to be better than them. As they heard the Lord retell the Pharisee's prayer &mdash "to himself," which might just be idiomatic, but is also quite a condemnation! — they could have thought, "I might not be as good as the Pharisee, but I too am at least better than that tax collector!" If they had to put the Pharisee and the tax collector on a scale and assign them letter grades, they would give the Pharisee an "A" and the tax collector an "F". And then, if they had to assign themselves a grade, they would certainly place themselves above the dreaded tax collector. Even if they got a "D", that was still a passing grade, right?
The tax collector's prayer was very different. He did not compare himself to the Pharisee or to anyone else. He compared himself to the divine law: "O God, be merciful to me a sinner!"
Jesus tells us that the tax collector, not the Pharisee, went home justified. The tax collector, comparing himself to the divine law and to God Himself, graded himself objectively; but the Pharisee, comparing himself to others, graded himself subjectively, on a curve; and God does not grade on a curve. Our justification and salvation are not determined by comparing our performance with others'. Our very need for justification and salvation are predicated on the great contrast between our conduct and God's law. It does no good to compare ourselves to one another; St. Paul did not write that "some have sinned and fall short of the glory of their neighbor," but that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." (Rom. 3:23) God is the standard, most perfectly embodied in His Son Jesus Christ, in Whom the God was able to show us, by His own example, obedience to Him.
So as we approach the month which reminds us of the Last Things, let us not say, "God, I thank you that I am not like that adulterer, like that thief, like that murderer..." but instead, "O God, be merciful to me, a sinner!"
Thursday, September 30, 2010
New Bible studies
I'm involved in two Bible studies right now. One for college students at Rider University on Monday nights, where we look at the readings for the coming Sunday; and another (associated with St. David the King parish in West Windsor) for young adults, reading the book of Proverbs.
I'll share some notes from Proverbs later today.
I'll share some notes from Proverbs later today.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Apostolic Preaching: The Gospel in the Book of Acts
I went through the Acts of the Apostles today and made a list of the "Gospel sermons" given. I found eight: five from Peter, one from Stephen, and two from Paul. (I didn't include Paul's retelling of his conversion, since those were not about the Gospel, per se, but about the work of Christ in his life.) Each of these sermons contains (in whole or in part) the "kerygma", the extreme distillation of the Gospel: "that [Jesus] Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve." (1 Cor. 15:3-5)
The kerygma has three key elements: 1) that Jesus is the Messiah, the Christ; 2) that His death and resurrection is prophesied in the Jewish Scriptures, the Old Testament; and 3) that He appeared to people after His resurrection. That is what you find in the apostolic preaching in the Book of Acts.
The kerygma has three key elements: 1) that Jesus is the Messiah, the Christ; 2) that His death and resurrection is prophesied in the Jewish Scriptures, the Old Testament; and 3) that He appeared to people after His resurrection. That is what you find in the apostolic preaching in the Book of Acts.
- Peter
- Acts 2:14-39
- "This Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men. ... This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses."
- Acts 3:12-26
- "The God of our fathers glorified his servant Jesus, whom you delivered up ... But you denied the Holy and Righteous One ... and killed the Author of life, whom God raised from the dead. To this we are witnesses. ... What God foretold by the mouth of all the prophets, that his Christ should suffer, he thus fulfilled."
- Acts 4:8-12
- "By the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by him this man is standing before you well."
- Acts 5:29-32
- "The God of our fathers raised Jesus whom you killed by hanging him on a tree. ... And we are witnesses to these things."
- Acts 10:34-43
- "God anointed Jesus of Nazareth ... They put him to death by hanging him on a tree; but God raised him on the third day and made him manifest ... to us who were chosen by God as witnesses."
- Stephen
- Acts 7:2-53
- "Which of the prophets did not your fathers persecute? And they killed those who announced beforehand the coming of the Righteous One, whom you have now betrayed and murdered."
- Paul
- Acts 13:16-42
- "God has brought to Israel a Savior, Jesus, as he promised. ... They asked Pilate to have him killed. ... But God raised him from the dead; and for many days he appeared to those ... who are now his witnesses to the people."
- Acts 17:22-31
- "[God] has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed, and of this he has given assurance to all men by raising him from the dead."
- Acts 2:23-31 (Peter quotes David in Psalm 16)
- Acts 3:18-24 (Peter quotes Moses in Deut. 18:15 and refers to all the prophets)
- Acts 4:24-30 (The disciples quote David in Psalm 2)
- Acts 7:37,52 (Stephen quotes Moses in Deut. 18:15 and refers to all the prophets)
- Acts 8:32-35 (Philip teaches that Isaiah 52:13—53:12 refers to Christ)
- Acts 10:43 (Peter refers to all the prophets)
- Acts 13:27-37 (Paul refers to all the prophets and quotes David in Psalms 2 and 16)
- Acts 17:2-3,11 (Paul argues from the Scriptures that the Christ would suffer and rise from the dead)
- Acts 18:24-28 (Apollos showed by the Scriptures that Jesus is the Christ)
- Acts 24:14 (Paul implies that belief in Jesus as the Christ is based on the law and the prophets)
- Acts 26:22-23,27 (Paul says that Moses and the prophets said that the Christ would suffer and rise from the dead)
- Acts 28:23 (Paul refers to the law and the prophets)
Saturday, June 05, 2010
Ignatius Catholic Study Bible - New Testament
I bought the hardcover edition of the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible single-volume New Testament (Second Catholic Edition RSV). What an excellent investment. My only complaint is that it does not include the study questions found in the individual books (or, if they are in there, I haven't found them yet).
You can get this single-volume New Testament at a great price from Amazon!
You can get this single-volume New Testament at a great price from Amazon!
Wednesday, January 06, 2010
Outline for Exodus 1-12
This is what I'll be using to teach 6th-graders tomorrow about the first third of the book of Exodus.
1. From Joseph to Moses (Exodus 1)
a) What did the Lord prophesy to Abram? (Genesis 15:7-21, esp. vv. 13-14) your descendants will be sojourners in a land that is not theirs … slaves … oppressed for four hundred years; but I will bring judgment on the nation which they serve … they shall come out with great possessions.
b) What happened to the descendents of Jacob in Egypt Herod , China
c) Allegory: Egypt is to Israel Satan , Egypt =sin, Israel Egypt separates Israel Israel out of Egypt , and Egypt out of Israel
2. Moses (Exodus 2-4)
a) Why learn about Moses? Summary in Acts 7:17-45. He prophesied and prefigured Christ: Deut 18:15; Luke 24:27,44; John 1:45; 3:14; 5:46; 6:32; Acts 3:13-26; 7:37
b) Birth and life in Egypt
1. What was supposed to happen to Moses at birth? He should have been drowned.
2. How did Moses survive? His mother hid him for three months, then put him in a basket ("ark") in the river. Pharaoh's daughter saw him and adopted him. His own mother was chosen as his paid nurse!
3. What does his name mean? "Drawn out"
4. How did he grow up? Nursed by his mother (knowing his culture) and then he lived as an Egyptian until he was 40. (Acts 7:20-22)
5. What did he do that lost him the favor of Pharaoh? He slew an Egyptian that was beating a Hebrew. The next day he saw two Hebrews fighting, and one asked "Who made you a prince and a judge over us", a prophetic question. Pharaoh finds out about the murder and Moses flees.
c) Exile and Mission Israel
1. How is Exodus 3:2-10 similar to Genesis 15:13-21?
1. How did God manifest Himself to Moses? Mysterious fire (flaming torch, burning bush)
2. What does God say about Israel
3. Which covenant-promise to Abraham does God say He will fulfill? Land
2. What does Moses say the people will ask, and what does God reveal? What is His name? "YHWH", "I AM WHO AM"
3. For what purpose is God freeing the Israelites? So that they can offer sacrifice (render worship) to Him
4. What will happen when Egypt lets Israel
5. How does Moses complain, and how does God respond?
1. First time (Exodus 4:1-9) They won't believe me or listen to me – God gives him signs to perform
2. Second time (Exodus 4:10-12) I'm not a good speaker – God will give him the words
3. Third time (Exodus 4:13-17) Send someone else – God will send Aaron, Moses' brother, with him
6. What is God's message to Pharaoh? (Exodus 4:21-23) Let My firstborn (Israel Egypt and speak to the elders of Israel
3. The 10 Plagues (Exodus 5-13)
a) Moses and Aaron meet Pharaoh (Exodus 5-6) Moses' last 40 years are spent taking Israel out of Egypt
1. What does God want of the Israelites? He wants the Israelites to take a three-days journey into the desert to serve Him (via sacrifice).
2. What does Pharaoh want of them? He wants the Israelites to stay and serve him (via slave labor).
3. What is Pharaoh's reaction to Moses' request? He makes the work harder for the Israelites, not supplying them with straw and expecting the same output of bricks. The Israelites are angry with Moses and Aaron.
4. How does Moses respond? He complains to God that since he came to Egypt
5. What does God say He will do? (Exodus 6:6-8) I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, and I will deliver you from their bondage, and I will redeem you with an outstretched arm and with great acts of judgment, and I will take you for my people, and I will be your God … And I will bring you into the land which I swore to give to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob; I will give it to you for a possession. I am the LORD.
b) The First Nine Plagues (Exodus 7-10) Moses has Aaron throw his staff to the ground and it becomes a snake. Pharaoh's magicians can do the same thing, but Aaron's staff consumes theirs. God proclaims judgments on Egypt
1. What is the first plague? (Exodus 7:19-22) Nile turns to blood, copied by the magicians
2. What is the second plague? (Exodus 8:1-3) Frogs overrun the land, copied by the magicians
1. What does Pharaoh promise? Does he keep his promise? He will let the Israelites go to sacrifice if Moses removes the frogs; no.
3. What is the third plague? (Exodus 8:12-15) Gnats from the dirt
1. How is this plague different from the previous ones? Pharaoh's magicians can't copy it
4. What is the fourth plague? (Exodus 8:16-19) Swarms of flies
1. What happened to the Israelites? No flies for them
2. What is the compromise Pharaoh offers? Sacrifice to God here, but it would be an abomination (because of the animals which would be sacrificed)
3. What does Pharaoh promise? Does he keep his promise? Sacrifice but not too far away; no.
5. What is the fifth plague? (Exodus 9:6-7) Cattle dying
1. What happened to the Israelites? Their cattle didn't die
6. What is the sixth plague? (Exodus 9:10-11) Boils
7. What is the seventh plague? (Exodus 9:22-26) Hailstorms
1. What happened to the Israelites? No hail
2. What does Pharaoh promise? Does he keep his promise? Stop the hail and I'll let you go; no.
8. What is the eighth plague? (Exodus 10:12-15) Locusts
9. What is the ninth plague? (Exodus 10:21-23) Darkness
1. What happened to the Israelites? No darkness.
2. What is the compromise Pharaoh offers? Go worship God but don't bring animals.
3. What does Pharaoh threaten Moses with? Death
c) Passover and the 10th Plague (Exodus 11-12)
1. Remember God's words in Exodus 3:21-22 vs. Exodus 11:2-3. Israel will leave Egypt
2. How does God respond to Pharaoh's threat? (Exodus 11:4-7) He will take the life of the firstborn of Egypt
3. What is the Passover ritual? (Exodus 12:1-11) Get a lamb on the 10th of the 1st month (Nisan), inspect it until the 14th, then kill it and mark the doorposts with its blood, then roast it and eat it with unleavened bread.
4. Why is it called Passover (Pesach / Pascha)? (Exodus 12:12-13, 26-27) God would pass over where the blood of the Lamb is on the doorposts. Israel would also be passing through the Red Sea, and passing over the Jordan
5. What happened through Egypt
6. Is this the lamb of God? (Exodus 12:3) No, each family has its own lamb
4. Links between the Passover and Christ
a) Get the lamb on 10 Nisan – Christ enters Jerusalem
b) Lamb is inspected until 14 Nisan – Christ is "inspected" by the Pharisees and everyone; Pilate says he finds no fault in him (John 18:38)
c) Not a bone is to be broken (Ex 12:46; John 19:36)
d) The Eucharist is the new Passover sacrificial meal
1. "Christ, our paschal lamb, has been sacrificed" (1 Cor 5:7)
2. "You know that you were ransomed … with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot" (1 Pet 1:18-19)
3. "I saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain" (Rev 5:6)
4. "The marriage of the Lamb has come, and his Bride has made herself ready … Blessed are those who are invited to the marriage supper of the Lamb" (Rev 19:7-9)
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Apparent anachronism in Exodus 16
What follows is from an email I wrote a year ago while taking part in the Great Adventure Bible Timeline study. Someone brought up the mention of the ark of the covenant in Exodus 16, several chapters before it is created. I sought to investigate the matter and resolve the apparent anachronism.
In my reading [of Exodus 16] I had failed to catch the apparent anachronism of Aaron placing the jar of manna "before the testimony" (RSV) or "in front of the commandments" (NAB).
The issue might be one of punctuation. The RSV and the NAB and the KJV render verses 33 and 34 of Exodus 16 as two distinct sentences.
Re-read chapter 16. Note that verses 1-30 deal with events which are happening during the first week when the manna appeared. Now note the tone of verses 31-35. I would propose that these later verses are describing an event that took place later (at or after Sinai, since they expect the existence of the covenant), but they are not at all insinuating that these events actually happened before Sinai at all. I will support my proposal with Scriptural evidence:
In Exodus 16:31, the Hebrew phrase bayith Yisra'el is used for the first time. It literally means "the house of Israel". The phrase ben Yisra'el ("sons/children/people of Israel") is used plenty in chapter 16 (verses 1, 2, 6, 9, 10, 12, 15, 17, and 35). But here for the first time bayith Yisra'el appears in Scripture, in verse 31. Why is the phrase "House of Israel" used this time instead of "sons/children/people of Israel"?
I think we can come to the answer by looking for the next time "House of Israel" is used in Scripture. "House of Israel" appeared first in Exodus 16:31, speaking of them calling the substance "manna". The next time that "House of Israel" appears in Exodus 40:38, the very last verse of the very last chapter of Exodus: "For throughout all their journeys the cloud of the LORD was upon the tabernacle by day, and fire was in it by night, in the sight of all the house of Israel." By Exodus 40, the covenant has been made; the tabernacle and the ark and other elements of worship have been constructed. It is here that the context of Exodus 16:31-35 makes sense. Certainly the Israelites, when they first encountered the stuff, said "man na", but Exodus 16:31 is saying that "manna" is what it was "officially" called by the house of Israel, meaning those who were in covenant with God through Moses. My point is that "House of Israel" is a "covenant name"; it describes the Israelites in their covenant with God. As such, Exodus 16:31 is referring to something at or after the time of Sinai.
The language of Exodus 16:33-34 makes it clear that there was now "the presence of the LORD" and the tablets of the covenant. Exodus 16:35 is even more helpful: it is clearly written after the forty years had ended: "the people of Israel ate the manna forty years, till they came to a habitable land".
So if Exodus 16:35 was written to describe an event that took place much later than Exodus 16:1-30, I would argue that Exodus 16:31-34 are describing a later event as well. They are not "placing" the later event earlier in history than it happened, but they are describing the later event in the context of the rest of the chapter about the manna, and using contextual clues (such as the phrase "House of Israel") to indicate that. To further the point, Exodus 16 is the only place where "manna" is mentioned in the whole book of Exodus, and only in those last verses is the word "manna" (in English) used. It makes sense to have included the "future" of the manna in the same part of the story where it was introduced, especially since it simply never gets mentioned again.
In my reading [of Exodus 16] I had failed to catch the apparent anachronism of Aaron placing the jar of manna "before the testimony" (RSV) or "in front of the commandments" (NAB).
The issue might be one of punctuation. The RSV and the NAB and the KJV render verses 33 and 34 of Exodus 16 as two distinct sentences.
RSV: [33] And Moses said to Aaron, "Take a jar, and put an omer of manna in it, and place it before the LORD, to be kept throughout your generations." [34] As the LORD commanded Moses, so Aaron placed it before the testimony, to be kept.However, the Douay-Rheims (a 1609 English translation of the Latin Vulgate) has a slightly different structure. Here, the beginning of verse 34 is the conclusion of the sentence in verse 33 (note the comma at the end of verse 33):
NAB: [33] Moses then told Aaron, "Take an urn and put an omer of manna in it. Then place it before the LORD in safekeeping for your descendants." [34] So Aaron placed it in front of the commandments for safekeeping, as the LORD had commanded Moses.
KJV: [33] And Moses said unto Aaron, Take a pot, and put an omer full of manna therein, and lay it up before the LORD, to be kept for your generations. [34] As the LORD commanded Moses, so Aaron laid it up before the Testimony, to be kept.
DR: [32] And Moses said: This is the word, which the Lord hath commanded: Fill a gomor of it, and let it be kept unto generations to come hereafter, that they may know the bread, wherewith I fed you in the wilderness, when you were brought forth out of the land of Egypt. [33] And Moses said to Aaron: Take a vessel, and put manna into it, as much as a gomor can hold: and lay it up before the Lord to keep unto your generations, [34] As the Lord commanded Moses. And Aaron put it in the tabernacle to be kept.Whatever the punctuation should be, the "issue" can be resolved with the following explanation:
Re-read chapter 16. Note that verses 1-30 deal with events which are happening during the first week when the manna appeared. Now note the tone of verses 31-35. I would propose that these later verses are describing an event that took place later (at or after Sinai, since they expect the existence of the covenant), but they are not at all insinuating that these events actually happened before Sinai at all. I will support my proposal with Scriptural evidence:
In Exodus 16:31, the Hebrew phrase bayith Yisra'el is used for the first time. It literally means "the house of Israel". The phrase ben Yisra'el ("sons/children/people of Israel") is used plenty in chapter 16 (verses 1, 2, 6, 9, 10, 12, 15, 17, and 35). But here for the first time bayith Yisra'el appears in Scripture, in verse 31. Why is the phrase "House of Israel" used this time instead of "sons/children/people of Israel"?
I think we can come to the answer by looking for the next time "House of Israel" is used in Scripture. "House of Israel" appeared first in Exodus 16:31, speaking of them calling the substance "manna". The next time that "House of Israel" appears in Exodus 40:38, the very last verse of the very last chapter of Exodus: "For throughout all their journeys the cloud of the LORD was upon the tabernacle by day, and fire was in it by night, in the sight of all the house of Israel." By Exodus 40, the covenant has been made; the tabernacle and the ark and other elements of worship have been constructed. It is here that the context of Exodus 16:31-35 makes sense. Certainly the Israelites, when they first encountered the stuff, said "man na", but Exodus 16:31 is saying that "manna" is what it was "officially" called by the house of Israel, meaning those who were in covenant with God through Moses. My point is that "House of Israel" is a "covenant name"; it describes the Israelites in their covenant with God. As such, Exodus 16:31 is referring to something at or after the time of Sinai.
The language of Exodus 16:33-34 makes it clear that there was now "the presence of the LORD" and the tablets of the covenant. Exodus 16:35 is even more helpful: it is clearly written after the forty years had ended: "the people of Israel ate the manna forty years, till they came to a habitable land".
So if Exodus 16:35 was written to describe an event that took place much later than Exodus 16:1-30, I would argue that Exodus 16:31-34 are describing a later event as well. They are not "placing" the later event earlier in history than it happened, but they are describing the later event in the context of the rest of the chapter about the manna, and using contextual clues (such as the phrase "House of Israel") to indicate that. To further the point, Exodus 16 is the only place where "manna" is mentioned in the whole book of Exodus, and only in those last verses is the word "manna" (in English) used. It makes sense to have included the "future" of the manna in the same part of the story where it was introduced, especially since it simply never gets mentioned again.
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Word Study: Being "sent" in the Gospels
I should read the Gospels and pay close attention to every occurrence of the word "sent" (or any variation thereof). The word "sent" (or "send", "sends", "sending") appears in the RSV of Matthew 33 times, in Mark 24 times, in Luke 44 times, and in John 61 times. I would expect that it is in John's Gospel that it is used the most times in reference to Jesus being sent by the Father, and the disciples being sent by Jesus.
This is being filed away for later study!
This is being filed away for later study!
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Bible Study: 30th Sunday in Ordinary Time, Year B
30th Sunday in Ordinary Time – Year B (October 25, 2009)
Opening Prayer
In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
St. John Vianney: Pray for us.
Come, Holy Spirit, fill the hearts of Your faithful. And kindle in them the fire of your love.
Send forth Your Spirit, and they shall be created. And You will renew the face of the earth.
O God, who has taught the hearts of the faithful … Through Christ our Lord. Amen.
First Reading
7 Thus says the LORD:
Shout with joy for Jacob,
exult at the head of the nations;
proclaim your praise and say:
The LORD has delivered his people,
the remnant ofIsrael
Shout with joy for Jacob,
exult at the head of the nations;
proclaim your praise and say:
The LORD has delivered his people,
the remnant of
8 Behold, I will bring them back
from the land of the north;
I will gather them from the ends of the world,
with the blind and the lame in their midst,
the mothers and those with child;
they shall return as an immense throng.
from the land of the north;
I will gather them from the ends of the world,
with the blind and the lame in their midst,
the mothers and those with child;
they shall return as an immense throng.
9 They departed in tears,
but I will console them and guide them;
I will lead them to brooks of water,
on a level road, so that none shall stumble.
For I am a father toIsrael
Ephraim is my first-born.
but I will console them and guide them;
I will lead them to brooks of water,
on a level road, so that none shall stumble.
For I am a father to
Ephraim is my first-born.
Psalm 126:1-6
1 When the LORD brought back the captives of Zion
we were like men dreaming.
2 Then our mouth was filled with laughter,
and our tongue with rejoicing.
we were like men dreaming.
2 Then our mouth was filled with laughter,
and our tongue with rejoicing.
Then they said among the nations,
"The LORD has done great things for them."
3 The LORD has done great things for us;
we are glad indeed.
"The LORD has done great things for them."
3 The LORD has done great things for us;
we are glad indeed.
4 Restore our fortunes, O LORD,
like the torrents in the southern desert.
5 Those that sow in tears
shall reap rejoicing.
like the torrents in the southern desert.
5 Those that sow in tears
shall reap rejoicing.
6 Although they go forth weeping,
carrying the seed to be sown,
They shall come back rejoicing,
carrying their sheaves.
carrying the seed to be sown,
They shall come back rejoicing,
carrying their sheaves.
Gospel – Mark 10:46-52
46 As Jesus was leaving Jericho
48 And many rebuked him, telling him to be silent. But he kept calling out all the more, "Son of David, have pity on me."
49 Jesus stopped and said, "Call him."
So they called the blind man, saying to him, "Take courage; get up, Jesus is calling you."
50 He threw aside his cloak, sprang up, and came to Jesus. 51 Jesus said to him in reply, "What do you want me to do for you?"
The blind man replied to him, "Master, I want to see."
52 Jesus told him, "Go your way; your faith has saved you."
Immediately he received his sight and followed him on the way.
Questions
1) Why is Psalm 126:1-6 a fitting "response" to the First Reading? (This is why it is called a "Responsorial Psalm")
2) The Jewish exile is cast as a farmer going out to sow seed, and their return to Jerusalem
3) What links can you find between the First Reading and Psalm, and the Gospel?
a. Coming back from the north (Jer. 31:8)
b. The blind and the lame in their midst (Jer. 31:8)
c. An immense throng (Jer. 31:8)
d. Returning to Zion (Jerusalem
e. The Lord doing great things (Ps. 126:3)
4) Bartimaeus called Jesus "Son of David". What does the title mean? How would Bartimaeus know this about Jesus?
5) Remember last week's Gospel?
35 James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came to Jesus and said to him,
"Teacher, we want you to do for us whatever we ask of you."
36 Jesus replied, "What do you wish me to do for you?"
In Mark 10:36, Jesus asks James and John basically the same question that He asks Bartimaeus in Mark 10:50. Why did Jesus grant Bartimaeus' request? What was the difference between Bartimaeus' request and that of James and John?
35 James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came to Jesus and said to him,
"Teacher, we want you to do for us whatever we ask of you."
36 Jesus replied, "What do you wish me to do for you?"
In Mark 10:36, Jesus asks James and John basically the same question that He asks Bartimaeus in Mark 10:50. Why did Jesus grant Bartimaeus' request? What was the difference between Bartimaeus' request and that of James and John?
6) What "faith" is Jesus speaking about when he says that Bartimaeus' faith has saved him (literally: "made you whole")?
7) How does Bartimaeus respond to Jesus differently from the rich young man from two weeks ago?
To put it differently: What does Jesus tell Bartimaeus to do after He cures him, and what does Bartimaeus do?
To put it differently: What does Jesus tell Bartimaeus to do after He cures him, and what does Bartimaeus do?
8) What was Bartimaeus sacrificing by asking Jesus to cure his blindness? What "crutches" do you lean on that you need to ask God to heal?
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Four Reasons Every Christian Should Know the Old Testament
I'm watching the Great Adventure Bible Timeline videos and taking copious notes. I'm studying the Old Testament specifically, because I'll be a catechist for 6th graders in the Fall, teaching them about the Old Testament (and a bit about the New Testament as well). I plan on giving an "assessment" (not a quiz!) on the first day, to find out what they know about the Bible and the Old Testament in particular. I'll also ask them why they think Catholics should know the Old Testament, and what they expect to (or want to) learn about the Old Testament.
Why should a Catholic (or any Christian) know the Old Testament? I'll give you four reasons. Four Scriptural reasons. Just use this simple mnemonic: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
Ok, it's not actually a mnemonic. But in those four names (which you know so well) are the four reasons. What do I mean? Well, you needn't go further than five verses into any of the Gospels before you come across a reference to the Old Testament!
Who are these people? (Matthew 1:1-16)
Matthew tells us of the patriarchs: Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Matthew mentions four women who were ancestors of the Christ: Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and Bathsheba (the wife of Uriah). Why does Matthew mention them? Because of the peculiarity of their circumstances:
Matthew makes it clear that Jesus is royalty: he is the descendant of David, King of Israel! (The significance of this is made clear especially in Luke 1:32-33.) Matthew brings in the sordid history of Israel: her deportation and exile. Finally, Matthew draws attention to Joseph and Mary: he does not say "Joseph the father of Jesus," but rather "Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born."
It is clear from the beginning of Matthew's Gospel that he wrote with the expectation that his readers would know who these figures in Israel's history were and why they were significant to be ancestors of the Messiah. That is the first reason to know the Old Testament: to know who these people are, so that we know where Jesus came from.
Isaiah the what? (Mark 1:1-4)
So much of the Gospels — essentially all of Christ's life, ministry, Passion, death, and Resurrection — is the fulfillment of Scripture. No less than a dozen times does Matthew inform his reader that some action of Christ was done "to fulfill what was spoken" by some prophet. Luke records that, on the road to Emmaus, Christ interpreted "all the scriptures the things concerning himself," and afterwards told the Apostles that "everything written about me in the law of Moses and the prophets and the psalms must be fulfilled." That is the second reason to know the Old Testament: to realize that Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of numerous prophecies.
Herod, Abijah, and Aaron, oh my! (Luke 1:5)
Israel was a kingdom... but Herod was not a true Davidic King. Israel had been split in two during the time of Solomon's son Rehoboam, and this wound was never fully healed. Judea (i.e. Judah) was the southern Kingdom, home to Jerusalem, where David and Solomon had reigned over the whole Kingdom of Israel for a time.
Zechariah (the father of John the Baptist) was a priest. The priestly men of Israel were divided into three groups: the high priest (a descendant of Aaron), the priests (other descendants of Aaron), and their ministers (other descendants of Levi, the tribe to which Aaron belonged). These Aaronic priests were assigned by King David according to twenty-four divisions, as recorded in 1 Chronicles 24:1-18. Here we find that Abijah's division was the eighth. Both Zechariah and Elizabeth are descendants of Aaron. As for what a priest does, the Old Testament book of Leviticus ("pertaining to the Levites") describes that in detail.
This single verse gives us a historical setting: Herod was king of Judea in a certain period of time, and Zechariah was serving in the Temple during two specific weeks of the year. This verse also gives us a cultural setting: a nation, a kingdom, with a priesthood. This is the third reason to know the Old Testament: to understand the cultural and historical circumstances into which Jesus was born.
Another "beginning"? (John 1:1)
John's Gospel is full of spiritual parallels of the Old Testament. In John 4, when Jesus is speaking with the Samaritan woman at the well, he records God's unfolding of a historical event (the dilution of northern Israel — Samaria — by five pagan nations by King Sargon, described in 2 Kings 17:24) in the personal encounter between two people. Jesus asks the woman to bring her husband, and the woman says she has no husband. Jesus replies that she has spoken truthfully, because she (representing Samaria) has had five husbands (representing Babylon, Cuthah, Avva, Hamath, and Sephar-vaim) and that the one she is with now (Jesus, the Lord) is not her husband. This hearkens back to the book of the Prophet Hosea as well.
This does not mean that the Old Testament event (the population of Samaria by pagan nations) nor the New Testament event (the encounter between Jesus and the Samaritan woman) were not actual historical events; but it shows that God planned the historical event of the Old Testament to be a sign pointing to a deeper spiritual reality to be fulfilled and manifested in the New Testament. St. Paul calls the story of Sarah and Hagar an allegory. By this, he does not mean the story of them in Genesis is made up, but that by God's design, it points to something deeper, something which is only made manifest in the light of Christ.
When the authors of the New Testament books wrote in ways that evoke the Old Testament, they did so because God directed them! Without knowing the history of Israel, all the way back to Abraham, Noah, and even Adam, the New Testament lacks a critical dimension. As St. Augustine said, the New Testament is concealed in the Old, and Old Testament is revealed in the New. This is the fourth reason to know the Old Testament: to see it revealed in greater spiritual depth in the New Testament, through Jesus Christ.
I hope these four reasons inspire you to reconsider just how important the Old Testament scriptures are to you and to your faith. If you are interested in learning more about the Old Testament, I strongly urge you to find a Great Adventure Bible Timeline study in your area.
Why should a Catholic (or any Christian) know the Old Testament? I'll give you four reasons. Four Scriptural reasons. Just use this simple mnemonic: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
Ok, it's not actually a mnemonic. But in those four names (which you know so well) are the four reasons. What do I mean? Well, you needn't go further than five verses into any of the Gospels before you come across a reference to the Old Testament!
Who are these people? (Matthew 1:1-16)
[1] The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.The first line of St. Matthew's Gospel presents us with three questions: who is David, who is Abraham, and why does it matter? The next fifteen verses answer these questions, but only if you are familiar with the Old Testament. The genealogy provided by the author of the Gospel is saturated with the Old Testament.
[2]Abraham was the father of Isaac, and Isaac the father of Jacob, and Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers, [3] and Judah the father of Perez and Zerah by Tamar, and Perez the father of Hezron, and Hezron the father of Ram, [4] and Ram the father of Amminadab, and Amminadab the father of Nahshon, and Nahshon the father of Salmon, [5] and Salmon the father of Boaz by Rahab, and Boaz the father of Obed by Ruth, and Obed the father of Jesse, [6] and Jesse the father of David the king.
And David was the father of Solomon by the wife of Uriah, [7] and Solomon the father of Rehoboam, and Rehoboam the father of Abijah, and Abijah the father of Asa, [8] and Asa the father of Jehoshaphat, and Jehoshaphat the father of Joram, and Joram the father of Uzziah, [9] and Uzziah the father of Jotham, and Jotham the father of Ahaz, and Ahaz the father of Hezekiah, [10] and Hezekiah the father of Manasseh, and Manasseh the father of Amos, and Amos the father of Josiah, [11] and Josiah the father of Jechoniah and his brothers, at the time of the deportation to Babylon.
[12] And after the deportation to Babylon: Jechoniah was the father of She-alti-el, and She-alti-el the father of Zerubbabel, [13] and Zerubbabel the father of Abiud, and Abiud the father of Eliakim, and Eliakim the father of Azor, [14] and Azor the father of Zadok, and Zadok the father of Achim, and Achim the father of Eliud, [15] and Eliud the father of Eleazar, and Eleazar the father of Matthan, and Matthan the father of Jacob, [16] and Jacob the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ.
Matthew tells us of the patriarchs: Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Matthew mentions four women who were ancestors of the Christ: Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and Bathsheba (the wife of Uriah). Why does Matthew mention them? Because of the peculiarity of their circumstances:
Tamar was married to Judah's son Er (who died), so Judah gave her another of his sons, Onan, as a husband (who also died). Judah promised her another of his sons as husband, Shelah, but Judah sent her away and never fulfilled his promise (for fear that Shelah would also die). So Tamar disguised herself as a harlot, and Judah went into her and she conceived twins (Perez and Zerah). When this was all revealed to Judah, he was greatly ashamed. Yet it was through this pseudo-harlotry that Perez, a forefather of Jesus Christ, was born. (cf. Genesis 38)These women, these unions, should be an embarrassing blot on a family tree! What king would be open about being the son of numerous harlots and pagan foreigners? What king would gladly claim the throne of his adulterous murderous ancestor? This (along with the crucifixion) is a stumbling block to Jews, and folly to the Gentiles. Yet Matthew records the power of God to take the lowly and the sinful and exalt them, glorifying Himself in the process.
Rahab was a pagan harlot from Jericho who aided the Israelites spies sent into the city by Joshua. Because of her fidelity to Israel, she and her family were permitted to live when the Israelites captured the city. For her faithfulness, she is mentioned in the "Hall of Fame" in Hebrews 11. (cf. Joshua 2, 6)
Ruth was a Moabite, the daughter-in-law of Naomi (wife of Elimelech, of Bethlehem in Judah). When Ruth's husband died, Ruth stayed with Naomi, telling her "where you go I will go, and where you lodge I will lodge; your people shall be my people, and your God my God." This was a powerful statement in a time when Israel continually rejected the Lord as God. (cf. Judges) Ruth eventually married Boaz, a kinsman of her father-in-law. These had a son, Obed; Obed was the father of Jesse; Jesse was the father of King David. Thus another pagan foreigner became an ancestor of Jesus Christ, in whom the dividing wall of enmity between Jew and Gentile was torn down. (cf. Ruth 1-4)
Finally, Bathsheba was the wife of Uriah, a man of King David's army. David was enamored with Bathsheba's beauty and she conceived a son by him. To hide this sin, David tried to get Uriah to sleep with Bathsheba. When this plan failed, David had Uriah slain on the battlefield. Because of these two grievous sins — adultery leading to murder — the Lord took the child to Himself. David comforted Bathsheba afterwards, and she born another son, Solomon the wise, who would be an ancestor of Jesus. (cf. 1 Samuel 11-12)
Matthew makes it clear that Jesus is royalty: he is the descendant of David, King of Israel! (The significance of this is made clear especially in Luke 1:32-33.) Matthew brings in the sordid history of Israel: her deportation and exile. Finally, Matthew draws attention to Joseph and Mary: he does not say "Joseph the father of Jesus," but rather "Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born."
It is clear from the beginning of Matthew's Gospel that he wrote with the expectation that his readers would know who these figures in Israel's history were and why they were significant to be ancestors of the Messiah. That is the first reason to know the Old Testament: to know who these people are, so that we know where Jesus came from.
Isaiah the what? (Mark 1:1-4)
[1] The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. [2] As it is written in Isaiah the prophet, "Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, who shall prepare thy way; [3] the voice of one crying in the wilderness: Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight—"St. Mark gets right to the point. Jesus is the Messiah and the Son of God. But Mark does not begin by recording Jesus' origin; rather, he tells us of the man who came before him, John the Baptist. But Mark sets the stage for John the Baptist by invoking Isaiah the prophet. If we don't know the Old Testament, we won't know 1) what a prophet is, 2) who Isaiah was and when he lived, and 3) what he prophesied.
[4] John the baptizer appeared in the wilderness, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.
So much of the Gospels — essentially all of Christ's life, ministry, Passion, death, and Resurrection — is the fulfillment of Scripture. No less than a dozen times does Matthew inform his reader that some action of Christ was done "to fulfill what was spoken" by some prophet. Luke records that, on the road to Emmaus, Christ interpreted "all the scriptures the things concerning himself," and afterwards told the Apostles that "everything written about me in the law of Moses and the prophets and the psalms must be fulfilled." That is the second reason to know the Old Testament: to realize that Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of numerous prophecies.
Herod, Abijah, and Aaron, oh my! (Luke 1:5)
[5] In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zechariah, of the division of Abijah; and he had a wife of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth.What is Judea? Who is Herod? What's a priest? Who was Abijah? Who was Aaron? This is more than simply knowing who these people are, this is knowing the cultural setting into which Jesus was born.
Israel was a kingdom... but Herod was not a true Davidic King. Israel had been split in two during the time of Solomon's son Rehoboam, and this wound was never fully healed. Judea (i.e. Judah) was the southern Kingdom, home to Jerusalem, where David and Solomon had reigned over the whole Kingdom of Israel for a time.
Zechariah (the father of John the Baptist) was a priest. The priestly men of Israel were divided into three groups: the high priest (a descendant of Aaron), the priests (other descendants of Aaron), and their ministers (other descendants of Levi, the tribe to which Aaron belonged). These Aaronic priests were assigned by King David according to twenty-four divisions, as recorded in 1 Chronicles 24:1-18. Here we find that Abijah's division was the eighth. Both Zechariah and Elizabeth are descendants of Aaron. As for what a priest does, the Old Testament book of Leviticus ("pertaining to the Levites") describes that in detail.
This single verse gives us a historical setting: Herod was king of Judea in a certain period of time, and Zechariah was serving in the Temple during two specific weeks of the year. This verse also gives us a cultural setting: a nation, a kingdom, with a priesthood. This is the third reason to know the Old Testament: to understand the cultural and historical circumstances into which Jesus was born.
Another "beginning"? (John 1:1)
[1] In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.Do these words sound a little familiar? Wasn't there some other "beginning" mentioned somewhere in Scripture? Yes.. yes... back in Genesis. The first verse of the Old Testament is recalled by the first verse of the Gospel of John.
John's Gospel is full of spiritual parallels of the Old Testament. In John 4, when Jesus is speaking with the Samaritan woman at the well, he records God's unfolding of a historical event (the dilution of northern Israel — Samaria — by five pagan nations by King Sargon, described in 2 Kings 17:24) in the personal encounter between two people. Jesus asks the woman to bring her husband, and the woman says she has no husband. Jesus replies that she has spoken truthfully, because she (representing Samaria) has had five husbands (representing Babylon, Cuthah, Avva, Hamath, and Sephar-vaim) and that the one she is with now (Jesus, the Lord) is not her husband. This hearkens back to the book of the Prophet Hosea as well.
This does not mean that the Old Testament event (the population of Samaria by pagan nations) nor the New Testament event (the encounter between Jesus and the Samaritan woman) were not actual historical events; but it shows that God planned the historical event of the Old Testament to be a sign pointing to a deeper spiritual reality to be fulfilled and manifested in the New Testament. St. Paul calls the story of Sarah and Hagar an allegory. By this, he does not mean the story of them in Genesis is made up, but that by God's design, it points to something deeper, something which is only made manifest in the light of Christ.
When the authors of the New Testament books wrote in ways that evoke the Old Testament, they did so because God directed them! Without knowing the history of Israel, all the way back to Abraham, Noah, and even Adam, the New Testament lacks a critical dimension. As St. Augustine said, the New Testament is concealed in the Old, and Old Testament is revealed in the New. This is the fourth reason to know the Old Testament: to see it revealed in greater spiritual depth in the New Testament, through Jesus Christ.
I hope these four reasons inspire you to reconsider just how important the Old Testament scriptures are to you and to your faith. If you are interested in learning more about the Old Testament, I strongly urge you to find a Great Adventure Bible Timeline study in your area.
Thursday, July 09, 2009
Mind, Soul, Strength, Heart: 29th Sunday in Ordinary Time
Here is another installment of the Bible study I'll be leading this fall at St. David the King: October 18th. I welcome all suggestions, comments, questions, etc.
Sunday, July 05, 2009
Thursday, June 25, 2009
My catechetical adventure...
So I've got a book that's being wrapped up. And I'm working on a second book. And I'm leading a young adult Bible study starting in the Fall that will require a fair amount of advance preparatory work (for which I should really purchase the Ignatius Study Bible Gospel set). And I'm involved in another Bible study at my parish, the Great Adventure series on Matthew.
But I'm also going to be a catechist for 6th graders, introducing them to the Bible and specifically the Old Testament Scriptures. So I have a project for myself this summer. I'm going to read the General Directory for Catechesis (and maybe the National Directory for Catechesis), and I'm going to review the textbook materials for this 6th grade course, and I'm going to review the Great Adventure Timeline for the Old Testament (including watching the DVDs). This is so that I can put together a decent curriculum/syllabus for the class.
There's so much they need to learn... or at least start learning. What is the Bible? How was it written? Who wrote it? How did we get it? How and why can we trust it? How should we read it? Why should we read it? And then... what does it tell us?
I want to introduce them (gently) to my "Mind-Soul-Strength-Heart" approach to Scripture: the four ways to love God, the four pillars of the Catechism, and the four senses of Scripture.
I want to give them an overview of the "storyline" of the Old Testament: Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Joshua, Judges, 1 & 2 Samuel, 1 & 2 Kings, Ezra, Nehemiah, 1 Maccabees. I want to bring up particularly important events: Creation, the Fall, the Flood, Babel, Abram's call, Abraham and Isaac, Jacob and Esau, Joseph, Moses, the burning bush, Egypt, the plagues, the Passover, the Red Sea, Mt. Sinai... and that's just the first two books of the Bible!
(Update: While the textbook doesn't cover Genesis 1-11 — I will — the first unit, four chapters, covers Abram's call, Abraham and Isaac, Jacob and Esau, and Joseph. So that's good.)
Anyway, my wife are I going on an anniversary vacation this weekend (up to Newport, RI, to look at houses we'll never own — whilst we search for our first house to buy in the Trenton area). Have a good weekend. Internet silence from noon Friday until late late late Sunday.
But I'm also going to be a catechist for 6th graders, introducing them to the Bible and specifically the Old Testament Scriptures. So I have a project for myself this summer. I'm going to read the General Directory for Catechesis (and maybe the National Directory for Catechesis), and I'm going to review the textbook materials for this 6th grade course, and I'm going to review the Great Adventure Timeline for the Old Testament (including watching the DVDs). This is so that I can put together a decent curriculum/syllabus for the class.
There's so much they need to learn... or at least start learning. What is the Bible? How was it written? Who wrote it? How did we get it? How and why can we trust it? How should we read it? Why should we read it? And then... what does it tell us?
I want to introduce them (gently) to my "Mind-Soul-Strength-Heart" approach to Scripture: the four ways to love God, the four pillars of the Catechism, and the four senses of Scripture.
I want to give them an overview of the "storyline" of the Old Testament: Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Joshua, Judges, 1 & 2 Samuel, 1 & 2 Kings, Ezra, Nehemiah, 1 Maccabees. I want to bring up particularly important events: Creation, the Fall, the Flood, Babel, Abram's call, Abraham and Isaac, Jacob and Esau, Joseph, Moses, the burning bush, Egypt, the plagues, the Passover, the Red Sea, Mt. Sinai... and that's just the first two books of the Bible!
(Update: While the textbook doesn't cover Genesis 1-11 — I will — the first unit, four chapters, covers Abram's call, Abraham and Isaac, Jacob and Esau, and Joseph. So that's good.)
Anyway, my wife are I going on an anniversary vacation this weekend (up to Newport, RI, to look at houses we'll never own — whilst we search for our first house to buy in the Trenton area). Have a good weekend. Internet silence from noon Friday until late late late Sunday.
Monday, June 15, 2009
Mind, Soul, Strength, Heart: 12th Sunday in Ordinary Time (B)
You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul,
and with all your strength, and with all your mind. (Luke 10:27)
You can download a sample MSSH study session (MS Word, 50 K, 4pp) that I developed over the past few days. It's designed to last between 60 and 90 minutes. It covers the First Reading and the Gospel for next Sunday; the Psalm is incorporated (although it is not "studied"), and the Second Reading is mentioned briefly. (I think trying to cover all four passages of Scripture — or three, if you leave out the Psalm — is a bit much for a 60 or 90 minute study, especially when the Second Reading is often not thematically related to the First Reading or the Gospel.)and with all your strength, and with all your mind. (Luke 10:27)
I came up with the logo, the letterhead, and the layout myself. I think it's pretty neat.
Friday, June 12, 2009
A New Model for Bible Study
Catholics love numbers. What I mean by that is, Catholics love lists of things, enumerating things to help remember them. 10 Commandments, 7 Spiritual Works of Mercy, 7 Corporal Works of Mercy, 9 Beatitudes, 3 Theological Virtues, 4 Cardinal Virtues, 7 Gifts of the Holy Spirit, 12 Fruits of the Holy Spirit.
Here are some important 4s for you to memorize:
The Four Ways to Love God (Luke 10:27)
1. Heart
2. Soul
3. Strength
4. Mind
The Four Senses of Scripture (CCC 115-119)
1. Literal (the meaning conveyed by the words)
2. Allegorical (their relation to Christ and the Paschal Mystery)
3. Moral (how they instruct us in right living)
4. Anagogical (their relation to eternal realities)
The Four Pillars of the Catechism
1. The Creed
2. The Sacraments and Liturgy
3. The Moral Life
4. Christian Prayer
What does this have to do with "a new model for Bible Study"? And why is Jeff advocating yet another "model for Bible Study" when we already have great systems like the Great Adventure Bible Timeline and Catholic Scripture Study International?
Don't worry. I'm not supplanting or competing. Rather, my suggestion has to do with HOW you use those or any other models for studying the Bible. I would say that GABT and CSSI are very close to this model already.
My model is a combination of those three sets of four.
1. Mind refers to information, intellectual knowledge of the faith: The Creed, the literal sense
2. Soul refers to formation, spiritual understanding of the faith: The Sacraments and Liturgy, the allegorical sense
3. Strength refers to right action, moral living: The Life of Faith, the moral sense
4. Heart refers to intimate union with God: Christian Prayer, the anagogical sense
I'll explain this more in detail later, and provide a couple sample studies.
Here are some important 4s for you to memorize:
The Four Ways to Love God (Luke 10:27)
1. Heart
2. Soul
3. Strength
4. Mind
The Four Senses of Scripture (CCC 115-119)
1. Literal (the meaning conveyed by the words)
2. Allegorical (their relation to Christ and the Paschal Mystery)
3. Moral (how they instruct us in right living)
4. Anagogical (their relation to eternal realities)
The Four Pillars of the Catechism
1. The Creed
2. The Sacraments and Liturgy
3. The Moral Life
4. Christian Prayer
What does this have to do with "a new model for Bible Study"? And why is Jeff advocating yet another "model for Bible Study" when we already have great systems like the Great Adventure Bible Timeline and Catholic Scripture Study International?
Don't worry. I'm not supplanting or competing. Rather, my suggestion has to do with HOW you use those or any other models for studying the Bible. I would say that GABT and CSSI are very close to this model already.
My model is a combination of those three sets of four.
1. Mind refers to information, intellectual knowledge of the faith: The Creed, the literal sense
2. Soul refers to formation, spiritual understanding of the faith: The Sacraments and Liturgy, the allegorical sense
3. Strength refers to right action, moral living: The Life of Faith, the moral sense
4. Heart refers to intimate union with God: Christian Prayer, the anagogical sense
I'll explain this more in detail later, and provide a couple sample studies.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Bible Study: 3rd Sunday of Easter
1 John 2:1-5a
Jesus is the expiation for our sins
Et in hoc cognoscimus quoniam novimus eum: si mandata eius servemus.
Download this study [MS Word, 46 k, 2pp]
Jesus is the expiation for our sins
Et in hoc cognoscimus quoniam novimus eum: si mandata eius servemus.
Download this study [MS Word, 46 k, 2pp]
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Bible Study resuming
After taking two weeks off (Holy Week and Easter Week), the Young Adult Bible Study is resuming. This week, we're going to read 1 John 2:1-5. I'll post the notes (and the notes from the previous weeks) soon.
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Bible Study: Witnessing on John 6:35ff
I attended the men's Bible Study at the Princeton Alliance Church near Queenship of Mary this past Thursday night. I got an email (along with the other regulars) out of the blue from the leader, Barry, which said "We'll kick off this week with Chapter 6, verse 35." No mention of the book of the Bible, but I'm a Catholic, so I know my Scriptures!
What other 6:35 would you start a Bible Study session with? John 6:35. The "Bread of Heaven" discourse! At a non-denominational Bible Study! As a Catholic, I felt compelled to go.
We didn't get to the verses about eating and drinking the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ until the very end of the evening, because there was much more discussion (and disagreement) over some of the verses before those. "All that the Father gives me will come to me; and him who comes to me I will not cast out. ... No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day." (John 6:37, 44) There was some discussion about predestination, why some people answer the call and others don't, whether God calls everyone or only some people.
My contribution to the discussion was to offer that God's desire that all men be saved (cf. 1 Timothy 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9) is distinct from His sovereign will. I argued that we have free will in this way: 1) sin is a transgression against God, thus 2) sin is a transgression against the will of God, so 3) God cannot command or will a person to sin because He would be willing against His will, so 4) our choice to sin is determined by our free will. God is not the author of sin, even though He is the author of those who sin.
It would be utterly contrary to His nature for God to will someone to not do His will. That's a paradox, plain and simple: in disobeying God, that man would be obeying God! Another way to come to the same conclusion comes from the words of Christ: "Not every one who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven." (Matthew 7:21) If we have no free will, then that means we are all doing simply what God pre-ordained us to do: we are all doing God's will for us. That means all of us shall enter the kingdom of Heaven. That's absurd and is refuted soundly by Scripture. Thus, we have free will.
And again, we pray "Thy will be done". Why would we bother praying that if it's already being done?
God knows our free will decisions because He is God. He is outside of time, and so He knows what I'm doing before I go to bed, not because He commanded or willed it, but because He has already seen it by virtue of his omniscience.
With that out of the way, we finally moved onto John 6:53-58. I suggested that I was in the minority in my interpretation of these verses because I'm Catholic. Barry (who is such a gentle and kind man, and is newly engaged, so pray for him and his fiancée) asked me to give that Catholic interpretation.
So I did. I defended the Catholic teaching on the Eucharist several ways. I defended drinking Christ's blood against the commandment not to consume the blood of animals. I defended Christ's language, going from phago ("to consume" which could be philosophical, not physical) to trogo ("to gnaw", which is not used outside of the literal sense). I defended the context of this passage, which starts with the miraculous multiplication of fishes and loaves (a superabundance, an overabundance); which starts with mention of the Passover and ends with mention of Judas' future betrayal (as do the Last Supper accounts of the synoptic gospels). I defended the Church's "policy" on a "closed communion": receiving Holy Communion in the Catholic Church is a sign of being in Communion with the Church and all she teaches and professes to be true. I defended against the argument of "it is the Spirit that gives life; the flesh is of no avail", because Jesus does not say his flesh is of no avail, and the words that he spoke (which are Spirit and life) are quite plainly: "eat my flesh and drink my blood".
I also corrected a few misconceptions (voiced or not). The Church does not teach that Jesus becomes bread and wine: bread and wine become Jesus. The Church does not teach that mindless and rote consumption of Holy Communion saves us; on the contrary, she believes what St. Paul says on the subject, that those who receive unworthily receive condemnation! (cf. 1 Cor 11:27-30) I answered a question about whether a person has to receive Communion (such as a person who is baptized and dies before receiving Communion), although I didn't cite the Council of Trent (Session 21, Chapter IV).
We didn't finish the chapter, so I'll be going again next Thursday night for some "followup". Please pray for me, and pray for Barry, Steve, Kevin, Steve, John, Alan, Sidney, Joe, Yeol, and Gary.
What other 6:35 would you start a Bible Study session with? John 6:35. The "Bread of Heaven" discourse! At a non-denominational Bible Study! As a Catholic, I felt compelled to go.
We didn't get to the verses about eating and drinking the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ until the very end of the evening, because there was much more discussion (and disagreement) over some of the verses before those. "All that the Father gives me will come to me; and him who comes to me I will not cast out. ... No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day." (John 6:37, 44) There was some discussion about predestination, why some people answer the call and others don't, whether God calls everyone or only some people.
My contribution to the discussion was to offer that God's desire that all men be saved (cf. 1 Timothy 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9) is distinct from His sovereign will. I argued that we have free will in this way: 1) sin is a transgression against God, thus 2) sin is a transgression against the will of God, so 3) God cannot command or will a person to sin because He would be willing against His will, so 4) our choice to sin is determined by our free will. God is not the author of sin, even though He is the author of those who sin.
It would be utterly contrary to His nature for God to will someone to not do His will. That's a paradox, plain and simple: in disobeying God, that man would be obeying God! Another way to come to the same conclusion comes from the words of Christ: "Not every one who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven." (Matthew 7:21) If we have no free will, then that means we are all doing simply what God pre-ordained us to do: we are all doing God's will for us. That means all of us shall enter the kingdom of Heaven. That's absurd and is refuted soundly by Scripture. Thus, we have free will.
And again, we pray "Thy will be done". Why would we bother praying that if it's already being done?
God knows our free will decisions because He is God. He is outside of time, and so He knows what I'm doing before I go to bed, not because He commanded or willed it, but because He has already seen it by virtue of his omniscience.
With that out of the way, we finally moved onto John 6:53-58. I suggested that I was in the minority in my interpretation of these verses because I'm Catholic. Barry (who is such a gentle and kind man, and is newly engaged, so pray for him and his fiancée) asked me to give that Catholic interpretation.
So I did. I defended the Catholic teaching on the Eucharist several ways. I defended drinking Christ's blood against the commandment not to consume the blood of animals. I defended Christ's language, going from phago ("to consume" which could be philosophical, not physical) to trogo ("to gnaw", which is not used outside of the literal sense). I defended the context of this passage, which starts with the miraculous multiplication of fishes and loaves (a superabundance, an overabundance); which starts with mention of the Passover and ends with mention of Judas' future betrayal (as do the Last Supper accounts of the synoptic gospels). I defended the Church's "policy" on a "closed communion": receiving Holy Communion in the Catholic Church is a sign of being in Communion with the Church and all she teaches and professes to be true. I defended against the argument of "it is the Spirit that gives life; the flesh is of no avail", because Jesus does not say his flesh is of no avail, and the words that he spoke (which are Spirit and life) are quite plainly: "eat my flesh and drink my blood".
I also corrected a few misconceptions (voiced or not). The Church does not teach that Jesus becomes bread and wine: bread and wine become Jesus. The Church does not teach that mindless and rote consumption of Holy Communion saves us; on the contrary, she believes what St. Paul says on the subject, that those who receive unworthily receive condemnation! (cf. 1 Cor 11:27-30) I answered a question about whether a person has to receive Communion (such as a person who is baptized and dies before receiving Communion), although I didn't cite the Council of Trent (Session 21, Chapter IV).
We didn't finish the chapter, so I'll be going again next Thursday night for some "followup". Please pray for me, and pray for Barry, Steve, Kevin, Steve, John, Alan, Sidney, Joe, Yeol, and Gary.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)