Acts 10:34, 37-43
Psalm 118:1-2, 16-17, 22-23
Jesus is nowhere visible. Yet today’s Gospel tells us that Peter and John “saw and believed.”
What did they see? Burial shrouds lying on the floor of an empty tomb. Maybe that convinced them that He hadn’t been carted off by grave robbers, who usually stole the expensive burial linens and left the corpses… [Continue Reading]
Unlike the other Gospels, John recounts only a limited number of miracles of Jesus, which he designates as “signs,” a rare term in the other Gospels. Although John tells us of only a few miracles, he describes them in much greater depth than the other gospel writers do. This is quite evident in this weekend’s Gospel reading, in which we get a very lengthy description of all the events surrounding… [Continue Reading]
You know we are “picking up steam” in the season of Lent when the Lectionary starts turning to the long readings from the Gospel of John (John 4, 9, 11). The Church turns to these texts from John at this point in the liturgical calendar, because John is, in so many ways, a mystagogical document, a gospel intended to takes us deeper into the mysteries, that is, the sacraments.
If one is not initiated… [Continue Reading]
Following up from part 1. Am I missing any major piece of the puzzle here that wouldn’t require a lot of explanation?
- Jesus’ Davidic Exorcistic and Healing Powers. Jesus’ exorcisms and healings seem especially tied to his role as the Davidide. The blind healed by him address him specifically as “son of David” (cf. Matt 9:27; 20:31). Likewise, accounts of his exorcisms are linked with his role as the… [Continue Reading]
I am currently working up an article on the imagery of the “keys of the kingdom of heaven” in Matthew 16:18. As part of the article I’m discussing the Davidic Christology of Matthew. I’m trying to be as thorough as possible. I’m going to post the first five illustrations here and then follow-up with five more.
- “The Son of David” (Matt 1:1). Matthew begins his Gospel by connecting Jesus’ role as… [Continue Reading]
As I explained in the last post in this series, Gundry has made the case that Jesus’ use of petros / petra was intended to highlight the fact that Peter was not the foundation but that the church would be built upon Jesus’ own words.
While this reading may at first seem possible, a number of observations, in my opinion, render such an approach highly implausible. In sum, I would suggest that while… [Continue Reading]
In his detailed commentary on Matthew, Robert Gundry makes the argument that Jesus was purposeful in using different words in his declaration to Peter—“you are petros, and on this petra I will build my church” (Matt 16:18).
Gundry is representative of many Protestant commentators. His view: the rock the Church is built upon is decidedly not Peter, but something else. In Gundry’s view, the petra,… [Continue Reading]
Heads-up. Let’s get ready to rumble! Over the next coming days I’m going to spend some time here looking at one of the most debated passages in all of the Gospels. So, here we go. . .
In Matthew 16:13–20 we read the famous confession of faith by Peter at Caesarea Philippi. In response to his statement affirming him as the “Son of the Living God,” Jesus tells Peter: “I tell you, you are Peter [Greek:… [Continue Reading]
Page 1 of 1 pages