[CHPC] Matthew: Chapters 1-2 [2007-10-24]
Oct. 24th, 2007 11:13 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
hermionesviolinKarl somewhat unilaterally decided to change Book Group to a study on the Book of Matthew -- which I'm okay with as I ended up not being a particular fan of the book we/I picked out (writeup to come).
It was just me and Mike in attendance, but that was fine. (I heart Mike. Sadly I don't get to see him much.)
We read aloud and then discussed, going piece by piece -- talking about what each part might mean, why it might have been included.
Karl mentioned the study guide notation that there are four women mentioned in the genealogy, all of whom are "deviants" -- though I argued that Bathsheba's a victim, isn't presented as having any agency in her story. Luke also has a genealogy of Jesus -- though he waits until the end of Chapter 3 for his -- and they don't even agree on who the father of Joseph is. I am amused that Luke's goes all the way back to "son of Adam, son of God." Oh, and Matthew's genealogy is structured in 14's, Karl said that in some Hebrew numerology David=14.
It was also pointed out that the Magi, the first people in Matthew to recognize Jesus (besides his father in his angel dream) are not Jews, are in fact Persians. I suggested that it indicates that even the heathens, even the evil king, they all recognized Jesus' power and import, therefore how much more so should you good Jews who are reading this.
***
After about 50 minutes we wrapped up for the evening, and Karl asked which our favorite gospel was. I said I haven't. Then I said that while I'm interested by stuff like the "Who do you say I am?" series at First Congregational in Norwood and have been meaning to read Robin Griffith-Jones' book The Four Witnesses, I'm more interested in the totality than in the specifics of the different perspectives -- more interested in the elephant than the four blind men, so to speak.
Though now I feel like I should have a solid grasp on the gospels as distinct narratives. Mike said that someone told him ages ago that it's like if there's a car accident, Matthew and Mark and Luke are all on different street corners while John's in the car, which I thought was interesting.
***
We then spent nearly two hours talking about spiritual formation and spiritual direction and stuff. Well mostly it was Mike and Karl talking. At one point Mike said, "You can leave," not wanting me to feel like I had to stick around for his Issues, but I said, "If I haven't mentioned, I'm really nosy, so I'll just keep listening." He said, "Okay, but don't blog this. I know you're a blogger." Heart.
It was just me and Mike in attendance, but that was fine. (I heart Mike. Sadly I don't get to see him much.)
We read aloud and then discussed, going piece by piece -- talking about what each part might mean, why it might have been included.
Karl mentioned the study guide notation that there are four women mentioned in the genealogy, all of whom are "deviants" -- though I argued that Bathsheba's a victim, isn't presented as having any agency in her story. Luke also has a genealogy of Jesus -- though he waits until the end of Chapter 3 for his -- and they don't even agree on who the father of Joseph is. I am amused that Luke's goes all the way back to "son of Adam, son of God." Oh, and Matthew's genealogy is structured in 14's, Karl said that in some Hebrew numerology David=14.
It was also pointed out that the Magi, the first people in Matthew to recognize Jesus (besides his father in his angel dream) are not Jews, are in fact Persians. I suggested that it indicates that even the heathens, even the evil king, they all recognized Jesus' power and import, therefore how much more so should you good Jews who are reading this.
***
After about 50 minutes we wrapped up for the evening, and Karl asked which our favorite gospel was. I said I haven't. Then I said that while I'm interested by stuff like the "Who do you say I am?" series at First Congregational in Norwood and have been meaning to read Robin Griffith-Jones' book The Four Witnesses, I'm more interested in the totality than in the specifics of the different perspectives -- more interested in the elephant than the four blind men, so to speak.
Though now I feel like I should have a solid grasp on the gospels as distinct narratives. Mike said that someone told him ages ago that it's like if there's a car accident, Matthew and Mark and Luke are all on different street corners while John's in the car, which I thought was interesting.
***
We then spent nearly two hours talking about spiritual formation and spiritual direction and stuff. Well mostly it was Mike and Karl talking. At one point Mike said, "You can leave," not wanting me to feel like I had to stick around for his Issues, but I said, "If I haven't mentioned, I'm really nosy, so I'll just keep listening." He said, "Okay, but don't blog this. I know you're a blogger." Heart.