Allusion on the movie: “The Book of Eli”

While thinking back over the years to all the movies I have seen and the movies that can represent or portray he bible in various ways, it was difficult decision to choose just one. The Book of Revelation can be interpreted and seen in multiple lights; however, I have always been told that the book of Revelation symbols the end of times and what can happen if a person has not been saved, etc. A few years ago I went to see a movie titled: The Book of Eli starring one of my favorite actors Denzel Washington that I’m sure some have seen. The movie starts out with visual imagery of what look to be ashes falling from the sky. As the movie continues one can see the world left after the Apocalyptic war has taken place and that water, shelter, and even clean drinking water are difficult to find. The liberty of God’s word that we know so well today is something that these post-war citizens have never known.

A godly man appears whose name is Eli and he walks in the light and faith of Christ as one can see by the quoting of scripture he often cites and the fact that he is called to protect and preserve the only copy of the bible that has endured the war. Can you imagine in today’s society there only being one Bible and not having free access to it like we do today; most people have their own Bible. Furthermore, during Eli’s travel he has to endure some struggles and tribulations from people who are trying to cause him harm: “The rest of mankind, who were not killed by these plagues, did not repeal of their works nor give up worshipping demons and idols of gold and silver and bronze and stone and wood, which cannot see or hear or walk, nor did they repent of their murders or their sorceries or their sexual immorality or their thefts” (Revelation 9:20-21). As seen in the movie, these men rob people and even kill people for their own benefit. Eli is given these amazing survival skills that include: hunting, fighting, killing, his ability to smell the existence of threat and there are some disturbing scenes in the movie that display him killing these manipulative men.

It would seem that Eli was left on earth after the war to do the works of God as displayed throughout the rest of the movie as he travels with a woman named Solara (Mila Kunis) who has lived in this corrupt town with her blind mother and an evil man named Carnegie who’s main goal is to get the bible from Eli and that is what ultimately causes the gruesome fighting. One particular part in this epic movie that stood out to me was the spiritual power that Eli is given through Christ when he is sadly shot numerous times and while being weak; he is still alive. After the massive scene of Carnegie trying to get the bible from Eli, Solara and Eli go on a journey to a spiritual place where Eli tells the story of the Bible starting with Genesis and having a man write down every word that is being said and showing numerous pages of biblical writings; and ultimately displaying what most of us know today as the King James Version of the Bible.

In conclusion to my Allusion, I think this movie revealed in vivid detail how if or when Jesus comes back as stated in Revelations, what our corrupt world may sadly look like after the Apocalypse and what evil people may still be left on earth. In addition, while there is no mentioning of a man in Revelation that will still be here to show us the word of God if for some reason our society doesn’t have it or has desolately forgot God’s word I would hope that a Godly person would be sent here to distribute the way and the life of Jesus Christ.

 

What is the importance behind Locusts being compared to Scorpions?

As I was reading through Revelations, I have to say that there were so many topics that I could have chosen to write about. Revelations in its self may possibly be one of the most popular books in the New Testament. When I arrived at the reading of Chapter nine, the word “locusts” sparked my curiosity and intrigue. Let me start of by saying that when I hear the word locusts, I can’t help but remember the Land Before Time movies that I was often obsessed with as a child. I remember in one of the movies where these certain bugs came in as a certain plague and ate all the dinosaurs source of vegetation and food and they were left with nothing to eat. If you have never watched or heard of the Land before Time movies; than shame on you. In addition, the locusts that I read about in Revelation didn’t even consume plant particles and were compared to scorpions: “Then from the smoke came locusts on the earth, and they were given power like the power of scorpions on earth, they were told not to harm the grass of the earth or any green plant, or any tree, but only those people who do not have the seal of God on their foreheads” (Revelations 9 3:4) Furthermore, I ask my question: “What is the importance behind Locusts being compared to Scorpions?”

When I first read this to be honest it somewhat scared me because when I think of a scorpion I think of all the pain that they can cause, and the fact that locusts were compared to these creatures are alerting: “They were allowed to torment them for five months, but not to kill them, and their torment was like the torment of a scorpion when it stings somebody” (Revelations 9:5) While doing research on the symbolism of the locust and the scorpion, I also had to research what can result from a scorpion sting and how dangerous these infamous creatures can be. Out of 1, 500 estimated species of Scorpions only 30 of those species can impose potentially fatal stings. That is a large variety of Scorpions that I was not even aware existed until now. “In the United States, only the bark scorpion found mainly in the southwest desert has venom potent enough to cause severe symptoms, as for other scorpion stings they typically occur in Mexico, South America, parts of Africa, the middle east and India”( http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/scorpion-stings/basics/definition/con-20033894).

Regardless, of what type of Scorpion stings you the pain that the locusts were meant to inflict was important for one reason or another or it would not be in the text. For example, the passage in 9:3 which is mentioned in my first paragraph gives a vivid introduction of these animals and what they may possibly be related to: “The description of the locusts indicates that they are demons who are given physical forms in order to manifest their destruction and torment.” (http://www.discoverrevelation.com/Rev_9.html) The fact that a demon could possibly morph into a creature is beyond terrifying and to think of these animals tormenting you with “demon” tendencies is enough to send me into hiding. Moreover, when you think of what evil a demon can require and the structure of a locust it would be disturbing: “The ordinary Syrian locust resembles a grasshopper, but is larger and more destructive, the legs and thighs of these insects are so powerful that they can leap to a height of two hundred times the length of their bodies” (http://www.christnotes.org/dictionary.php?dict=ebd&id=2309).

What concerned me even more was that this plague by the locusts while acquiring scorpion characteristics and as I’ve mentioned perhaps demon ones, that this wasn’t an overnight torment or even a couple of days of torment but this supposedly lasted for five months. “Whether this is physical pain and torment from the fallout causing sores and torture, or whether this is spiritual and terrible suffering, it is brought on by constant attack from the devil for 5 months” (http://www.discoverrevelation.com/Rev_9.html). That is a long time for people to endure the torture and pain from these terrifying creatures who main purpose was obviously to teach a lesson while inflicting pain. “They have tails and stings like scorpions, and their power to hurt people for five months is in their tails” (Revelation 9:10).

In conclusion to my question: What is the importance behind Locusts being compared to Scorpions? My personal opinion, is that while the locusts were inhibited with scorpion like features that were used to cause pain, there was probably a bigger picture of why these people had to suffer from these locusts and it is stated in the overview in our literary bible as to what possibly may be that reasoning. “The symbolic locusts are as up to date as our ecological crisis and the daily news about terrorism” (Literary Study Bible, ESV). I’m not one-hundred percent positive if this is true or not; but it seems somewhat logical. While, I know people interpret scripture in different ways and when it comes to Revelation there is a vast amount of text that a person really has to concentrate on, and it ultimately comes down to what a person believes is true.

 

 

 

Who was Gaius?

While reading through the epistles in the New Testament from Peter to John, I noticed a recurring pattern within these books as the other ones that I had previously read. For example, the books go into detail about false teachers and what it is expected of a true Christian. As I started reading the first book of John and arrived at the end of the third book, a brief mentioning of a name that wasn’t familiar to me sparked my curiosity: “The elder to the beloved Gaius, whom I love in truth, beloved, I pray that all may go well with you and that you may be in good health, as it goes well with your soul” (John 3: 1-2). While the third letter of John is brief in text, it discusses the act of hospitality and how “Gaius” was nice enough to offer it. In addition, I formed my question: Who was Gaius?

In my experience, I had never heard this man’s name mentioned before and if it was touched on, I didn’t recall it making such an impact that I could remember it. Furthermore, within my research I found that some people may find this letter to be a personal letter written by John to Gaius, that Gaius was a dear friend of John’s. “The reason that John thinks so much of him is because, he, also, is a student of truth, it would have to be part of you.” ( http://www.biblestudys.org/Bible%20Books/3%20John/3%20John%20Chapter%201.html)  In John 3 1:2 which is mentioned above, John’s prayer for Gaius is significant. Gaius spiritual state was so excellent that John prayed that his physical health would match his mystical potency. “To ask about one’s health was standard custom in ancient letters, but John adapted this convention in a unique manner to highlight Gaius vibrant spiritual state.” ( http://www.bible-studys.org/Bible%20Books/3%20John/3%20John%20Chapter%201.html)  It would seem that John put a lot of trust in Gaius and what kind of person he was.

As for the name itself “Gaius” not a significant amount is known of his name except for the mentioning in the introduction of the third book of John. Moreover, the precise name “was one of 18 common names from which Roman parents usually chose a name for their sons making any specific identification doubtful.”( http://www.biblestudys.org/Bible%20Books/3%20John/3%20John%20Chapter%201.html) How interesting about the Roman culture and names, that I didn’t really know a lot about. It makes me contemplate though, how in today’s society a lot of people typically acquire the same name, of course not including celebrities who give their children the most bizarre names. Also, the act of being a good host is displayed, when John and his devotees and even strangers to whom Gaius protracted hospitality held him in great honor for his Christian walk and conduct. (John 3:1-6)

While finding this particular research on Gaius from the third book of John, I also found that the name Gaius was revealed in other books as well. For example, it is mentioned that he is baptized by Paul in 1^st Corinthians: “I baptize none of you except Cripus and Gaius” (Corinthians 1:14 RSV) http://www.keyway.ca/htm2003/20030730.htm The name is then briefly mentioned again in regards to Paul: “So the city was filled with the confusion, and they rushed together into the theatre, dragging with them Gaius, and Aristarchus, Macedonians, who were Paul’s companions in travel” (Acts 19:26-29 ) It would appear that Paul also had faith in Gaius and trusted him.

In conclusion to my question: “Who was Gaius?” In the third book of John it seems evident that he was not only a friend of John’s but also a godly man who was willing to offer hospitality. Whether or not Gaius in the book of John and Gaius in Paul’s writings are related is a question that I simply don’t have the answer to, but in a previous mentioning of the Roman culture and the naming process that may have possibly attributed Paul’s writings of Gaius and it seemed that he was a confidant of Paul’s also.

 

Did women have professions outside the home according to the Epistle of Titus?

While being chosen to read Titus this week for our group blog, when first glancing at it I thought to myself out of all the times I have been to church I can’t recall the preacher distributing a lot of emphasis on Titus. I noticed how short it was in comparison to the other Epistles and how it may be somewhat easier to choose a topic….not really. While reading I found out that Titus was a young man who served as a pastor on the island of Crete who citizens were famous for their immoral behavior and Paul is giving Titus instructions on how to handle these merciless people. As I came to chapter 2 in Titus one verse in particular caught my eye: “to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the world of God may not be reviled.” (Titus 2:5) This scripture is referring to how women should be perceived and how they should live. In addition to that verse I formed my question: “Did women have professions outside the home according to the Epistle of Titus?”

In today’s society, it is considered normal for a woman to juggle a career and a family at the same time. With everything getting more and more expensive and depending on what type of luxuries that people like to acquire, it mostly takes two adults working to perhaps “foot” the bills. However, with the divorce rate being as high as it is today some women are single mothers and don’t have the luxury of not working. For example, I was raised by a single mother who worked and made sure that my sister and I had everything we needed. I was not accustomed to having the two parent household like most children grow up with. I guess you can say that even though my mother wasn’t what you would call a “stay at home” mom, I admired her hard and devoted work ethic. In addition to today, it was different in biblical times.

In the book of Titus it makes simple statements of what is expected out of a woman and what her duties are as a wife and mother and working inside the home, not really mentioning having a job were it consisted of other descriptions besides her children, house, and husband. I found that in Proverbs there was a woman who earned a living outside the household: “woman had her own business that took her away from the home during certain periods of time she makes linen garments and sells them; she delivers sashes to the merchant” (Proverbs 31:24) http://carm.org/apologetics/womens-issues/should-christian-wife-work-outside-home That is quite interesting, because even though there are a significant amount of women to take note of throughout the Old Testament and New Testament, I can’t remember any specific mentioning of a woman having a specific career in biblical times.

In the book of Titus it also gives information about how a wife is supposed to take care of her children and the house. “A  wife is also responsible  to take care of the children and the home” (Titus 2:5,6) While I think it is a woman’s job to take care of her children, we often see today especially with more women working, that babysitters or daycares sometimes contribute to the children’s needs when the mother has to work or perhaps do other things. Being a past babysitter, I have seen first-hand how busy mothers can be. Correct me if I’m wrong with this statement, but I don’t remember any mentioning of babysitters or daycares in the Bible. It seems that the wife and mother did it all without help. Today, if a mother has other jobs besides her one at home and has children, then there usually is some outside help.

Perhaps, one of the reasons that the woman role in Titus is so specified is because of how the Crete society acted as mentioned in my first paragraph: “The point for how women and wives should behave is because the young wives in Crete were negligent wives, mothers and household managers and in need of basic training” ( http://newlife.id.au/equality-and-gender-issues/busy-at-home-how-does-titus-24-5-apply-today/) It was crucial for the guidance of the older women to help the young women. While I agree that the Crete society needed some guidance, the passage is obviously connecting with not just the Crete women; but women in general. “Paul’s principle is that Christians should not behave in ways that their society finds offensive, or in ways that their society believes is disruptive to social harmony, otherwise Christians may find themselves bringing disrepute to God and Christian doctrine” (http://newlife.id.au/equality-and-gender-issues/busy-at-home-how-does-titus-24-5-apply-today/)

In conclusion to my question, did women have professions outside the home according to the Epistle of Titus? Depending on the person the answer could be different. I believe they did have a job, but it mostly revolved around their children, house, and husband. Today, most women like to have a career and work whether that means doing it with a family or just being an independent woman who may strive for other things in life besides marriage and children.

What was the prominence to Candace and the Ethiopian Culture?

While I was reading Acts, it was difficult to decide what question I wanted to do my blog on because there were so many stories that sparked my attention. In addition, I came across the passage about Candace who is stated in Acts as Queen of the Ethiopians and I found it questioning that I had never really heard much about her or the Ethiopian culture in the bible.  Therefore, I decided to do some research on this brief statement mentioned in Acts 8: 26-27 “Now an angel of the Lord said to Phillip. Rise and go toward the south to the road that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza. This is a desert place and he rose and went . And there was an Ethiopian, a eunuch, a court official of Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, who was in charge of all her treasure“.  (The Literary Study Bible, English Standard Version Copyright 2007 by Crossway Bibles, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers.) With that being said my question is “What was the prominence to Candace and the Ethiopian Culture?”

The name Candace actually appears once in the scripture, and there are several descriptions of what scholars believed her name to actual mean. For example, “Candace is a dynasty name or title rather than personal name, and it did not refer to a particular queen but a line of queens.”  http://www.gospelgazette.com/gazette/2001/dec/page2.htm She is said to have been the common name of the “queens” of Ethiopia, as “Pharaoh” was of the sovereigns of Egypt.There was one account that stated the reason that she held the higher power over the Ethiopians was because “the king of Ethiopia was thought to be a child of the sun and therefore too sacred to exercise the actual functions of governing, and the queen mother who was called Candace, exercised this rule“( The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, Electronic Database, Moody Press). In regards, it seemed that no matter what she was perceived to be that she still held a power of high authority in the Ethiopian Monarch as mentioned in the paragraph below. 

Anyone who knows some about the bible, probably knows that often a leader of a group in the biblical days was typically a man with superior power. Kings were the more prominent well-being over the Queens so to say. However, there are two notable exceptions ascribing regal rule to women who appear both in the bible and history. There was a woman who was mentioned as the queen of the South in Southern Arabia in Matthew and Luke. Candace, which I previously stated being mentioned in Acts, “waged wars, leading armies into battle, which armies were in part compromised female warriors, and Ethiopian monuments confirm the prominence given to females as queens and armed warriors.” http://www.gospelgazette.com/gazette/2001/dec/page2.html What an empowering gift to be a woman and have acquired the skills to lead a group and fight along the way. Apparently, at one of the pyramids of Meroe, where Candace’s picture can still be seen as with the treasure of jewelry that was found by Ferlini in 1834 is now on display at the Berlin museum. ( International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Electronic Database, (Biblesoft)

When it comes to the Ethiopian culture, It was astonishing the facts and interpretations I found while looking deep into the culture. What I didn’t know or maybe knew but never gave much thought, was the different geographical locations of the biblical Ethiopia and the modern-day Ethiopia. For instance, “There were two Ethiopia’s, one in Arabia, but that lay east from Canaan; it should seem this was Ethiopia in Africa, which lay south beyond Egypt, presently Ethiopia is situated two countries South of Egypt with the country of Sudan lying between Egypt and Ethiopia.“(Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible: New Modern Edition, Electronic Database. (Hendrickson Publishers, Inc.) 1991

Another intriguing fact I read in concern with Ethiopia was that Ethiopia was perhaps one of the countless kingdoms of Africa, part of which is now called Abyssinia. Abyssinia was an extensive nineteenth century empire in eastern Africa that coarsely resembled modern Ethiopia and included some evidence of the Nile river. In the bible, it is often mentioned as the quirky word “Cush.” However, that word “comprehended a much larger region, including the southern part of Arabia, and even sometimes the countries adjacent to the Tigris and Euphrates.” http://www.gospelgazette.com/gazette/2001/dec/page2.htm

On accounts regarding what the Ethiopian people’s appearance was, in different books in the Old Testament they are referred to as “country of burnt faces; the Greek word by which the Hebrew Cush is rendered, a country which lay to the south of Egypt. Herodotus, the Greek historian describes them as “the tallest and handsomest of men” they are frequently represented on Egyptian monuments, and they are the type of true negro. As might be expected, the history of this country is interwoven with that of Egypt.” http://www.gospelgazette.com/gazette/2001/dec/page2.htm (23).  It seemed that the Ethiopian men were recognized in the Old Testament more so than Candace who wasn’t mentioned until the New Testament in Acts.

In conclusion, to a more historical blog, than I purposefully intended for, I have come to believe that Ethiopia in today’s society and their beliefs  are probably more diverse than how it is portrayed in the Bible. Whether they had a queen or queens who went by the name Candace and fought hard for the Ethiopians I don’t know the specific answer to. Furthermore, I do know the geographical locations are different when looking on a globe then reading the locations in the bible. To me, the prominence of Candace and the Ethiopian culture is the point that a woman was the leader and high authority of  their group; not a man as read in Acts.

Why did the Jews not correspond well with the Samaritans?

I have often heard the unforgettable saying, “Be a Good Samaritan.” It wasn’t until choosing this blog topic that I ended up researching who the Samaritans really were and why the Jews didn’t get along with them. While reading and interpreting the book of John, I came across a story of a woman and Jesus that intrigued me. In John 4, a Samaritan women comes to collect some water from a well, and Jesus goes as far to ask her if she would “give him a drink.” The women replies with this brief statement: “How is it that you, a Jew ask for a drink from me, a woman of Samaria?” In the bible it then states  (For Jews have no dealings with Samaritans) (John 4:9) While it is obvious that Jesus is of kind nature as the story continues, I was confused and curious as to why the Samaritan women spoke that assertion and why Jews and Samaritans don’t see eye to eye on situations. In addition, that led me to form my question: “Why did the Jews not correspond well with the Samaritans?”

To fully understand this question, I did some research on the Samaritans to see where they originated from and how their beliefs were. The information that I came upon was interesting; yet informative. ” The Samaritan religion is actually an offshoot of Judaism that has kept its traditions in tack for more than 2,000 years, and their four principles of faith include, One God, the God of Israel,One Prophet, Moses ben Amram, The Belief in Torah, and one holy place Mount Gerizim.” It would seem that the Samaritans had a vast amount of deep beliefs and faith in not just one particular God, but others as well. Worshipping more than one God is not always considered a wonderful attribute depending on what religion one believes in and the Jews didn’t agree on that. ( http://www.usc.edu/dept/LAS/arc/neapolis/samaritans.htm#book1) However,the Jews actually had a few of the same beliefs as the Samaritans; that people would probably find noteworthy. For example, they have the same beliefs  in final judgement, rewards, punishment, Sabbath, dietary laws, etc. 

It was difficult to find an exact date as to when the arguing began between the Samaritans and the Jews, however I did find some accounts of how the debacle started. My first account goes back to the Old Testament in Kings 2 where the days of Israel’s judgement were at the mercy of Assyrians. “The king of Assyria took many of the Israelites into captivity, and settled the land with other people, then the king brought people from Babylon, Cuthah (Samaritans are also known as Cuthaeans) Ava, Hamath, and from Sepharvaim, and placed them in the cities of Samaria instead of the children of Israel; and they took possession of Samaria and dwelt in its cities” (v. 24)  “The Jews who remained were already rebellious because of Jehovah, were further corrupted in their religion.” ( http://www.truthmagazine.com/archives/volume44/V4405040009.htm)  Therefore, it looks as though the Samaritans were partial to their own ideas and didn’t listen to outside opinions, and the Jews felt somewhat betrayed by what had happened to them and what they had went through.

In my second account of the notorious groups, a date came to the surface of 539 B.C.E, when the Jews were allowed to return to Judah after Cyrus the Great conquered the Babylonian Empire. The priests of Jerusalem rose to importance during this time, since the line of King David was lost during the exile, the priests avowed that the temple in Jerusalem was the only sanctuary in Yahweh. The Samaritans loomed toward this idea with hesitation on a count that they recollected the many blessings of Mt. Gerizim. This led to the disappearance of multiple priests from Jerusalem in 4th Century B.C. E. Later on, the priests actually settled in Samaria where they received blessings of Alexander the Great to build a temple on the superior mountain. In addition, the triumphant encounter over the temple was one of the origination of the disputes between the two divisions. ( http://www.usc.edu/dept/LAS/arc/neapolis/samaritans.htm#book1) Apparently, this mountain deemed important attributions to the Samaritans.

In regards to the infamous Mountain, I found another interesting interpretation: “Antiochus IV Epiphanes ordered the Jews to rededicate their temples, including the temple in Jerusalem, to the Zeus, king of the Greek Gods. The Jews responded with the Maccabean Revolt, thus liberating themselves from Greek rule, however the Samaritans were more open to Hellenistic culture and decided not to rebel against Antiochus’ wishes, this turned into a political conflict as the Jews now knew who the Samaritans would side with in future conflicts. Now, John Hyrcanus who was the ruler of Judah from 134 to 104 B.C.E expanded the state and captured Samaria in 128 or 107 BCE. With the anti-Samaritan Biblical and post-Biblical writings in mind, along with recent memories of the embrace of Greek Culture, Hyrcanus immediately destroyed the temple on Mt. Gerizim.” (http://www.usc.edu/dept/LAS/arc/neapolis/samaritans.htm#book1)  How ironic that this temple on the mountain was important to so many people; yet it supposedly ended up to be a pillar of dust.

In conclusion to my question, there is evidence behind all the history and so forth that the Samaritans had a different worship style than the Jews when it came to celebrating Jehovah, that I believe caused the massive uproar between them. The famous mountain also stirred up an abundant amount of  controversy as well. There are so many various assumptions between the Jews and Samaritans that only a historian could correctly identify.  Furthermore, years later when Jesus who was believed to be a Jew came into the picture; he didn’t let the Samaritan/Jew war of the past interrupt his beliefs and morals when welcoming the Samaritan woman with open arms and she would return the favor by giving him water. He could have let the history between them make the situation difficult; but his faith shown through as did hers. It looks as though the Samaritan’s were more welcoming in the New Testament than before.

Who were Martha and Mary and what was their Importance?

While reading the book of Luke, I came across a short story of two women by the names of Martha and Mary that intrigued me. Given there are a vast amount of literary elements to write about in Luke; I found this particular one interesting. It is just a brief passage mentioning these two women; however, it was enough for me to start doing some extensive research. “Jesus entered a village and a woman named Martha welcomed him into her house and she had a sister called Mary, who sat at the Lord’s feet and listened to his teaching. “But Martha was distracted with much serving and she went up to him and said, “Lord, do you not care that my sister has left me to serve alone? Tell her to help me.” But the Lord answered “Martha Martha, you are anxious and troubled about many things, but one thing is necessary. Mary has chosen the good portion, which will not be taken away from her” (Luke 10:37). Who were these women and what exactly was Martha talking about when mentioning her sister Mary? Furthermore, my precise question would be: “Who were Martha and Mary and what was their Importance?”

The Literary Study Bible, English Standard Version Copyright 2007 by Crossway Bibles, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Luke 10

For starters, Martha and Mary were sisters who apparently lived together, but were sisters with two totally different personalities and had diverse ways of doing things when it came to entertaining Jesus. In addition, one can see that Martha’s view on life was unlike Mary’s. “It is possible that  Martha was older and that her age figured into her personality and perspective, that her words and actions depict her as practical and efficient.” Also, as one can see Martha appears to be more sociable and hospitable of the two sisters; she was after all the one who welcomed Jesus into their home. While Martha was more of a “matter of fact” type of woman, Mary seemed to be the more carefree sister who had the “hmm whatever” personality. For example: When the scripture says that Mary sat at Jesus’s feet and was listening to him instead of praising him, some may assume that, “Mary was lazy, leaving the needs of hospitality and being an amazing hostess to her sister. Perhaps, Mary was shy and didn’t really know how to handle the situation” I mean “hello” I know I would probably be shy and attentive like Mary was also in the presence of Jesus.

http://www.ucg.org/christian-living/profiles-faith-mary-martha-lessons-two-sisters

Elaborating on the paragraph above, Jesus said Mary made a conscious decision between two alternatives: “She chose listening to Jesus over preparation of a meal; while Martha was partial to fully preparing the meal and cooking it for Jesus and his disciples; Mary took ample opportunity of the situation and chose to listen to the wisdom of her savior, Jesus. Now, Martha was not particularly pleased with how her sister acted and even went as far to tell Jesus that. Jesus responded by saying : “Mary has chosen the good portion, which will not be taken away from her” (Luke 10:43). Furthermore, Jesus was not upset with Mary even though Martha was.

http://www.ucg.org/christian-living/profiles-faith-mary-martha-lessons-two-sisters

The important significance of this story could  be seen in a wide variety of ways. However, I found an interesting article that made an elusive point that perhaps the Parable of the Good Samaritan ties into the story of Martha and Mary. For example, the Mary and Martha story comes right after the parable of the Good Samaritan. Now, the story of the good Samaritan is written in the scripture that “we are to show mercy to others whenever the opportunity is before us, and indeed we are to do good and serve”. We are to go and do likewise like, just as the Samaritan did” (Par, 4). While previously mentioned, of the differences between Martha and Mary, and their character traits the lesson to be studied is: “Do indeed be radical in doing good, but don’t take this to mean that you should be scrambling around frantically, over-commiting yourself and becoming over busy.” You can sacrifice and go out of your way, but don’t neglect devoted time to worship. The idea of seeing these belongings together in Luke 10 is that there is enough time for both, don’t let your provision turn into anxiety.

http://whatsbestnext.com/2011/09/the-point-of-the-story-of-mary-and-martha/

In conclusion to my question, I have learned a great amount about these two sisters and in a way I can relate to them. My sister and I are two total opposites and have different views on how situations should be handled or my favorite “what you shouldn’t say” in certain situations. Furthermore, Martha and Mary may have had their differences but to Jesus they were both honorable women. Martha just had a precise way of handling things; while Mary did also.

What is the important significance behind the Alabaster Box and the ointment inside it?

I have heard about the Alabaster Box many times while reading the bible and I have also read or heard of it in other instances as well. I came across the story in Matthew and found it interesting; and while reading Mark, the intriguing box was brought up yet again. It is said that the Alabaster box and the powerful ointment that was inside healed Jesus. The fact that it is continually mentioned makes me curious as to why it was so important and of such great prominence to the people and the use on Jesus’s body. Furthermore, the question that runs through my mind is: “What is the important significance behind the Alabaster Box, and the ointment inside it?”

The connotation behind the Alabaster box, can probably be seen in many different lights. In addition, when doing some research on the important chest I found that it was actually made of a marble stone, that is in someway dangerous when you think about the woman breaking the Alabaster box, how difficult it must have been to break marble. In this particular article I also found that the liquid inside the box that was either described as a perfume or ointment was said to contain a particular element. “Myrrh is a white liquid that flows from a tree in Africa and Arabia and was the main ingredient in the oil”. As we read in text that Jesus’ was crucified, the ointment was used by those who would die by death of crucifixion.

http://all4him.org/tabernacle/alabaster-box/

Now, most of us have more than likely read that Mary broke her Alabaster box to help Jesus, that she was taunted for it, for what was inside was so valuable that you weren’t supposed to just use it on an everyday Joe. I remember years ago, when I received a book in the mail that a friend had sent to me titled:” Lady in Waiting, Becoming God’s Best While Waiting for Mr. Right.” I’m sure some of you have heard of it. I’m not trying to go into depth about this book, but I remember that it had a way of describing the Alabaster box and what it truly was, that up until now I never gave much thought to. During the biblical times, when a young woman arrived at the age to marry, her family would buy an Alabaster Box for her and fill it with ointment; the size of the box and the value of the ointment was to display the amount of wealth her family acquired. When a man would ask for her to marry him, she would respond by breaking this precious box at his feet; moreover the expensive ointment on his feet was meant to show him honor. So, when Mary decided to break her Alabaster box to Jesus, it’s not that she was expected to marry him, but it was a sign of honor.

Kendall, Jackie, and Debby Jones. “Lady in Waiting Becoming God’s Best While Waiting for Mr. Right.” Copyright 2005 Destiny Image Publishers, Inc. P.O. Box 310 Shippensburg, PA 17257-0310

There are several books in the bible that refer to the Alabaster Box, or flask as it is titled in the English Standard Version. Not to mention that Mary’s name is not mentioned in the specific passage in Mark, but just a woman. Additionally, it is stated above that she broke the Alabaster box at his feet; where as it refers to it was on his head in this passage. “And while he was at Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he was reclining at table, a woman came with an alabaster flask of ointment of pure nard, very costly, and she broke the flask and poured it over his head.” When she was questioned for the using of her expensive ointment, Jesus simply said to leave her alone? “Why do you trouble her? She has done a beautiful thing for me” (Matthew 14:3-9). Whether or not the ointment was distributed on Jesus’s head or his feet, is difficult to say. I suppose it depends on what text a person interprets and favors more; after all we all have our own opinions.

http://www.openbible.info/topics/the_alabaster_box

In conclusion to my question, I believe that Mary broke the influential case to honor Jesus and show that she was a true believer in Christ, no matter what people were telling her to do. The ointment was significant because it wasn’t just any typical ointment; but it was expensive and would prepare Jesus for his burial.

Who were the Pharisees, and why were they Jesus’s enemies?

While reading and interpreting the book of Matthew I came across the word “Pharisee” often. I had heard the term before, but wasn’t really sure who or what a Pharisee was or what their purpose was in Matthew or the New Testament. The further I read the more I saw that they were not the most significant men in the Bible or the New Testament; and that Jesus ran into some major debacles with them and how they portrayed themselves. I was intrigued by where these men came from and why they eventually became enemies of Jesus, instead of the holy followers that the world believed them to be. So, I ask myself “Who were the Pharisees, and why were they Jesus’s enemies?”

While doing research on this elusive topic, I found some intriguing facts that I was not aware of. A ‘Pharisee’ was actually a member of a Jewish religious party that prospered in Palestine during the latter part of the Second Temple period. They originated as a distinct group shortly after the Maccabean riot, and around 165-160 B.C. it is understood that they were spiritual descendents of the Hasideans. They were not predominantly a political party, but a society of scholars and Pietists, who sought out large popular followings and appear in the New Testament as spokesmen for the majority of the population. Apparently, these men proclaimed that God could and should be worshipped all over; not just in the temple and Jerusalem. I found this information enlightening as to where these notorious men came from and the men they started out being in the beginning.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/455129/Pharisee

While time moved on and some things continued to change in the biblical times; it was assumed that The Pharisees believed in a Davidic King. In other words this was a falsified King; that was seen as a King that would be a ruler over Israel and the Jewish nation, not a friend of sinners. The Pharisees believed that their religious beliefs were correct and that the Messiah should follow their laws; not the ways of Jesus.

http://www.lastdays.org.uk/jesus-and-the-pharisees.html

In the previous research I found out who the Pharisees were and how they became part of the bible and New Testament. In this research I will be explaining who these men were behind their perfect exterior, and why the Pharisees and Jesus didn’t agree on a lot and how their exterior motives were completely different from their interior motives. In the book of Matthew, the Pharisees were anything but “Godly” followers; but more so secretive manipulators of Jesus and the courageous words that he was voicing among the people. For example, in the twenty-third book of Matthew Jesus says that the Pharisees are not to be trusted and are not who they appear to be: “For you are whitewashed tombs who outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of dead people’s bones and all uncleanness. So you also outwardly appear righteous to others, but within you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness” (27,28). Anyone reading that would probably think, “Goodness!” these men were bad seeds .Furthermore, these men sought out the admiration that came with being a biblical visionary, but their hearts did not  match with their magnificent appearance. How long can a person or a Pharisee continue to lie and manipulate people before it catches up with them?

The Literary Study Bible, English Standard version. Copyright 2007 by Crossway Bibles, a publishing ministry by of Good News Publishers. Matthew 23.

In my conclusion to my question, I found a great amount as to who these men really were, and even though they looked to be of great importance and followers of Jesus; they weren’t. Their interior motives were to ultimately sabotage Jesus and his message to the Messiah. Furthermore, they may have fooled everyone else but the most important person that mattered that they didn’t fool was Jesus.

Who were the Pharisees and why were they Jesus’s enemies?

Considering that this is my first blog, it may not be as well written or as superior as others. I have never had to write a blog for a college course before, yet write a blog period. That being said; try not to judge me too harshly 😉

For my first blog for my Bible as Literature: New Testament class, I will be writing about how the Pharisees were interpreted in the text of Matthew. In the beginning of Matthew, the Pharisees would attribute to pretentious acts and would try to steer Jesus away from what his mission was;  however, in Matthew 23 one sees a somewhat new turn on the Pharisees, as Jesus starts using thought-provoking  language to describe the Pharisees and their ways.  To everyone who came in contact with them, they looked and portrayed to be good people; however Jesus could see past their exterior persona. “So you also outwardly appear righteous to others, but within you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.” With that quote being stated in Matthew 23 my real question would be: “Who were the Pharisees and why were they Jesus’s enemies.”

In my reading and research of this particular question,  I  imagine older gentlemen wearing a type of expensive looking robes while walking around in a group and talking to one another about what they can do to manipulate what the protagonist ‘Jesus’ is trying to teach to the people. However, the Pharisees were actually supposed to obey and follow the message that Jesus was interpreting but as the story goes on one can see that they very much did the opposite of that. The Pharisees expected others to obey the law but they themselves didn’t and were planning sabotage rather than following what was prophesied by Jesus. The Pharisees liked to be portrayed as followers of Christ and liked to be praised for it, but their intentions were anything but honorable.

The fact that the Pharisees liked to be the center of attention and falsify their motives and beliefs is why Jesus became upset and frustrated with them, and that is seen in  Chapter 23 of Matthew. I thought that one quote in particular painted a picture of what they contributed to: “They do all there deeds to be seen by others, and they love the place of honor at feasts and the best seats in the synagogues and greetings in the marketplaces” (23). In other words, it does not set well with Jesus when the Pharisees were receiving credit and admiration for something that they ultimately were not. Yes, in this particular book the word ‘Hypocrite’ is used continuously when referring to the Pharisees. I will not venture into the meaning of that term, because it can have a different meaning to different people. Furthermore, Jesus’s anger with the Pharisees were understandable because he knew that they were not the prestigious followers that other people believed them to be.

In conclusion to my question and hopefully a good explanation, I think that the moral of this story is “Don’t try to act or put on this exterior of a person that you absolutely are not, because whether it is a “higher power” or in the Pharisees case Jesus, your false identity will eventually catch up to you.

The Literary Study Bible, English Standard version. Copyright 2007 by Crossway Bibles, a publishing ministry by of Good News Publishers. Matthew 23.

questions.org/attq/why-did-jesus-condemn-the-self-righteousness-of-the-pharisees

 

This cartoon looks like an evil Pharisee man. 😉