5 Weeks before Easter 2022

Sun Lk 22:14-27
 

Mon Lk 22:28-38 (through day 321/365)
 

Tues Mt 26:42-54
 

Wed Mt 26:55-64 (through day 332/365)
 

Thu Jn 18:1-11
 

Fri Jn 18:12-18 (through day 315/365)
 

Sat Mk 14:53-65 (through day 327/365)

6 Weeks before Easter 2022

Sun Lk 21:34-22:2

Mon Lk 22:3-13 (through day 314/365)

Tues Mt 26:20-30

Wed Mt 26:31-41 (through day 325/365)

Thu Jn 17:6-19

Fri Jn 17:20-26 (through day 308/365)

Sat Mk 14:43-52 (through day 320/365)

33 Weeks before Easter 2022

Sun Lk 8:19-25
Mon Lk 8:26-36 (through day 125/365)
Tues Mt 12:33-42
Wed Mt 12:43-13:2 (through day 136/365)
Thu Jn 6:52-65
Fri Jn 6:66-71 (through day 119/365)
Sat Mk 6:30-46 (through day 131/365)

34 Weeks before Easter 2022

Sun Lk 7:36-50
Mon Lk 8:1-18 (through day 118/365)
Tues Mt 12:9-21
Wed Mt 12:22-32 (through day 129/365)
Thu Jn 6:35-40
Fri Jn 6:41-51 (through day 112/365)
Sat Mk 6:17-29 (through day 124/365)

35 Weeks before Easter 2022

Sun Lk 7:24-30
Mon Lk 7:31-35 (through day 111/365)
Tues Mt 11:20-30
Wed Mt 12:1-8 (through day 122/365)
Thu Jn 6:22-27
Fri Jn 6:28-34 (through day 105/365)
Sat Mk 6:6b-16 (through day 117/365)

36 Weeks before Easter 2022

Sun Lk 7:2-17
Mon Lk 7:18-23 (through day 104/365)
Tues Mt 11:2-6
Wed Mt 11:7-19 (through day 115/365)
Thu Jn 6:1-14
Fri Jn 6:15-21 (through day 98/365)
Sat Mk 5:35-6:6a (through day 110/365)

37 Weeks before Easter 2022

Sun Lk 6:27-38
Mon Lk 6:39-7:1 (through day 97)
Tues Mt 10:24-33
Wed Mt 10:34-11:1 (through day 108)
Thu Jn 5:31-38
Fri Jn 5:39-47 (through day 91)
Sat Mk 5:25-34 (through day 103)

38 Weeks Before Easter 2022 Reading Schedule for the Four Gospels

Sun Lk 6:6-16
Mon Lk 6:17-26 (through day 90)
Tues Mt 10:2-15
Wed Mt 10:16-23 (through day 101)
Thu Jn 5:19-23
Fri Jn 5:24-30 (through day 84)
Sat Mk 5:14-24 (through day 96)

In honor of Mark, cont., pt 2

In  the management of our relationship to God, it is God who manages, and He manages our choice-making without being in any way the author of our sin.  The "cost" of believing that is that we don't always know -- especially in the case of others -- what mix of sinfulness and virtue there exists in particular deeds or failures to act.  

For example, we can't measure what the Lord actually uses quantity-language to describe: the size of gifts.  In Luke 21:1-4, Jesus uses quantity-language to praise the giving of a very small amount: "And He looked up and saw the rich putting their gifts into the treasury. And He saw a poor widow putting in two small copper coins. And He said, 'Truly I say to you, this poor widow put in more than all; for they all out of their surplus put into the offering; but she out of her poverty put in all that she had to live on.'”

This continues the perception of the doing of good (and sinning) that we brought up in looking at Mt 12:35 in the previous post.  In both cases, the "good man" case, and the "evil man" case, we can see, at least some, of  the "what" --  "what is good" and "what is evil" -- but we don't see the treasure, or which treasure it is. 

Does everyone sin?  Due to 1 Jn 1:8, we must all say we have sin, and (1 Jn 2:1), must also say the possibility of sinning still exists for us in this life. But Mt 12:35 leads to the conclusion that the good man does not have evil treasure, and the evil man does not have good treasure, but vice versa: the good man has good treasure, and the evil man has evil treasure. If the good man still sins (Eccl. 7:20), then not all our acts come from our treasure.  

Depending on what we are looking for -- complete predictability by ourselves being the common, but mistaken (1 Cor 4:4-5) goal -- we would have to say that that the hiddenness of  heart motive and the hiddenness of heart treasure prevent us from using behavior alone to assess the good of what looks fine on the outside.  That takes care of assigning any degree of eternal good to our actions or others' based on behavior alone.  What about the "what is evil" side?  We certainly can identify at least some of the evil in what is evil.  What we can't see is the treasure the person is holding inside, specifically, if a particular evil act (or evil aspect of any act) came from an evil treasure inside.   

Another way of saying this is (using the language of Jesus about all sin Mt 15:19; Mk 7:21) that sin comes "out of the heart," but that the heart WILL go with what the treasure is (Mt 6:21; Lk 12:34) -- notice, future tense.  So both Paul (Rm 7:14-25; Eph 4:13) and Jesus put the lining up of heart and treasure, as future.

In honor of Mark (cont.)

In Mt 12:33-37, Jesus says “Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or make the tree bad and its fruit bad; for the tree is known by its fruit.  You brood of vipers, how can you, being evil, speak what is good? For the mouth speaks out of that which fills the heart.  The good man brings out of his good treasure what is good; and the evil man brings out of his evil treasure what is evil.  But I tell you that every careless word that people speak, they shall give an accounting for it in the day of judgment.  For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”

 

At first read, this paragraph does not seem to help with the problem brought up by Mt 7:19 and being anxious about tomorrow, even given the advice in Mt 6:34.  However, to whom does Mt 7:19 apply?  To all “trees” in the illustration, that is, every human being.  To whom does Mt 6:34 apply?  To those who are worried about tomorrow.  Again, nothing prevents the condition – worrying about tomorrow – from occurring in good trees or bad trees.  What is necessary is to also know that God takes the individual bad tree and creates it anew, with the result of it becoming a good tree.

 

So, at “second read,” Mt 12:33-37 still seems not to help the anxiety about Mt 7:19.  Unless a good tree can know that it has been made, from a bad tree, into a good tree.  If a good tree can know that it is a good tree, then Mt 12:33 applies: all that the tree being good implies, including that its fruit is made good.  Only the bad tree is associated with bad fruit.  Then a way has been found to use Mt 6:34 to help with anxiety about Mt 7:19.

 

This puts exegetical emphasis on the understanding that what a tree is MADE as overwhelms, controls, and produces in every case – the quality of its fruit.   

What a tree is known as, follows from that.  The second exegetical emphasis is the understanding that what a tree is actually and truly finally known as: this overwhelms, overrules, produces correctly and corrects whatever is incorrect until the harvest, in the providence of God, eventually and eternally – what a tree seems to be during its pre-harvest.

 

 

 

 

 

In honor of Mark

 In honor of my teacher Mark Arrington being with the Lord, I will certainly try and think hard about issues, as he did as our teacher and asked us to.

A hard issue for many Christians is the statement of Jesus "every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire (Mt 7:19)." This is a verse that (some) Christians say, makes them  anxious about tomorrow, in their own case, since this an eschatological statement.

There is a simple-to-state solution about this anxiety, that Jesus already made in the previous chapter, and it is sufficient in itself, if we take it: "So do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will care for  itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own (Mt 6:34)."

Although a command to not do something is also "enough," sufficient if obeyed, the verse (6:34) has a command, but it also has teachings supporting it.  1) tomorrow will care for itself; 2) each day has enough trouble of its own. I don't know why this translation changed the literal words of this second part,  but at least it put them, the literal words, in the margin: "sufficient for the day is its evils."  This is a teaching that is greater than what "each day has."  This is also a statement that whatever evil each day has, is sufficient for the day!  It's one thing to know that each day has trouble, or "enough trouble of its own."  It's quite another to recognize that Christ, the first and last, who died, and has risen from the dead (Rev 2:8), is the one who states to us, that a day's trouble is sufficient for that day.  If He says that the trouble of today is sufficient for today, then that implies that tomorrow's trouble is not upon us to worry about, from God.  In another post, we can see more, why (from Mt 12:33, NASB95).

 

37 Weeks before Easter Reading Schedule for Four Gospels for Easter 2021

Sun Lk 6:27-38
Mon Lk 6:39-7:1 (through day 97)
Tues Mt 10:24-33
Wed Mt 10:34-11:1 (through day 108)
Thu Jn 5:31-38
Fri Jn 5:39-47 (through day 91)
Sat Mk 5:25-34 (through day 103)

38 Weeks before Easter Reading Schedule for Four Gospels for Easter 2021

Sun Lk 6:6-16
Mon Lk 6:27-26 (through day 90)
Tues Mt 10:2-15
Wed Mt 10:16-23 (through day 101)
Thu Jn 5:19-23
Fri Jn 5:24-30 (through day 84)
Sat Mk 5:14-24 (through day 96)

39 weeks before Easter Reading Schedule for Four Gospels for Easter 2021

Sun Lk 5:27-39
Mon Lk 6:1-5 (through day 83)
Tues Mt 9:20-31
Wed Mt 9:32-10:1 (through day 94)
Thu Jn 5:2-9a
Fri Jn 5:9b-18 (through day 77)
Sat Mk 5:1-13 (through day 89)

40 Weeks before Easter Reading Schedule for Four Gospels for Easter 2021

Sun Lk 5:1-11
Mon Lk 5:12-26 (through day 76)
Tues Mt 8:28-9:8
Wed Mt 9:9-19 (through day 87)
Thu Jn 4:39-45
Fri Jn 4:36-5:1 (through day 70)
Sat Mk 4:30-41 (through day 82)

41 Weeks before Easter Reading Schedule for Four Gospels for Easter 2021

Sun Lk 4:20-30
Mon Lk 4:31-44 (through day 69)
Tues Mt 8:14-22
Wed Mt 8:23-27 (through day 80)
Thu Jn 4:15-26
Fri Jn 4:27-38 (through day 63)
Sat Mk 4:13-29 (through day 75)

42 Weeks before Easter, Reading Schedule for Four Gospels with Parallels, for Easter 2021

Sun Lk 4:5-12
Mon Lk 4:13-19 (through day 62)
Tues Mt 7:21-8:4
Wed Mt 8:5-13 (through day 73)
Thu Jn 4:7-10
Fri Jn 4:11-14 (through day 56)
Sat Mk 4:1-12 (through day 68)

Matthew

(Mt 8:1-4 // Mk 1:40-45 // Lk 5:12-16)

Mark

(Mk 4:1-12 // Mt 13:1-13 // Lk 8:4-10)

Luke

(Lk 4:5-19 // Mt 4:8-17 // Mk 1:14-15)
(Lk 4:5-13 // Mt 4:8-11)
(Lk 4:14-15 // Mt 4:12-17 // Mk 1:14-15)

The choice-point is as the Lord says, the gate! (Mt 7:13ff)

If people also view Ps 1 in a peculiar way, as if it taught a repeated jumping from one path to another that we need to be more consistent over time at, so people also treat Mt 7:13-14 in the same way, that path jumping is what the Lord is "really" talking about, not entry. No, He is talking about entry. That's His point, actually His command, that the entrance choice is the choice, for the very reason that it determines the path entered on.

43 Weeks before Easter, Reading Schedule for Four Gospels with Parallels, for Easter 2021

Sun Lk 3:15-29
Mon Lk 3:30-4:4 (through day 55)
Tues Mt 7:1-12
Wed Mt 7:13-20 (through day 66)
Thu Jn 3:22-30
Fri Jn 3:31-4:6 (through day 49)
Sat Mk 3:28-35 (through day 61)

Mark

Mk 3:28-35 // Mt 12:31-50

Luke

(Lk 3:15-4:4 // Mt 3:11-4:4 // Mk 1:7-13)

(Lk 3:15-17 // Mt 3:11-12 // Mk 1:7-8)

(Lk 3:21-22 // Mt 3:13-17 // Mk 1:9-11)

(Lk 4:1-4 // Mt 4:1-4 // Mk 1:12-13)

Intro to double entendre in John 3

It's not easy to express in a translation what we often pejoratively call, in English, a pun, that is, use of a word that means possibly two different things, and both "work." Even by verse 8 in this dialog with Nicodemus, Jesus has used puns, or doubly intended meaning, already, yet nested in what is otherwise the simplest and otherwise most unambiguous language and set of words that can be understood.

But we have to think carefully.  Why does the Lord "jump in," all on His own, to this subject of inability to enter the kingdom of God?  That's what it sounds like in English, when Jesus "answered and said ..." in 3:3.

But maybe by verse 8 we start to see that Christ was not changing the subject, but even correcting the very thing that Nicodemus had opened with. Instead of what Nicodemus did -- proceeding from conclusions about movement from God from some prior fact or conclusion -- Jesus begins with something quite opposite: birth from above / birth again (another double meaning).  Birth from above, is a greater opposite, than even a "polar opposite" is, from anything coming from around here in proximity, much less of something coming from prior group or individual accomplishment. Existence must be prior to any conclusion, of course. Hopefully we'll explain this by verse 8, showing the connection to entrance.  What's greater, entrance here, or entrance into God's kingdom?  What can you conclude, unless you are born?  Where can you enter, without proximity, and being outside it? And if outside it, how can you enter?

Nicodemus was not just passing by, but came to Jesus by night, 3:2.  Both by action and by subject, Nicodemus, we could say in English, he got there somehow, as if how, being at night, was not to be known.  Hmm... But Nicodemus was starting with a conclusion: he started with a statement he presents to Jesus as a given conclusion: what Nicodemus and his group (already) saw/"knowed" -- οἴδαμεν, aorist plural, concerning Jesus.  In the group vs. individual category, it is what they saw/learned, but it is Nicodemus that singularly came -- ἦλθεν, 3:2, again aorist -- to/toward Him, John points out.  But John points out too Nicodemus came by night.  Path unknown.  Hmm.

Nicodemus had come to/toward Jesus, yes, but his subject was the conclusion his group saw/came-to-know, namely, that it is from God that "you" (Jesus) have come (same simple word for "have come/entered" but this time in the perfect: it is from God that you have come/entered as teacher, we saw this, ...  So the subject was actually Nicodemus's group's prior conclusions -- often, this is the starting point for religious people -- namely, that they "knowed," came to know, something, quite a bit, actually): they know his category, the well-spoken of "teacher sent."  They know where He came from, from God, and the supposed recognition in this case, by the Pharisees as a group, of this fact, Nicodemus presents to Jesus as a group conclusion.  But was it?

John had already given a characterization of the nature of answers sought by the Pharisees, about new things, way back in chapter 1, where their representatives had some categories for what John the Baptist was thought to be, some possibilities they wanted to narrow down, and came to John with their conclusion-set.  The first thing Jesus does is bring in a change in methodology: one person, talking to one person,  "I" and "you." The "you" is a singular "you" in Greek.  Jesus alters even the subject discussed, to that of the individual, using individual pronouns -- if "one" is born, etc.

Similarly, there is a subject of methodology in the "truly truly": even the methodology (of narrowing down predetermined choices perhaps?) needs to be newly started, if the emphatic truly, truly implies something about truth, to the entire scope of what is true.  The whole backdrop must be the backdrop of saying things that are true.  Even an explained syllogism is not a new start.  (Nicodemus had "even" explained the syllogism: they had come to this conclusion by seeing what Jesus had done, and, unlike with John, they had ruled out all other conclusions, except that it was from God that Jesus has come as teacher.) But the conversation was not to be about what others have concluded, it was going to be between Jesus and Nicodemus; it was going to have to be dealing with the truth, and the subject Jesus brings up, the kingdom of God, has to start from something above, both in idea, and in existence.

 On all these levels, using the simplest ideation possible, that of coming, entering, things that have occured, and saying things to one another in a discussion, not from group-authority, but beginning with a start from out of this world, Jesus begins to correct Nicodemus.