Peter Remembers

By Rev. Dr. Richard Cheatham

No Available information at this time. Author will provide once available.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Xlibris US
• Release date: Aug 18, 2022
• ISBN: 9781669841197

Book preview

Copyright © 2022 by Diane L. Cheatham.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the copyright owner.

Scripture quotations marked NRSV are taken from the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible, Copyright © 1989, by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved. Website

Any people depicted in stock imagery provided by Getty Images are models, and such images are being used for illustrative purposes only.

Certain stock imagery © Getty Images.

Rev. date: 08/18/2022

Xlibris

844-714-8691

www.Xlibris.com

845551

CONTENTS

Acknowledgement

Preface

Introduction

Chapter 1

Chapter 2

Chapter 3

Chapter 4

Chapter 5

Chapter 6

Chapter 7

Chapter 8

Chapter 9

Chapter 10

Chapter 11

Chapter 12

Chapter 13

Chapter 14

Chapter 15

Chapter 16

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This book was written by the Rev. Dr. Richard Cheatham before his death on 11/30/2019.

Some of the study questions were in place. They were completed by his wife Diane and family members, to honor his work.

PREFACE

Paul Tillich offered a simple, but profound distinction to describe those who believe the essential content lies in the form of the rule or tradition: Conventionalist vs. Traditionalist. A Conventionalist believes that the essence of a rule or tradition resides in the form. If one changes the form in any way they change the essential content. A Traditionalist believes that an essential principle pre-existed the form. The form was determined by the culture. Therefore, if anyone attempts to move the rule or tradition to another culture maintaining the same form, it is akin to trying to convey a liquid in a sieve. The form may arrive intact, but it will have lost its content.

I believe that Jesus stood squarely in the position of a Traditionalist. His Sermon on the Mount clearly displays that. You have heard it said, but I say to you. Then he expresses an idea that appears to be contradictory to the established in the culture. He then explains that he did not come to abolish the Law but to fulfill it. In doing so, he digs beneath the surface form to understand and redefine the underlying principle. The Pharisees of his time did not understand this, so they opposed what he did.

My approach to this study of the Gospel of Mark assumes Jesus as a Traditionalist. He may cause difficulty for some, but I ask that you work with me in this perspective in order to find newer and more profound understandings.

History is a rather late development of human culture. Long before there was a concern for recording past events, there were stories that spoke of larger, universal realities. Every culture has its creations myths. They tell of the culture’s understanding of itself and its purpose. The Jewish Scriptures tell two quite different stories. Editing has placed them in juxtaposition, but they were written many centuries apart. The more primitive myth tells of God fashioning a male human from clay, creating a female companion for him from one of his ribs, then placing them in a garden. He orders them not to eat of the tree with the fruit of knowledge, but they disobey him. The consequence is that they are exiled from the garden and forced to labor in order to survive.

The later Creation myth was written during the era of the Babylonian Exile in the 6th century BCE. The understanding of the universe had expanded, due to the development of astrology by the Babylonians. They had developed a seven-day week, in which the days were named for the planets, in what was believed to be a descending order. The largest celestial object was the Sun (and therefore was considered to be the closest). Therefore, the first day of the week was named Sunday. Moonday was the next. Saturn was the seventh, and was considered to be an unlucky sign. Therefore, no projects were begun on Saturday. The exiled Jewish community wanted to affirm the essential goodness of Creation, and the myth took that form. Male and female were created equally and at the same time, and said to be in God’s image. There was no Garden of Eden and work was not a punishment. Rather, humanity was given dominion over the earth in all its goodness. Unfortunately, the two tales were placed in juxtaposition, and many careless readers simply do not notice that they are two distinctly different tales. A simple definition of a myth is that it is a tale that may not be true on the outside, but is saying something quite profound on the inside. In his monumental work, The Hero with a Thousand Faces, Joseph Campbell writes, "It has always been the function of mythology and rite to supply the symbols that carry the human spirit forward, in contradiction to those constant human fantasies that tend to tie it back." (p.7) The Book of Genesis is rich with myths. Also, the parables of Jesus are what I call mini-myths. Again, citing Campbell: It would not be too much to say that myth is the secret opening through which the inexhaustible energies of the cosmos pour into the human cultural manifestation. (p.1) Jesus told stories that penetrated the veneer of superficialities and touched the soul. Those who heard him were changed – at least in the way in which they would think. If they were hungry enough they would continue to chew on his words and digest them into the depth of their being. They would – in the finest sense repent – a simple term that called for the transformation of the mind. Upon doing so, their allegiance would be transferred from the physical things of earth to the spiritual realities of God.

Unfortunately, most who hear or read those words are akin to the seeds that fell on bad soil and are lost. Spiritual dynamism is displaced by religious practice.

So, if you hunger and thirst . . . read on. This study is for you.

INTRODUCTION

If this book is to be of value to the readers here are a few explanations that must be offered at the outset. This study book is designed for students who wish to further their understanding of Scripture. It is not for those whose desire merely is to confirm what they already believe. It is for those who desire to take advantage of the latest tools of biblical scholarship and to learn new facts and to be introduced into new interpretive possibilities. Those who simply desire to confirm what they presently understand and believe about Scripture will be greatly disappointed by this book.

Contemporary biblical scholarship is not acquired by reading a translation (more properly called an in interpretation) accompanied by an assortment of commentaries. A Biblical scholar has a reasonable command of koine (common) Greek, the 1st century culture, the socio/political situation, interpretative skills and common sense. They utilize the understandings and skills acquired from other disciplines in order to assist in their understandings of Scripture. Most importantly, the contemporary biblical scholar is open to new ideas and understandings. A competent scholar notices the differences in translations and in similar sources. Although Mark, Matthew and Luke are called The Synoptic Gospels, there are noticeable and noteworthy differences in them. These will be dealt with in greater detail later. Suffice it to say, one must eventually decide which source is most authentic.

Traditional biblical scholarship is focused upon preserving and expanding upon the traditional, long-standing beliefs of the church. Traditional scholars seek evidence to support the events recorded in Scripture. They tend to dismiss or rationalize any new interpretation. I once had an instructor of Worship who actually was a pastor of a large church and not a skilled academic theologian. We got into an argument about referring to the liquid in the cup as wine when it was actually grape juice. The instructor insisted that the biblical term meant grape juice. That night I researched the issue and wrote a thorough refutation of his unfounded assertion that I placed on his desk the next morning. He looked at it, nodded at me and said, Well you did do your research. Then he folded the paper and dropped it in the wastebasket without a word. Needless to say, I could learn nothing more from a person so intellectually dishonest. The Swiss psychologist, Carl Jung had a similar experience with his father who also was his pastor. In confirmation class, he asked for an explanation of the Trinity. His father’s reply was simply, That is something that must be accepted on faith alone. At that moment, Carl started to wander in search of some spiritual truths he could understand. Bright, curious minds will not accept irrational explanations or sidestepping of issues.

Every generation or era has had those contemporary scholars who attempted to make the message of Scripture relevant for their time. Aquinas utilized the tools of Socratic philosophy (in vogue at the time) to redefine the faith for his day. The same is true of every reformer most notably Martin Luther who held an academic doctorate in church history. His battle cry was Solo Scriptura, (by Scripture alone). He shunned the decrees of later councils in order to return to the essence of the original faith.

A primary assumption by most reputable scholars is that since God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow God’s actions must be consistent throughout history. Therefore, there was no magic era when God whispered into the ears of selected writers. The early church never considered that possibility. The council that declared the 27 New Testament books to be canon never discussed that thought. The idea of infallible scripture crept into theological circles much later in spite of a myriad of proof to the contrary. Many a well-intended pastor unwittingly supports this misunderstanding. In the early church the congregation would stand when any of the four gospels was read. It was the custom for people to stand when any proclamation from the king or emperor was read. Out of respect for Jesus Christ the early Christians did the same when the stories of Jesus were read. Today, far too many pastors ask their people to stand when any of the Scriptures are read: Old or New Testament. This suggests equal status for all: Leviticus has the authority of the Sermon on the Mount.

A glaring example of biblical inerrancy is found in the story of David, Saul and Goliath in 1st Samuel 16 – 17. Read it carefully – thoughtfully. Stop trying to rationalize it and use common sense. The so-called Last Supper recorded in all four Gospels offers another glaring set of discrepancies. John holds it two days prior to Pentecost. His rendition of Jesus in the garden is diametrically opposed to that found in the synoptic gospels. The birth narratives in Matthew and Luke are incompatible. Aside from that there is one recorded attempt by Rome to hold a census of the Hebrews. It failed miserably and was never completed. Had it actually occurred, the Romans, known to be skilled administrators, never would have chosen the method put forth by Luke. Since there were no birth records, the thought of causing people to return to their birth place, thereby vacating stores and homes and inviting pillage, plus overloading the demand for temporary housing, would