Tag: faith

The Natural and Gnomic Will

The following is a cleaned up transcript from the above video (starting at 25:51)…

Think of it this way: one way of understanding Jesus as the Incarnate Son of God, as Maximus says, is that in most human beings, there is the natural will. In all rational creatures, there’s the natural will, which spontaneously desires only God and chooses only God because that’s its true end. To the degree that we’re separate from God, we have a deliberative or gnomic will, the psychological will that can make errors, go in the wrong direction, and do sinful things. Jesus, according to Maximus, doesn’t have a gnomic will, not because He lacks the capacity for deliberation, but because He’s so perfectly, fully, truly one with the Father and is Himself the Son that there’s no division between who He is essentially and who He is psychologically and empirically. There’s no space of separation. Human beings are called to become like that, utterly transparent before Christ to the presence of Christ in them in the Holy Spirit. As Paul says in First Corinthians 15, God becomes all in all, not just all over all, but all in all.

Here is an expansion on what David Bentley Hart said…

1. The Natural Will in Rational Creatures

Hart begins by referencing Maximus’s concept of the natural will (Greek: thelema physikon). According to Maximus, the natural will is an inherent faculty in all rational creatures—humans, angels, and other spiritual beings—that spontaneously orients them toward their ultimate end: God. This will is not deliberative or subject to choice in the way we typically understand decision-making; it is an intrinsic, ontological drive toward the good, the true, and the beautiful, which Maximus (and Hart) identifies as God Himself. The natural will is rooted in the idea that rational creatures are created in the image of God (imago Dei), and their deepest desire, by nature, is to be united with their divine source.

  • Expansion: The natural will reflects Maximus’s broader metaphysical framework, where creation is inherently oriented toward God as its telos (purpose or end). This aligns with the Christian patristic tradition, particularly the Eastern emphasis on theosis (deification), where the purpose of human existence is to participate fully in the divine life. Hart emphasizes that this desire for God is not a conscious choice but a fundamental aspect of what it means to be a rational being. It’s why Augustine’s famous phrase, “Our hearts are restless till they rest in you,” resonates here (mentioned earlier in the video at 4:25–4:32). The natural will is the “restless heart” seeking its fulfillment in God.

2. The Gnomic Will and Human Separation

Hart contrasts the natural will with the gnomic will (Greek: thelema gnomikon), which Maximus describes as a deliberative or discursive mode of willing. The gnomic will arises because humans, in their fallen state, are separated from God. This separation introduces a psychological and empirical dimension to human willing, where choices are made through deliberation, often leading to errors or sin. The gnomic will is not inherently evil but is a consequence of human freedom in a state of estrangement from God, where individuals can choose against their natural end (God) due to ignorance, temptation, or misdirection.

  • Expansion: The concept of the gnomic will is central to Maximus’s Christology and anthropology. In Maximus’s view, the fall fractured human nature, introducing a tension between the natural will (which always desires God) and the gnomic will (which can choose otherwise). This is why humans can act against their own ultimate good, choosing lesser goods or sinful paths. Hart’s point is that the gnomic will is a temporary condition, a product of the “space of separation” between humans and God. This separation is not ontological in the sense of altering human nature’s essence but experiential, resulting from the fall and the limitations of human perception and freedom in this world.

3. Jesus and the Absence of the Gnomic Will

Hart explains that, according to Maximus, Jesus, as the Incarnate Son of God, does not possess a gnomic will. This is not because Jesus lacks the capacity for deliberation—He is fully human and thus capable of human reasoning and choice—but because His human nature is perfectly united with His divine nature. In Jesus, there is no division between who He is essentially (His divine and human natures united in the hypostatic union, as defined by Chalcedonian Christology) and who He is psychologically and empirically (His lived experience as a human being). Jesus’s human will is perfectly aligned with the divine will, so there is no need for a deliberative, gnomic process that could lead to error or sin.

  • Expansion: Maximus developed this idea in response to the Monothelite controversy (7th century), which debated whether Jesus had one will (divine) or two (divine and human). Maximus argued for dyothelitism—that Jesus has both a divine will and a human will, but the human will operates without the gnomic mode because it is perfectly attuned to the divine. This is critical for Maximus’s soteriology: Jesus’s perfect unity of wills demonstrates the possibility of human nature being restored to its intended state, where the natural will fully governs without the interference of a gnomic will prone to error. Hart’s reference to “no division” reflects the Chalcedonian principle of the hypostatic union, where Jesus’s two natures (divine and human) are united without confusion, change, division, or separation. In Jesus, the human will is “transparent” to the divine, embodying the goal of human deification.

4. Human Destiny: Becoming Transparent to Christ

Hart extends this Christological insight to human destiny, stating that humans are called to become like Jesus—utterly transparent to the presence of Christ within them through the Holy Spirit. This transparency means aligning the human will with the natural will’s orientation toward God, eliminating the gnomic will’s tendency to err. In this state, humans become fully united with God, participating in the divine life (theosis), where their individuality is not erased but fulfilled.

  • Expansion: This idea of “transparency” draws on Maximus’s theology of deification, where the human person, through grace and the work of the Holy Spirit, becomes a perfect reflection of the divine Logos (Christ). The term “transparent” suggests a state where the human self is no longer opaque or obstructive to God’s presence but allows the divine light to shine through fully. This aligns with the Eastern Christian emphasis on theosis as the fulfillment of human nature, not its annihilation. Hart’s earlier discussion in the video (around 22:24–25:00) about becoming “uncreated” clarifies that this does not mean annihilation but becoming fully united with the uncreated God, sharing in His nature while retaining personal identity. The analogy of a prism’s facets (27:33–28:24) illustrates this: each facet (individual person) remains distinct, but the light (God) shines through all, uniting them in one divine reality.

5. First Corinthians 15: God Becomes All in All

Hart concludes this section by referencing Paul’s statement in First Corinthians 15:28, where God becomes “all in all” (panta en pasin). This is the culmination of the apokatastasis (universal restoration), where all creation is reconciled to God, not merely ruled over (“all over all”) but fully indwelt by God. This underscores Hart’s broader argument in the video (e.g., 21:15–21:28, 27:26–27:33) that Christian eschatology points to universal salvation, where all rational beings are deified, becoming fully united with God’s presence.

  • Expansion: In First Corinthians 15, Paul describes the resurrection and the ultimate subjection of all things to Christ, who then subjects Himself to the Father, so that God may be “all in all.” For Maximus and Hart, this is not a coercive domination but a transformative union where every rational creature’s natural will is fully realized, free from the distortions of the gnomic will. This ties into Hart’s rejection of the Thomistic “two-tier” view (2:50–9:01), which posits a natural end for humans separate from the supernatural. Instead, Hart and Maximus see human nature as inherently oriented toward deification, with no ultimate separation between nature and grace. The phrase “all in all” suggests a cosmic restoration where every aspect of creation—mineral, vegetable, animal, and human (18:48–18:56)—is transfigured, participating in God’s eternal life. This is why Hart emphasizes universal salvation in That All Shall Be Saved (mentioned at 21:15–21:21), arguing it is the only logical outcome of Christian eschatology.

6. Context in the Video

This passage (around 25:57–27:33) is part of Hart’s broader discussion of deification and the rejection of a nature-supernature dichotomy. Earlier, he critiques the Thomistic view that separates natural and supernatural ends (2:50–9:01), arguing it creates a “psychotic picture of reality” (20:32) where grace is arbitrary and disconnected from human nature. He contrasts this with the Eastern patristic view, including Maximus, where nature and grace are continuous, and human destiny is to become “uncreated” by participating in God’s life (21:47–25:00). The discussion of Jesus’s will and human transparency to Christ builds on this, showing how Christ’s incarnation models the human calling to deification, where the natural will is fully realized in union with God.

7. Broader Implications

Hart’s exposition has several implications:

  • Christology and Anthropology: Jesus’s lack of a gnomic will demonstrates the potential for human nature to be restored to its original purpose. Humans are called to overcome the gnomic will’s errors through grace, becoming like Christ in their unity with God.
  • Universal Salvation: The reference to “all in all” supports Hart’s argument for universal salvation, where all rational creatures achieve this transparency, fulfilling their natural will’s desire for God.
  • Eastern vs. Western Theology: Hart aligns with Eastern Orthodox theology (Cappadocian Fathers, Maximus, Pseudo-Dionysius) over Western Thomistic distinctions, emphasizing a monistic metaphysics where God is the ground of all being (11:36–13:19).
  • Practical Spirituality: Becoming “transparent” to Christ suggests a spiritual path of aligning one’s will with God’s through prayer, contemplation, and participation in the life of the Holy Spirit, a theme resonant in Eastern Christian mysticism.

Conclusion

Hart, through Maximus, presents Jesus as the paradigm of human destiny: a being whose human will is perfectly aligned with the divine, free from the deliberative errors of the gnomic will. Humans are called to this same unity, becoming transparent to Christ’s presence within them, culminating in the eschatological vision of First Corinthians 15, where God becomes “all in all.” This reflects Hart’s broader theological project of rejecting artificial distinctions between nature and grace, advocating for a monistic metaphysics where all creation is destined for deification, supporting his case for universal salvation. The passage encapsulates a vision of human fulfillment not as annihilation but as a transformative union with God, retaining personal identity while fully participating in the divine life.

Chart of Events/Figures in Both Josephus and Acts

Event/FigureDescription in ActsDescription in JosephusApproximate Date
Herod Agrippa I’s DeathActs 12:20–23 describes Herod being struck down by God and eaten by worms after accepting divine worship.Antiquities 19.8.2 describes Agrippa’s death at Caesarea, struck by illness during a festival, possibly due to poisoning or divine punishment.44 AD
Gamaliel the PhariseeActs 5:34–39 mentions Gamaliel, a respected Pharisee, advising the Sanhedrin to leave the apostles alone.Antiquities 20.9.4 and other references describe Gamaliel as a prominent Pharisee and teacher, respected in Jewish society.~30–50 AD
Theudas the InsurrectionistActs 5:36 references Theudas, a false prophet whose rebellion failed.Antiquities 20.5.1 describes Theudas leading a revolt, later executed by Roman authorities.~44–46 AD
Judas the GalileanActs 5:37 mentions Judas leading a revolt during the census, later killed.Antiquities 18.1.1 and Jewish War 2.8.1 describe Judas the Galilean’s revolt against the Roman census, founding the Zealot movement.~6 AD
Famine under ClaudiusActs 11:27–30 describes a great famine in Judea, prompting relief from Antioch Christians.Antiquities 20.2.5 and 20.5.2 mention a severe famine in Judea under Claudius, alleviated by Queen Helena of Adiabene.~46–48 AD
Herod Agrippa II and BerniceActs 25:13–26:32 describe Paul’s trial before Agrippa II and Bernice in Caesarea.Antiquities 20.7.2–3 and Jewish War 2.15.1 mention Agrippa II and his sister Bernice, their roles, and interactions with Roman governors.~59–62 AD
Felix, Roman GovernorActs 23:24–24:27 describes Paul’s imprisonment and trial under Felix.Antiquities 20.7.1–2 and Jewish War 2.13.2 describe Felix’s governorship and harsh rule in Judea.~52–60 AD
Festus, Roman GovernorActs 24:27–25:12 mentions Festus succeeding Felix and handling Paul’s case.Antiquities 20.8.9–10 describes Festus’s appointment and efforts to suppress unrest.~60–62 AD
Ananias, High PriestActs 23:2–5 describes Ananias ordering Paul struck during his trial.Antiquities 20.5.2 and 20.9.2 mention Ananias as high priest, later assassinated for corruption.~47–59 AD

Explanations and Notes

  1. Herod Agrippa I’s Death (44 AD):
    • Acts: Portrays Agrippa’s death as divine judgment for accepting worship as a god, with an angel striking him, leading to death by worms (Acts 12:20–23).
    • Josephus: Describes Agrippa falling ill at a festival in Caesarea, possibly due to poisoning or a medical condition, dying after five days (Antiquities 19.8.2). Both accounts align on the sudden and dramatic nature of his death.
    • Historical Context: Agrippa I, king of Judea, was a key figure under Emperor Claudius. His death created a power vacuum, leading to direct Roman rule.
  2. Gamaliel the Pharisee (~30–50 AD):
    • Acts: Gamaliel, a respected Sanhedrin member, advises caution regarding the apostles, citing past failed movements (Acts 5:34–39).
    • Josephus: Mentions Gamaliel as a leading Pharisee and teacher, influential in Jewish legal circles (Antiquities 20.9.4). He is likely the same figure, possibly Paul’s teacher (Acts 22:3).
    • Note: The timing of Gamaliel’s speech in Acts aligns with early Christian persecution (~30–35 AD), though Josephus’s references are less specific.
  3. Theudas the Insurrectionist (~44–46 AD):
    • Acts: Gamaliel references Theudas’s failed revolt as an example of movements that collapse (Acts 5:36).
    • Josephus: Describes Theudas leading followers to the Jordan River, claiming prophetic powers, but killed by Roman forces (Antiquities 20.5.1).
    • Issue: Acts places Theudas before Judas the Galilean (6 AD), creating a chronological discrepancy, as Josephus dates Theudas to ~44–46 AD. This may reflect a narrative anachronism in Acts or a different Theudas.
  4. Judas the Galilean (~6 AD):
    • Acts: Mentions Judas’s revolt during the census, which failed (Acts 5:37).
    • Josephus: Describes Judas leading a tax revolt against Rome during Quirinius’s census, founding the Zealot movement (Antiquities 18.1.1; Jewish War 2.8.1).
    • Context: The census (6 AD) sparked widespread unrest, and Judas’s movement influenced later Jewish rebellions.
  5. Famine under Claudius (~46–48 AD):
    • Acts: Describes a famine predicted by Agabus, leading to Christian relief efforts (Acts 11:27–30).
    • Josephus: Notes a severe famine in Judea, with Queen Helena of Adiabene providing aid (Antiquities 20.2.5).
    • Context: The famine under Emperor Claudius aligns with historical records of grain shortages in the eastern Mediterranean.
  6. Herod Agrippa II and Bernice (~59–62 AD):
    • Acts: Agrippa II and Bernice hear Paul’s defense in Caesarea, with Agrippa noting Paul could have been freed if not for his appeal to Caesar (Acts 25:13–26:32).
    • Josephus: Details Agrippa II’s role as a Roman client king and Bernice’s controversial presence (Antiquities 20.7.2–3).
    • Context: Agrippa II ruled parts of Judea and advised Roman governors, while Bernice was a prominent figure, later linked to Titus.
  7. Felix, Roman Governor (~52–60 AD):
    • Acts: Felix oversees Paul’s trial, keeps him imprisoned, and hopes for a bribe (Acts 23:24–24:27).
    • Josephus: Describes Felix’s governorship, marked by harsh measures against Jewish rebels (Antiquities 20.7.1–2).
    • Context: Felix’s rule was turbulent, contributing to rising tensions in Judea.
  8. Festus, Roman Governor (~60–62 AD):
    • Acts: Festus succeeds Felix, hears Paul’s case, and sends him to Rome (Acts 24:27–25:12).
    • Josephus: Notes Festus’s efforts to manage Jewish-Roman conflicts (Antiquities 20.8.9–10).
    • Context: Festus’s brief governorship preceded the First Jewish-Roman War.
  9. Ananias, High Priest (~47–59 AD):
    • Acts: Ananias orders Paul struck during his trial, prompting Paul’s rebuke (Acts 23:2–5).
    • Josephus: Describes Ananias’s corrupt tenure and eventual assassination by Jewish rebels (Antiquities 20.9.2).
    • Context: Ananias was a polarizing figure, aligned with Roman interests.

Comparison: The Egyptian in Acts and Josephus

Event/FigureDescription in ActsDescription in JosephusApproximate Date
The Egyptian (False Prophet/Rebel)Acts 21:38 mentions a Roman tribune asking Paul if he is “the Egyptian” who led a revolt and took 4,000 “assassins” (Sicarii) into the wilderness.Jewish War 2.13.5 and Antiquities 20.8.6 describe the Egyptian as a false prophet who led a large following (30,000, per Josephus) to the Mount of Olives, promising to overthrow Roman rule, but was defeated by Felix’s forces.~52–58 AD

Detailed Comparison

  1. The Egyptian in Acts:
    • In Acts 21:38, during Paul’s arrest in Jerusalem, a Roman tribune (Claudius Lysias) mistakes Paul for “the Egyptian,” asking, “Are you not the Egyptian, then, who recently stirred up a revolt and led the four thousand men of the Assassins (Sicarii) out into the wilderness?” (ESV). This implies the Egyptian was a known figure associated with a recent uprising.
    • The “Sicarii” were a radical Jewish group known for assassinations, often targeting Roman collaborators. Acts suggests the Egyptian led a significant number of them, though the scale (4,000) is smaller than Josephus’s account.
  2. The Egyptian in Josephus:
    • In Jewish War 2.13.5, Josephus describes the Egyptian as a false prophet who gathered a large following—around 30,000 people—and led them to the Mount of Olives, claiming he would cause the walls of Jerusalem to fall, signaling the overthrow of Roman rule. Roman governor Felix attacked, dispersing the group, and the Egyptian escaped.
    • In Antiquities 20.8.6, Josephus provides a similar account, noting the Egyptian’s messianic claims and Felix’s decisive response. He emphasizes the Roman crackdown on such movements, which were common during this period of unrest.
    • The discrepancy in numbers (4,000 in Acts vs. 30,000 in Josephus) may reflect exaggeration by Josephus, a common trait in ancient historiography, or a difference in sources.
  3. Historical Context and Overlap:
    • Date: Both accounts place the Egyptian’s revolt during Felix’s governorship (52–60 AD), likely around 55–58 AD, aligning with the turbulent period leading up to the First Jewish-Roman War (66–73 AD).
    • Nature of the Figure: Both sources depict the Egyptian as a messianic or prophetic figure leading a rebellious movement against Roman authority, fitting the pattern of 1st-century Jewish uprisings. Acts’ reference to the Sicarii connects him to violent resistance, while Josephus emphasizes his role as a false prophet with a large, albeit short-lived, following.
    • Location: Acts mentions the wilderness, while Josephus specifies the Mount of Olives as the staging ground for the Egyptian’s demonstration, which overlooks Jerusalem—a symbolically significant location for messianic expectations.
  4. Differences and Interpretation:
    • Acts provides a brief, secondhand reference, using the Egyptian as a point of mistaken identity to highlight the Roman perception of Paul as a potential revolutionary. Josephus, writing as a historian, gives a more detailed narrative, focusing on the event itself and its political implications.
    • The numerical difference (4,000 vs. 30,000) could stem from Acts relying on a Roman report (via the tribune) with a more conservative estimate, while Josephus, writing later, might inflate numbers to emphasize the scale of unrest under Roman rule.
    • Neither source names the Egyptian, and his fate remains unclear—Josephus notes he fled, while Acts offers no further details.

The Interpretive Method of New Testament Authors

  1. Typological Interpretation (or Typology):
  • Definition: Typology involves seeing OT events, figures, or institutions as “types” (patterns or foreshadowings) that prefigure or are fulfilled by Christ, the church, or other NT realities. The NT author interprets the OT text as pointing to a greater fulfillment in Jesus or the Christian community.
  • Example: In Matthew 2:15, Hosea 11:1 (“Out of Egypt I called my son”) originally refers to Israel’s exodus but is applied typologically to Jesus as the true Israel who recapitulates and fulfills the nation’s story.
  • Characteristics: Typology assumes historical correspondence and escalation, where the OT event is real but finds a deeper, often messianic, significance in the NT.

2. Pesher Interpretation:

  • Definition: Pesher (from Hebrew, meaning “interpretation”) is a method where OT texts are applied directly to contemporary events or figures, often with an eschatological (end-times) focus. This was common in Jewish exegesis, notably in the Dead Sea Scrolls, and is used by NT authors to show how OT prophecies are fulfilled in their time.
  • Example: Matthew 2:17–18 applies Jeremiah 31:15 (Rachel’s weeping) to the Bethlehem massacre, treating the OT text as prophetically fulfilled in Jesus’ era.
  • Characteristics: Pesher often reads OT texts as cryptic predictions that find their true meaning in the present, sometimes stretching the original context.

3. Midrashic Interpretation:

  • Definition: Midrash (from Hebrew, meaning “to search” or “expound”) is a Jewish interpretive method that creatively elaborates on OT texts to draw out moral, theological, or allegorical meanings. NT authors, especially Paul, use midrashic techniques to apply OT texts to new situations.
  • Example: In 1 Corinthians 9:9–10, Paul uses Deuteronomy 25:4 (“Do not muzzle an ox”) midrashically to argue for supporting Christian ministers, extending the law’s principle beyond its literal meaning.
  • Characteristics: Midrash often involves allegory, analogy, or recontextualization to make the text relevant to a new audience.

4. Allegorical Interpretation:

  • Definition: Allegory treats OT texts as having hidden or symbolic meanings that point to spiritual truths, often beyond the literal sense. While less common in the NT than typology, it appears in some instances, particularly in Paul’s writings.
  • Example: In Galatians 4:21–31, Paul allegorizes the story of Hagar and Sarah (Genesis 16–21) to represent the old and new covenants, respectively, a clear departure from the historical narrative.
  • Characteristics: Allegory seeks deeper, symbolic meanings, sometimes detaching from the original context.

5. Fulfillment Citation:

  • Definition: This term is used specifically for NT quotations introduced with phrases like “this was to fulfill” (common in Matthew) or “as it is written.” It reflects the NT authors’ belief that OT texts find their ultimate purpose or completion in Christ and the church, even if the original context was not explicitly prophetic.
  • Example: Matthew 1:23 quotes Isaiah 7:14 (“the virgin shall conceive”) as fulfilled in Jesus’ virgin birth, despite its original context as a sign for King Ahaz.
  • Characteristics: The focus is on Christological fulfillment, often reinterpreting non-prophetic texts as messianic.

Chart of Some NT Reinterpretations of OT Passages

NT ReferenceOT SourceOT ContextNT UsageShift in MeaningMethod
Matthew 2:15Hosea 11:1God’s historical deliverance of Israel from Egypt, called His “son.”Jesus’ return from Egypt, fulfilling Israel’s role.Historical event becomes a typological prophecy about Jesus.Typology/Fulfillment Citation
Matthew 1:23Isaiah 7:14Sign for King Ahaz about a child named Immanuel, born to a young woman.Jesus’ virgin birth, using Septuagint’s “virgin.”Historical sign becomes a messianic prophecy.Pesher/Fulfillment Citation
Matthew 2:17–18Jeremiah 31:15Rachel’s mourning for Israel’s exile, with hope for restoration.Bethlehem infants’ massacre.Historical lament reframed as a fulfilled tragedy.Pesher/Fulfillment Citation
Matthew 3:3Isaiah 40:3Preparing a way for God’s deliverance of Israel from exile.John the Baptist preparing for Jesus.Exile restoration prophecy fulfilled in John’s ministry.Pesher
John 19:36Psalm 34:20 (possibly Exodus 12:46)God’s protection of the righteous or Passover lamb regulations.Jesus’ unbroken bones at crucifixion.General protection or ritual rule becomes a specific prophecy.Typology/Fulfillment Citation
Acts 15:16–18Amos 9:11–12Restoration of Israel’s kingdom, dominance over Edom.Gentile inclusion in the church, using Septuagint’s “mankind.”National restoration becomes universal salvation.Pesher
Romans 9:25–26Hosea 2:23, 1:10Restoration of Israel after judgment, called “my people.”Gentiles becoming God’s people through faith.Israel’s restoration extended to Gentiles.Midrash/Typology
Romans 10:6–8Deuteronomy 30:12–14Accessibility of the Torah for obedience.“Word of faith” in Christ, accessible through faith.Torah’s accessibility becomes salvation through Christ.Midrash
1 Corinthians 9:9–10 / 1 Timothy 5:18Deuteronomy 25:4Law against muzzling an ox while treading grain.Material support for Christian ministers.Agricultural law reinterpreted for human laborers in ministry.Midrash/Allegory
2 Corinthians 6:16–18Leviticus 26:12, Ezekiel 37:27, 2 Samuel 7:14God’s covenant presence with Israel or Davidic king.Church as God’s temple and people, including Gentiles.Israel/Davidic promises applied to the church.Pesher/Midrash
Galatians 3:16Genesis 12:7Promise of land to Abraham’s descendants (plural).“Offspring” as Christ, the singular heir.Collective promise narrowed to Jesus.Midrash/Typology
Galatians 4:21–31Genesis 16–21Historical narrative of Hagar and Sarah, Abraham’s sons.Allegory of old (law) and new (faith) covenants.Family story becomes allegory for law vs. faith.Midrash/Allegory
Hebrews 1:5Psalm 2:7God’s adoption of the Davidic king at coronation.Jesus’ eternal divine sonship.Royal coronation becomes Christ’s divinity.Typology/Fulfillment Citation
Hebrews 10:5–7Psalm 40:6–8Obedience over sacrifice in personal worship.Jesus’ incarnation and sacrificial death.General worship statement becomes messianic prophecy.Midrash/Typology
1 Corinthians 15:54–55Isaiah 25:8, Hosea 13:14God’s future defeat of death or taunt against death.Christ’s resurrection defeating death.General/judgmental texts become resurrection triumph.Pesher

Notes on the Chart

  • Columns:
    • NT Reference: The NT passage where the OT is quoted or alluded to.
    • OT Source: The specific OT verse(s) or passage(s) referenced.
    • OT Context: The original meaning or historical setting of the OT text.
    • NT Usage: How the NT author applies the OT text.
    • Shift in Meaning: How the NT usage differs from or expands the original OT meaning.
    • Interpretive Method: The primary method(s) used (typology, pesher, midrash, allegory), based on the definitions provided earlier.
  • Interpretive Methods:
    • Typology: OT events/figures as patterns fulfilled in Christ or the church.
    • Pesher: OT texts as prophecies fulfilled in the NT era.
    • Midrash: Creative elaboration to draw out new theological meanings.
    • Allegory: Symbolic reinterpretation, often detaching from the literal sense.
    • Fulfillment Citation: OT texts seen as completed in Christ, often with “this was to fulfill” phrasing.

Four Gospels Parallel Reading Chart in Chronological Order

I had AI create this simplified chart so that I could read the four gospels in parallel…

This chart organizes the four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) in parallel, arranged in chronological order to facilitate reading the accounts of Jesus’ life and ministry side by side. Each row represents a key event or teaching, with corresponding passages listed for each Gospel. Blank cells indicate that a Gospel does not include that event. Read each row’s passages to follow the narrative chronologically across all four accounts.

Event/PericopeMatthewMarkLukeJohn
Prologue and Early Life
Genealogy of Jesus1:1-173:23-38
Annunciation to Mary1:26-38
Birth of Jesus1:18-252:1-7
Shepherds Visit2:8-20
Magi Visit2:1-12
Flight to Egypt2:13-15
Return to Nazareth2:19-232:39
Jesus at Age 12 in Temple2:41-52
Preparation for Ministry
John the Baptist’s Ministry3:1-121:1-83:1-181:19-28
Baptism of Jesus3:13-171:9-113:21-221:29-34
Temptation of Jesus4:1-111:12-134:1-13
Early Judean Ministry (Mostly John)
Wedding at Cana2:1-11
First Temple Cleansing2:13-22
Nicodemus Visits Jesus3:1-21
Samaritan Woman at the Well4:1-42
Galilean Ministry
Call of the First Disciples4:18-221:16-205:1-11
Healing of Official’s Son4:46-54
Rejection at Nazareth4:16-30
Healing of Peter’s Mother-in-Law8:14-151:29-314:38-39
Sermon on the Mount5:1–7:296:20-49
Healing of the Centurion’s Servant8:5-137:1-10
Raising of Widow’s Son7:11-17
Sending of the Twelve10:1-426:7-139:1-6
Beheading of John the Baptist14:1-126:14-299:7-9
Feeding of the 5,00014:13-216:30-449:10-176:1-15
Walking on Water14:22-336:45-526:16-21
Peter’s Confession of Christ16:13-208:27-309:18-21
Transfiguration17:1-139:2-139:28-36
Later Judean and Perean Ministry
Healing of Blind Bartimaeus20:29-3410:46-5218:35-43
Parable of the Good Samaritan10:25-37
Mary and Martha10:38-42
Raising of Lazarus11:1-44
Plot to Kill Jesus11:45-54
Passion Week
Triumphal Entry21:1-1111:1-1119:28-4412:12-19
Second Temple Cleansing21:12-1311:15-1919:45-48
Cursing of the Fig Tree21:18-2211:12-14, 20-25
Olivet Discourse24:1–25:4613:1-3721:5-36
Anointing at Bethany26:6-1314:3-912:1-8
Last Supper26:17-3014:12-2622:7-3813:1–17:26
Betrayal by Judas26:47-5614:43-5222:47-5318:2-12
Peter’s Denial26:69-7514:66-7222:54-6218:15-18, 25-27
Trial Before Pilate27:11-2615:1-1523:1-2518:28–19:16
Crucifixion27:32-5615:21-4123:26-4919:16-37
Burial27:57-6115:42-4723:50-5619:38-42
Resurrection and Post-Resurrection
Resurrection Morning28:1-1016:1-824:1-1220:1-18
Road to Emmaus16:12-1324:13-35
Appearance to Disciples28:16-2016:14-1824:36-4920:19-29
Ascension24:50-53

How to Use This Chart

  • Daily Reading: Read the passages listed in each row across all four Gospels to compare accounts of the same event. Skip blank cells where a Gospel does not cover the event.
  • Chronological Flow: The events are ordered to reflect the likely sequence of Jesus’ life, starting with his birth and ending with the Ascension.
  • Study Notes: For deeper study, note differences in details (e.g., Matthew’s emphasis on fulfilled prophecy, John’s focus on theological dialogues) as you read parallel passages.
  • Time Estimate: Reading one row per day (approximately 70 rows) would take about 2–3 months, depending on reading speed and reflection time.

A Christian Missionary in China ~ Part Two

I asked AI how it would respond to the Chinese Man’s questions which he asked in Part One.

Here is how AI answered…

Missionary: Thank you for reading the Old Testament and for your thoughtful questions. Let’s clarify these important points together.

Chinese Man: You said that I had sinned against God according to the law found in this book. But, what I see in this book is that the law was a covenantal law between a God named Yahweh and a people named Israel. I am not in that covenant. How can I be guilty of breaking a law I was never under? That is like saying I am guilty of breaking laws in a country I’ve never visited.

Missionary: You’re right that the Mosaic Law was given specifically to the people of Israel. However, sin isn’t limited to breaking that specific law. According to the New Testament, all people have a moral awareness of right and wrong, which Paul describes as the law written on their hearts (Romans 2:14-15). This means that everyone has an inherent sense of God’s moral standards, and all fall short of these standards in various ways, regardless of whether they are under the Mosaic Law.

Chinese Man: Assuming I actually am under this law, you said that I could not keep it even if I tried. But, in the story of this book, Yahweh fully expected the people to be obedient, and when they were disobedient He disciplined and punished them. If they repented and turned back to Him, He forgave them. If they were obedient, He blessed them. You said I needed to trust in the perfect righteousness of another, but I don’t come to that conclusion from reading this book. If I were an Israelite, I would try my best to follow the law, and if I failed I would confess my failing, turn back to Yahweh, and trust He would forgive me. Where does it say that I need to trust in the righteousness of another?

Missionary: The Old Testament indeed shows that God called Israel to be obedient to His Law and provided a means for forgiveness through repentance and sacrifices. However, the New Testament reveals that these practices were a foreshadowing of a greater sacrifice. Jesus Christ is presented as the perfect and final sacrifice for sin, fulfilling the requirements of the Law on behalf of humanity (Hebrews 10:1-10). His righteousness can be imputed to us through faith, meaning that through Jesus, we can be seen as righteous before God (Romans 3:21-22). This is a core message of the New Testament: that by trusting in Jesus, we receive the righteousness we could never achieve on our own (Philippians 3:9).

Are these good answers?