The Cutting Room Floor

Episode #1 TCRF: The Promised King

Posted by Williamsburg Community Chapel on with 3 Comments

Have you ever wanted more insight on Sunday morning? Travis learns something new in studying scripture that he cannot always include in his morning messages. He often adds these insights to what he calls "The Cutting Room Floor". This week after teaching on Jesus' genealogy in Matthew, he could not keep the cutting room floor to himself. We invite you to listen in and join the conversation.

The Cutting Room Floor - EP. 1

Tags: travis simone, cutting room floor, promised king


Clarke Morledge January 15, 2018 11:55am

Travis: Loving the the "Cutting Room Floor."

Thanks for laying out the three possible explanations for how Matthew arranges the genealogy of Jesus. I see your point about how the 2nd view (the gematria view) has a weakness in that, if Matthew was written in Greek, it may not make sense for Matthew to use a gematria technique that applies to the Hebrew language.

This probably explains why some people think that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew, and then translated into Greek, the version that corresponds to the copies of the oldest Gospel documents that we have today. In other words, the original Hebrew version was lost. However, the idea of an original Hebrew version of Matthew is implausible, considering the fact that the Hebrew language, in the 1st century, functioned pretty much like the Latin language did in medieval Europe. Latin was the language of the religious elite, and not the popular tongue of the people. Likewise, it was the scribal parties that kept the Hebrew language alive in the 1st century (C.E.). Most people spoke either Aramaic or Greek. Matthew wanted his Gospel to be spread broadly, so it makes no sense to have written it in a language that was not popularly used.

On the other side, I still find the gematria view, among the three you list, as plausible, because just as we "get" the gematria of Hebrew, as English speakers, this would not preclude Greek speakers, who knew of the existence of the Hebrew language, though not speaking it themselves, from understanding the gematria symbolism in the same way.

But the bottom line is this: No matter what view is the correct view, it is clear that Matthew's arrangement of the genealogy was intentional. It was not a mistake or error on his part. Matthew was not interested in exact chronology, but he was interested in the theological importance of the genealogy. That makes a huge difference, a difference that we as modern people, with our obsession with technical precision, do not always appreciate.

So, thanks!

Travis Simone February 3, 2018 8:57pm

Clarke, I had never heard the theory that the original autograph of Matthew may have been Hebrew. While I am always a bit suspicious of any theory that involves hypothetical documents, Matthew’s heavy use of quotes from the Old Testament and Jewish background makes me want to at least read a bit more on the subject. Thanks a well written contribution to the discussion. —Travis

Carol-Jo Osinski February 13, 2018 8:57am

I appreciated this cutting room floor explanation, it provided hope , the church as the 14th generation and the coming of Christ..

Thank you, keep the cutting room floor going...