2 resultados para Mt. Washington
em Helda - Digital Repository of University of Helsinki
Resumo:
The purpose of this study is to examine the reception of Matthew 5 in Martin Luther s sermons; in other words to investigate how Luther interprets and applies Jesus teaching of the better righteousness and the law in Mt 5. The study applies the reception-historical approach and contributes to the history of effects and the history of interpretation in New Testament exegesis. The study shows that Luther understands the better righteousness of Mt 5 as good works and fulfillment of the law. Luther s interpretation coheres with the intention of the Evangelist, even if Luther s overall concept of righteousness is foreign to Matthew. In Luther s view righteousness is twofold: The greater righteousness of Mt 5 is the second and the actual righteousness (iustitia activa), which follows the first and the foreign righteousness (iustitia passiva). The first righteousness (faith) is for Luther the work of God, while the second righteousness (good works) is co-operation between a Christian and God. In this co-operation the law, as it is taught by Jesus, is not the opposite of the gospel, but the gospel itself in the sense of Christ as an example . The task of the law is to show the dependence of a Christian on God and to help one to love and to serve one s neighbour (brothers as well as enemies) properly. The study underlines a feature in Luther s thinking that has received little attention in Lutheran theology: Luther insists on preaching the law to Christians. In his view Mt 5 is directed to all Christians and particularly to pastors, for whom Jesus here gives an example of how to preach the law. Luther believes similarly to Matthew that Jesus reveals the real meaning of Mosaic Law and confirms its validity for Christians in Mt 5. Like Matthew, Luther insists on the practicability of the commandments of Mt 5 in his view Christians fulfil the law also with joy yet his interpretation of Mt 5 attenuates the radical nature of its commandments. Luther s reception of the individual pericopes of Mt 5 is considerably generative and occasionally contradictory, which is explained by the following factors, among others: Luther receives many ideas from tradition and reads them and his own theological concepts into Matthew s Gospel. He interprets Mt 5 through his understanding of some Old Testament passages as well as Paul. Most of all, Luther s reception of Mt 5 is shaped by his own experience as a preacher, by his relation to his religious enemies, rulers and to the congregation of Wittenberg. Here Luther shares with Matthew the experience of being opposed and concern about the upright living of the believers, which in both cases also explains the polemical tone of the paraenesis.
Resumo:
This dissertation is a narrative account of the negotiations concerning the question of the Far East and the Shandong issue at the Washington Conference, leading to treaties, agreements and resolutions. In this dissertation, a certain stress is laid on the interaction between the Conference and the internal situation in China, particularly concerning the question of the implications of the Conference for Cabinet politics in Peking. Through the narrative account of the Conference, the general aim is an attempt to reassess the achievements of the Washington Conference. Too often the Washington Conference has been viewed negatively. The political aim behind the legal framework was to open the door to China as a sovereign State member of the international community whose territorial integrity was internationally recognized, despite its chaotic internal situation. It is undeniable that the Washington Conference opened a new chapter in modern Chinese history. The violations of the agreements concerning China that occurred in the 1930s should not lead to the belief that these agreements were of no value. Peace may not be lasting and evolves according to circumstances; agreements are transitory, and new situations need new arrangements. This dissertation tries to demonstrate that the agreements in themselves were not the cause of their failure, but the failure was due to the lack of determination on the part of the Signatories Powers to defend them.