a long distance miracle

Matthew 8:5-13

This would have been so confusing for the crowds that were following Jesus. Matthew makes it clear that crowds from all the regions of Israel were following Jesus, that the crowds were large and that they were very impressed with Jesus' ministry so far: he spoke with authourity and he was healing the sick. It reminds me a bit of the hysteria surrounding Barack Obama during his run for presidency: he is an amazing speaker which set him above his competitors and people were flocking to him.
Then, probably very shortly after his amazing speech on the mountain, Jesus encounters a Roman centurion. I think to understand the full impact of this story, I would have to understand the hatred that the Jews had for the Romans. The only thing that I think would come close is the hatred between Jews and Arabs today. If Jesus was hoping to remain popular with the crowds, he would let this man have it. He wasn't only a soldier who followed orders but a commander who gave orders that involved the occupation and subugation of the Jews. The crowd was probably hoping for a brilliant, cutting reply from Jesus, along the lines of, "Well that would be one less Roman to worry about."
There are a few things that stand out to me in this encounter. One is that the Centurion is one of the few, maybe even only, who asked Jesus to heal someone else who wasn't related to him. Most of the others pleaded for their own healing or the healing of an immediate family member. This certainly sets the Roman Centurion apart.
The other thing is this whole exchange about authourity and faith. It's been a bit of a puzzle for me to try to figure out how Jesus saw such faith in the centurion's response. Here's what I think: First, the centurion demonstrated humility in coming to Jesus and not sending a servant and in admitting that he was not worthy (as a Gentile) to have Jesus (a Jew) come to his house. I think this demonstrated a lot of faith: "I know you can't come because I am a Gentile but maybe you can do something."
Second, the centurion demonstrated faith in that he recognized the authourity of Jesus. What I think the centurion is saying is, "I know you, having authourity over all things, can heal my servant without being physically present because even I, a mere man and one who only has limited authourity over other men, expect my orders to be carried out immediately and fully. How much more could you, having complete authourity, just give the word and have my servant healed?"
Here's what I learn from this passage: I trust God way too little. My faith is so small! He is God and my finances, my health, my safety, my family, my future, my ministry is all under his authourity. All he has to do is say the word and it will be obeyed. I really have nothing to stress over or fear. Also, I have often put myself in the place of the Jews. I feel a sense of entitlement because I am a Christian. My sense of fairness states that I, as a follower of Jesus, should receive more blessing and honour than someone who doesn't follow Christ. This is bull-oney! Every blessing and honour that has come my way is a result of God's grace and I deserve it no more than anyone else. This is easy for me to say but hard for me to really believe. God, make me humble like the centurion. Give me faith like the centurion had. I know that you are good and all powerful. All things are under your authourity. I know that you are gracious. I see that in my life. Please take away my sense of entitlement and let me truly celebrate the blessings you pour out to me and to others as evidence of your extreme grace!

Jesus - undercover agent?

Matthew 8:1-4

I have no idea in which region Jesus preaches his sermon from the mountain. The verses just before that say that large crowds from Galilee, the Decapolis, Jerusalem, Judea and the region across the Jordan followed Jesus. Where ever the sermon takes place, Jesus comes down from the mountain and begins to heal people.
There are two things that I don't understand:
1) Why did Jesus tell people that he healed not to tell other people what happened? I mean, there were large crowds following him anyway so it isn't like this healing was going to be kept secret. Also, most of the people he healed didn't obey this command anyway and went around spreading the news about what happened to them. Finally, doesn't Jesus want people to know that he has authourity over disease, demons and death, proving that he is the Messiah? Was Jesus just using reverse psychology, recognizing that human nature loves to know something others don't and to be the one that tells others? If that is the case, then it seems a bit manipulative of Jesus.
It could relate to his temptations. Jesus was tempted to use his power to survive a jump off the temple which would certainly draw people to him and make a name for himself. Jesus would realize that his healings, while necessary to demonstrate his authourity, would also be seen to be spectacular and that people would come to see him as simply a miracle worker, as cheap entertainment. They would be drawn to him because of his tricks and as long as he kept doing tricks for them, they would be loyal to him. Related to that, he may have wanted people to truly come to discover who he was for themselves, not based on a rumour of a healing that was done. This would allow people to discover that he was more than just a "one trick pony" - that his main agenda was compassion, grace, love and sacrifice.
Secondly, I wonder why Jesus supported the tradition of the Law when it came to this healing. He told the leper to follow the ceremonial requirements for being made clean: go and show himself to the priest and make the necessary sacrifices. This is a puzzle to me because a main part of Jesus' message was the end of these religious practices. It would seem like a good opportunity to tell the people that they don't need to observe the burdensome practices of ceremonial law in order to be reconciled to God.
I wonder if something else was at stake here though. I wonder if Jesus told this man to observe the ceremonial requirements in order to be accepted back into community. As a leper, this man was untouchable and was an outcast from society. I wonder if Jesus recognized that for this man to be re-integrated back into society that he needed the official declaration from the priest that he was now clean. This would make sense, especially in light of Jesus' message in his just preached sermon: to treat everyone with the dignity, honour and respect they deserve as a person created in the image of God. Jesus was showing great respect to this man in, first of all, touching the man and then providing a way for him to be embraced again by his family and friends.
What's the lesson for me? I think that first of all I must be willing to be seen as unclean because of the people that I associate with and embrace. I must be willing to take the same risks socially that Jesus took. Who are the untouchables in our society and who is showing them the compassion, dignity, honour and respect that God wants to communicate to them. Second, I think I need discernment to know when to buck the system and when to work with in it. When the system provides a mechanism for helping someone regain their dignity, then I must be willing to at least consider working with in it. Even if it is the same system that stripped the person of their dignity in the first place.

Authourity

Matthew 7:28-29

Matthew's observation of the crowd's reaction to Jesus' sermon concludes the chapter. The key words are: amazed and authourity. The crowd was amazed at Jesus' teaching because he taught with authourity. This is contrasted to the teachers of the Law that the crowd was used to hearing.
Tony Campolo spoke about authourity in the main session of CYWC in Toronto this year. He said that power is based on coercion but authourity is based on hundreds of acts of compassion. Extrapolating Tony's thinking, the crowd's reaction is because they knew from Jesus' actions and character that he cared about them and not just about the rules. The teachers of the law tried to exercise power over the people by making rules to keep them in line, with dire consequences if they did not keep the rules. Much like the historical Catholic Church that would hold threats of excommunication and eternal punishment over the heads of kings and commoners in order to coerce them to do what the Church wanted them to do.
My desire and resolution is that the force of my teaching would be based on authourity. That my students and leaders (and others) would know that I love them, that I have compassion for them and that my integrity and love would earn the right to be heard and respected. I don't want to excercise power over my students and leaders based on guilt or shame. I hope that my students will know that I love them and will want a relationship with God and with others similar to the one I have. If they see that I love them and see something in my relationships with God and others that they would like to have, then my teaching will have authourity as well.

foundational

Matthew 7:24-27

Jesus uses another words picture here in the conclusion of his sermon. He tells the story of two men: one who built his house on a foundation of rock and one who built his house on a foundation of sand. The house built on rock was able to with-stand all that came its way while the house built on sand collapsed under the onslaught of the storm. The simile is that the person who hears Jesus' words and puts them into practice is like the one who built the house on the rock. The one who hears Jesus' words but does not practice them is like the one who built the house on the sand.
So, let's review: if I ignore Jesus' teaching on treating other people with the honour, dignity and respect they deserve as a person created in the image of God, my life will likely end in a wreck. This involves hatred, lust, broken promises, vengeance, etc. It also means that if I don't trust God to provide my needs and take the energy that I used to direct towards worrying about the things of this earth and direct it towards pursuing God's righteousness and kingdom, my life is equally likely to end up in a wreck. Finally, it means that if I am lazy about discerning which is the right way and who are the teachers of truth that my life, again, is likely to end in wreckage.
On the flip side, if I trust God and seek his way, treating others with the dignity, honour and respect that they deserve because they are created in his image, then I have hope in the middle of storms and assurance even in the hurricanes that life will bring.

What more do I have to do?

Matthew 7:21-23

There is a key phrase in this passage that is repeated twice: "Lord, Lord". I don't know why Jesus uses the double "Lord". Was it a cultural way of showing extreme humility - not only are you my Lord but my Lord twice over? Whatever the case, this is one of the very difficult teachings of Jesus. Just as Jesus compared false teachers to teachers of truth in the previous section, he compares false disciples to true disciples. The true disciple, according to Jesus, is the one who does the will of the Father. Jesus gives an example of someone who calls him "Lord, Lord" but does receive entry into the kingdom. This person has done lots of work in the name of Jesus and has proclaimed him to be Lord (twice!): prophesied, drove out demons, performed miracles.
This passage scares me because, to some extent, I can see myself in this passage. I've proclaimed that Jesus is Lord. I haven't cast out m any demons or performed many miracles but I've definetly done a lot of things in the name of Jesus: spoken, ministered, counseled, led mission trips, etc. The argument could be made that I, and the false disciples in the passage, have done the will of the Father. Going down the checklist of what we would expect the Father expects of us, we can feel pretty good. Certainly using Jesus' measure of judgement (fruit) from the previous paragraph, it would seem like these guys are in the "good tree" category: people are freed from spiritual oppression and the oppression of disease and the word of God is being proclaimed. Obviously, however, the people in the story missed something and I am afraid that I also completely misunderstand what God expects of me. Or, even worse, that I understand what God expects but have so completely built my life on something else beside his expectations that I can't believe or accept what he really expects and so I continue to build my life on a false foundation.
As Jesus sends the false disciples away he tells them that he never knew them. I infer from this passage that the will of the Father is that Jesus would know me. Obviously more than just "know about" me, my life must be so open to Jesus that he is intimately familiar with me. For Jesus to know me, he must be an invited part of every moment of my life and I must spend intentional time with him to know him and be known by him. My fear is that I have been so busy doing things for him that I have not had any time to spend with him.

If you were a tree...?

Matthew 7:15-20

Jesus turns his attention to false prophets. He is concerned that the people might be led astray by teachers with bad motives. Jesus uses two word pictures: a wolf that camouflages itself in wool to trick the sheep and that of a fruit producing tree. He contrasts good fruit and good trees to bad fruit and bad trees. The key words in this section are fruit, tree, good and bad.
The main point that Jesus is making is that false teachers can be recognized by their fruit. In the context of the rest of his sermon, Jesus is likely saying that false teachers will point you to the wrong gate which leads destruction and make you feel good about your choice, so as to make sure that you don't reconsider your choice, right up to the point of destruction. To be able to tell the difference between a false teacher and a teacher of truth, Jesus tells his audience to look at the fruit. His argument is that, just as the tree is judged by the quality of its fruit, the character of the teacher can be judged based on the teacher's life and the results of the teaching in other's lives.
The first question that comes to mind is: how does this fit with Jesus' previous teaching about judging others (7:1-5)? It is clear that Jesus is telling us to be very discerning and to judge a person's character to determine if he is a false teacher or a teacher of truth. I think that Jesus' main point about judging is that we shouldn't be hypocritical in our judgment. We shouldn't expect others to live up to a standard that we ourselves are not willing to live up to. Jesus is clear in this passage: we must learn to be good judges of character especially when it comes to teachers.
The second question is: what kind of "fruit" am I looking for in a person's life? I think there are primarily two. The first is the teacher's own character. What kind of father is he? What kind of wife is she? How does he treat his employees? How does she treat her "constituents"? How does he react to criticism and praise? Etc. The other fruit I think we should look at is the result of the teacher's teaching in the lives of her "disciples". I think I need to be careful with this one since even the teachings of Jesus have been perverted and misunderstood by people who would call themselves his disciples but if there is a consistent pattern that could reasonable be attributed to the teacher then I must be aware of it.
Thankfully I have the help of the Holy Spirit to help me to discern what is good and right. His guidance is invaluable. Thank you, Father, for sending your Spirit!

Behind door #1: destruction

Matthew 7:13-14

Jesus uses another word picture here: a fork in the road. One fork is wide and well paved, the other fork is narrow and difficult. However, Jesus doesn't leave his audience guessing what the destination of each fork is. The easy path is only temporarily easy for it leads to destruction. The narrow path is only temporarily difficult for it leads to life. However, the narrow path is easy to miss. Lots of people miss the turn off. Wow! That's actually a very contemporary example! I always pictured these roads as ancient roads but as I think about it, we could still use this word picture very easily today.
Jesus is beginning to wind up his sermon about how our righteousness must surpass that of the Pharisees if we want to enter the kingdom of heaven. He is clear that now a choice must be made: are you going to continue on the path that you've always gone down and many people have gone down before and continue to go down now? Or are you going to seek for that narrow path until you find it and knock on the narrow gate until the door is opened to you? The narrow path, while more difficult to find, less popular and more difficult to travel will lead the traveller to the kingdom.
I think there are two cautions for me. First, Jesus is not telling me to disagree with people just for the sake of disagreeing with them. I can't claim to be on the narrow path just because my position is unpopular. Being unpopular does not make it right. Second, and on the flip side, I must carefully evaluate if I am just being swept along by the majority's views and philosophies and miss the turn off for the narrow path without realizing it. Jesus is telling us to choose the right path, the right way of thinking, the right way of viewing the world, the right way of acting and believing no matter how few or how many are thinking, acting, viewing and believing the same thing. The path way is to be evaluated on its rightness or wrongness and not on its popularity. However, he makes it clear that most people will not choose the right path most of the time. I need to pray for wisdom, discernment and courage to know which path leads to life in every situation I face.

knock, knock, knocking on heaven's door...

Matthew 7:7-12

This section includes a list of actions and results: ask = receive, seek = find and, knock = door opens. Just to be sure we get it, Jesus repeats the same thing in very slightly different words. The section also includes a word picture of a father and son. Jesus asks if a dad would give his son a stone when he asks for some break or a snake when he asks for a fish. The metaphor is that God, our Father, will give us, his sons and daughters, good gifts.
I do wonder how this part fits under the thesis statement for Jesus' sermon: "unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees you will not enter the kingdom of heaven." Maybe Jesus is saying that entering the kingdom will be a process of seeking and asking. It might be a long process but we can be sure that our Father, who is better than any earthly father, will give us the good gift of finding the kingdom of heaven if we continue to ask, seek and knock. However, even in this section of the sermon, it seems to be pretty loosely held together because Jesus' conclusion is, "therefore in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you." Which tells me that this section is actually about loving your neighbour as yourself which is really hard to tie into "ask, seek, knock".
I am learning more and more about the kingdom of heaven. I am learning that it is not just a matter of me having a restored relationship with God but it is helping to extend his right to rule over every area of creation: in my relationships with others, in issues of justice and mercy and in issues of looking after the environment. This is a huge task but as I continue to ask God for his help and for his kingdom to come on earth as it is in heaven, seek justice and mercy and knock down opposition through prayer and effort then I can be sure that God will give the good gift of his kingdom. I pray that I will not get tired of doing the good work that God has called me to do and that I would not move forward on my own wisdom and power but in God's.

Judge, Jury and Executioner

Matthew 7:1-6

The key word and idea of this section of the Sermon on the Mount is judging. Jesus uses a pretty ridiculous word picture to describe the absurdity of comparing ourselves to others: trying to pick a speck of sawdust out of someone's eye while we are blinded by a 2x4 in our own. He also uses two other word pictures: giving a dog a sacred object and showing pearls to pigs. I think what he is saying there is even when our motives are good, we must be careful who we hold accountable and who we confront because it might be wasted effort on our part. That person may ignore our good advice and loving confrontation and, because their pride is injured, turn on the confronter to destroy him or her.
Jesus does seem to take a bit of an abrupt turn here in his sermon. His two main points so far have been that in order to have a righteousness that surpasses that of the Pharisees, a citizen of the kingdom of heaven must keep not just the letter of the Law but the spirit of the Law and must not do her acts of righteousness to receive praise from humans. I guess this still fits under the main point: to have a righteousness that surpasses that of the Pharisees, we must not judge on purely external matters and I must not compare myself against anyone else. My standard of righteousness is Christ.
There is an interesting phrase in this part of Christ's sermon: "you will be judged with the measure you use." When I look at my own heart, so much of my judging flows from my own insecurity, guilt and short coming. I am scared that someone might find out about x in my life and feel guilty for having x in my life so I quickly and forcefully focus everyone's attention on x in someone else's life. I've seen this over and over again: the preacher who speaks most loudly against adultery is caught in an affair. The preacher who focuses his wrath against the same gender attracted is found out to be hiring homosexual prostitutes. However, I can't condemn these men too much because I see the same tendency toward self-protectionist judgement in myself. I am holding others to a different standard than I am willing to meet. Jesus makes it clear that I will be held to at least the same standard.

worry [part 2]

Matthew 6:28-34

The key to this section is also worry although Jesus focuses on worrying about clothing in this paragraph. He uses the image of the field flowers to remind his audience how trustworthy the Father is and how much he can be trusted to provide. He uses several comparisons: the beauty of the field flowers to the clothes Solomon wore, the way of the pagan to the way of the citizen of the kingdom, pursuing clothing, shelter and food to pursuing God's kingdom and righteousness. For me, this comes down to trust. Will I put my trust in the philosophy that teaches the survival of the fittest and competition for scarce resources? Or will I put my trust in the the Father who promises to look after all my needs? I know which path sounds more attractive. Life is so much more stress free when I can just simply trust the Father, going to him with my requests, my perceived needs and trusting him to provide what I really need for life and godliness. That would free me up to pursue his kingdom with full abandon.

why worry?

Matthew 6:25-28

Worry is the key word in this passage. Jesus compares the birds who do not sow or reap yet remain well fed to us. He states that we are more valuable than birds and if they can trust the Father to feed them then surely we can trust the Father to look after our needs. Jesus is specifically talking about food in this passage.
The question at the end is both humourous and shows how ridiculous it is to worry. The translators aren't exactly sure what the question is. Either Jesus asked if we could add an hour to your life through worry or if we could add a cubit to our height. Either way, the answer is an obvious "no". There is added irony if the first interpretation is right because worry is more likely to delete hours from my life than add hours to it.
The point is this: that our Father is in control, he is good and he loves me very much so he can absolutely be trusted to do what is good and right in my life. Can you imagine how much better life would be to live with this confidence rather than to be consumed by worry?

am I blind?

Matthew 6:22-23

The key words in this section are light, darkness, eyes, healthy and unhealthy. Matthew is still recording Jesus' teaching in the Sermon on the Mount. Matthew contrasts having healthy eyes which fills the body with light to having unhealthy eyes which fills the body with darkness. He is obviously using a metaphor for being spiritually blind. I think the key phrase is "the eye is the lamp of the body."
This passage seems to stand on its own in the middle of a section about treasure. Jesus just finished saying that we should store our treasure in heaven and after this he goes on to talk about how we cannot serve both God and money. There are no words - like therefore, but, however, and, etc. - that would connect these verses to the surrounding ones. Some commentaries indicate that "healthy" should be translated "single" and "unhealthy" indicates "double". In this case, there is some connection to the next paragraph where Jesus talks about serving two masters. Jesus would therefore be saying that the person who tries to focus on heaven and this earth at the same time will see neither clearly. Because the eyes were believed to be the windows through which light entered the body, Jesus could be saying that if our spiritual eyes are focused and we are single minded, then our whole being is lit up with the benefits that come from that focuse and purpose. If our spiritual eyes are not focused on one thing, then our whole being becomes confused and infected.
The point, from looking at the previous passage and the next one, is clear: my focus should be on heaven. My heart should find its home there and my purpose must be clear: to serve God and store treasure in heaven. Jesus is combatting the notion that we can have it both ways. This fits with what he says about seeking, above everything, God's kingdom and righteousness. I know that I have been duped by the philosophy of materialism and consumerism. I know that I measure my success and worth by my bottom line and my possessions. I know that my vision is sometimes double. Today I want to focus my spiritual eye on Christ and allow my whole being to be filled with his light.

treasure

Matthew 6:19-21

The key word in this passage is treasure. Moth, rust and thieves are also repeated. Jesus contrasts storing treasures up on earth, where moth and rust destroy and thieves will break in and steal, with storing treasures up in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy and thieves do not break in a steal. The subject of this paragraph is: Why should I store up treasures in heaven? The answer: Because treasures in heaven are permanent and where your treasure is you heart will be as well.
This ties to the previous section where Jesus looks at righteous acts. The same basic comparison is made: you can have your reward from people now or from God later and you can have your treasure temporarily on earth now or from God permanently later. The choice seems pretty obvious. However, so often the immediate trumps anything I might have to wait for. I hate to wait!
The big question is, where is my heart? What do I treasure? How can I treasure Christ and heaven more?

Fasting

Matthew 6:16-18

After a longer section on prayer, Jesus return to his main point for this second part of his sermon: don't do your acts of righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. This time he takes up the discipline of fasting.
One of the key phrases is "When you fast". Again, Jesus assumes that his followers will be engaging these spiritual practices but he is reminding them that the spiritual practice itself is not the goal and receiving praise from others is also not the goal. The goal of the spiritual practice is to be rewarded by the Father.
I wonder if the reward is a closer relationship with the Father. There's nothing better that I could think of than that. I wonder if that's what Jesus is getting at here: if you do your spiritual acts to be seen by others, you will receive their praise but that is all. If you do your spiritual acts to draw near to God then he will reward you by drawing near to you. The text doesn't say that explicitly so I admit that I am reading into it a little bit. I'm just trying to figure out what the reward could be and since there is nothing I want more, at least when I really have my priorities straight, than to be close to God, I can't think of a better reward than that.
I wonder why fasting is such a forgotten discipline in the evangelical western world. I think it would be good for me to go without food on occasion to remind myself that God is my provider and that there are things that I need more than food. I think it would be good for me to choose a day a month to fast - not for the religious experience but for my spiritual health. At first it will probably be more of a discipline than a joy but, over time, I hope it would become one way that I can grow closer to Christ.

I forgive you

Matthew 6:14-15

The key word in these two verses is "forgive". Jesus is drawing a direct connection between the way that we forgive others and the way our Father will forgive us. This ties directly to the second last imperative of the prayer that Jesus modelled for his audience: "Forgive us our debts as we also have forgiven our debtors." What I would expect Jesus to say is, "Forgive others when they sin against you because your heavenly Father has forgiven you." However, that is not what Jesus says. He says that if we forgive others, our heavenly Father will forgive us. Receiving forgiveness is dependent on how I give forgiveness.
Jesus explains this further in the parable of the unforgiving servant. He is forgiven by the Master but then goes out and demands payment of a debt that he is owed. The Master then "un-forgives" the servants debt and has him sent to prison. In that story, the servant is first forgiven but it is a conditional forgiveness based on how he treats others.
In both passages what is clear is that Jesus expects me to reflect God's mercy as demonstrated to me in his forgiving me by demonstrating forgiveness to others. In both passages, what is clear is that my ultimate forgiveness depends on how I treat my fellow human-beings. Some people might try to say that it is my experience of forgiveness that depends on my treatment of others but Jesus makes it clear that it more than my experience, it is the actual forgiveness itself.

a format for prayer

Matthew 6:9-13

The key phrase of this passage is: "This, then, is how you should pray:" Besides the "greeting", the rest of the passage is a list of imperatives to God and yet the tone of the prayer is one of humility. Usually when we give imperatives, it suggests commands to be followed and implies that we are in a position to be obeyed. The classic example is the stop sign. The imperative is "stop" and the implication is that the law has authourity over me and my car and that it can make that commandment, it expects to be obeyed and that there will be consequences if I do not. Yet this prayer doesn't suggest that same master-servant relationship. In fact it is quite the opposite. I think the tone of humility comes from the tone of dependance. The essence of the prayer is, "Father, I can't do anything and you can do everything. I depend on you for bread, for forgiveness and for protection. I would like to make your name hallowed and to spread the impact of your kingdom and will but I can't even do that. I need your help."
I live my life in independence from God far too often. In fact, prayer is probably one of the hardest aspects of my Christian faith. I love to study the Bible, I love to serve but, prayer, for me, is difficult. I know that God is all in all and that without him I am nothing and can do nothing and yet I live my life as if I am everything and can do everything. I want to learn to pray and to be a man of prayer.

Prayer

Matthew 6:5-8

The key words in this passage are: pray, hypocrites, pagans, reward. The idea of the Father knowing what is done in secret is compared to the idea of the Father knowing the "secret" needs of our heart, even before we express them. Hypocrites who pray on street corners are parallel to and almost put in the same categorie as, pagans who babble. However, the contrast is that the hypocrites are praying in a way to earn human praise while the pagans are praying in a way to try to earn the right to be heard by God. Both of them are condemned by Jesus.
This section is tied to the rest of the sermon by the use of the phrases, "don't be like the hypocrites" and "your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you." The particular "righteous act" that Jesus addresses here is prayer. He teaches that prayer is to be a direct communication between the Father and the person and not a way for a person to score religious points. He also teaches that God already knows what we need before we ask him so the purpose of prayer cannot primarily be to tell God our list of needs and wants. There must be something more. Jesus does not indicate what that is at this point, although he hints at it in the next section when he gives us an example to follow in prayer.
So, here is what I am taking home: too often I am concerned about praying the right words and I am more concerned, when I pray in public, about the people who are hearing my prayer and what they will think of the words that I have chosen than I am about the Person to whom I am actually supposed to be praying to. I need God to remind me that he is my audience and I should just express things that are on my heart. However, I do think that when praying in public on behalf of others, that I need to keep in mind that they are joining me in prayer - I am coming to God with them but speaking on behalf of all of us. This means that I need to remember that God is my primary audience but I must keep in mind the others that are joining with me in prayer. However, I must never use prayer as an opportunity to preach a sermon or impress a crowd! Again, for me, it comes down to motives and since only God to change my motives and my heart, I humbly ask him to do it now.

what is my reward?

Matthew 6:2-4

The key phrases in this passage are: "they have received their reward in full" and "Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you." These two phrases will be repeated through out this section. The key word in this passage is "hypocrite" which will also be repeated, always in terms of "don't be like the hypocrites."
Jesus is giving an example of how not to do acts of righteousness to be seen by others. Again, the point is not that we should never be seen to be giving to the needy but our motivation must not be to receive praise from people. Jesus lays it out as a choice: either you can give to the needy to be rewarded by humans or you can give to the needy to be rewarded by the Father. It is a rhetorical choice because the reward that the Father gives is going to be much greater than the praise of other humans. I believe that Jesus is using hyperbole here when he says to not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing. This is consistent with his hyperbole in the previous section when it comes to cutting of a hand or plucking out an eye. He seems to use it to emphasize his point. He is probably using hyperbole as well to describe the giving of the hypocrites. I would have to study the history and practice of that time to know for sure if they actually formed a brass band to precede them as they were on their way to give to the needy.
Here is what I can apply from this passage: First, giving is expected. Jesus does not say to stop giving to the needy but assumes that we will be giving to the needy (v. 2 "when you give..."). I think some people need to hear this message and I know that I need to be reminded constantly. Jesus expects that one of his disciples will make it part of his normal life to give to the needy. Second, this is more about motivation than about secrecy. If my goal is to bring pleasure to my Father then it is not ruined if someone sees me giving and points it out. I've heard of a pastor in the middle of building campaign announcing to his congregation what his pledge was, not to be seen as righteous but to challenge his congregation to be sacrificial in their giving as well. At our church, we made it a bit more anonymous and announced what the leaders had pledged as a total. Thirdly, it is not wrong to be motivated by reward. Jesus clearly teaches that we will be rewarded but we must choose whom we wish to be rewarded by. I can earn the praise of humans, have my name on wings of hospitals or universities (assuming I had enough money to buy the right to have my name there) or I can earn the pleasure of God and have my name written in his book. This teaching does cause me some problems because I believe that we can't earn God's favour but we are given his favour and pleasure by his grace through faith in Christ. So Jesus is not teaching that if you give in secret you are somehow more righteous or that you can earn salvation. But he is teaching that we will be rewarded. The main point is that we must choose whom we want to reward us.

acts of righteousness

Matthew 6:1

Jesus ties "acts of righteousness" to rewards in heaven. The key phrase is not "in front of others" but "to be seen by them." Jesus is not saying that we need to make sure that no one every sees us do an act of righteousness but that our motive is to please God and not to be seen or applauded by others. Too many people have interpretted this to mean that they should never pray in public, that no one should ever know how much they give to charity (although they are most happy to record it on their income tax form), that no one should ever see them perform an "act of righteousness." We need to understand this in the context of the audience to whom Jesus is talking. The would have understood that Jesus was pointing to over the top religious displays. This becomes clear when we get to the passagea about giving: don't announce it with trumpets, don't offer your whole tithe in pennies so that it makes a nice, long clanging sound as it enters the collection box. It is about motive, not about whether or not someone sees us. In fact, I think there is a time to do our "acts of righteousness in public" if it would disciple someone in the spiritual disciplines. If our youth and children never see us practice our faith, how will they every understand how important it is? However, our motive must never be about gaining praise for ourselves but bringing praise to God.
This ties into the previous chapter in that Jesus is again attacking the religiousity of the Jewish system. In the previous chapter, Jesus made it clear that keeping the Law was about the heart and spirit of the Law and not just a strict understanding of the letter of the Law. In this chapter, Jesus makes it clear that it is not enough just to practice religion in order to be seen as religious by others but to pursue God in such a way that we will be rewarded by God and not by other humans.
In essence, this is Jesus' thesis statement for the next section of his sermon. In my translation, acts of righteousness has quotations around it. I wonder if Jesus is being a bit sarcastic here. I wonder if he is saying, "You think your religious acts indicate your righteousness. They don't. True righteousness is... (he explains that in the previous chapter and the rest of this one)." I know that there are times when I go to church or serve the poor or pray or give as an "act of righteousness." I don't even think the motive of pleasing God is the right one. It means that I think that I can somehow earn God's favour by my religious acts. This is the mark of every religion. I think my motive for going to church should be to celebrate a relationship with God that means I don't have to go to church to please him. I think my motive for reading the Bible is to get to know the God who tells me I don't have to read the Bible to please him. I think my motive for doing anything should be love for my Father and my Saviour. The only act of righteousness that pleased God was Jesus. Only as I put myself in him and let him put himself in me will I be pleasing to God.

pray for persecutors

Matthew 5:43-48

This is the last of the statements Jesus makes about the oral tradition surrounding the Law and he continues with his formula: "You have heard that it was said... but I tell you..." This time he tackles the whole subject of dealing with enemies. I cannot ever recall reading any teaching in Scripture that would tell me it is ok to hate my enemies. What must have happened is that "experts" read the Law which stated "Love your neighbour" and assumed that if we were to love our neighbour it must be ok to hate our enemies or at least excused their hatred by saying that the Law didn't say that I couldn't hate my enemy.
Jesus, of course, takes the foundation right out from underneath this argument. He reminds them that the Law is all about treating people, even your enemies, with the honour, dignity and respect that they deserve as humans created in the image of God and reflecting the character of God in all you do. The character of God seems to be what is most at stake here. Jesus ties loving enemies and praying for persecutors directly to being a child of God, even using the phrase "that you may be." Children bear a resemblance to their parents and Jesus is telling us that in order to bear a resemblance to our Father, and to be his true children, we must love our enemies.
Jesus then proves his point: God doesn't just make the sun shine on the good or the rain fall on the righteous but rather showers his blessing on both.
At the end of this section, Jesus reminds us what being a citizen of heaven is all about which is to reflect the character of the King (v. 48). No wonder Paul talked about the depth of his sinfulness for who could ever live up to such a standard? Perfection is impossible for me in my own strength and by my own efforts because I have already marred it with sin. Even if I could live a perfect life from this point forward, I couldn't do anything to erase the imperfection of the past. I so desperately need Jesus to forgive my sin and cleanse me from all imperfections. Only as I accept the work of Christ and adopt the character of Christ can I have any hope.
The evidence that the Spirit is producing the character of Christ in me will be most clearly seen in my interactions with other people: am I treating them with hatred, using them for my own pleasure and benefit, abandoning them when they no longer please me, using trickery and deceit to take advantage of them, seeking revenge and giving the bare minimum to meet their needs and hating those who oppose me or am I treating them with the honour, dignity and respect they deserve as a human created in the image of God?
I can't do this by my strength, will power or discipline but only by your Spirit!

vengeance is mine

Matthew 5:38-42

This continues the formula Jesus has used so effectively in his sermon so far: "You have heard that it was said... But I tell you..." In this case, he is challenging their interpretation of the Law when it comes to just punishment. The Law that Jesus references is summed up by "eye for eye, tooth for tooth" and was originally intended to prevent revenge and to put limits on the punishment that the judges could hand out. The premise was that the punishment must fit the crime: if the crime cost an eye, then no more than an eye could be demanded. In our broken humaness, we always demand more than what we lost. I think this is because we want the other person to hurt as much as we have but we cannot feel their pain so imagine that our hurt at losing an eye (for example) is more than their hurt at losing an eye so they must also lose a hand or tooth. The Law was there to prevent this cycle of revenge.
However, in Jesus day, it was being abused and was actually being interpretted, by some extremists, to mean the exact opposite of what was intended - people were using the Law to give permission to their acts of personal vengeance. Jesus opposes this and reminds his audience that they are to treat everyone - even their enemies, their abusers and their occupiers - with the dignity, honour and respect they deserve as humans created in the image of God. The specific examples Jesus points to are: if someone slaps you on the cheek, turn the other cheek to them; if someone sues you for your shirt, give them your coat as well (it was against the Law to sue someone for their coat 0r outer garment); if a soldier presses you into service forone mile, go two miles with him. Jesus is calling people to a deeper level of obedience than a strict intepretation of the Law promotes. Jesus is calling people to reflect God's character when it comes to mercy, grace and love. There is nothing compelling me to "go the extra mile" except that God loves that person and may want me to demonstrate His love to them. I am completely within my rights to demand justice when I am struck except that I have surrendered my rights to Christ and he loves that person and may be asking me to demonstrate his radical love to them.
In this world where everything is about defending my rights and taking revenge, Jesus' message cuts right against the culture. Can you imagine what this world would look like if revenge was removed from the system? Most of the superheroes, especialy the darker ones, would not exist because they are almost always motivated by revenge, not justice and love. Most of the movies would not be shot because many of them are based on revenge. Court houses would be relatively empty because people would not be suing each other for ridiculous amounts of money over some perceived slight (like my coffee being too hot) - there would still be cases about justice but the cases motivated by revenge would all be gone. Gang wars and cycles of violence would come to an end. There would be fewer wars (if any). I can barely imagine it and yet it seems to be the world, or kingdom - to use a biblical term, that Jesus wants to create.
Before he creates this kingdom of love in the world, he is at work creating it in my heart and I have to say that there is still a long way to go. I am so aware of my rights and when they have been trampled. I am so quick to defend myself against any perceived attack. I find it very hard to turn the other cheek, to give up my coat and to go the extra mile. I am not very good at reflecting God's character of love, mercy and grace and I am more concerned with myself than the image of God in others. Please, God, continue to form the character of Christ in me and may it be seen in the way that I deal with people who slap my cheek, sue for my shirt and force me into service.

I swear on my...

Matthew 5:33-37

Jesus continues the repitition: "You have heard that it was said... but I tell you..." and this time he takes on oaths. If my premise is true (that this section of the sermon is all about treating people with the dignity, honour and respect they deserve because they are created in the image of God and reflecting the character of God - as one created in his image - in terms of holiness, purity, faithfulness, etc.) then I need to figure out how this section fits into the whole. Either there was something about how people were making oaths that was disrespecting people or there was something about how people were making oaths that was dishonouring God (or both). I know that Jesus took issue with how people made oaths in another passage because they would create loopholes based on what they had sworn on. This would not only be disrespecting people (tricking people into thinking that my promise was sure but backing out on a loophole) but it would not be a good reflection of God's character (truth).
Jesus certainly uses strong language here (anything beyond "yes" or "no" comes from the evil one) so he obviously has a strong opinion about oaths. The examples he uses as things not to swear by tie directly to God and his character (heaven is God's throne, earth is his footstool, etc.) and our inability to affect anything that has do with our lives (you can't change your hair colour - which isn't entirely true today!).
I think that Jesus is saying that our character should reflect God's character to the point that when we say "yes" to something, people are sure we will follow through on it and when we say "no" to something, people are sure that we mean it. I think Jesus is saying that we shouldn't need oaths to support our promises - our promise and reputation should be enough. I don't think Jesus is saying that we should necessarily refuse to "swear to tell the truth" in court or take an oath of office. He is just saying that we should have such a reputation for telling the truth and standing behind what we say that, for the people who know us, such oaths are unnecessary.
May all I need to say is simply "yes" or "no" and may I have the strength of character to stand behind my words and to be humble enough to admit when I have promised more than I can deliver. I guess that means that I also need wisdom to know what I can deliver and what I cannot.

grounds for divorce

Matthew 5:31-32

Jesus continues the formula: "You have heard that it was said... but I tell you..." but this time he tackles the topic of divorce. If I understand the context of the time correctly, there was two main opposing schools of thought put forward by two teachers (I was going to put the plural of rabbi but I didn't know how to spell it: rabbis looks like rabbits and rabbies look like rabies). One school of thought taught that you could divorce your wife for any reason at all, the other school taught that you could only divorce your wife if there was sexual immorality. In both schools of thought it is the man who does the divorcing and the wife has no say. Jesus seems to endorse the second school of thought.
It's interesting that the divorced woman becomes an adulteress and nothing is said about what the divorced husband becomes (the man who marries the divorced woman becomes an adulterer). Why would Jesus say that? In that time, the woman had no economic viability apart from a man so by divorcing a woman you were basically forcing her to get remarried so that she could survive and part of the marriage would involve sex with the new husband. Jesus seems to be teaching that the previous husband is the "real" husband and anyone else the woman has sex with is outside the bounds of the "real" marriage and is therefore adultery.
It is also interesting to me that hard core conservative Christian fundamentalists will interpret this passage literally and condemn people who get divorced and remarried but I don't see them missing any hands or eyes that have caused them offense (the previous verse). I am not saying that this verse should not be interpretted literally but how do they get to pick and choose which verses they are going to follow? I saw if you are going to camp hard on this verse, you better be getting out the knife because I don't know anyone who hasn't struggled with lust at one point or other and Jesus clearly says to amputate the part of your body that's causing you offense... ouch! that could really hurt!!
It is obvious to me that this verse needs some interpretting in light of today's context. Even the hard core conservative Christian fundamentalist interprets the verse to apply to both men and women (and not just to women as Jesus makes clear here). So what does this verse mean? In the context Jesus is teaching that all humans must be treated with the honour, dignity and respect they deserve as someone who is created in the image of God. In that context I think that Jesus is teaching that women must be treated with the same honour, dignity and respect and must not be divorced without cause. Remember, in that day women were seen as property belonging to their father until they got married at which point they belonged to their husband. Jesus is elevating the view of women by this teaching - they are not like a horse or a dog that you can get rid of whenever they cease to please you. They are created in the image of God and are therefore worthy of dignity, honour and respect. Also, in the context, Jesus is teaching that the spirit of the Law reflects the character (specifically the holiness of God). Jesus is teaching that marriage must reflect God's character of faithfulness, love, purity and commitment. It should not be broken without serious cause.
So, what do I learn from this passage? That God is faithful, love, pure and committed to his people and that my marriage should be a reflection of his character. I learn that all people are created with dignity, honour and respect because they are created in the image of God and that in all relationships I must seek to treat them as such and must seek to help others who are trying to follow Jesus treat each other with the same.

extreme amputation

Matthew 5:27-30

Jesus continues with his formula: "You have heard that it was said... but I tell you..." This time he takes issues with the traditional interpretation of adultery. Rather than the letter of the Law - don't sleep with a woman who is not your wife - which interprets the Law at a physical level, Jesus uncovers the spirit of the Law - treat all human beings with the dignity, honour and respect that they deserve as beings created in the image of God and reflect God's character of purity and holiness in your interactions with other humans. Anything else is lust and lust breaks the spirit of the Law in regards to adultery. 1 Thessalonians 4:3-8 speaks to this definition of lust. Paul tells the church to control their bodies in a way that is holy and honorable, not in passionate lust. This reinforces what Jesus is saying here: lust = sexual desire - holiness + honour. As soon as I dishonour somoene or disregard the character of God in the way that I relate to others I have committed lust (therefore we can have lust for power, possessions, etc. as well as sex).
Jesus' remedy is pretty extreme: cut off your right hand or pluck out your right eye if they are the member of your body causing you offense. I don't think Jesus is advocating mutilation of the body (which would be the plain meaning of what he says) but he is advocating that his audience take drastic action to avoid lust and avoid breaking this Law. The extreme action that Jesus advocates is nothing compared to the extreme result of giving in to lust which is hell. This shows me the seriousness with which Jesus, the Father and the Spirit take my interactions with other humans. If they are not full of honour for the person and full of regard for the character of God then I am in danger of hell.
According to Jesus' interpretation of the Law so far, I am an adulterous murderer who is danger of hell. I think the point that Jesus is trying to make is that even though the Pharisees, most of Jesus audience and I have not physically committed adultery or murder that we still fall short of the standard of the Law (which is a reflection of the holiness and purity of God). I think that's Paul's point in Romans, especially in chapter 3. Jesus' thesis for this section is in v. 20: "Unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven." My only hope for that kind of righteousness is that somehow the righteousness of Jesus would cover me.
Finally, I am convicted by my lazy attitude toward sin. Jesus calls me to take radical action to avoid it and I have been very lazy in my approach. Am I willing to suffer some pain in the short term for gain in the long term? My life would say no. I pray that Jesus would help me desire holiness and honour above comfort and ease.

out of court settlement

Matthew 5:21-26

Jesus introduces this section in the same way that he will introduce the next five topics: "you have heard that it was said..." This indicates that Jesus' beef is not with the Law itself but with the oral tradition and traditional interpretation of the Law. In this section he tells his audience that their interpretation of "do not murder" is too narrow - that the spirit of the law is all about how we treat each other and our attitude toward each other. He speaks in three specific areas: the words and attitudes in our family relationships, worship and civil suits. He compares murder to anger (some manuscripts say, "angry without cause") and saying "raca" to saying "you fool." It would have been shocking to his audience who thought they had finally figured out all the rules and traditions surrounding the law and then Jesus comes along and adds more stuff for them to obey. Yet Jesus' teaching cuts through all the crap and gets to the heart of the matter - he's not just adding more oral teaching around the Law, he's revealing the heart of the Law: treat your brother and sister with the respect, diginity and honour that is due to them as someone created in the image of God. That's the reason that murder is wrong and life is sacred.
Jesus also echoes the OT prophets when he tells his audience to make sure things are right between them and their brothers and sisters before offering their sacrifice or gift in worship. This shouldn't have come as a surprise to Jesus' audience because the OT prophets had been saying this for years: God hates your religious practices (the very practices God told them to practice) because they've missed the point of obedience and doing what is right outside of the temple as well as inside it. Jesus says very clearly that making sure things are right between me and my brothers and sisters is more urgent than offering my gift at the altar. I notice that he doesn't say, "don't offer your gift" but "go and make it right, then come offer your gift." The point is to make things right, not to stop worshiping.
I find this passage rather convicting: I've definitely been angry with a brother or sister (even with the added stipulation of "without cause") and defamed them by calling them names and calling their reputation into question (verbally or even in thought). I haven't placed the same urgency on reconciling with them that Jesus does. Obviously Jesus values humans very highly because they have been created in the image of God. As a follower of Jesus, I must do the same.

the difference between abolishing and fulfilling

Matthew 5:17-20

This is a tough passage for me to figure out. First I have to remember that Matthew is writing to Jewish audience what Jesus said to a Jewish audience. So I have to consider a) what Matthew's purpose is for including this passage and b) what Jesus' purpose was in saying it in the first place. I think that Matthew includes it because the Jewish audience would have remembered the accusations against Jesus: that he broke and dishonored the Law. Matthew is using the words of Jesus himself to tell them that he didn't dishonor the Law but, just the opposite, brought full honor and authority back to the Law. Jesus likely said these words for some of the same purposes but also to remind the people that they had been living according to human tradition and ideas about the Law and hadn't really been living to the standard of the Law's true intent.
The key words in this passage are: "abolish" as compared to "fulfill", "smallest letter", "least stroke of a pen". "Least" is a word that gets repeated a few times: "least stroke of a pen", "least of these commands" and "least in the kingdom of heaven". Jesus does seem to indicate that there is a hierarchy of laws and that there will be a hierarchy in the kingdom of heaven. The kingdom of heaven is a theme in this passage (in fact in the whole sermon on the mount).
The difficult thing for me is figuring out what Jesus means. What he seems to say is that the Law must be fully obeyed (even to the smallest commandment). However, looking at the life of Jesus, we see that he broke commands about working on the Sabbath. Even as I say that, I wonder if Jesus broke established tradition surrounding the Law and didn't break the Law itself. Certainly Paul had no issues with "breaking" parts of the Law - specifically baptism, etc. - and certainly Jesus cannot expect us to keep the parts of the Law surrounding the sacrificial system of the temple because a) there is no temple right now and b) the teaching of Scripture is pretty clear that the sacrificial system was a temporary sign that pointed to the ultimate and eternal sacrifice that Jesus made of himself on the cross.
In the context of the whole Sermon, teaching and life of Jesus and Scripture, it is likely that Jesus is teaching against the hypocritical tradition that surrounds the Law that allows for loopholes and justification and misses the whole point of the Law (for example, saying that you can spit on a rock on the Sabbath but can't spit on dirt because that would make clay which equals work probably means that we've missed the point of the Sabbath). The question still remains, what does this mean for me? Do I have to obey even the smallest command and teach others to do the same? That would certainly seem like the "plain meaning" of Jesus' teaching in this paragraph but this doesn't seem to match the context and the rest of his life and teaching. Perhaps Jesus is reminding us that there is something more than the letter of the Law that needs to be considered. We have to obey the full meaning or intent of the Law. So we as followers of Jesus under the new covenant do not have to follow all the Laws about ceremonies and sacrifices and cloth blends and kosher meats but we do have to do everything in Christ's power to love God with all we have and are and love our neighbour as ourselves. Jesus will teach in the following sections that I must not only live up to the letter of the Law when it comes to murder and adultery and divorce but that I must represent the character of God in my interactions with all humanity in terms of purity, love and dignity.
This truly is a righteousness that surpasses the oral tradition of the Pharisees and teachers of the law. My only hope is that the righteousness of Christ will be substituted for my unrighteousness because I, in myself, cannot live up to that standard. Maybe that's the point.

guiding light

Matthew 5:13-16

Jesus uses two analogies to describe the character of citizens of the kingdom of heaven. This is consistent with his teaching style through out his ministry: using parables, comparisons, analogies to make a point.
The two descriptions that Jesus uses here are salt and light. We don't use salt in the same way they did in the ancient world and we don't value salt the same way. I think Jesus was probably referring to the preservative nature of salt and possibly the subversive nature of salt. When salt is used in food properly it enhances the flavours of what is already there and you don't really notice it. This would be a good description of the citizen of the kingdom - sometimes going unnoticed but missed when not there.
In term of light, the whole purpose of the light is to show the way. Jesus makes it clear the the life of the citizen of the kingdom is to show the way to God: let our good deeds shine so others see them and give glory to God. In the context, Jesus is talking specifically about the way that we endure opposition, hardship and persecution (v. 10-11). We rejoice in the midst of persecution without seeking vengeance and without flinching and people will realize that there must be something to what we believe. This has certainly been proven through out history.
I know that I act like a child when I face hardship or opposition: I lash back, I throw a tantrum, I scream and swear. Sure, I might be outwardly composed but if you could see me when I'm alone or if you could look into my mind at that moment it wouldn't be pretty. God, please let me be your light and salt in this world. Let my life shine is such a way that it points to you and brings you glory from others.

turning the world upside down

Matthew 5:1-12

Jesus spends a lot of time on mountains, it seems. A mountain is the setting for Jesus' sermon here - in Luke a very similar sermon is given while on the plains (kind of like the Jewish prairies?). I'm not doubting that Jesus actually preached this sermon on a mountain but I think that Matthew has an agenda in pointing out the location. Because Matthew is writing to convince a Jewish audience that Jesus is the promised Messiah, he wants them to draw a clear parallel between the Law given to Moses (on a mountain) and the new Law given by Jesus (also on a mountain). This is made more pronounced by the fact that Jesus deals directly with some of the laws and traditions that belonged to the old covenant between God and humans ("you have heard that it was said... but I tell you...").
Jesus begins the process of turning the world upside down by giving a blessing to the poor, the mourners, the meek, the hungry, etc. All the people who traditionally would be looked down on. All the people who "aren't going to make it" according to the rules of this world. In a world that celebrates power, wealth and resiliency Jesus reminds us that the values of God and His Kingdom are very different.
What does this mean for me? It reminds me that I have made God according to my own ideas and imagination. I see God as one who "helps those who help themselves" (even if I would never say that) rather than as one who blesses the poor in spirit and the meek, giving them the kingdom of heaven and this world for an inheritance. This tells me that I have allowed the values and the philosophies of this world shape my own values and priorities and it is through these false values that I filter God's revelation to me. The danger is that I will start to put my energy, time and resources into people who might be able to someday measure up to this false ideal and standard of success rather than pouring my time, energy and resources into people who are meek, poor, hungry and mourning. The other danger is that I will celebrate and hold up in high esteem those who meet the false standard of success and who have inherited the kingdom of this world with all its empty rewards rather than those who have truly inherited the kingdom of heaven. God, help me to read your word and see your character for what it really is and not as filtered through my own ideas and values. Make the glass through which I see you a little bit more clear.

building momentum

Matthew 4:18-25

I was just struck with something this morning: Satan had tempted Jesus to draw a crowd by doing something spectacular (jump off the temple) but Jesus trusted the Father to accomplish his will in his way instead. Here we see the results of that: Jesus begins his ministry with a simple message with huge implications ("repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near") and backs up that message by his integrity and miracles. His authoratative teaching and his miracles begin to accomplish what Satan tempted him with - he gains fame and large crowds begin to follow him.
However, the rest of Jesus' ministry shows that the crowd is not actually what he is pursuing. In fact, it seems like he doesn't ever truly trust the crowd. His main concern is the commitment of the individual. We see this as Jesus calls his first disciples and they immediately leave their fishing business to follow him.
I know that numbers are one evaluative tool because there are so many people who don't know Christ and so we want to influence as many as possible with the good news of the kingdom. However, just because I have x amount of students coming doesn't mean that I am growing disciples of Christ. Like Jesus, I must make my main concern the spiritual formation of the individual. In my case, that means that I must make sure that I have the volunteers necessary to mentor and disciple the students that Christ has brought to my ministry and then I must build into my volunteers so they can engage the individual student.

does Jesus retreat?

Matthew 4:12-17

There must be something really significant about the location that Jesus withdrew to because Matthew is really specific about the spot. The main reason is to show the direct correlation between the location that Jesus went to and the prophecy that Isaiah made - he uses almost the exact same language. Speaking completely humanistically, it seems like Matthew wanted his Jewish audience to make the connection between the location and the prophecy but then didn't trust them to make the connection so inserted the prophecy itself. This appeal to fulfilled prophecy is consistent with the rest of Matthew's writing - his purpose it to prove that Jesus is the prophecied Messiah and meets all the requirements of the prophecies.
I've commented on Jeff's blog that I sometimes feel, again speaking completely humanistically, that Matthew stretches the interpretation of the prophecies to match the circumstances of Jesus' life. I believe that Matthew was inspired by the Holy Spirit and that means that his interpretation of the prophecies must also be inspired. I guess my problem is that we have tried to use Matthew's method of seeing fulfilled prophecy to convince people that Jesus is the Christ. I think we must acknowledge that the times and audience to which we are speaking are different than the times and audience to which Matthew was originally writing. I also think that we must acknowledge that if I tried to interpret Scripture and prophecy in a college class that Matthew does here that I would fail the class. I think we must be honest and true about our methods in which we try to convince our audience of the truth of our claims. I think the Bible itself acknowledges that different methods are needed for different times and audiences (why we have four gospel accounts for instance). So, while the argument of fulfilled prophecy might have worked as an apologetic for the modern era, I think we have to look for other methods to defend the truth of our faith in the post-modern era.
It's interesting to me that Jesus, after retreating in light of the news of John the Baptist's arrest, comes back with the exact same message as John did: "Repent for the kingdom of heaven has come near." I don't know why - perhaps it was to show the authourities that God's message to his people could not be hushed no matter what they might do to stop it. Any ideas?

a mountain top experience

Matthew 4:8-11

This is the last of the recorded temptations that Jesus faced at the beginning of the public ministry phase of his life. In this temptation, Jesus is taken by Satan up a mountain and is shown all the kingdoms of the world. Satan offers Jesus all the kingdoms if he will simply make a small compromise and bow down and worship him once.
This would have been a huge temptation for Jesus, especially if (as it seems) he was aware of God's plan to ransom the kingdom's of this world: the cross with all its pain and humiliation plus the fact that Jesus, the sinless one, would take on himself all the sin of the world. Satan was offering him a short cut.
The temptation would have been even bigger because after all Jesus would go through, people would still have a choice to submit to him. Satan's plan would not only mean that he wouldn't have to suffer physically, emotionally and spiritually but that all people would have to submit. This was a tempation to be powerful.
Man, have we fallen for this temptation! Christians through out history, right up to the present (the moral majority, anyone?) have been seduced by the possibility of power and I have yet to see where it worked out very well. I remember as a young kid I wanted to become PM of Canada and make it a truly Christian nation but forcing everyone to either submit to Christ or leave. Take it easy on me, I was young and immature and didn't see the inherent contradiction between being Christian and using force. I've matured, I hope.
But maybe we haven't. I see it in the Western Canadian Evangelical churches voting predominantly Conservative because we've been told we will have a voice at the table. I see it in the states with the promises the Bush administration sold to gain the support of the Evangelical movement (and the catering to that base with the appointment of Palin as VP candidate). Have we learned nothing from history? Do we honestly think we'd do better with our power than the State churches of the Middle Ages and earlier? Are we that arrogant?
May Jesus be our model and our example of how to speak to the culture and stand up for what is good and right and just without being sucked in by the attraction of power.

drawing a crowd

Matthew 4:5-7

It is interesting the slight change of tactics that Satan makes in tempting Jesus: he starts using Scripture to support his temptation. Of course he uses it out of context and to support a faulty premise which Jesus recognizes very quickly but I'm not sure that I would. Especially because it would have been tempting: Satan is playing on a desire that Jesus already has but is tempting him to achieve that desire in an unholy way or to twist the desire towards something that is unholy. The desire that Satan is playing on here is the desire for significance and he is telling Jesus that the way to be significant is to do something spectacular - jump off the temple and live. If Jesus did that, he would be sure to draw a crowd and be famous.
I think that my youth ministry (and youth ministries - and probably churches - in general) face this temptation all the time - we argue that the end justifies the means. We will do anything to draw a crowd, justifying it by saying that we then have the opportunity to speak truth in their lives. The life of Jesus and the teaching of Scripture clearly teaches that the method we use to share the message is part of the message itself. In other words, in order to battle this temptation we must constantly ask: what does the method communicate? Is it at odds with the message I want to communicate? This is why, as an aside, I am so against the bait and switch approach to evangelism - it communicates that lying or deceit is ok as long as truth is proclaimed at some point in the event.
I think I also face this temptation in the constant pressure to do bigger and better than last time. Specifically for Identity, we're already asking the question of how we can do better. Of course careful evaluation is needed but if it's just about drawing a bigger crowd or being more spectacular, I think we've lost our focus. Jesus reminds me that there is something more important at stake then drawing a crowd and that is the agenda of Christ.

but I'm hungry...

Matthew 4:3-4

One thing that strikes me is that Satan is a master at introducing doubt. He basically employs the same device he used against Adam and Eve: "Did God really say..." only here he says, "If you are..." Here it is a direct attack from Satan's mouth; through the rest of Jesus' life the same sentiment or test would be expressed through people: if you are who you say you are, then heal this person or perform this miracle or come down from the cross. It must have been a real temptation to shut people up and remove all doubt by reacting to their requests. I know I would have.
The other thing that strikes me is that Jesus relies heavily on Scripture to defeat temptation. He refuses the premise of Satan's attack (are you really the Son of God?) by not addressing that question at all and then he uses a verse which reminds me that I am to depend on God for everything and not myself. This goes back to the very first sin recorded in history. Rather than go to God with any questions of what might be right or wrong, Adam and Eve decide they would rather make the choices for themselves. This is the same tactic Satan uses here: "Jesus, God brought you out here. The least he could do is feed you. Obviously he can't be trusted and he is not good so why don't you take matters into your own hands." Jesus responds by saying that there is something more important than food.
Which raises the question, why would it be so wrong to change the stones into bread? I think one reason is that it would have shown an independence from God. Jesus would have been saying that he (or Satan) knows better than God what is good and necessary in this situation. I am influenced quite heavily by Henri Nouwen's In The Name of Jesus when it comes to this passage and he suggests another reason: that this was a temptation to be relevant. The pressing need was hunger and the way to alleviate that is with food. Jesus reminds us all that there is usually something more important than the pressing and presenting need. If we spend all our time seeking to be relevant, we will miss what is more important - the word which comes from the mouth of God. Don't get me wrong, I think we should be doing what we can to meet people's pressing needs but we must never forget that which is most important. Jesus reminds us of that here.

as the Spirit leads... into temptation?

Matthew 4:1-2

Perhaps the English doesn't get this right but according to my translation, the Spirit led Jesus into the wilderness to be tempted. Part of the Spirit's plan for his life was to face temptation. You would think that Jesus would be led into this time of solitude to be ministered to by the Spirit in preparation for his public ministry. You would think it would be a time of encouragement and building up. But the Spirit has another plan - to prepare Jesus for public ministry, he will be tempted (after he has fasted for 40 days and 40 nights).
I love the understatement: "After fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry." I think I might be hungry after not eating for that long (I might be dead after not eating that long). I also love the timeline. There was no rush to capitalize on any press Jesus might be receiving after his baptism. There was no sense of urgency to get out there with the message that God had given him. The multitudes of people that needed healing would have to wait. The most important thing was to spend time - significant time - submitting to the Spirit's leading. We have no idea what Jesus did during those forty days. We have no idea if the three temptations that we read about were the only temptations Jesus faced. We have no idea what else happened. We just know that, in preparation for his public ministry, Jesus went out to the wilderness and was gone for over a month.
Today I am so driven by the urgent that I hardly take any time for rest. It's so easy to make excuses - it's September, there are people to recruit, there are recruits to interview, there are students to make welcome, Identity is coming (and it's fulller than we thought it would be), there are talks to prepare, there is curriculum to write and/or adapt... the list goes on. I always talk about taking time but I very rarely do it because there is another need to be met, another event to plan, another meeting to attend.
God, do I need to spend some time in the wilderness? Do you need to remind me of my purpose and calling? Am I taking time to hear from you? I know that there's a time for work but there is also a time for rest. Do I have a good balance?

there were no doves at my baptism...

Matthew 3:13-17

The humility of John is seen again in this passage - recognizing that he is here to serve Jesus and not vice versa. I think sometimes we get so caught up in hierarchy and protocol that we feel awkward when things get turned upside down, as they do in this passage (and certainly in John's gospel where Jesus washes the disciples' feet). The pastor (teacher) is supposed to baptize the student, not the other way around.
Implied in John's statement is a question. At least I read a question into his statement: why is Jesus being baptized? John's baptism was for repentance and Jesus certainly had nothing to repent of. Jesus says that he must be baptized to fulfill all righteousness but that doesn't really help answer the question. I think that the reason for Jesus' baptism is seen in the response from the Father: "this is my son." I think that Jesus was baptized so that the Father could publicly identify Jesus as his Son. This, really, is the same reason that we are baptized - to publicly declare that we are God's children. I know that baptism is a sign and I know that it does not achieve salvation for me but I think we in conservative evangelicalism are down playing the significant spiritual role it plays. I don't think that it is just us making a declaration that we are followers of Christ, as I've been taught (and have taught). I think that two voices are speaking in baptism: ours, declaring that we have made a choice to follow Christ and to identify ourselves with him and God's, declaring that he has chosen us and idetifies himself with us.
I love the words that the Father speaks over his Son: "this is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased." A very significant moment in my spiritual journey took place at SABC when Tim S came to the staff and talked about this verse. He pointed out that this was at the very beginning of Christ's ministry - he hadn't really done anything (in human terms) for God to be pleased about but God was pleased, not so much because of what he had done but more because of who he was - his Son. Tim reminded us that even at the beginning of our ministry that summer, before we had led a cabin or taught a skill or shared our testimony that I was God's son, that he loved me and that he was already well pleased.
This is the blessing that I want to pass on to my students: In Christ, you are God's son or daughter whom he loves. He is more pleased with who you are in Christ than what you might be able to do for him. I think if we could believe and live that, our whole perspective on God, faith, people and our world would change.

winning friends and influencing people?

Matthew 3:7-12

This is probably not the best way to gain influence in a society dominated by the religious expert. Rather than currying favour with them, John blasts them. In the tradition of the OT prophet, John pulls no punches. He calls them a bunch of snakes and calls them hypocrites for coming out to be baptized as a mark of their repentance without showing any evidence of repentance by the way they live. He accuses them of depending on their spiritual heritage (being children of Abraham) rather than on their own spiritual integrity. He reminds them that God chose Abraham in his divine sovereignty and could just as easily raise up another group of people (even while keeping his promise to Abraham) to administer his blessing through (perhaps foreshadowing God bringing the Gentiles into the covenant?).
John also introduces Jesus. This is the turning point in the book where Jesus becomes the central character. He is the one who will follow John, whom John has come to serve. The image that John presents is not the meek and gentle Jesus that we tend to think of. Rather he presents Jesus as the powerful King who is coming with judgement and fire.
I wonder what John would say if he was a guest preacher at our church? I wonder what he would say to me if I came to his baptism service. I'm pretty sure I would get blasted because I really enjoy the religious experience. I really enjoy the rituals and traditions. I really enjoy the routine. And I know that John would challenge me - yes, the traditions and routines are helpful in my pursuit of God but I know that they sometimes become more important than the puruit itself. I also know that John that would challenge on my view of Christ. I have made him too weak and too small. In my effort to make him fit the culture I have taken the fire from his baptism and the threshing fork from his hand.

the last of the OT prophets

Matthew 3:1-5

John the Baptist is the main character in this section of the story. We've moved from Joseph to John. Matthew is careful to connect him to prophecy as well - he's the one who precedes the procession calling out, "Make way for the King!" John is a prophet in the OT sense - he wears weird clothes and eats weird food and I am sure that there is some significant symbolism to that. Perhaps it is that he rejects society. He is an outside observer that can speak to the society with objectivity because he is not wrapped up in it.
This is the first time that Matthew uses a phrase that will come up over and over again in his book: the kingdom of heaven. He has set up the use of this phrase by showing Jesus to be a legitimate challenger to Herod's throne and title. John's message was pretty simple: "repent for the kingdom of heaven has come near." Most of the Jews (and possibly even John) would have understood this to mean that the Messiah was coming to overthrow the Romans and to re-establish Israel to the status it enjoyed under David and Solomon. They would have also understood (from the prophets) that this would be a time of judgement and so they flocked to John to show their repentance by being baptized.
I need to be careful how I read and understand Scripture. Every time I come to the Word, I am affected by past teaching, my own understanding, my circumstances, my biases, previous knowledge. Just like the Jews in John's day, I may not completely understand the message I am hearing and I need to be humble enough to admit that I may not only misunderstand but also misapply what I am reading.
I also can learn from John. I think that sometimes we strive so hard to be culturally relevant and to wrap the message of Christ in a palatable way that we are no longer in a position to speak with any authourity to our culture. We look so much like everyone and act like them and think like them that we really have no voice. Now, I am not saying that we should wear camel clothes and eat locusts and I do think that we must be relevant enough to at least know what is going on in our culture. I also think that the use of technology and speaking in a culturally relevant way is great but I wonder where the line is. I want to be careful that I don't become so immersed in the culture that I begin to conform to it (I think there's a verse about that...).

the last dreams

Matthew 2:19-23

Matthew again emphasizes dreams and visits from angels and continues to tell the story from Joseph's perspective (or at least makes Joseph the main character). In fact, Jesus continues to be referred to as "the child" and it is usually in the phrase, "the child and his mother." The only time his proper name has been used so far is in verse 1 of this chapter. I think Matthew records the angelic visions to remind his readers of the supernatural events that surrounded the birth of the child and continued to mark his life through to his resurrection. I wonder if he refers to Jesus as "the child" and constantly places him in relationship to his mother to remind his readers that he was human. Perhaps Matthew is reminding his reader that Jesus is both completely human and completely divine. Perhaps this is an attempt to build empathy for Jesus - because Jesus was such a polarizing figure, dividing families, Matthew is attempting to remind the reader that he was a child - a little boy - who had a mom and a dad. Yes, he was born in unusual, mysterious circumstances but he was not born to privilege. He was a refugee and suffered persecution from the time of his birth. Perhaps this was something that many could relate to - certainly history shows that there were large communities of Jews living in Egypt. Maybe many people knew of someone who had to flee because they had somehow incurred the wrath of Herod. (Just a reminder, these are just guesses).
Matthew again reminds the reader of how Jesus fulfilled prophecy, connecting Jesus to the prophecies regarding the Messiah. All I can say is that Matthew is lucky that he was inspired by the Spirit to connect Jesus to these prophecies - most of the professors I had in Briercrest would have failed Matthew based on his bad hermeneutics - taking phrases and verses out of context to apply them to the current situation. :)
Besides giving us permission to use bad hermeneutics, Matthew again returns to the theme of obedience. Joseph is told by an angel that he should return to Israel and in the very next verse, he takes his family to Israel. The word choices indicate that he did not wait - he got up and went. Another dream tells him not to go to Judea but to settle in Nazareth (their old home town) and Joseph does so. I feel like I am beating a dead horse but the lesson I learn from this passage is that God can be trusted and so I must obey him. I guess the issue for me is, how do I know if I am being obedient? I mean I can generally obey the principles of Scripture to love God with all I am and have (I'm still working towards obedience in that area) and to love my neighbour as myself, but what about the specifics? Did God direct me to come to EFree Lethbridge? Is he directing me to do something else? I can honestly say that I want to obey God but I haven't received any angelic visitors lately and I can't remember any particular dreams or visions that would instruct me. I know that I have prayer, the Word, the Community of Christ and the Spirit to guide and direct me but that seems a bit abstract, a bit hard to know for certain still. I've never heard an audible voice from the Spirit and the Word certainly gives me the broad principles I am to obey. I guess I just wonder why God doesn't direct my life as clearly as he did Joseph's. Or maybe he is and I just don't see it...

Matthew's Christmas Carol

Matthew 2:16-18

This is not a story that we normally include in the Christmas pageant. It hasn't made it into too many Christmas carols. It isn't the scene on the front of many Christmas cards. I am struck by Herod's humanistic worldview. Maybe Matthew didn't intend for this but the narrative moves from angels to Herod blaming the Magi, as if he can't see God's hand in any of this and as if Herod alone can control the outcome.
We learn some more about Herod here. The power that he holds is tenuous and he feels very insecure - he is threatened by a baby or toddler. Of course, I don't completely understand the culture of the time. I do know that it was common practice for kings to completely erradicate the lineage of their rivals. However, the rest of the historical record makes it clear that Herod was especially desperate, insecure and ruthless.
Matthew again speaks to the legitimacy of Jesus' claim to the throne by showing how desperate Herod was to get rid of him and by tying the events of Jesus' life to prophecy. Matthew, under the influence of the Holy Spirit, sees the fulfillment of prophecy in the massacre of the innocents in Bethlehem and vicinity. Matthew includes the poetic prophecy in his account of the nativity: "A voice is heard in Ramah, weeping and great mourning. Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted, because they are no more." Makes it a bit hard to say "Merry Christmas" after that.
I am amazed at the depravity of humanity that can cause so much pain and hurt in the middle of something so good and wonderful. I shouldn't be - it's the theme of the story. We ruined the Garden and now we ruin the coming of the Messiah. At first it might seem hopeless but then I remember that God removed his Son from the area and hope is still alive. This story still brings up some hard questions, though.

Joseph's obedience

Matthew 2:13-15

I've noticed that, at least in the beginning of Jesus' story, Matthew focuses more on Joseph than on Mary. I wonder if this reflects the paternalistic society that Matthew was writing to - the line of the Messiah must descend through the males and so Matthew emphasizes his paternal lineage.
In this passage, we read again of Joseph and again he is seen as a righteous and obedient man. There doesn't seem to be any questions or objections against what the angel told him. Rather, there is instant obedience. I know that Joseph lived in a culture where dreams, visions and angels were more widely accepted but it is also true that there hadn't been much revelation for centuries and so the appearance of angels wasn't exactly ordinary. Yet Joseph obeys immediately (again) - the words suggest that he didn't wait until morning but immediately got up and began preparations to leave for Egypt.
There are so many reasons not to obey - he's leaving his home country, he's leaving his family, he's leaving his business, everything he's ever known. Plus he has a new family and the message came to him in a dream. So often I justify my own "stuck in a rut" ways because I am afraid to deviate from the path. I would justify my decision and sound very wise and logical but the truth is most of my decisions are based on fear - the fear of the unknown, fear of risk, fear of looking like a fool. God, give me the simple obedience of Joseph.

tale of two kings

Matthew 2:1-12

I think the idea of Jesus as King of the Jews or Messiah is going to be a theme through this book. My understanding is that Matthew wrote the book to prove to a Jewish audience that Jesus was the Messiah or the King. This is why Matthew is the only writer to include the visit from the Magi - visiting foreign dignitaries coming to pay their respects to the baby "crown prince".
The contrast between the two kings is pretty huge: King Herod jealously and madly trying to hang on to his power at any cost and King Jesus, innocent and hardly able to hold on to anything. I think that Matthew may also be trying to portray Jesus as a legitimate threat to Herod's reign, proving again that he really is the Messiah and King of the Jews.
The journey of the Magi is interesting to me. We have no idea where they came from (lots of speculation but the Bible doesn't make it clear) or how long they travelled (again, lots of speculation - Herod ends up killing the baby boys two years and younger therefore the star must have been visible for two years) or even how many of them travelled together (just because three gifts were presented we assume that there were three magi). I imagine it must have been easy to give up the journey at times. I imagine that they probably faced some ridicule along the way - I mean they were chasing a star! I imagine that they must have questioned their own sanity at times. But they never gave up. The knowledge I have of the King and the kingdom is much more than what the magi had to go on and yet I do not think that I seek the King and the kingdom with the same determination and focus. "Where is the King?... I have come to worship him."

Christmas in September

Matthew 1:18-25

In the first three verses after the genealogy, the Trinity is mentioned: "the birth of Jesus the Messiah", "pregnant through the Holy Spirit", and "angel of the Lord". Of course the divinity of Jesus is one of the big questions that is addressed in his lifetime and beyond but it seems as if Matthew is making it clear that something new happened that involved the whole God-head. It gives the sense that all of heaven is involved in this story.
I think that it is also significant that the Holy Spirit plays such a prominent role in the birth of Christ. I tend to focus more on the Father and the Son and the dynamics of that relationship. I must not forget that the Holy Spirit was intimately involved in the story right from the beginning. I wonder if God knew that the role of the Spirit would be downplayed on the one hand and overly emphasized on the other. It's interesting to me that the Spirit is mentioned at the very beginning of the OT (moving on the surface of the waters) and the very beginning of the NT.
Joseph is also an interesting figure for me that often seems to fade into the background of the story but plays such a unique role. He should really be the hero and example for so many men who are acting as a dad to children who are not his own! What I learn from Joseph in this passage is that even when I do things with as pure motives and with a desire to what is right in terms of the law and what is right in terms of people, I still may be wrong. Joseph's desire was a good one: uphold the law by not marrying Mary but not exposing her to public ridicule or worse. However, his decision was still not the one that God wanted him to make. This gives me comfort at the same time: God did not condemn Joseph for trying to do what was right (even though it was wrong) but revealed to him the right path to take. In my quest to do what is right, I can move forward with confidence knowing that God will correct me where I am wrong.
The second thing I learn from Joseph is the importance of immediate obedience. Joseph has the vision of the angel and, when he wakes up, he does what the angel told him to do. There was no waiting - the very next morning Joseph completes the marriage. I think this is an indication of what Joseph wanted to do and how much he loved and wanted to be with Mary but it is also an indication of his openess to the will of God. Immediate obedience? That's not so much a marker of my life. I wish it was.

Roots

Matthew 1:1-17

This whole passage is a list of the ancestors of Jesus. Matthew, the author of the book (although he doesn't take credit anywhere that I know of), has divided the genealogy into three lists of fourteen generations. This is likely a literary device more than an accurate division (but I could be wrong about that). I know that seven in the Bible often references completeness or holiness so perhaps Matthew is saying that the genealogy of Jesus is complete or whole.
Matthew also includes the names of two women and references another without mentioning her name. The names of the two women he includes are foreigners (Rahab and Ruth) and the one he references was involved in adultery with King David. He also mentions Mary at the end of the passage as being the husband of Joseph and the mother of Jesus. It is interesting to me that he doesn't name Bathsheba and that, besides Mary, all the women mentioned are quite closely connected to David.
I can't think of much practical application from this passage. It does remind me of the sovreignty of God: even in the failings of so many of the people included in this list, God was at work to bring out the human lineage of the Messiah according to the prophecies that were made. Even though Satan tried desperately to corrupt the royal line, God preserved his people so that his plan would be fulfilled. If God's plan is to draw people to himself, I can move past my failures with humble confidence and continue my ministry without stress or fear. God's plan depends on God and not on my efforts. This doesn't excuse me from working hard and making plans. It doesn't excuse my sin and failure. It just means that I don't have to be defeated by my failure and that I don't have to take the responsibility of success on myself. God, help me to be faithful to what you have called me to do and to take responsibility for what you have given me - nothing more and nothing less.