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.