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.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
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.
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.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
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.
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.
Monday, October 27, 2008
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.
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.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
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.
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.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
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.
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.
Monday, October 20, 2008
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
