Matthew 27:51 And behold, the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. And the earth shook, and the rocks were split.
51 Καὶ ἰδοὺ τὸ καταπέτασμα τοῦ ναοῦ ἐσχίσθη ἀπ᾽ ἄνωθεν ἕως κάτω εἰς δύο καὶ ἡ γῆ ἐσείσθη καὶ αἱ πέτραι ἐσχίσθησαν,
I picked this title because it is also a good Hitchcock movie that is worth seeing, if nothing else because it so perfectly captures how you can get a scientist to give you a secret. Much more importantly, it represents an incredible truth. If you have spent any time in the Pentateuch you will know how important the Tabernacle was to the life of the people. This was then continued with the temple. It was vitally important to have the curtain to keep the Holy of Holies separate from the people. Legend has it that when the High Priest went into the Holy of Holies for the annual sacrifice on Yom Kippur they would tie a rope to his ankle in case he made the offering in an unworthy manner and the Lord killed him like He did with Uzzah and the ark or with Nadab and Abihu and their "strange fire." That's how serious it was. There was a barrier between the people and God.
But as Christ yielded up His spirit this curtain was torn. Not only was it torn, but it was torn ἀπ᾽ ἄνωθεν ἕως κάτω. There was no way that a person could do that. It had to be God who tore the curtain. Imagine the violence of the moment. Anyone who has ever lived through an earthquake knows how unsettling it is. When rocks start splitting it is extremely serious and terrifying. All of this happened as Christ yielded up His spirit.
What does this mean for us? It means that because of Christ's atoning death on the cross we have access to God. There is no longer a barrier between us and God if we go to the cross. This would be simply unthinkable to Matthew's Jewish audience, but they could look at the torn curtain for all the proof that they needed. God gave them a physical illustration of what Christ accomplished on the cross. I can only imagine the spectacle as Jews went to the temple to get a look at what was in the Holy of Holies. I know that I would have wanted to see. That was unimaginable access for them.
And yet we have more than that with God. What do we do with this? Do we spend time in earnest prayer enjoying this intimate fellowship? I don't know about you, but I find that I sadly do not do that as much as I'd like. Instead, I find myself wasting time on frivolities and trying to entertain myself. Why do this when we have access to God? This passage reminds me of the access that we do have. Let's take advantage of it, amen?
Showing posts with label matthew. Show all posts
Showing posts with label matthew. Show all posts
Thursday, December 02, 2010
Wednesday, December 01, 2010
Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on Matthew
I was thrilled to be deemed worthy of receiving a copy of one of the new exegetical commentaries from Zondervan. I got the one on Matthew. My thesis is on the relationship between Matthew 2:15 and Hosea 11:1, so I could use the resource anyway. Plus, I'm always a sucker for free books.
My first impression is that this tome means business as it weighs in at 4.5 pounds. Of course, Matthew is 28 chapters, so it takes some space to cover all of it. The binding is outstanding. I can open the book up to any page and it will stay open to that page. This may not seem like a big deal until you try to type notes while reading. It's a little thing that I've grown to appreciate with well-made books. The paper has a nice thickness to it with very little ghosting. The serif font used for the majority of the text is very readable, even in the footnotes.
The book begins with an introduction explaining issues of authorship, sources, Matthew's use of the OT, etc. It also has an exegetical outline of the whole book, which is very handy if you plan on preaching through Matthew. The rest of the book is broken up into 122 chapters that are subsets of this major outline. It ends with a section on the theology of Matthew.
Each chapter begins with a paragraph on the literary context of the pericope, though chapters before major passages have an introduction to the whole section. For example, at the start of Matthew 24 there is an introduction to the Olivet Discourse in Matthew 24:1-25:46. After the literary context there is a chart showing where this passage falls in the major outline with a good use of bold type. A few sentences describe the "main idea" for the passage, which is of course important if you plan to preach expository sermons. Each section is translated into English, but what's really nice is how this is done. The English translation is given in block outline form so you can follow the flow of the passage. On the right are labels for each clause in each verse. In a light shadow font are descriptions of each clause such as "Scene #1 setting" or "Objection" and then "Answer." Naturally, these are all subject to debate, but they really provide a great help in determining how the pericope flows.
Next is a section on the structure and literary form of each passage and this is a paragraph or two. Following that is an exegetical outline of the passage, which is yet another aid in preaching. Basically, Osborne has done what my Greek teacher taught me to do. I would still want to do this myself, but it is nice to have a scholar's work to check mine against.
After all these preliminaries are the meat of each chapter -- the explanation of the text. The explanation starts with a brief introduction and then goes through each clause. The clauses are presented with the English translation in bold type followed by the Greek in parenthesis. The Greek font is extremely readable, which I have learned is not a given in books that print Greek text. The text describing each clause also includes Greek in parenthesis where appropriate. For example, the note on Matthew 3:13 begins with, "The 'then' (τότε) here shows that..." This is very helpful in thinking through the issues in each clause.
The book is heavily footnoted. It took a little digging for me to find the bibliography at the front of the book rather than the back. I appreciate that the footnotes are in the full SBL text note style rather than Author-Date citations in the text. This is superior to the system used in the Baker commentaries where it is more difficult to figure out each source for each citation.
The footnotes are my only real quibble with this resource. The 1/2 inch margins make the text feel a bit crowded. I cannot imagine how much the book would weigh with larger margins, so I understand why this had to be done. As this book becomes a staple in seminary libraries students are going to have a tough time making photocopies of the pages they want because the thickness of the book creates a deep gutter and the small margins give little tolerance for error. The good news is that text never disappears into the gutter when reading it.
I am not fond of the two-column format for the majority of the text. Again, given the way this book is designed there would be a lot of line breaks as the author moved from clause to clause. Nevertheless, the text ends up with too many hyphens for continued words. A quick glance through the book shows that most pages have a footnote broken between the two columns. Since this is not a book you're likely to curl up with in front of the fire, I don't think that this is a huge problem, but it is still a bit distracting.
Finally, each chapter ends with a section called "Theology in Application" where the author gives his opinion as to how one can apply what he just read. Again, this is a great aid in preaching.
I am hardly a Matthean scholar, so I do not feel qualified to offer much criticism of the substance of the work. I am working on a thesis regarding the connection between Matthew 2:15 and Hosea 11:1, so naturally I went there first. I found that Osborne presents the majority opinion, but also gives some information about other largely-held views.
Another passage I examined was Matthew 16:18-19. Osborne presents the various ideas of what "the rock" was to which Jesus referred. He explains a few views, but lands on the natural reading of Peter as "the rock," and also explains that is the majority view as well. Again, Osborne lands on the majority view, but has good reasons to do so.
Finally, I took a look at some of his comments around the Olivet Discourse in Matthew 24. He lays out four views of how to interpret it from the classic dispensational view to reading it all as apocalyptic language. None of his descriptions are exhaustive, but the descriptions and the footnotes combine to give the reader plenty to work on if he wants to do further research.
Overall, I am glad to have this in my library. I look forward to when this is included with Logos as well. I suspect that this is a commentary series that I will use quite heavily as I prepare NT sermons. You will not be sorry if you purchase this.
My first impression is that this tome means business as it weighs in at 4.5 pounds. Of course, Matthew is 28 chapters, so it takes some space to cover all of it. The binding is outstanding. I can open the book up to any page and it will stay open to that page. This may not seem like a big deal until you try to type notes while reading. It's a little thing that I've grown to appreciate with well-made books. The paper has a nice thickness to it with very little ghosting. The serif font used for the majority of the text is very readable, even in the footnotes.
The book begins with an introduction explaining issues of authorship, sources, Matthew's use of the OT, etc. It also has an exegetical outline of the whole book, which is very handy if you plan on preaching through Matthew. The rest of the book is broken up into 122 chapters that are subsets of this major outline. It ends with a section on the theology of Matthew.
Each chapter begins with a paragraph on the literary context of the pericope, though chapters before major passages have an introduction to the whole section. For example, at the start of Matthew 24 there is an introduction to the Olivet Discourse in Matthew 24:1-25:46. After the literary context there is a chart showing where this passage falls in the major outline with a good use of bold type. A few sentences describe the "main idea" for the passage, which is of course important if you plan to preach expository sermons. Each section is translated into English, but what's really nice is how this is done. The English translation is given in block outline form so you can follow the flow of the passage. On the right are labels for each clause in each verse. In a light shadow font are descriptions of each clause such as "Scene #1 setting" or "Objection" and then "Answer." Naturally, these are all subject to debate, but they really provide a great help in determining how the pericope flows.
Next is a section on the structure and literary form of each passage and this is a paragraph or two. Following that is an exegetical outline of the passage, which is yet another aid in preaching. Basically, Osborne has done what my Greek teacher taught me to do. I would still want to do this myself, but it is nice to have a scholar's work to check mine against.
After all these preliminaries are the meat of each chapter -- the explanation of the text. The explanation starts with a brief introduction and then goes through each clause. The clauses are presented with the English translation in bold type followed by the Greek in parenthesis. The Greek font is extremely readable, which I have learned is not a given in books that print Greek text. The text describing each clause also includes Greek in parenthesis where appropriate. For example, the note on Matthew 3:13 begins with, "The 'then' (τότε) here shows that..." This is very helpful in thinking through the issues in each clause.
The book is heavily footnoted. It took a little digging for me to find the bibliography at the front of the book rather than the back. I appreciate that the footnotes are in the full SBL text note style rather than Author-Date citations in the text. This is superior to the system used in the Baker commentaries where it is more difficult to figure out each source for each citation.
The footnotes are my only real quibble with this resource. The 1/2 inch margins make the text feel a bit crowded. I cannot imagine how much the book would weigh with larger margins, so I understand why this had to be done. As this book becomes a staple in seminary libraries students are going to have a tough time making photocopies of the pages they want because the thickness of the book creates a deep gutter and the small margins give little tolerance for error. The good news is that text never disappears into the gutter when reading it.
I am not fond of the two-column format for the majority of the text. Again, given the way this book is designed there would be a lot of line breaks as the author moved from clause to clause. Nevertheless, the text ends up with too many hyphens for continued words. A quick glance through the book shows that most pages have a footnote broken between the two columns. Since this is not a book you're likely to curl up with in front of the fire, I don't think that this is a huge problem, but it is still a bit distracting.
Finally, each chapter ends with a section called "Theology in Application" where the author gives his opinion as to how one can apply what he just read. Again, this is a great aid in preaching.
I am hardly a Matthean scholar, so I do not feel qualified to offer much criticism of the substance of the work. I am working on a thesis regarding the connection between Matthew 2:15 and Hosea 11:1, so naturally I went there first. I found that Osborne presents the majority opinion, but also gives some information about other largely-held views.
Another passage I examined was Matthew 16:18-19. Osborne presents the various ideas of what "the rock" was to which Jesus referred. He explains a few views, but lands on the natural reading of Peter as "the rock," and also explains that is the majority view as well. Again, Osborne lands on the majority view, but has good reasons to do so.
Finally, I took a look at some of his comments around the Olivet Discourse in Matthew 24. He lays out four views of how to interpret it from the classic dispensational view to reading it all as apocalyptic language. None of his descriptions are exhaustive, but the descriptions and the footnotes combine to give the reader plenty to work on if he wants to do further research.
Overall, I am glad to have this in my library. I look forward to when this is included with Logos as well. I suspect that this is a commentary series that I will use quite heavily as I prepare NT sermons. You will not be sorry if you purchase this.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
What Was the Crime?
Matthew 26:65 Then the high priest tore his robes and said, "He has uttered blasphemy. What further witnesses do we need? You have now heard his blasphemy.
65 τότε ὁ ἀρχιερεὺς διέρρηξεν τὰ ἱμάτια αὐτοῦ λέγων· ἐβλασφήμησεν· τί ἔτι χρείαν ἔχομεν μαρτύρων; ἴδε νῦν ἠκούσατε τὴν βλασφημίαν·
(Note: I apologize for the long time between posts. We were out of town for Thanksgiving. Also, posting has been less frequent because of a memorization project I'm working on.)
If anyone wonders about whether Jesus claimed to be divine you don't need to look any further than the sham trial that the Jews put Him through. We can debate some of the phrases He used until the cows come home. We can wonder how He would have been understood in first-century Palestine. But here we don't have to wonder. The text tells us. The high priest said that He was guilty of blasphemy.
Frankly, if He truly had blasphemed then He would have deserved death based on the Law. If anyone claims to be God who is not God then He has blasphemed. This is why the high priest could confidently say τί ἔτι χρείαν ἔχομεν μαρτύρων. They did not need any further witnesses if the accused basically convicted himself. But Jesus was not guilty of anything because He was God.
I tend to gloss through these parts of the gospel because they are quite painful to read. The injustice done to my Lord disturbs me. I hate seeing examples of injustice anyway, but when it comes to my Lord it is just intensified. But I think that we need to slow down here a little bit because we get Christology from these passages too. Jesus is God. Let's worship Him accordingly, amen?
65 τότε ὁ ἀρχιερεὺς διέρρηξεν τὰ ἱμάτια αὐτοῦ λέγων· ἐβλασφήμησεν· τί ἔτι χρείαν ἔχομεν μαρτύρων; ἴδε νῦν ἠκούσατε τὴν βλασφημίαν·
(Note: I apologize for the long time between posts. We were out of town for Thanksgiving. Also, posting has been less frequent because of a memorization project I'm working on.)
If anyone wonders about whether Jesus claimed to be divine you don't need to look any further than the sham trial that the Jews put Him through. We can debate some of the phrases He used until the cows come home. We can wonder how He would have been understood in first-century Palestine. But here we don't have to wonder. The text tells us. The high priest said that He was guilty of blasphemy.
Frankly, if He truly had blasphemed then He would have deserved death based on the Law. If anyone claims to be God who is not God then He has blasphemed. This is why the high priest could confidently say τί ἔτι χρείαν ἔχομεν μαρτύρων. They did not need any further witnesses if the accused basically convicted himself. But Jesus was not guilty of anything because He was God.
I tend to gloss through these parts of the gospel because they are quite painful to read. The injustice done to my Lord disturbs me. I hate seeing examples of injustice anyway, but when it comes to my Lord it is just intensified. But I think that we need to slow down here a little bit because we get Christology from these passages too. Jesus is God. Let's worship Him accordingly, amen?
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
The Heart Matters
Matthew 23:23 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others.
23 Οὐαὶ ὑμῖν, γραμματεῖς καὶ Φαρισαῖοι ὑποκριταί, ὅτι ἀποδεκατοῦτε τὸ ἡδύοσμον καὶ τὸ ἄνηθον καὶ τὸ κύμινον καὶ ἀφήκατε τὰ βαρύτερα τοῦ νόμου, τὴν κρίσιν καὶ τὸ ἔλεος καὶ τὴν πίστιν· ταῦτα [δὲ] ἔδει ποιῆσαι κἀκεῖνα μὴ ἀφιέναι.
Jesus is on a roll in this passage. He has been proclaiming a variety of woes on the scribes and Pharisees. This probably goes without saying, but the scribes and Pharisees were the serious religious players of the day. Imagine someone proclaiming a woe on the Pope. Or, in Protestant circles, imagine someone proclaiming a woe on Billy Graham. This was simply unthinkable to the people who heard this.
Why did Jesus give them such harsh words? He told them that they ἀφήκατε τὰ βαρύτερα τοῦ νόμου (of course, the verb is 2nd person plural, but you should get the idea). Translating τὰ βαρύτερα as "weightier matters" is a bit of an interpretive decision, but it is necessary because Greek doesn't have a comparative sense like English does. Very literally it would be something like, "you neglect the weighty things of the law." But given the context in how Jesus lists what those matters are, I think that the comparative sense is certainly a valid translation.
When I read these woes my first instinct is to think about who else they apply to someone else. But as I think more deeply I wonder how they apply to me. Where am I obeying the superficial things, but neglecting the weightier matters? Yes, I read my Bible daily, pray daily, memorize Scripture, tithe, etc. The Pharisees did all that. But does God have my heart?
I think He does, but this passage still gives me pause. Is there more I could give Him? I think so. How about you?
23 Οὐαὶ ὑμῖν, γραμματεῖς καὶ Φαρισαῖοι ὑποκριταί, ὅτι ἀποδεκατοῦτε τὸ ἡδύοσμον καὶ τὸ ἄνηθον καὶ τὸ κύμινον καὶ ἀφήκατε τὰ βαρύτερα τοῦ νόμου, τὴν κρίσιν καὶ τὸ ἔλεος καὶ τὴν πίστιν· ταῦτα [δὲ] ἔδει ποιῆσαι κἀκεῖνα μὴ ἀφιέναι.
Jesus is on a roll in this passage. He has been proclaiming a variety of woes on the scribes and Pharisees. This probably goes without saying, but the scribes and Pharisees were the serious religious players of the day. Imagine someone proclaiming a woe on the Pope. Or, in Protestant circles, imagine someone proclaiming a woe on Billy Graham. This was simply unthinkable to the people who heard this.
Why did Jesus give them such harsh words? He told them that they ἀφήκατε τὰ βαρύτερα τοῦ νόμου (of course, the verb is 2nd person plural, but you should get the idea). Translating τὰ βαρύτερα as "weightier matters" is a bit of an interpretive decision, but it is necessary because Greek doesn't have a comparative sense like English does. Very literally it would be something like, "you neglect the weighty things of the law." But given the context in how Jesus lists what those matters are, I think that the comparative sense is certainly a valid translation.
When I read these woes my first instinct is to think about who else they apply to someone else. But as I think more deeply I wonder how they apply to me. Where am I obeying the superficial things, but neglecting the weightier matters? Yes, I read my Bible daily, pray daily, memorize Scripture, tithe, etc. The Pharisees did all that. But does God have my heart?
I think He does, but this passage still gives me pause. Is there more I could give Him? I think so. How about you?
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Entering the Kingdom
Matthew 21:31 Which of the two did the will of his father?" They said, "The first." Jesus said to them, "Truly, I say to you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes go into the kingdom of God before you. 32 For John came to you in the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes believed him. And even when you saw it, you did not afterward change your minds and believe him.
31 τίς ἐκ τῶν δύο ἐποίησεν τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πατρός; λέγουσιν· ὁ πρῶτος. λέγει αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς· ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι οἱ τελῶναι καὶ αἱ πόρναι προάγουσιν ὑμᾶς εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ. 32 ἦλθεν γὰρ Ἰωάννης πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἐν ὁδῷ δικαιοσύνης, καὶ οὐκ ἐπιστεύσατε αὐτῷ, οἱ δὲ τελῶναι καὶ αἱ πόρναι ἐπίστευσαν αὐτῷ· ὑμεῖς δὲ ἰδόντες οὐδὲ μετεμελήθητε ὕστερον τοῦ πιστεῦσαι αὐτῷ.
This is the conclusion to a parable that I always find compelling. Jesus is trying to make an illustration to the Pharisees about grace. He tells them about two sons whose father owns a vineyard. The father asks the first to work in the vineyard. He initially refuses, but later changes his mind. The second one initially says that he will, but then never does it. Here is Jesus' conclusion.
The application of this for today should be obvious, but of course the blindness of the Pharisees afflicts us all to some degree. I think that you can mesh this parable with that of the four soils. How eager we can be when we first hear a teaching or a command! But then what do we do with it? Do we apply it and obey it? Or do we ignore it?
Of course, whenever I read a parable I like to cast myself as one of the "good guys," meaning one of those who are painted in a good light. But I know that is not always so. It is much easier for me to read Scripture with an academic or even pastoral eye than a devotional one, particularly the gospels. Yet here is where God uses His Word to transform us. My prayer is that I would be broken and obedient. May I never be one of those people who gives verbal assent, but puts no hands or feet to the application.
31 τίς ἐκ τῶν δύο ἐποίησεν τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πατρός; λέγουσιν· ὁ πρῶτος. λέγει αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς· ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι οἱ τελῶναι καὶ αἱ πόρναι προάγουσιν ὑμᾶς εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ. 32 ἦλθεν γὰρ Ἰωάννης πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἐν ὁδῷ δικαιοσύνης, καὶ οὐκ ἐπιστεύσατε αὐτῷ, οἱ δὲ τελῶναι καὶ αἱ πόρναι ἐπίστευσαν αὐτῷ· ὑμεῖς δὲ ἰδόντες οὐδὲ μετεμελήθητε ὕστερον τοῦ πιστεῦσαι αὐτῷ.
This is the conclusion to a parable that I always find compelling. Jesus is trying to make an illustration to the Pharisees about grace. He tells them about two sons whose father owns a vineyard. The father asks the first to work in the vineyard. He initially refuses, but later changes his mind. The second one initially says that he will, but then never does it. Here is Jesus' conclusion.
The application of this for today should be obvious, but of course the blindness of the Pharisees afflicts us all to some degree. I think that you can mesh this parable with that of the four soils. How eager we can be when we first hear a teaching or a command! But then what do we do with it? Do we apply it and obey it? Or do we ignore it?
Of course, whenever I read a parable I like to cast myself as one of the "good guys," meaning one of those who are painted in a good light. But I know that is not always so. It is much easier for me to read Scripture with an academic or even pastoral eye than a devotional one, particularly the gospels. Yet here is where God uses His Word to transform us. My prayer is that I would be broken and obedient. May I never be one of those people who gives verbal assent, but puts no hands or feet to the application.
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Forgiving
Matthew 18:34 And in anger his master delivered him to the jailers,until he should pay all his debt. 35 So also my heavenly Father will do to every one of you, if you do not forgive your brother from your heart."
34 καὶ ὀργισθεὶς ὁ κύριος αὐτοῦ παρέδωκεν αὐτὸν τοῖς βασανισταῖς ἕως οὗ ἀποδῷ πᾶν τὸ ὀφειλόμενον. 35 οὕτως καὶ ὁ πατήρ μου ὁ οὐράνιος ποιήσει ὑμῖν, ἐὰν μὴ ἀφῆτε ἕκαστος τῷ ἀδελφῷ αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τῶν καρδιῶν ὑμῶν.
This comes at the end of a parable Jesus told the disciples in response to a question Peter asked. Peter thought he was being really spiritual by offering to forgive his brother seven times. Then Jesus told him that he was to forgive his brother seventy-seven times. In other words, Jesus was using hyperbole to say that we must forgive as many times as we are wronged. Then He told this parable about a wicked servant who was forgiven an unpayable debt but would not forgive a much more minor one.
This one always gets me because I know how vindictive my heart can be. I do not default to grace, even though I often try to remind myself of just how much I have been forgiven. It's convicting because of the construct ἐὰν μὴ. This can be translated "unless." In other words, this verse makes it seem like our acceptance before God is contingent upon how we forgive.
However, I don't think we should interpret this as a works-based salvation, though it would be natural to do so. Instead, we need to see this as the natural result of grace. If we have truly been forgiven for our sins by a holy God then forgiving our brother will not be that big of a deal. It is something that we will be able to do. In fact, how could we not do it if we truly believe in God's grace?
How are you doing with this?
34 καὶ ὀργισθεὶς ὁ κύριος αὐτοῦ παρέδωκεν αὐτὸν τοῖς βασανισταῖς ἕως οὗ ἀποδῷ πᾶν τὸ ὀφειλόμενον. 35 οὕτως καὶ ὁ πατήρ μου ὁ οὐράνιος ποιήσει ὑμῖν, ἐὰν μὴ ἀφῆτε ἕκαστος τῷ ἀδελφῷ αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τῶν καρδιῶν ὑμῶν.
This comes at the end of a parable Jesus told the disciples in response to a question Peter asked. Peter thought he was being really spiritual by offering to forgive his brother seven times. Then Jesus told him that he was to forgive his brother seventy-seven times. In other words, Jesus was using hyperbole to say that we must forgive as many times as we are wronged. Then He told this parable about a wicked servant who was forgiven an unpayable debt but would not forgive a much more minor one.
This one always gets me because I know how vindictive my heart can be. I do not default to grace, even though I often try to remind myself of just how much I have been forgiven. It's convicting because of the construct ἐὰν μὴ. This can be translated "unless." In other words, this verse makes it seem like our acceptance before God is contingent upon how we forgive.
However, I don't think we should interpret this as a works-based salvation, though it would be natural to do so. Instead, we need to see this as the natural result of grace. If we have truly been forgiven for our sins by a holy God then forgiving our brother will not be that big of a deal. It is something that we will be able to do. In fact, how could we not do it if we truly believe in God's grace?
How are you doing with this?
Sunday, November 14, 2010
Don't Follow Men
Matthew 15:8 "'This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; 9 in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.'"
8 ὁ λαὸς οὗτος τοῖς χείλεσίν με τιμᾷ, ἡ δὲ καρδία αὐτῶν πόρρω ἀπέχει ἀπ᾽ ἐμοῦ· 9 μάτην δὲ σέβονταί με διδάσκοντες διδασκαλίας ἐντάλματα ἀνθρώπων.
Every time I read through the gospels I am amazed at how Jesus' teaching applies so well to today. In other words, people have not fundamentally changed. Although the writers could not have imagined that we would communicate to each other with telephones, blogs, twitter, etc, what they wrote applies today as much as it did 2000 years ago because the human condition has not changed.
When I read this passage I immediately put my "team" mode on and think how great it is that Jesus is sticking it to the Pharisees again. Way to call out those hypocrites! I'm so glad that my heart is close to Jesus! I'm glad that I don't follow the commandments of men. After all, I have no real creed but the Bible, right?
This attitude is problematic for a couple of reasons. One is that my heart is not as close to Jesus as I would like to think it is. I realize how easily distracted I am by the world. I give lip-service to Jesus, but I don't stay as close to Him as He commands. I've addressed this in numerous posts and I'm sure I will again. I know how easily my heart strays since it is an idol factory after all.
The other is that the idea of "no creed but the Bible" is impossible. We say that, but ultimately we follow the traditions of men. Suppose that we think church should only be on Sunday mornings at 11:00 AM with wooden pews. That's fine, except pews did not exist in the first-century. So we've already started following a tradition of men. It's not a bad one, but it's naive to think that we don't.
Then there is how we read Scripture. We're all informed by our lives. We all bring certain prejudices to the text. For example, when Luther read Galatians he saw it as a condemnation of the Catholic Church. I suppose it can be used that way, but that's not what Paul had in mind since the Roman Catholic Church was not invented yet. He read his situation into the text. We may say that we don't want to do that, but we all do it to some degree.
This is not necessarily wrong as long as we don't change things to suit our moods. That's what happens when we read a feminist understanding into 1 Timothy 2:12, for example. We are all in a hermeneutical spiral. Let's just be honest about it rather than pretending that we truly have "no creed but the Bible." And let's obey this passage by not elevating those secondary matters above the clear teachings of Scripture, amen?
8 ὁ λαὸς οὗτος τοῖς χείλεσίν με τιμᾷ, ἡ δὲ καρδία αὐτῶν πόρρω ἀπέχει ἀπ᾽ ἐμοῦ· 9 μάτην δὲ σέβονταί με διδάσκοντες διδασκαλίας ἐντάλματα ἀνθρώπων.
Every time I read through the gospels I am amazed at how Jesus' teaching applies so well to today. In other words, people have not fundamentally changed. Although the writers could not have imagined that we would communicate to each other with telephones, blogs, twitter, etc, what they wrote applies today as much as it did 2000 years ago because the human condition has not changed.
When I read this passage I immediately put my "team" mode on and think how great it is that Jesus is sticking it to the Pharisees again. Way to call out those hypocrites! I'm so glad that my heart is close to Jesus! I'm glad that I don't follow the commandments of men. After all, I have no real creed but the Bible, right?
This attitude is problematic for a couple of reasons. One is that my heart is not as close to Jesus as I would like to think it is. I realize how easily distracted I am by the world. I give lip-service to Jesus, but I don't stay as close to Him as He commands. I've addressed this in numerous posts and I'm sure I will again. I know how easily my heart strays since it is an idol factory after all.
The other is that the idea of "no creed but the Bible" is impossible. We say that, but ultimately we follow the traditions of men. Suppose that we think church should only be on Sunday mornings at 11:00 AM with wooden pews. That's fine, except pews did not exist in the first-century. So we've already started following a tradition of men. It's not a bad one, but it's naive to think that we don't.
Then there is how we read Scripture. We're all informed by our lives. We all bring certain prejudices to the text. For example, when Luther read Galatians he saw it as a condemnation of the Catholic Church. I suppose it can be used that way, but that's not what Paul had in mind since the Roman Catholic Church was not invented yet. He read his situation into the text. We may say that we don't want to do that, but we all do it to some degree.
This is not necessarily wrong as long as we don't change things to suit our moods. That's what happens when we read a feminist understanding into 1 Timothy 2:12, for example. We are all in a hermeneutical spiral. Let's just be honest about it rather than pretending that we truly have "no creed but the Bible." And let's obey this passage by not elevating those secondary matters above the clear teachings of Scripture, amen?
Friday, November 12, 2010
What is it Worth?
Matthew 13:44 "The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field, which a man found and covered up. Then in his joy he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field.
44 Ὁμοία ἐστὶν ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν θησαυρῷ κεκρυμμένῳ ἐν τῷ ἀγρῷ, ὃν εὑρὼν ἄνθρωπος ἔκρυψεν, καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς χαρᾶς αὐτοῦ ὑπάγει καὶ πωλεῖ πάντα ὅσα ἔχει καὶ ἀγοράζει τὸν ἀγρὸν ἐκεῖνον.
This is another of Jesus' parables about the kingdom of heaven. He is trying to explain to His disciples what it is all about. I think what we're supposed to get out of this is that it is something extremely valuable. He does this with a parable that we can relate to very easily.
Let's suppose that you were given an offer where you could have fifty million dollars if you could come up with $150,000. Obviously you would be skeptical of the offer because get rich schemes are too good to be true. But then let's say that you got this offer from a source that you considered entirely trustworthy.
Looking around my house, I think I would do everything I could to come up with the money. First, I'd mortgage my house as far as I could. I'd sell both of our vehicles. I'd sell my guitars, my pool table, our fine china, our TV, our computers, the Wii, the PS2 and all its games, and all our furniture. I would do whatever it took to raise the money.
Why would I be so eager? I would know that ultimately the payoff is much greater than the loss of stuff. So it is also with the kingdom of heaven. If there is something that we won't give up then we don't really understand what the kingdom of heaven is all about. We may give lip-service to it, but really we don't believe the promise.
This is not to say that we have to become monks. But if that is somehow God's call on our lives then we need to be ready for that. Of course, discerning that call is another story, but the point is that we need to be willing to leave it all for the sake of the kingdom.
How about you? Writing this is difficult as it convicts me. I can come up with this nifty illustration, but am I living it? Probably not as much as this parable would dictate.
44 Ὁμοία ἐστὶν ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν θησαυρῷ κεκρυμμένῳ ἐν τῷ ἀγρῷ, ὃν εὑρὼν ἄνθρωπος ἔκρυψεν, καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς χαρᾶς αὐτοῦ ὑπάγει καὶ πωλεῖ πάντα ὅσα ἔχει καὶ ἀγοράζει τὸν ἀγρὸν ἐκεῖνον.
This is another of Jesus' parables about the kingdom of heaven. He is trying to explain to His disciples what it is all about. I think what we're supposed to get out of this is that it is something extremely valuable. He does this with a parable that we can relate to very easily.
Let's suppose that you were given an offer where you could have fifty million dollars if you could come up with $150,000. Obviously you would be skeptical of the offer because get rich schemes are too good to be true. But then let's say that you got this offer from a source that you considered entirely trustworthy.
Looking around my house, I think I would do everything I could to come up with the money. First, I'd mortgage my house as far as I could. I'd sell both of our vehicles. I'd sell my guitars, my pool table, our fine china, our TV, our computers, the Wii, the PS2 and all its games, and all our furniture. I would do whatever it took to raise the money.
Why would I be so eager? I would know that ultimately the payoff is much greater than the loss of stuff. So it is also with the kingdom of heaven. If there is something that we won't give up then we don't really understand what the kingdom of heaven is all about. We may give lip-service to it, but really we don't believe the promise.
This is not to say that we have to become monks. But if that is somehow God's call on our lives then we need to be ready for that. Of course, discerning that call is another story, but the point is that we need to be willing to leave it all for the sake of the kingdom.
How about you? Writing this is difficult as it convicts me. I can come up with this nifty illustration, but am I living it? Probably not as much as this parable would dictate.
Thursday, November 11, 2010
How is Your Soil?
Matthew 13:23 As for what was sown on good soil, this is the one who hears the word and understands it. He indeed bears fruit and yields, in one case a hundredfold, in another sixty, and in another thirty."
23 ὁ δὲ ἐπὶ τὴν καλὴν γῆν σπαρείς, οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ τὸν λόγον ἀκούων καὶ συνιείς, ὃς δὴ καρποφορεῖ καὶ ποιεῖ ὃ μὲν ἑκατόν, ὃ δὲ ἑξήκοντα, ὃ δὲ τριάκοντα.
I would maintain that this is one of Jesus' more misunderstood parables in the evangelical church. It is very well-known, but I'm not sure that we get it because we read this through American eyes. To us, we see three soils that are Christians and one that is not. But I don't think that is what Jesus is getting at here.
You don't have to read very far in the gospels to see that Jesus sets the bar very, very high. The expectation is that we will bear fruit. In fact, He tells us that a tree that does not bear fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire. I think the same goes for the parable of the soils. There are those who will just reject the gospel as seen in the first soil. There are those who will immediately receive the gospel with joy, but will reject it when trials come. And there are those who seem to receive the gospel, but they don't bother to remove the weeds in their lives and they cannot grow.
It is difficult for me to reconcile how the shallow soil and the thorny soil could indicate someone who is saved. The Christian life is one that bears fruit. We may not always bear a ton of fruit, but we should be bearing fruit. Weeds may come in, but as we notice them we pull them. We may sometime need deeper soil and fertilizer, so we spend more time in the Word, in prayer, in fellowship, etc. We all go through some ups and downs, but the Christian life should be a fruit-bearing one.
How is yours? Do you need to pull some weeds in the garden? Do you need to put a few yards of topsoil down? Or are you bearing fruit?
23 ὁ δὲ ἐπὶ τὴν καλὴν γῆν σπαρείς, οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ τὸν λόγον ἀκούων καὶ συνιείς, ὃς δὴ καρποφορεῖ καὶ ποιεῖ ὃ μὲν ἑκατόν, ὃ δὲ ἑξήκοντα, ὃ δὲ τριάκοντα.
I would maintain that this is one of Jesus' more misunderstood parables in the evangelical church. It is very well-known, but I'm not sure that we get it because we read this through American eyes. To us, we see three soils that are Christians and one that is not. But I don't think that is what Jesus is getting at here.
You don't have to read very far in the gospels to see that Jesus sets the bar very, very high. The expectation is that we will bear fruit. In fact, He tells us that a tree that does not bear fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire. I think the same goes for the parable of the soils. There are those who will just reject the gospel as seen in the first soil. There are those who will immediately receive the gospel with joy, but will reject it when trials come. And there are those who seem to receive the gospel, but they don't bother to remove the weeds in their lives and they cannot grow.
It is difficult for me to reconcile how the shallow soil and the thorny soil could indicate someone who is saved. The Christian life is one that bears fruit. We may not always bear a ton of fruit, but we should be bearing fruit. Weeds may come in, but as we notice them we pull them. We may sometime need deeper soil and fertilizer, so we spend more time in the Word, in prayer, in fellowship, etc. We all go through some ups and downs, but the Christian life should be a fruit-bearing one.
How is yours? Do you need to pull some weeds in the garden? Do you need to put a few yards of topsoil down? Or are you bearing fruit?
Monday, November 08, 2010
Too Smart?
Matthew 11:25 At that time Jesus declared, "I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children;
25 Ἐν ἐκείνῳ τῷ καιρῷ ἀποκριθεὶς ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν· ἐξομολογοῦμαί σοι, πάτερ, κύριε τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καὶ τῆς γῆς, ὅτι ἔκρυψας ταῦτα ἀπὸ σοφῶν καὶ συνετῶν καὶ ἀπεκάλυψας αὐτὰ νηπίοις·
Here Jesus is talking about how the people reacted to John the Baptist. He notes how they are not satisfied with anything. They think John is demon-possessed because he doesn't eat or drink like they do and lives an ascetic life. They think Jesus is a glutton and a drunkard because He does eat and drink like they do and they think that a religious leader should be more restrained. He then explains how John came to prepare the way for Him.
This verse is particularly poignant for me. There was a time when I was sure that I was too smart to believe in God. I figured that religion was just an emotional crutch for the weak. It was invented to keep people in line. After all, they needed something to hold on to and they weren't smart enough to see the folly of believing in an invisible God with no proof. Of course, I have since changed my mind, but that's where I was in high school.
Jesus prays a remarkable prayer here. He thanks the Father for hiding Himself from the wise of the world and revealing Himself to the νηπίοις. That word refers to children that would be my son's age (3) or even younger. Think toddlers. I'm not sure that He means literally to the toddlers, but given the contrast and based on some other verses I think He means that those who would accept the gospel with a simple faith.
This of course is folly to the wise of our time just like it was 2000 years ago. It's also folly to folks who say that the gospel is more than just good news. At its heart that's all it is. It is the good news that Jesus Christ came to earth fully God and fully man, lived a sinless life, and died as a perfect sacrifice for our sins. We need to accept the gift. Are you going to accept it or reject it?
25 Ἐν ἐκείνῳ τῷ καιρῷ ἀποκριθεὶς ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν· ἐξομολογοῦμαί σοι, πάτερ, κύριε τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καὶ τῆς γῆς, ὅτι ἔκρυψας ταῦτα ἀπὸ σοφῶν καὶ συνετῶν καὶ ἀπεκάλυψας αὐτὰ νηπίοις·
Here Jesus is talking about how the people reacted to John the Baptist. He notes how they are not satisfied with anything. They think John is demon-possessed because he doesn't eat or drink like they do and lives an ascetic life. They think Jesus is a glutton and a drunkard because He does eat and drink like they do and they think that a religious leader should be more restrained. He then explains how John came to prepare the way for Him.
This verse is particularly poignant for me. There was a time when I was sure that I was too smart to believe in God. I figured that religion was just an emotional crutch for the weak. It was invented to keep people in line. After all, they needed something to hold on to and they weren't smart enough to see the folly of believing in an invisible God with no proof. Of course, I have since changed my mind, but that's where I was in high school.
Jesus prays a remarkable prayer here. He thanks the Father for hiding Himself from the wise of the world and revealing Himself to the νηπίοις. That word refers to children that would be my son's age (3) or even younger. Think toddlers. I'm not sure that He means literally to the toddlers, but given the contrast and based on some other verses I think He means that those who would accept the gospel with a simple faith.
This of course is folly to the wise of our time just like it was 2000 years ago. It's also folly to folks who say that the gospel is more than just good news. At its heart that's all it is. It is the good news that Jesus Christ came to earth fully God and fully man, lived a sinless life, and died as a perfect sacrifice for our sins. We need to accept the gift. Are you going to accept it or reject it?
Sunday, November 07, 2010
Found Worthy
Matthew 10:38 And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me.
38 καὶ ὃς οὐ λαμβάνει τὸν σταυρὸν αὐτοῦ καὶ ἀκολουθεῖ ὀπίσω μου, οὐκ ἔστιν μου ἄξιος.
There is a trend started by men like Charles Finney and DL Moody to hold "revival meetings." They are different in style today, but the underlying form is the same. You get a bunch of people together, have them sit under a charismatic speaker, and get them to make a "decision for the Lord." You then count up the incredible harvest and feel good about the work you're doing for the Lord. Of course, some have perverted this for selfish gain, but I believe that in general the folks who have meetings like this mean well.
The problem is that "making a decision" is antithetical to the gospel proclaimed by Jesus. In a few weeks we're going to get to the commission with which Jesus left the church. There is nothing easy about any of this. Becoming a Christian is easy in the sense that it is all about grace. But it is difficult in the sense that we need to repent of our pasts and turn to the Lord.
There is no mystery in the Greek here either. Jesus calls us to radical discipleship. It is not a matter of simply filling out a card or raising a hand during a corporate prayer time. No, Jesus is serious about this. We are to follow Him with all we've got.
Where are you? Are you playing games with the Lord? Or are you pursuing Him with all you've got? Understand that we will still do this imperfectly. We will have times when we feel like we aren't even Christians. I am not saying that Jesus demands perfection. However, He does demand that we take up our cross and follow Him.
38 καὶ ὃς οὐ λαμβάνει τὸν σταυρὸν αὐτοῦ καὶ ἀκολουθεῖ ὀπίσω μου, οὐκ ἔστιν μου ἄξιος.
There is a trend started by men like Charles Finney and DL Moody to hold "revival meetings." They are different in style today, but the underlying form is the same. You get a bunch of people together, have them sit under a charismatic speaker, and get them to make a "decision for the Lord." You then count up the incredible harvest and feel good about the work you're doing for the Lord. Of course, some have perverted this for selfish gain, but I believe that in general the folks who have meetings like this mean well.
The problem is that "making a decision" is antithetical to the gospel proclaimed by Jesus. In a few weeks we're going to get to the commission with which Jesus left the church. There is nothing easy about any of this. Becoming a Christian is easy in the sense that it is all about grace. But it is difficult in the sense that we need to repent of our pasts and turn to the Lord.
There is no mystery in the Greek here either. Jesus calls us to radical discipleship. It is not a matter of simply filling out a card or raising a hand during a corporate prayer time. No, Jesus is serious about this. We are to follow Him with all we've got.
Where are you? Are you playing games with the Lord? Or are you pursuing Him with all you've got? Understand that we will still do this imperfectly. We will have times when we feel like we aren't even Christians. I am not saying that Jesus demands perfection. However, He does demand that we take up our cross and follow Him.
Friday, November 05, 2010
Are You Sick?
Matthew 9:12 But when he heard it, he said, "Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick.
12 ὁ δὲ ἀκούσας εἶπεν· οὐ χρείαν ἔχουσιν οἱ ἰσχύοντες ἰατροῦ ἀλλ᾽ οἱ κακῶς ἔχοντες.
The Pharisees didn't like the company that Jesus kept. It made no sense to them that He would associate with prostitutes and the hated tax-collectors. After all, a good teacher would not do such things. They certainly wouldn't. Then Jesus hits them with this saying. He did not come for ἔχουσιν οἱ ἰσχύοντες, which literally means having "strong" or "able," but He did come for οἱ κακῶς ἔχοντες, or the ones having badness.
This is a message that I think the American church needs to consider today. I am all for the principles of Fundamentalism. We should stick to the text, though of course we all have traditions that color our hermeneutics. If the Bible says so then that should be enough for us. These are good things about Fundamentalism.
But the bad is the isolationist tendencies. In one sense, Jesus does set up an "us vs them" world. However, He also makes it clear that we are to evangelize. That's hard to do when we refuse to spend time with οἱ κακῶς ἔχοντες. It's also hard when we think ourselves to be ἔχουσιν οἱ ἰσχύοντες. Until we identify first as being sick or sinful we will never ἔχουσιν οἱ ἰσχύοντες.
Where are you? Are you resting in your own righteousness? Or are you resting in the care and ability of the Great Physician who came to heal the sick? I urge you to repent of your self-sufficiency and rely solely on the work of Christ.
12 ὁ δὲ ἀκούσας εἶπεν· οὐ χρείαν ἔχουσιν οἱ ἰσχύοντες ἰατροῦ ἀλλ᾽ οἱ κακῶς ἔχοντες.
The Pharisees didn't like the company that Jesus kept. It made no sense to them that He would associate with prostitutes and the hated tax-collectors. After all, a good teacher would not do such things. They certainly wouldn't. Then Jesus hits them with this saying. He did not come for ἔχουσιν οἱ ἰσχύοντες, which literally means having "strong" or "able," but He did come for οἱ κακῶς ἔχοντες, or the ones having badness.
This is a message that I think the American church needs to consider today. I am all for the principles of Fundamentalism. We should stick to the text, though of course we all have traditions that color our hermeneutics. If the Bible says so then that should be enough for us. These are good things about Fundamentalism.
But the bad is the isolationist tendencies. In one sense, Jesus does set up an "us vs them" world. However, He also makes it clear that we are to evangelize. That's hard to do when we refuse to spend time with οἱ κακῶς ἔχοντες. It's also hard when we think ourselves to be ἔχουσιν οἱ ἰσχύοντες. Until we identify first as being sick or sinful we will never ἔχουσιν οἱ ἰσχύοντες.
Where are you? Are you resting in your own righteousness? Or are you resting in the care and ability of the Great Physician who came to heal the sick? I urge you to repent of your self-sufficiency and rely solely on the work of Christ.
Wednesday, November 03, 2010
True Authority
Matthew 7:28 And when Jesus finished these sayings, the crowds were astonished at his teaching, 29 for he was teaching them as one who had authority, and not as their scribes.
28 Καὶ ἐγένετο ὅτε ἐτέλεσεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς τοὺς λόγους τούτους, ἐξεπλήσσοντο οἱ ὄχλοι ἐπὶ τῇ διδαχῇ αὐτοῦ· 29 ἦν γὰρ διδάσκων αὐτοὺς ὡς ἐξουσίαν ἔχων καὶ οὐχ ὡς οἱ γραμματεῖς αὐτῶν.
This is the end of the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus has finished rocking the worlds of His hearers. He took what they knew about the Law and intensified it. He also made the point that salvation is not something that comes easily or universally. It is a narrow door and only a few will walk through it, despite what they think. In fact, there will be those who seemingly bear fruit, but He still does not know them. These are difficult things to hear.
This passage really sums it all up though. It tells us that the crowds ἐξεπλήσσοντο. This is an imperfect passive. Basically, what we get is that His teaching blew them away. Why were they so surprised? He taught ὡς ἐξουσίαν ἔχων. The word ἔχων is a present active participle. This gives us a sense that they realized that Jesus had authority as He spoke. He was in the state of one having authority.
What does this mean? It means that unlike those who simply regurgitated the Law back to them, He had the authority to change things a bit. He explained that they had got it wrong all this time and that God really wanted their hearts, not just their behavior. Adultery was not just a matter of the physical act, for example, but was also about the eyes and the heart. Murder was not just the actual taking of another life, but it was also having hate in your heart. And so on.
Who could do this? Only God. This is why they were so amazed. They realized that they were in the presence of the Divine. This shocked them, but that was what they needed to hear.
How about you? If you know Jesus are you amazed at your relationship with the Divine? Do you submit to His Word with the understanding that it has true authority? Personally, as I read this passage I am stirred to prayerfully pursue more depth with the Lord. He is God and He loves me. I have a relationship with Him through Christ's life, death, burial, and resurrection. How could I have any reaction but to ἐξεπλήσσοντο?
28 Καὶ ἐγένετο ὅτε ἐτέλεσεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς τοὺς λόγους τούτους, ἐξεπλήσσοντο οἱ ὄχλοι ἐπὶ τῇ διδαχῇ αὐτοῦ· 29 ἦν γὰρ διδάσκων αὐτοὺς ὡς ἐξουσίαν ἔχων καὶ οὐχ ὡς οἱ γραμματεῖς αὐτῶν.
This is the end of the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus has finished rocking the worlds of His hearers. He took what they knew about the Law and intensified it. He also made the point that salvation is not something that comes easily or universally. It is a narrow door and only a few will walk through it, despite what they think. In fact, there will be those who seemingly bear fruit, but He still does not know them. These are difficult things to hear.
This passage really sums it all up though. It tells us that the crowds ἐξεπλήσσοντο. This is an imperfect passive. Basically, what we get is that His teaching blew them away. Why were they so surprised? He taught ὡς ἐξουσίαν ἔχων. The word ἔχων is a present active participle. This gives us a sense that they realized that Jesus had authority as He spoke. He was in the state of one having authority.
What does this mean? It means that unlike those who simply regurgitated the Law back to them, He had the authority to change things a bit. He explained that they had got it wrong all this time and that God really wanted their hearts, not just their behavior. Adultery was not just a matter of the physical act, for example, but was also about the eyes and the heart. Murder was not just the actual taking of another life, but it was also having hate in your heart. And so on.
Who could do this? Only God. This is why they were so amazed. They realized that they were in the presence of the Divine. This shocked them, but that was what they needed to hear.
How about you? If you know Jesus are you amazed at your relationship with the Divine? Do you submit to His Word with the understanding that it has true authority? Personally, as I read this passage I am stirred to prayerfully pursue more depth with the Lord. He is God and He loves me. I have a relationship with Him through Christ's life, death, burial, and resurrection. How could I have any reaction but to ἐξεπλήσσοντο?
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Rejoice!
Matthew 5:12 Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.
12 χαίρετε καὶ ἀγαλλιᾶσθε, ὅτι ὁ μισθὸς ὑμῶν πολὺς ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς· οὕτως γὰρ ἐδίωξαν τοὺς προφήτας τοὺς πρὸ ὑμῶν.
How to blog in the Sermon on the Mount? Unlike some folks, I think that this passage applies to us today rather than simply to Old Covenant Israel. This passage comes right at the end of what is known as the Beatitudes where Jesus says "Blessed is..." He kind of turns the world upside-down by saying that it is a blessing to be poor in spirit, humble, etc. Here He talks about rejoicing when you are persecuted for His name's sake.
Note that Jesus does not give a suggestion. He uses the imperatives with χαίρετε καὶ ἀγαλλιᾶσθε. He could have used a future which has a wear imperatival sense, but He didn't. He used the imperative here. What does that mean?
First, it means that we are to rejoice and be glad when we are persecuted. This seems rather paradoxical. Persecution is no fun, yet we are commanded to rejoice. Even those who say that we should preach the gospel of Jesus rather than the misogynist Paul have to acknowledge this. These are words that are quoted from the Lord Himself. We can't take this lightly.
Second, it means that we are to have a future perspective. The word translated "for" here is ὅτι, which gives the sense of "because" or "for this reason," though translating it "for" here makes for smoother reading. In other words, when we ask ourselves "Why should we ever rejoice and be glad in persecution?" the answer is, "Because your reward is great in heaven." Then He mentions the prophets. When you read through the stories of the prophets you realize that they had pretty rough gigs here on earth.
But those of us who have a hope of eternity with God can indeed rejoice and be glad when persecuted. We realize that everything on this earth is but a moment compared to eternity.
What kind of perspective do you have on all of this? Do you know of any other way to make sense of this seemingly paradoxical command?
12 χαίρετε καὶ ἀγαλλιᾶσθε, ὅτι ὁ μισθὸς ὑμῶν πολὺς ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς· οὕτως γὰρ ἐδίωξαν τοὺς προφήτας τοὺς πρὸ ὑμῶν.
How to blog in the Sermon on the Mount? Unlike some folks, I think that this passage applies to us today rather than simply to Old Covenant Israel. This passage comes right at the end of what is known as the Beatitudes where Jesus says "Blessed is..." He kind of turns the world upside-down by saying that it is a blessing to be poor in spirit, humble, etc. Here He talks about rejoicing when you are persecuted for His name's sake.
Note that Jesus does not give a suggestion. He uses the imperatives with χαίρετε καὶ ἀγαλλιᾶσθε. He could have used a future which has a wear imperatival sense, but He didn't. He used the imperative here. What does that mean?
First, it means that we are to rejoice and be glad when we are persecuted. This seems rather paradoxical. Persecution is no fun, yet we are commanded to rejoice. Even those who say that we should preach the gospel of Jesus rather than the misogynist Paul have to acknowledge this. These are words that are quoted from the Lord Himself. We can't take this lightly.
Second, it means that we are to have a future perspective. The word translated "for" here is ὅτι, which gives the sense of "because" or "for this reason," though translating it "for" here makes for smoother reading. In other words, when we ask ourselves "Why should we ever rejoice and be glad in persecution?" the answer is, "Because your reward is great in heaven." Then He mentions the prophets. When you read through the stories of the prophets you realize that they had pretty rough gigs here on earth.
But those of us who have a hope of eternity with God can indeed rejoice and be glad when persecuted. We realize that everything on this earth is but a moment compared to eternity.
What kind of perspective do you have on all of this? Do you know of any other way to make sense of this seemingly paradoxical command?
Friday, October 29, 2010
The Kingdom
Matthew 4:17 From that time Jesus began to preach, saying, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."
17 Ἀπὸ τότε ἤρξατο ὁ Ἰησοῦς κηρύσσειν καὶ λέγειν· μετανοεῖτε· ἤγγικεν γὰρ ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν.
There is a lot of talk about "kingdom" in the circles in which I run. What is the "kingdom?" Some focus more on an upcoming thousand-year reign of Christ on the earth with the saints. I have a hard time seeing that in Jesus' statement here. Very literally you could translate μετανοεῖτε· ἤγγικεν γὰρ ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν as "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near." The verb ἤγγικεν is in the perfect, so that generally has an aspect of "has come near" since the word means "to come near."
There are those who would then take this passage and say that there is a near/far aspect to what Jesus is saying. But it seems to me that taking this verse in its obvious sense it would mean that Jesus is telling the Jews that all of the Old Testament prophecies about the kingdom are currently being fulfilled. And, in fact, in a few years you will see it all come together with my death, burial, and resurrection.
That seems to be the simplest sense of the text. Maybe I'm applying Occam's Razor too closely to it, but I think that is a good rule of thumb for hermeneutics. Jesus is telling His listeners that He represents the kingdom of heaven. It is fulfilled in Him.
What does that mean for us? It means that we need to repent and believe. Jesus is sitting on the throne in heaven. He has inaugurated the kingdom of heaven. It means that we need to give Him the worship He is due. We can't simply acknowledge Him as someone who can save us. We need to acknowledge Him as Lord.
17 Ἀπὸ τότε ἤρξατο ὁ Ἰησοῦς κηρύσσειν καὶ λέγειν· μετανοεῖτε· ἤγγικεν γὰρ ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν.
There is a lot of talk about "kingdom" in the circles in which I run. What is the "kingdom?" Some focus more on an upcoming thousand-year reign of Christ on the earth with the saints. I have a hard time seeing that in Jesus' statement here. Very literally you could translate μετανοεῖτε· ἤγγικεν γὰρ ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν as "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near." The verb ἤγγικεν is in the perfect, so that generally has an aspect of "has come near" since the word means "to come near."
There are those who would then take this passage and say that there is a near/far aspect to what Jesus is saying. But it seems to me that taking this verse in its obvious sense it would mean that Jesus is telling the Jews that all of the Old Testament prophecies about the kingdom are currently being fulfilled. And, in fact, in a few years you will see it all come together with my death, burial, and resurrection.
That seems to be the simplest sense of the text. Maybe I'm applying Occam's Razor too closely to it, but I think that is a good rule of thumb for hermeneutics. Jesus is telling His listeners that He represents the kingdom of heaven. It is fulfilled in Him.
What does that mean for us? It means that we need to repent and believe. Jesus is sitting on the throne in heaven. He has inaugurated the kingdom of heaven. It means that we need to give Him the worship He is due. We can't simply acknowledge Him as someone who can save us. We need to acknowledge Him as Lord.
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Unworthy to Untie
Matthew 3:11 "I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.
11 Ἐγὼ μὲν ὑμᾶς βαπτίζω ἐν ὕδατι εἰς μετάνοιαν, ὁ δὲ ὀπίσω μου ἐρχόμενος ἰσχυρότερός μού ἐστιν, οὗ οὐκ εἰμὶ ἱκανὸς τὰ ὑποδήματα βαστάσαι· αὐτὸς ὑμᾶς βαπτίσει ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ καὶ πυρί·
This is one of those verses that is strange for a native English speaker to read in Greek. The phrase ἰσχυρότερός μού ἐστιν is translated "mightier than I." But quite literally you have "mighty is me." This is because Greek does its comparative adjectives differently than English. Greek doesn't do "good, better, best, " or more regularly, "strong, stronger, strongest." Again, you can trust your translators here.
While that is an interesting linguistic note, I think that John's statement is worthy of reflection. Later on Jesus will say that no man born of woman was greater than John the Baptizer. And yet here we have John's statement. He did not consider himself worthy to do the most menial servant work for Jesus. John understood his place before the Lord.
Do we? Here in America we try to turn Jesus into a vending machine or a cosmic genie. We want Him to give us the lives that we want. Yet this verse makes it clear that we are always going to be subordinate to Him. If John the Baptizer was not worthy to carry Jesus' sandals, where does that leave us? It is true that Jesus is that "friend who stays closer than a brother," but He is also God. We say that He is worthy of praise and honor and glory, etc. But do we act like we believe that?
This verse helps me remember just who He is. Let's respond accordingly, amen?
11 Ἐγὼ μὲν ὑμᾶς βαπτίζω ἐν ὕδατι εἰς μετάνοιαν, ὁ δὲ ὀπίσω μου ἐρχόμενος ἰσχυρότερός μού ἐστιν, οὗ οὐκ εἰμὶ ἱκανὸς τὰ ὑποδήματα βαστάσαι· αὐτὸς ὑμᾶς βαπτίσει ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ καὶ πυρί·
This is one of those verses that is strange for a native English speaker to read in Greek. The phrase ἰσχυρότερός μού ἐστιν is translated "mightier than I." But quite literally you have "mighty is me." This is because Greek does its comparative adjectives differently than English. Greek doesn't do "good, better, best, " or more regularly, "strong, stronger, strongest." Again, you can trust your translators here.
While that is an interesting linguistic note, I think that John's statement is worthy of reflection. Later on Jesus will say that no man born of woman was greater than John the Baptizer. And yet here we have John's statement. He did not consider himself worthy to do the most menial servant work for Jesus. John understood his place before the Lord.
Do we? Here in America we try to turn Jesus into a vending machine or a cosmic genie. We want Him to give us the lives that we want. Yet this verse makes it clear that we are always going to be subordinate to Him. If John the Baptizer was not worthy to carry Jesus' sandals, where does that leave us? It is true that Jesus is that "friend who stays closer than a brother," but He is also God. We say that He is worthy of praise and honor and glory, etc. But do we act like we believe that?
This verse helps me remember just who He is. Let's respond accordingly, amen?
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
He Has Called His Son
Matthew 2:15 and remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet, "Out of Egypt I called my son."
15 καὶ ἦν ἐκεῖ ἕως τῆς τελευτῆς Ἡρῴδου· ἵνα πληρωθῇ τὸ ῥηθὲν ὑπὸ κυρίου διὰ τοῦ προφήτου λέγοντος· ἐξ Αἰγύπτου ἐκάλεσα τὸν υἱόν μου.
Matthew is making a very clear reference to Hosea 11:1 which reads: When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son. If you look at Hosea you see that he is clearly referring to the Exodus. The nation of Israel was still relatively young, but God graciously called Israel out of Egypt and we have the record of that in Exodus. You don't have to read the Old or New Testaments very carefully to find that the Exodus is a major theme used to explain what it means to be a Christian. We are previously in bondage to sin and through Christ we are set free.
Even though this is a repeated theme, Matthew's use of this verse is a bit puzzling. After all, Hosea was referring to the nation of Israel. Matthew is clearly referring to the child Jesus. Although some disagree, I find it highly unlikely that Hosea was thinking of Jesus when he wrote Hosea 11:1. So what was Matthew doing? Was he using a Jewish hermeneutic where you can take any language you want from the OT as long as it suits what you want to say? I don't think so.
I think that Matthew was using typology here. You also could think of it as sensus plenior, if you mean that Matthew was adding meaning that the original author could not have intended. I come to this conclusion based on the research I'm doing for a thesis on this topic. When I have it done I will certainly post it.
But what difference does this make? I think that Matthew is identifying Jesus with Israel. Just as Jesus is the better Adam, the better Moses, the better Aaron, and the better David, He is also the better Israel. He is the consummation of the Old Testament. Certainly the Old Testament spoke to the nation of people known as Israel. However, in a greater sense it was leading them to Messiah. Here Matthew is telling his Jewish audience that in this boy they had the fulfillment of their search.
Every Bible reader needs to decide what is at the center of his Bible. Is it Israel? Or is it Jesus? Israel is certainly important, but I would maintain that Israel points us to Jesus, not the other way around. I believe that at Christocentric hermeneutic is the way to go. This verse is a large part of why I come to that conclusion. Seeing Christ throughout the Old Testament without resorting to ridiculous allegorizing magnifies my view of God and gives me great hope.
15 καὶ ἦν ἐκεῖ ἕως τῆς τελευτῆς Ἡρῴδου· ἵνα πληρωθῇ τὸ ῥηθὲν ὑπὸ κυρίου διὰ τοῦ προφήτου λέγοντος· ἐξ Αἰγύπτου ἐκάλεσα τὸν υἱόν μου.
Matthew is making a very clear reference to Hosea 11:1 which reads: When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son. If you look at Hosea you see that he is clearly referring to the Exodus. The nation of Israel was still relatively young, but God graciously called Israel out of Egypt and we have the record of that in Exodus. You don't have to read the Old or New Testaments very carefully to find that the Exodus is a major theme used to explain what it means to be a Christian. We are previously in bondage to sin and through Christ we are set free.
Even though this is a repeated theme, Matthew's use of this verse is a bit puzzling. After all, Hosea was referring to the nation of Israel. Matthew is clearly referring to the child Jesus. Although some disagree, I find it highly unlikely that Hosea was thinking of Jesus when he wrote Hosea 11:1. So what was Matthew doing? Was he using a Jewish hermeneutic where you can take any language you want from the OT as long as it suits what you want to say? I don't think so.
I think that Matthew was using typology here. You also could think of it as sensus plenior, if you mean that Matthew was adding meaning that the original author could not have intended. I come to this conclusion based on the research I'm doing for a thesis on this topic. When I have it done I will certainly post it.
But what difference does this make? I think that Matthew is identifying Jesus with Israel. Just as Jesus is the better Adam, the better Moses, the better Aaron, and the better David, He is also the better Israel. He is the consummation of the Old Testament. Certainly the Old Testament spoke to the nation of people known as Israel. However, in a greater sense it was leading them to Messiah. Here Matthew is telling his Jewish audience that in this boy they had the fulfillment of their search.
Every Bible reader needs to decide what is at the center of his Bible. Is it Israel? Or is it Jesus? Israel is certainly important, but I would maintain that Israel points us to Jesus, not the other way around. I believe that at Christocentric hermeneutic is the way to go. This verse is a large part of why I come to that conclusion. Seeing Christ throughout the Old Testament without resorting to ridiculous allegorizing magnifies my view of God and gives me great hope.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
He is Risen!
Matthew 28:6
(6) He is not here, for he has risen, as he said. Come, see the place where he lay.
(6) He is not here, for he has risen, as he said. Come, see the place where he lay.
(6) οὐκ ἔστιν ὧδε, ἠγέρθη γὰρ καθὼς εἶπεν· δεῦτε ἴδετε τὸν τόπον ὅπου ἔκειτο.
It seems a bit odd to talk about this in the middle of winter. This is of course a great Easter passage. Yet this is where I find myself in my reading today.
What a great truth to meditate upon! This is what Christianity is all about. All other faiths either worship or revere someone who is dead. Christians worship someone who is still alive. Jesus claimed to be God and then proved it by being raised from the dead (i.e. the sign of Jonah).
The word ἠγέρθη is in the aorist passive indicative. I don't want to make too big of a deal out of the aorist, but the passive suggests that this is something that happened to Him. I'm not quite sure what to make of this theologically, but I do find it kind of interesting. The point is that He is risen indeed and that is something about which those who follow Him can rejoice.
What does this truth do for you? Do you realize that the resurrection is historical fact that must be reckoned with? We cannot ignore it and pretend it didn't happen. The evidence is simply too compelling to ignore. I cannot prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt, but I do believe that it is the best explanation for the facts. The point of this truth is that the Christian faith is based on truth, not feelings. It is not about what it does for us. It is not about how it makes us feel. Those are important elements to living the Christian life, but ultimately the faith is based on the truth of the resurrection. A miracle occurred on that first Easter morning. How firm a foundation that gives us!
Monday, January 25, 2010
Prepare to Prepare
Matthew 27:61
(61) Mary Magdalene and the other Mary were there, sitting opposite the tomb.
(61) Mary Magdalene and the other Mary were there, sitting opposite the tomb.
(61) ἦν δὲ ἐκεῖ Μαριὰμ ἡ Μαγδαληνὴ καὶ ἡ ἄλλη Μαρία καθήμεναι ἀπέναντι τοῦ τάφου.
This verse struck me this morning as a reminder about the detail of Scripture. In an effort to discount any supernatural explanation for the empty tomb on Easter morning some have guessed that maybe they went to the wrong tomb. However, this verse makes that extremely unlikely. It is certainly possible in the same sense that it is possible that a bunch of men came into my house last night, walked around, took nothing, and left without a trace. It may have happened, but it is extremely unlikely. Steven Wright had a joke that someone broke into his house, stole everything, and replaced it with an exact replica. It's funny because of the improbability of it.
This verse also tells us that Mary and Martha were thinking ahead to Easter morning. They were going to prepare the body with spices. They had to know where the body was so they could do that. While the eleven faithful disciples fled they were at least clear-headed enough to think about preparing the body.
I know that I tend to overlook this verse as I read through Matthew. Today it bolsters my faith in the historical truth of the physical resurrection of Jesus' body. What does it do for you, if anything?
Sunday, January 24, 2010
The Silent Lamb
Matthew 27:11-12
(11) Now Jesus stood before the governor, and the governor asked him, "Are you the King of the Jews?" Jesus said, "You have said so."
(12) But when he was accused by the chief priests and elders, he gave no answer.
(11) Now Jesus stood before the governor, and the governor asked him, "Are you the King of the Jews?" Jesus said, "You have said so."
(12) But when he was accused by the chief priests and elders, he gave no answer.
(11) Ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς ἐστάθη ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ ἡγεμόνος· καὶ ἐπηρώτησεν αὐτὸν ὁ ἡγεμὼν λέγων, Σὺ εἶ ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων; ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς ἔφη, Σὺ λέγεις.
(12) καὶ ἐν τῷ κατηγορεῖσθαι αὐτὸν ὑπὸ τῶν ἀρχιερέων καὶ πρεσβυτέρων οὐδὲν ἀπεκρίνατο.
We're getting to the rough patch of Matthew's gospel. I never like reading the passion accounts. Of course, it fills me with hope to know that Jesus went through all of this. It had to happen to satisfy God's righteous wrath. However, I still don't enjoy reading it.
I find it interesting in verse 11 that it reads, "ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς ἔφη, Σὺ λέγεις". Throughout the Gospel whenever Jesus responded to people we had a very common structure like, "ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν αὐτοῖς" in Mat 24:2. The literal translation of that structure is something like, "he answered and said." Here instead of εἶπεν we find ἔφη. The latter word can also mean "to declare." I've got to think that there was more than a stylistic reason to change this structure. It could have just as easily been "Jesus answered and said."
You will notice that the ESV translates this as "Jesus said." That is certainly valid. However, I also wonder if maybe there is a bit more here. Maybe it's more than simply "saying" and should in fact have more of a sense of "declaring." Of course, given the situation I don't picture Jesus being particularly bombastic about this. After all, He had just finished with the Jews' mockery of a trial. He sat through that, so why would we suddenly get all dramatic now? Or, to look at it another way, why not get all dramatic and make some bold statements?
Jesus always had the OT prophecies in mind. In this case:
Isaiah 53:7
(7) He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth; like a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent, so he opened not his mouth.
This would be very hard to take were we not to have Revelation to look at. We see how it is all going to end up. Jesus was certainly meek and mild in His humiliation and death. Given that He was willing to go through that, what do you do with Him? Do you ignore this and just use His ministry as a good example to follow? Or do you realize the depth of your sin and the vital need for this sacrifice to atone for it? My prayer is the latter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
