I don't know about you, but when I think of the Sermon on the Mount, I don't immediately think of the legal ramifications of what Jesus was saying. Typically, I think about the nature of Jesus' instructions to us in the writing: "blessed are the... for they will..." and "you have heard it said... but I say to you." It wasn't until today, as I was pouring through some of the research that has been done surrounding this text, that I stumbled upon an interesting perspective.
At the beginning of the sermon, which is likely a conglomeration of either multiple sermons or a literary device called epitome, Matthew recalls several statements that Jesus made about the law. they are easy to gloss over, but they are, in my estimation, critical to the understanding of the sermon. I believe that one of the critical goals in Matthew's mind and heart at the time he was writing this book, was helping the Jewish listeners understand Jesus' interpretation of the law. This teaching in large part was juxtaposed against the erring interpretation of the Pharisaical tradition.
As the sermon progresses, Matthew recalls words of Jesus that specifically and directly address the change in mind that Jesus was trying to accomplish.
And at the end of the sermon, in the warnings looking to the future end of time, Jesus also authoritatively expounds on the future of those who keep the law and those who do not.
So, where this leaves me is a place of tremendous gratitude. Jesus could have simply said, "don't worry about the law, because even though failing in keeping the law means that you are going to fall on the day of judgment, it's all good. I am going to die and rise again and advocate for you. So it really doesn't matter." No, instead, Jesus still pointed to the ethical target that is unattainable in its ideal for anyone but those free from sin. And thus, he is both the advocate for the righteousness of God for us in day to day activity, as well as the provider of righteousness that we could never attain.
If someone asks, "What does Jesus demand from you?" What will your answer be? I truly believe that my answer should be, "A life that fulfills the law, and that life lived through faith in Jesus, not self-sufficiency in my attempts to submit to the law." That means that I believe I must try to attain to righteousness of God in my activity while I put my faith in Jesus for that same righteousness. Assurance of victory in a an effort should never remove us from the effort. It should instead fuel us to be more fervent in the effort.
Get righteousness. Get the perfect legal standing. That means living legally with all our heart, with the faith in Jesus that his interpretation of the law and the work he does on our behalf assures us of the victory.
Tuesday, September 9, 2014
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Blue for the Down
Currently, I am on an accelerated Bible reading plan, which I hope will keep me on pace to read the Bible 4 times per year. It has been very helpful, in that I am able to gain serious traction into the text and maintain biblical categories in my head much better than a once-per-year pattern.
Another beautiful benefit of this, is that I can do a couple synchronicity studies, working my way through the entirety of the canon at once. Currently, I have been reading, mostly to hear from the Lord, and gain a fuller picture. Starting roughly in January, I will start through the text once again and intend to trace the following categories:
- The Temple and the Church's Mission (Using Beale's book of the same title as guidance) http://www.amazon.com/Temple-Churchs-Mission-Biblical-Theology/dp/0830826181
- Shepherd's After God's Heart (Laniak) http://www.amazon.com/Shepherds-After-Own-Heart-Traditions/dp/0830826211/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1321974065&sr=1-1
- Poverty - I haven't decided on a biblical theology text for guidance on this one, but will try to choose this month.
Clearly, throughout scripture there are so many aspects to God's plan and will, but he has revealed certain elements tied to his anger, wrath, and condemnation. One of the markers for destruction that the Lord looks for is the abandonment of the widows and orphans, and the vicious oppression of the poor. I would like to better understand how this plays out throughout scripture, and how much bearing that it has on us as we seek activities with which to fill our lives as it pertains to the proclamation of the gospel.
Should be very interesting. Perhaps I will elaborate on the other two topics, Temple and Shepherd, later.
-John
Another beautiful benefit of this, is that I can do a couple synchronicity studies, working my way through the entirety of the canon at once. Currently, I have been reading, mostly to hear from the Lord, and gain a fuller picture. Starting roughly in January, I will start through the text once again and intend to trace the following categories:
- The Temple and the Church's Mission (Using Beale's book of the same title as guidance) http://www.amazon.com/Temple-Churchs-Mission-Biblical-Theology/dp/0830826181
- Shepherd's After God's Heart (Laniak) http://www.amazon.com/Shepherds-After-Own-Heart-Traditions/dp/0830826211/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1321974065&sr=1-1
- Poverty - I haven't decided on a biblical theology text for guidance on this one, but will try to choose this month.
Clearly, throughout scripture there are so many aspects to God's plan and will, but he has revealed certain elements tied to his anger, wrath, and condemnation. One of the markers for destruction that the Lord looks for is the abandonment of the widows and orphans, and the vicious oppression of the poor. I would like to better understand how this plays out throughout scripture, and how much bearing that it has on us as we seek activities with which to fill our lives as it pertains to the proclamation of the gospel.
Should be very interesting. Perhaps I will elaborate on the other two topics, Temple and Shepherd, later.
-John
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
I Believe in Dragons
Ok, so I had heard of Leviathan before. I had read (skimmed) over the descriptions in Genesis and Job, but this time, reading through Job, I now find myself compelled to believe in them.
If the Lord is going to take the time to use a mighty beast, for which Job had clear context and understanding, to base his rebuke, shouldn't we believe in its existence? Even if it is extinct, and we are not able to find it yet in the fossil record, the description is one that we must believe.
Sometimes, I think we take liberties with the text of Scripture that we were never supposed to take. We begin to think that we know enough to say things like, "Well, if there really are/were dragons, wouldn't we know about them by now?" Personally, I find such notions audacious and dangerously close to elevating the cumulative understanding of man (science, history), to an authoritative plane with the Word of God. Do we, or do we not affirm the words of Scripture as breathed out from the mouth of the Almighty? Do we hold with sincerity, even the most remarkable claims, such as the descriptions given in Job? Is Scripture our sole authority, or is it merely a high level of informative? How proud are we as exegetes, when we bring our understanding to bear on the text? Is that not what the indictment against Job and his friends was all about?
And regarding the potential use of myth in this passage, I guess, a question would need to be answered: Why would God come up with a mythical creature, to show Job how little he was? That would almost be an absurdity, given the rest of the argumentation in Job, and God's previous presentation of his majesty.
And lest you think that I am overreacting here, go read the description GIVEN BY GOD of his own creation, and tell me if you decide not to believe in dragons!
Job 41
Enjoy.
If the Lord is going to take the time to use a mighty beast, for which Job had clear context and understanding, to base his rebuke, shouldn't we believe in its existence? Even if it is extinct, and we are not able to find it yet in the fossil record, the description is one that we must believe.
Sometimes, I think we take liberties with the text of Scripture that we were never supposed to take. We begin to think that we know enough to say things like, "Well, if there really are/were dragons, wouldn't we know about them by now?" Personally, I find such notions audacious and dangerously close to elevating the cumulative understanding of man (science, history), to an authoritative plane with the Word of God. Do we, or do we not affirm the words of Scripture as breathed out from the mouth of the Almighty? Do we hold with sincerity, even the most remarkable claims, such as the descriptions given in Job? Is Scripture our sole authority, or is it merely a high level of informative? How proud are we as exegetes, when we bring our understanding to bear on the text? Is that not what the indictment against Job and his friends was all about?
And regarding the potential use of myth in this passage, I guess, a question would need to be answered: Why would God come up with a mythical creature, to show Job how little he was? That would almost be an absurdity, given the rest of the argumentation in Job, and God's previous presentation of his majesty.
And lest you think that I am overreacting here, go read the description GIVEN BY GOD of his own creation, and tell me if you decide not to believe in dragons!
Job 41
Enjoy.
Monday, October 24, 2011
Hey there, Delilah
Hey there Delilah, I had never given much thought
To the way that you wore Samson down
Or tormented him and took away his might
that one sad night.
Hey there Delilah, your seduction and persistence
had been washed over in flannelgraphs,
never replaced from the days of my youth and now I see.
You're misery.
Oh its all so new to me. (4x)
Bridge
Thousands of coins seem pretty harsh
But you've got plans, and schemes and, O
I'd run from you if we met one fine day.
The Philistines would mock at us
and you would laugh at me because
I was a fool and my strength now has gone away.
Delilah I can promise you
that I have learned a thing or two
and my world will never ever be the same
and you're to blame.
Hey there, Delilah you should know it isn't over
I won't let my daughters learn your ways
and will protect the women and men from your misdeed
O, yes indeed!
To the way that you wore Samson down
Or tormented him and took away his might
that one sad night.
Hey there Delilah, your seduction and persistence
had been washed over in flannelgraphs,
never replaced from the days of my youth and now I see.
You're misery.
Oh its all so new to me. (4x)
Bridge
Thousands of coins seem pretty harsh
But you've got plans, and schemes and, O
I'd run from you if we met one fine day.
The Philistines would mock at us
and you would laugh at me because
I was a fool and my strength now has gone away.
Delilah I can promise you
that I have learned a thing or two
and my world will never ever be the same
and you're to blame.
Hey there, Delilah you should know it isn't over
I won't let my daughters learn your ways
and will protect the women and men from your misdeed
O, yes indeed!
Friday, October 21, 2011
Covenant Fulfilled?
Not deeply studied, but tinkered with, slightly is a question that popped up in reading Joshua his morning.
What? ?? Wha? -- Sorry, need a bit more coffee.. barely here.
<sip, sip, sip>
Ok, so, I was reading Joshua 23-24, and something just jumped off the page. I am not sure what to do with it yet, but there it was.
Um, the first part, the bit that I underlined, got me thinking. I have been taught that the Abrahamic covenant was yet to be fulfilled, and the Israel had not never fully inhabited the land. I was also taught to think of the covenant as unconditional and eternal. While I see the purposes for such teaching, I am starting to now wonder how much REAL study of the pertinent scripture, I actually did.
But doesn't this text point to a fulfillment of the promises God made in his covenant? Had not Joshua clearly sealed the deal? Does this mean that God is released from any further obligation in the covenant?
Well, feel free to post your thoughts. The maintenance fellas just installed a whiteboard in my humble office, and now I am left to ponder, what should be the maiden voyage of thought to be splayed upon its surface.
<sip>
JB
What? ?? Wha? -- Sorry, need a bit more coffee.. barely here.
<sip, sip, sip>
Ok, so, I was reading Joshua 23-24, and something just jumped off the page. I am not sure what to do with it yet, but there it was.
14 “And now I am about to go the way of all the earth, and you know in your hearts and souls, all of you, that not one word has failed of all the good things that the LORD your God promised concerning you. All have come to pass for you; not one of them has failed. 15 But just as all the good things that the LORD your God promised concerning you have been fulfilled for you, so the LORD will bring upon you all the evil things, until he has destroyed you from off this good land that the LORD your God has given you, 16 if you transgress the covenant of the LORD your God, which he commanded you, and go and serve other gods and bow down to them. Then the anger of the LORD will be kindled against you, and you shall perish quickly from off the good land that he has given to you.”
Um, the first part, the bit that I underlined, got me thinking. I have been taught that the Abrahamic covenant was yet to be fulfilled, and the Israel had not never fully inhabited the land. I was also taught to think of the covenant as unconditional and eternal. While I see the purposes for such teaching, I am starting to now wonder how much REAL study of the pertinent scripture, I actually did.
But doesn't this text point to a fulfillment of the promises God made in his covenant? Had not Joshua clearly sealed the deal? Does this mean that God is released from any further obligation in the covenant?
Well, feel free to post your thoughts. The maintenance fellas just installed a whiteboard in my humble office, and now I am left to ponder, what should be the maiden voyage of thought to be splayed upon its surface.
<sip>
JB
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)