|
Post by Josh on Feb 8, 2007 20:41:08 GMT -8
12/21/05:
I think the first few verses here on divorce are a bit clearer that the earlier Sermon on the Mount version- it being clearly stated that there are some circumstances in which divorce is permitted.
The teaching about remaining celebate (which is echoed by Paul in 1 Corinthians) is interesting: I like how Jesus understanding it is a 'hard saying' and that it is meant for only a select few. Still, a celibate life is viewed as a high calling, whether that celibacy is chosen or imposed by others or by birth.
How about this? Notice the slight but important difference between the Mark/Luke account and the Matthew account:
First, Luke/Mark (which is probably the earliest account):
18 A certain ruler asked him, “Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” 19 “Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone. 20 You know the commandments: ‘Do not commit adultery, do not murder, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother.’”
16 Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?” 17 “Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments.”
Notice how the awkward text in Mark/ Luke, which on the surface seems to indicate that Jesus is not good has been rearranged into a sentence stressing the action (the thing) rather than the person (good teacher"?
Any thoughts on this? Unfortunately, I don't have the Ancient Christian Commentary on Mark or Luke yet, but I'm very curious to see what the Early Fathers would say about that.
I guess I wasn't very familiar with the Matthew take. I've always viewed the Mark/ Luke version as Jesus hinting at his Deity: as in, you say I'm good, but no one is good but God.... so, fill in the blank, I must be God!
But Matthew seems to have changed the emphasis here. I'll probably be able to look in to it soon, but does anyone have some thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by michelle on Feb 9, 2007 18:31:40 GMT -8
12/05:
The NKJV has them all the same. Weird! The commentary from the NKJV says: Why do you call Me good may be rephrased "Why are you asking me concerning what is good?" The only One who can ultimately answer the question about goodness is God. The fact that Jesus went on to answer the question is a quiet claim to deity.
It seems to me that the ruler must know that Jesus is God if he is asking about how to obtain eternal life. It seems to me like Jesus is acknowledging that the ruler knows that He is God, in that parable-ish way that Jesus has.
A couple of things really struck me about this story that never have before. This really seems to tie together law and relationship. The ruler tells Jesus that he has kept Mosaic law since he was a kid, yet knows that there is somethig missing..."What do I still lack?" So Jesus tells him to do something that is unrelated to the law and related to his commitment to God, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me."
I just love this story now!!! My brain is going a million miles a minute and I don't think I can express in writing how I feel about it.
Here is a man keeping the commandments all the while knowing that there is just something missing (a relationship with God) even if he isn't sure what it is. This is so indicative of God and what He really wants from us. Yes, the laws are important and they are the first the Jesus tells the ruler he must keep. But for God to place on the rulers heart that there must be more is so...like God. Then when God tells that it is the relational aspect of his faith that is missing and tells him how to have a relationship with Him(and what it will cost) the man walks away because the cost may be too great. I can't tell you how many times I've felt this way. Josh, this may be a great example of what I mean by "going through the motions." I do (almost) everything that I'm supposed to do, but the connection is just not there. Does that make more sense now??
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 9, 2007 18:32:44 GMT -8
12/05:
Well, the various translations differ on whether to translate this verse exactly the same as in Mark/Luke or to translate it differently. Apparently Matthew's word 'good' isn't clearly attached to the word 'teacher' in the Greek, so it' s kind of up in the air. Some translations cover the bases by saying, "Good teacher, what good thing must I do?" But Jesus' reply that there is only One who is good seems to indicate that indeed the question had at least the presumption that it was the teacher who was good- He knew the way to eternal life, so He must be "good".
The early Fathers don't treat this verse any differently than Mark and Luke, so I think they at least would probably agree with the NKJV here.
As to whether the rich man knew Jesus was God, I personally don't think so. It was kind of common for rabbis to teach that certain deeds could merit eternal life. I'm not sure that the disciples fully realized that Jesus was God yet. I do see Jesus' response as a subtle hint, or "quiet claim" as your commentary says.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 9, 2007 18:33:32 GMT -8
12/05:
As I re-read the passage I was struck with the same thing. How cool, in light of some of our previous conversation. It's all right there! In fact, I really think this is one of the key points of the Gospels (and probably all of Scripture)= beyond mere duty is relationship. The relationship is costly, yet it is essential.
You're certainly right in saying that Jesus' isn't asking him to do one more good deed, He's asking him something completely different- to give HIMSELF to follow JESUS= relationship.
God's word for you and all of us today!
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 9, 2007 18:34:05 GMT -8
12/05:
I also like how Jesus' doesn't rebuke them for wanting rewards in heaven- he promises them rewards for surrendering their lives to Him. He only rebukes them when they want to be more honored than someone else, or have more authority than someone else.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Oct 22, 2007 15:17:03 GMT -8
Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these."
Lewis has some good thoughts as to what this means (and doesn't). This is also a great quote in keeping with our first value statement goal about growing into holistic maturity in Christ:
"....because Christ said we could only get into His world by being like children, many Christians have the idea that, provided you are "good" it does not matter being a fool. But that is a misunderstanding. In the first place, most children show plenty of prudence about doing the things they are really interested in, and think them out quite sensibly. In the second place, as St. Paul points out, Christ never meant that we were to remain children in intelligence: on the contrary, He told us to be not only "as harmless as doves", but also "as wise as serpents." He wants a child's heart, but a grown-up's head. He wants us to be simple, single-minded, affectionate, and teachable, as good children are; but He also wants every bit of intelligence we have to be alert at its job, and in first class fighting trim. The fact that you are giving money to a charity does not mean that you need not try to find out whether that charity is a fraud or not. The fact that when you are thinking about God Himself (for example, when you are praying) does not mean that you can be content with the same babyish ideas which you had when you were a five-year-old. It is, of course, quite true that God will not love you any the less, or have less use for you, if you happen to have been born with a very second-rate brain. He has room for people with very little sense, but He wants everyone to use what sense they have... God is no fonder of intellectual slackers than of any other slackers. If you are thinking of becoming a Christian, I warn you you are embarking on something which is going to take the whole of you, brains and all."
CS Lewis
|
|