|
Post by michelle on Feb 8, 2007 20:48:32 GMT -8
12/05:
14 You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden. 15 Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. 16 In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven. This can be so difficult sometimes, but is so true. It's like Sarah said last night, when non-believers see believers helping each other, there is something so attractive about it. I believe that leading by example is one of the strongest forms of persuasion.
21 You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' 22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment.
Is Jesus saying that being angry with your brother is on the same level as murder? It sure does seem that way. If so, what impact that has on Christians and how we deal (or don't deal) with conflict.
31 It has been said, 'Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.' 32 But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.
Gets me every time.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 8, 2007 21:37:30 GMT -8
12/05:
Along the vein of the Temple Destruction motif, we can see (very subtly), more references here:
Salt to be trampled: Jerusalem would be 'trampled on by the Gentiles' (Luke 21)
You are a city on a hill: The Church would be the New City of God (not Jerusalem)
Although very subtle, the more clear references later will, I think, give creedence to this way of looking at these phrases.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 8, 2007 21:38:12 GMT -8
12/05: There goes that nut-job again, finding the destruction of Jerusalem under every nook and cranny. Well, we do have to dig deep. After all, 'not one stone will be left on another'.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 8, 2007 21:38:46 GMT -8
12/05:
Elsewhere (in Paul) we are told that we are not to sin in our anger, so anger in and of itself is not what Jesus is condemning here. In fact, He himself grows angry several times in Matthew. It is more akin to hate or spiteful anger.
|
|
hume
Advanced Member
Posts: 136
|
Post by hume on Feb 9, 2007 16:15:40 GMT -8
12/05:
I read this and similar sayings of Christ (when he draws distinctions between the letter and spirit of the law) as teachings of "intentional morality." That is, the mere intention to do harm to "your brother" is fundamentally no different than actually aiming a gun at him -- even if you never act on the intention. It's a radical position, not reflected in our legal systems (although it probably wouldn't be enforcable, given the difficulty of proving anything about someone's intentions); yet it is somehow compelling. So I would read this passage not as a condemnation of anger per se, but as a warning against excusing hatred on the basis that it's harmless so long as you "keep it to yourself."
On the other hand, I suspect that often what we view as "justifiable anger" would not pass serious scrutiny. Anger as ego-defense, or anger as a response to fear were probably foreign to Jesus. The famous scene with the money-changers is notable for two things:
1. its near-uniqueness (suggesting that he was very rarely angry over anything) and 2. the fact that it was a passionate response to something evil (as opposed to a passionate defense of one's self-importance). The Buddhists have alot to say about this.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 9, 2007 16:16:41 GMT -8
12/05:
See also the "Woes" of Matthew 23. I think again they are a passionate response to evil: in that case, primarily the effect that the Pharisees hypocrisy was having on 'weaker' brothers
Hume, That's a great way to look at the Sermon on the Mount: intentional morality. Jesus is setting the standard for morality in the Kingdom of Heaven, in which the law won't be external, but written on our hearts, as the OT prophets proclaimed it would be in the New Covenant. So, it is an internalized morality focused not just on action, but ultimately on motives. And it keeps a super high standard- exhorting us to 'be perfect' as our heavenly Father is perfect. I think this is important- in Christian belief we never lower the standard of perfection, which is our aim, but at the same time grace abounds all the more. We don't water down holiness to make room for grace, or vice versa. We have both the aim at perfection and the full assurance of grace, and we have them both 'furiously' (to take a cue from Chesterton)
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 9, 2007 16:17:21 GMT -8
12/05:
Thoughts on the divorce saying...
First off, I think Jesus' wording here is tricky to interpret. If it's saying that the divorced woman is intrinsically an adulteress (i.e., guilty of sin), then the "except for marital unfaithfulness" clause seems to be saying that she is only an adulteress if the divorce WASN"T because of marital unfaithfulness. But that doesn't make sense. Surely if she is going to be considered an adulteress, it would be if she was unfaithful, not if she wasn't. The problem here that I see is whose marital unfaithfulness are we referring to? The husbands or the wives, or either?
More later...
|
|
|
Post by michelle on Feb 9, 2007 16:26:38 GMT -8
12/05:
Here is something from the OT that I try to take in consideration while reading the NT passages about divorce:
Deut. - 1 If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, 2 and if after she leaves his house she becomes the wife of another man, 3 and her second husband dislikes her and writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, or if he dies, 4 then her first husband, who divorced her, is not allowed to marry her again after she has been defiled. That would be detestable in the eyes of the LORD. Do not bring sin upon the land the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance.
So here a man can divorce his wife (for being unpleasing to him) and she can remarrying. But if the second husband divorces her, she is ritually unclean. In taking this into consideration, it seems like Jesus is saying that while a wife being unpleasing to a man used to be grounds for divorce, marital "unfaithfulness" is now the only grounds. If that's the case, it would seem to imply that the woman would have to be unfaithful in order for the man to divorce her. If he divorces her for any other reason, he causes her to be an adulteress. There are other circumstances in the OT where the man carries the guilt of causing a woman to sin (see Numbers 30). It seems like the only time she wouldn't be an adulteress is if the man was unfaithful. However, there are other translations that imply the man can only divorce if the wife is unfaithful.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 9, 2007 16:27:22 GMT -8
12/05:
Here's what one of my commentaries says:
"The natural way to take the 'except' clause is that divorce is wrong because it generates adultery EXCEPT in the case of [marital unfaithfulness]. In that case, where sexual sin has already been committed, nothing is laid down, though it appears that divorce is then implicitly permitted, even if not mandated."
BTW, what's the part that bugs you? Is it the assumption of the male perspective, the remarriage stuff, or which part?
|
|
|
Post by michelle on Feb 9, 2007 16:29:26 GMT -8
12/05:
I don't know if it's the passage itself that "bugs" me as much as it convicts me. It's really difficult being a divorced woman reading it. Especially when most translations say the exception clause is for adultery (whether on the part of man or woman is debatable, but I don't think it matters). I know that you've said that you believe "marital unfaithfulness" is more than just "adultery", but I'm still not convinced that is true if most translations say "adultery" or "sexual immorality". Maybe that's just a way to soften the blow to divorcees. Sometimes I read it and think, I can't ever be married again or I am going to be an adulteress. Then I struggle with the concept of what if someone did get divorced for reasons other than "marital unfaithfulness", whatever that may include, and they get remarried. Are they sinning everyday that they are remarried? Or is it just the day they get remarried? Christ's blood is supposed to cover all our sins, but that person is remarried and living in sin daily, how can they really repent? Would they have to get divorced to stop living in sin? Then wouldn't that cause them to sin again? I guess what really gets me is that I wonder if it's a reality that I am going to have to face that I can never be married again if I don't want to be an adulteress. It's really just one of those passages that I wish I could ask God questions about because I just need more details.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 9, 2007 16:30:28 GMT -8
12/05:
John 4:1-26 is the story of the Samaritan woman at the well. She had been married 5 times and was now living with a man who was not her husband. Not only that, she was a Samaritan, a despised mixed-blood Jewish syncretist.
And yet Jesus decides to reveal himself to her as the Messiah well before He reveals this fact to almost anyone else. And he speaks to her tenderly- he doesn't even rebuke her for her sin- he just points it out incidentally while he offers her 'living water' and the promise that she and her people will also be able to worship the father in 'spirit and in truth'.
I think the 'sin of divorce' can indeed be cleared once and for all in regard to its effect on our standing/relationship before God. Divorce always has other repercussions unfortunately, even to innocent parties. That's why God hates it.
And He never in the NT calls a man or woman to get a divorce in order to restore a relationship with Him.
|
|
|
Post by michelle on Feb 9, 2007 16:32:31 GMT -8
12/05:
Thanks for pointing this illustration out, Josh! It's very...soothing.
|
|
|
Post by sarah on Feb 9, 2007 16:33:34 GMT -8
12/05:
HI gang, I am reading along and will read ch 5 tonight. I have enjoyed reading your posts though, even if my own thoughts have not been added! Love ya! Sarah
|
|
|
Post by nathaniel on Feb 9, 2007 16:36:26 GMT -8
Ditto that!
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 9, 2007 16:37:06 GMT -8
12/05:
I've been reading in NT Wright about what Jesus means when He says He has not come to abolish the Law but to fulfill it (v. 17).
Most emphatically, Jesus does not mean that some aspects of the Law haven't been abrogated or superceded. He, in fact, goes on to do just that in many instances in the Gospels: He abrogates the dietary laws, the Sabbath laws, and several others. The NT writers took this cue and with the Holy Spirit's guidance showed the Church how laws such as circumcision were no longer necessary. All of these things served their purpose before Christ: to point to Christ. But now that the fullness of the Gospel has come, those things are but shadows and are set aside. Other things remain intact, of course. Sometimes it may not be easy for the Church to dileneate which, but we must judge all those things in the light of Christ. All of the Law and all of Scripture for that fact points to Jesus, and He is the 'Author' and FINISHER of the faith. While the practice of the NT Church might differ from the practices of nationalist Israel in many regards, this in no way means the Law was bad. In fact, everything the NT Church teaches must be continuity with it, but that congreuity leaves room for new expression in the light of Christ.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Mar 16, 2009 13:52:45 GMT -8
Matthew 5:17-18
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
So, a point of discussion on Sunday was whether "everything is accomplished" in this passage was referring to A) Christ's death and resurrection or B) to the final consumation of our present age/ the final judgment and resurrection.
Robin preferred option A and I think I prefer option B.
Here are a couple reasons:
It seems strange to me that Jesus would even bother to say this if he was referring to an event that was just about to happen. The sentence seems to imply some continued longevity of the purpose of the law.
Secondly, the easiest way to determine which option is in view here would be to determine when exactly the "heavens and the earth will disappear". Except that it notoriously difficult to determine as well ;D. My personal view is that the old heavens and earth began to disappear at the time of Jesus' first coming and establishment of his kingdom and will finally disappear at the final resurrection at the physical return of Christ.
Kinda like a line from a Rich Mullins song:
"when the old world started dyin' and the new world started comin' on"
So, I guess as I said in the post above, I see that the Law is still important and intact, not as something we need to currently adhere to, but as something that will forever (at least until the eternal state) point to the crux of our faith- Jesus and his atoning work on our behalf.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Mar 17, 2009 19:50:28 GMT -8
I tend to agree with Robin's view, I believe Jesus fulfilled all that was written in the law in His lifetime and through His death and resurrection. Following his resurrection, he said: Luke 24:44 44 Then He said to them, "These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me." NKJV I believe He was talking about fulfilling the types and shadows of the law as well as the prophesies we find in Isaiah and such. Also, Paul said similar things (Col 2:17, Heb 10:1).
|
|