Daisy
Originally uploaded by paynehollow.
"You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.'
But I say to you, everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one of your members than to have your whole body thrown into Gehenna.
And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one of your members than to have your whole body go into Gehenna.
"It was also said, 'Whoever divorces his wife must give her a bill of divorce.'
But I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) causes her to commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
"Again you have heard that it was said to your ancestors, 'Do not take a false oath, but make good to the Lord all that you vow.'
But I say to you, do not swear at all; not by heaven, for it is God's throne; nor by the earth, for it is his footstool; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King.
Do not swear by your head, for you cannot make a single hair white or black.
Let your 'Yes' mean 'Yes,' and your 'No' mean 'No.' Anything more is from the evil one.
"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.'
But I say to you, offer no resistance to one who is evil. When someone strikes you on (your) right cheek, turn the other one to him as well.
If anyone wants to go to law with you over your tunic, hand him your cloak as well.
Should anyone press you into service for one mile, go with him for two miles.
Give to the one who asks of you, and do not turn your back on one who wants to borrow.
"You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.'
But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your heavenly Father, for he makes his sun rise on the bad and the good, and causes rain to fall on the just and the unjust.
For if you love those who love you, what recompense will you have? Do not the tax collectors do the same?
And if you greet your brothers only, what is unusual about that? Do not the pagans do the same?
So be perfect, just as your heavenly Father is perfect.
======
Matthew 5: 27-48
73 comments:
In these verses, you find some of the heart of anabaptism - my way of belief. And I think you might understand why the anabaptists take these passages so seriously.
Here you have not Paul or some Old Testament story, but Jesus himself saying, "But I SAY UNTO YOU..."
Don't swear
Be faithful spouses
Turn the other cheek
Love your enemies
It is hard for most to get around what appears to be fairly straightforward teachings from God's own Word.
And so we do try to take this stuff seriously.
Dan:"It is hard for most to get around what appears to be fairly straightforward teachings from God's own Word."
Dan, Dan. If you adopt an internet handle, let me suggest Candide.
Straightforward?! You must be joking. The Bible is being brandished about by meditative monks, knee-jerk liberal neo-Jesus Freaks, the Christian Taliban (amply represented in your commenters), snoozy social Christians, and all manner of professional Jesus-mongers making their living selling the Gospel.
There's a work around for everything in the Bible. You have some pretty good ones yourself.
First of all we are told to be as perfect as God, so right there you can tell that the whole thing is allegorical since otherwise we cannot do it.
Also there's that nasty hand cutting and eye gouging business. Is that literal? Remember, you said we were taking this stuff seriously. If that isn't literal then why would we think the verses before it and after it are literal?
Also the teaching (say some) isn't that you can't even be angry in your heart against someone, but rather that if you are angry, it is the SAME thing as killing them. Hey, everyone is angry some time or the other, right? So since being angry is the same thing as killing and we've already gone there, then it's OK to go ahead and kill them. If you look at a woman (and the man that says he NEVER looks at a woman that way is a liar), then you've already done the sin, might as well go to bed with her, eh?
Others, with less bizzare work arounds, say that the teachings on lust and anger are simply instructions to pay attention to your own self, your own thoughts and not to worry about everyone else's behavior.
Some say that the teachings about 'turn the other cheek' and 'go the extra mile' are teachings about not taking offense and umbrage over petty things. It isn't a teaching to let yourself be impressed into slavery nor to stand there and let your head be blown off, but rather to go along with the petty offenses and go on.
................
By the bye, the concept of 'perfect' here means 'complete'. The idea of absolute flawlessness in every infinate detail is a relatively modern philosophical concept, doesn't occur in the Bible, and isn't even attributed to God.
The word "perfect," can also be translated "mature." This is not the Greek idea of mirroring a perfect platonic Form, nor achieving moral perfection. Rather, as the context shows, Jesus wants would-be disciples to imitate God's mercy. Thus the parallel from Luke's Sermon on the Plain says, "Be compassionate as your heavenly Father is compassionate."
Dan said he takes this seriously, not literally. Obviously in the hand cutting and eye gouging, Jesus is using hyperbole--a common enough tool of rabbinic instruction. The idea is still clear: remove the cause of temptation from you.
The verb forms are continuous action so that we might better translate, "Do not nurse anger," and "Do not stare lustfully." Rather than high ideals that cannot be reached, Jesus give practical alternatives--Rather than trying (impossibly) to keep near your lustful temptation, get away; instead of trying to find an oath with enough loopholes, refuse to swear oaths--simply become known for honesty.
The NASB's "offer no resistance to one who is evil," though has problems. The verb translated "resist," is antisthenai, usually used for violent rebellion. And although the substantive dative for "ponero," "evil one," is grammatically possible, it doesn't fit Jesus' own practice of resisting evil people. Better to take it as an instrumental (same case ending), "with evil," or "by evil means." Thus, a better translation of 5:39 would be ,"Do not violently resist," or "Do not resist by evil means." What follows shows the alternative to either becoming a doormat or to violent resistance:
The left hand was reserved for obscene tasks (pre-toilet paper). So, to use the right hand to strike on the right cheek is not a fist fight, but a backhanded slap. This is something social superiors do to those whom they consider beneath them and who could not easily retaliate: Romans backhanded Jews, husbands wives, masters slaves, fathers children, rich people backhanded the poor. If the "inferior" retaliated physically, they could find themselves in court or killed by guards, etc. Does Jesus ask them to just take it? No, "turn the other cheek." Well, there is no way to backhand the left cheek with the right hand. If one used the left hand, one is humiliated (especially in public) and if one punches with the right hand, one admits the other is an equal. Turning the other cheek nonviolently confronts the oppressor with the evil he has done.
Likewise with the "tunic." 1st C. Jews wore an outer and inner garment. Mosaic law said that if someone was so poor they had NOTHING ELSE for collateral for a loan, they could use their outer garments. BUT, since such a person would be homeless (or else the home would be collateral instead), the garment HAD to be returned to the person each night--so he doesn't freeze to death. Jesus describes a corrupt court system in which the outer garment is sued for in court--against Mosaic law. So, Jesus says, "Give the inner garment, too." Strip butt-naked in the middle of court as a protest which exposes the injustice--doubtless to great laughter. There was a nudity taboo, but shame fell on those viewing the nudity. This is protest street theatre.
The final example of the alternative to fight or flight (Jesus' Third Way of transforming initiatives) deals with the occupying Roman army. Rome allowed its soldiers to conscript locals to carry their burdens, but only for a single mile--and they set up mile markers. By going a second mile, the oppressed Jew takes back the moral initiative, confronts the soldier with the wrong even of limited conscript service (and maybe with the wrong of occupation). There is a chance to sew seeds for peace--or at least to confront with a mirror of their evil.
Obviously, exact parallels don't exist in our context. To take Jesus' words seriously is to look for creative analogies--nonviolent alternatives to either being a doormat (attempting to appease evildoers) or to violent resistance.
Loving enemies still acknowledges that one HAS enemies.
>If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away.
>if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away.
We should not take sin lightly, apparently. Note the proactive response (with shocking hyperbole - most likely to get our attention) to sin: 'tear it out', 'cut it off', 'throw it away'.
This reminds me of 1 Corinthians 6:18 which also refers to sexual immorality:
"Flee immorality"
Again, the response should be a proactive one on our part - and God gives us the reasons why in the second half of each of these verses. It's for our own good.
We talked more about this on a previous thread:
-->Colossians 3:5
-->“Put to death therefore what is earthly in you: sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry.”
-->There it is! The link between the death penalty (”put to death”) of the OT laws (and the distinction between them and the other OT laws). These are moral/ethical issues that are timeless and effect everyone.
>"You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.'
It's interesting to read that the teachers of that day had added 'and hate your enemy' to Lev. 19:18. My study bible has this commentary:
"By thus tampering with Scripture, they intended to define their neighbors to include only Jews and to exclude Samaritans and Gentiles. Kingdom citizens must practice self-denying, self-giving, non-discriminating love toward all men, even their enemies, for God does the same (v. 45)"
>So be perfect, just as your heavenly Father is perfect.
How do we do that? We talked previously about how it's impossible to be righteous ('complete' or 'spiritually mature', etc) on our own.
Here's some notes from my study bible on this subject:
"Christ sets an unattainable standard. This sums up what the law itself demanded (James 2:10). Though this standard is impossible to meet, God could not lower it without compromising His own perfection. He who is perfect could not set an imperfect standard of righteousness. The marvelous truth of the gospel is that Christ has met this standard on our behalf."
That is clarified in 2 Cor. 5:21 ...
"For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God."
My study Bible explains further:
"Here Paul summarized the heart of the gospel, resolving the mystery and paradox of vv 18-20, and explaining how sinners can be reconciled to God through Jesus Christ. These 15 Greek words express the doctrines of imputation and substitution like no other single verse."
For more see:
A biblical word study - ATONEMENT
http://www.thoughtquotient.com/2006/05/26/a-biblical-word-study-atonement/
A biblical word study - PROPITIATION
http://www.thoughtquotient.com/2006/03/29/a-biblical-word-study-propitiation/
Michael:"Dan said he takes this seriously, not literally. Obviously in the hand cutting and eye gouging, Jesus is using hyperbole"
Then let's say hyperbole as opposed to explicit. It would be interesting to have a sort of red letter edition of the Bible where the parts that are to be taken as explicit are in one color and those to be taken as hyperbole as another.
Everyone wants to take the parts with which they don't want to conform as hyperbole and the parts they want to foist on others as explicit.
While your analysis holds linguistic and historical water, the same can be said for a great deal more of the Biblical teachings. For example, while priests were paid govenment employees, Rabbis were not. It was considered immoral for a teacher or preacher (kerux) to accept support for their work rather they were required to pursue a trade as Paul did with tentmaking and Jesus did with woodworking.
So if the social milieu of the first centruy has a bearing on the teachings today, let it have a bearing on ALL the teachings. It is immoral for people to be paid to be religious teachers but rather should be pursuing a trade just like Jesus, Paul, and Peter did.
----------------
Roger:"Here's some notes from my study bible on this subject:
"Christ sets an unattainable standard. "
This is what comes from following a Gospel according to a Study Bible. It is another example of a whole theology being based on a linguistic misunderstanding. In Elizabethian English perfect was simply a synomym for complete just as all the common Greek words from which it is translated (based on 'telos') mean 'complete'. The word is used for all sorts of things we ordinary mortals do as a matter of course: finishing military service, achieving adulthood, bringing in the harvest.
Yet a whole theology gets based on a mistuderstanding of how the word perfect has changed in the course of the English Language.
Many hold that the whole human sacrifice thing that Paul runs into the ground is just, as has been pointed out for other parts of the Bible, a hyperbole that Paul used so that Jews and Proselytes could better understand a Christian principle. It is not to be taken mechanically or literally.
Roger:"Though this standard is impossible to meet, God could not lower it without compromising His own perfection. He who is perfect could not set an imperfect standard of righteousness."
What's this? Things that God can't do?? Painted Himself into a corner, did He? I thought the whole idea was that God could do everything and anything.
Thanks Michael, for the excellent description of the Third Way of Jesus. I was going to get around to that, but you have described it much better than I could have.
On the "giving them the cloak, also," I'm reminded of the recent real-life Peacemaking story that took this passage pretty literally.
Peacemaker Art Gish (who has written "Beyond the Rat Race," and "Living in Christian Community") was part of a peacemaker team in Israel a couple of years ago (and his wife, Peggy, has served on peacemaker teams in Israel and Iraq!). Gish came upon an Israeli soldier who was holding a Palestinian youth for violating curfew.
It was a cold night out and the soldier had confiscated the youth's jacket and made him stand there in the cold with him. Gish approached and asked if he would release the youth to him and he'd be sure that he went straight home. The soldier was having none of it. Gish protested that the night was cold and the boy was but a youth. Still the soldier kept the boy there shivering in the cold.
So Gish, perhaps thinking of this very story, said, "Fine. Then I'll join in solidarity with this young man." and with that, he began to disrobe. Not just his jacket or shirt, but all the way down to his boxers before the soldier gave up and sent them both home with their clothes.
There is almost always another way, other than Fight or Flight. Often, many other ways.
"Be Perfect" ("Holy" is the more appropriate term.)
You folks just don't get it, do you?
These words were a clear indictment against people like you who seem to think that you can, actually, be perfect.
Who needs a saviour when they are "perfect" as God is "perfect".
"holy" does not mean perfecxt, Dan. Surely you know that. It means "set apart"..."peculiar".
Your deception runs deep, my friend.
D.d:""Be Perfect" ("Holy" is the more appropriate term.)"
So this is yet another example where Jesus is mistaken, then? He used the word 'perfect' (teleios) instead of the word 'holy' (hagios). So Jesus was mistaken and used the wrong word?
D.d:"Who needs a saviour when they are "perfect" as God is "perfect".
Jesus said:"So be perfect, just as your heavenly Father is perfect" and you are telling us that Jesus was wrong.
Wow, it's a good thing we have you guys around to correct Jesus' mistakes for us.
Peter...the exposer of false prophets...said, "But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation; Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy." 1 Peter 1:15-16
Heck...Peter walked and talked with Jesus. Reckon he had a clue?
Oh...that's right...Peter's words aren't in Red-letter.
No, E, I'm saying the application is wrong.
Which is par for the course at this pit of deception.
D.d:"No, E, I'm saying the application is wrong."
OK, wrong tack, mate, prepare to go about!
What is an appropriate application of "by ye therefore perfect"? If you've already covered this, my apologies, I didn't pick up on it.
Hyphenated Man shed a little light on it by observing that "mature" would also be appropriate.
When a person dwells on the love of Christ alone and rejects his justice, it does nothing to show that person's spiritual maturity.
Perfect, mature, set apart.
I hate to ask, but: So, D, what was your beef about?
"What's this? Things that God can't do?? Painted Himself into a corner, did He? I thought the whole idea was that God could do everything and anything."
Actually there are things God CANNOT do. Being utterly Holy and Righteous, He cannot sin, which means he cannot lie.
But this is not to say he isn't omnipotent. God isn't limited by any lack of ability to tell a lie, He is limited only by His righteousness... It's simply not in His nature to lie. Or sin. He cannot lie any more than a goldfish can leap out of the fish bowl, stand erect, slap a sombrero on its head, and strum a spanish guitar while belting out Mozart's 'The Marriage of Figaro' with the voice of a master baritone. It's simply not within that goldfish's nature to do any of those specific things, let alone stand erect on its tail and breath air and utilize non-existant vocal chords within a specific tonal range and work the strings of any stringed instrument... to say nothing of an appreciation for obscure Austrian composers.
But going one further, lies are either told out of Fear or simple Maliciousness. God-- being God --has no need to fear anyone or anything, and since He IS holy and righteous, maliciousness is also not in His nature.
Ergo. Yes, Virginia, there ARE things God cannot do.
And finally, if God COULD lie, the entire bible would be a worthless promise, and we would be (as Paul stated) the most miserable of men.
Dan:"I hate to ask, but: So, D, what was your beef about?"
I think I see what he's saying. He sees more than one aspect of Christ, in addition to the compassionate Christ, there is also the vengeful Christ. ('Venge' here as 'justice' not 'REvenge').
In the very rich tradition of Othrodoxy, the Icons of Jesus show different aspects of him which are venerated separately. If in the icon He has his foot on the book (of law, I think), he is Christ the Teacher. If his is touching someone, he is Christ the Healer. But if the Icon shows him with one had raised in blessing and the other hand holding the gospel, he is Christ the Pantocrator. The Greek word for 'Crator' ultimately comes from the same root as our loan word 'Critic' (which is Greek for 'judge') and so Pantocrator not only means "all mighty" but also "all judging".
I take what D.d is saying thus: There's more than one aspect of Christ and it seems (to him) that you are leaving out all but one of them, the Compassionate Christ.
Elashley:"He cannot lie any more than a goldfish can leap out of the fish bowl"
In the case of the fish, it is clearly a limitation. The fish CAN'T do it because the fish is not omnipotent. What we are exmining is the question of whether God is limited.
The original premise was:
He who is perfect could not set an imperfect standard of righteousness.
Why not? If God is truely omnipotent (infinitely large and in charge) then what would be the problem of setting it up so that He (God) could be perfect but just set up an imperfect standard for the rest of us?
In this you face a Koan, an unresolvable dilema:
1) If God is bound by rules, then He is NOT omnipotent. If he is bound by time, space, or logic, then why mess around with Him, why not seek out whoever it was who set up the rules that God is bound by?
2) If God is Omnipotent, then why is he limited in making the rules? If He is not bound by time, space, logic and the whole bit, why can't He make any rules He wants? And if He CAN make any rules He wants, why should we be grateful when he makes a lousy set of rules and then shrugs His shoulders when we are imperfect.
It is as a verse in the Rybaiyyat says:
Thou who man of baser earth didst make
And devised the Garden with the Snake
For all the sin wherewith man's face is blackened
Man's fogiveness give ... and take.
"I think I see what he's saying. He sees more than one aspect of Christ"
You read all that into his comments about holiness and criticisms of me/us for saying perfect means perfect, which I don't believe any of us have said?
Dan:"You read all that into his comments about holiness and criticisms"
Well, yes. I'm a very clever reader.
Eleutheros can spend all the time he wants demanding that omnipotence is not constrained by logic, but he should at least recognize that his position is not shared by the whole of Christian theology.
C.S. Lewis echoed Thomas Aquinas when wrote, "[God's] Omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to Him, but not nonsense. This is no limit to His power. If you choose to say 'God can give a creature free will and at the same time withhold free will from it,' you have not succeeded in saying anything about God: meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire meaning simply because we prefix to them the two other words 'God can.'... It is no more possible for God than for the weakest of His creatures to carry out both of two mutually exclusive alternatives; not because His power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God."
One can disagree with that definition of omnipotence, but I don't believe one can impose another definition on others in an attempt to perform a bait-and-switch in which one ignores the Christian definition of the word, replaces it with his own, and then ridicules the forgery.
And I do wonder, if Eleutheros wonders whether we ought to take literally the command to maim, why hasn't he likewise complained about Matthew 5:13-14. Did Jesus assert that we are literally bioluminescent sodium chloride, and ought we to reject the rest of His teachings as nonsense? Or is it really so unclear when Jesus does and does not use figurative language that we can't make heads or tails of anything he taught?
And should we assume that taking anyone seriously implies taking their every word literally -- and should we then apply that to Eleutheros too?
He wrote that the Bible is "being brandished about" by all sorts of people; he must mean that they're waving the book around and nothing more.
He wrote, "Everyone wants to take the parts with which they don't want to conform as hyperbole and the parts they want to foist on others as explicit." So people want to use a pair of scissors, cut out passages they like, and coercively put those bits of paper on other people; how odd.
He asked Daddio, "What is an appropriate application of 'by ye therefore perfect'? If you've already covered this, my apologies, I didn't pick up on it." If Eleutheros literally picking things up?
We take figurative language for granted -- even the word "take" here is figurative -- in our own daily lives, so it strikes me (more figurative language) as ridiculous to demand that Scripture communicates everything wholly literally and without any figurative language.
Dan and I disagree on an awful lot, mostly on how to apply the eternal teachings of the Bible to the modern world, but I commend a look at the Sermon on the Mount.
(And, Dan, I strongly recommend John Stott's commentary on the sermon.)
But I'm not sure a discussion about the sermon is helped by someone who often demonstrates such antipathy to Christianity. Matthew 7:6 might apply here, if only figuratively.
But God IS limited... by His nature. He is Holy and Righteous, and therefore cannot lie. This does not detract from His omnipotence.
The part that Bubba so conveniently leaves out is that it is Bubba who shakes with righteous indignation with overtones of fire and brimstone that we should be in line with his own personal view of the Bible.
It is Bubba that asserts that the Bible is infallible, not I. I have no need to reconcile the contradictions in the Bible, no need for a whole bag full of commentator sock puppets to do an eternal dodge and dance to try to reconcile the Bible either with itself or with some odd skewed version of whatever it may have to teach.
It is Bubba who shakes with righteous indignation. From the Bible I might be stirred, but never shaken.
So, Bubba, my exegete, I make you the same proposition that I've made often before that anyone who truly believes the Bible is consistent and infallible would accept in a heart beat. Instead of going verse to verse to verse and doing the dodge and dance to try to make the Bible at the same time be consistent with itself and with the sock puppet you put up for us to worship as God, instead of that let's have the guidelines ahead of time, e'er we ever open the cover, whereby we will decide if a passage is figurative or literal, whether it is explicit or allegorical, whether it is universal or was just a function of the culture back then.
You darn't do it. If you did, you would eventually have to own up to parts of the Bible you'd rather ignore.
I may or may not have antipathy toward Christianity. We've no way of telling since I haven't come up against any here to be antipathetic towards. What I do have antipathy toward is handpuppet shows blasphemously passing for Christianity.
The trouble you are having with my comments is that unless you can start from a point of unconditional belief to begin with, unless you can stack the deck ahead of time, you really have nowhere to stand, do you?
I noticed that Dan has titled this post 'Be perfect' - so I would ask him (and anyone else) what their understanding of that was - given what is revealed in scripture. The issue goes to the heart of the gospel and therefore a truthful understanding of it is critically important.
Do we understand that there is no way we can be perfect, spiritually mature, complete, holy, or righteous?
1 John 1:8-9
"If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness."
We agree that there is no way to be Perfect as we understand Perfect - flawless, without sin, etc.
Perfect in this context, as has been pointed out, might better be translated "mature" or "complete" in this context. Would you agree?
Funny how much criticism I can face if I suggest that the word translated "homosexual" in one or two places in the Bible might be better translated another way but how quickly people are to agree that this doesn't really mean perfect. Translations, interestingly enough, aren't always Perfect...
Eleutheros, I'm not sure you're in much of a position to accuse anyone of "shak[ing] with righteous indignation," given your rants about evangelism and the paid clergy.
I would address your comment further if I understood its relevance. It doesn't seem to address anything that was written before. Perhaps it would be more appropriate for you to use your own blog to rail against people who dare believe that the Bible is infallible or who believe that its most important teachings are clear.
>Perfect in this context, as has been pointed out, might better be translated "mature" or "complete" in this context. Would you agree?
True. We can't be perfect and be incomplete. We can't be perfect and be spiritually immature. So, the thought and resulting principle communicated by the text (no matter what translation) stays the same.
Also, there is no way for us to be spiritually mature?
Or Holy?
Or Righteous?
Roger, I'm unsure of your point.
Bubba, I'll invite and disinvite folk here. I appreciate Eleutheros' points and comments...usually. He's welcome here, thanks.
Bubba:"Perhaps it would be more appropriate for you to use your own blog to rail ...."
That would be an invitation for Dan to make, Bubba, not you. Just because your convictions are so weak and timid that they cannot stand up to scrutiny, it doesn't mean every Christian's faith is that weak.
Bubba:" I'm not sure you're in much of a position to accuse anyone of "shak[ing] with righteous indignation"
Of course I am. It's unrighteous indignation with which I shake. If you take the position that you are speaking for God, which is what you do, then it's fair for your readers to expect you to stand and deliver.
There are two things about 'perfect', both mentioned already but not completely expounded, that show that the concept as it occurs in the Bible's original (as original as we are ever going to have) text means we CAN be perfect.
Kids just gathered eggs and I put a way a perfect dozen eggs. They were perfect, in the NT sense, in that there were twelve of them, not eleven or thirteen, and each one was quite useable as an egg for all intents and purposes.
They aren't all the smame size and weight, some are very round and some are more elongaged on one end, and several have a small smudge on them. All those things are insignificant and do not affect their full measure nor their use.
So in a modern (philosophical) sense of the word, they are not perfect, but the way the NT uses the word (teleios) it is a perfect dozen.
Although we aren't throught the whole Sermon on the Mount yet, I would point this out: No where in this sermon does Jesus say, "Oh, and after you do all these things I'm telling you, you're still going to Hell unless you go through an Accept Jesus ceremony and 'get saved'."
He doesn't say "Happy are the peacemakers if they happen to have 'got saved' as well, otherwise forget it."
So here are real things to do with real rewards (I prefer 'consequences') if you do them. You CAN be perfect in the NT and first centruy use of the word.
Second thing is that built into the Greek language is the notion of aspect - that is, actions are viewed as being a single incidence or a continuous behavior. While it's possible to express this in English, it's often muddied over. Jesus teachings never put the psyche ('soul', bad translation, that) at risk for one incidence of transgression but always for continuous state of transgression.
Thus the idea of 'perfect' as 'complete' need not mean absolutely spotless in all respects forever ... worlds without end ...amen.
Now, you see why I keep him around? How many blogs have their very own visiting Greek professor?
Thanks for the input, Eleutheros.
Well, you've got me. I've taught Greek--although not recently. And my blog actually gets a few Greek profs., some Hebrew profs. (and I am very poor at Hebrew) and other assorted intellectuals--along with regular janes and joes, so to speak.
But of course! Excuse me: I've got visiting Greek professorSS. I'm wealthy in wise friends and acquaintances.
Dan,
I wanted to clarify that just as we can't be perfect, we can't be spiritually mature, holy, or righteous either. That is a principle in scripture. Agreed?
I liked Eleutheros' definition pretty well: We can be the people God wants us/created us to be. We can be the perfect Dan Trabue or Roger X that God made you and I to be.
That doesn't mean that we'll be perfect as in flawless, but we can make decisions to live whole, holistic, wholesome lives. Or we can choose to reject God's Wholeness.
Do you suspect that Jesus has commanded us to be or do something that we can neither be nor do?
"we can't be spiritually mature, holy, or righteous either. That is a principle in scripture. Agreed?"
To more fully answer your question, yes, I believe we can be mature, holy (set apart for a special purpose), even righteous.
Now our righteousness may well be as filthy rags, but we can choose to live a-right. By God's grace. By being the whole person and community we were made to be.
It sounds as though Roger is operating with Luther's view that Jesus' commanded things that couldn't be obeyed. Luther saw the Sermon on the Mount as part of the Law and the purpose of both as only pointing up how stuck in sin we are and therefore DRIVING us to the grace of Christ (see not as empowerment, but only as mercy/forgiveness).
What Luther failed to get was that Jews in Jesus day (including, I would argue, both Jesus and Paul) saw the Torah (better translated "teaching" than Law) not as a burden, but ALREADY as a gift of grace.
>Do you suspect that Jesus has commanded us to be or do something that we can neither be nor do?
Yes. We can't 'be' those things or 'do' those things. See Romans 10:1-4. There is absolutely no way 'we' can live the Christian life. It goes back to Matt 5:3 - we're spiritually needy. Does Jesus command things that can't be obeyed? No. Did He command things that we can't do? Yes! The point: for us to come to Him! We need Him. Why do we need Jesus? Because we can't fix our sin problem! Anything that's of God in our lives is from Him as we've yielded to Him and let Him work through us. We never improve our flesh or improve 'our' ability to be godly.
There are not ranks of Christians. There are 2 kinds of people: 1)believers, and 2)those that are lost. I'm no better than Eleutheros, Michael, or you. Eleutheros, Michael, and you are no better than me. The only difference is that some of us have realized our spiritual poverty (Matt 5:3; our sinfulness, our inability to be holy, righteous, and good) and have come to Jesus to accept the gift that He offers - *His righteousness* offered as a sacrifice on the cross on our behalf as an atonement for our sins.
1 John 4:9-10
In this the love of God was manifested toward us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through Him. In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.
Did I earn it? No. Do I deserve it? No. That's grace - grace offered by God. But to receive grace, you have to realize that you need it. The first thing Jesus mentions in the sermon on the mount: blessed are those that realize their spiritual need. Why are we in need? Because of our sin. What do we need to do with our sin? Not fix ourselves, not work harder at being better, not ignore it, not hide it - simply repent of it. What was Jesus' first statement in His public ministry?
Mark 1:15
"The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand. Repent, and believe in the gospel."
That's it. Salvation and eternal life doesn't depend upon anything of ourselves - except for the choice to repent of our sin (acknowledge our sinfulness), and accept that Jesus is who He says He is, and that God will keep His word ... He has up to this point and He won't stop with you and me.
Romans 10:11-13
"Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame." For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. For "everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."
It's pretty hard tp claim to be part of that which is perfect when one refuses to acknowledge that the Jesus of the NT and God of the OT are one in the same.
Sad, ain't it?
The devils believed and trembled.
As they fought to pervert the truth of God's Word.
You can glean what category I put the Moveon.org style of "christianity" in, can't you?
Jesus didn't come to show us the way.
He IS the way.
Jesus Christ was the only one who has ever lived the 'Christian' life.
And the only way we'll live the Christian life is if Christ lives through us.
Agreed?
John 14:6
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, and the truth, and the life: no one cometh unto the Father, but by me.
John 15:5
I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same beareth much fruit: for apart from me ye can do nothing.
At the risk of my friend Dan telling me that I am "feeding trolls" again, Daddio, I have to tell you that (A) I don't think there is any such thing as moveon.org Christianity, (B) if such does exist, Jeff Street Baptist Community ain't it, (C) I don't think anyone at our church questions whether or not the God of the Torah and the Prophets is the same God Jesus called "Abba," or "Papa," and finally, (D) I never questioned whether or not your church was Christian--just whether you as one who proposes nuclear war can honestly claim such.
A. Moveon.org is a largely secular group of "limousine liberals." I doubt we have anyone in our church who is a member, though I suppose we could have one or two. I can poll the congregation, if you poll yours.
B.The church as a whole belongs to the following: the Alliance of Baptists, the Baptist Peace Fellowship of North America, Every Church a Peace Church, Citizens of Louisville Organized and United Together (CLOUT), Dare to Care, and the Association of Welcoming and Affirming Baptists.
Our Peacemaker Ministry Team also belongs to Bread for the World and has ties to Louisville Peace Action Community and the Louisville chapter of Fellowship of Reconciliation. A number of individual members have ties to such groups as Witness for Peace, Peace Action, Children's Defense Fund, Religious Leaders for Fairness, Amnesty International, Religious Campaign Against Torture, Interfaith Alliance, Volunteers of America, Hospice of Louisville, Soulforce, etc.--Most, but not all of these affiliations are specifically Christian. For the most part, we would find Moveon.org's vision too tame.
C & D Like most Baptist churches, we value liberty of conscience, so we have a range of theological convictions. Some of our members are very conservative theologically (and we've always had a few who are basically conservative politically). Others are liberal enough to make Dan and myself seem like fundamentalists by comparison! But probably the majority would find the basic outline of the Apostle's Creed to be true (not infallible or complete and most of us would add footnotes), even though we do not like creeds AS creeds, as tests of authentic Christianity. We support missions and, although you have taunted us about not growing, we have had an enormous number of people pass through our doors, become changed by Jesus, stay for months or years, and then follow God's leading to ministries elsewhere. We serve God's kingdom so we don't need to build little empires of our own.
So, if there's a "move on Christianity" somewhere that deserves your anger, you barking at the wrong cats.
Michael, if D was saying something - anything - to respond to, it might help responding back, and I do occasionally, as well. But as you can see, he's not really saying much of anything.
"flabberydi aquawk Move on blurgle skeep antichrist hoon chabble Jeff Street..."
But yours was an excellent response nonetheless, Michael.
Larry said:
"Jesus didn't come to show us the way.
He IS the way."
I'd suggest that Jesus came to both show us the Way and is the Way, Larry. I'm guessing you'd agree, but feel free to let me know.
"For you have been called for this purpose, since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps..."
1 Peter 2:21
Agreed?
"Christ begins by commending those who would be least likely to obtain such completeness on their own: the spiritually bankrupt who mourn presumably over their own spiritual poverty."
No one has had any commentary to offer on Luke's version of this sermon, where Luke has Jesus saying, "Blessed are you who are poor, for the kingdom of God is yours.
Blessed are you who are now hungry, for you will be satisfied."
Is this a different sermon? A different take on the same sermon? Is this one of those cases where we're to assume the writer was speaking "spiritually" instead of literally?
Are the Poor blessed, destined to inherit the Kingdom of God, as plainly stated here or do you have some other interpretation/take on this?
I believe that the Sermon on the Plain in Luke 6 probably contains a different summary of the same sermon Jesus gave in Matthew 5-7 -- or, possibly, a similar sermon given at a different time.
Reconciling the two sermons, I must ask, is it safer to conclude that Luke's account references spiritual poverty, or is it safer to conclude that Matthew's refers to physical poverty? I'll note that doing the latter requires a person to excise or otherwise ignore the phrase "in spirit."
I'll also note that you miss something in speaking so broadly about what you think is so "plainly stated": Jesus was explicitly addressing His disciples, beginning in Luke 6:20.
It seems to me that the key to understanding both passages is the line about persecution:
"Blessed are you when people hate you, and when they exclude you, revile you, and defame you on account of the Son of Man." (Lk 6:22)
"Blessed are you when people revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account." (Mt 5:11)
It's not just that a person is persecuted, as someone could be (rightly) reviled for advocating child abuse, but being persecuted on account of Jesus, the Son of Man. I don't think it's a stretch to apply that proviso to both sets of beatitudes and to Luke's warnings: if you're poor for His sake, you're blessed, but if you're rich while abandoning Him, you're not.
You ask, "Are the Poor blessed, destined to inherit the Kingdom of God, as plainly stated here?"
Destined? Are you arguing salvation by physical destitution, in defiance of Scripture? Or are you arguing against the unity of Scripture by suggesting that this particular passage cannot or ought not to be reconciled with clear passages that teach justification by faith alone, through grace alone?
I again recommend Stott's commentary on the Sermon on the Mount, as it discusses Luke 6 and the issue of spritual poverty at length.
My belief is this. You are not "destined" to inherit the kingdom of God because of material or spiritual poverty: both situations provide an opportunity to develop faith in God, faith that He will meet one's physical needs, faith that He will provide grace to cover one's spiritual needs. But it is faith that is the important thing.
Bubba:"Truth is, I do believe my faith can stand a great deal of scrutiny, I just don't believe that the scrutiny that Eleutheros brings to bear justifies the attitude with which he brings it."
And my attitude changes the facts .... how? What you are essentially saying, Bubba, is that your faith can withstand any scrutiny so long as you are allowed to pick and choose which scutiny is used to scrutinize it and reject the others.
Well, welcome to the club, under those conditions anybody's faith is infallable and unasailable.
As far as the history of Christianity goes, try me.
Your 'sine qua non' of your religion, justification by faith alone, dates no farther back than 1517 when Martin Luther come up with the idea and wrote his treatise Fide Sola (by faith alone)on the subject thus launching what amounts to a new relion stemming out of the old, Solafidianism.
The roots of it go back to the very beginning of modern Christianity (Christianity as we know it today) when it was invented by Constantine. No one can be sure what the nature and character of Christianity was before the time Constantine manufactured the cannon, but we have some pretty good clues from the more abundant non-connanical Christian writings dating from before Constantine's time.
Constantine's spiel was basically this: "God operates, conveniently enough, just like the Roman civil administration. God is the head, he is like the King, and everyone must obey Him without question. Of course, just as in all hierarchies, I, Constantine, am second in command. It's me and God and so obeying me is pretty much the same thing as obeying God.
The bishops (opiskopoi = overseeer) were quite willing to go along with this because, after all, they were next in line after God and the emperor. And so on and so down the line each person was willing to buy into this paradigm because it allowed them to lord over someone.
Finally we find fertile ground for Paul's misogomy in that the poor peasant at the bottom of the chain of command and influence looked around for something more statisfying to kick than the dog and said, 'OK, I'll go along too, It's God, then the emperor, then the various levels of the church hierarchy, the the land owner (appointed by God in his prosperity), and finlly me. But hey, GOD Himself has appointed me to be in command over the wormen. Yeah, that's the ticket.
And so "Don't question it, accept it on faith, just obey me because I'm talking for God (and while you are at it, give me some money)" found good ground on which to grow in the teachings of Martin Luther and John Calvin. And even today it is little else but a reason for bullies to swagger around thinking that others owe them homage without reason or question just as they imagine God demands of them. Small wonder we find that sentiment perfected in the desire to nuke the infidels.
You can pick up on the 'no way to be righteous on our own/ need a sacrifice' thead through the Bible if you like, but it contains more than that and just as strong a cord can be woven of the rest of it.
He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God? (From Micah)
I'm not rejecting your scrutiny because of your attitude, El, I'm simply asserting that I don't think the attitude's justified.
I'm not quite sure what you mean when you write that justification by faith alone "dates no farther back than 1517" and then write, "The roots of it go back to the very beginning of modern Christianity (Christianity as we know it today) when it was invented by Constantine." Does that "it" refer to something else that you never specifically mentioned?
At any rate, sole fide doesn't begin either with Luther or Constantine -- or even Paul and Peter, though they preach it in Romans 3 and I Peter 1. It begins with Christ Himself: how many times did Jesus tell someone that he was healed or saved by his faith?
[Mt 9:22,29; Mk 5:34, 10:52; Lk 7:50, 8:48, 17:19, 18:42]
Or one could argue that it began with the Old Testament, both with the example the OT heroes (see Hebrews) and with Habakkuk 2:4, in which we are told, "the righteous shall live by his faith."
I'll grant that many have cited Scripture to justify authoritarian behavior, but they do so despite what Scripture actually says: Paul, after all, taught employers and fathers to be benevolent, and he told husbands to love their wives sacrificially, "as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her." (Eph 5:25) This is consistent with the lesson we were taught when Christ washed the disciples' feet, even if we've strayed from the point.
And I don't know about you or hardly anyone else, but I do not have it within myself to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with God to the degree that a holy God requires.
I do what I do not want to do. One reason I hold to salvation by faith alone through grace alone is because I could not attain grace on my own power. If you're different or think you're different, what else can I say? The Good Physician came for the sick, not the healthy.
Also:
The bishops (opiskopoi = overseeer) were quite willing to go along with this because, after all, they were next in line after God and the emperor. And so on and so down the line each person was willing to buy into this paradigm because it allowed them to lord over someone.
One could just as easily argue that people buy a paradigm of radical egalitarianism because it allows them to be answerable to absolutely no one. So perhaps you should stop playing Amateur Psychologist for people who lived 1700 years ago; after all, I know you've been wrong with your multiple prognoses for me, your contemporary. Perhaps you should speculate less about why people accepted certain paradigms and consider whether the paradigm in question is objectively true.
Do you think, for instance, that parents do have a duty to guide their children? If you do, you see the merits of a hierarchical social structure in at least one circumstance.
Bubba quotes:"the righteous shall live by his faith"
Appropriate that you should bring up this versicle. The version of the Bible Luther would have been using reads, "iustus autem in fide sua vivet". So the story goes that in his enthusiasm for faith, in the margin beside the word fide he wrote sola!. Several older versions the Bible translated into English from the Latin copied Luther's note as if it were in the text and thus Solafidianism was born.
Bubba:" how many times did Jesus tell someone that he was healed or saved by his faith?"
How many times did Jesus tell someone that he was healed or saved by his faith alone?
The problem is compounded by the fact that the original word, and the original concept, of 'faith' as we find in the NT is so foreign to our modern minds that we had to use two words to translate it. Sometimes it's translated 'faith' and sometimes 'belief'. But whichever, the case can be made that it is a class of words (ending in Greek in 'is') that denote action or activity. So one wouldn't find 'faith' as the NT uses the word, to be a mind game, "I believe this but I don't believe that." It's much more akin to the English use of the word a 'faithful' servant or 'faithful' spouse, that is directed and consistent in their behavior.
So, says I, Jesus isn't saying that it's a head have of "I believe" that saved or healed anyone, but rather the consistancy and singlemindedness (faithfulness) of their behavior and actions.
Bubba:"Psychologist for people who lived 1700 years ago; after all, I know you've been wrong with your multiple prognoses for me, your contemporary."
Well, of course we blog psychoanalysts don't expect our subjects to actually realize their own prognosis.
" Perhaps you should speculate less about why people accepted certain paradigms and consider whether the paradigm in question is objectively true."
Well, there, Bubba, I have an advantage on you (or you on me, whichever way one wants to look at it). I don't particularly feel a need nor value finding something objectively true, especaill religious paradigms.
But if it were demanded of me, the very paradigm you offer (with which, alas, I am all too familiar) I'd have to say is objectively not true. But I wouldn't volunteer that information willingly.
"Do you think, for instance, that parents do have a duty to guide their children? If you do, you see the merits of a hierarchical social structure in at least one circumstance"
I'm guessing at what you mean by 'guiding', but the current psychoanalysis would have to make me say no, I don't have that duty as I'd guess you'd define it. If you want to discus this, please, no absolutism, that would be beneath you. No 'well you see that they brush their teeth, don't you, THAT's guiding them, isn't it!?"
I assume my children know more about God than I do, since they are fresher from Him and for me it's been a while.
Dan said:>Jesus came to both show us the Way and is the Way
If you mean by 'showing us the Way' that He revealed that in Him there is salvation, then yes we agree.
If you mean by 'showing us the Way' that he shows us how to be like Him, then no, we don't agree.
There is no surrender in the latter as it's the same old false hope of a works based salvation. Also, the issue of repentance can be avoided by that one as well. Without repentance, there is no hope of salvation.
Eleutheros said>You can pick up on the 'no way to be righteous on our own/ need a sacrifice' thead through the Bible if you like, but it contains more than that and just as strong a cord can be woven of the rest of it.
How do those 'other cords' you mentioned fix our spiritual poverty? There is no remedy in all of scripture for sin other than repentance. Note that we can't fix it ourselves so that is why the Lord doesn't require something of us that we can't do. He has done what we can't do and offered it as a gift.
Isaiah 53:5
But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; The chastisement for our peace was upon Him, And by His stripes we are healed.
(see 1 Peter 2:24 for clarification of this passage)
Spiritual healing - the one thing we need more than anything, is guaranteed for those that come to Christ.
Eleutheros said>He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God? (From Micah)
Note: 'walking with God' is a way of saying that the person had faith in God. And people in the OT were saved the same way people in the NT were saved - by faith through God's grace. (see Hebrews chapter 11)
Eleutheros said>As far as the history of Christianity goes, try me.
I like that thought. We can't escape the experiential aspect of faith. And Jesus says 'try me.' (Matt 11:28)
Have you done that?
The heart of the Gospel is that we're all sinners and in need of salvation. There's only one hope, the salvation that Jesus offers. That's not bad news, that's good news. It's a free gift. We just have to lay down our pride and accept the gift. You know how some folks are too proud to accept a gift or charity, yet we're talking about a spiritual need that we cannot fill - and we're talking about a gift that's hardly describable in it's love and awesomeness. There's no way we can truly fathom grace - BUT, we joyfully accept it, nonetheless! Why? It's obvious. We're still needy! And - it's FREE!
As Bubba has mentioned, not all will see their own sin sickness and therefore will not come to the only One who can heal them. We must remember that there is a spiritual battle going on for the hearts and minds of men - and the enemy never stops calling good 'evil' and evil 'good'. God is good and He and His word are trustworthy. We are spiritually dead in our sin and needy.
The enemy's attack is against the Healer and His nature - that He is not good and that He cannot heal: "Hey, don't even bother thinking about coming to Him, He can't do all that stuff...plus, look at how screwed up the world is. There is no 'God' - and if there was, you wouldn't want to come to such a lousy deity anyway!"
The attack is against us - that we're not really sick and dying - that everything is fine:
"Hey, you're ok. You're not a bad person. Why do you need to come to Him?"
Roger once accused me (on several blogs) of trying to be a follower of Jesus without conversion and new birth. He seems to want to be a new-born Christian WITHOUT following Jesus--to have discipleship as some kind of optional add-on. He worships Jesus but has no intention of listening to him. That's the kind of phony-baloney "Christianity" that allows certain "Christian" presidents to start wars, torture people, ignore the poor--all in violation of Jesus' words, but all the while claim that they are "listening to the Savior" who "told" them to do these things. It's bull crap.
Michael, going from criticizing Roger for deemphasizing discipleship to venting about Bush may a bit of a digression.
Eleutheros, you say you're not interested in objective truth, but that's an odd assertion given the implicit appeal to objective morality when you call things like a paid clergy evil. Or by 'evil' do you simply mean 'disagreeable with you personally'?
A person genuinely unconcerned with objective truth is probably not one with whom a serious conversation is possible, but let me address your points nevertheless.
Now, that's an interesting anecdote about Habakkuk 2:4. Since even the KJV doesn't have "only" in that verse, do you care to share which translations mistakenly copied Luther's note? Or could you at least explain the relevance of this anecdote? How precisely does it undermine the doctrine of sola fide?
Indeed, not every Biblical passage that mentions faith is clear that it is faith alone, but understanding Scripture requires a more holistic view, and Romans and Ephesians are fairly clear about the exclusivity of faith in salvation.
Indeed, the word for faith, pistis, can also be translated as belief or faithfulness, but it's not clear how that undermines the trustworthiness of modern translations or the mainstream Christian interpretations of these texts. You have a habit of observing that there exist alternative translations ("perfect" could mean "complete") without explaining the relevance of that observation and without addressing substantive rebuttals. It is not as if you're bringing to the table information that's available to no one else, so there's no need to bring things up merely to impress those who are easily impressed.
And I believe most serious Christians will agree that genuine faith will, given the opportunity, blossom into good works, but I believe it's heretical to say that salvation is possible through a mere consistancy and singlemindedness in one's behavior and actions. If that were the case, then the cross would be unnecessary for our salvation: that cup would have passed from Christ in the garden.
But all the above is intended for someone who cares about objective truth. You say you don't, and you do seem preoccupied with your hobby of armchair psychology. What you thus gain from these discussions is anyone's guess.
Roger once accused me (on several blogs) of trying to be a follower of Jesus without conversion and new birth. He seems to want to be a new-born Christian WITHOUT following Jesus--to have discipleship as some kind of optional add-on. He worships Jesus but has no intention of listening to him. That's the kind of phony-baloney "Christianity" that allows certain "Christian" presidents to start wars, torture people, ignore the poor--all in violation of Jesus' words, but all the while claim that they are "listening to the Savior" who "told" them to do these things. It's bull crap.>
That whole post of yours is just a bunch of conjecturing with evil intent. What do you know for sure other than some back and forth on websites? Dan keeps reminding everyone about bearing false witness, remember the finger pointing illustration. One finger pointed outwardly, leaves 4 pointing back to ones self.
Michael,
When someone stresses a relationship with Jesus Christ and reminds people that grace is not merited, it's not a threat. For believers are obedient to Christ because He has already saved us by that grace, and not because we are working to deserve it.
Roger:"Spiritual healing - the one thing we need more than anything, is guaranteed for those that come to Christ."
Roger, the religion you proffer is no more than an Alka-Seltzer religion. When the sales of Alka-Seltzer fell (after retiring the Speedy character), the Miles Co. came up with the idea of not selling the medicine but rather sell a disease for the medicine to cure. So they came up with the Blahs for their product to cure.
That's all you are doing, creating a disease called "lost" out of your imagination and then fabricating a particularly dismal and disturbing form of Christianity to cure it.
Just an Alka-Seltzer religion. Anyone can do it, and many have. It takes not a dram of marrow to fabricate a fanciful condition for your Snake Oil Jesus to cure.
As misguided as Dan and Michael are, they are at least addressing real problems.
"The heart of the Gospel is that we're all sinners and in need of salvation."
No, that's just the label on the Snake Oil bottle. It's just the desperate appeal of the weak-faithed hoping that if others profess to believe the same as they do, then maybe it might be true after all.
Bubba:"without explaining the relevance of that observation and without addressing substantive rebuttals."
Bubba, you have no rebuttals. All you do is keep reading the ingredient list of the Snake Oil bottle in your travelling Jesus show. A trite formulaic recital of the 'get saved' bit that's not even found in the Bible serving for you as "objective truth".
What passes for "not explaining" the relevance for you is that it does not reinforce your sideshow and so it doesn't exist. Your spiritual growth is stuck in a treadmill like a hampster not able to get beyond Fundamentalism 101.
You pointed out to Dan that the version of the Sermon on the Mount in Luke is addressed to the disciples. Look closely at the 27th chapter of Acts. In the beginning Paul talks about Jesus as sacrificial and the whole bit you distill into a Snake Oil bottle. But he was talking to JEWS then for whom that had some symbolism and meaning. But later in the chapter when he's talking to Greeks on the Aereopagus, he doesn't mention Jesus nor any of the sad trite list of things bandied about in your essence of Christianity.
When Paul wasn't talking to Jews, he didn't use the Jewish paradigm because it isn't the essence of Christianity, it was only a way of explaining it to the Jews.
Rather he says, and he says this to you even to this day, "And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:"
Laying it's Church-Speak modern fundamentalist meaning aside for the moment, the word 'repent' is a loan word from Latin which means simply "think again". The word Paul uses is "metanoein", to 'change the mind'.
When was the last time you 'changed your mind'?
You see, as Paul says in Corenthians, "When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things."
Many of us have matured and moved on. You are still there diddling with that pitiful bottle of Jesus brand Snake Oil trying to convince people that they have a disease it will cure.
This is a serious question, I'm not being sarcastic or cute...
Eleutheros said...>Many of us have matured and moved on. You are still there diddling with that pitiful bottle of Jesus brand Snake Oil trying to convince people that they have a disease it will cure.
I can't help but notice that you seem to avoid this question - "Have you taken Jesus at His word (to know from experience if it is snake oil or if it is the real thing?)" Please answer it simply, "Yes" or "No" ...
Y'all are commenting faster than I can keep up. Interesting comments, for the most part. Let me take a couple of stabs at replies...
But where to begin?
First, while only Bubba has picked up on the topic, let me revisit the Luke Sermon's, "Blessed are the poor, for they shall be blessed."
Thanks for the comments Bubba, but I hope you can understand how some of us listen to some religious folk telling us we must take the Bible literally...until it gets to a passage such as this one - direct quotes from Jesus, at that! - and they spiritualize it.
I see no reason at all to suppose Jesus meant anything other than what He said here. The poor are blessed. This is a consistent them throughout the Bible - God is a God with a special concern for the poor and oppressed. God has left us an example in Jesus of the same, that we should follow in those steps.
Which is not to say that I don't think Matthew's "Blessed are the poor in spirit," is invalid at all.
I'll have to tell you, not being omnipotent and all, that I don't know whether Luke just adapted the Sermon to make a slightly different but still valid point or if Matthew did so or if Jesus preached the sermon multiple times (which seems likely to me), altering it to preach still valid messages. But I take each of these passages seriously for what they've said rather than to set aside one as not really meaning THAT.
On the Follow Jesus or Trust Jesus discussion ("If you mean by 'showing us the Way' that he shows us how to be like Him, then no, we don't agree."), I think that folk like Roger - who seem to be saying that we shouldn't follow Jesus' teachings - don't really mean that. We ARE to follow in Jesus' steps, looking at His teachings as valid and important lessons for us to live, I suspect Roger agrees.
(Michael, you were a bit harsh on Roger, seems to me. I have folk all the time tell me "Dan's saying X, Y and Z!" when I've never said X, Y OR Z and it is a bit irritating - just as it was irritating for Roger to tell you you're not really a Christian. Let's let folk speak for themselves.)
But Roger (and others who comment here sometimes), I hope you'll forgive us if we think it sounds like you're arguing against following Jesus' teachings when comments like this are made.
I'm a bit with Eleutheros (although maybe not all the way) when he observes that we have made a prescribed religious rite of "accepting Jesus into our hearts (TM)" when a more straightforward reading of the Bible seems to call for "accepting Jesus," period.
But that seems to me to be getting off any points made in the sermon here. Jesus came preaching the Way, as evidenced herein. We are to follow in that way, imperfectly to be sure - imperfect in today's sense of that word - but follow nonetheless.
Are we "saved by works"? No, we are saved by God's kindness. Period. But in God's Grace, we are to follow in Jesus' Way as he taught. Seems to me.
I encourage discussion here to continue, I'd really like to hear more on poverty and Luke if any are interested.
In the meantime, I'm going to go ahead and post Matthew 6.
Dan said:>I'm a bit with Eleutheros (although maybe not all the way) when he observes that we have made a prescribed religious rite of "accepting Jesus into our hearts (TM)" when a more straightforward reading of the Bible seems to call for "accepting Jesus," period.
There's a difference between accepting Jesus in our heart and accepting Him in our minds. Scripture reveals that even demons have a knowledge of the truth of who Jesus is. But they chose not to make Him Lord. Our hearts are where we surrender our way and accept Jesus as The Way. Salvation is a matter of the heart.
Dan said:>Jesus came preaching the Way, as evidenced herein. We are to follow in that way, imperfectly to be sure - imperfect in today's sense of that word - but follow nonetheless.
Luke 19:10
"For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost."
Discipleship comes only after salvation. Discipleship is impossible if we first don't come to Jesus. Salvation comes first, and then the Holy Spirit follows to come into our lives to provide the means why which we can really live the Christian life. (John 10:10)
Dan said:>we are saved by God's kindness. Period. But in God's Grace, we are to follow in Jesus' Way as he taught.
We are saved by faith in Jesus as Lord. It's by God's grace in that it's not based on us deserving what He gives. Good works follow as the Spirit comes to dwell with us and He alone is the source of good works as we make the choice to yield to Him daily. Remember, they are called fruits of the Spirit, and not fruits of the believer. So, to hopefully clear this up: I'm not against scripture when it says to follow Jesus, but following Jesus means that we live a yielded life to His will (We'll see that clarified more in Matt 6). That's a matter of the heart - not an external matter of hearing a teaching, taking note of the precepts, and then doing them.
I'm a bit with Eleutheros (although maybe not all the way) when he observes that we have made a prescribed religious rite of "accepting Jesus into our hearts (TM)" when a more straightforward reading of the Bible seems to call for "accepting Jesus," period.>
You got THAT from what Eleutheros said? I had trouble getting anything from what he said.
Roger:"I can't help but notice that you seem to avoid this question - "Have you taken Jesus at His word (to know from experience if it is snake oil or if it is the real thing?)" Please answer it simply, "Yes" or "No" ..."
Then here's the answer, Roger, YES I did take the Snake Oil at its word in my misspent youth. Boutht the whole deal, spouted nonsense exactly as you do, stood in the very shadow of God with the same simplistic question, "It's eigher Yes or NO. You either accept Jesus or you don't."
YES, I've been there, done that, bought "Jesus" T-shirt, the whole deal. And, thank the Powers that Be, I got over it.
Here's what I can't help but notice, Dan and I, and I'd guess Michael although that's only a guess, at one time were YOU, or very close to it. We know what it's like to be in your headspace and we moved on.
You haven't.
The reason I've delayed answering the question is as Ecclesiastes advises, "Answer not a fool according to his folly."
It's an moron loaded question. I might ask you, have you ever REALLY taken Mohamed at his word and accepted Islam? Well, until you have, you have no business saying it isn't the one true way.
Dan:"I'm a bit with Eleutheros (although maybe not all the way) when he observes that we have made a prescribed religious rite of "accepting Jesus into our hearts (TM)" when a more straightforward reading of the Bible seems to call for "accepting Jesus," period."
It goes along with the rest of the franchise:
Personal Savior (TM)
Get Saved (TM)
Winning Souls (TM)
Witnessing (TM)
Meet Jesus (TM)
and the list could go on and on. What is on the lips of those who buy into the franchise isn't found in the Bible.
Isaiah 53:
Who has believed what we have heard? And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed? 2. For he grew up before him like a young plant, and like a root out of dry ground; he had no form or comeliness that we should look at him, and no beauty that we should desire him. 3. He was despised and rejected by men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief; and as one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
Read the rest of the chapter and think about it. Chapter 55 of Isaiah, verse 6 "Seek the Lord while he may be found, call upon him while he is near; 7. let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; let him return to the Lord, that he may have mercy on him, and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.
There's one more thing, regarding Eleutheros' list of evangelical phrases he doesn't like:
Personal Savior (TM)
Get Saved (TM)
Winning Souls (TM)
Witnessing (TM)
Meet Jesus (TM)
He says, "What is on the lips of those who buy into the franchise isn't found in the Bible." The important thing isn't whether the specific words are there, but whether the ideas behind those words are implicit in (or at least consistent with) the teachings of Scripture. I believe they are, for the most part, and as much as I dislike some of these phrases on a purely aesthetic level.
But that's a question of the content of Scripture; that question is made less clear by Eleutheros' sneering, his refering to a franchise selling snake oil in a traveling Jesus show.
There are people who blindly buy products because they happen to be name-brand products, but there are also others who blindly loathe name brands of every sort.
The important thing is not whether the ideas we're discussing have been branded (in a manner of speaking), but whether they are biblical and whether they are true.
Bubba:" because he has fixed a day on which he will have the world judged in righteousness"
Judges, as in evaluating what you have done. No mention here of, well, you Greeks, you can't EARN salvation and Jesus had to be a human sacrifice to make up for that. .... No, only that they will be judged. So it turns out that I'm right after all.
Bubba:"The important thing isn't whether the specific words are there, but whether the ideas behind those words are implicit in (or at least consistent with) the teachings of Scripture."
Well, how very convenient for you. You can ignore what Jesus actually said and instead make up a new religion with a whole new parlance and SAY that this new religion is Christianity, sprinkled liberally with "for Jesus" and "personal savior" and such.
That's the Snake Oil you offer. It has nearly nothing to do with what's in the Bible.
Eleutheros, I don't see how you're "right after all" because your original assertion was, in Paul's sermon to the Greeks, "he doesn't mention Jesus nor any of the sad trite list of things bandied about in your essence of Christianity."
He did mention Jesus and the Resurrection, and you now do not seem to deny this, so on what point are you right? Your belief that the message of atonement was tailored to the Jews and is not essential to Christianity?
You write that Paul taught, "only that they will be judged," but for your conclusion to be valid, one has to assume (in defiance of Rom 2-3) that some will be found acceptible in God's sight. Such a conclusion is at least as presumptuous as concluding that certain references to "faith" imply "faith alone."
(It should be noted that Romans' original audience was all in Rome who were called to be saints; do you have a good reason to believe that the epistle was intended for Jewish eyes only?)
As for your reiteration that I'm offering snake oil, perhaps I'm not being clear: I believe that the Bible is authoritative, but I also believe that valid conclusions can be drawn from what it teaches. If a conclusion is logically implicit in Scripture, then then we have a duty to shape our lives by that conclusion; if a conclusion is at least logically consistent with Scripture, then two Christian brothers should perhaps agree to disagree on that point.
(An example of the former can be drawn from the passage Dan quoted to begin this thread: We're told to turn the other cheek if someone strikes us. Though we're not told explicitly to act similarly in response to verbal assaults, I believe it's alright to draw the conclusion that we should.)
How is this attitude not Bible-centric? How is it an instance of ignoring what Jesus said to fabricate a counterfeit faith?
I don't understand your complaint.
And I would ask what you think the core of Christianity is, but it seems to me your understanding of Scripture is so spotty that it's not worth asking.
You complain about Christians not taking Jesus' every word literally even though He said we are glow-in-the-dark salt. You believe the Sermon on the Mount sets a standard that we can attain on our own, even though it begins by stating that the spiritually bankrupt will inherit the kingdom of God, and though it states that our standard is God Himself. You assert that sola fide has no Biblical basis even though I've pointed out that Jesus, Peter, Paul, and even an OT prophet say things that -- at the very least -- allow for such a doctrine. You mention the abuse that has arisen from Paul's writing about marriage without noting his command for husbands to love their wives sacrificially, as Christ loved the church. And, most recently, you wrongly asserted that Paul didn't mention Jesus to the Greeks, and you miss the fact that Romans and all its theology was directed to all believers in Rome.
Why anyone should accept your word on what is and isn't Christian is beyond me.
Bubba:"He did mention Jesus"
He did NOT menton Jesus. Find the word "Jesus", "Christ", "Son of God" in there. He says "a man". From your view point in the 21st century, you know who it was, but the Greeks didn't. Much unlike your hawking the Sake Oil, Paul didn't find it needful to mention faith, unearned salvation, free gift, or any of the things that constitue he core of the spiel you have presened here.
You might notice something curious about the book of Romans. It's written in Greek and not Latin. It wasn't written to ethnic Romans but rather 'to all those in Rome beloved of God and called to be holy' (my translantion). Not ALL Romans but the Romans called to be saints, that is, the church among the Greek speaking Jewish proselytes who were numerous in Rome at the time. Hence the references to the Jewish paradigm to explain the Christian message.
Bubba:"You complain about Christians not taking Jesus' every word literally even though He said we are glow-in-the-dark salt."
If you are not yet sure of how idiotic that sounds, try saying it to youself a few times in a row. My complaint is that you want to keep your finger personally on the light switch and say what is and is not literal as it suits you. It makes your position artificially unassailable, if something in the Bible contraindicates your travelling medicine show, you simply flip the switch and it becomes allegorical or figurative.
Bubba:"How is this attitude not Bible-centric? How is it an instance of ignoring what Jesus said to fabricate a counterfeit faith?"
You take the parable of Jesus as the sacrifiial lamb which occurs in the Bible only as a teaching tool for instruting the first centruy Jews, and make the whole of the Christian faith to be an odd version of that parable.
Was Jesus literally a lamb? Was he literally slaughtered as a sacrifical lamb was? No, of course not, it's allegory. Here you have your finger on the light switch to switch it from figurative to literal. But it doesn't. The rest is figurative too, that's why Paul on the Aereopagus leaves out the whole lot except the resurection.
Eleutheros said>Then here's the answer, Roger, YES I did take the Snake Oil at its word
Please clarify:
So, you put your faith in Jesus as Lord? You acknowledged your sin and repented? (Yes/No)
>I might ask you, have you ever REALLY taken Mohamed at his word and accepted Islam? Well, until you have, you have no business saying it isn't the one true way.
Good question.
The heart of this question is similar to Mormonism. They both claim they are 'the way' - improving upon the flawed belief system of Christianity. However, scripture came first before the book of Mormon or the Koran (note: the enemy cannot create, so he works by imitation and deception). So, the logical thing to do is to take scripture at its word (for example, that Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the life), and then if it fails you, THEN move on to the later texts - as only then would it be logical to even approach them for what they claim to be.
I was blessed in that I grew up in a home where Jesus Christ was believed and shared. I accepted what He said in scripture about me and who He was, and now I know Him. Jesus IS the Way, the Truth, and the life (John 14:6). Knowing Him is knowing the truth.
"And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved" - Acts 4:12
Roger, so it seems your answer to the "Have you tried Allah?" question is, No (as is true for me).
I'd hazard to guess that the answer to your "[Have] you put your faith in Jesus as Lord? You acknowledged your sin and repented?" questions to Eleutheros is, Yes and Yes.
Just to clarify some answers.
I'd hazard to guess that the answer to your "[Have] you put your faith in Jesus as Lord? You acknowledged your sin and repented?" questions to Eleutheros is, Yes and Yes.>
I hope and pray that you are right. I also hope and pray that Eleutheros' heart will be filled with His love and peace.
As we approach Christmas, I pray that Christ will become known to those who do not know Him. To know Him is to love Him, may we let Him have His way in our lives.
Post a Comment