Seventy Times Seven

Seventy Times Seven

Matthew Chapter 18

Who is the greatest? (1-9)

Without any preamble, Matthew tells us that the disciples asked Jesus who was the greatest in the kingdom of Heaven. The people of Jesus’ time had a fairly sophisticated angelology, so we might wonder if they were curious about the various ranks of angels. Or we might think that they each had their favorite: Moses, Elijah, or Abraham and wanted to know which was the greatest. But from Jesus response we can see what was on their minds: who among themselves was the greatest.

In a later setting (20:20-28) Jesus responded in a similar manner to a more direct question. In his response, he makes it clear that we are not measured by the standards of this world: whoever would be first must become last. In the setting of Chapter 18, Jesus made this point by calling a child to him and instructing his disciples to enter the kingdom as a little child.

In the modern Western world children often rule the home and dominate social interactions, but this was not true in Jesus’ day when children were powerless property. As was his way, Jesus broke through these social values with the value of love, and welcomed children in his kingdom (Mark 10:13-16). The lesson to us is that we must come to the kingdom without power or possession, none greater than the other.

From this “feel good” example of the child we go to a very hard saying, as Jesus advises us to pluck out an eye or cut off a hand in order to enter into the kingdom. Matthew provides the same hard saying in an earlier passage where the context is very instructive (5:27-30). In that setting, Jesus is expanding the sin of adultery from the act to the thought, an idea which precludes any literal interpretation of the saying regarding the eye and the hand. Instead, we must understand the saying as instructive of the value of the kingdom heaven, which is so valuable it is worth all we posses (13:44-46) even those things which are fundamental our identity as an eye or a hand.

The ninety-nine (10-14)

What “good shepherd” would leave ninety-nine perfectly good sheep to go after a single one? Is the single one of more value than the others? This parable is not an allegory in which all the parts of the story have a specific meaning. Like the parable of the Pearl of Great Price, this parable has a single meaning; it tells us of the redemptive nature of God.

There are several ways in which Jesus has compared the redeemed to the lost. Luke provides us a postlude to the story of the prodigal son in which a faithful son is affronted by the celebration given at his brother’s return (Luke 15:25-32). The father’s wealth was always his, but he was depriving himself of the father’s joy over the finding of the one that was lost.

Jesus did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, of whom I am the worst (9:10-13; 1 Timothy 1:15). This parable is not about the ninety-nine or the one, but about the boundless love of the Father who, as the song says, loves me “as if I were the only one to love.”

How many times? (15-35)

At the beginning of this extended passage about forgiveness, Jesus gives instruction to us as to our treatment of one who has sinned, or who has sinned against us, depending on which translation you read. Broad pronouncements are (almost) always dangerous, but it may be safe to say that the teachings of Jesus can never be taken literally in a legalistic fashion. So, while we can take these instructions as a model for dealing with our brothers and sisters in Christ, we cannot from them establish a law which would limit the responsibility of the injured party or of the recourse which should be afforded to the sinner. As with the promise that what we bind on earth will be bound in heaven, the point is not toward our authority or toward the limits of forgiveness, but is toward forgiveness itself. Jesus has taught us that even our petition for forgiveness must be based on our willingness to forgive, and that the authority he gives us is based in the same love from which the Father authorized him (6:9-15; John 20:21-23).

In the middle of this passage, we hear Peter, who always speaks for us, ask Jesus how many times he should forgive his brother. Peter suggested the generous number: seven. Elsewhere, Jesus has said that we should forgive our brother even seven times a day! (Luke 17:3-4). Here, he answers Peter either with the number seventy-seven, or seventy-times-seven, depending on the interpretation. In either case, it was would be an astounding number compared to our tendency to give someone, on rare occasion, a “second” chance, but no more than that. But again, we are not to read this passage looking for a literal number, what Jesus meant by his response and by the following parable is that we should forgive with the limitless love of the Father who has also forgiven us.

And God showed his love for us by sending his only Son into the world, so that we might have life through him. This is what love is: it is not that we have loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the means by which our sins are forgiven. Dear friends, if this is how God loved us, then we should love one another. (1 John 4:9-11 GNB)

The Keys to the Kingdom

The Keys to the Kingdom

Matthew 16:13-17:27

Who do you say I am? (16:13-20)

The title “Son of Man” has always been mysterious. It may be related to the “Messianic Secret” with which Jesus controlled his revelation, as he does at the end of this passage. It is clear from this question and answer, however, that it was not a known messianic title. If Jesus had been asking who men said the Messiah was, the disciples would not have replied with answers about Jesus, personally. The title is certainly a Biblical one used in various ways (Psalm 8:3-4) but Jesus seems to have appropriated it for himself.

While we can imagine that someone might have believed that Jesus was Elijah reincarnated, it is hard to understand how they could have thought he was John the Baptist, with whom he was very much contemporary (14:1-2). Perhaps this is an indication that the people saw Jesus as of the same type as Elijah or John – a mighty prophet of God (21:10-11).

In the last ten thousand years there have been many ways in which Jesus has been understood. Most in the Western world would say that he was a good man with important teachings. But he was a man who claimed to be the Son of God, and who had the temerity to forgive people of their sin. He was no good man, he was either the Son of the living God, or he was a charlatan (1 Corinthians 15:19).

This determination cannot be made by a study of his teaching, no matter how devoted one may be. Even Peter, who lived and ate with him and studied from him day after day could not arrive at his great confession of his own merit, or with the help of anyone else. It is the prerogative of God to reveal himself to us, and we know him by his choice alone (John 15:16).

By this choosing he has not only redeemed us, but commissioned us (John 20:21-23). We have been given the keys to the kingdom, so that in forgiving others, we may participate in the forgiveness God has given us (6:14-15). This is what it means to be Christians: to participate in the love Christ has for us (John 13:34-35). This is how we tell the world who He is.

Listen to Him! (16:21-17:23)

In the preceding passage, Peter is given a preeminent place. Whether or not he was the foundation of the papacy, he seems to have been made first among the disciples. What becomes clear in from the reading of this extended passage is that he is presented as the quintessential disciple – a figure for us when we are at our best and our worst.

Up against a passage in which Peter is at his best, Matthew shows us Peter at his worst (16:21-28). When Peter applies worldly wisdom to the ministry of Christ, Jesus rebukes him just as he did the prince of this world, and the church personified became evil personified (4:8-10). “Whoever loses his life will find it” is an idea that is far from the wisdom of this world, but the weakness of God is stronger than the strength of the world (1 Corinthians 1:20-25).

In the story of the Transfiguration (17:1-9) we see Peter as we normally see ourselves: neither saint nor sinner, but somewhere in between, in an existence where we hardly know what is going on, but where we recognize the good grace of God. The story itself is mysterious in many ways. What was the exchange between Jesus, Moses, and Elijah? Did Jesus have other such experiences that were not recorded for us? There are many questions like these that may never be answered for us in this life, but the story is included in Matthew for a purpose which we can understand, at least to some degree.

First, the story is one among many that plainly show the open approval of the Father for the Son (3:16-17; 12:17-18). For Matthew, this does not only signify that Jesus was the Messiah, but that the life of Jesus, the very existence of the Messiah, is proof of God’s continuing, redeeming presence in our world.

Second, we should note the voice of God commanding “Listen to him!” Even though the disciples had the bodily witness of Jesus, and even though they heard the very voice of God, they could not understand. Indeed, from this mountain-top event we descend to the day-to-day existence of the disciples, where they have tried and failed, and Jesus upbraids them as recalcitrant children (17:14-23).

Matthew’s aim is not to denigrate the disciples, but to encourage us, as we join the disciples not only their failings, but also their hope. Jesus tells us we need not fear, only believe (Mark 5:36). And what if there are times when our faith is too small, smaller even than a mustard seed? Then, as Mark records the prayer of the boy’s father: “Lord, I believe! Help my unbelief!” (Mark 9:24).

How Many Loaves Do You Have?

How Many Loaves Do You Have?

Matthew 13:54-16:12

You give them something to eat (14:13-21)

This story, which we commonly call “The Feeding of the Five Thousand” is the only miracle that is recorded in all four Gospels, and this is surely an indication that the story was very important to the First Century Church. This passage has its analog in Mark and Luke, and there is a similar passage in Mark which is found later in Matthew (15:29-38). In both cases, Matthew contains some unique details, including the clarification that the “five thousand” (or the “four thousand” in the second account) was the number of males, and and did not include the women and children. The familiar story of the young boy who shared his meager meal comes to us from John (John 6:1-14). And all of these accounts bring to mind the story of the great Old Testament prophet Elisha, through whom God worked a similar miracle (2 Kings 4:42-44).

What are we to make of these three New Testament stories – one from the Synoptics, another from Matthew and Mark, and a third from John? Are they three accounts of the same event, or separate accounts of different events? If they are separate accounts, we must wonder at the differing details, and wonder why the two Gospels would include both accounts. If they recount different events, then we must wonder at the reactions of the disciples, who were in each account similarly nonplussed when Jesus requested that they feed such large crowds with such meager provisions.

As is always the case, the value of asking such questions is only in the opportunity the may offer in understanding the meaning of the text, and though we may not be able to answer these questions, there is much we can understand from the passages we have. We know that Jesus expected his disciples to serve the crowds. We know that the disciples were not prepared to do so of themselves, but were able to do so only through the power of God made manifest in his Christ. We know that this power is an expression of love of God made manifest in the compassion of Christ.

Walking on the lake (14:22-33)

It has been suggested that the “Feeding of the Five Thousand” was not miraculous in the traditional, physical sense, but that the crowds, moved by the meager offering of the young boy, began to bring out their own packed lunches to share with each other. Jesus can certainly bring about such transformations, but this “interpretation” is hard to support from the various details, which are clearly intended to present the stories as miraculous.

Likewise, there are suggestions to explain away the idea that Jesus was, in fact, walking on the water. One idea is that the phrase “waling on the lake” was simply a manner of speech, and that the writer intended to say that Jesus was walking on the shore. Alternatively, it has been suggested that the disciples experienced an optical illusion, in which Jesus appeared to be walking on the water. The proponents of both ideas have pointed to similarities with the post-resurrection encounter with Jesus on the shore (John 21:3-8) despite the fact that the language of the text and circumstances of the story are in stark contrast, and despite the fact that the reaction of the disciples clearly indicates that they had witnessed a miracle (cf. Mark 4:36-41).

Peter certainly knew that we he saw happening could only be explained by the miraculous power of God. He knew could not do the same on his on, but that such power could command him to do so. This knowledge served him at first, but he began to doubt (distazō, which suggests two minds, or two souls). Especially in his failings, Peter always stands for us, the coming church, and we may certainly hear Jesus calling us “you of little faith (cf. 6:30-31).

But how much faith is required? What is the promise of the faith “of a mustard seed”? (17:20; Luke 17:6) It would be easy to make the measure of faith another measure of accomplishment, another means by which we could compare ourselves to those around us, or another method by which we could achieve that state in which God must give us the salvation we deserve. But there is no such measure. Christ calls us to grow in faith, but this too is a gift of God (Mark 9:20-24)

Unwashed hands (15:15-28)

The religious leaders had asked Jesus why his disciples did not wash before they ate. This had nothing to do with our modern ideas of hygiene, but with a strict understanding of being ritually clean. Jesus had responded by saying that is not what goes into one’s mouth, but what comes out that makes one clean or unclean, and this is the “parable” to which the disciples now refer.

It may seem quaint to us, this notion that the touching of certain things or the eating of certain foods could affect our standing before God. Jesus was telling these men that they had confused legality with morality, and we rightly understand that we are not required to give evidence before men of our faith in God. But we must also understand that such faith in God is always evidenced before men, “[f]or out of the overflow of the heart the mouth speaks” (12:33-37).

Right up against this discussion of the clean and the unclean, we are given a strange story in which Jesus seems to hold on to this distinction in regard to the Jews and the Gentiles. Why should such a story be included in a Gospel that clearly states that the plan of God includes the Gentiles as well as the Jews? (8:10-12). As Jesus clearly states that the will of God is to redeem us all, he is equally clear that the Messiah of God was sent to the Jews.

Matthew often explains that events transpired as they did in order to fulfill scripture, but we should not imagine that Jesus did what he did in order to legitimize the scriptures. These scriptures, together with the life of Christ, are a part of the active presence of God in ours lives. Jesus suffered and died on the cross, as the scriptures said he would, because this was the will of God for the redemption of the world (John 19:28-30).

The Parable of the Sower

The Parable of the Sower

Matthew 13:1-53

The secrets of the kingdom of heaven (13:10-17)

We do have the benefit of two thousand years of commentary, but for the most part, neither Jesus’ use of the parables nor any parable itself seems unusual to us. The disciples must have found them unusual, though, as there seems to be some anxiety in their question. There is something perplexing about Jesus’ response, however, as he seems to say that the parables were designed for confusion – to keep the secretes of the kingdom. In Matthew, the message is that these things are the way they are because it is the Father’s pleasure that they be so (Matthew 11:25-26).

The Father’s mercy is offered to all who call on him. It is not earned, and not available by any transaction (Joel 2:11-14). Those of us who have chosen to accept have been chosen to live and appointed to serve (John 15:16). As the availability of grace does not conform to our idea of logic, neither does the measure of grace conform to our sense of fair play (Luke 19:22-27; 8:16-18). But such is the prize that we would well give up every achievement, and even the very idea of achievement (Matthew 13:44-46; 10:38-39).

The parable of the sower (13:3-9)

Together with its explanation (13:18-23) this parable is one of the most well-known passages of the New Testament. Unlike many of the parables which have only one, central meaning, this parable is an allegory which has meaning at many levels. At one level, it tells us each about ourselves as individuals. Within each of us is fertile ground, eager to receive the word of God, and also ground choked with the things of this life (Romans 7:18-25). On another level, it tells of the nature of the kingdom of God, where there is good and there is evil, and where many are called, but few are chosen (Matthew 22:9-14 KJV). Finally, it tells us of the sower, who sows his word in the bad soil and the good, who causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and who calls us to love our enemies and our friends (Matthew 5:44-46).

The parable of the weeds (13:24-29, 36-43)

The parable of the weeds is related in many ways to the parable of the sower. To begin with, it continues the succession of images in which Jesus pictures the people of this world as a harvest: as something of value to be defended and nurtured (Matthew 9:35-38). And in this parable, the harvest itself is used to explain the existence of evil in this world. All time is laid open to the Eternal Father, but in this world, the future holds the key to understanding the present. It is in the hope of tomorrow that the Father shows patience today (2 Peter 3:13-15). This patience is to our great benefit, and what the Lord gives graciously to us he will not have us deny from others (Romans 2:1-5; James 1:20)

For Every Careless Word

For Every Careless Word

Matthew Chapters 11&12

What you hear and see (11:1-6)

In the Gospel of John, we hear John the Baptist speaking of the one who was to come, and plainly identifying Jesus as that one, the Lamb of God (John 1:26-37). In our passage we hear from John in the last days of his life, as he has sent his disciples to ask as plainly what he had previously declared. Perhaps John was in conflict over his own ideas of what the Messiah would do and what he had heard of Jesus doing, or perhaps it was his disciples who were conflicted, and John sent them to see for themselves. In either case, Jesus seems in no way offended by the question, but confirms to them, and through them to John, that what they have heard is true: the blind see, the lame walk, and the dead are raised to life.

In his response, Jesus may be alluding to the prophecy of Isaiah (Isaiah 35:5-6). Indeed, Luke tells us that Jesus began his ministry with a very similar passage (Luke 4:16-21). These and many other passages make it clear that Jesus came to serve individuals, and not political powers. This reality was in such conflict with expectations that many could not accept it (John 10:24-32).

This conflict of expectations is expanded in the following sections, but there is another point we should note. Jesus could have responded by explaining the ways in which his very person (Son of David, child of a virgin) was a fulfillment of scripture, or with some demonstration of his great power. Instead, he even diminished the importance of his power to emphasize the change in those around him: the blind see, the lame walk, and the dead are raised to life.

If you where to ask me “Are you a Christian?” I would immediately respond “Yes!” But if you were to ask for proof, I could not so readily rely on what you may see or hear.

This was your good pleasure (11:25-30)

Far from lamenting the difference between our expectations and God’s design, Jesus praises the Father because his ways are not those that make sense to us. The word that is translated here as praise means to acknowledge or confess, as we confess our sins or confess that Jesus Christ is Lord (Mark 1:15; Philippians 2:5-11). The way we praise God is to acknowledge that he is God, and that his world yields to his pleasure, not our desire (Ezekiel 20:43-44; Isaiah 46:9-10).

It is the pleasure of the Lord to call us to him and invite us to place our burdens on him. The idea that we may only exchange the yoke of our sins for the burden of the straight and narrow way is supported by the following parable of the evil spirit returning to the house from which it came (Lamentations 1:14; Matthew 12:43-45). And this is the crux of the matter, the Lord does not arbitrarily reject our ways; the Lord’s way is the only way to life (Matthew 7:13-14).

It is lawful to do good (12:1-12)

Continuing with the theme of the conflict of expectations, Matthew gives us two stories in which Jesus teaches the meaning of the Sabbath. The Old Testament is very clear about the importance of the Sabbath, and the penalty for failure to keep it holy (Genesis 2:2-3; Exodus 31:12-18). It is perhaps our misapplication of the teaching of this very passage that has allowed us to view the entire notion as quaint and antiquated, but the Pharisees took it very seriously. These and other sects of the Jews were so serious about keeping the law that they had examined each one carefully. In the case of the Sabbath Law, they developed a careful and detailed understanding of what it means to work. By this understanding, the disciples were breaking the law in three ways: they were harvesting as they picked the grain; they were threshing as they rubbed it in their hands; they were winnowing as they blew away the chaff (cf. Luke 6:1).

It might at first seem that Jesus’ defense was based on a technicality. By pointing out that David did the same, he certainly would have flummoxed his opposition, who would not dare to accuse David of breaking the Sabbath. But if we look more closely, we see that Jesus was pointing out that the Pharisees had ignored the issue of need. In this case, he was not necessarily saying that the need superseded the law, but that in rushing to accusation rather than compassion, the Pharisees themselves had failed to keep the Sabbath holy.

To make the issue more personal, Jesus asked the Pharisees which of them would not rescue their own sheep on the Sabbath. Rabbinic teaching on this issue suggested that the animal could be kept alive, but not rescued. How this might be accomplished without breaking the law in some other way would certainly have been a tricky issue, and perhaps Jesus knew that the Pharisees found it difficult to deal with in practice and with their own sheep. But we are more important than sheep, and Jesus accused the Pharisees of ignoring the more important matters of the law (Matthew 23:23-24; 7:12).

Blasphemy against the Spirit (12:30-37)

This saying is enigmatic, to say the least, and it is not any wonder that there are many interpretations of blasphemy against the Spirit. One might leave the issue to the theologians if it were not for the way Jesus seems to equate this blasphemy with “every careless word.” In the literal interpretation, I must confess that I am more guilty than the average person when it comes to the sin of careless words. But without lessening that confession in any way, we must acknowledge that, certainly in this context, we could not expect it to be taken literally, as Matthew has carefully shown the teaching of Jesus in contradiction to the literal understanding of the Pharisees.

On our way to a better understanding, we should note the word that is translated careless. This word also means useless, and it is the same word that James uses when he says “faith without works is useless.” (James 2:14-20). The sin of which Jesus speaks is to know that God is God, but not act as though God is God (Isaiah 29:13-16).

Wherewith shall I come before the LORD, and bow myself before the high God? shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves of a year old? Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams, or with ten thousands of rivers of oil? shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? He hath showed 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? (Micah 6:6-8 KJV)

Not peace, but a sword

I Did not Come to Bring Peace, but a Sword

Matthew 9:35-10:42

Sheep Without a Shepherd (9:35-38)

This passage follows an extended series of healing miracles which were arranged and presented with a particular intent. But whatever meaning these miracles might now have to us, whether to show the power of Jesus, or to prove that he was Messiah, or any of the other important interpretations of these wonderful acts, Matthew now makes clear what the Gospel of Mark emphasized from the beginning, which is that Jesus was motivated out of his great compassion (Mark 1:40-42).

The Greek word used here to describe this emotion is splagchnizomai. The root of this word (splagchnon) means internal organs, and is used in the description Acts gives us of the death of Judas (Acts 1:15-20). We have almost completely localized to the heart the figurative source of our emotions, but in the first century the entirety of the inward parts were involved. And when we say we are “moved with emotion” we generally mean that something external to us has stirred our emotions. That was certainly the case here, but Jesus was not only moved in the figurative sense; his emotions stirred him to action.

We would do well to pay attention to this idea, as Jesus not only showed us by example how to have compassion and to act on that compassion, but the idea is essential to some of his descriptions of the Kingdom of Heaven. The Kingdom of Heaven is like the master who “took pity on” his servant, or “was moved with emotion” toward him (Matthew 18:23-30). The Kingdom of Heaven is like the father who saw his wayward son from afar off, and was so moved with emotion toward him that he ran to him and threw his arms around him (Luke 15:17-24). And when Jesus taught us to love our neighbors, he spoke of the Samaritan who, when he saw his neighbor in need, was moved to give him extravagant care (Luke 10:30-37).

Heal the Sick, Raise the Dead (10:1-15)

The Gospels of Mark and Luke both have this story of Jesus sending out the Twelve, though there are interesting differences among them (Mark 6:7-11; Luke 9:1-5). One explanation would be that they are actually records of different occasions, and it is true that Luke records another occasion when Jesus sent seventy-two of his disciples on a similar journey (Luke 10:1-7). Either Jesus used very similar instructions on that occasion, or Matthew has compressed the teachings into one account. Whatever the case, it hardly seems likely that Jesus sent the Twelve out on at least three separate occasions which were different only in whether or not they could wear sandals, carry a staff, or other minor details.

If we were to focus on these differences of detail, however, or on the special circumstances of the commission (traveling in rocky Palestine without a a staff and in bare feet would have been difficult and painful) we might overlook the uncomfortable fact that Jesus sent his disciples to heal the sick and raise the dead! Could we be expected to do the same? The Samaritan was moved with emotion to heal the man who was half-dead. What if we were to go, and do the same?

I Did not Come to Bring Peace (10:16-42)

Many of the sayings of Jesus are hard, in that they ask much of us, but the sayings in this passage are more than hard, they are disturbing. We can first put aside any notion that the attitude he suggests towards father and mother is in contradiction to the law. We know from the larger context of his teaching that he not only respected this law, but raised it from its literal interpretation (Mark 7:9-13; Matthew 12:46-50). We can then begin to grapple with the idea that Jesus did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

Many of us have been raised from birth with the promise of the Prince of Peace, and even for those outside the Church it is a fundamental part of the Christmas Story (Isaiah 9:6-7). But even in that story, Luke gives us Simeon’s eerie precursor of this passage (Luke 2:34-35). And in connection to the context of the current passage, Jesus told his disciples to sell their cloaks if they must, so that they may buy swords (Luke 22:35-37). But this exchange is enigmatic even in its context (are the mere two swords ironic?) and almost immediately thereafter he rebuked Peter for using his sword (Matthew 26:51-52).

Whatever the explanation of the exchange of cloaks for swords, the larger context of the teaching of Jesus give us the basis for his rebuke of Peter: the sword of which he speaks will not be used by us, but against us. And blessed are we when this is so (Luke 6:22-24). This saying is a very hard one for me, because by any reasonable measure, I am very rich. I have achieved a life that is free from any hardship, and it is fair to say that it is a life I love (Mark 8:35; John 12:25). Jesus calls me away from this comfortable life to eternal life and perfect peace.

Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid. These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world. (John 14:27; 16:33 KJV)

What Kind if Man Is This?

What Kind if Man Is This?

Matthew 8:1-9:34

He took up our infirmities (8:1-17)

In a succession of healing miracles, Matthew shows us the disregard of Jesus for social convention. Lepers were ostracized by Mosaic law (Leviticus 13:45-46). The Romans were not only Gentile, but the occupying force who enslaved the Jews. And women were considered less than property – a Jewish male would not ordinarily be seen associating with women. In a succession of vignettes, this extended passage emphasizes the nature of Jesus’ ministry as a Messiah who will take on our infirmities, a savior who brings relief to the poor and oppressed (11:2-6).

What kind of man is this? (8:18-27)

“Let the dead bury their own dead.” Can this have come from the mouth of the same man who healed the sick and blessed the children? There is only one God, and no God but God, and while we can always expect the love of God to work for our benefit, it is no simple thing (Isaiah 46:8-10; Job 2:9-10). Is it any wonder that even those who lived along side of him had to ask “what kind of man is this?

Which is easier? (9:1-34)

Which is easier? A rhetorical question, certainly – a question that is intended to teach, not test. This question makes us consider the unity of the physical world with the spiritual. The is one God, Lord of all creation (Genesis 1:25-2:3; Colossians 1:13-15; John 1:1-5) and the brokenness of our relationship with God has imperiled the cohesion of the universe (Genesis 3:16-19; Genesis 4:9-11; Romans 1:18-20; Romans 8:22-23). The union of of earth and heaven is through the one God who is in all, and through whom all things exist (Isaiah 46:9-10; Ephesians 4:5-6) and we look forward to a day when, along with ourselves, all creation will be redeemed (Colossians 1:16-20; 2 Peter 3:11-13; Revelation 21:1-7).

The Narrow Gate

The Narrow Gate

Matthew Chapters 5-7

 

Be Perfect

Covering the whole of the Sermon on the Mount in a single lesson is a daunting task. Of course, even at this pace it will take us eight years to make our way through the Bible, and it would be difficult to say just how much time we should spend on this large collection of the teachings of Jesus which, although it is in some ways similar to the “Sermon on the Plain” recorded in Luke (Luke 6:17-26) is beyond compare in the depth and breadth of its scope.

The Beatitudes themselves (5:1-12) are one of those passages of scripture which we may read and reread without the aide (or hindrance) of any commentary. We will simply note that the tone of the passage is captured by the phrase “your reward is in heaven.” If, as it is supposed, the Sermon was an inaugural address, we may wonder how many who heard it preached understood that Jesus was not establishing an earthly kingdom. Even in our own time, many would promise earthly reward, when the comfort that this phrase affords is not of this world. Our reward in heaven is greater than any this earth could offer. Moreover, the reward is sure; we are not told that our reward will be in heaven, but that our reward is in heaven.

If what Jesus had to say about an earthly kingdom was unexpected, then his initial statement about the law must have seemed reassuring, since he promised, not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it (5:13-17). But we do not need to be experts in rabbinic law to be astounded as Jesus expands our culpability in murder and adultery but robs us of retribution in the face and violence and abuse (5:18-48).

How can Jesus call us to be perfect, even as our Father in heaven is perfect? Perfection is the standard of the law, but as far back as Abraham, God has credited faith as righteousness (Romans 4:1-3). While we cannot attain perfection through our practice of the law, God is able to remake us as new creatures, free from our old guilt (2 Corinthians 5:17-18). In this remade form, only possible by his divine pleasure, we are able to participate in his divine nature (2 Peter 1:3-4).

Do not worry about your life

As the Sermon continues, Matthew records for us a series of instructions in religious discipline. The passage addresses our acts of righteousness – specifically, giving to the needy – which should be practiced in private, known only to our Heavenly Father (6:1-4). The second discipline is prayer, and we are not only given a model prayer, but are given instruction in the proper attitude of prayer, which should not be for show, either for our fellows or our Father, but must be sincere (6:5-15). The next instruction is in fasting, a discipline which is almost lost (6:16-18). The following instructions remind us that religion is the practice of our faith, and extends beyond what we normally think of as religious activities. And so, we are told not to worry about our lives (6:25-27) or the things of this world (6:28-34) and as we are told not to judge others (7:1-6) and always to be asking our Father for the things we need (7:7-12).

The narrow gate

How can we reconcile the promise “for everyone who asks receives” with the caution of the narrow gate? (7:13-14) Or the one who says “Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened” (11:28) with the one who says “Away from me, you evildoers” (7:15-23)? The promise is the same in each case; it is the kindness and sternness of God (Romans 11:22). Our Lord stands at the door and knocks (Revelation 3:20) but we must count the cost, hear the words, and put them into practice (7:24-29).

The Kingdom of Heaven Is Near

The Kingdom of Heaven Is Near

Matthew Chapters 3&4

 

Locusts and Wild Honey (3:1-17)

Matthew is the longest Gospel, but as the Gospel of John tells us, the world could not hold all the books it would take to tell the complete story of Jesus (John 21:25). And so even Matthew must carefully choose what he records for us. As curious as we may be about the early life of Jesus, we must not let that curiosity overshadow the choice that Matthew has made in jumping immediately from the birth of the Christ to the ministry of John the Baptist. Indeed, while only two Gospel writers record the birth of Jesus, all four tell us of John, so we must carefully consider what the writers found so important, and what important message they were trying to convey to us, their readers.

The Gospel of John gives us the summary: John came to testify, to bear witness to the light of the world (John 1:1-8). As echoed in Matthew, the Mark tells us that John came as fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy to prepare a way for the Lord, and that John himself told of the one who would come who would be more powerful even than he (Mark 1:1-8). And in Luke we find that, even before John’s birth, the angel Gabriel told Zechariah that John would come in the spirit and power of Elijah (Luke 1:13-17).

In connecting John with Elijah, Gabriel makes reference to the prophesied return of Elijah, which was to occur before the Day of the Lord (Malachi 4:5-6). So important was this connection that Matthew contains two individual accounts of Jesus explaining that Elijah had already return in the person of John (11:12-15; 17:10-13). For Matthew, at least, the role of John as Elijah, preparing the way for and bearing witness to the Lord, is clear fulfillment of scripture which identified Jesus as the Christ. This is not to say that the life of Jesus validated Old Testament scripture, or that the scriptures validated Jesus as the Christ. Instead it is to show that God has always been at work to redeem us. He has given us this message in the past through his prophets, and now through his son.

Tempted by the Devil (4:1-11)

The existence of the devil, the personification of evil, is to put it mildly, difficult to understand. In the book most closely associated with this question, Satan enjoys the privilege of the very presence of God, and it is worth noting that Job’s troubles only began when the Lord spoke his name (Job 1:6-8). At the edge of what we might consider blasphemy, Job cried aloud for an explanation (Job 7:17-21).

It is difficult to accept, but there may be things that will always be hidden from us in this life, perhaps due to the limits of our ability to understand. If we must accept this, then we must accept that the question of evil must certainly be among them. But when we read that even the Son of God was tempted, we are given the understanding that, whatever the answer to the question of evil, it must be fundamental to our humanity. And if we consider the question of humanity and evil, then we should consider a comparison of Jesus’ final rejection of the devil and his reaction to Peter’s plans for his life (16:21-23). When we put the things of man before the things of God, we ourselves become the very personification of evil.

Jesus Began to Preach (4:12-25)

John had come preaching “Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is near.” After John’s death, Jesus began to preach the same message. In the physical sense, the Kingdom of Heaven was never nearer than when Jesus lived among us. But our God has always called us to repentance and has always taken pleasure when we turn from our own ways and choose life (Joel 2:11-13; Ezekiel 18:23). This has always been the nature of God from the beginning of time, and that nature has been revealed to us through his son (Hebrews 1:1-3).

So Was Fulfilled What Was Said through the Prophets

So Was Fulfilled What Was Said through the Prophets

Matthew Chapters 1&2

 

A Record of the Genealogy (1:1)

The book of Matthew begins with the heading “A record of the genealogy…” As the verses that immediately follow are an account of the ancestry of Jesus, this heading may apply to the chapter, perhaps with an intentional allusion to the account of the lineage of Adam (Genesis 5:1-2). But the word translated genealogy also means birth, as it is used later in this chapter and in Luke, the only other Gospel to give an account of the birth of Jesus (1:18; Luke 1:14). And so, the heading may apply to the larger section containing the Nativity story. But the Greek word used here is genesis, which of course can mean beginning. If it is this meaning that the author intended, then the heading may apply to the entire book, and if so, it may suggest the primary intent of the author.

Scholars generally agree that the author of Matthew had two sources at his disposal (and it is almost universally assumed that the author was a man). These existing, respected sources contained respectively the actions and sayings of Jesus. When telling of the actions of Jesus, the Gospel of Matthew and Luke have many passages in common. Each of these Gospels, however, has more in common with Mark than with the other Gospel. This is the primary motivation for the idea that Mark was written first, and both Matthew and Luke quote Mark. The Two-Source Theory postulates the existence of another document, now lost to us, which contained the sayings of Jesus, and that the two Gospels quote this document in the same way they quote Mark. This document is referred to as Q, from the German Quelle, which means source.

This is not to say that the writers of Matthew and Luke were simply copyists; there is unique material in each Gospel and, more importantly, each Gospel presents the Message with its own emphasis. The writer of this Gospel, which is traditionally held to be the Apostle Matthew, has a uniquely Jewish perspective which is always connecting the life of Jesus to the Old Testament prophecy of the Christ, not with the intent to validate that prophecy, or even to validate the life of Jesus, but to show us a God who has always been active, all throughout history, and who has always intended our salvation.

Of Whom Was Born Jesus (1:2-17)

We may compare the genealogy given here to that given in Luke (Luke 3:23-38). There are some obvious differences, in that Luke places his after the birth, but before the active ministry of Jesus, and that Luke works backwards from Jesus, not stopping at Abraham but tracing all the way back to God himself. But there are also differences of substance. We can see, for example, that they differ on the name of the grandfather of Jesus, and that Matthew traces the lineage back to David through Solomon, rather than Nathan. Also, if we compare Matthew’s genealogy to the record of 1 Chronicles, we see that Matthew has omitted three generations between Joram and Uzziah (also called Azariah: 1 Chronicles 3:11-12).

To modern thinking, such differences are difficult to explain. But, if we cannot explain these differences, we must accept that they were not important to the original author or the original audience: an author so versed in the scriptures would certainly have been aware of these differences, and would know that at least some of his audience would be aware, as well.

We must, then, consider what the author did intend with this genealogy. Our best clue may be in the closing verse, which tells that there were fourteen generations from Abraham to David, from David to the exile, and from the exile to Christ. This is obviously a mnemonic device. When the letters of the name David (DVD) are taken as numbers (4 + 6 + 4) the sum is fourteen, and the complete lineage is broken into manageable portions of fourteen names each.

This genealogy was meant to be taught; from its beginning, or at least by the time it reached its present form, the Gospel of Matthew has been an ecclesiastical text, meant for use in the church. The story it contains is certainly true in the historical sense (though it does not always employ modern historical method) but historical truth is not the message of the Gospel. The Gospel seeks a higher Truth, in that it seeks to convey the meaning of the historical events.

In the case of this genealogy in particular, we may understand at least one truth that it conveys. Though there are many covenant accounts in the Old Testament, some very important ones are represented here: the covenant with Abraham that he would be the father of a great nation (Genesis 17:4-5); the covenant with David of an everlasting kingdom (2 Samuel 7:12-16); and the covenant with the exiles of God’s eternal presence (Ezekiel 37:26-27). These all point to the Christ, the author of the covenant (Matthew 26:26-28).

What Is Conceived in Her (1:18-24)

As the Gospel writer connects for us the conception of Jesus with the prophecy in Isaiah, he knows full well that the word used there and translated virgin could simply mean a young woman (Isaiah 7:14). On this basis, there are those who would claim that there was nothing unique about the birth of Jesus. Joseph himself seems to accept the common explanation for the means by which a young woman would become pregnant out of wedlock, but was willing to handle the matter quietly (Deuteronomy 22:22-24; 24:1).

But Matthew will not let us make this mistake: the woman knew no man, her husband or any other, and the child was conceived of the Holy Spirit. Luke traces the lineage of Jesus all the way back to God, the origin of us all, but Matthew shows us God’s direct intervention in this world through the gift of his Son.

After Jesus was Born

Most of the early life of Jesus is unknown to us, but Matthew gives us a few glimpses. The Wise Men come innocently and awaken Herod’s paranoia (2:1-8); the star continues to lead them to the Jesus (2:9-12); the Wise Men and Joseph’s family escape the terrible slaughter (2:13-18); and the family returns Israel to make their home in Nazareth (2:21-23).

All along, the events are controlled by the direct intervention of God, and are connected to prophecy. This is neither to validate the prophecy by the unfolding events, or to validate the the events by connection to the prophecy, but to illuminate the salvific presence of God, demonstrated in history and effective even today.

The continual unfolding of God’s salvific intent is the major theme of Matthew, but let us not overlook the lesson of the Wise Men. Our tradition has fixed their number to three, and forced their presence at the manger, when in truth we do not know how many there were, or where they may have found the young family. We do not know much about them, at all.

They were almost certainly not Jewish by race or religion. In fact, their religion, prior to their encounter with Christ, would by our standards have been completely pagan. By our standards, it may have been after their encounter, as well. We know that Jesus Christ is the only way, the only truth, the only life, and that no one comes to the father but by him (John 14:6). What the story of the Wise Men teaches us is to remember that God calls us by his pleasure and his means, and not by our design.