About 'washington bible college'|...wheelhouse (Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, "The Dead," New Jersey ... a tossup full of Bible clues, where the answer...170 3-1 Round 5 vs. Carleton College - good They had really...
These days, you can't hardly pick up a newspaper or magazine in the United States without reading about some reference to religion. The term "religious right" and "evangelical Christian" are all the rage. The president of the United States says his faith helps to guide him as heleads our country. It is important then that we understand what the rules of the Christian religion are. Fortunately, the Christian Holy Bible says a lot of things about a lot of things. Unfortunately, and maybe because itdoes so so much about so many things, not a lot of people read it all the way through. In fact, a lot of people don't bother reading it at all. The good news about the Bible though, is that while I would always advocate forreading more of it, one can get a lot out of it from reading just short passages.Perhaps the passage that best lays out the "rules" for Christian attitude and approaches in the three chapters in the Gospel According to Matthew known as the Sermon on the Mount. The Sermon is the longest quotation attributed to Jesus in the Bible. It offers His rules for how to live and how to act. For some though, even three chapters in the Bible is too much. We can make it even easier for you. In the opening portion of the Sermon, Jesus gives the basic rules. Here is how Christians are supposed to act and what they are supposed to do. If you think the be-all, end-all of Christian instruction was the Ten Commandments, think again. In his Sermon on the Mount, Jesus gave a new set of instructions. This article then will focus on the New Testament passage Matthew 5:17-48. Some earlier passages in Matthew 5 will also be considered for context. For reference, Matthew 5:17-48 is reprinted here, using the New Revised Standard Version translation of the Bible: Matthew 5:17-48 17 'Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. 18For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. 19Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 21 'You have heard that it was said to those of ancient times, "You shall not murder"; and "whoever murders shall be liable to judgement." 22But I say to you that if you are angry with a brother or sister, you will be liable to judgement; and if you insult a brother or sister, you will be liable to the council; and if you say, "You fool", you will be liable to the hell of fire. 23So when you are offering your gift at the altar, if you remember that your brother or sister has something against you, 24leave your gift there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother or sister, and then come and offer your gift. 25Come to terms quickly with your accuser while you are on the way to court with him, or your accuser may hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the guard, and you will be thrown into prison. 26Truly I tell you, you will never get out until you have paid the last penny. 27 'You have heard that it was said, "You shall not commit adultery." 28But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29If 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 for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30And 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 for your whole body to go into hell. 31 'It was also said, "Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce." 32But I say to you that anyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, causes her to commit adultery;and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery. 33 'Again, you have heard that it was said to those of ancient times, "You shall not swear falsely, but carry out the vows you have made to the Lord." 34But I say to you, Do not swear at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, 35or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. 36And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. 37Let your word be "Yes, Yes" or "No, No"; anything more than this comes from the evil one. 38 'You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." 39But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But ifanyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also; 40and if anyone wants to sue you and take your coat, give your cloak as well; 41and if anyone forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile. 42Give to everyone who begs from you, and do not refuse anyone who wants to borrow from you. 43 'You have heard that it was said, "You shall love yourneighbour and hate your enemy." 44But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45so that you may be children of your Father in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous. 46For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax-collectors do the same? 47And if you greet only your brothers and sisters, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? 48Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect. For the review of this passage, the "Seven Pillars of Biblical Exegesis" will be used. The seven pillars are: * Language & Style: Literary Criticism * Form & Social Setting: Form Criticism * Sources & Authorship: Source Criticism * Recollection & Reconstruction: Historical Criticism * Generation to Generation: Tradition-History * Meanings & Interpretations: Biblical Theology * Beyond Preaching: Transformational Criticism Pillar I Language & Style: Literary Criticism The passage in question comes from the middle part of what is generally referred to as the "Sermon on the Mount." Reviewing this passage with an independent mind is particularly difficult because the Sermon on the Mount is perhaps one of the best known passages in the Bible. The passage under review here is part of the larger Sermon, which begins with Matthew 5:1 and concludes with the last verse of Matthew 7. Parts of what is included in the complete Sermon on the Mount are repeated, using somewhat different language, in Luke 6:17-49, a segment of Luke known as the Sermon on the Plains. The beginnings and endings of the Sermon on the Mount segment are particularly clear. At the conclusion of Chapter 4, we hear a narrative story about Jesus healing the sick. The last verses of Chapter 4, verse 24-25, tells us "And his fame went throughout all Syria: and they brought unto him all sick people that were taken with divers diseases and torments, and those which were possessed with devils, and those which were lunatick (sic), and those that had the palsy; and he healed them. And there followed him great multitudes of people from Galilee, and Decapolis, and Jerusalem, and Judaea, and beyond Jordan." The story clearly shifts with Chapter 5, verse 1. There we read that "Now, when he saw the crowds, he went up on a mountainside and sat down. His disciples came to him and he began to teach them, saying…" From this point to the end of Chapter 7, all of the text is presented as quotation from Jesus Christ. It is the longest series of quotations from Jesus in the Bible. The story clearly changes in Chapter 8, verse 1, when the writing changes back to narrative and we read "When he came down from the mountainside…" There is also a change in the text from verse 16 to 17. In the first 16 verses, the man giving the sermon, Jesus, is talking about characteristics of people. Beginning with verse 17, he launches into a lengthy segment on laws that Jesus is giving to his followers. He first talks about the importance of following the laws and then gives new definitions and explanations of laws regarding killing, adultery, divorce, oaths, fighting and revenge, and love for enemies. The passage under review here concludes with Matthew 5:48, with Jesus' ruling on love for enemies. It would probably be most appropriate to include Matthew 6: 1-4 with this study. In those verses, Jesus offers instruction on giving to the needy. After chapter 6 verse 4, while he is still giving instructions in his Sermon on the Mount, the focus of the laws change somewhat. Beginning with Matthew 6:5, the rules change to how to pray, how to fast, instructions on what treasures await in Heaven and other topics. Matthew 5:17-48 and 6:1-4 are instructions from Jesus during the sermon on how to interact with your fellow man. At the beginning of the passage, Jesus invokes the memory of an important name -- Moses. He refers to the "Law." According to the Old Testament, the law was given by God to Moses. We know Moses was to the Jewish people about like what George Washington is to Americans. By referring to Moses, Jesus would gain credibility with his listeners. It would be as if President George W. Bush were able to use quotes from George Washington in order to justify a particular course of action. Everyone has heard of Washington and he typically tops the "greatest presidents" lists. Jesus gains the First Century equivalent of street credibility by not only referring to Moses, but to the prophets of the Old Testament as well (verse 17). Jesus ties his laws into the laws of Moses prior to offering new, updated laws. It is important to not that while Jesus updates and furthers the law handed down by Moses - which we saw in the Old Testament as originally springing forth from God - he does not directly contradict the Moses law, which would likely turn off the listeners. "You have heard that it was said…" Jesus begins in verse 21. In verse 22, he offers an update: "But I tell you…" Throughout the passage, Jesus refers to Old Testament law, that was first handed down through Moses. "It has been said…" he says to start verse 31. With each rule, he starts in a similar manner, only to follow it up with "But I tell you…" It is the lack of this flashback and pull-forward style that Jesus is using in verses 21-48 that is the basis for excluding Matthew 6:1-4 from this review. There are a few terms and phrases in this passage that might be unfamiliar to the modern lay reader, though most of the text is fairly straight-forward, as one might expect in a sermon on basic rules. Jesus refers to the Sanhedrin, the highest judges in the Jewish system of the time, and calls Jerusalem "the city of the Great King." In verse 22, he mentions a term of derision, "Raca," that was no doubt popular at the time. It is relatively easy from the text to infer that Raca is a negative term and the Jerusalem reference is clear. Only the term "Sanhedrin" would likely cause the average reader to head to the dictionary. Other than these few instances, at least in the NRSV version of the Bible, the language is simple and easy to read. This passage is clearly and easily divided into seven subsections. The first section sets up the rest. In verses 17-20, the sermon preacher, Jesus, explains the importance of these rules that he is about to preach on. They could hardly be more important, at least according to Jesus. "Whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven." (verse 19). He offers a warning in verse 20 that unless one is righteous, by following these laws, one cannot enter the kingdom of heaven. This is portion of the passage is equivalent to a college professor saying "now this will be on the test…" before explaining some important theory. Jesus is all but thumping on the side of the lectern, telling the listening audience that what is coming next is important. "You have heard the law of Moses," he says, to offer a possible 2004 translation. "I will now tell you how to get into heaven." One can imagine the multitude perking up. It seems like it would have been a good time to take notes, if indeed Jesus is being accurately quoted here in verses 19 and 20. While we review the history of the passage later in this paper, it seems likely that if such a preamble was given to a sermon, someone would have wanted to get it written down as soon as possible, which allows for additional confidence that the words of this sermon are fairly accurate. While the preamble was aimed at a crowd in ancient times, it still signals that an important message is coming, even in modern times. Once the preamble is concluded, Jesus begins with the "You have heard that it was said…" line mentioned above. He follows this up with "But I tell you." He follows this pattern for all six laws he hands down in this section of the sermon. Each time, he references the law as the people know it and then adds a new dimension or element to it. This is a classic teaching sermon style. You first give the listener a reference place to begin: start with the known and move to the unknown. The laws that Jesus gives here are both simple, but complex. On the topic of killing, Jesus says that murder is wrong. That's a simple statement that comes straight from the Old Testament Law. He then moves on however, to expand the law. Not only is the physical act of murder wrong, but so is the mental or emotional act of "killing" someone with your thoughts. "But anyone who says 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell," Jesus says in verse 22. Jesus follows this pattern to give new instructions on adultery, divorce, oaths, fighting and revenge, and loving enemies. In the case of the first law, an important choice of words is used. Verse 26: "I tell you the truth…" This slams home one more time the importance of the message included in this passage. The setting of what is happening in this text couldn't be more clear. Jesus is presented as the teacher. He is placed on a mountainside (Matthew 5:1) and is speaking to the multitudes. Fortunately, for the modern reader, this is a setting that is still very familiar. Virtually all readers are accustomed to being in a group setting, listening to wisdom being handed down by a teacher. Just as clear is what the writer wants us to understand from this passage. He is setting up Jesus as "The Great Teacher." He is having Jesus himself deliver the message and the law - and it is a law that is even greater than the law first delivered by the original "Great Giver of Laws," Moses and the prophets. Jesus is delivering the law, but we are also to see Jesus as the law itself. We pick that up through the repeated use of "But I say…" The "I" in these passages should be capitalized, underlined, put in bold and italics. The law is coming from Jesus and Jesus is the law. We need but to follow the law and we can follow him. The question should be asked, "What have I gained from this passage, reading it anew, as if for the first time?" I personally am struck by how crafty Jesus was in working his audience. One can almost hear him saying, "How many people here have ever heard of Moses?" and waiting as all the hands go up. "Moses was right on, wasn't he?" Jesus would say to cheers. "Now here's where ol' Moses left off…" and Jesus rolls right into the new message. While the text doesn't record it, it seems like there must have been plenty of "Amen's" or their First Century equivalents coming from the crowd. This really is a remarkable piece of public speaking, if it happened as depicted. Beginning in Verse 43, Jesus spends a few moments talking about having love for your enemies, as well as your neighbors. This is a message that goes all the way back to Leviticus and the original 10 Commandments. The concept of loving your neighbors, expanded to loving your enemies also, is mentioned in Matthew 7, 19 and 22, as well as in Mark, Luke, Romans, Galatians, Ephesians and James. Clearly this is a message that Jesus, and his chroniclers, wanted to stress to people. Pillar II Form & Social Setting: Form Criticism In even the most cursory review, the form of the writing offered here is obvious. Jesus is being presented as the teacher, as the preacher and in Matthew 5-7 he is offering what has become the world's most famous sermon. According to the Layman's Dictionary of the Bible, the Gospel of Matthew presents several themes. The genealogy of Jesus is presented, as are several other facts in an effort to show that the arrival of Jesus fulfills a prophecy first offered in the Hebrew Bible, a.k.a. the Old Testament. It was written to inform the Jews that the promised one had in fact come. Why was Jesus presented as a teacher and why are some of his most important words, at least in the Gospel of Matthew, presented as sermon? Several reasons present themselves. The Jews were a religious people. Throughout the history of the Jewish people to that point, they had been guided, at least in part, by leaders of the church. Church leaders communicate with their members in many ways, but perhaps the most important way is via the sermon. If Jesus is being presented as the new head of the church - in fact the very reason that the church exists as all - he simply must be presented as a good preacher. And a good preacher needs a good sermon, such as the Sermon on the Mount. The writer of Matthew also was likely raised in the Jewish tradition. While he may have consciously determined that good, God-fearing Jews needed to hear important messages in sermon form, it is just as possible that the author simply fell back on his own background, believing that for his writing to have value, it should be delivered as if a sermon. It is something of a chicken and the egg scenario. Was the passage written as a sermon because that's what the readers needed to hear or was it written as a sermon because that's the way the author delivers important messages. A third scenario could also exist. The Matthew author could have envisioned himself as something of a First Century Walter Cronkite, seeking only to tell it like it was as it was. The likely passage of time that took place between the time Jesus walked the Earth and the time that the book of Matthew was written, probably some 50 years, makes this third option somewhat unrealistic. Throughout the Old Testament, the most important figures in the Jewish faith were the prophets. The prophets no doubt delivered many of their messages in sermons at the various temples in existence at the time. It would make sense to the author Matthew to position Jesus to deliver news and instruction in the same way as the prophets. Moses could be viewed in many ways as one of the greatest of the prophets, if not the greatest. In Matthew 5:17-48, Jesus is presented as being even greater than Moses, of giving a law that goes beyond even the Law of Moses. The author of Matthew likely wanted to drive him this point during his sermon. Pillar III Sources & Authorship: Source Criticism Who wrote the book of Matthew? According to early church fathers, it was the disciple Matthew, the tax collector. Modern scholars disagree with this. Whoever the writer is, he has things laid out in the way we might expect a writing from a person who spent his life dealing with money and numbers to have done: it is a concisely written book, filled with exact details. Consider the genealogy offered in Matthew 1. Could anyone other than a CPA find anything of value in the seemingly endless list there of who begat who? It is unlikely that modern people will ever be able to say, with absolutely certainty who wrote the book of Matthew. We can do a little detective work, however and put together a good argument on how the book of Matthew came into being and, more importantly, why. Based on readings in several Biblical commentaries, including Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible, one could make a good argument that a second-generation disciple wrote the book of Matthew. It is likely that this disciple was a follower of the teachings of Matthew and wrote the book in such a way as would best reflect on not only Jesus, but on the teachings and remembrances of Matthew. A variety of sources, including Matthew Henry's Commentary, place the writing of the Book of Matthew around 80 A.D. Around this time, the Christian movement as a whole was under significant persecution and oppression from official Rome. If the timeline of the writing of Matthew, 80 A.D., is correct, the following scenario makes sense: Many of the original disciples or apostles had passed on. The church was under pressure from a variety of sources. Those who had seen Jesus first-hand were dying off. The decision was made to get the story of the Christ down on paper. What better way to gain authenticity than to imply that a particular book of Jesus was written by one of his hand-chosen apostles, Matthew? Given that many scholars agree that the writer of Matthew "had the Book of Mark (estimated to have been written in 60 A.D.) in one hand" as Matthew was being written, it stands to reason that other earlier texts and manuscripts were available as well. Likewise, the writer probably had learned at the feet of Matthew and/or others of the original 12 disciples. Given the attention to detail we can ascribe to someone like Matthew, it is entirely possible that the apostle Matthew is the one who wrote down the words that Jesus said during the Sermon on the Mount. This written account could have been used, along with other sources, to create the book we now know as Matthew. As mentioned above, if Jesus had truly given the Sermon on the Mount, it would seem likely that the particular passage under review here, Matthew 5: 17-48, would have been written down by someone shortly after the words were said by Jesus. It is possible that some 50 or so years later that a version of that text was still in existence. One troubling aspect exists here, though. If the Sermon on the Mount was seen as an important teaching of Jesus, why is it not referenced in Mark? The writer of any given book normally has material that doesn't make the final edit. It is entirely probable that the writer of Matthew, and Luke, writing with the book of Mark as a reference, saw the omission of the Sermon on the Mount as a glaring problem and both decided to add versions of it. The who, the why and the how of the writing of Matthew seems fairly straightforward then. Who: a second-generation Christian, one who learned from Matthew or at least was familiar with Matthew. Why: The church was under Roman prosecution. Also, by the time of the second generation of Christians, there were those who were getting more than a little antsy, wondering when the "Second Coming" would happen. It was deemed important by the writer, and probably his supporters to get down the rules and promises of Christianity to respond to some of that angst. While our passage includes several rules, other portions of the Sermon on the Mount include several promises. Later segments of Matthew share miracles of Jesus, the passion and the all-important resurrection of the Christ. How: Matthew almost certainly was written using slightly early accounts of the life of Jesus, possibly even a re-created transcript of the actual words spoken on the Sermon on the Mount. According to virtually all sources, Matthew was originally written in Greek. Scholarly sources also suggest to us that Matthew was written to Jews. While a review of First Century linguistic trends is beyond the scope of this paper, we can propose a potential theory from this Greek language-Jewish audience mixture: Matthew was written with Jews in mind, but aspired to appeal to a world audience. The writer of Matthew wanted the world to hear this "Good News." Pillar IV Recollection & Reconstruction: Historical Criticism Our passage is fairly light in terms of historical references to what was happening in the world at the time of the event referenced or at the time the writing was done. At the beginning of any review of the historical accuracy and the historical background on a report, we must first ask the question: did this even happen at all? The fact that parts of this message are included in two places in the Bible, Matthew and Luke, are both helpful and troubling. That we have two independent writers who include parts of what seem to be the same sermon lends credence that this sermon, in some form, was delivered. It is also possible that Luke recounts another venue when Jesus delivered a similar sermon, much as civil rights leader Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. is famous for delivering his "I have a dream" speech in Washington D.C., but actually delivered nearly identical versions of that same speech in pulpits around the country first. The fact that the Matthew and Luke accounts of the sermon are different, though, could give rise to a question about if the sermon was actually delivered or a creation of the writers. Because at this point we are unable to interrogate either the writer of Matthew or of Luke, or other witnesses to the ministry of Jesus, we have to move forward on the strength of our own faith on the question of if the sermon was delivered AND accurately recorded. Looking deeper for clues about the time or culture in which the sermon was delivered and reported upon, we don't gain much from the actual text itself. Throughout the passage, the writer and the person delivering the sermon assume that the reader and the listening audience have knowledge of Moses and the Laws and Prophets of the Old Testament. This hardly gives us any historical evidence of the time of either the sermon or the written record of it. Even in 2004, one could find certain listening and reading audiences who would have good knowledge of the Old Testament. So that reference gives us little to go on. About the only other historical data in the writing itself comes in verse 22. Here the writer mentions the word "Raca," which is unknown to most modern readers, and the Sanhedrin, known only to relatively astute Bible readers. The NIV Student Bible defines Raca as "an Aramaic term of contempt." Aramaic was a language in common usage in First Century Palestine, so it stands to reason that words in that language would be familiar to the readers of the text - and those who heard the sermon. Likewise, the fact that the word is not translated into a modern word suggests that it is more of a "slang" term than a high form of the language. The presence of a slang Aramaic term in the passage makes sense on two levels and would seem to support the historical accuracy of the passage. It would make sense that those only passingly familiar with Aramaic would know best the slang terms - and perhaps how to ask for a rest room. Also, we can surmise that Raca is more slang than proper because on review of three different versions of English Bibles, NRSV, KJV and NIV, all three make use of the word Raca, rather than translate it within the passage. Additional research into the term is beyond the scope of this review. The mention of the Sanhedrin, a ruling body of Jewish judges, which is referred to in various locations in the New Testament, helps place the events and the date of the writing. During the Sermon, Jesus mentions the Sanhedrin to the listeners. Neither Jesus, nor the writer of Matthew, feels it necessary to explain who the Sanhedrin were. This helps to firm up the placement of both the Sermon and the writing. First Century Jews who were listening to the Sermon and those reading about it some 30-50 years later would not have needed an explanation of the Sanhedrin any more than the modern American reader would need an explanation of the word "Congress." Finally, though it is not included in the Matthew 5:17-48 passage, we can't review the historical and geographic details of the Sermon on the Mount without asking "What mountain?" Matthew doesn't tell us the name of the mountain. In the NRSV, NKJV and NIV versions of the Bible, Matthew simply tells us that Jesus "went up into a mountain…" The Sermon begins immediately there after. There were several mountains and hills in and around the Galilee area, where Jesus was living at the time, so a mountainside setting makes sense. While Jesus could have delivered this message anywhere (indeed we mentioned above that Luke includes part of the teachings of this sermon in a passage known as the Sermon on the Plains), Matthew points out that these very important teachings were delivered from a mountain. In the Old Testament, Moses ascended a mountain, Mount Sinai, where God delivered the most important of the laws, the 10 Commandments. That Matthew doesn't bother to name the mountain or provide any details about it, despite the fact that the writer is able to provide three straight chapters of quoted materials, leads one to question if the sermon was actually delivered on a Mount or if this is just a device to further illustrate the importance of the laws and promises now being delivered. We also have to question the historical position of the author of Matthew and the overall text. Let's examine the text first. According to a review of the world's most famous ancient writing artifacts, the Dead Sea Scrolls, by University of North Carolina Professor James Tabor, there are many parallels with what is written in the modern version of Matthew (and Luke) and what is included on fragments of the scrolls, which are dated to have been created somewhere in the century before or after Jesus life on this Earth. (Some of the earlier scrolls are copies of Hebrew Bible books.) So, based on these scrolls, we have some hard evidence that Matthew is presented in 2004 is at least near the version first penned by its original author. We have already established that we cannot know for certain who wrote the book we now know as Matthew. We can however, feel fairly confident that Matthew existed. He is referenced in all four of the canonized Gospels and in several of the non-canonized gospels. Matthew can be found, for example, in chapter 16, verse 1 of what is known as the Gospel of the Twelve: "And after these things he went forth, and saw a tax gatherer, named Levi (as Matthew was also known), sitting at the receipt of custom: and he said unto him, Follow me. And he left all, rose up, and followed him." Matthew is not, however, referenced in the book of Acts, as are several of the other Apostles. Pillar V Generation to Generation: Tradition-History Throughout this passage, Jesus is quoted as saying to his audience, "you have heard…". So, what was it that they, the listening audience, had heard, and where did they hear it? The "you have heards" begin with verse 21: 'You have heard that it was said to those of ancient times, "You shall not murder"; and "whoever murders shall be liable to judgement." This is a reference to Exodus 20:13 and Deuteronomy 5:17, both of which record the Sixth Commandment: "You shall not murder." Many of us learned this in an earlier Bible translation as "Thou shalt not kill." Verse 27 gives us 'You have heard that it was said, "You shall not commit adultery."' Verse 27 is the Seventh Commandment, again straight from both Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5. From verse 31: 'It was also said, "Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce." This is, almost verbatim, from Deuteronomy 24:1, a little further back in Deuteronomy when Moses (who is commonly believed to have written Deuteronomy, though most Bible scholars dispute this notion) is offering a long list of laws to be followed. Moving on to verse 33: 'Again, you have heard that it was said to those of ancient times, "You shall not swear falsely, but carry out the vows you have made to the Lord." These words do not appear, exactly, in that manner in the Old Testament. We do, however, get this from Moses as the Ninth Commandment in both Exodus and Deuteronomy: "You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor." While the words are different, they both deal with vows and oaths. Jesus may well have been referencing this passage during the Sermon on the Mount. Verse 38's 'You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" resonates from several location in the Old Testament. Again, we have references from Exodus and Deuteronomy, 21:24 and 19:21, respectively, but also in this case from Leviticus, perhaps one of the driest, most detailed lists of rules any significant number of non-lawyers have ever attempted to read. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus' "eye for an eye" line come from Leviticus 24:19-20: "If anyone injures his neighbor, whatever he has done must be done to him: fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. As he has injured the other, so he is to be injured." Leviticus, like Exodus and Deuteronomy, were commonly-held to be written by Moses. Jesus uses these passages to tie directly into the laws of Moses and then to expand upon them. Finally, in verse 43, Matthew records: 'You have heard that it was said, "You shall love your neighbour and hate your enemy." Again, we turn to Leviticus for this reference. In Leviticus 19:18, we read: "Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the Lord." Note that Leviticus does not give the order to hate an enemy. Why did Jesus (or his chronicler) add this bit and then go on to tell the audience to love its enemies? During the Old Testament, "God's People", aka the nation of Israel, was almost constantly in conflict with another nation, be it Babylon, the Philistines, Assyria or some other group, or coming out of a war or in fear of pending conflict. To hate one's enemy in this kind of environment would have been the expected norm. In the United States, even a lovable character like Bugs Bunny was used to vilify and therefore to spread hatred of "the Hun" or "the Japs" during World War II. If such an action could have become acceptable in such a relatively short conflict (by ancient standards) that wasn't even, for the most part, taking place on American soil, a hatred of the enemy only stands to reason to become an ingrained part of ancient Israel and the Israelites. It makes sense that Jesus, centuries later, as the person who embodies love would add enemies to the new list of people to love. It is clear from the above examples that in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus (or his chronicler) was seeking to build upon the rules and laws of the Old Testament. In fact, this is generally viewed as the central theme to Matthew, to show that the promise and covenant of the Old Testament is now fulfilled with the arrival of Jesus. This effort by Matthew influences the placement of Matthew in its location at the head of the New Testament, as discussed under Pillar VI. Pillar VI Meanings & Interpretations: Biblical Theology It is hard to overstate the value that is placed on Matthew 5:17-48 and the larger Sermon on the Mount, both by the scholars who have reviewed and studied it, and by the lay Christians who have read it over the years. If Jesus is the central focus of Christianity and the billions of people who have professed to be Christians over the past 2,000 years, then the longest recorded Sermon from Jesus is naturally of great interest. Matthew is generally said to have been placed at the head of the New Testament in part because it serves as a bridge between the Old and New Testaments. Indeed, Matthew is filled with references back to the Old Testament, including several in the Matthew 5:17-48 passage, several of which have been highlighted above. Matthew clearly was intended by the church authorities who canonized the Bible to bring the Old Testament believer into the truth of the New Testament. It is to say that if you believed and trusted what was found in the Old Testament, then here is a place where you can get the rest of the story. In order to gain insight into the beliefs of others, two individuals were asked to read and comment briefly on this segment. Unfortunately, the two individuals do share several traits with the author of this paper: all being white, suburban Detroit males, each of which could be classified as "middle aged," depending on how one views that term. The important distinction they carry is that one is an ordained Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod pastor of some 25 years experience. The other is a self-described agnostic who says he spends little time, if any, ever thinking about higher powers. (For reference, the author of this review is a Presbyterian, first-year seminary student.) The Lutheran minister, the Rev. Jack Cascione, pastor of Redeemer Luther Church in St. Clair Shores, Mich., found three central themes in Matthew 5: 17-48. The themes are: Christ did not come to bring anarchy: "Christ did not come to suspend the law," Cascione writes. "He did not come to say everything is OK now that I'm here. Rather, He came to die as a sinner under the law in our place." Christ came to bring us the righteousness of God: "The only solution to our sin is the Coming of Christ. Keep and teach his word: Here, Cascione quotes from elsewhere in Matthew, "Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, [even] unto the end of the world.Amen." (Mat. 28:20.) Cascione then sees Matthew 5:17-48 as an important piece of the theological "puzzle" that the Bible offers us. He offers us Jesus as a follower of God's law and as the very embodiment of God's new law - God's "new testament" with his chosen people Contrast that to Bill Fleming of Shelby Township, Mich., and a self-described agnostic. "If I would have said these things, instead of Jesus, you would have said, yeah, that makes sense and never would have thought twice about it," Fleming said. "Because it says in this book that Jesus says it, you are studying it and pouring over it, looking for the extra meanings, beyond just, hey, be a decent human being. "You could just look at this as common sense rules about how to be a nice guy," Fleming said. "There's nothing here that says this has to be religion." Fleming's commentary throws a whole new light on the Sermon on the Mount. In fact, it challenges everything about the Sermon. Regular churchgoers, if pressed, could probably recall countless times when the themes mentioned in the Sermon on the Mount were preached from pulpits. Few of those sermons, delivered by good and true servants of God no doubt, have been studied much beyond the 20 minutes or so it took for the preacher to deliver the words. Why is it that these words are more important, just because they are alleged to have come from Jesus? The answer can only be found in faith. On the one hand, "faith" is a Christian's easy out. That which we cannot describe or understand, we simply say must fall under the category of faith. On the other hand, the whole point of the Christian religion is about faith. The Infoplease.com dictionary defines faith, in part, as "belief that is not based on proof." For better or worse, much of what is presented in the Bible, indeed much of religion in general, simply comes down to faith. "Do I have faith in what is being presented to me?" I have chosen to believe in what the Bible says. I cannot completely explain why I have chosen to do so, other than to say it feels right in my heart. While I may be able to point to details that question the validity of this passage of Matthew - why was it not included in Mark? Why is it different in Luke? Why don't we get the name of the mountain? Each question can also be a proof: It was added by Matthew and Luke because Mark was focusing on a different story. Luke heard another telling of the Sermon, pointing out just how much Jesus wanted to stress these themes. The mountain? Who cares about the mountain? The important elements of the story and the Sermon are all there, for those that have the faith to believe in them. The words of Jesus from 2,000 years ago in that Sermon are just as applicable today as they were at the time. The portion about loving enemies -- But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you (Matt. 5:44) -- is of particular note during this time of war between the United States and other countries and groups. Pillar VII Beyond Preaching: Transformational Criticism As mentioned above, the entire Sermon on the Mount challenges both the believer and the non-believer. Are these in fact the words of the Son of God? If they are, the message is clear. Laws are not only about our actions, but about what is in our heart. We need to get our hearts in line with Jesus if we want to live a righteous life, "For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 5:20). The believer is unlikely to be challenged by these ideas. It is easy for the non-believer to pay little attention to these words, just as it is to ignore the rest of the Bible. Even most non-believers, however, follow the basic ideas of the Ten Commandments and their extensions found in the Sermon on the Mount. How to get the non-believer to delve deeper into the message found in Matthew 5 is the same question to be asked about how to get the non-believer to dig deeper into any portion of the Bible. This is and long has been a central challenge to members of the Christian faith. To gain deeper insight into how the Sermon on the Mount fits into the larger world picture, a search of the Qu'ran, the holy scripture of Islam was conducted. The search was made using an on-line, searchable version of the Qu'ran offered by the University of Southern California at http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/reference/searchquran.html. The search was conducted for what is perhaps the most radical portion of the Sermon on the Mount, the idea that one is to love his enemies. The USC search offered two verses of the Qu'ran that seems to echo that theme, though not as directly: Qu'ran Book 60 Verse 7 It may be that Allah will grant love (and friendship) between you and those whom ye (now) hold as enemies. For Allah has power (over all things); And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. Qu'ran Book 3, verse 103 And hold fast, all together, by the rope which Allah (stretches out for you), and be not divided among yourselves; and remember with gratitude Allah's favour on you; for ye were enemies and He joined your hearts in love, so that by His Grace, ye became brethren; and ye were on the brink of the pit of Fire, and He saved you from it. Thus doth Allah make His Signs clear to you: That ye may be guided. In both of these verses, the Qu'ran suggests that Allah (God) will eventually bring together enemies as neighbors. Contrast this to the law handed down by Jesus: the individual is to love his enemies. While in both religions God is all-powerful, Jesus is saying that there is a requirement for the individual to internalize and act upon the law of God, rather than just to wait for God to act. It is said that Islam is a religion of laws. If that is the case, Muslims must respect the teachings and handing down of laws in the Sermon on the Mount. One wonders, however, if they are aware of the nuance that the law is to be ultimately internalized rather than merely followed. Asking these questions about how Muslims understand the intentions of Jesus in the Sermon begs us to wonder how well Christians understand those intentions as well. While this paper can't poll a majority of Christians for that answer, it can ask the question of its author, "How well did I and do I now understand the intentions of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount?" In attempting to read the Sermon on the Mount "as if for the first time," I searched for the deeper meaning behind what Jesus meant when he said "You have heard it said…" in the various passages. Why did Jesus need to repeat the laws of Moses, laws that were already understood and taken as still written as solidly in stone at the time of the Sermon as they were at the time Moses brought them down from his Mount? Jesus did this to illustrate to us that he is the very law embodied. He also wanted us to understand that just knowing and following the law was not enough to truly be a follower of Christ. We have to internalize the law ourselves to be able to enter the kingdom of heaven. This is the true message of the Sermon on the Mount: we must internalize Christ if we seek to truly follow him. |
Image of washington bible college
washington bible college Image 1
washington bible college Image 2
washington bible college Image 3
washington bible college Image 4
washington bible college Image 5
Related blog with washington bible college
- catholic-caveman.blogspot.com/.... "The gentleman from Washington [state], Mr. McDermott, ...the prophet Isaiah. And as the Bible teaches us, to minister...theology professor at Christendom College in Virginia, said the...
- cottonkingdom.blogspot.com/.... WR: Why Sister Purifoy! You can keep the Bible out of the school, but you can’t keep God.... Are you a student here at Washington? Trespasser: No. I just dropped somebody...
- deanaland.blogspot.com/... Pearl, Crockett, Orleans and College. We made a rectangle. D: We just drove.... You were holding a Bible in your lap and I felt bad for ...
- baboyd.blogspot.com/...Interreligious Relations Washington, D. C. Dr. Eva Fleischner Montclair... Professor emeritus of Hebrew Bible Vanderbilt University Nashville, Tennessee...C. Merkle Professor of Theology College of St. Benedict St. Joseph, Minnesota...
- christiangunslinger.blogspot.com/...preserve, and protect a document—the Constitution of the United States or the Bible—that they are NOT familiar with and knowledgeable of? Knowledge is, in a very...
- mgpaquin.blogspot.com/... voters aren’t as ignorant as Washington thinks. After the flameouts...Bill Frist, Rick Santorum, Ralph Reed and other Bible-thumping politicos who ...
- eeeee-eee-eeee-bed.blogspot.com/...left another. It was the second week of college and Colin didn’t know anyone. He spent... out she had been across Washington Square Park all that week; she hadn’t left, hadn...
- antoniusradiocomix.blogspot.com/...womanish overfed belief of sacredness to this Arab Commentaries called a bible, no literally, by Tuscan Fortuna, a god which the nigger queen knows not of, and to...
- macabrepoemsbydennislsiluk.blogspot.com/...Amnon had returned home from college; he had spent six-years...just turned eighteen (prom queen from Washington High School, a beauty and well developed...
- terribleposture.blogspot.com/...wheelhouse ( Mr. Smith Goes to Washington , "The Dead," New Jersey ... a tossup full of Bible clues, where the answer...170 3-1 Round 5 vs. Carleton College - good They had really...
Related Video with washington bible college
washington bible college Video 1
washington bible college Video 2
washington bible college Video 3
0 개의 댓글:
댓글 쓰기