"And when Jesus finished these sayings, the crowds were astonished at his teaching, for he taught them as one who had authority, and not as their scribes."
=================================
"You will say, 'Christ saith this, and the apostles say this;'
but what canst thou say? Art thou a child of the Light, and hast thou
walked in the Light, and what thou speakest, is it inwardly from
God?"
George Fox saith this, and I do believe it points quite well to what Jesus' "authority" was, and where it comes from.
Many people want a clear and unambiguous source of what they call "Authority", meaning ~'Something to tell people [even themselves, perhaps] how they should think, feel, and behave in all conceivable circumstances.'
Jesus did lay down guidelines as to how people needed to become & behave, so as to join with, and continue participating in our Father's way of ordering the world. 'Not judging' each other, not condemning, was among those guidelines.
And yet people keep right on asking, "How are we supposed to judge each other; whom are we permitted [and obligated] to condemn?"
November 07, 2015
October 10, 2015
Matthew 7.24-27
Every one who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a man wise enough to build his house on rock. When the rain falls and the floods come, when the winds blow and beat upon that house, it will not fall; because it's been built on solid rock.
Every one who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a man so foolish he builds his house upon sand; and when the rain falls, and the floods come, when the winds blow and beat against such a house, it will fall; and great will be that fall.
===================
Yes, I've taken liberties with the tenses, and lost whatever topical reference this might have had to Jesus' time (perhaps to people who depended on Roman power to keep them safe -- or alternatively, people who'd taken God's help for granted in pointless insurrections against Rome and the powers that be...) but then this always did imply that future application. To understand Jesus' words and live by them will turn out to be the true practicality; to trust in worldly 'practicality' instead will leave anything you accomplish subject to collapse in this turbulent world.
This applies, of course, to his whole preceding discourse. Is it really so 'impossible' as people have said -- or haven't we understood?
Every one who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a man so foolish he builds his house upon sand; and when the rain falls, and the floods come, when the winds blow and beat against such a house, it will fall; and great will be that fall.
===================
Yes, I've taken liberties with the tenses, and lost whatever topical reference this might have had to Jesus' time (perhaps to people who depended on Roman power to keep them safe -- or alternatively, people who'd taken God's help for granted in pointless insurrections against Rome and the powers that be...) but then this always did imply that future application. To understand Jesus' words and live by them will turn out to be the true practicality; to trust in worldly 'practicality' instead will leave anything you accomplish subject to collapse in this turbulent world.
This applies, of course, to his whole preceding discourse. Is it really so 'impossible' as people have said -- or haven't we understood?
October 06, 2015
Matthew 7.21-23
Not everyone who calls me "Lord, Lord" will enter the kingdom of Heaven, but only those who do the will of my heavenly Father.
When that day comes, many will say to me, "Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, cast out devils in your name, and in your name perform many miracles?"
Then I will tell them to their face, "I never knew you! Out of my sight, you and your wicked ways!"
===================
This was always one of my favorite passages, probably because 'Jesus as worship-object' always seemed alien to me. But 'God'? -- not so at all.
'Doing God's will'? Well, that probably would depend on what that will was. It was much later when I discovered Stephen Gaskin: "It's not complicated or unusual or weird to know what God wants. God wants justice and freedom and health and happiness and equality for everyone. If you know that's what God really wants, you'll help out along those lines." I would certainly have resonated with that, not yet realizing how unattainable that was in the current state of human consciousness and misorganization. Mainly, that is, in the prevalence of fear and faithlessness -- because faith is so hard to maintain without hope, and hope so hard to entertain for people who live with misplaced faith, or none. Faith 'in the name of Jesus,' for example. I also liked the parts where he'd say, ~"If you want to call me 'Lord', then try to understand what I'm saying, what I mean!"
Maybe I'd discovered Mark Twain a bit too early, or listened too much to my atheist earthly father -- but the inconsistencies and evils of standard 'Crosstianity' [GB Shaw's term] were clear enough. But then I was still working on whatever it was Jesus did mean -- although I feel that some of my grade school teachers really did understand, and though I knew they were right about "Two wrongs don't make a right," I didn't like to hear it about whichever retaliation I wanted to do just then!
And why would Jesus care whether people did thing 'in his name,' anyway? It does make more sense to me since then, of course -- analogous to someone acting 'in the name of The Law!' -- although that too, of course, could be said by people who weren't behaving all that legally.
But I was still thinking of 'The Kingdom of Heaven' as 'a nice place for dead people.' And that wasn't at all what Jesus meant!
When that day comes, many will say to me, "Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, cast out devils in your name, and in your name perform many miracles?"
Then I will tell them to their face, "I never knew you! Out of my sight, you and your wicked ways!"
===================
This was always one of my favorite passages, probably because 'Jesus as worship-object' always seemed alien to me. But 'God'? -- not so at all.
'Doing God's will'? Well, that probably would depend on what that will was. It was much later when I discovered Stephen Gaskin: "It's not complicated or unusual or weird to know what God wants. God wants justice and freedom and health and happiness and equality for everyone. If you know that's what God really wants, you'll help out along those lines." I would certainly have resonated with that, not yet realizing how unattainable that was in the current state of human consciousness and misorganization. Mainly, that is, in the prevalence of fear and faithlessness -- because faith is so hard to maintain without hope, and hope so hard to entertain for people who live with misplaced faith, or none. Faith 'in the name of Jesus,' for example. I also liked the parts where he'd say, ~"If you want to call me 'Lord', then try to understand what I'm saying, what I mean!"
Maybe I'd discovered Mark Twain a bit too early, or listened too much to my atheist earthly father -- but the inconsistencies and evils of standard 'Crosstianity' [GB Shaw's term] were clear enough. But then I was still working on whatever it was Jesus did mean -- although I feel that some of my grade school teachers really did understand, and though I knew they were right about "Two wrongs don't make a right," I didn't like to hear it about whichever retaliation I wanted to do just then!
And why would Jesus care whether people did thing 'in his name,' anyway? It does make more sense to me since then, of course -- analogous to someone acting 'in the name of The Law!' -- although that too, of course, could be said by people who weren't behaving all that legally.
But I was still thinking of 'The Kingdom of Heaven' as 'a nice place for dead people.' And that wasn't at all what Jesus meant!
October 03, 2015
Matthew 7.15-20
Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves.
You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles?
So, every sound tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears evil fruit. A sound tree cannot bear evil fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit.
Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, you will know them by their fruits.
===============
Josephus complained bitterly about people who called themselves 'prophets' during the build-up of the first Jewish Revolt against Rome; these would lead a group of people out into the wilderness, or up the Mount of Olives or Mt Gerizim (the Samaritan holy site) or across the Jordan, promising to lead them into a new Exodus in which the pagans would be driven out and Israel freed from slavery to them...
Josephus took a dim view of any popular movement, being an aristocrat from a prominent priestly family himself -- a man who seemingly failed to understand why the rebel groups he nominally commanded would want to burn the tax & debt records in any city they took. But these people and the tradition they came from did seem to be bad news, continually expecting God to confirm and follow their interpretations of Israel's prophesied destiny, according to schedules they calculated from diligent and wrong-headed attention to their scriptures -- and the result of their efforts was always violent repression by the Romans.
One such revolt is said to have left 2000 insurrectionists crucified along the road that passed by Nazareth about the time Jesus was born. No doubt he heard about it, many times, as he was growing up.
Does this passage apply to anyone in our current times? Few of us believe in prophets anymore, but we are offered a wide array of futurists, politicians, and people who interpret the Bible in much the same way that Judean revolutionaries once consulted it in search of 'the day and the hour' when God would finally do their will... instead of praying for a better sense of God's will.
And there are so very very many people -- who think they've figured out what evil needs to be perpetrated, in hopes some promised good will result...
You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles?
So, every sound tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears evil fruit. A sound tree cannot bear evil fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit.
Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, you will know them by their fruits.
===============
Josephus complained bitterly about people who called themselves 'prophets' during the build-up of the first Jewish Revolt against Rome; these would lead a group of people out into the wilderness, or up the Mount of Olives or Mt Gerizim (the Samaritan holy site) or across the Jordan, promising to lead them into a new Exodus in which the pagans would be driven out and Israel freed from slavery to them...
Josephus took a dim view of any popular movement, being an aristocrat from a prominent priestly family himself -- a man who seemingly failed to understand why the rebel groups he nominally commanded would want to burn the tax & debt records in any city they took. But these people and the tradition they came from did seem to be bad news, continually expecting God to confirm and follow their interpretations of Israel's prophesied destiny, according to schedules they calculated from diligent and wrong-headed attention to their scriptures -- and the result of their efforts was always violent repression by the Romans.
One such revolt is said to have left 2000 insurrectionists crucified along the road that passed by Nazareth about the time Jesus was born. No doubt he heard about it, many times, as he was growing up.
Does this passage apply to anyone in our current times? Few of us believe in prophets anymore, but we are offered a wide array of futurists, politicians, and people who interpret the Bible in much the same way that Judean revolutionaries once consulted it in search of 'the day and the hour' when God would finally do their will... instead of praying for a better sense of God's will.
And there are so very very many people -- who think they've figured out what evil needs to be perpetrated, in hopes some promised good will result...
September 19, 2015
Matthew 7.13-14
Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate that leads to destruction is wide and that way is easy, so those who enter it are many. The gate is narrow; and the way is hard, that leads to life; and those who find it are few.
=================
This is typically seen in a narrow Christian-chauvanist or judgemental spirit that seems quite inconsistent with the loving nature of God we know, not least from other things Jesus said.
There are two problems with that simple reading: This is not an isolated saying (as I've presented it here) and it is not part of a 'This is your ticket-to-Heaven' message.
Although many of Jesus' sayings make really great sound bites, they would not have been remembered and preserved that way in an oral tradition. People in oral cultures remember long passages by chunking them into coherent units.
The coherent theme behind this whole 'sermon' is not about a kingdom for dead folks; it's a message about how to join and participate in God's true Israel, the people who fulfill God's intention and enjoy the promised blessings for Israel.
The 'destruction' referred to is not God's alleged post-mortem revenge -- but a very concrete historical destruction certain to overtake Jesus' contemporary Israelites so far as they continued to seek personal wealth at their neighbors' expense while pursuing national independence by violent means. This in fact arrived about 40 years later, with the utter ruin of anyone's personal or family possessions or social status when the Romans crushed the first major Jewish revolt.
First we get a saying about how God will provide anything His children ask for. (The only problem is -- something I recently found in a commentary on Jewish ethics, searching for the phrase 'the gates of righteousness' to see how that would relate -- R. Abba bar Cahana (like Jesus in this) says that "You are His children when you are God's, that is, when you belong to God and obey Him, and devote yourselves to Him." R. Jehudah also has it that "You are children of God when you conduct yourselves as such" -- but R. Meir, speaking for the majority, instead says: "In the one as in the other case, whether they do or do not conduct themselves as such, they are and remain the children of God." While we certainly remain God's children regardless, the fact is that some ways of living fit more readily with God being able to make us happy.
Anyway, this was followed by another short piece about treating other people as you want to be treated, Jesus saying that following this principle "is" fulfilling 'the Law and the prophets.' Which leads naturally to wondering if what he says about 'not one dot will be removed from the Law' should be interpreted in that sense...
and at last we arrive at this warning. Incoherent and inconsistent? No, it makes sense together. We can enjoy the blessings promised to Israel, receive whatever we ask as God's children, so far as we do treat people the way we would like to be treated -- but there is no slack in that principle; every time we fudge on that we miss the entrance.
=================
This is typically seen in a narrow Christian-chauvanist or judgemental spirit that seems quite inconsistent with the loving nature of God we know, not least from other things Jesus said.
There are two problems with that simple reading: This is not an isolated saying (as I've presented it here) and it is not part of a 'This is your ticket-to-Heaven' message.
Although many of Jesus' sayings make really great sound bites, they would not have been remembered and preserved that way in an oral tradition. People in oral cultures remember long passages by chunking them into coherent units.
The coherent theme behind this whole 'sermon' is not about a kingdom for dead folks; it's a message about how to join and participate in God's true Israel, the people who fulfill God's intention and enjoy the promised blessings for Israel.
The 'destruction' referred to is not God's alleged post-mortem revenge -- but a very concrete historical destruction certain to overtake Jesus' contemporary Israelites so far as they continued to seek personal wealth at their neighbors' expense while pursuing national independence by violent means. This in fact arrived about 40 years later, with the utter ruin of anyone's personal or family possessions or social status when the Romans crushed the first major Jewish revolt.
First we get a saying about how God will provide anything His children ask for. (The only problem is -- something I recently found in a commentary on Jewish ethics, searching for the phrase 'the gates of righteousness' to see how that would relate -- R. Abba bar Cahana (like Jesus in this) says that "You are His children when you are God's, that is, when you belong to God and obey Him, and devote yourselves to Him." R. Jehudah also has it that "You are children of God when you conduct yourselves as such" -- but R. Meir, speaking for the majority, instead says: "In the one as in the other case, whether they do or do not conduct themselves as such, they are and remain the children of God." While we certainly remain God's children regardless, the fact is that some ways of living fit more readily with God being able to make us happy.
Anyway, this was followed by another short piece about treating other people as you want to be treated, Jesus saying that following this principle "is" fulfilling 'the Law and the prophets.' Which leads naturally to wondering if what he says about 'not one dot will be removed from the Law' should be interpreted in that sense...
and at last we arrive at this warning. Incoherent and inconsistent? No, it makes sense together. We can enjoy the blessings promised to Israel, receive whatever we ask as God's children, so far as we do treat people the way we would like to be treated -- but there is no slack in that principle; every time we fudge on that we miss the entrance.
September 10, 2015
Matthew 7.12
Always treat others as you would like them to treat you; that is the Law and the prophets.
==================
So, how does this relate to 5.17? "So long as Heaven and Earth endure, not a letter, not a stroke will disappear before all that it stands for is achieved."
==================
So, how does this relate to 5.17? "So long as Heaven and Earth endure, not a letter, not a stroke will disappear before all that it stands for is achieved."
August 31, 2015
Matthew 7.7-7.11
Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and the door will be opened to you. For every one who asks, receives; and he who seeks, finds; and to him who knocks, it will be opened.
Or what one of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent?
If you, then, who are evil, know how to give good things to your children, how much more will your Father in the Spiritual Realm give good things to those who ask him?
=========================
There is a great deal to be said about this; but this time I want to revert to the way we used to handle passages on this (kwakerskripturestudy.blogspot.com ) site: Somebody posts the passage; then people respond with comments.
What is so problematic about this utterly simple and cogent passage? -- Why do the seemingly obvious conclusions people are likely to draw go off track and make most of us wrongly dismiss what Jesus is saying here?
And how, in practice, should we understand this?
Or what one of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent?
If you, then, who are evil, know how to give good things to your children, how much more will your Father in the Spiritual Realm give good things to those who ask him?
=========================
There is a great deal to be said about this; but this time I want to revert to the way we used to handle passages on this (kwakerskripturestudy.blogspot.com ) site: Somebody posts the passage; then people respond with comments.
What is so problematic about this utterly simple and cogent passage? -- Why do the seemingly obvious conclusions people are likely to draw go off track and make most of us wrongly dismiss what Jesus is saying here?
And how, in practice, should we understand this?
July 31, 2015
Matthew 7.6
Do not give dogs what is holy;
and do not throw your pearls before swine,
lest they trample them underfoot
and turn to attack you.
=====================
Dogs and swine are unclean animals; Romans and pagans are uncircumcized, inherently unclean human beings. This saying does not seem at all to stem from a sense of universal brotherhood.
It could be read with a different perspective, of course. Readers of Lord Dunsany will remember that the Witch who lives at the edge of the world keeps a herd of pigs; and employs poets to keep them fed. What do the poets feed them? -- Pearls, of course. Do the pigs like their pearls? -- Someone asks. "Not particularly." So this could be an example of treating people as they would like.
Is that Jesus' meaning here? It seems unlikely; to this extent he talks like a typical Israelite of his day; and outreach to the goyim does not seem to become a priority of his movement until after his death.
His constituency is the oppressed poor of Israel; and their oppressors are Romans and their local clients. When he is eventually executed, it is done by the Roman authorities on the recommendation of the High Priest and his party, people who support and benefit from Roman rule, at the expense of the peasantry who make up the vast majority of his nation.
Although Jesus is portrayed elsewhere in the gospels as enjoying friendly relations with sympathetic foreigners, that may not be at all what he expected at the beginning of his career.
and do not throw your pearls before swine,
lest they trample them underfoot
and turn to attack you.
=====================
Dogs and swine are unclean animals; Romans and pagans are uncircumcized, inherently unclean human beings. This saying does not seem at all to stem from a sense of universal brotherhood.
It could be read with a different perspective, of course. Readers of Lord Dunsany will remember that the Witch who lives at the edge of the world keeps a herd of pigs; and employs poets to keep them fed. What do the poets feed them? -- Pearls, of course. Do the pigs like their pearls? -- Someone asks. "Not particularly." So this could be an example of treating people as they would like.
Is that Jesus' meaning here? It seems unlikely; to this extent he talks like a typical Israelite of his day; and outreach to the goyim does not seem to become a priority of his movement until after his death.
His constituency is the oppressed poor of Israel; and their oppressors are Romans and their local clients. When he is eventually executed, it is done by the Roman authorities on the recommendation of the High Priest and his party, people who support and benefit from Roman rule, at the expense of the peasantry who make up the vast majority of his nation.
Although Jesus is portrayed elsewhere in the gospels as enjoying friendly relations with sympathetic foreigners, that may not be at all what he expected at the beginning of his career.
July 23, 2015
Matthew 7.1-5
Judge not, that you not be judged.
For with the judgement you pronounce you will be judged; and the measure you give will be the measure you get.
Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye.
Or how can you say to your brother, "Let me take the speck out of your eye," when there is the log in your own eye.
[If you really value accurate sight] first take the log out of your own eye; and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.
===========================
I once met a man who explained that this was Jesus' answer to the curse on Adam's progeny -- to counter 'The Knowledge of Good and Evil' by renouncing the human tendency to find evil in people's doings, to condemn people for what they do wrong, mistakenly assuming that we know their intentions and reasons when they inconvenience us and have a right to make them suffer for that...
For with the judgement you pronounce you will be judged; and the measure you give will be the measure you get.
Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye.
Or how can you say to your brother, "Let me take the speck out of your eye," when there is the log in your own eye.
[If you really value accurate sight] first take the log out of your own eye; and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.
===========================
I once met a man who explained that this was Jesus' answer to the curse on Adam's progeny -- to counter 'The Knowledge of Good and Evil' by renouncing the human tendency to find evil in people's doings, to condemn people for what they do wrong, mistakenly assuming that we know their intentions and reasons when they inconvenience us and have a right to make them suffer for that...
July 17, 2015
Matthew 6.25 ->
Therefore I tell you, do not be anxious about your life, what you shall eat or what you shall drink, nor about your body, what you shall put on.
Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing? Look at the birds of the air: They neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns; and yet your Heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they?
And which of you, by being anxious, can add one cubit to his span of life?
And why are you anxious about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow. They neither toil nor spin; yet, I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today is alive and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will He not much more clothe you, oh men of little faith?
Therefore do not be anxious, saying, "What shall we eat?" or "What shall we drink?" or "What shall we wear?" For the goyim do all these things; and your Father knows you need them all.
But seek first His kingdom, and His righteousness; and all these things shall be yours as well.
Do not be anxious about tomorrow; for tomorrow will be anxious about itself. Let the day's own trouble be sufficient for the day.
Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing? Look at the birds of the air: They neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns; and yet your Heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they?
And which of you, by being anxious, can add one cubit to his span of life?
And why are you anxious about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow. They neither toil nor spin; yet, I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today is alive and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will He not much more clothe you, oh men of little faith?
Therefore do not be anxious, saying, "What shall we eat?" or "What shall we drink?" or "What shall we wear?" For the goyim do all these things; and your Father knows you need them all.
But seek first His kingdom, and His righteousness; and all these things shall be yours as well.
Do not be anxious about tomorrow; for tomorrow will be anxious about itself. Let the day's own trouble be sufficient for the day.
July 06, 2015
Matthew 6.24
No one can serve two masters; for either he will neglect the one and love the other; or he will be devoted to one and despise the other.
You cannot serve God and Mammon.
=============================
This is clear enough; but you'd need to be pretty poor to actually like it!
I don't think it's saying that you need to starve in a hovel to love God, or that starving in a hovel would do the job, either. It can't be something one "balances," because there's no natural balance point. On another hand, God probably doesn't to object to people having 'enough,' whatever that might be. But one has to watch that step between 'need' and 'want'; it can be a big one!
You cannot serve God and Mammon.
=============================
This is clear enough; but you'd need to be pretty poor to actually like it!
I don't think it's saying that you need to starve in a hovel to love God, or that starving in a hovel would do the job, either. It can't be something one "balances," because there's no natural balance point. On another hand, God probably doesn't to object to people having 'enough,' whatever that might be. But one has to watch that step between 'need' and 'want'; it can be a big one!
July 03, 2015
Matthew 6.22-23
The eye is the lamp of the body. If your eye is sound, your whole body will be full of light; but if your eye is not sound, your whole body will be full of darkness.
If, then, the light in you is darkness, how great is the darkness!
===============================
That is: If the light in you could be darkness, how dark that would make things!
If, then, the light in you is darkness, how great is the darkness!
===============================
That is: If the light in you could be darkness, how dark that would make things!
June 29, 2015
Matthew 6.19-21
Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on Earth, where moth and rust consume and where thieves break in and steal; but lay up for yourselves treasures in Heaven, where neither moth nor rust consumes and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.
==============================
This is not about saving the goodies for 'an afterlife' ala ancient Egyptian practices (though there's nothing more mysterious about an afterlife than there is about the fact that we're experiencing this life!)
It can't be about 'Racking Up Points With The Old Man,' because as we're told, God already loves us as a father, and gives us what we need.
We don't want to need suffering, except that evidently we sometimes do. But that -- Consider the story of Job -- isn't necessarily a matter of having 'Sinned' or being somehow 'Bad.'
So what is this telling us?
==============================
This is not about saving the goodies for 'an afterlife' ala ancient Egyptian practices (though there's nothing more mysterious about an afterlife than there is about the fact that we're experiencing this life!)
It can't be about 'Racking Up Points With The Old Man,' because as we're told, God already loves us as a father, and gives us what we need.
We don't want to need suffering, except that evidently we sometimes do. But that -- Consider the story of Job -- isn't necessarily a matter of having 'Sinned' or being somehow 'Bad.'
So what is this telling us?
June 24, 2015
Matthew 6.9-18
Pray like this:
[It's often a useful challenge to try to rephrase this, not that I could do it 'better' but that then I need to look more closely and strive to understand better.]
Our Father in the Spiritual Realm,
may we recognize your power and worth.
May your rule be manifest
and your intentions be realized
here on Earth as in Heaven.
Give us what we need
and forgive our failings
as you've taught us to forgive
everyone who angers us.
Please do not test our endurance
but rather, spare us from harm
for you are the source of any virtue
or any success we might claim.
----------
[emphasising the need for us to forgive, and echoing previous verses]:
If you forgive people what they owe you, your Father will also forgive you; but if you do not forgive what you're owed, neither will your Father forgive what you owe.
And when you fast, don't look dismal about it, like the hypocrites, who disfigure their faces to make their fasting visible. Truly I say, that's the only reward they can expect. But when you fast, anoint your head and wash your face, so your fasting will only be known to your secret Father, and the Father, who sees in secret, will reward you.
==================
Isn't this what we truly need -- and truly want, so far as we recognize that?
[It's often a useful challenge to try to rephrase this, not that I could do it 'better' but that then I need to look more closely and strive to understand better.]
Our Father in the Spiritual Realm,
may we recognize your power and worth.
May your rule be manifest
and your intentions be realized
here on Earth as in Heaven.
Give us what we need
and forgive our failings
as you've taught us to forgive
everyone who angers us.
Please do not test our endurance
but rather, spare us from harm
for you are the source of any virtue
or any success we might claim.
----------
[emphasising the need for us to forgive, and echoing previous verses]:
If you forgive people what they owe you, your Father will also forgive you; but if you do not forgive what you're owed, neither will your Father forgive what you owe.
And when you fast, don't look dismal about it, like the hypocrites, who disfigure their faces to make their fasting visible. Truly I say, that's the only reward they can expect. But when you fast, anoint your head and wash your face, so your fasting will only be known to your secret Father, and the Father, who sees in secret, will reward you.
==================
Isn't this what we truly need -- and truly want, so far as we recognize that?
June 21, 2015
Matthew 6.1- 8
Beware of practicing your piety before men in order to be seen by them; for then you will have no reward from your Father in the Heavens.
Thus when you give alms, don't sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and the streets, that they may be praised by men. Truly I say to you, they've received their reward. But when you give alms, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your alms may be in secret; so [only] your Father who sees in secret will reward you.
And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites, for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, so they may be seen by men. Truly I say to you, they've received their reward. When you pray, go into your room and shut the door to pray to your Father who is in secret; and your Father, who sees in secret, will reward you.
In praying, do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do, thinking they will be heard better if they use many words. Don't be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask Him.
=========================
In Rabbinic Judaism they make the same distinction, except that they do consider a public gift for personal glory to be better than no donation at all.
Quakers may make too much of a virtue of such reticence, in that often you don't find out what a Friend has been doing until they've died and stopped doing it.
Especially in the case of prayer, I would rather hear it more often -- because I've only known one occasion when one of the older members prayed in Meeting; and by that point the group had wandered far into despair over the crummy State of the World. It isn't so much that we'd need some person to 'lead us in prayer' as that we really need to know there's at least one person present knows the presence of God and knows Who to petition for redress. Great length, putting words in our mouths (or God's) is a flaw, but so is lack of faith. Prayer, like any Message, would need to be something a person is moved by God to say -- but the example and the expectation that we can potentially be inspired to this might help a lot sometimes.
Thus when you give alms, don't sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and the streets, that they may be praised by men. Truly I say to you, they've received their reward. But when you give alms, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your alms may be in secret; so [only] your Father who sees in secret will reward you.
And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites, for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, so they may be seen by men. Truly I say to you, they've received their reward. When you pray, go into your room and shut the door to pray to your Father who is in secret; and your Father, who sees in secret, will reward you.
In praying, do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do, thinking they will be heard better if they use many words. Don't be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask Him.
=========================
In Rabbinic Judaism they make the same distinction, except that they do consider a public gift for personal glory to be better than no donation at all.
Quakers may make too much of a virtue of such reticence, in that often you don't find out what a Friend has been doing until they've died and stopped doing it.
Especially in the case of prayer, I would rather hear it more often -- because I've only known one occasion when one of the older members prayed in Meeting; and by that point the group had wandered far into despair over the crummy State of the World. It isn't so much that we'd need some person to 'lead us in prayer' as that we really need to know there's at least one person present knows the presence of God and knows Who to petition for redress. Great length, putting words in our mouths (or God's) is a flaw, but so is lack of faith. Prayer, like any Message, would need to be something a person is moved by God to say -- but the example and the expectation that we can potentially be inspired to this might help a lot sometimes.
June 17, 2015
Matthew 5.46 -->
If you only love people who love you, should God reward you for that? Surely the toll collectors do that much. And if you only greet your brothers, does that make you special? Even the heathen do that. To belong under God's rule, you must be all goodness, like your Father in Heaven.
--------------------------------
At first this bothered me, because the way it was worded made me think of earning 'A's in school, or of racking up points in a game. So I've paraphrased a little -- but I think that gave me a better sense of how all this is meant to be taken.
It isn't about earning a place in Heaven, but of becoming able to endure life close to God. A lack of readiness to love will bring you down every time.
--------------------------------
At first this bothered me, because the way it was worded made me think of earning 'A's in school, or of racking up points in a game. So I've paraphrased a little -- but I think that gave me a better sense of how all this is meant to be taken.
It isn't about earning a place in Heaven, but of becoming able to endure life close to God. A lack of readiness to love will bring you down every time.
June 15, 2015
Matthew 5.43-45
You have heard that it was said, "You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy."
But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who would persecute you, so that you may be like your Father in Heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain for the just, and for the unjust.
============================
Aside from forcing one to interrupt one's train of blame, this precept is hardest to apply when most needed; and then it's a really great idea!
It isn't just 'doing good in return for evil,' but sincerely wishing good for the other! What a stretch!
What makes this perhaps the best passage in the Bible, is the description of God -- which makes drivelling absurdity of what used to be the most popular interpretations of Christianity. This is how to be 'children of God' because this is what God is like! It's necessary to throw out the consolations of Hell, because God might occasionally change tactics -- but not His basic intention: good for each and all, whether they themselves are 'good' or otherwise. That may need to be 'different strokes for different folks' in the bad sense, but His ultimate purpose can't be frustrated forever.
But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who would persecute you, so that you may be like your Father in Heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain for the just, and for the unjust.
============================
Aside from forcing one to interrupt one's train of blame, this precept is hardest to apply when most needed; and then it's a really great idea!
It isn't just 'doing good in return for evil,' but sincerely wishing good for the other! What a stretch!
What makes this perhaps the best passage in the Bible, is the description of God -- which makes drivelling absurdity of what used to be the most popular interpretations of Christianity. This is how to be 'children of God' because this is what God is like! It's necessary to throw out the consolations of Hell, because God might occasionally change tactics -- but not His basic intention: good for each and all, whether they themselves are 'good' or otherwise. That may need to be 'different strokes for different folks' in the bad sense, but His ultimate purpose can't be frustrated forever.
Matthew 5.42
Give to him who begs from you, and do not refuse him who would borrow from you.
==========================
How many reasons are there not to do this? Are any of them valid?
Aside from that, is this a rule, a guideline, or something else?
Why do we struggle so much with this one?
==========================
How many reasons are there not to do this? Are any of them valid?
Aside from that, is this a rule, a guideline, or something else?
Why do we struggle so much with this one?
June 09, 2015
Matthew 5.38-41
You have heard it was said, "An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth." But I say to you, do not set yourself against the man who would wrong you. If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the left cheek also; and if anyone would sue you and take your coat, let him have your cloak as well; and if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.
=====================
I used the New English Bible's translation of that second sentence, because it doesn't involve the notion of resisting, or not resisting, 'an evil man'. Probably it's a bad idea to assume that someone giving you grief is 'evil'. Also, this doesn't end up saying you shouldn't try to prevent evil happening to self and others, but that you shouldn't 'set yourself against' the perpetrator, shouldn't think of yourself as 'fighting' him per se. Should not [as I've always taken this] damage anyone else in the process of trying not to get hit...
By now it's a familiar interpretation to most everyone studying this stuff, that the following parts imply a kind of psychological judo in response to anyone treating you shamefully: 'If he's giving you an off-hand slap, make him have to consider respectfully slugging you. If he's taking your clothes, strip yourself naked and embarrass him. If he's bullying you into forced service, do more than he has a right to ask [and his centurian will want to know why he's abusing the local population.] Jesus was calling for a form of nonviolent resistance, in other words.
Maybe, maybe not... The cultural implications of the details probably did mean that. But when, as a kid, I tried applying this to my parents, I just got even more indignant.
So far as all of this is about placing yourself safely under God's jurisdiction, it comes out on a different level: letting God take care of that stuff. There is no one worth your anger but God, no one else able to do you harm or good. Any trouble that comes your way must be serving God's purposes; anything you can do to mitigate it is also serving God's purposes -- but getting mad at the agent of that trouble is futile, is just multiplying the total suffering.
Getting mad at God... will not make God angry. When I do, though, eventually it occurs to me that God is more aware of what's happening, why, and how all this will work out.
=====================
I used the New English Bible's translation of that second sentence, because it doesn't involve the notion of resisting, or not resisting, 'an evil man'. Probably it's a bad idea to assume that someone giving you grief is 'evil'. Also, this doesn't end up saying you shouldn't try to prevent evil happening to self and others, but that you shouldn't 'set yourself against' the perpetrator, shouldn't think of yourself as 'fighting' him per se. Should not [as I've always taken this] damage anyone else in the process of trying not to get hit...
By now it's a familiar interpretation to most everyone studying this stuff, that the following parts imply a kind of psychological judo in response to anyone treating you shamefully: 'If he's giving you an off-hand slap, make him have to consider respectfully slugging you. If he's taking your clothes, strip yourself naked and embarrass him. If he's bullying you into forced service, do more than he has a right to ask [and his centurian will want to know why he's abusing the local population.] Jesus was calling for a form of nonviolent resistance, in other words.
Maybe, maybe not... The cultural implications of the details probably did mean that. But when, as a kid, I tried applying this to my parents, I just got even more indignant.
So far as all of this is about placing yourself safely under God's jurisdiction, it comes out on a different level: letting God take care of that stuff. There is no one worth your anger but God, no one else able to do you harm or good. Any trouble that comes your way must be serving God's purposes; anything you can do to mitigate it is also serving God's purposes -- but getting mad at the agent of that trouble is futile, is just multiplying the total suffering.
Getting mad at God... will not make God angry. When I do, though, eventually it occurs to me that God is more aware of what's happening, why, and how all this will work out.
June 05, 2015
Matthew 5.33-37
Again you have heard that it was said to the men of old, "You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn." But I say to you, do not swear at all, either by Heaven, for it is the throne of God, nor by the Earth, for it is His footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. Let what you say be "Yes," or "No;" anything more than this comes from evil.
=======================
This one should be familiar for Quakers. (And I'm not at all sure that "I affirm because I'm a Quaker!" is any better; doesn't this come down to implying "You can believe me because I'm a religious person," pretty similar in fact to what an oath is supposed to mean?)
Is there an inconsistency in this, so far as getting married? Can anyone promise such a thing? -- Or do we simply find that there's no conflict over which we'd be willing to lose this person? Should we really understand those vows to mean, "This is what we intend, and hope for!"
=======================
This one should be familiar for Quakers. (And I'm not at all sure that "I affirm because I'm a Quaker!" is any better; doesn't this come down to implying "You can believe me because I'm a religious person," pretty similar in fact to what an oath is supposed to mean?)
Is there an inconsistency in this, so far as getting married? Can anyone promise such a thing? -- Or do we simply find that there's no conflict over which we'd be willing to lose this person? Should we really understand those vows to mean, "This is what we intend, and hope for!"
June 03, 2015
Matthew 5.31-32
It was also said, "Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce."
But I say to you, that whoever divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, makes her an adulteress; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
==================
This made sense in 1st Century Judea, where the social and economic situation of a divorced woman was worse even than in our times. Church efforts to enforce it legalistically, of course, have been a cruel disaster (and sometimes farcical, as in US States where people were sometimes driven to fake an affair just to escape a bad marriage.)
There was also the fact that divorces exacerbated tensions within families and tended to break up communities. [One private suspicion... When I used to ask 'Why did our Meeting split off from ___?' I'd be told that our Meeting had been organized for the convenience of a group of people living closer to here. But it looks like one of our members had married a woman divorced by one of their members, around that time... and since then, having two Meetings in the same town has made it easier for formerly-married couples to both attend Meeting without having old wounds rubbed.]
Anyway, in current times, is this still relevant to making our way more closely under God's wing...? as seems to be the purpose of these pronouncements?
With courtship behavior & close physical contact, there is a serious risk that close emotional bonds will form. Quite apart from any sort of ceremony, tearing oneself away from such a bond can leave a life-long, unresolvable pain.
Aside from that, such a connection feels risky, no matter how much a person will want exactly that, when it's worked out badly for them or for their parents in the past.
'How this has worked out', in modern times, will often include experience of divorce. But there are also the horrors experienced by and perpetrated by couples who 'stay together for the sake of the children. So far as children are estranged from their parents -- as is probably typical these days -- they will tend to recreate their situation, whether by choosing partners too much like or too much unlike whatever they're used to.
People are also often attracted to potential partners who embody qualities they lack. That can make for a very practical alliance, in which 'Both of us together add up to one competent human being' [as my wife sometimes puts it], but it can also make for serious conflict.
When someone lacks a quality, there's a very good chance he's been suppressing it in his own personality. He may initially be impressed to see the other person expressing this so freely -- yet over time, start sniping at its manifestations in them. Divorce and escape from that kind of relationship can make for a glorious feeling of liberation (as I found when my first wife kicked me out.)
But unless something more significant changes, then [as Fred Neil used to sing] "Same thing gonna happen again, cause that's the bag I'm in!"
Any rule about this, with people as we are today -- needs to be interpreted as Jesus interpreted the Sabbath rules, in light of the fact that the rules are made for our sake, not the other way around.
There is nothing better than having blundered-and-been-led at long last into marriage to the right person! But my ideas, about what 'this right person' should be like, turned out mistaken in many ways. Leaving my first love, because she hadn't matched those ideas, was a terrible mistake, leading to my first marriage to a good woman (a horrible mismatch!) -- which then led, eventually, to that 'right person'. Life and love transcend anyone's rules... but the spirit behind them can guide us in each specific case.
But I say to you, that whoever divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, makes her an adulteress; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
==================
This made sense in 1st Century Judea, where the social and economic situation of a divorced woman was worse even than in our times. Church efforts to enforce it legalistically, of course, have been a cruel disaster (and sometimes farcical, as in US States where people were sometimes driven to fake an affair just to escape a bad marriage.)
There was also the fact that divorces exacerbated tensions within families and tended to break up communities. [One private suspicion... When I used to ask 'Why did our Meeting split off from ___?' I'd be told that our Meeting had been organized for the convenience of a group of people living closer to here. But it looks like one of our members had married a woman divorced by one of their members, around that time... and since then, having two Meetings in the same town has made it easier for formerly-married couples to both attend Meeting without having old wounds rubbed.]
Anyway, in current times, is this still relevant to making our way more closely under God's wing...? as seems to be the purpose of these pronouncements?
With courtship behavior & close physical contact, there is a serious risk that close emotional bonds will form. Quite apart from any sort of ceremony, tearing oneself away from such a bond can leave a life-long, unresolvable pain.
Aside from that, such a connection feels risky, no matter how much a person will want exactly that, when it's worked out badly for them or for their parents in the past.
'How this has worked out', in modern times, will often include experience of divorce. But there are also the horrors experienced by and perpetrated by couples who 'stay together for the sake of the children. So far as children are estranged from their parents -- as is probably typical these days -- they will tend to recreate their situation, whether by choosing partners too much like or too much unlike whatever they're used to.
People are also often attracted to potential partners who embody qualities they lack. That can make for a very practical alliance, in which 'Both of us together add up to one competent human being' [as my wife sometimes puts it], but it can also make for serious conflict.
When someone lacks a quality, there's a very good chance he's been suppressing it in his own personality. He may initially be impressed to see the other person expressing this so freely -- yet over time, start sniping at its manifestations in them. Divorce and escape from that kind of relationship can make for a glorious feeling of liberation (as I found when my first wife kicked me out.)
But unless something more significant changes, then [as Fred Neil used to sing] "Same thing gonna happen again, cause that's the bag I'm in!"
Any rule about this, with people as we are today -- needs to be interpreted as Jesus interpreted the Sabbath rules, in light of the fact that the rules are made for our sake, not the other way around.
There is nothing better than having blundered-and-been-led at long last into marriage to the right person! But my ideas, about what 'this right person' should be like, turned out mistaken in many ways. Leaving my first love, because she hadn't matched those ideas, was a terrible mistake, leading to my first marriage to a good woman (a horrible mismatch!) -- which then led, eventually, to that 'right person'. Life and love transcend anyone's rules... but the spirit behind them can guide us in each specific case.
May 26, 2015
Matthew 5.29 - 30
If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away. It is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body is thrown into Hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into Hell.
=========================
Okay, it's clearly neither your physical hand or eye (or foot, in Mark's version of this) that's causing you to sin. Your way of seeing, your favorite means of getting results, your methods of getting from one place (figurative or literal) to another might need to go.
And what is it to 'sin'?
Our guy is speaking to a Jewish crowd who live in The Promised Land, but haven't found it the land of freedom and blessings their ancestors had been promised.
What they want is to live in the Kingdom of God, that land as it's meant to be when God reigns over it, as Jesus has been saying is starting to manifest. 'Sin' has been their accepted explanation for why conditions around them have always been unsatisfactory and literally unacceptable. 'Sins' are the obstacles to living under God's explicit jurisdiction, blameless and blessed.
=========================
Okay, it's clearly neither your physical hand or eye (or foot, in Mark's version of this) that's causing you to sin. Your way of seeing, your favorite means of getting results, your methods of getting from one place (figurative or literal) to another might need to go.
And what is it to 'sin'?
Our guy is speaking to a Jewish crowd who live in The Promised Land, but haven't found it the land of freedom and blessings their ancestors had been promised.
What they want is to live in the Kingdom of God, that land as it's meant to be when God reigns over it, as Jesus has been saying is starting to manifest. 'Sin' has been their accepted explanation for why conditions around them have always been unsatisfactory and literally unacceptable. 'Sins' are the obstacles to living under God's explicit jurisdiction, blameless and blessed.
May 22, 2015
Matthew 5:27 & 28
You have heard that it was said, "You shall not commit adultery." But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
============================
This is another challenging one, because -- If God is going to getcha for this, then I, and every other straight man I know will be going straight to Hell. I really don't believe that's on the program, but then what is this doing in here?
Neither Mark nor Luke mention this saying. The story called 'The Woman Taken In Adultery' could be a later interpretation of it, because -- aside from being thoroughly in character, that story doesn't seem to have been part of any of the known Gospels; while it provides the only place in the tradition where Jesus is said to write anything whatsoever.
The absence of a saying in other Gospels could mean anything or nothing. This particular saying looks like it could be 'Matthew's' elaboration of Jesus' emphasis on inner righteousness above mere observance of external rules.
All the Gospel authors would have participated in groups where what people remembered of the tradition would have frequently been recited; and the material in those recitations would have been 'the same' in general while also being 'different': depending on local conditions and on who wanted to emphasize what on any particular occasion. No particular rendition was the original, 'real' gospel. There would have been overall agreement on what belonged to it but -- until it was eventually written in some form -- room for elaboration within that agreement.
Whether or not this saying goes back to The Guy -- What should it mean?
Everyone likes to see other people, to look at other people, whether or not those people appeal to us sexually: young women, young men, old people, children. God didn't make people good-looking just so we could turn that pleasure into something dumb & ugly.
People whose presence pleasantly twangs our sexual feelings, well -- That's even better! -- except. Except that, (for any of a long list of reasons) following through physically on those feelings would in most cases be a really bad idea.
I think (and prefer to think!) that Jesus is saying, as in the 'Woman Taken' story, that we've got no business condemning anyone for responding to such feelings foolishly, because any of us might have done that (and are lucky if we didn't!)
At the risk of potential inconsistency with the following passage, I'm going to say that we aren't being told to go around with opaque bags over our heads, not being told to suppress sexual feelings for anyone but our spice... It doesn't do to cling to such feelings, to seek them out or dwell on them, but that is another matter.
Given that God can give us anything we ask for... Isn't it a bad idea to nurse desires that would really screw things up if they materialized?
============================
This is another challenging one, because -- If God is going to getcha for this, then I, and every other straight man I know will be going straight to Hell. I really don't believe that's on the program, but then what is this doing in here?
Neither Mark nor Luke mention this saying. The story called 'The Woman Taken In Adultery' could be a later interpretation of it, because -- aside from being thoroughly in character, that story doesn't seem to have been part of any of the known Gospels; while it provides the only place in the tradition where Jesus is said to write anything whatsoever.
The absence of a saying in other Gospels could mean anything or nothing. This particular saying looks like it could be 'Matthew's' elaboration of Jesus' emphasis on inner righteousness above mere observance of external rules.
All the Gospel authors would have participated in groups where what people remembered of the tradition would have frequently been recited; and the material in those recitations would have been 'the same' in general while also being 'different': depending on local conditions and on who wanted to emphasize what on any particular occasion. No particular rendition was the original, 'real' gospel. There would have been overall agreement on what belonged to it but -- until it was eventually written in some form -- room for elaboration within that agreement.
Whether or not this saying goes back to The Guy -- What should it mean?
Everyone likes to see other people, to look at other people, whether or not those people appeal to us sexually: young women, young men, old people, children. God didn't make people good-looking just so we could turn that pleasure into something dumb & ugly.
People whose presence pleasantly twangs our sexual feelings, well -- That's even better! -- except. Except that, (for any of a long list of reasons) following through physically on those feelings would in most cases be a really bad idea.
I think (and prefer to think!) that Jesus is saying, as in the 'Woman Taken' story, that we've got no business condemning anyone for responding to such feelings foolishly, because any of us might have done that (and are lucky if we didn't!)
At the risk of potential inconsistency with the following passage, I'm going to say that we aren't being told to go around with opaque bags over our heads, not being told to suppress sexual feelings for anyone but our spice... It doesn't do to cling to such feelings, to seek them out or dwell on them, but that is another matter.
Given that God can give us anything we ask for... Isn't it a bad idea to nurse desires that would really screw things up if they materialized?
May 19, 2015
Matthew 5:21 -- 26
You have heard that it was said to our ancestors, "You shall not kill," that whoever kills is liable to judgement. But I say to you, that everyone angry with his brother shall be liable to judgement; whoever insults his brother shall be liable to the council; and whoever says, "You fool!" shall be liable to a fiery Hell. So if you are offering your gift at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you -- Leave your gift at the altar. Go! -- First be reconciled to your brother; and then come and offer your gift.
Make friends quickly with your accuser, while you are going with him to court, lest your accuser hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the guard; and you be put in prison. Truly, I say to you, you will never get out until you have paid the last penny.
=========================
Anger is hell. Acting on it makes things worse; and the suffering becomes entrenched when one can't stop defending his anger.
Feelings of anger are no doubt unavoidable; but as one student of the subject concluded -- Anger is more than merely the emotion we recognize as 'being angry': "It's an emotion plus a judgement."
If you didn't feel that someone had harmed you, if you didn't feel he was at fault in the matter; you'd have no reason to be angry at him. Only God could do you serious harm; yet you become angry at this human being who, regardless of his intentions or his carelessness, has merely delivered your karma. There is no one worth fearing -- or being angry at -- except God.
If it's really God you should blame, what are the chances that you're missing something about what really happened and why it was necessary?
Clearly that's a figurative 'prison' in the last paragraph; and the debt is not a literal one. Still, if something inside is accusing you of being in the wrong, that's part of you. You don't have to agree with it; you do need to face what it's talking about and consider whether or not that's something you'd better recognize. If so, it's done you a valuable service. [But do keep in mind something that Jesus says elsewhere: "The Devil always was a liar."]
-----------------
If you want to live in a world where the Spirit rules, and prayers have power to influence what happens -- then you need to clean up your act. God won't do evil; but wishing He would could only weaken your faith.
Make friends quickly with your accuser, while you are going with him to court, lest your accuser hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the guard; and you be put in prison. Truly, I say to you, you will never get out until you have paid the last penny.
=========================
Anger is hell. Acting on it makes things worse; and the suffering becomes entrenched when one can't stop defending his anger.
Feelings of anger are no doubt unavoidable; but as one student of the subject concluded -- Anger is more than merely the emotion we recognize as 'being angry': "It's an emotion plus a judgement."
If you didn't feel that someone had harmed you, if you didn't feel he was at fault in the matter; you'd have no reason to be angry at him. Only God could do you serious harm; yet you become angry at this human being who, regardless of his intentions or his carelessness, has merely delivered your karma. There is no one worth fearing -- or being angry at -- except God.
If it's really God you should blame, what are the chances that you're missing something about what really happened and why it was necessary?
Clearly that's a figurative 'prison' in the last paragraph; and the debt is not a literal one. Still, if something inside is accusing you of being in the wrong, that's part of you. You don't have to agree with it; you do need to face what it's talking about and consider whether or not that's something you'd better recognize. If so, it's done you a valuable service. [But do keep in mind something that Jesus says elsewhere: "The Devil always was a liar."]
-----------------
If you want to live in a world where the Spirit rules, and prayers have power to influence what happens -- then you need to clean up your act. God won't do evil; but wishing He would could only weaken your faith.
May 18, 2015
Matthew 5:17 -- 20
Don't think I've come to release people from the Torah or the prophets. I haven't come to loosen them but to fulfill them.
Indeed, until Heaven and Earth pass away, not one dot will be taken from the law until its purpose is completed. So whoever releases one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least under God's reign; but anyone who does them and teaches them will be considered great.
Until your righteousness transcends that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not be living under God's rule.
====================
This is problematic for a number of reasons.
The Torah as known to most of Jesus' hearers was not a manuscript they could read but a shared oral tradition. [Richard Horsley is very good on this point, but online I'm finding only ads for his books, and a review that summarizes his conclusions: http://www.thetwocities.com/book-reviews/review-of-text-and-tradition-in-performance-and-writing-by-richard-horsley/ ]
It was not a scroll on the shelves in the Temple in Jerusalem (although this is the kind of source in which modern people encounter it) but a body of common knowledge that people knew and discussed fairly often -- but which wasn't entirely uniform between Judea, Samaria and Galilee (an area which had had 'the laws of the Judeans' forcibly imposed on it around 100 years previously, and probably still followed local Isrealite custom to a great degree.) The Pharisees, of course, were agreed on the version of Judea, which probably put more stress on centralized worship in the Temple, less on customs that kept peasant families intact & in secure possession of their ancestral land.
The Pharisees of Jesus' time were dominated by the rigid and ethnocentric interpretations of Shammai ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillel_and_Shammai ), and from that standpoint would certainly have accused Jesus of relaxing the law. Jesus' interpretations are usually close to those of Shammai's rival Hillel, whose rulings had fallen out of acceptance -- except in one practice highly significant to Jesus' audience: the Proszul. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prozbul)
This innovation, although well intended (to make loans available for subsistence farmers) had eventually led to a plague of foreclosures, resulting in widespread destitution, malnuitrition, the sheer multitude of diseases & unhealed injuries Jesus is called to address. This would certainly be an example of 'releasing one of God's commandments, and teaching men so', in that Hillel had been one of the Pharisees' two most prominent teachers.
In Luke, the closest thing to this passage is probably Luke 16:17, "It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for one dot of the law to become void." There, however, it immediately follows Luke 16:16, "The Law and the prophets were until John; since then the good news of God's reign is preached; and everyone is pushing to get there." That implies a considerably different view of when and how the Torah applies to people.
One reading of the Bible overall is that God produced and 'chose' the people called 'Israel' to help overcome the state of divine/human estrangement produced by 'The Knowledge of Good and Evil.' If that was the function of this people, it suggests that this is the purpose their laws were intended to serve.
Jesus' practice seems to treat these laws as guidelines. That is, one would not want to ignore a generally helpful set of guidelines, but it wouldn't be a crime to make occasional exceptions for good reason. [The rabbis who wrote the Talmud spent considerable effort arguing about one law, that which demanded that an incorrigibly insubordinate son should be taken out & stoned -- a law which they eventually concluded had no possible application and no reason to exist except "so we could have this argument."
Indeed, until Heaven and Earth pass away, not one dot will be taken from the law until its purpose is completed. So whoever releases one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least under God's reign; but anyone who does them and teaches them will be considered great.
Until your righteousness transcends that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not be living under God's rule.
====================
This is problematic for a number of reasons.
The Torah as known to most of Jesus' hearers was not a manuscript they could read but a shared oral tradition. [Richard Horsley is very good on this point, but online I'm finding only ads for his books, and a review that summarizes his conclusions: http://www.thetwocities.com/book-reviews/review-of-text-and-tradition-in-performance-and-writing-by-richard-horsley/ ]
It was not a scroll on the shelves in the Temple in Jerusalem (although this is the kind of source in which modern people encounter it) but a body of common knowledge that people knew and discussed fairly often -- but which wasn't entirely uniform between Judea, Samaria and Galilee (an area which had had 'the laws of the Judeans' forcibly imposed on it around 100 years previously, and probably still followed local Isrealite custom to a great degree.) The Pharisees, of course, were agreed on the version of Judea, which probably put more stress on centralized worship in the Temple, less on customs that kept peasant families intact & in secure possession of their ancestral land.
The Pharisees of Jesus' time were dominated by the rigid and ethnocentric interpretations of Shammai ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillel_and_Shammai ), and from that standpoint would certainly have accused Jesus of relaxing the law. Jesus' interpretations are usually close to those of Shammai's rival Hillel, whose rulings had fallen out of acceptance -- except in one practice highly significant to Jesus' audience: the Proszul. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prozbul)
This innovation, although well intended (to make loans available for subsistence farmers) had eventually led to a plague of foreclosures, resulting in widespread destitution, malnuitrition, the sheer multitude of diseases & unhealed injuries Jesus is called to address. This would certainly be an example of 'releasing one of God's commandments, and teaching men so', in that Hillel had been one of the Pharisees' two most prominent teachers.
In Luke, the closest thing to this passage is probably Luke 16:17, "It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for one dot of the law to become void." There, however, it immediately follows Luke 16:16, "The Law and the prophets were until John; since then the good news of God's reign is preached; and everyone is pushing to get there." That implies a considerably different view of when and how the Torah applies to people.
One reading of the Bible overall is that God produced and 'chose' the people called 'Israel' to help overcome the state of divine/human estrangement produced by 'The Knowledge of Good and Evil.' If that was the function of this people, it suggests that this is the purpose their laws were intended to serve.
Jesus' practice seems to treat these laws as guidelines. That is, one would not want to ignore a generally helpful set of guidelines, but it wouldn't be a crime to make occasional exceptions for good reason. [The rabbis who wrote the Talmud spent considerable effort arguing about one law, that which demanded that an incorrigibly insubordinate son should be taken out & stoned -- a law which they eventually concluded had no possible application and no reason to exist except "so we could have this argument."
May 13, 2015
Matthew 5.13-16
You are the salt of the Earth; but if salt has lost its taste, how shall its salt be restored? It is no longer good for anything but to be thrown out and trodden under foot.
You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hid.
Nor do men light a lamp and put it under a bushel, but on a stand; and thus it gives light to all in the house.
====================================
Again, Jesus is addressing Israel, 'the people that wrestles with God', explaining what it means to be 'Israel' and live in a realm under God's jurisdiction. [This would likewise apply to any group who hopes to take that role and serve that function, various Christian denominations for example.]
Salt wasn't just a spice in his society; it came in little cakes that were essential for baking bread in dung-fuelled ovens, in a place where 'firewood' would have been a luxury. They worked as a catalyst to make the flame burn clean and not pollute the bread. They did in fact lose their salt over time, and what was left wouldn't make good seasoning either.
A people like Israel [or like the Quakers?] isn't set aside just to taste good to ourselves; there's a function we're meant to serve.
That city on the hill was Jerusalem. The Pharisees, who since then came to follow Hillel's humane and enlightened interpretations of Israelite law, were at the time dominated by their narrow and legalistic nationalist faction; there had been a theological discussion with clubs and spears in which many of Hillel's school had been massacred and his school purged from the leadership.
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillel_and_Shammai ) Many of Jesus' subsequent disputes against 'the Pharisees' were with that group, and this passage points to a significant divergence: he believes that Israel is to be 'a light to the nations', and not by merely being pious among themselves.
So far as Israel, and with it the rest of humanity, are becoming ready to live under God's jurisdiction, this can't really be done in hiding. No in-group can keep the Kingdom for themselves; it stretches out to include everyone, whether or not they think they belong.
You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hid.
Nor do men light a lamp and put it under a bushel, but on a stand; and thus it gives light to all in the house.
====================================
Again, Jesus is addressing Israel, 'the people that wrestles with God', explaining what it means to be 'Israel' and live in a realm under God's jurisdiction. [This would likewise apply to any group who hopes to take that role and serve that function, various Christian denominations for example.]
Salt wasn't just a spice in his society; it came in little cakes that were essential for baking bread in dung-fuelled ovens, in a place where 'firewood' would have been a luxury. They worked as a catalyst to make the flame burn clean and not pollute the bread. They did in fact lose their salt over time, and what was left wouldn't make good seasoning either.
A people like Israel [or like the Quakers?] isn't set aside just to taste good to ourselves; there's a function we're meant to serve.
That city on the hill was Jerusalem. The Pharisees, who since then came to follow Hillel's humane and enlightened interpretations of Israelite law, were at the time dominated by their narrow and legalistic nationalist faction; there had been a theological discussion with clubs and spears in which many of Hillel's school had been massacred and his school purged from the leadership.
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillel_and_Shammai ) Many of Jesus' subsequent disputes against 'the Pharisees' were with that group, and this passage points to a significant divergence: he believes that Israel is to be 'a light to the nations', and not by merely being pious among themselves.
So far as Israel, and with it the rest of humanity, are becoming ready to live under God's jurisdiction, this can't really be done in hiding. No in-group can keep the Kingdom for themselves; it stretches out to include everyone, whether or not they think they belong.
May 12, 2015
Matthew 5:1 ->12
Seeing the crowds, he went up on the mountain; and when he sat down his disciples came to him. Then he opened his mouth and taught them, saying:
Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven.==================================================
Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.
Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the Earth.
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.
Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.
Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called children of God.
Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness sake, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven.
Blessed are you when men revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward from Heaven is great; so men persecuted the prophets who were before you.
For such a popular passage, I've always found this difficult. "Blessed are the poor in spirit?" That's redundant, with "Blessed are the meek." Luke has this as "Blessed are the poor," which adds something significant, and is likely the original quote -- except that I haven't observed poor people in general to be anything but wretched & harassed.
First off, Jesus is talking about how things are to be within God's kingdom, that is, for those enjoying the active participation of God in the world around them. Most people, no matter how good, have not been able to experience this, but remain solidly planted in that other guy's realm. So far as we want to be good, we are in fact responding to God's influence; but so far as people haven't been generally willing to let God actually rule their lives, the results have been uneven.
There is, of course, the traditional image of a 'king' as the man who sits on a throne and orders people about. He is supposed to take requests from his subjects; but which requests are granted will be based on his personal decision. Abraham breaks that mold; so does Moses. These paradigms of good relationships with God -- frequently dicker with Him like oriental merchants.
Rather than seeing God as our King -- we can better see the relationship as one of students to their teacher, or as Jesus had it, as children to their parent. But the power disparity is absolute; and so is the gap in wisdom between us; hence God will call the shots, and it makes a lot of sense for us to welcome that. We simply don't. God has too much power for our comfort; God's wisdom goes deeper than ours and is likely to surprise us with difficult learning-situations. People compulsively insist on telling God how to rule; and it shouldn't surprise us that this hasn't worked.
God's realm is called 'a kingdom', I would say, because God was considered Israel's King from the time this people were freed from slavery until they demanded a human monarch. When a popular leader like Gideon was invited to be king, he would say: "I will not rule over you; and my sons will not rule over you; but the Lord will rule over you." Leaders who departed from that pattern soon made themselves intensely, deservedly unpopular; and when Saul, then David, became kings, they also misbehaved and suffered no end of revolts.
This is what the 'Kingdom of God' would mean to Israel in ancient times, and to Jesus' followers -- not another human king to take the crops and enslave one's children, but the active rule which God had exercised in freeing their ancestors, as their national story insisted.
Those who could benefit most from accepting God's jurisdiction would be the poor, those who were suffering or timid, people who wanted to promote and receive justice and mercy, those who insisted on truth rather than popular falsehoods.
May 11, 2015
Matthew 4:17 ->
From that time, Jesus began to preach, saying, "Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand."
As he walked by the Sea of Galilee, he saw two brothers, Simon who is called 'Peter' and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea; for they were fishermen. He said to them, "Follow me and I will make you fishers of men."
Immediately they left their nets and followed him.
And going on from there he saw two other brothers, James the son of Zebedee and John his brother, in the boat with Zebedee their father, mending their nets, and he called them.
Immediately they left the boat and their father, and followed him.
He went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and preaching the gospel of the Kingdom, healing every disease and every infirmity among the people.
So his fame spread throughout all Syria; and they brought him all the sick, those afflicted with various diseases and pains, demoniacs, epileptics, and paralytics; and he healed them. Great crowds followed him from Galilee and the Decapolis and Jerusalem and Judea and from beyond the Jordan.
=========================
I've skipped some interesting and important material -- which does imply certain things about what this Kingdom of Heaven means -- because this is the first place here it's mentioned explicitly. Jesus has resisted the Devil's suggestions that he command miracles and put himself in charge of that Kingdom, whether by spectacular shows of divine favor or by any of the ways that secular rulers acquire power. This is to be 'The Kingdom of God,', not 'The Kingdom of Jesus.' His colleague John has been arrested by Herod Antipas, and everyone knows how that will most likely turn out -- but Jesus takes up John's mission and raises the ante: "The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand!"
Clearly Jesus is an impressive man; but it isn't his personal power he's relying on when he chooses certain people to drop everything and follow him; and they do it. He doesn't invite Zebedee, who is sitting in the boat with his sons; and is probably a good, competent man. It isn't his personal power that cures all these ailing people.
If the Kingdom of God is taking form, then God is beginning to actively reign. And that means miracles happen. We don't need to explain this by modern psychosomatic medicine or diagnoses of 'why can he cure that ailment?' We do need to drop our modern assumption that The Laws of Nature Must Be Enforced!
Both John and Jesus have been calling on people to 'repent'. That's an interesting word, which didn't mean merely cleaning up their act. I'm told it meant literally to change direction and orientation, or (for the Greek word) to 'go beyond the mind that you have.' God is resuming visible rule of this world; and if you don't change your outlook you aren't going to like it.
As he walked by the Sea of Galilee, he saw two brothers, Simon who is called 'Peter' and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea; for they were fishermen. He said to them, "Follow me and I will make you fishers of men."
Immediately they left their nets and followed him.
And going on from there he saw two other brothers, James the son of Zebedee and John his brother, in the boat with Zebedee their father, mending their nets, and he called them.
Immediately they left the boat and their father, and followed him.
He went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and preaching the gospel of the Kingdom, healing every disease and every infirmity among the people.
So his fame spread throughout all Syria; and they brought him all the sick, those afflicted with various diseases and pains, demoniacs, epileptics, and paralytics; and he healed them. Great crowds followed him from Galilee and the Decapolis and Jerusalem and Judea and from beyond the Jordan.
=========================
I've skipped some interesting and important material -- which does imply certain things about what this Kingdom of Heaven means -- because this is the first place here it's mentioned explicitly. Jesus has resisted the Devil's suggestions that he command miracles and put himself in charge of that Kingdom, whether by spectacular shows of divine favor or by any of the ways that secular rulers acquire power. This is to be 'The Kingdom of God,', not 'The Kingdom of Jesus.' His colleague John has been arrested by Herod Antipas, and everyone knows how that will most likely turn out -- but Jesus takes up John's mission and raises the ante: "The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand!"
Clearly Jesus is an impressive man; but it isn't his personal power he's relying on when he chooses certain people to drop everything and follow him; and they do it. He doesn't invite Zebedee, who is sitting in the boat with his sons; and is probably a good, competent man. It isn't his personal power that cures all these ailing people.
If the Kingdom of God is taking form, then God is beginning to actively reign. And that means miracles happen. We don't need to explain this by modern psychosomatic medicine or diagnoses of 'why can he cure that ailment?' We do need to drop our modern assumption that The Laws of Nature Must Be Enforced!
Both John and Jesus have been calling on people to 'repent'. That's an interesting word, which didn't mean merely cleaning up their act. I'm told it meant literally to change direction and orientation, or (for the Greek word) to 'go beyond the mind that you have.' God is resuming visible rule of this world; and if you don't change your outlook you aren't going to like it.
May 10, 2015
Resuming Bible Study
For a very long time now I have not been able to see any very good reason to study the Bible. Yes, it's a collection of writings one needs to come to terms with, to account for, to find some meaning in -- but once you have, why read further?
After wrestling with this question for some time -- perhaps, "after lying there waiting for it to be done with me"? -- I've reached a perspective in which such study, particularly of the Gospels, could well help me with an urgent question.
The long explanation is at: http://apoetictheology.blogspot.com/2015/05/redemption-jews-and-jesus.html
A shorter version: As we all know, Jesus starts his public career proclaiming that the 'Kingdom of God' is here, is arriving, is available... While for us, looking at the chaos of the secular world, it can be very difficult to find what those words could possibly be pointing to.
NT Wright describes the phrase's meaning to 1st Century Jews as: ~'Our exile from the Promised Land is over.'
But of course it wasn't just the land itself they yearned for; it was that land as it was supposed to be under the Covenant, with their people freed from oppressive rulers and enjoying the prosperity and security of a land ruled by God. Nothing of the sort existed there in Jesus' time or at any time since. The essential point, though -- is that God 'comes back' from Hsr presumed absence, 'remembers' this people again, as when he rescued them from slavery in Egypt.
God goes from letting people imagine Hmr as an Absentee Diety -- to manifesting as a present and active ruler, intervening wherever such intervention is welcomed, no longer completely masked by people's ignorance.
But to be able to live with an active God, to even find God's presence endurable -- People needed to change their outlook and their ways. [That, I would say, is the basic answer to a previous question: Why 'Elijah' was supposed to appear first, to reconcile parents and parents so that an outbreak of spiritual power would not have to manifest as 'a curse'.]
That, I would say, is the perspective in which Jesus' many parables and sayings need to be understood, in terms of the very truth he is announcing all along. He is explaining how to live within God's sphere of action rather than living in slavery to a world of disease, oppression, and death; he is explaining how things work within that sphere. I would not say that anybody is actually outside that sphere -- Jesus' own words imply that God continues to help everyone regardless of their condition -- but there are ways one needs to see and be, or that sphere will necessarily not be visible.
And so I'm returning to this blog, and hoping some suitable companions will see fit to accompany the venture: to continue on into Matthew from that perspective and see how it fits.
After wrestling with this question for some time -- perhaps, "after lying there waiting for it to be done with me"? -- I've reached a perspective in which such study, particularly of the Gospels, could well help me with an urgent question.
The long explanation is at: http://apoetictheology.blogspot.com/2015/05/redemption-jews-and-jesus.html
A shorter version: As we all know, Jesus starts his public career proclaiming that the 'Kingdom of God' is here, is arriving, is available... While for us, looking at the chaos of the secular world, it can be very difficult to find what those words could possibly be pointing to.
NT Wright describes the phrase's meaning to 1st Century Jews as: ~'Our exile from the Promised Land is over.'
But of course it wasn't just the land itself they yearned for; it was that land as it was supposed to be under the Covenant, with their people freed from oppressive rulers and enjoying the prosperity and security of a land ruled by God. Nothing of the sort existed there in Jesus' time or at any time since. The essential point, though -- is that God 'comes back' from Hsr presumed absence, 'remembers' this people again, as when he rescued them from slavery in Egypt.
God goes from letting people imagine Hmr as an Absentee Diety -- to manifesting as a present and active ruler, intervening wherever such intervention is welcomed, no longer completely masked by people's ignorance.
But to be able to live with an active God, to even find God's presence endurable -- People needed to change their outlook and their ways. [That, I would say, is the basic answer to a previous question: Why 'Elijah' was supposed to appear first, to reconcile parents and parents so that an outbreak of spiritual power would not have to manifest as 'a curse'.]
That, I would say, is the perspective in which Jesus' many parables and sayings need to be understood, in terms of the very truth he is announcing all along. He is explaining how to live within God's sphere of action rather than living in slavery to a world of disease, oppression, and death; he is explaining how things work within that sphere. I would not say that anybody is actually outside that sphere -- Jesus' own words imply that God continues to help everyone regardless of their condition -- but there are ways one needs to see and be, or that sphere will necessarily not be visible.
And so I'm returning to this blog, and hoping some suitable companions will see fit to accompany the venture: to continue on into Matthew from that perspective and see how it fits.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)