The Challenge of His Sayings
Standing near the cross of Jesus were his mother, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene
Humans love challenges. Some prefer challenges related to ideas, others to practical things. Whether you prefer to work crosswords, plan Sabbath dinner menus, or enhance production efficiencies, satisfaction results from meeting challenges. This week’s lesson examines challenging sayings of Jesus, a topic to engage both bends of mind. Out of these sayings, some wish to do theology, others service.
There are multiple ways to resolve the tensions that challenging texts generate. One common method is to import a classification system that enables one to evade the hard work that learning from these texts requires. For example, to classify the words of Jesus into separate categories such as teachings vs. sayings implies that some of Jesus’ words have a higher claim to our attention than others. Although this implication may be true, the imprecision of the categories, teachings vs. sayings, allows easy escape routes for texts we don’t wish to follow. The Gospels use both terms, but not as categories. For example, to what category would you assign words that follow this common introduction: Jesus opened his mouth and
Matthew 5:48: Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
The word perfect frightens us because we know how far we are from being perfect. And it is so useful to compel one another to try a little harder. The word perfect (teleos) has a variety of semantic meanings, but the literal command in its most stringent application is not possible, for it would be commanding humans to have infinite capacities. I suggest we allow the Lukan parallel to guide us in the interpretation here and see that it is focused on how we act toward others—a command that we act with mercy as God acts with mercy. This is not to stray from Matthew’s reading, for the context immediately preceding this verse says that God makes the sun shine on the evil and the good, and sends rain upon the just and the unjust, to which Matthew 5:48 provides the conclusion, Therefore, act with the same disregard toward good and bad as God does in sending sun and rain. That is truly a challenging command interested in service. Compare Luke 6:36.
Matthew 18:21–22: (21) Then Peter came and said to him, "Lord, if another member of the church sins against me, how often should I forgive? As many as seven times?” (22) Jesus said to him, "Not seven times, but, I tell you, seventy-seven times.”
Like ice cream, the number in the text, both in manuscript variants and translations, comes in several flavors, which makes the point that score keeping misses the meaning of forgiveness. Treating the other with forgiveness, regardless of the number of times is to act as God acts.
Matthew 19:3–12: (3) Some Pharisees came to him, and to test him they asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause?" (4) He answered, "Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ (5) and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? (6) So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, let no one separate." (7) They said to him, "Then why did Moses command us to give a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her?” (8) He said to them, "It was because you were so hard-hearted that Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. (9) And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife except for unchastity, and marries another commits adultery." (10) His disciples said to him, "If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry." (11) But he said to them, "Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given. (12) For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can."
One of the challenges here is that even though divorce is not the ideal, Moses in the law made allowance for divorce because of the hardness of human hearts. The importance of verse 11 to Jesus’ words can be neglected, but it seems to recognize that when hearts are hard, allowance is an option, and since not all accept the ideal, there is opportunity to practice mercy upon even the hardhearted, particularly when Matthew 5:48 is taken seriously.
Matthew 19:3–12 recognizes that there are complicated issues with regard to human sexuality. The less frequently considered portion deals with eunuchs. People are not all born alike, have not all been treated alike, and do not all act alike. Jesus seems to repeat the same concern for the ideal in verse 12d as he did in verse 11: there is an ideal, but not all can accept it. When hearts are “hard,” when conditions vary from individual to individual, there is opportunity to act mercifully toward difference as God acts when God sends the welcome rain upon the righteous and the unrighteous (Matthew 5:45).
Luke 12:32-34 (32) Do not be afraid, little flock, for it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom. (33) Sell your possessions, and give alms. Make purses for yourselves that do not wear out, an unfailing treasure in heaven, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys. (34) For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.
Salvation has to be removed from the equation in order to understand this text (and others). The equation is not salvation = selling and giving. Before any commands are made (vs. 33), the kingdom has already been given (vs. 32). When the treasure is with people in need, the heart is with God. The challenging words of Jesus become most pointed in texts like this. The challenge is not in what is to be believed, but what is practiced.
John 19:25–27: (25) Meanwhile, standing near the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. (26) When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing beside her, he said to his mother, "Woman, here is your son." (27) Then he said to the disciple, "Here is your mother." And from that hour the disciple took her into his own home.
Any number of challenges stand in these three verses. Didn’t Jesus love other disciples? If so, why is this disciple identified as the one “whom he loved”? There are three Marys in this scene, but why would any family name two of their daughters both Mary? Why would one address one’s mother as “woman”? These, however, are red herrings to the core issue of valuing people. Concern is not to be limited to beggars, eunuchs, the divorced, and repeat offenders, but also to family, as portrayed in the concern of Jesus for the care of his mother.
The truly challenging words of Jesus are not those that provide intellectual puzzles, but those, usually straightforward sayings, that teach us to take care of the enemy, the poor, the imprisoned, the widow, the orphan, and the family member. It is not believing in mercy, but enacting mercy where the truly challenging words of Jesus confront us.
A New Testament scholar by training, Ron Jolliffe is professor of English at Walla Walla University, College Place, Washington.
Search
Recent Comments
- pat travis on Report from the San Diego Adventist Forum Conference: Creation Care and Sustainability
- Elaine Nelson on Southern's School of Religion Hosts Own Panel on Homosexuality
- Darryl Bentley-Senior Theology Student at SAU on Southern's School of Religion Hosts Own Panel on Homosexuality
- Nelson Fernandez Jr. on Southern's School of Religion Hosts Own Panel on Homosexuality
- Alexander Carpenter on Report from the San Diego Adventist Forum Conference: Creation Care and Sustainability
- Jared Wright on Report from the San Diego Adventist Forum Conference: Creation Care and Sustainability
- Bonnie Dwyer on We Ministers Have Professional Standards Too!
- Robert Ford on Report from the San Diego Adventist Forum Conference: Creation Care and Sustainability
- Gaylene on Southern's School of Religion Hosts Own Panel on Homosexuality
- Elaine Nelson on Southern's School of Religion Hosts Own Panel on Homosexuality
User login
© Copyright 2008 Adventist Forums 
Comments
Ron
Salvation has to be removed from the equation in order to understand this text. The equation is not salvation=selling and giving.
Is not the subject of discussion "Teacher what good thing must I do to get eternal life?" Is this not salvation?
In keeping with Jesus' mantra of "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near", and His inaugural sermon with its key themes of "repentance" and "evangelism", is not Jesus saying that I should repent (sell my self-rightousnes which is wretchedness, miserableness, poverty, blindness, nakedness and buy gold, white raiment and eyesalve)and to share the good news about Jesus and His kingdom with others?
Just my thoughts.
Chuck
Excellent lesson Ron.
I especially was intrigued by the Matthew 19 analysis as it offered a rare glimpse at Jesus reconciling old with new teachings. Often he simply is evading and dodging the attacks instead of directly acknowledging the contradictions. Extrapolating that concept across the New Testament offers countless other fascinating avenues of exploration.
Chuck,
The gospel of Luke does not make Jesus's words here the response to any such question, but my comment is intended to be much larger than just this context. The question usually brought to the Bible by its readers is that same self-serving question of the rich young ruler, What must I do to be saved? When this question is taken as important, the Christian life becomes self-serving, we veer off into tedious arguments about whether it is by faith or by works or by both, and miss out on the force of Luke's text, "It is God's good pleasure to give you the kingdom." This God who sends blessings on righteous and unrighteous, on good and on bad is perfect because of that way of acting. Mt 5:48 states imperatively that is how we are to be perfect. What people believe does not feed the hungry, visit those in prison, nor provide clothing to the poor--it is what people do, their actions, that is important, and neither the action, nor the faith nor the combination of the two has anything to do with the acquisition of the kingdom, for the kingdom has already been provided--we need to take salvation out of the equation.
Ron
Gavin,
Nice to see you online. Thank you for the encouragement to extrapolate to other places in the Bible, what a remarkable shift that would create. I'll avoid the temptation for now and keep the focus on Mt 19:3-12. Because it specifically includes references to differences in birth, I wonder why it is not used to shape conversations about issues of gender, race, ethnicity, orientation, and so forth. It is human nature to want to believe that rigorous and demanding restrictions and judgments are there to condemn others, and all statements of graciousness and generosity are directed at me. Yet Mt 5:48's imperative to be perfect, in its context, is not a demand for some kind of moral or religious purity, but a command to treat others as God treats others regardless of whether they fall within the category of the "righteous" or the "unrighteous."
Ron
We make things so needlessly complex. Why can't we belive and follow what Jesus said that to love your neighbor fulfills the law? Better yet, it summarizes the more ancient Golden Rule:
"Do unto others as you would wish done to you."
As Rabbi Hillel said: "All the rest is commentary." We have spent more than 2000 years in needless commentary.
Ron,
It is true that the restoration of the promised kingdom came in Christ the son of David.
Related to Chuck's question on repentence/salvation and your response.
How does one relate to Lk.15:7 and later the prodigal's awareness/faith and planned response to his Fathers goodness which he before had not recognize as seen in Lk.15:18. Has repentance nothing to do with how one enters the kingdom of God already provided?
What meaning might we understand from Lk.24:47?
pat
Elaine,
Good summary.
Pat,
The bestowal of the kingdom is independent of human activity--it is granted, like the sun and the rain. The prodigal did not become a son upon his awareness/faith, and his return did not restore son-ship to him any more than his departure had deprived him of it.
I don't follow the point of the question with regard to Lk 24:47.
Ron
Since "salvation is out of the equation"...Why the need that "Repentance be preached and the forgiveness of sins?"
Was the prodigal a part of his father's "kingdom" until he returned in repentant attitude? or... had he forfeited his position outside of home?
pat
You could look at "Repentance be preached and the forgiveness of sins" as:
You're all Macaroni casserole for dinner. Stop being ungrateful little spoiled twits and hitting your sibling.
---
I thought the story of the prodigal son was that the father always loved him and never saw him as having forfeited his position despite his actions.
'No matter what you say or do you'll always be my son and there will always be a place for you.'
*EDIT*
You're all *GETTING* Macaroni Casserole for dinner. (hehe) Whoops.
Gavin,
That may be what "you thought" but it is a "reductionistic" message. His son was "dead" outside the blessing of his fathers household.
Since Ron wants to stay in Luke which is OK but not legitimate in reducing the Bible story "to Luke" we might also notice that Christ warns some of the "chosen people" that they need to repent in LK.13:3,5. Also we are to forgive others when they repent...LK.17:4.
Regards,
pat
Ron
I know you're not looking for intellectual puzzles but I can't pass this one up.
Here is John 19:25–27: (25) Meanwhile, standing near the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. (26) When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing beside her, he said to his mother, "Woman, here is your son." (27) Then he said to the disciple, "Here is your mother." And from that hour the disciple took her into his own home.
Question: Why on earth would Jesus commit his mother to John's care, given the fact that she had several living children, at least two of whom became leaders in the early Christian church (James and Jude)?
Unless, of course, Eisenman is right, that it was the gospel writer's way of diminishing, if not obliterating, the traces of "James, the brother of Jesus". What is your view?
Aage Rendalen
Pat,
OOoo! Quoting scripture is fun! I love this game!
Luke 12:51 "Do you think I came to bring peace on the earth? I tell you, no! I came to divide."
And war ensued for the next 1800 years.
I think we can now safely conclude based on Luke that Peace on Earth and good will to man was really only for those who accepted him and not everybody, you're right. War and destruction to all the rest who reject him?
What's even more unsettling is if we go back another chapter to Luke Chapter 11 verse 17:
"Every nation divided into groups that fight each other will be destroyed. Every family divided into groups that fight each other will not stand."
So Jesus came to divide mankind. And if we go back a chapter we also find out that a house or nation or people divided will be destroyed! JESUS CAME TO DESTROY MANKIND!!
Ron
Thanks for your response. But, I guess I am dense.
Yes, the kingdom has been provided and I must repent from my kingdom and accept His kingdom. Then my actions and my words will encourage others to accept his kingdom which has been provided. Am I confused on this?
Chuck
Ron
Just an additional thought in my denseness.
Yes, it is God's good pleasure to give me the kingdom, but he also instructs me to "seek" the kingdom (v.31).
Must I not repent in order to receive/accept it?
Matt. 4:17 "Repent, for the kingdom of God has come near."
Chuck
Gavin,
Peace on Earth is an interesting topic as an aside.
I wrote an article in Dec.1975 Ministry Magazine issue...
titled "Peace on Earth?"
pat
Wow Pat! That truley is a fatalistic look upon the future of the planet. So there can be no end to nationalism and war?
Peace on Earth? Ministry Magazine December 1975 pages 24-25:
'"Peace on Earth" is a false promise to those who seek it externally; but it is found by all whose hearts are fuly yielded to the Prince of Darkness.'
http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/MIN/MIN1975-12.pdf
So the better the world gets... the harder the Devil is working... the worse the world gets... the harder the Devil is working. Only when the world stays exactly the same is God's hand at work. Booyyyyeee! No wonder why so many people are opposed to protecting the environment, uniting people, ending world hunger... the fundamentalist christian movement would ideologically by that position view all of that as the work of the Devil!
Pat
I read your Ministry article, published the year I graduated from SMC (SAU) and headed back overseas to work for the SDA church. I'm sure that I saw your article at the time, since I subscribed to Ministry. Most people change over time. Looking at the article today, its apocalyptic language, its EGW-centric point of view, do you feel that it still represents your outlook?
Aage (by the way, pronounced "awe-geh" with a hard "g")
Thanks to both for taking time to read it...
Gavin,
As you know the last sentence is the "Prince of Peace." As I Understand Revelation there is no earthly solution to man's problem..not even when working together.
Aage,
If you noticed the pictured thoughts are quite broad...not tryng to call all small events as fulfilling of "prophecy" but broad strokes. The "one" EGW comment on "Love" I consider valid and have noticed similarities expressed by other non- Adventist theologians.
I still think the article is "essentially sound" and I do think Satan "deceives", himself and through others, with a "smiley face." 2 Cor.11:13-15. I believe humanity and all the world will believe a lie and "delusion" except led of the Spirit of Christ.2 Thess.2:9-13.
You may notice that my article begins by "Christ's Peace" Jn.14:27 and the Spirit that draws us to "Christ our Justifying Savior."Rom5:1.
As to a humanistic, secular,naturalistic "salvation" of the planet and the "goodness of mankind and the planet" I like Luther's comments on Gal.3:6 that condemn the worlds "good works" aside from Christ..."the world neither will nor can suffer that her wisdom,righreousness,religions and worshipings be reproved and condemned." And paraphrasing him on Gal.1:4,If one is not in the kingdom of Christ all the gifts, righteousness,holiness, eloquence, power, beauty and riches but advance the kingdom of the devil.
Or, as Bonnhoeffer writes in "Ethics", "If evil appears in the form of light, benefit, loyalty, and renewal,if it conforms with historical necessity and social justice,then this, if it is understood straightforwardly, is a clear proof of it's abysmal wickedness."p.65.
Or considering, as Thielicke said of the German delusion in "The Great Temptation" in Christianity Today 12 July 1985.p.24."that this people should proceed with fanatical energy to solve economic, social political problems and in solving ignore...that first and foremost we need a Redeemer, who would set straight the deepest basis of our personal lives."
Yes, in these senses...I still believe it is most valid.
Regards,
pat
Pat,
Just read your article and found it very sound and very valid.
'"Peace on earth" is
a false promise to those who seek it
externally; but it is found by all whose
hearts are fully yielded to the Prince of
Peace'.
Cheers,
Chuck
Valid indeed.
If peace on earth is so bad, how can we work and vote against it?
On the anti-peace platform, are you brave enough to signal who you're voting for this year?
Alex,
The hope and responsibility of a Christian in my view is to work for temporary "peace",order and stability. It recognizes however that there are "two kingdoms." We do the best we can while saying we do not believe that "lasting peace" can be obtained until Jesus comes. We recognize that politics does not offer the solution in itself for if righteousness could come by "any law" whatsoever then Christ is dead in vain.
Thus we keep the church working for one kingdom while the state works for the other. The state compliments the church in this age when it works against what the Bible calls evil and it uses the "sword" against it.
To be honest ,I plan to abstain in the Presidential aspect and vote for local and federal candidates that I believe offer the broadest justice and opportunity for all in a pluralistic society and not for any special interest.
The error of the "church" in my opinion in regards to 1 Thess.5:3 is to make "peace" with the world and those who say "peace" when men follow after the imaginations of their own heart as if out of evil good and "peace" can come and God will not visit iniquity. Jer.23:17 ; Deut.29:19-21.
I reside in the cultic conclave of greater Orlando and absolutely seek and have no followers! I am to much of an Individual who cherishes "privacy" and human dignity at large.
regards,
pat
Post new comment