The Sermon on the Mount 3

My third and final presupposition for reading the Sermon on the Mount:

Matthew writes in such a way to parallel Jesus with Moses / Israel.

It seems that Matthew is interested in communicating a story that parallels the history of Israel and the story of Moses in particular. Look at the way Matthew begins his Gospel and the way it relates to Exodus:

• In the Gospel, Jesus’ birth is threatened by an evil monarch, Herod; in Exodus, the Moses’ birth is threatened by an evil monarch, Pharaoh.
• Jesus is born in a time of Roman oppression; Moses in a time of Egyptian oppression.
• Following his birth, Jesus journeys to Egypt before returning home; Moses journeys to Egypt to liberate his people and take them “home” to the land of promise.
• Each man performs mighty wonders that demonstrated the power of God; each man passes through the waters (Moses / Red Sea; Jesus / Jordan River); each one experiences temptation in the wilderness; and as Fred Craddock and Eugene Boring put it, both men “gave their authoritative teaching on the will of God from a mountain (Moses / the Law from Sinai; Jesus / Sermon on the Mount).”

If this is true, what are the implications for understanding the Sermon on the Mount? I would suggest that we understand the SOM as the ultimate fulfillment of God’s will / God’s Law. I’m afraid we too often have an improper understanding of the function of the Mosaic Law. The OT Law was intended to be life-giving for Israel. We might be tempted to think of the 613 OT laws as a bunch of rules and regulations that Israel was strapped with. But for Israel, the Law was their treasured possession, proof of their “chosen” status among the nations. Take the command to observe the Sabbath and keep it holy. Moderns hear this as a restriction of what you can and can’t do over the course of a given 24-hour period. But for a nation coming out of the extreme conditions of slavery in Egypt, the command to take one day off per week was certainly a life-giving commandment. We should restore a proper understanding of how the Law functioned in the life of Israel; Scripture affirms that the Law was good (Psalm 119:39; Romans 7; 1 Timothy 1:8).

However, we might also affirm that the Law was not the complete revelation of the will of God. As we’ve seen from Paul, Christ is the complete revelation of God because in Him the fullness of God dwells bodily (Colossians 1). In the SOM, we find a new Torah, a new teaching, one that fulfills the previous one. Fulfillment is an important theme for Matthew. Matthew quotes the Hebrew Scriptures more than any other Gospel writer and he seems to be interested in demonstrating that the life of Christ brought about fulfillment to these ancient texts. To say it another way, Matthew sees all of the OT as pointing to fulfillment in Christ. The conviction that Jesus is the Christ seems to be the primary lens through which Matthew understands Scripture. This also seems to be Christ’s own self-identity. In the SOM, Jesus says things like, “You have heard it said…But I say unto you.” Jesus understands that His own teaching brings fulfillment of the Law. “Do not think I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them (5.17).”

In the words of the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus is offering new words for life, words that bring the Kingdom of God into the current sphere of human existence. Since the previous Law (or “words” as Israel referred to them) were good and intended to bring life, we can affirm that Christ stands as the fulfillment of the commands given by Moses to Israel. But His word usurps the Mosaic Law, for in the Sermon on the Mount, we have the guidance of the long-anticipated prophet who was even greater than Moses (Deuteronomy 18:15-22). His words bring true life.

The Sermon on the Mount 2

I began this series by stating my first presupposition when it comes to the Sermon on the Mount, which is that Jesus actually meant what He said.

My second presupposition is somewhat broader in nature as it has to do with the way we read Scripture altogether.

Scripture should be read Christocentrically.

I believe all Scripture should be read through Jesus. That is, I believe all Scripture points to Him. The written word exists to bear witness to the Living Word. This makes Jesus the primary lens through which we interpret Scripture. Not the only lens, but the primary one. As a disciple of Christ, I want His words to be normative in my life.

Placing a premium on the words of Jesus leads us into dangerous territory. Jesus says, “Love your enemies.” I’ve already stated that I think He really means that. But I also have to reconcile the words of Jesus with the “eye for an eye” language that is also represented in Scripture. I mean, doesn’t it seem that Jesus is at odds with His own Jewish tradition, especially Psalm 137.9 where the prayer is for YHWH to dash the Babylonian infants’ heads against the rocks?

What I want to argue is that being a disciple of Christ means I interpret everything — the text, my life, my understanding of death, etc. — in light of His words and His life. Take nonviolence, for instance. Based on the words of Jesus, I believe nonviolence is the methodology of the Kingdom of God. (Note the difference between nonviolence and pacifism. I believe following Christ requires a commitment to nonviolence, but I cannot accept the full tenets of pacifism in light of the greater balance of Scripture. See the prophetic vision of the Messianic age as the day when swords are beaten into plowshares [Isa. 2; Micah 4]; see also the dramatic reversal of this image in Joel’s call to arms [Joel 3].) But those who are opposed to the way of nonviolence are often quick to bring up the examples of David or Samson or any of a number of OT figures who wielded the sword on behalf of righteousness. Can violence really be such a great offense to God? Isn’t God the same God that commissioned the conquest of Israel? Isn’t the David who slayed his tens of thousands also known as the man after God’s own heart?

All of this is true. But the point I want to make is this: I am not a disciple of David. Nor am I a disciple of Samson. I am a follower of Christ. And I follow Him because I believe He shows us a better way. The Sermon on the Mount is full of “You have heard it said…But I say unto you,” statements, indicating that in Christ, we have a fuller, more complete revelation of God’s will. Paul puts it this way: “He is the image of the invisible God….For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell,” (Col. 1.15, 19). The one who IS our peace (Eph. 2.14) calls us to the way of peace (Rom. 12.18; 1 Thess. 5.13; Heb. 12.14).

But we never get there if Christ is not our primary lens through which the balance of Scripture must be interpreted.

Another Abby Kate Funny

Yesterday my five-year old daughter said to me, “Daddy, I can’t wait for my wedding day!”

I asked her, “Why is that?”

“Because on your wedding day, you get a pretty, pretty ring.”

I said, “I’ll bet you’ll also be excited about the boy that comes with the ring.”

She replied incredulously, “A boy comes with the ring?”

This confirms a long held belief of mine that the groom is one of the least important accessories in a girl’s wedding day vision.

Abby Kate Funnies

Abby Kate has been sick all day, so she’s been hanging out with me today. Prior to our doctor’s appointment this morning, she had me in stitches with some of the things she had to say.

• “Dad, I just wish I was sixteen.” When I asked her why, she said, “Because it just sounds so much older than five.” What do you say to that?
• On the way to the doctor, she goes, “Dad, how is it that God can see through our house.” I tried to explain that the Bible says that a man’s ways are always before the eyes of the LORD (Proverbs 5). But that didn’t seem to work.
• On the way home, she goes, “Dad, do you know why I love pigs?” I said, “Because you like bacon?” to which she replied, “No, silly. Because they’re pink!”

The Sermon on the Mount 1

The Sermon on the Mount has been called the most important sermon ever preached.

It’s also been called the most ignored sermon of all time.

What if both statements are true?

Recently, I’ve been teaching a class at church on the Sermon on the Mount. I thought I’d begin a series of posts on my thoughts on the SOM. I have a feeling this sort of series will be fairly episodic in nature, spread out over several months. There’s just so much to be said here. (Case in point, I’ve been teaching for about 4 weeks now, and we’re up to the 3rd Beatitude!)

I want to begin by laying out some of my presuppositions that shape the way I approach the SOM:

Jesus meant what He said.

There is a common approach to reading a text like the SOM in which we want to “spiritualize” what Jesus has to say. I think we do this in particular with the SOM because we find Jesus’ words to be too challenging or too difficult to live out. That is, we write off what Jesus has to say as “spiritual guidance” or “matters that apply in the spiritual world”, but we ignore them as being very relevant to day-to-day life in the “real world”. Others can argue this in more compelling ways, but I believe this sacred / secular dichotomy is rooted more in Greek thought (specifically, Neo-Platonism) than Scripture. In fact, the Jewish worldview seems to be summed up quite nicely in a text like Psalm 24.1, The earth is the LORD’s and everything in it. In Jewish thought, there wasn’t as much room for this division of sacred & secular; from the Psalmist’s perspective, there is only one world and since that realm belongs to YHWH, it is necessarily a “spiritual” world. But when we operate with this firm sacred / secular division in our minds, it encourages an overly-spiritualized reading of the text. It allows me to read the SOM and say, “Yeah, Jesus says to love your enemy, but what He really means is that you should love him in your heart.” And this loving in your heart has very little to do with how you go about treating said enemy in the “real world”.

When I was in kindergarten, I had a problem with fighting. My mother would tell me things like, “When you hit somebody else, that makes God very sad, Jason. Jesus told us that we were to turn the other cheek and not fight.” But what she didn’t know was that my Dad would pull me aside and tell me that “in the real world”, I needed to be ready to stand up for myself. He didn’t give me permission to start a fight, but he made it clear that if anybody ever picked a fight with me, I had his permission to finish it. So when Blake King picked a fight with me in kindergarten, I bloodied his nose in front of the whole class. My Mom lectured me when I got home. When she was done, my Dad patted me on the back.

The way of Jesus is always at odds with the way of the world. But to assume that the way of Jesus is impractical and irrelevant to the “real world” is an affront to Christ’s lordship. When we reduce the Sermon on the Mount as applicable only to the interior (loving our enemies “in our hearts”) or, even worse, when we write it off as impractical for living in the “real world”, we ignore the true call of discipleship. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus puts forth an ethic of Kingdom living that shaped His life, even leading to His death. Perhaps we would do well to heed His teaching about “No servant is greater than his master. (John 13.16)” By ignoring the words of the Sermon on the Mount, do we, His followers, assume that we are somehow greater than our master? This is not to say that Jesus is not using hyperbole in certain places in the Sermon on the Mount; what I am saying is that I find it incredibly dangerous to “spiritualize” away the sections of the SOM that I find bothersome or difficult (which has been our default interpretation for far too long).

I believe that the categories of sacred / secular are false categories. I believe that disciples of Christ can’t have one way of living on Sunday and another way of living when it comes to the “real world” of Monday through Saturday. Simply put, I believe Jesus meant what He said in the Sermon on the Mount. I believe the Kingdom of God is the “real world”. With that presupposition in place, I can be about the business of trying to squeeze my life into this understanding of His words and His life.

Swords Into Plowshares

For those of you who are interested, Jay Guin over at One In Jesus has posted some great thoughts about the prophetic passages in Isaiah 2 and Micah 4 that herald the day when the nations will beat their swords into plowshares in the Messianic Kingdom. It’s a part of a larger conversation Jay is having on the topic of pacifism. Really good, thoughtful stuff. You can check it out by clicking here.

On Turning 33

Last Monday I turned 33 years old. I had a great day spending time with family and dear friends. I think this is the moment that truly made my day, though.

On Preaching: Information and Inspiration

I think it’s easy to think of preaching as a mere transaction of information from pulpit to congregation. To be fair, one of the aims of preaching should be to present the truths of Scripture in clear and understandable terms. The church has always held firm to the conviction that the informed disciple is constantly transformed through the renewing of her mind (Rom 12.2). And this is the default mode of communication for most practitioners of preaching. Who among us hasn’t found great benefit in sermons that inform us about “Five Principles for Outreach” or “Three Applications of the Parable of the Sower”? The presentation of information will always have a home in the sermons we preach.

Yet, we are often forget that preaching is more than teaching. Preaching informs, but preaching also aspires to do something in the life of the disciple. Rather than simply stimulating the mind, preaching aims to speak a word to the heart as well. Preaching evokes a response. Preaching aims to inform AND inspire. I think the best preaching will vacillate between informing / teaching and inspiring the congregation to follow Christ in radical new ways. Or maybe a better way to say it is preaching calls forth an informed response.

What sort of response? Simply put: discipleship. As preaching occurs in the life of the church, the message aims to inspire the non-disciple, to put him in a position to “overhear the Gospel” (to borrow Fred Craddock’s phraseology) in order that he might choose to follow Christ. But preaching also functions to call current disciples to even deeper ways of following Christ. This definition of preaching operates under the presupposition that discipleship is the life-long process of being conformed more fully into the image of Christ. As such, we find ourselves constantly responding to the vocal proclamation of the Living Word.

A word about evangelism: I’m of the opinion that the most effective evangelism occurs through dialogue rather than monologue. This is not to say that evangelism does not occur in the preaching event (see above). But especially in today’s culture, most of the “evangelism” that I’m a part of occurs in the give and take of dialogue over a cup of coffee at Starbucks rather than through the monologue of the sermons I deliver. Another way to differentiate between the two is to think of preaching as “vocal proclamation” and evangelism as “living proclamation”. The vocal act of proclamation in the life of a body of disciples will always have an evangelistic edge to it, but it’s the living out of the Gospel in “everyday life” that most resonates with the skeptic. It’s the old maxim, attributed to St. Francis of Assisi: “Preach the Gospel at all times. If necessary, use words.” I think of what we call “evangelism” as a much broader category than the specific act of preaching.

LOST Season Six: A Spoiler

I know some of you like your LOST to be spoiler-free, so I won’t spill the beans. But I came across this over at EW.com and wanted to share it here. If you want to discuss, leave a comment. I’ll weigh in with my thoughts there, too.

Jack Speak

Over the past few months, our little Jackson has become quite the big talker. But if you’re not around him very often, it might be difficult for you to interpret what he’s saying. So here’s a little glossary of sorts to help you better understand the world of Jack Speak:

• Hee-Hee: the first word he ever had for Abby Kate. This is his way of saying “Sissy”
• Ah-Kay: his more recent attempt at saying her name. But he still defaults to “Hee-Hee”
• Bubba: his name for Joshua
• Ah-Jah: same with Abby Kate, this is his more recent attempt at saying his brother’s name. He only uses this in reference to them, though; when addressing them, it’s always “Hee-Hee” and “Bubba”
• Doe-Doe: his attempt at “Dora”, as in “Dadda, watch Doe-Doe, please?”
• Yay-Go: this is Dora’s male counterpart, Deigo. It’s really cute when Jack starts singing the “Yay-Go” song
• Ho-Ho: You’re probably beginning to notice a lot of syllabic repetition here. But that’s what makes Jack Speak so difficult to translate at times; you don’t have a lot of material to work with. “Ho-Ho” is Jack Speak for “horse”. We usually hear this gleeful cry when he spots a few of our neighbors horses out our playroom window.
• Eh: Probably one of the most difficult for anybody to translate. Jack will walk up to you and go, “Where’s my eh?” The word, “eh”, is just this caveman guttural sound that has no bearing to the word he’s actually trying to say. This is his version of “pacifier” or “pacy”.
• Dadda Pop: Another difficult one, but one he asks for daily. “Dadda Pop” is a Brown Suger & Cinnamon Pop Tart. He refers to these as “Dadda’s” because I’m pretty selfish about sharing them. But Jackson always gets one in the morning if he wants one. Yeah, I’m a pushover.
• Joo: a reference to “juice” of any kind.

So there you have it, the communicative key to my little two year old. Consider yourself fully fluent in Jack Speak!