Why The Sermon on the Mount?

[Apologiaphoenix]

I find it interesting that the gospels are very consistent with regard to their reports of how the general public of the time saw Jesus:

Matt 21:11 The crowds were saying, “This is the prophet Jesus from Nazareth in Galilee.”

Matt 21:46 They wanted to arrest him, but they feared the crowds, because they regarded him as a prophet.

Mark 6:14-15 Some were saying, “John the baptizer has been raised from the dead; and for this reason these powers are at work in him.” But others said, “It is Elijah.” And others said, “It is a prophet, like one of the prophets of old.”

Luke 7:16 and they glorified God, saying, “A great prophet has risen among us!”

Luke 9:19 “Who do the crowds say that I am?” They answered, “John the Baptist; but others, Elijah; and still others, that one of the ancient prophets has arisen.”

Luke 24:19 "Jesus of Nazareth, who was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people"

John 6:14 When the people saw the sign that he had done, they began to say, “This is indeed the prophet who is to come into the world.”

John 7:40 some in the crowd said, “This is really the prophet.”

John 9:17 So they said again to the blind man, “What do you say about him? It was your eyes he opened.” He said, “He is a prophet.”

There are plenty more passages to the same effect. The gospels are clear that the way the general public understood Jesus, including many he interacted with directly (e.g. healed), was in the traditional Jewish category of "prophet". Possibly a resurrection/reincarnation of a previous specific prophet.

Jesus own public statements don't seem to reject this public understanding of himself as a prophet, and at times he reaffirms it pretty explicitly:

Luke 13:33 Yet today, tomorrow, and the next day I must be on my way, because it is impossible for a prophet to be killed outside of Jerusalem.

Mat 13:57 / Luke 4:24 / John 4:44 Jesus said to them, “Prophets are not without honor except in their own country and in their own house."

I don't have a problem with those. It's not like Jesus was fulfilling the Muslim claim of traveling around Judea saying "I am God. Worship me." If Jesus makes those statements, they are more implicit than explicit.

I think it's fair to say that if the gospel writers were wanting to project their own theology back onto Jesus, the easiest way for them to do that would be in their narration sections where they are outright giving their own theology (e.g. John 1:1), and the second-easiest would be to record Jesus saying things in private to the disciples (e.g. Matt 16:16,20) because nobody could fact-check secret/private teachings (and indeed, a number of writings about private/secret teachings of Jesus seem to have appeared in the 2nd century). Whereas, insofar as there were people around who had heard Jesus themselves or knew the stories about Jesus' preaching, it would be harder for the gospel writers to take liberties with misrepresenting the public's understanding of Jesus and with the public teachings of Jesus. It seems pretty clear that in his lifetime Jesus was understood by the public to be a prophet - all the gospels attest to this, and that later some of his followers would convince themselves that he was something more than a prophet, and that perhaps (or perhaps not) he had given hints of this to a chosen few in some private teachings not known to the general populace (and I would say we can see a bit of a progression over time with regard to exactly what 'more than' a prophet actually entailed).

But the gospels attest that the public's understanding of Jesus was as a prophet. So I think you're doing a bit of disservice to the text in this thread when you try and reinterpret the Sermon on the Mount through your own God-Incarnate theology and point to things like speaking with authority as proof of that God-Incarnate theology. The gospels are clear that those who heard him immediately thought "prophet". And I'll grant you your point that this was probably because he taught with authority unlike the standard teachers of the law, who didn't purport to be prophets or to be giving new teachings from God like prophets were understood to do.

I take it you're not familiar with the Early High Christology Club that shows a fully deified Jesus coming right out of the gates at the resurrection. If you want to dismiss private statements made, then fine. Let's go with public ones. Jesus's healing of the paralytic has him claiming He can forgive sins. Jesus with the Pharisees says that one greater than the Temple is here and one greater than the Sabbath is here. Jesus tells His disciples that they would sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes. You can say that's private, but would a later writer make up this statement seeing as everyone knows Judas isn't one of those who will sit? If the twelve apostles sit on 12 thrones, where does Jesus see Himself sitting? Jesus touches lepers and heals them making them clean presenting Himself as a walking temple.

In the Pauline epistles, we have the same thing. Maranatha is an Aramaic saying which puts it early and describing Jesus as the Lord who is to come. Paul in Romans says whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved equating YHWH with Jesus. In 1 Cor. 8, Paul Christianizes the Shema and puts Jesus in it.

There is a lot more to explain about Jesus if He is not fully deity.

[Apologiaphoenix]

What about your hatred of your brother?

Link

------

Why should you not hate your brother? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

He hurt Allie.

That’s all you need to know at the start. I won’t go into who it was or what he did, but he really hurt Allie. I was at an Evangelical Philosophical Society meeting and I saw someone sitting in front of me. They looked like him from behind.

I had rage.

Honest rage.

When I left later, I saw that it wasn’t him, and thankfully I didn’t do anything the whole time. Later at that event, I’m hearing Clay Jones speak. Clay Jones is a wonderful apologist who talks so much about the problem of evil, and in this talk he gives me an insight that has stuck with me today. He looks at this section in the Sermon on the Mount as Jesus giving a cost-benefit analysis.

Let’s look at what Jesus says.

“You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’ 22 But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire. 23 So if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, 24 leave your gift there before the altar and go. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift. 25 Come to terms 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. 26 Truly, I say to you, you will never get out until you have paid the last penny.

Why is it that you shouldn’t hate your brother in your heart?

Because it means that if you hate him and the chance came up and you thought the benefits outweighed the costs, you would murder him.

I spoke to Clay that evening and we arranged to talk later on together. It’s something that has stuck with me. I am tempted many times with a hatred for someone. If I do that though, that hatred really doesn’t do anything to the person. It just hurts me.

If I allow it to foster, it becomes a poison that tears away at my own soul. I was created to love and be loved. If I live with that kind of hatred, then I am doing the exact opposite of my purpose.

This doesn’t mean that we need to make a statement that all hate is wrong. It’s not. There are things you should hate. If you love all people, you should hate racism. If you love women, you should hate rape. If you love animals, you should hate animal cruelty. The reason you should hate something, is because you truly love something that you ought to love.

What about calling your brother a fool? Didn’t Jesus call the Pharisees fools? Didn’t Paul refer to the Galatians as foolish? Yes on both counts. It depends on the nature of your heart.

Often times when guys get together, one thing they do to one another is trash talk, especially if they play games together. Do they really mean to hurt one another with the insults? Not at all. It’s just expected behavior. In some ways, when men insult one another, it can actually be a way of bonding and showing love to one another.

Some insults aren’t like that. Some insults are designed to destroy. Not only destroy, but destroy the person. Now I am not one who rules out insults in argumentation. It’s hard to do that when you see it being done regularly in Scripture. I am one who says that you need to check your heart.

If you have honest hatred for the person you are answering or evangelizing, then you need to step away from that. You can hate the system all you want to. In fact, you should. I hate atheism, but I should love atheists. I hate Islam, but I should love Muslims. I hate Mormonism, but I should love Mormons, etc.

Jesus is telling us to check our hearts. Do we honestly have hatred for the person that we are talking to. Left unchecked, that hatred will turn into murder if it is allowed to reach full fruition. The only thing holding us back is fear of consequences.

Note also that Jesus when doing these things is not downplaying the Law. He is seriously upping the ante. Many of us can go through life very easily without murdering someone. That’s not much of an accomplishment. To deal with the hatred in your heart? That’s huge.

And if you want to follow the way of Jesus, you have to work to do the same.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

[jpholding]

You seem to like to use these phrases in a very vague way

It's not vague at all, you're simply an ignorant bigot kneeling on the necks of members of ancient cultures while you pretend to not be a racist.

Your severe misuse of these makes it pretty clear you don't understand those concepts and haven't put the time you should into studying them that you should.

All yap, no explanation or rebuttal/response. Typical Starscream. It was Malina, Pilch, Rohrbaugh, and many more of their quality I took this all from; and you are the very example of the sort of decontextualizing bigot they condemn.

With regard to ideas about covenantal law, there are enough different views among scholars that it's hard to recommend any particular thing, but maybe reading Sanders' Paul and Palestinian Judaism, and VanLandingham's Judgment & Justification In Early Judaism And The Apostle Paul, would together introduce

Vague appeals to diversity absent direct application = tactic of loser in over his head. The only people you fool with that kind of buffalo dung blatherskeit are MAGA fanatics. Intelligent and well read people, in contrast, just laugh at you as you gyrate on a stick like a stuck cockroach. Seeing you pontificate on the Bible is like listening to Trump extemporize on wind turbines causing cancer. You stable genius!

[JimL]

No they don't. When he cleanses a leper, He instructs the leper to go show himself to the priests. Jesus doesn't tell others to do things that violate ritual purity, but seeing as He is YHWH in the flesh, He can transfer purity.

I thought Jesus was just YHWH's son. Was he just the son,? Or was Jesus both the father and the son? A portion of each, or what? Did he have some of the holy spirit in him too? Or did he separate from the other two when he bcame flesh?

[jpholding]

I thought Jesus was just YHWH's son. Was he just the son,? Or was Jesus both the father and the son? A portion of each, or what? Did he have some of the holy spirit in him too? Or did he separate from the other two when he bcame flesh?

Looks it up in Two Corinthians, Donald. That's about the level of your education, based on the above.

[37818]

I thought Jesus was just YHWH's son. Was he just the son,? Or was Jesus both the father and the son? A portion of each, or what? Did he have some of the holy spirit in him too? Or did he separate from the other two when he bcame flesh?

You are not hearing. All appearances of YHWH, John 1:18 KJV, NKJV is the Son, Genesis 12:7, John 14:6. One God [YHWH], distinct Persons.

[JimL]

You are not hearing. All appearances of YHWH, John 1:18 KJV, NKJV is the Son, Genesis 12:7, John 14:6. One God [YHWH], distinct Persons.

So, does the son detach himself from the father and the holy spirit when he inhabits the flesh?

[37818]

You are not hearing. All appearances of YHWH, John 1:18 KJV, NKJV is the Son, Genesis 12:7, John 14:6. One God [YHWH], distinct Persons.

The Son only changed how He was with YHWH, but never ceased being YHWH. The Son has also always been with YHWH. John 1:1-2.

[JimL]

The Son only changed how He was with YHWH, but never ceased being YHWH. The Son has also always been with YHWH. John 1:1-2.

Wait a minute, was he with YHWH, or was he YHWH? You're saying both in the above.

[mikewhitney]

Wait a minute, was he with YHWH, or was he YHWH? You're saying both in the above.

There are other threads where the Trinitarian understanding of God is discussed. The conception of the oneness of God along in connection with the distinction of persons in this Godhead originates in the Old Testament and continues into the insight of Christ within the Godhead. This current thread is not the best place to rehash those discussions. Or, you can start a fresh discussion on this so you don't have to work through so much of the matured threads.

So, does the son detach himself from the father and the holy spirit when he inhabits the flesh?

If you want to explore misconceptions like this, you would have to read about the history of heresies. Some conceptions of the Trinity weren't quite so heretical but still needed clarification. I'm not sure that you would be curious enough about more details on the clearing up of the details about the Trinity though.

[37818]

Wait a minute, was he with YHWH, or was he YHWH? You're saying both in the above.

Yes.

[Apologiaphoenix]

What about lust?

Link

-----

What does it mean to lust? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

My wife’s priest talked once about going to a youth camp and having the young boys come up and say “I’m struggling with lust.” This was often spoken of in secret as if it would be big news that young Christian boys deal with lust. I suspect there would be far more concern if they were NOT dealing with lust.

So let’s look at the passage in question in Matthew 5.

27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell.”

Let’s start off first with what lust is not. Lust is not noticing that a woman is beautiful, even if she’s not your wife. (Keep in mind, I am saying this for men, but women just reverse the claims and it fits for you too.) That’s just acknowledging reality. God made the human body to be beautiful and I think even women would agree that the female body in particular is uniquely beautiful.

Throughout Scripture, when a woman is praised, one of the main qualities praised about her is her beauty. No more beautiful women were found in the land than the daughters of Job. Esther was prized for her unique beauty and won the king’s favor. Abigail was said to be discerning and beautiful. The Song of Songs is quite explicit with the glorious features of the woman.

Lust is more in the how and why you are looking at the woman. A constantly stare can very easily become lust. If all you think about is just using the woman for your own pleasure, then you have a problem. I do not think you have a problem if you are, for example, engaged to a woman and you look at her and you dream of your upcoming wedding night when you can give all your love to her. A man will naturally wonder what he has to look forward to when he gets to take all the clothes off the woman he loves. Spoiler alert single men: You won’t be disappointed.

If you are engaging with pornography, you are definitely involved in lust. Pornography teaches you to use women and gives you false ideas of what women like and don’t like. Pornography is simply a lie. Also, it won’t spice up your marriage as some think. It might have some short-term benefits, but in the long-term, it will only hurt.

Every woman out there is someone’s daughter and needs to be treated with respect. She is not just a body. She is a person. Treat her like just a body and you miss out.

By the way women, if you want to change the way you’re often treated, then make sure you let every man know you’re worth waiting for. Women really control the sex market. Guys are the huge majority of the times the ones buying as it were.

You determine how much you’re worth before you give yourself entirely to a man. One date? A week? Three weeks? A month? Six months? A year? Engagement? Or are you worth a lifetime commitment paid upfront? There are many women who have given themselves to the man in their lives thinking that then he will love her only to find that a few days later he dumps her and moves on to his next conquest.

And guys, even after you marry it is good to always be pursuing your wife. Don’t just do it when you want something, which face it, is usually 24/7. Do it just for her. Stop and get random gifts just because.

Ultimately though, what makes lust similar to hate is the cost/benefit analysis. The danger with lust is that it means that all things being equal, if you got the chance and you thought the benefits outweighed the cost, you would have sex with someone you’re not married to. Many an affair starts with just a man and a woman on their lunch break and just talking together and then not too much later they’re meeting in a hotel room because “This person just truly understands me!” Very few spouses wake up one morning and say “I think I’ll screw up my marriage and have an affair!”

There is hardly any drive more powerful in people than the sex drive and it can totally overcome reason when left unchecked. Like all others though, it starts off small, with lust. Deal with the problem at the root before it becomes a deadly plant.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

[Christianbookworm]

Lust sounds creepy. I wouldn't want anyone thinking naughty thoughts about me.

[Apologiaphoenix]

What about divorce?

Link

------

What did Jesus say in the Sermon about divorce? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Let’s just jump into the verses in question.

31 “It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’ 32 But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

I don’t think it’s a coincidence that this comes after talking about lust. That would mean Jesus is saying that it doesn’t matter if your eye catches someone more appealing. You have a covenant that you are already in and you are to honor that covenant.

Let’s state the matter seriously. Divorce is an evil. Period.

“But Nick! You don’t understand! My wife was cheating on me!” “You don’t get it! My husband was abusive!” “The children were in danger from my spouse!”

Yes. All of those can be true and in a number of cases, divorce can even be sadly advisable, but it is still an evil. Why? Because it’s tragic that a case where two people vowed to love and remain faithful to one another until death was shattered because someone decided to break the covenant.

This is not to say then that everyone who has divorced is guilty of an evil. My parents were both divorced before their current marriage because both of their spouses were unfaithful. It’s good today that they’re together, but it’s tragic that both of them married spouses who broke their covenant.

That’s also something important to stress today. Marriage is a covenant. It doesn’t depend on your feelings or emotions at the time. If it did, marriages would shatter constantly. (Maybe that is why they are so much as many people do just that.) Marriage is a promise. How you treat it says less about your spouse really and more about you.

Also, keep in mind that not all of the above scenarios necessitate a divorce. Suppose there is a husband who is cheating on his wife. Some marriages can bounce back and be strong even after an affair. It does require therapy and repentance, but it is doable.

If you have children in a marriage, they will be the ones who suffer the most from divorce. Not too long ago I read a book called Primal Loss. It’s from a Catholic perspective and all the participants are Catholic, but all of them were still deeply hurt by what happened with their parents and it doesn’t matter what age they’re at.

Marriage is a covenant that requires work. In Jesus’s day, one school of thought said a husband could divorce his wife for anything displeasing, such as hypothetically if she burnt his toast in the morning. Jesus ups the ante tremendously and says marriage is for life entirely. Paul ups the ante and says that even if a believer is married to an unbeliever, if they are not being in danger, they should stay with the marriage. They may convert their spouse after all.

Fortunately, Shaunti Feldhahn has done some great research showing the idea that divorce is as common among Christians as non-Christians is a great myth. However, it is still way too common. All of us need to do what we can to honor marriage. That includes singles as well, such as saying if you’re not marrying that you’re going to remain celibate.

The rest of us, remember we made a vow before God and man. Let’s keep it. God will hold us all accountable after all for how we treated our spouses.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

[Apologiaphoenix]

On Separation

Link

------

What about separation in marriage? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

After writing on divorce yesterday, an appreciative reader asked my thoughts on separation. Now as I said, I think on some level divorce is always an evil even when it should be done. It’s an evil that someone did something to break a promise before God and man and someone can often be an innocent victim of that.

Sometimes though, a couple might just need some time apart. Even healthy couples need some time apart for each one to focus on some of their own hobbies, interests, and development. I love having my Mrs. around, but there can be times when she’s away with a friend and I do some of the things I like to do that she doesn’t really care for.

I was asked to share the thoughts from Scripture on separation. I really don’t think that category existed in the ancient world. I could be wrong about that, but I haven’t seen anything on that. Also, Scripture tells us how to do marriage and the purpose of marriage, but it really doesn’t tell us about marital counseling.

So what are some guidelines I would do?

If this is done, I think the goal should be to try to save the marriage and not to end it. Christians are to focus on redemption. In that case then, let it be that you will spend time working on your own problems in the marriage, even if you’re just hypothetically 1% of the problem. It’s easy to focus on what your spouse needs to do, at least in your eyes, but you have no control over that. You do have control over yourself.

As a Christian, pray for them and for your marriage and to go back to the first point, ask that you would be shown what you’re doing wrong in the situation. We all have sinful tendencies in us that need to be improved. We all have areas where we are less than perfect people.

I’d advise you to stay faithful in a separation as well. Don’t be dating other people and definitely not having sex with other people. If you’re a Christian, this will reflect badly on you. If the marriage doesn’t work out sadly, there is time for that later.

There are times that separation can be needed. Definitely go with separation if there is abuse going on that puts someone in danger, be it you or children. It is imperative that the spouse get therapy and take steps to show that they are serious about recovery, such as a 12-step program in Celebrate Recovery.

Another example could be pornography. Since this is normally a problem for men, though women can have it too, this might be a case where a wife is justified in saying no to bedroom privileges. Again, I always think that is a drastic step, but a wife needs to show how hurtful pornography is to her.

Definitely any couple undergoing separation needs to undergo marriage counseling together. Many a pastor is trained to some degree in marriage counseling, though they could recommend a specialist as well. My wife is a catechumen in the Orthodox Church and her mentor has informed me that all priests in that church are trained in marriage counseling as well, which I highly admire. This is also why I think those who lead a church should strive for higher education.

Divorce is always a tragedy and while separation can be sad, hopefully, it can lead to healing. Our Christian culture needs to do a better job upholding the sacredness of sex and marriage today. If short-term suffering can lead to long-term joy, it could be the answer.

In Christ,
Nick Peters