my heresy

Last time I shared from the Sermon on the Mount. I should have explained the reasons of my fascination with this well-known passage of the Bible. I have heard it preached many times and have read it many times yet, it has always made me look back into it, as if something was missing. Over a year ago, I found myself working on my Jesus’ script. I was working on the wedding of Canaan, and something made jump back to the Sermon on the Mount. As I was working on Jesus turning water into wine, there is a verse in John 2:6 which says, “Now there were six waterpots of stone standing there, as the Jewish custom of purification (ceremonial washing) demanded, holding twenty to thirty gallons apiece.” (Amplified Bible) What made me look deep into this verse is the fact that it tells you what the waterpots are for, and that they were empty. Studying the Jewish custom of purification and ceremonial washing, Jesus’ turning water into wine becomes a clear and wonderful sign of his ministry. That got me thinking about the Sermon on the Mount. So I went back to the passages of Matthew 5, especially verses 1-16. Again, as I look into it, these familiar verses became alive. It was as if my understanding of these verses were as the empty jar, now filled with the best wine. This study was made for my own research form my Jesus’ script. I apologize if I don’t give reference to some of the sources I used to understand the meaning of the Greek words. I’ll try my best to trace back and refer to them in my up-coming blogs regarding the Sermon on the Mount.

Posted by G at 12:33 PM | Permalink | Comments

MATTHEW'S INTRODUCTION

“SEEING the crowds, He went up on the mountain; and when He was seated, His disciples came to Him. Then He opened His mouth and taught them, saying.” (Matthew 5:1-2 Amplified Version)

Matthew's introductory sentence goes a long way. In those brief verses there are three clues to the real significance of the Sermon on the Mount.

(i) Jesus began to teach when he had sat down. When a Jewish Rabbi was teaching officially he sat to teach. We still speak of a professor's chair; the Pope still speaks ex cathedra, from his seat. Often a Rabbi gave instruction when he was standing or strolling about; but his official teaching was done when he had taken his seat. So the very suggestion that Jesus sat down to teach the crowd is the indication that this teaching is central and official.

(ii) Matthew goes on to say that when he had opened his mouth, he taught them. This phrase he opened his mouth is not simply a decoratively roundabout way of saying he said. In Greek the phrase has a double significance. (a) It is used of a solemn, grave and dignified utterance. It is used, for instance, of the saying of an oracle. It is the natural preface for a most weighty saying. (b) It is used of a person's utterance when he is really opening his heart and fully pouring out his mind. It was used of intimate teaching with no barriers between. Again, the very use of this phrase indicates that the material in the Sermon on the Mount is no chance piece of teaching. It is the grave and solemn utterance of the central things; it is the opening of Jesus' heart and mind to everyone.

(iii) When Jesus had sat down, he opened his mouth and taught them saying. In Greek there are two past tenses of the verb. There is the aorist tense, and the aorist tense expresses one particular action, done and completed in past time. In the sentence, " He shut the gate," shut would be an aorist in Greek because it describes one completed action in past time. There is the imperfect tense, and the imperfect tense describes repeated, continuous, or habitual action in past time. In the sentence, " It was his custom to go to Church every Sunday," would be expressed by a single verb in the imperfect tense, because it describes continuous and often-repeated action in the past.

Now the point is that in the Greek of this sentence, the verb taught is not an aorist, but an imperfect and therefore it describes repeated and habitual action, and the translation should be: "This is what he used to teach them." Matthew has said as plainly as Greek will say it that the Sermon on the Mount is not one sermon of Jesus, given at one particular time and on one particular occasion; it is the essence of all that Jesus continuously and habitually taught his disciples and everyone.

The Sermon on the Mount is greater even than we think. Matthew in his introduction wishes us to see that it is the official teaching of Jesus; that it is the opening of Jesus' whole mind to his disciples and everyone; that it is the summary of the teaching, which Jesus habitually gave to his inner circle. The Sermon on the Mount is nothing less than the concentrated memory of many hours of heart to heart communion between the disciples and their Master. In other words, a heart to heart communion between us and our Master.

Posted by G at 11:11 PM | Permalink | Comments

One of the most known parable, even by un-churched people, is the Prodigal Son parable. I think the love of this parable is for its happy ending. It’s relatable for its redemptive climax. The love and grace shown to the rebellious son by the father moves the reader. While all of those things are important and necessary for us to know, the story is not about the prodigal son, but more about the father. The father’s actions are the center of the climax of the story, but there is more to the story and what it’s about.

The story is about the father, but more than that… It is about how much they know their father. The prodigal son knew about the generosity and love of his father. Maybe these character traits about the father are what the son was counting on when he asked for his inheritance. Yet, these character traits were absent from the son’s memory when he was eating the pigs’ food. I argue that this parable is more about the sons not knowing their father. We usually attribute his acknowledgement of his mistake and his reasoning for returning as an act of faith.

"He was so hungry he would have eaten the corncobs in the pig slop, but no one would give him any. That brought him to his senses. He said, 'All those farmhands working for my father sit down to three meals a day, and here I am starving to death. I'm going back to my father. I'll say to him, Father, I've sinned against God, I've sinned before you; I don't deserve to be called your son. Take me on as a hired hand.' He got right up and went home to his father” ( Luke 15:16-19 The Message).

Is this an act of faith? There is no mention of the son wanting be with his father because he missed him. There is no mention about how much he loves his father. There is no mention of his need to be by his father side. Hunger is the motive that guides him. It’s this same lack of knowledge about his own father that surprised him with his father response of love.

The other son also didn’t know his father. He was surprised and angry about his father quick forgiveness and festive spirit when the return rebellious brother. If the good son truly knew his father, his response would have been more like the father. He should have known that if he had asked his father for a party for himself and his friend, it would have been allowed. “Son, you don't understand. You're with me all the time, and everything that is mine is yours.” (Luke 15:31 The Message)

Looking at the parable in this light, the question is now, Who do the brothers represent?

Posted by G at 6:07 PM | Permalink | Comments

A couple of weeks ago, Prime Minister Harper revisited the issue of same sex marriage. It was voted down. I was amazed about people’s abhorrence to the vocal Christians who are against this notion. What amazed me the most during those days was hearing Christian’s call TV stations and radio stations, on their disappointment with the government on this issue. One of their arguments against this issue is that same sex marriage is unrighteous. This got me thinking. How can the Christians stand up against this issue on the merit of unrighteousness and un-Godliness, when the percentage of divorce among Christian couples is at same level with the those who are not Christian? So, I ask, why are those who are not Christians often revolted by those who are? I think that the teaching of Jesus explains it best:

"Don't pick on people, jump on their failures, criticize their faults— unless, of course, you want the same treatment. That critical spirit has a way of boomeranging. It's easy to see a smudge on your neighbor's face and be oblivious to the ugly sneer on your own. Do you have the nerve to say, 'Let me wash your face for you,' when your own face is distorted by contempt? It's this whole traveling road-show mentality all over again, playing a holier-than-thou part instead of just living your part. Wipe that ugly sneer off your own face, and you might be fit to offer a washcloth to your neighbor.”

Matthew 7:1-5 (MSG)

Posted by G at 9:31 PM | Permalink | Comments

A couple of days ago a Judge in Toronto decided to remove the Christmas tree from the courthouse lobby. She believed that it was offensive to have a Christian symbol in the courthouse, since the law is biased to religion. As you can imagine, this brought many Christians to an outrage stand, proclaiming that this was new assault against believers in the war against Christianity.

First, the judge is not very smart. The Christmas tree is not a Christian symbol. Second, it's a pagan practice of the winter solstice, called Yule. How did the Christmas tree become a symbol of Christianity and part of the faith?

In the 7th century a monk from Crediton, Devonshire, went to Germany to teach the Word of God. He did many good works there, and spent much time in Thuringia, an area that was to become the cradle of the Christmas Decoration Industry. Legend has it that he used the triangular shape of the Fir Tree to describe the Holy Trinity of God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The converted people began to revere the Fir tree as God's Tree, as they had previously revered the Oak. By the 12th century, it was being hung, upside-down, from ceilings at Christmastime in Central Europe, as a symbol of Christianity.

The first decorated tree was at Riga in Latvia, in 1510. In the early 16th century, Martin Luther is said to have decorated a small Christmas tree with candles, to show his children how the stars twinkled through the dark night.

Based on the history of the Christmas tree, can we say that it’s part of our faith and worth fighting for? No. The Christmas tree is just a tradition, just as Christmas is, since we don’t know when Christ was born. He was probably born in September, and in 350, Pope Julius picked December 25 to celebrate birth of Jesus.

So the question is, why such an outrage about something that is not part of our faith?

Posted by G at 2:50 PM | Permalink | Comments