Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7)

I remembered that I wanted to do a more thorough analysis of the Sermon on the Mount.  I plan to do one or two verses every day or so.

The picture (Matthew 5:1-2)
Jesus sits down on a mountainside, after seeing a large crowd.  His disciples come and listen to him.

I picture Jesus sitting partway up on a large hill with a crowd of people sitting below him.  They have come to listen to what Jesus has to say.


The Beatitudes (Matthew 5:3-10) Blessed are the poor in spirit for theirs is the kingdom of Heaven.  (Matthew 5:3)

What is being poor in spirit?

I can think of a few possibilities:

• Come to God to replenish your spirit.  For example, in John 4:14 Jesus states "the water I give them will become in them a spring of water welling up to eternal life."

• Being apart from God leads to spiritual poverty.  Separation from God drains our spirit.

• Humility to ask God for replenishment.  Jesus answered the requests of people who expressed humility.  (See, e.g., Mark 9:24, a sick boy's father expressed doubt by declaring "I believe, help me my unbelief")

• Awareness of one's spiritual poverty.  Awareness of the problem may itself be a blessing.  (See, e.g., Ephesians 2:8-9, that faith is a gift from God.  Hence, faith itself is a blessing).

• Summation of Jesus' ministry.  It is the beginning of the Sermon on the Mount, but actually provides the basis of Jesus' ministry on earth.  In short, everyone is poor in spirit.  Jesus came to restore the relationship between God and mankind.  It could be viewed that Jesus is saying, "blessed are you, those poor in spirit, because I am here."

Yet, more links

The limit is 200 characters.

Wives and husbands (1 Peter 3:1-7)

Peter has similar advice to familial relations as did Paul in Ephesians 5:22 et seq.  Peter advises marriage harmony, women "submit" to husbands and husbands respect their wives.

This is one of those statements from the Bible that gets thrown around a lot, both as a reason to subjugate women in marriages and to dispense with the advice found in the Bible.

For starters, 'divorcing' the husband's corollary duty to respect the wife is actually un-Biblical.  Both Peter and Paul discuss reciprocal duties in the marriage and these should be viewed together.

Finding a proper application to this in the modern sense is difficult since Peter and Paul both spoke to cities in ancient Rome.  At the time, women were not even allowed to testify in court.  Maybe we should also remind ourselves at this point that Paul said that people should only get married if they burn.  1 Corinthians 7.

When Peter speaks to women in particular, his emphasis is on the importance of inner beauty.  This inner beauty is a "gentle and quiet spirit".   In other words, be nice to people and you will always be beautiful.  If we look at the modern application through this principle, I think it reinforces the expectation of harmony in the marriage.

An open question is if a husband does not respect the wife, is there no longer a reciprocal duty?

1 Peter 1

Predestination v. Free Will

Peter addresses the letter as to "God's elect" scattered among various cities and "chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father".  (v. 1-2, NIV quotes).

This is one of the main verses that adherents of predestination rely on.  The verse refers to "God's" elect and people "chosen according to the foreknowledge of God".  I strongly lean towards the free will spectrum, so let me address this.  

What does it mean to be "chosen according to the foreknowledge of God?"

Another possibility is that the "foreknowledge" of God does not refer to individual and the lifetime of individuals, but speaking at a macroscopic level of God's plan.  Peter addresses the letter to churches, not individuals, nor does anything to change the tone to speaking to individuals.

Likewise, the specifics of what they are being chosen for are broad strokes of God's plan - redemption by Jesus.  Later in verse 20, it discusses that Jesus was chosen before the rest of creation.  So, the fact that Jesus came to redeem people was part of God's plan all along.  Similarly, it was also part of God's plan to have churches.

This complicates of the timing of the choice referred to in verses 1-2.  

To what does the choice and foreknowledge of God refer?  At the least, it would refer to the selection of Jesus in verse 20, but whether it refers to individuals is unclear.

As for as individual faith goes, we know elsewhere that faith is a gift from God.  See, Ephesians 2:8.  A gift requires a choice in order to give the gift.  God has to choose to give us more faith or any faith at all.  As stated, the choice occurs for individual faith is unclear in 1 Peter 1.  On one hand, if God sees through the dimension of time, that eons are the same as minutes, then this question becomes an abstract principal for speculation.  On the other, perhaps God only gives people faith to the extent they ask for it.  This latter would have broad-reaching implications for our individual lives.

Finally, what is that people are chosen for in 1 Peter 1?  In verse 2, it says "for obedience to Jesus Christ".  Obedience and disobedience requires a choice on the person.  A person can obey or not, but it requires a choice.  This is where adherents of predestination really lose me in the logic.

Peter outlines the implications of this later in chapter 1 with the encourage to be holy.  If every human individual's choice was already pre-ordained and chosen by God, then Peter would not need to tell the churches to obey, they would just do it on their own.


"Last times" (v. 20)
We also see the phrase "last times" again.  Peter refers to as "we", which includes Peter, are living in "these last times".  As I explain elsewhere, I believe this phrase is used to mean anything after Pentecost in Acts 1-2.

Wives, submit to your husbands (Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians)

"Wives, submit to your husbands" sometimes seems like all that people, particularly men, get out of Ephesians.

Rather, Ephesians is rich in prose and the NIV translation flows almost like poetry at point.

We do not know when exactly Paul wrote the book, but the reference to himself being an "ambassador in chains" could be a reference to the times of his long imprisonments.  There were two that were recorded in Acts, both of which lasted two years.  The first was in Caesarea and the second was in Rome.

The first 4 1/2 chapters of the book cover similar ground as do the epistles to the Romans and Corinthians.  There, Paul talks about the plan and love of Jesus and also the importance of cleaning one's life from sin.

One thing I noticed, the discussions about living a sin-free life tend to focus on the present-tense and ongoing morality of the person, rather than the mitigating the effects of the prior sin.  For instance, he instructs thieves to "steal no longer" (4:28), but says nothing about paying restitution for what one has already stolen.

Perhaps Paul expects that a truly reticent heart will try to make amends and restitution at some level.  Alternatively, some things by their very nature can never be compensated and it is only grace of Christ that can do anything at all.

Looking back at the life of Christ, two examples of this dichotomy come to mind.  First, the tax man who decided to repay everyone he stole from four times what he took.  This was actually in accordance with the principles of restitution in the Old Testament law.  Jesus praised this man.  Other reformed thieves had different ideas on restitution, if any.

Second, the adulterous woman condemned to die, Jesus only told her to "go and sin no more".  Nothing to compensate the prior acts were required.

I do not have an answer to this.  I just note it as an observation.

Harmonious relationships

Ephesians 5-6 do not seem to stand for an authoritarian hierarchy, but rather balanced and proper relationships.

Wives submitting to their husbands has only context and meaning wherein the same husbands love their wives as Christ loves people.  

Likewise, children must obey their parents, but this is balanced with the context that the parents must not exacerbate their children.

Finally, slaves must obey their masters.  Since Ephesus is a Gentile city, we should probably infer that the context for this is the Roman form of slavery and not the form of Hebrew ownership "slavery"/indentured servitude that was instituted in the Old Testament.

 A few things come to mind from this.  First, this is not necessarily an implicit acceptance of any form of slavery.  Rather, Paul is not trying to upset the social order of things.  But the terms "slave" and "master" can easily be substituted with "employer/employee", "loaner/mortgagee" "police/civilian", or any social hierarchal situation.

Second, the contextual situation of slavery gives more context to the wives/husbands and children/parent relationships.  We do not accept Roman slavery today.  Just as social hierarchal standards change over time, so do the standards of other familial relationships.  The extent thereof should be considered.

The armor of God

This is another famous portion of Ephesians in that it stands out as unique among the epistles.  One on hand, this portion can make Christians sound belligerent.  However, the lynchpin in context is that the enemy is not human, but spiritual.  We need spiritual weapons and armor to fight it.

Ephesians 6 lays it out.  Where do we get it?  From prayer, as we remember from the Gospels that God will not withhold the Holy Spirit from those who ask. 

The Ephesians (Acts 18:18 et seq.)

To Ephesus, twice

Paul leaves Corinth with Priscilla and Aquilla.

Meanwhile, Paul has his hair cut and makes a vow.  This seems to be a Nazarite vow in accordance with Numbers 11.

Paul makes his way to Ephesus where the Jews in the synagogue like him and want him to stay. So, although he told the Jews in Corinth that he was going to the Gentiles, it was not an exclusive rule as he still taught in other synagogues outside of Corinth.

Paul promises to come back if it is the will of God.  He then travels around to a few other areas, but does go back to Ephesus where the text focuses on.

In the meantime, Priscilla and Aquilla stay behind in Ephesus and meet a man named Apollos.  Apollos is a bold preacher for Jesus.  Priscilla and Aquilla mentor him before letting him go to Corinth.

We are seeing an exchange of people and leaders between the early churches.  They did not have email or even the New Testament back then, so this exchange of people was an important part of keeping the church unified.

Ephesians and spiritual power

Paul arrives in Ephesus a second time and finds a group of disciples who had received a water baptism (John's baptism), but had never heard of a Holy Spirit baptism.  Paul explains that the water baptism is about repentance.  Paul lays his hands on them and they begin to prophesy and speak and tongues.

This anecdote shows that there really are two baptisms, one of water and one of the Holy Spirit.  One is an introduction to a life of faith and the other is a step further into faith with the potential for the miraculous.  One can have a life of faith without ever having received a Holy Spirit baptism.  

If we contrast this anecdote with that of Cornelius in Acts 10 (esp., 10:44) then perhaps the order can be reversed.

In Ephesus, Paul speaks at the synagogue at first, but then must change to the lecture hall of Tyrannus, where he has daily discussions.

God also seems to have honored the (Nazarite?) vow Paul made and gives Paul more miraculous power.  Paul heals people second-hand in which handkerchiefs that had touched Paul are then used to heal the sick.

This second-hand miraculous power leads to something unusual.  Meanwhile, seven brothers, sons of a Jewish priest named Sceva, are going around casting out demons.  Their ritual is "in the name of Jesus, whom Paul preaches, I command you to get out."

This apparently works for a while, but they come upon a demon-possessed person who resists

  The demon says, "Jesus I know and I know about Paul, but who are you?". The demon-possessed person then beats them all up and leaves them bloody and naked.

The effect of this was that the believers began to publicly speak about their faith.  Likewise, they then burned their sorcery scrolls.  According the marginalia in the NIV, the value of the scrolls was worst about 50,000 daily wages.  (50,000 drachma silver coins).

This is an odd anecdote.  What is going on here?

Ultimately, I think it is about the role of miracles leading to a relationship with God.  Miracles themselves are not the end of faith, rather, they should confirm that it is Jesus that is Lord.  

Here, the seven sons seem to not have a relationship with Jesus.  They are going around and saying his name as if it were an incantation in a spell.  This works at first, but it cannot continue.  They are aware of the spiritual power of the name of Jesus and are aware that Paul is a source of knowledge about Jesus.  

The text is silent about them going up to Paul and then asking him "how can we learn more about Jesus?". 

This story parallels one of the parables that Jesus spoke of.  Jesus had said in a parable that just because people might perform miracles in his name, the Lord might reply "I never knew you".  Here, we have an example of just that.  Performing miracles is not a relationship with Christ.

Looking ahead to Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians, perhaps some of this is indirectly discussed in that book.  There, Paul discusses the spiritual armor of God.  Without a relationship with Jesus, these seven sons lack that spiritual armor of God, which leaves them vulnerable to a beating by a demon-possessed man.

The story and its aftermath also gives us a framework to consider Paul's letter to the Ephesians.  Clearly, the volume of the scrolls of sorcery shows the stranglehold that sorcery had on the city and its influence on the believers.

This story also shows that demon possessed people can be supernaturally strong.  This gives caution that it can be a very dangerous field.  On one hand, it should only be pursued within the context of the church with the spiritual guidance to navigate it.  That said, it is an important field as Jesus commissioned and directed his disciples to do it and in fact, told them not to intervene when someone who was not in their group was doing it.

A final note, it faintly echoes the question the Sadducees asked Jesus about the Resurrection.  In the hypothetical, there were seven brothers who each died and the widow married each in turn.  Here, we have seven brothers all doing the same thing with catastrophic consequences.  However, the parallels probably end there.