and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith—Phil 3:9
Phil. 3:9 Found in him means being spiritually united to Christ and therefore found not guilty before God as divine judge. Paul had trusted in a righteousness of my own based on obedience to the law rather than the right standing before God that comes through faith in Christ. God “imputes” Christ's lifelong record of perfect obedience to the person who trusts in him for salvation; that is, he thinks of Christ's obedience as belonging to that person, and therefore that person stands before God not as “guilty” but as “righteous.” This is the basis on which justification by faith alone is considered “fair” in God's sight. As explained in Rom. 10:1–8, righteousness cannot come by the law because all human beings sin, and therefore right standing before God as the divine judge is possible only through faith in Jesus Christ, who is the believer's righteousness before God. See note on Gal. 2:16. « Less
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Righteousness - John Stott
Commenting on " those who hunger and thirst for righteousness (Matt 5:6)
Righteousness in the Bible has at least 3 aspects: legal, moral and social
Legal righteousness is justification, a right relationship with God. The jews 'pursued righteousness, Paul wrote the later, but failed to attain it because they pursued it in the wrong way. They sought 'to establish their own' righteousness', and 'did not submit to God's righteousness', which is Christ himself.(Romans 9:30- 10:4)...
Moral righteousness is that righteouness of character and conduct which pleases God. Jesus goes on after the beatitudes to contrast this Christian righteousness with pharisaic righteousness(20). The latter was an external conformity to rules; the former is an inner righteousness of the heart , mind and motive. For this we should hunger and thirst.
It would be a mistake to suppose, however, that the biblical word 'righteousness' means only a right relationship with God on the one hand and a moral righteousness of character and conduct on the other. For biblical righteousness is more than a private and personal affair.; in includes social righteousness as well. And social righteousness, as we learn from the law and teh prophets, is concerned with seeking man's liberation from oppression, together with the promotion of civil rights, justice in courts , interigty in business dealings and honour in home and family affairs. Thus Christians are committed to hunger for righteousness in the whole human community as something pleasing to a righteous God.
Righteousness in the Bible has at least 3 aspects: legal, moral and social
Legal righteousness is justification, a right relationship with God. The jews 'pursued righteousness, Paul wrote the later, but failed to attain it because they pursued it in the wrong way. They sought 'to establish their own' righteousness', and 'did not submit to God's righteousness', which is Christ himself.(Romans 9:30- 10:4)...
Moral righteousness is that righteouness of character and conduct which pleases God. Jesus goes on after the beatitudes to contrast this Christian righteousness with pharisaic righteousness(20). The latter was an external conformity to rules; the former is an inner righteousness of the heart , mind and motive. For this we should hunger and thirst.
It would be a mistake to suppose, however, that the biblical word 'righteousness' means only a right relationship with God on the one hand and a moral righteousness of character and conduct on the other. For biblical righteousness is more than a private and personal affair.; in includes social righteousness as well. And social righteousness, as we learn from the law and teh prophets, is concerned with seeking man's liberation from oppression, together with the promotion of civil rights, justice in courts , interigty in business dealings and honour in home and family affairs. Thus Christians are committed to hunger for righteousness in the whole human community as something pleasing to a righteous God.
Righteousness - New Bible Dictionary
Righteousness (Heb. sΩed≈eq, sΩ §d≈aœqa®; Gk. LXX and NT, dikaiosyneœ). The Heb. sΩed≈eq probably derives from an Arab. root meaning ‘straightness,’ leading to the notion of an action which conforms to a norm. There is, however, a considerable richness in the biblical understanding of this term and it is difficult to render either the Heb. or Gk. words concerned by a simple Eng. equivalent. One basic ingredient in the OT idea of righteousness is relationship, both between God and man (Ps. 50:6; Je. 9:24) and between man and man (Dt. 24:13; Je. 22:3).
Referred to relations between men, righteous action is action which conforms to the requirements of the relationship and in a more general sense promotes the well-being and peace of the community (1 Sa. 24:17; Pr. 14:34). It is therefore linked in a forensic sense with *justice though even then the idea is less that of conformity to some formal legal norm as the strongly ethical notion of action which is to be legally upheld because it is productive of communal well-being (Dt. 1:16; Am. 5:7). In the prophetic period righteousness comes to include the idea of helping the poor and needy (Dn. 4:27; Am. 5:12, 24), and hence almsgiving (Mt. 6:1f.).
When we move from relations between men to those between God and men (though this distinction is arguably somewhat formal since the thought of God was probably never completely absent whenever the Hebrew used the word sΩed≈eq) righteousness implies a correct relationship to the will of God which was particularly expressed and interpreted by Israel’s covenant with God. Righteous action is hence action which flows out of God’s gracious election of Israel and accords with the law of the covenant (Dt. 6:25; Ezk. 18:5–9). God himself is righteous (2 Ch. 12:6; Ps. 7:9), and hence may be relied upon to act in accordance with the terms of his relationship with Israel. God is therefore a righteous judge who acts for his people (Ps. 9:4; Je. 11:20), and upon whose righteousness his people depend for deliverance and vindication (Ps. 31:1; Je. 11:20).
Thus emerges the conflation of the notions of righteousness and salvation. God is ‘a righteous God and (therefore) a Saviour’ (Is. 45:21; cf. Ps. 36:6; Is. 61:10). For the OT God is Creator and therefore he is the ground and guarantor of the moral order. His righteousness is hence intimately related to other more general moral attributes such as his holiness. The Creator, however, is also the Redeemer, and his righteousness is interpreted by his redemptive activity. Further, Israel’s experience of God’s righteous deliverance in the past led her to an expectation of a future act of salvation. The coming Messianic ruler is seen as the special recipient and instrument of the divine righteousness (Ps. 72:1f.; Is. 11:3–5; 32:1–20; Je. 23:5). The ‘Righteous One’ was a Messianic title (Is. 53:11; cf. Acts 3:14; 7:52; 22:14).
The NT uses righteousness in the sense of conformity to the demands and obligations of the will of God, the so-called ‘righteousness of the law’ (Gal. 3:21; Phil. 3:6, 9; cf. Tit. 3:5). Human attainment of righteousness is at points relatively positively viewed (Lk. 1:6; 2:25; Mt. 5:20), but in the end this attainment in all men falls far short of a true conformity to the divine will (Rom. 3:9–20; Lk. 18:9–14; Jn. 8:7). In contrast to this human unrighteousness stands the righteousness of God (Rom. 1:17) which in consistency with OT understanding conveys the thought of God’s active succour of man in the miracle of his grace.
This righteousness is proclaimed by Jesus as a gift to those who are granted the kingdom of God (Mt. 5:6). By faith in Jesus Christ and his work of atonement man, unrighteous sinner though he is, [1021] receives God’s righteousness, i.e. he is given a true relationship with God which involves the forgiveness of all sin and a new moral standing with God in union with Christ ‘the Righteous One’ (Rom. 3:21–31; 4:1–25; 10:3; 1 Cor. 1:30; 2 Cor. 5:21; Phil. 3:9). By dealing with all the consequences of man’s sin and unrighteousness (both Godward and manward) in the cross, God at once maintains the moral order in which alone he can have fellowship with man and in grace delivers the needy (Rom. 3:26).
The gift of God’s righteousness involves entry into the new realm of divine salvation, the gift of eternal life under the reign of God (Rom. 6:12–23; 2 Cor. 6:7, 14; Phil. 1:11; Eph. 4:24). Hence the extrinsic righteousness imputed through the cross finds inevitable expression in the intrinsic righteousness of a life which in a new way conforms to the will of God, even though the ultimate realization of this conformity must await the consummation of the kingdom (1 Jn. 3:2; Phil. 3:12–14; 1 Cor. 13:12f.; 2 Pet. 3:11–13). (*Justification.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY. G. Schrenk, in TDNT 2, pp. 192–210; N. Snaith, Distinctive Ideas of the Old Testament, 1944; J. Denney, Romans in EGT, 1; idem, The Death of Christ, reprinted 1951; A. Nygren, Commentary on Romans, E.T. 1952; G. Rupp, The Righteousness of God, 1953; H. Seebass, C. Brown, in NIDNTT 3, pp. 352–377.
Referred to relations between men, righteous action is action which conforms to the requirements of the relationship and in a more general sense promotes the well-being and peace of the community (1 Sa. 24:17; Pr. 14:34). It is therefore linked in a forensic sense with *justice though even then the idea is less that of conformity to some formal legal norm as the strongly ethical notion of action which is to be legally upheld because it is productive of communal well-being (Dt. 1:16; Am. 5:7). In the prophetic period righteousness comes to include the idea of helping the poor and needy (Dn. 4:27; Am. 5:12, 24), and hence almsgiving (Mt. 6:1f.).
When we move from relations between men to those between God and men (though this distinction is arguably somewhat formal since the thought of God was probably never completely absent whenever the Hebrew used the word sΩed≈eq) righteousness implies a correct relationship to the will of God which was particularly expressed and interpreted by Israel’s covenant with God. Righteous action is hence action which flows out of God’s gracious election of Israel and accords with the law of the covenant (Dt. 6:25; Ezk. 18:5–9). God himself is righteous (2 Ch. 12:6; Ps. 7:9), and hence may be relied upon to act in accordance with the terms of his relationship with Israel. God is therefore a righteous judge who acts for his people (Ps. 9:4; Je. 11:20), and upon whose righteousness his people depend for deliverance and vindication (Ps. 31:1; Je. 11:20).
Thus emerges the conflation of the notions of righteousness and salvation. God is ‘a righteous God and (therefore) a Saviour’ (Is. 45:21; cf. Ps. 36:6; Is. 61:10). For the OT God is Creator and therefore he is the ground and guarantor of the moral order. His righteousness is hence intimately related to other more general moral attributes such as his holiness. The Creator, however, is also the Redeemer, and his righteousness is interpreted by his redemptive activity. Further, Israel’s experience of God’s righteous deliverance in the past led her to an expectation of a future act of salvation. The coming Messianic ruler is seen as the special recipient and instrument of the divine righteousness (Ps. 72:1f.; Is. 11:3–5; 32:1–20; Je. 23:5). The ‘Righteous One’ was a Messianic title (Is. 53:11; cf. Acts 3:14; 7:52; 22:14).
The NT uses righteousness in the sense of conformity to the demands and obligations of the will of God, the so-called ‘righteousness of the law’ (Gal. 3:21; Phil. 3:6, 9; cf. Tit. 3:5). Human attainment of righteousness is at points relatively positively viewed (Lk. 1:6; 2:25; Mt. 5:20), but in the end this attainment in all men falls far short of a true conformity to the divine will (Rom. 3:9–20; Lk. 18:9–14; Jn. 8:7). In contrast to this human unrighteousness stands the righteousness of God (Rom. 1:17) which in consistency with OT understanding conveys the thought of God’s active succour of man in the miracle of his grace.
This righteousness is proclaimed by Jesus as a gift to those who are granted the kingdom of God (Mt. 5:6). By faith in Jesus Christ and his work of atonement man, unrighteous sinner though he is, [1021] receives God’s righteousness, i.e. he is given a true relationship with God which involves the forgiveness of all sin and a new moral standing with God in union with Christ ‘the Righteous One’ (Rom. 3:21–31; 4:1–25; 10:3; 1 Cor. 1:30; 2 Cor. 5:21; Phil. 3:9). By dealing with all the consequences of man’s sin and unrighteousness (both Godward and manward) in the cross, God at once maintains the moral order in which alone he can have fellowship with man and in grace delivers the needy (Rom. 3:26).
The gift of God’s righteousness involves entry into the new realm of divine salvation, the gift of eternal life under the reign of God (Rom. 6:12–23; 2 Cor. 6:7, 14; Phil. 1:11; Eph. 4:24). Hence the extrinsic righteousness imputed through the cross finds inevitable expression in the intrinsic righteousness of a life which in a new way conforms to the will of God, even though the ultimate realization of this conformity must await the consummation of the kingdom (1 Jn. 3:2; Phil. 3:12–14; 1 Cor. 13:12f.; 2 Pet. 3:11–13). (*Justification.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY. G. Schrenk, in TDNT 2, pp. 192–210; N. Snaith, Distinctive Ideas of the Old Testament, 1944; J. Denney, Romans in EGT, 1; idem, The Death of Christ, reprinted 1951; A. Nygren, Commentary on Romans, E.T. 1952; G. Rupp, The Righteousness of God, 1953; H. Seebass, C. Brown, in NIDNTT 3, pp. 352–377.
Sunday, February 1, 2009
Following Where Jesus Leads
The Cost of Following Jesus
Matthew , The IVP New Testament Commentary Series Volume 1
By Craig S. Keener
Matthew 8: 18 Now when Jesus saw a crowd around him, he gave orders to go over to the other side. 19 And a scribe came up and said to him, “Teacher, I will follow you wherever you go.” 20 And Jesus said to him, “Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head.” 21 Another of the disciples said to him, “Lord, let me first go and bury my father.” 22 And Jesus said to him, “Follow me, and leave the dead to bury their own dead.”
Lesson 1: Following Jesus May Cost Us the Most Basic Security (8:18-20)
The scribe no doubt supposes that he is paying a high price in volunteering to follow Jesus; such a decision will cost popularity in some circles, and going through the process of discipleship after already being a scribe would be a humbling experience (like having to repeat high school after finding out that one's school was unaccredited).
Jesus, however, warns his prospective disciple that even such a sacrifice may be inadequate. Jesus is, after all, the Son of Man who must suffer before his exaltation (compare Dan 7:13-22). As the Arab Christian commentator Ibn Sa'id remarked on this passage, the disciple "does not understand that `follow' means Gethsemane, and Golgotha, and the tomb" (Bailey 1980:24). Although Jesus still had a home base in Capernaum (Mt 4:13), his traveling ministry left him and his disciples at the mercy of others' hospitality. In practice, then, Jesus was essentially homeless. Matthew records Jesus' words not merely as a matter of historical interest but as a call to his own generation, and by implication to ours: are we ready to follow Jesus even at the cost of all securities (10:5-14; compare Heb 11:38)?
Lesson 2 : Following Jesus Takes Precedence over All Social Obligations (8:21-22)
Jesus' priority over social obligations includes even those family obligations one's society and religion declare to be ultimate. Let the dead bury their own dead may refer to the "spiritually dead" (compare Lk 15:24, 32); others suggest, "Let the other physically dead in your father's tomb see to your physically dead father," a manifest impossibility characteristic of Jesus' typically shocking and graphic style (compare McCane 1990:41).
Jesus' demand may prove less harsh in some respects than it sounds to us at first. The disciple (by calling him this Matthew makes the narrative explicitly relevant for Christians' commitment) is probably not asking permission to attend his father's funeral later that day; his father likely either was not yet dead or had been buried once already.
When a father died, mourners would gather immediately and a funeral procession would take his body to the tomb (see Mt 27:59-60; Mk 5:35, 38; Lk 7:12), leaving no time for a bereaved son to be talking with rabbis. For a week afterward the family would remain mourning at home and not go out in public (Sirach 22:12; Judith 16:24). But current Semitic idioms show that "I must first bury my father" can function as a request to wait until one's father dies-perhaps for years-so that one may fulfill the ultimate filial obligation before leaving home (Bailey 1980:26).
A custom practiced only in the period immediately surrounding the time of Jesus may illumine this passage more directly, however. In Jesus' day the eldest son would return to the tomb a year after the father's death to "rebury" his father by neatly arranging his now bare bones in a container and sliding it into a slot in the wall. If the father of the man in Matthew's account has died, this young man cannot be referring to his father's initial burial and so must be asking for as much as a year's delay for a secondary burial (see McCane 1990).
At the same time, Jesus' demand also proves harsher than it sounds to us at first. The offense lies not in the immediacy of the demand but in the priority the demand takes over family obligations (Mt 10:21, 35-37). Many Jewish people considered honoring parents the supreme commandment (Ep. Arist. 228; Jos. Apion 2.206) and burial of one's parents one of the most important implications of that commandment, regardless of the circumstances (Tobit 4:3-4; 6:14; 1 Macc 2:70). In most current interpretations of biblical law, only the honor due to God took precedence over the honor shown to parents (Deut 13:6; 4 Macc 2:10-12; Jos. Apion 2.206). Jesus does insist on honoring parents (Mt 15:4-6), yet he demands a greater affection toward himself. Jesus scandalously claims the supreme position of attention in his followers' lives. If we devote ourselves to anyone or anything more than to him, our claim to be his followers becomes hollow, no matter how many "disciples" around us live the same way. And lest we think that Jesus could never demand the immediate abandonment of family obligations we would have otherwise read into the demand, Luke adds a third account that requires just that (Lk 9:61-62; see Keener 1993:215).
Jesus' words in Matthew 8:18-22 were probably intended mainly to weed out would-be disciples who would prove weak in commitment. Jesus wanted people to follow him and welcomed the masses; he did not actually want prospective disciples to abandon him. Mark tells us that Jesus loved a prospective disciple-just before he effectively discouraged the man from following him (Mk 10:21-22). But those who would genuinely be disciples of the King must count the cost before they begin following him (Lk 14:26-35). (Parallels from some other radical ancient teachers demonstrate that commitment rather than harshness was Jesus' intent; see comments on Mt 19:16-22.)
Matthew , The IVP New Testament Commentary Series Volume 1
By Craig S. Keener
Matthew 8: 18 Now when Jesus saw a crowd around him, he gave orders to go over to the other side. 19 And a scribe came up and said to him, “Teacher, I will follow you wherever you go.” 20 And Jesus said to him, “Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head.” 21 Another of the disciples said to him, “Lord, let me first go and bury my father.” 22 And Jesus said to him, “Follow me, and leave the dead to bury their own dead.”
Lesson 1: Following Jesus May Cost Us the Most Basic Security (8:18-20)
The scribe no doubt supposes that he is paying a high price in volunteering to follow Jesus; such a decision will cost popularity in some circles, and going through the process of discipleship after already being a scribe would be a humbling experience (like having to repeat high school after finding out that one's school was unaccredited).
Jesus, however, warns his prospective disciple that even such a sacrifice may be inadequate. Jesus is, after all, the Son of Man who must suffer before his exaltation (compare Dan 7:13-22). As the Arab Christian commentator Ibn Sa'id remarked on this passage, the disciple "does not understand that `follow' means Gethsemane, and Golgotha, and the tomb" (Bailey 1980:24). Although Jesus still had a home base in Capernaum (Mt 4:13), his traveling ministry left him and his disciples at the mercy of others' hospitality. In practice, then, Jesus was essentially homeless. Matthew records Jesus' words not merely as a matter of historical interest but as a call to his own generation, and by implication to ours: are we ready to follow Jesus even at the cost of all securities (10:5-14; compare Heb 11:38)?
Lesson 2 : Following Jesus Takes Precedence over All Social Obligations (8:21-22)
Jesus' priority over social obligations includes even those family obligations one's society and religion declare to be ultimate. Let the dead bury their own dead may refer to the "spiritually dead" (compare Lk 15:24, 32); others suggest, "Let the other physically dead in your father's tomb see to your physically dead father," a manifest impossibility characteristic of Jesus' typically shocking and graphic style (compare McCane 1990:41).
Jesus' demand may prove less harsh in some respects than it sounds to us at first. The disciple (by calling him this Matthew makes the narrative explicitly relevant for Christians' commitment) is probably not asking permission to attend his father's funeral later that day; his father likely either was not yet dead or had been buried once already.
When a father died, mourners would gather immediately and a funeral procession would take his body to the tomb (see Mt 27:59-60; Mk 5:35, 38; Lk 7:12), leaving no time for a bereaved son to be talking with rabbis. For a week afterward the family would remain mourning at home and not go out in public (Sirach 22:12; Judith 16:24). But current Semitic idioms show that "I must first bury my father" can function as a request to wait until one's father dies-perhaps for years-so that one may fulfill the ultimate filial obligation before leaving home (Bailey 1980:26).
A custom practiced only in the period immediately surrounding the time of Jesus may illumine this passage more directly, however. In Jesus' day the eldest son would return to the tomb a year after the father's death to "rebury" his father by neatly arranging his now bare bones in a container and sliding it into a slot in the wall. If the father of the man in Matthew's account has died, this young man cannot be referring to his father's initial burial and so must be asking for as much as a year's delay for a secondary burial (see McCane 1990).
At the same time, Jesus' demand also proves harsher than it sounds to us at first. The offense lies not in the immediacy of the demand but in the priority the demand takes over family obligations (Mt 10:21, 35-37). Many Jewish people considered honoring parents the supreme commandment (Ep. Arist. 228; Jos. Apion 2.206) and burial of one's parents one of the most important implications of that commandment, regardless of the circumstances (Tobit 4:3-4; 6:14; 1 Macc 2:70). In most current interpretations of biblical law, only the honor due to God took precedence over the honor shown to parents (Deut 13:6; 4 Macc 2:10-12; Jos. Apion 2.206). Jesus does insist on honoring parents (Mt 15:4-6), yet he demands a greater affection toward himself. Jesus scandalously claims the supreme position of attention in his followers' lives. If we devote ourselves to anyone or anything more than to him, our claim to be his followers becomes hollow, no matter how many "disciples" around us live the same way. And lest we think that Jesus could never demand the immediate abandonment of family obligations we would have otherwise read into the demand, Luke adds a third account that requires just that (Lk 9:61-62; see Keener 1993:215).
Jesus' words in Matthew 8:18-22 were probably intended mainly to weed out would-be disciples who would prove weak in commitment. Jesus wanted people to follow him and welcomed the masses; he did not actually want prospective disciples to abandon him. Mark tells us that Jesus loved a prospective disciple-just before he effectively discouraged the man from following him (Mk 10:21-22). But those who would genuinely be disciples of the King must count the cost before they begin following him (Lk 14:26-35). (Parallels from some other radical ancient teachers demonstrate that commitment rather than harshness was Jesus' intent; see comments on Mt 19:16-22.)
The Demands of Discipleship (9:57-62)
The Demands of Discipleship ( Luke 9:57-62)
Luke, The IVP New Testament Commentary Series Volume 3
By Darrell L. Bock
In the midst of rejection, it becomes crucial to understand the nature of discipleship. The three sayings of these verses stress what discipleship requires. The presence of the kingdom means not instant power and position but rejection by the world. It requires a focused commitment to be a disciple.
The key to this section is the verb follow, which appears in verses 57, 59 and 61. The three examples parallel the threefold call of Elisha by Elijah, except in Luke three different persons are called (2 Kings 2:1-6; L. T. Johnson 1991:162). The three cases are all different. In one case Jesus makes the call (v. 59). In another a disciple offers to follow wherever Jesus goes with no excuses (v. 57). In the third case the disciple has a priority that stands before his desire to follow Jesus (v. 61). The first and third scenes are the only two records of someone offering to follow Jesus. Whatever the approach to discipleship is, the requirement is the same: following Jesus is a priority.
The first volunteer's offer is open-ended; he will go anywhere Jesus goes. Matthew 8:18-19 makes it clear that he is approaching Jesus as a student would approach a rabbi, since Jesus is addressed as "Teacher." Students in Judaism lived with their teachers to learn Torah and see a model of a righteous life. But there is more to discipleship with Jesus than being a student. Jesus' response makes it clear that discipleship is a demanding affair. To follow Jesus is more like following an Old Testament prophet than like studying with a rabbi (Hengel 1981). Jesus, calling himself the Son of Man, says that he has no home. Even foxes and birds have more of a home than Jesus does. Discipleship requires resolve because it means rejection. The premise behind the remark is that disciples will have to follow the same path as the Son of Man. Discipleship requires trusting God in the midst of rejection.
The second scene involves a man who wishes to bury his father before he comes to follow Jesus. Though the request seems reasonable, the potential disciple's premise is that family comes before Jesus. In Judaism, burying family members is a priority (Sirach 38:16; Tobit 4:3-4; 12:12). The request also parallels Elisha's request to Elijah (1 Kings 19:19-21). Jesus, however, represents the arrival of a new, more demanding era. So even carrying out such a burial is insignificant in the face of discipleship. The task must be left for others: "Let the dead bury their own dead."
Jesus' response seems so harsh that some have argued the man's wish is to wait until his father has died and can be buried--something that could take years. But nothing in Jesus' request or the reply suggests such a delay. Jesus' command is heavily rhetorical, since the dead cannot bury anyone. It means either that the spiritually dead should be left to perform this task or that such concern is inconsequential in the face of the call to discipleship. As important as taking care of a family member's death is, it is a lower priority. Either way, Jesus makes it clear the request should not be honored. Even the "best excuse" possible should not get in the way of discipleship.
Instead, the call is to go and proclaim the kingdom of God. This is the responsibility of all disciples. All must be prepared to share the message of God's goodness in Christ. The remark raises questions about the nature of the kingdom. What does such preaching emphasize? The best examples of it, in light of the additional revelation of the cross, are the speeches in Acts. Central to these speeches is the authority of Jesus Christ as Messiah and Lord. He is the mediator of divine blessing and the returning Judge of the living and the dead (Acts 2, 3, 10).
Luke, The IVP New Testament Commentary Series Volume 3
By Darrell L. Bock
In the midst of rejection, it becomes crucial to understand the nature of discipleship. The three sayings of these verses stress what discipleship requires. The presence of the kingdom means not instant power and position but rejection by the world. It requires a focused commitment to be a disciple.
The key to this section is the verb follow, which appears in verses 57, 59 and 61. The three examples parallel the threefold call of Elisha by Elijah, except in Luke three different persons are called (2 Kings 2:1-6; L. T. Johnson 1991:162). The three cases are all different. In one case Jesus makes the call (v. 59). In another a disciple offers to follow wherever Jesus goes with no excuses (v. 57). In the third case the disciple has a priority that stands before his desire to follow Jesus (v. 61). The first and third scenes are the only two records of someone offering to follow Jesus. Whatever the approach to discipleship is, the requirement is the same: following Jesus is a priority.
The first volunteer's offer is open-ended; he will go anywhere Jesus goes. Matthew 8:18-19 makes it clear that he is approaching Jesus as a student would approach a rabbi, since Jesus is addressed as "Teacher." Students in Judaism lived with their teachers to learn Torah and see a model of a righteous life. But there is more to discipleship with Jesus than being a student. Jesus' response makes it clear that discipleship is a demanding affair. To follow Jesus is more like following an Old Testament prophet than like studying with a rabbi (Hengel 1981). Jesus, calling himself the Son of Man, says that he has no home. Even foxes and birds have more of a home than Jesus does. Discipleship requires resolve because it means rejection. The premise behind the remark is that disciples will have to follow the same path as the Son of Man. Discipleship requires trusting God in the midst of rejection.
The second scene involves a man who wishes to bury his father before he comes to follow Jesus. Though the request seems reasonable, the potential disciple's premise is that family comes before Jesus. In Judaism, burying family members is a priority (Sirach 38:16; Tobit 4:3-4; 12:12). The request also parallels Elisha's request to Elijah (1 Kings 19:19-21). Jesus, however, represents the arrival of a new, more demanding era. So even carrying out such a burial is insignificant in the face of discipleship. The task must be left for others: "Let the dead bury their own dead."
Jesus' response seems so harsh that some have argued the man's wish is to wait until his father has died and can be buried--something that could take years. But nothing in Jesus' request or the reply suggests such a delay. Jesus' command is heavily rhetorical, since the dead cannot bury anyone. It means either that the spiritually dead should be left to perform this task or that such concern is inconsequential in the face of the call to discipleship. As important as taking care of a family member's death is, it is a lower priority. Either way, Jesus makes it clear the request should not be honored. Even the "best excuse" possible should not get in the way of discipleship.
Instead, the call is to go and proclaim the kingdom of God. This is the responsibility of all disciples. All must be prepared to share the message of God's goodness in Christ. The remark raises questions about the nature of the kingdom. What does such preaching emphasize? The best examples of it, in light of the additional revelation of the cross, are the speeches in Acts. Central to these speeches is the authority of Jesus Christ as Messiah and Lord. He is the mediator of divine blessing and the returning Judge of the living and the dead (Acts 2, 3, 10).
Exodus 34: 6-7
From Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology Pg 209 Chpt 12 Communicable Attributes of God
Scripture Memory Passage
Exodus 34: 6-7 : The Lord passed before him and proclaimed, “The Lord, the Lord, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the children's children, to the third and the fourth generation.”
Note: The last section of this passage speaks of God "visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children and the children's children. Some might want to stop short of this part in memorizing the passage, but we should remember that this, too, is Scripture and is written for our edification. This statement shows the horrible nature of sin in the way it has effects beyond the individual sinner, also harming those around the sinner and harming future generations as well. We see this tragic ways in ordinary life, where the children of alcoholics often become alcoholics and the children of abusive parents often become abusive parents.
Christians who are forgiven by Christ should not think of these phrases as applying to them, however, for they are in the other category of people mentioned just before this section on "the guilty": they are among the "thousands" to whom God continually shows "steadfast love", and is continually "forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin" (v.7). When someone comes to Christ the chain of sin is broken. Here it is important to remember Peter's words: 1 Peter 1: 18- 19 knowing that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot.
Scripture Memory Passage
Exodus 34: 6-7 : The Lord passed before him and proclaimed, “The Lord, the Lord, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the children's children, to the third and the fourth generation.”
Note: The last section of this passage speaks of God "visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children and the children's children. Some might want to stop short of this part in memorizing the passage, but we should remember that this, too, is Scripture and is written for our edification. This statement shows the horrible nature of sin in the way it has effects beyond the individual sinner, also harming those around the sinner and harming future generations as well. We see this tragic ways in ordinary life, where the children of alcoholics often become alcoholics and the children of abusive parents often become abusive parents.
Christians who are forgiven by Christ should not think of these phrases as applying to them, however, for they are in the other category of people mentioned just before this section on "the guilty": they are among the "thousands" to whom God continually shows "steadfast love", and is continually "forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin" (v.7). When someone comes to Christ the chain of sin is broken. Here it is important to remember Peter's words: 1 Peter 1: 18- 19 knowing that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
A question of vision.
A question of vision.
John Stott's Bible Speaks Today : The Message of Sermon on the Mount pg 156
For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.
“The eye is the lamp of the body. So, if your eye is healthy, your whole body will be full of light, but if your eye is bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light in you is darkness, how great is the darkness!
Matthew 6: 21-23
Jesus turns from the comparative durability of the 2 treasures to the comparative benefit to be derived from 2 conditions. The contrast now is between a blind person and a sighted person, and so between the light and darkness in which they respectively live. THe eye is the lamp of the body. This is not literal, of course, as if the eye were a kind of window letting light into the body, but it is a readily intelligible figure of speech. ALmost everything the body does depends on our ability to see. We need to see in order to run,jump, drive a car, cross a road, cook, embroider, paint. The eye, as it were, 'illuminates' what the body does through its hands and feet... A sighted person walks in the light, while a blind person is in darkness. And the great difference between the light and the darkness of the body is due to this small but intricate organ, the eye. If your eye is sound, your whole body will be fill of light; but if your eye is not sound, your whole body will be full of darkness. In total blindness, the darkness is complete.
All this is factual description . But it is also metaphorical. Not infrequently in Scripture the eye is equivalent to the heart. That is to 'set the heart' and to 'fix the eye' on something are synonyms. One example may be enough, from Psalm 119. In v.10 the psalmist writes: 'With my whole heart i seek thee; let me not wander from thy commandments,' and in v.19, 'i have fixed my eyes on all thy commandments.' Similarly, here in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus passes from the importance of having our heart in the right place(21) to the importance of having our eye sound and healthy.
The argument seems to go like this: just as our eye affects our whole body, so our ambition (where we fix our eyes and heart) affects our whole life. Just as a seeing eye gives light to the body, so a noble and singleminded ambition to serve God and man adds meaning to life and throw light on everything we do. Again, just as blindness leads to darkness, so an ignoble and selfish ambition(eg. to lay up treasures for ourselves on earth) plunges us into moral darkness. it makes us intolerant, inhuman, ruthless and deprives life of all ultimate significance.
It is all a question of vision. If we have physical vision, we can see what we are doing and where we are going. So too if we have spiritual vision, if our spiritual perspective is correctly adjusted, then our life is filled with purpose and drive. But if our vision becomes clouded by the false gods of materialism, and we lose our sense of values, then our whole life is in darkness and we cannot see where we are going. Perhaps the emphasis lies even more strongly than i have so far suggested on the loss of vision caused by covetousness, because according to biblical thought an 'evil eye' is a niggardly, miserly spirit, and a 'sound' one is generous. At all events Jesus adds this new reason for laying up treasure in heaven. THe first was its greater durability; the second the resulting benefit now on earth of such a vision.
John Stott's Bible Speaks Today : The Message of Sermon on the Mount pg 156
For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.
“The eye is the lamp of the body. So, if your eye is healthy, your whole body will be full of light, but if your eye is bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light in you is darkness, how great is the darkness!
Matthew 6: 21-23
Jesus turns from the comparative durability of the 2 treasures to the comparative benefit to be derived from 2 conditions. The contrast now is between a blind person and a sighted person, and so between the light and darkness in which they respectively live. THe eye is the lamp of the body. This is not literal, of course, as if the eye were a kind of window letting light into the body, but it is a readily intelligible figure of speech. ALmost everything the body does depends on our ability to see. We need to see in order to run,jump, drive a car, cross a road, cook, embroider, paint. The eye, as it were, 'illuminates' what the body does through its hands and feet... A sighted person walks in the light, while a blind person is in darkness. And the great difference between the light and the darkness of the body is due to this small but intricate organ, the eye. If your eye is sound, your whole body will be fill of light; but if your eye is not sound, your whole body will be full of darkness. In total blindness, the darkness is complete.
All this is factual description . But it is also metaphorical. Not infrequently in Scripture the eye is equivalent to the heart. That is to 'set the heart' and to 'fix the eye' on something are synonyms. One example may be enough, from Psalm 119. In v.10 the psalmist writes: 'With my whole heart i seek thee; let me not wander from thy commandments,' and in v.19, 'i have fixed my eyes on all thy commandments.' Similarly, here in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus passes from the importance of having our heart in the right place(21) to the importance of having our eye sound and healthy.
The argument seems to go like this: just as our eye affects our whole body, so our ambition (where we fix our eyes and heart) affects our whole life. Just as a seeing eye gives light to the body, so a noble and singleminded ambition to serve God and man adds meaning to life and throw light on everything we do. Again, just as blindness leads to darkness, so an ignoble and selfish ambition(eg. to lay up treasures for ourselves on earth) plunges us into moral darkness. it makes us intolerant, inhuman, ruthless and deprives life of all ultimate significance.
It is all a question of vision. If we have physical vision, we can see what we are doing and where we are going. So too if we have spiritual vision, if our spiritual perspective is correctly adjusted, then our life is filled with purpose and drive. But if our vision becomes clouded by the false gods of materialism, and we lose our sense of values, then our whole life is in darkness and we cannot see where we are going. Perhaps the emphasis lies even more strongly than i have so far suggested on the loss of vision caused by covetousness, because according to biblical thought an 'evil eye' is a niggardly, miserly spirit, and a 'sound' one is generous. At all events Jesus adds this new reason for laying up treasure in heaven. THe first was its greater durability; the second the resulting benefit now on earth of such a vision.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)