The Commands of Jesus: Go and be reconciled to your brother… (Matt. 5:23-24)
Context: This command is from the Sermon on the Mount (found in Matthew 5-7). In Matthew, Jesus is portrayed as a new and better Moses. Moses was seen as the Lawgiver in the Hebrew Bible (received the Law on Mount Sinai). What we find in the Sermon on the Mount, is that often, Jesus quotes one of the commandments or one of the other rules from the Torah (or Law, like 5.21, 27, 31, 38) and he expounds on it, revealing the Spirit that God gave the command in. He wanted to deal with our sinfulness (both external and internal).
Jesus is showing how demanding a holy God is. He cares more about our mere external obedience to a few commands, he cares about our heart. He was dealing with religious people who thought they could justify themselves before God on how they observed certain rituals (the Pharisees, that is). Jesus knows that external sinfulness comes from our internal uncleanness (see Mark 7.20-23). Adultery is obviously sinful but it stems from our evil thoughts. We think we are ok if we don’t engage in the external act of adultery (or any sexual immorality) but we can harbor these internal thoughts. These internal thoughts are what lead to the immoral sinful behavior. Jesus is trying to get us to deal with the source of our sinfulness (our hearts).
When Jesus discusses the “gift at the altar” he is discussing the OT sacrificial system. There were five main offerings in the OT. They ranged from offering animal sacrifice to cover various types of unintentional sins to voluntary offerings (both animal and grain) for thanksgiving, fellowship and worship.
Jesus pictures a person going to the temple to offer one of these sacrifices. The person on the way to sacrifice (or worship as it was known to the OT believer) realizes that someone has something against them. Jesus tells the potential worshiper to go and get it right before offering his “gift” or sacrifice.
Who is responsible to go and make things right? (You are, even if you are not wrong).
Other passages that discuss resolving conflict (within the Christian community)
Matt. 18.15-20 – If someone sins against you, tell that person first (and no one else)
If that is unsuccessful, take along one or two witnesses (involve others to hear the both sides and help to mediate the conflict).
If the witnesses see your side of the matter and yet the person who has wronged you has not repented, then tell it to the community that you are both a part of. If that doesn’t work, expel the unrepentant person out of your community. That is done so that, perhaps exclusion from such Christian fellowship will prompt the unrepentant person to repent, make things right and desire to rejoin the community.
(See 1 Cor. 5.1-5 to see the expulsion of a blatantly immoral person. The goal is ultimately restoration.)
What if the witnesses take the other person’s side? Then you need to be humble enough to examine yourself and repent if you indeed were wrong. Even if you still feel wronged, the right thing to do (I believe) is to repent publicly for the misunderstanding (and in your heart, forgive all involved for the sake of unity. See 1 Cor. 6.7-8, rather be wronged than to sue your Christian brothers and sisters).
What if that person is not a believer that has wronged you? I think the same principles apply (accept for the expulsion from the community).
I think Paul’s discussion in Rom. 12. 16-21 informs us here. Some of the highlights: live in harmony with one another; do not repay anyone evil for evil; be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody, if it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone; overcome evil with good.
How hard is that, to go to someone who has wronged you? Or, can we apply this passage to an incident where you know a brother or sister is upset at you (and honestly, you’ve done nothing wrong)? Should we go and get things resolved? I do think so. As far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Go and get it worked out. Jesus makes it sound like it impacts your worship. Resolve conflict before you worship.
Read 1 Cor. 13.1-3 – if I can participate in all of these wonderful forms of worship (from an external standpoint) and do not have love (an internal attitude) then I have nothing. My worship, no matter how wonderful the external form might be, is compared to noise in God’s ears. My singing, my preaching/teaching, if not done with love (and love promotes unity and resolves conflict) is worthless.
Can you think of a time that you resolved conflict in a mature manner (similar to the passages in this lesson)? Can you think of times you tried to do things the right way and it was a disaster? Is there anyone out there that you can think of that has something against you (and perhaps you are completely in the right)? Can you begin to pray through a strategy to discuss the matter with them? Do you need one or two witnesses to help arbitrate?
Have you ever thought that your external form of worship could be undermined by your inner attitude, especially if there is unresolved conflict in the Christian community?
Monday, March 21, 2011
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Commands of Jesus: Don't Be Angry with Your Brother
The Commands of Jesus
Anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. (Matthew 5:22)
The Context: This command is from the Sermon on the Mount (found in Matthew 5-7). In Matthew, Jesus is portrayed as a new and better Moses. Moses was seen as the Lawgiver in the Hebrew Bible (received the Law on Mount Sinai). What we find in the Sermon on the Mount, is that often, Jesus quotes one of the commandments or one of the other rules from the Torah (or Law, like 5.21, 27, 31, 38) and he expounds on it, revealing the Spirit that God gave the command in. He wanted to deal with our sinfulness (both external and internal).
Jesus is showing how demanding a holy God is. He cares more about our mere external obedience to a few commands, he cares about our heart. He was dealing with religious people who thought they could justify themselves before God on how they observed certain rituals (the Pharisees, that is). Jesus knows that external sinfulness comes from our internal uncleanness (see Mark 7.20-23). Adultery is obviously sinful but it stems from our evil thoughts. We think we are ok if we don’t engage in the external act of adultery (or any sexual immorality) but we can harbor these internal thoughts. These internal thoughts are what lead to the immoral sinful behavior. Jesus is trying to get us to deal with the source of our sinfulness (our hearts).
In Matthew 5.21-22, it seems that there may be four different sins denoted here: murder, being angry, calling your brother “Raca” and calling anyone a “fool”. However, he is not discussing four separate sins, but looking at the internal attitudes that lead to destructive external actions. What Jesus is doing here is contrasting our external appearances with our internal attitudes. The point is that in all four cases is that anger, as the root of murder, deserves the same penalty. What Jesus seems to be saying here is that the sin in your heart is enough to put you in danger of eternal punishment. Of course we can believe that committing murder would be serious enough to make us liable to eternal punishment. But Jesus is saying that the attitude of your heart is also sin and enough to keep you eternally separated from God.
Look at 1 John 3.15 – Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life residing in him.
See also 1 John 4:20 –
Jesus points out later that it is from within, our heart that our evil behaviors come from.
Matt. 15:19 – (evil thoughts almost being the heading of what follows)
For Jesus, the inner attitude is of supreme importance. Our inner attitude expresses itself in apparently small acts of unkindness, like calling our brother “Raca”. Raca is an Aramaic word that means empty head. This seems harmless to us today, but we need to remember that names carrying important meaning in Jesus’ day. The same thing works for “fool”.
Gehenna (or fire of Hell) – Gehenna was the Aramaic term for a place southwest of Jerusalem where at one time human sacrifices were offered to the god Molech (ancient Babylonian god, see 2 Kings 23.10; Jer. 7.31 for reference). In Jesus’ day it was basically the landfill area where people took their trash and it was burned. The constant burning there made this area a good metaphor for eternal punishment.
How in the world could my calling my brother “empty head” or anyone else a “fool” make me liable for eternal punishment? What Jesus is doing is connecting our external actions with our internal thoughts and showing us, again, how holy our God is. Our sin, in any faction, will lead to judgment before God. It can be as obvious as murder and as small as harboring resentment in your heart.
What does this have to do with me? We need to differentiate between getting angry once before we became believers and getting angry once after our conversion. All it takes is getting angry once before experiencing Jesus that can condemn us to eternal punishment. God is holy and all it takes is one blemish to keep us apart. (See Genesis 3 for back story here). On this side of conversion, our occasional angry outburst is forgivable, but if it is a lifestyle or it defines your character, that may be evidence that you haven’t experienced the power of the Spirit or that you need help walking you through such issues. It is evidence of a lack of discipleship. Go back to the verses in 1 John and Matthew 15 for support. Look at Col. 3.5-10 to see a list of behaviors that may have characterized your life prior to following Jesus (you once walked in these things). Thankfully there are a bunch of “But now”s in the Bible. You used to live like an unbeliever (because you were an unbeliever). But now, you can behave like Jesus because he has given you his power.
In this passage it shows us that we need to be respectful of not only our fellow Christians (brother of verse 22) but anyone (who you may insult by calling them a fool).
Jesus here penetrates to the spirit of the commandment. The fountain of a person’s conduct is the heart, or inner person, the transforming power of the kingdom must be especially experienced there. Anger and insults spoken from anger are evil and corrupting and call forth God’s judgment, just like the obvious act of murder.
Anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. (Matthew 5:22)
The Context: This command is from the Sermon on the Mount (found in Matthew 5-7). In Matthew, Jesus is portrayed as a new and better Moses. Moses was seen as the Lawgiver in the Hebrew Bible (received the Law on Mount Sinai). What we find in the Sermon on the Mount, is that often, Jesus quotes one of the commandments or one of the other rules from the Torah (or Law, like 5.21, 27, 31, 38) and he expounds on it, revealing the Spirit that God gave the command in. He wanted to deal with our sinfulness (both external and internal).
Jesus is showing how demanding a holy God is. He cares more about our mere external obedience to a few commands, he cares about our heart. He was dealing with religious people who thought they could justify themselves before God on how they observed certain rituals (the Pharisees, that is). Jesus knows that external sinfulness comes from our internal uncleanness (see Mark 7.20-23). Adultery is obviously sinful but it stems from our evil thoughts. We think we are ok if we don’t engage in the external act of adultery (or any sexual immorality) but we can harbor these internal thoughts. These internal thoughts are what lead to the immoral sinful behavior. Jesus is trying to get us to deal with the source of our sinfulness (our hearts).
In Matthew 5.21-22, it seems that there may be four different sins denoted here: murder, being angry, calling your brother “Raca” and calling anyone a “fool”. However, he is not discussing four separate sins, but looking at the internal attitudes that lead to destructive external actions. What Jesus is doing here is contrasting our external appearances with our internal attitudes. The point is that in all four cases is that anger, as the root of murder, deserves the same penalty. What Jesus seems to be saying here is that the sin in your heart is enough to put you in danger of eternal punishment. Of course we can believe that committing murder would be serious enough to make us liable to eternal punishment. But Jesus is saying that the attitude of your heart is also sin and enough to keep you eternally separated from God.
Look at 1 John 3.15 – Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life residing in him.
See also 1 John 4:20 –
Jesus points out later that it is from within, our heart that our evil behaviors come from.
Matt. 15:19 – (evil thoughts almost being the heading of what follows)
For Jesus, the inner attitude is of supreme importance. Our inner attitude expresses itself in apparently small acts of unkindness, like calling our brother “Raca”. Raca is an Aramaic word that means empty head. This seems harmless to us today, but we need to remember that names carrying important meaning in Jesus’ day. The same thing works for “fool”.
Gehenna (or fire of Hell) – Gehenna was the Aramaic term for a place southwest of Jerusalem where at one time human sacrifices were offered to the god Molech (ancient Babylonian god, see 2 Kings 23.10; Jer. 7.31 for reference). In Jesus’ day it was basically the landfill area where people took their trash and it was burned. The constant burning there made this area a good metaphor for eternal punishment.
How in the world could my calling my brother “empty head” or anyone else a “fool” make me liable for eternal punishment? What Jesus is doing is connecting our external actions with our internal thoughts and showing us, again, how holy our God is. Our sin, in any faction, will lead to judgment before God. It can be as obvious as murder and as small as harboring resentment in your heart.
What does this have to do with me? We need to differentiate between getting angry once before we became believers and getting angry once after our conversion. All it takes is getting angry once before experiencing Jesus that can condemn us to eternal punishment. God is holy and all it takes is one blemish to keep us apart. (See Genesis 3 for back story here). On this side of conversion, our occasional angry outburst is forgivable, but if it is a lifestyle or it defines your character, that may be evidence that you haven’t experienced the power of the Spirit or that you need help walking you through such issues. It is evidence of a lack of discipleship. Go back to the verses in 1 John and Matthew 15 for support. Look at Col. 3.5-10 to see a list of behaviors that may have characterized your life prior to following Jesus (you once walked in these things). Thankfully there are a bunch of “But now”s in the Bible. You used to live like an unbeliever (because you were an unbeliever). But now, you can behave like Jesus because he has given you his power.
In this passage it shows us that we need to be respectful of not only our fellow Christians (brother of verse 22) but anyone (who you may insult by calling them a fool).
Jesus here penetrates to the spirit of the commandment. The fountain of a person’s conduct is the heart, or inner person, the transforming power of the kingdom must be especially experienced there. Anger and insults spoken from anger are evil and corrupting and call forth God’s judgment, just like the obvious act of murder.
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Commands of Jesus: "Let your light shine before men..."
Commands of Jesus: Let your light shine before men… (so that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in Heaven) Matt. 5:16
Context: This command is from the Sermon on the Mount (found in Matthew 5-7). In Matthew, Jesus is portrayed as a new and better Moses. Moses was seen as the Lawgiver in the Hebrew Bible (received the Law on Mount Sinai). What we find in the Sermon on the Mount, is that often, Jesus quotes one of the commandments or one of the other rules from the Torah (or Law, like 5.21, 27, 31, 38) and he expounds on it, revealing the Spirit that God gave the command in. He wanted to deal with our sinfulness (both external and internal).
Jesus is showing how demanding a holy God is. He cares more about our mere external obedience to a few commands, he cares about our heart. He was dealing with religious people who thought they could justify themselves before God on how they observed certain rituals (the Pharisees, that is). Jesus knows that external sinfulness comes from our internal uncleanness (see Mark 7.20-23). Adultery is obviously sinful but it stems from our evil thoughts. We think we are ok if we don’t engage in the external act of adultery (or any sexual immorality) but we can harbor these internal thoughts. These internal thoughts are what lead to the immoral sinful behavior. Jesus is trying to get us to deal with the source of our sinfulness (our hearts).
In Matt. 5:13-16, Jesus calls believers salt and light. If that is the case, then it must mean that the world is corrupt and dark. How so?
Tell me what you know about salt? Why would it be good for followers of Jesus to be salt? Jesus compares the world to meat or fish that, left to itself, will very quickly become rotten. The primary use of salt in His day was to preserve meat or fish by soaking it in brine (salt water) or rubbing salt thoroughly into it. Ever heard the phrase that someone was (or wasn’t) worth their salt? Salt was valuable in those days. A Roman soldier might even receive part of his compensation in salt.
Light is a little more obvious. We can see the metaphor for a follower of Jesus to be light, can’t we? How is this? Lamps need to be lit to avoid danger and damage if we want to be active after the sun goes down. That is the world to Jesus, a room in a house after the sun goes down.
It seems as if the world in which we live can become corrupt and dark. In this sense salt and light can challenge decay and darkness and actually transform them.
If a piece of meat goes rotten, it’s no use blaming the meat. That’s what happens when meat is left out on its own. The question is, “Where is the salt?” If a house gets dark at night, it’s no use blaming the house. That’s what happens when the sun goes down. The question to ask is, “Where is the light?” If society becomes more corrupt and dark, it’s no use blaming society. That’s what fallen human nature does. So often we don’t understand why non-believers don’t act like we do or see things the way we do. That is just the way lost people behave when they are left unchallenged by Christ-like behavior. When this happens, we need to ask, “Where are the believers?” Where are the saints who will actually live as saints in the public square, wherever that is for you? Where are those who see their mission as God’s people to live and work and witness in the marketplace?
How do we rationalize this with Matt. 6.1?
What were the “acts of righteousness” that Jesus is referring to? If we read 6.1-18, we get a sense that the acts of righteousness were giving to the needy, prayer and fasting. These are good things, but the religious people that opposed Jesus were doing these things with two purposes in mind: to attract the attention of other people and to justify themselves before God. These acts they thought were gaining them “holy points” with God.
Now, where is the public square that we live in? What are some practical ways that we can be salt and light in the world? What are things that can become “acts of righteousness” to us as they were to the Pharisees? How do we avoid doing “acts of righteousness” to draw attention to ourselves?
Context: This command is from the Sermon on the Mount (found in Matthew 5-7). In Matthew, Jesus is portrayed as a new and better Moses. Moses was seen as the Lawgiver in the Hebrew Bible (received the Law on Mount Sinai). What we find in the Sermon on the Mount, is that often, Jesus quotes one of the commandments or one of the other rules from the Torah (or Law, like 5.21, 27, 31, 38) and he expounds on it, revealing the Spirit that God gave the command in. He wanted to deal with our sinfulness (both external and internal).
Jesus is showing how demanding a holy God is. He cares more about our mere external obedience to a few commands, he cares about our heart. He was dealing with religious people who thought they could justify themselves before God on how they observed certain rituals (the Pharisees, that is). Jesus knows that external sinfulness comes from our internal uncleanness (see Mark 7.20-23). Adultery is obviously sinful but it stems from our evil thoughts. We think we are ok if we don’t engage in the external act of adultery (or any sexual immorality) but we can harbor these internal thoughts. These internal thoughts are what lead to the immoral sinful behavior. Jesus is trying to get us to deal with the source of our sinfulness (our hearts).
In Matt. 5:13-16, Jesus calls believers salt and light. If that is the case, then it must mean that the world is corrupt and dark. How so?
Tell me what you know about salt? Why would it be good for followers of Jesus to be salt? Jesus compares the world to meat or fish that, left to itself, will very quickly become rotten. The primary use of salt in His day was to preserve meat or fish by soaking it in brine (salt water) or rubbing salt thoroughly into it. Ever heard the phrase that someone was (or wasn’t) worth their salt? Salt was valuable in those days. A Roman soldier might even receive part of his compensation in salt.
Light is a little more obvious. We can see the metaphor for a follower of Jesus to be light, can’t we? How is this? Lamps need to be lit to avoid danger and damage if we want to be active after the sun goes down. That is the world to Jesus, a room in a house after the sun goes down.
It seems as if the world in which we live can become corrupt and dark. In this sense salt and light can challenge decay and darkness and actually transform them.
If a piece of meat goes rotten, it’s no use blaming the meat. That’s what happens when meat is left out on its own. The question is, “Where is the salt?” If a house gets dark at night, it’s no use blaming the house. That’s what happens when the sun goes down. The question to ask is, “Where is the light?” If society becomes more corrupt and dark, it’s no use blaming society. That’s what fallen human nature does. So often we don’t understand why non-believers don’t act like we do or see things the way we do. That is just the way lost people behave when they are left unchallenged by Christ-like behavior. When this happens, we need to ask, “Where are the believers?” Where are the saints who will actually live as saints in the public square, wherever that is for you? Where are those who see their mission as God’s people to live and work and witness in the marketplace?
How do we rationalize this with Matt. 6.1?
What were the “acts of righteousness” that Jesus is referring to? If we read 6.1-18, we get a sense that the acts of righteousness were giving to the needy, prayer and fasting. These are good things, but the religious people that opposed Jesus were doing these things with two purposes in mind: to attract the attention of other people and to justify themselves before God. These acts they thought were gaining them “holy points” with God.
Now, where is the public square that we live in? What are some practical ways that we can be salt and light in the world? What are things that can become “acts of righteousness” to us as they were to the Pharisees? How do we avoid doing “acts of righteousness” to draw attention to ourselves?
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Should Our Gospel Communication Be "Reductionist" in Its Theology?
Maggi Dawn wrote a blog post (http://maggidawn.com/rob-bell-love-wins/) about the Rob Bell/Universalism controversy. She takes aim at Justin Taylor, who wrote on what Bell stated on a promotional video about his new book Love Wins and John Piper who dismissively wrote “Farewell Rob Bell” on his twitter account.
Dawn defends Rob Bell, not on his supposed universalist views, but on his ability to communicate and what he is trying to do. Bell is seeking to connect with disaffected Christians and “seekers” so he is purposefully simple and is not much of a theologian in his communications, whether written or spoken.
She writes:
"As far as I can see, it’s this, rather than theology per se, (communicating) that is Bell’s real gift. His writing and broadcasting actually covers very little ground theologically, and does so imprecisely, but what he does par excellence is capture the imaginations of those who have become disenchanted with Christianity, and haven’t enough patience or emotional energy to re-examine it … he is reductionist in his theology, but that seems to me to emerge from his deeper longing to communicate at the level of an evangelist and pastor. Once people are interested in theology the finer details can be worked on with theologians who – precisely because of their concern for the finer details – fail to communicate in quite the way Bell does. But if people never get interested in the first place, they will never hang around long enough to examine the finer details."
My question concerns her understanding that pastors and evangelists do not need (nor should they) be concerned about theology. I’ve been studying the gospel preaching of some of the early “evangelists” in the book of Acts, and they seem rather concerned with theology.
Peter seems very theological in his preaching. He doesn’t sugar coat his message (or isn’t reductionist) as he tells his listeners, “You crucified him” and that salvation is found in no other name (Acts 3.13-26; 4.8-12). Peter also mentions that Jesus is a “judge”. Paul, even in a Greek context is not reductionist when he tells his Gentile listeners that a day of judgment will come and that all people should turn from their “ignorance” (Acts 17.22-31).
My point is that if ever there was a need for “seeker sensitive” messages, it was in the early church when Peter and Paul were speaking before either antagonistic audiences or audiences who did not know all of the back story. Yet, these “evangelists” were not reductionist in their theology and Paul on several occasions urged his pastoral representatives guard their doctrine closely (e.g. 1Tim. 4.15-6). Paul even connects pastoral love to strong theology (1 Tim. 1.3-11). I think that our preaching to “seekers” needs to be thoughtful and understandable, but at the same time, we should not avoid deep theological truths. If we are reductionist in our evangelism, we could be accused of using a “bait and switch” technique when we start to discuss issues like election, atonement and the concept of Hell or an eternity apart from God.
Dawn defends Rob Bell, not on his supposed universalist views, but on his ability to communicate and what he is trying to do. Bell is seeking to connect with disaffected Christians and “seekers” so he is purposefully simple and is not much of a theologian in his communications, whether written or spoken.
She writes:
"As far as I can see, it’s this, rather than theology per se, (communicating) that is Bell’s real gift. His writing and broadcasting actually covers very little ground theologically, and does so imprecisely, but what he does par excellence is capture the imaginations of those who have become disenchanted with Christianity, and haven’t enough patience or emotional energy to re-examine it … he is reductionist in his theology, but that seems to me to emerge from his deeper longing to communicate at the level of an evangelist and pastor. Once people are interested in theology the finer details can be worked on with theologians who – precisely because of their concern for the finer details – fail to communicate in quite the way Bell does. But if people never get interested in the first place, they will never hang around long enough to examine the finer details."
My question concerns her understanding that pastors and evangelists do not need (nor should they) be concerned about theology. I’ve been studying the gospel preaching of some of the early “evangelists” in the book of Acts, and they seem rather concerned with theology.
Peter seems very theological in his preaching. He doesn’t sugar coat his message (or isn’t reductionist) as he tells his listeners, “You crucified him” and that salvation is found in no other name (Acts 3.13-26; 4.8-12). Peter also mentions that Jesus is a “judge”. Paul, even in a Greek context is not reductionist when he tells his Gentile listeners that a day of judgment will come and that all people should turn from their “ignorance” (Acts 17.22-31).
My point is that if ever there was a need for “seeker sensitive” messages, it was in the early church when Peter and Paul were speaking before either antagonistic audiences or audiences who did not know all of the back story. Yet, these “evangelists” were not reductionist in their theology and Paul on several occasions urged his pastoral representatives guard their doctrine closely (e.g. 1Tim. 4.15-6). Paul even connects pastoral love to strong theology (1 Tim. 1.3-11). I think that our preaching to “seekers” needs to be thoughtful and understandable, but at the same time, we should not avoid deep theological truths. If we are reductionist in our evangelism, we could be accused of using a “bait and switch” technique when we start to discuss issues like election, atonement and the concept of Hell or an eternity apart from God.
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
The Commands of Jesus: Watch out for the yeast of the Pharisees
The Commands of Jesus: Be careful…Watch out for the yeast of the Pharisees and that of Herod (Mark 8.14-21)
Context: Jesus had just fed 4000 people, of which bread was the major staple (8.1-10).
The Pharisees ask him for a sign from heaven to test him (vv. 11-13; he just gave them a sign). Jesus refuses and leaves.
Jesus and the disciples are on a boat (with only one loaf of bread between them).
Jesus issues his command: Be careful… Watch out for the yeast of the Pharisees and that of Herod (v. 15).
What does Jesus mean by yeast? – What is yeast and what is its purpose?
Positive – Matt. 13.33 - The kingdom of heaven is like yeast that a woman took and mixed into a large amount of flour until it worked all through the dough
Seemingly negative – 1 Cor. 5.6-7 – things that corrupt.
The yeast had nothing to do with literal bread (which is what the disciples heard).
Yeast in those days was used at times as a symbol of corruption (in Greek understanding and Jewish understanding). In those days, with not the greatest preservation techniques and containers, yeast could go bad and if it did, it could infect a whole batch of dough and poison it.
The disciples don’t get it. They think he is telling them not to buy bread from the Pharisees and from Herod. Perhaps they begin debating whose fault it is?
Jesus is not talking about bread. Jesus was asking his disciples to not be infected with the same attitude of the Pharisees and Herod. Here the Pharisees demand a sign from Jesus, as they had elsewhere (even though they had observed Jesus perform miracles in front of them). Jesus needs to act the way they want him to. We have Pharisees (or teachers of the Law) present when Jesus heals the paralytic (Mark 2.6-12; 3.1-6).
Herod had shown a curiosity in Jesus as well, mostly in his signs and wonders ability than his teaching (Mark. 6.14; Luke 23.8).
Elsewhere
Matt. 16.12 - Then they understood that he was not telling them to guard against the yeast used in bread, but against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
Luke 12.1 - “Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy.
It seems as if the signs and wonders are never enough. They’ve seen several examples already. What were they looking for? Was it incontrovertible truth? If that was the case, they were trying to dictate to God the conditions they needed in order to believe in Jesus. Even then, I don’t think it would have been enough because it would not have fit the profile that they had of how God would act in history. They would have analyzed it, debated it and probably explained it away.
Where is the “yeast” that we need to avoid today? Who are the people and/or what are the thoughts that infect our whole being and our faith? How do we guard against such people/thoughts?
Do we find ourselves without faith and demanding signs? What signs do we demand from Jesus? Are we swayed by those who ask the same things as well? Do we wish that Jesus would just make things clear and obvious so that everyone would believe in him? (What would that do with our faith? Does John 20.29 say anything about this?)
What are we so dull about? Have we ever experienced God’s provision in Christ yet later wondered how we were going to provide for ourselves at another point?
When Jesus speaks clearly to us in context, do we understand it? What do we find so hard to accept? Have we ever experienced Jesus so clearly yet later on we wonder if he really is who he says he is? Have we even doubted that he has ever worked among us?
Do we need any sign from Jesus? We need one, which is the resurrection. If we have that one sign, then our faith in Jesus is warranted, no matter whether he provides anything else for us or not. He is worthy to be worshiped and followed on the basis of that.
In Mark, the disciples are portrayed as having a special relationship with Jesus, yet, despite their presence with Jesus and their sharing in his ministry, they appear to miss the significance of who Jesus is and what he is doing. They have an excuse, haven’t experienced the resurrections and the presence of the Holy Spirit. Do we understand how significant Jesus is and what he did (and is doing)? What do we need help with? What do you not yet understand? How can we help?
Context: Jesus had just fed 4000 people, of which bread was the major staple (8.1-10).
The Pharisees ask him for a sign from heaven to test him (vv. 11-13; he just gave them a sign). Jesus refuses and leaves.
Jesus and the disciples are on a boat (with only one loaf of bread between them).
Jesus issues his command: Be careful… Watch out for the yeast of the Pharisees and that of Herod (v. 15).
What does Jesus mean by yeast? – What is yeast and what is its purpose?
Positive – Matt. 13.33 - The kingdom of heaven is like yeast that a woman took and mixed into a large amount of flour until it worked all through the dough
Seemingly negative – 1 Cor. 5.6-7 – things that corrupt.
The yeast had nothing to do with literal bread (which is what the disciples heard).
Yeast in those days was used at times as a symbol of corruption (in Greek understanding and Jewish understanding). In those days, with not the greatest preservation techniques and containers, yeast could go bad and if it did, it could infect a whole batch of dough and poison it.
The disciples don’t get it. They think he is telling them not to buy bread from the Pharisees and from Herod. Perhaps they begin debating whose fault it is?
Jesus is not talking about bread. Jesus was asking his disciples to not be infected with the same attitude of the Pharisees and Herod. Here the Pharisees demand a sign from Jesus, as they had elsewhere (even though they had observed Jesus perform miracles in front of them). Jesus needs to act the way they want him to. We have Pharisees (or teachers of the Law) present when Jesus heals the paralytic (Mark 2.6-12; 3.1-6).
Herod had shown a curiosity in Jesus as well, mostly in his signs and wonders ability than his teaching (Mark. 6.14; Luke 23.8).
Elsewhere
Matt. 16.12 - Then they understood that he was not telling them to guard against the yeast used in bread, but against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
Luke 12.1 - “Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy.
It seems as if the signs and wonders are never enough. They’ve seen several examples already. What were they looking for? Was it incontrovertible truth? If that was the case, they were trying to dictate to God the conditions they needed in order to believe in Jesus. Even then, I don’t think it would have been enough because it would not have fit the profile that they had of how God would act in history. They would have analyzed it, debated it and probably explained it away.
Where is the “yeast” that we need to avoid today? Who are the people and/or what are the thoughts that infect our whole being and our faith? How do we guard against such people/thoughts?
Do we find ourselves without faith and demanding signs? What signs do we demand from Jesus? Are we swayed by those who ask the same things as well? Do we wish that Jesus would just make things clear and obvious so that everyone would believe in him? (What would that do with our faith? Does John 20.29 say anything about this?)
What are we so dull about? Have we ever experienced God’s provision in Christ yet later wondered how we were going to provide for ourselves at another point?
When Jesus speaks clearly to us in context, do we understand it? What do we find so hard to accept? Have we ever experienced Jesus so clearly yet later on we wonder if he really is who he says he is? Have we even doubted that he has ever worked among us?
Do we need any sign from Jesus? We need one, which is the resurrection. If we have that one sign, then our faith in Jesus is warranted, no matter whether he provides anything else for us or not. He is worthy to be worshiped and followed on the basis of that.
In Mark, the disciples are portrayed as having a special relationship with Jesus, yet, despite their presence with Jesus and their sharing in his ministry, they appear to miss the significance of who Jesus is and what he is doing. They have an excuse, haven’t experienced the resurrections and the presence of the Holy Spirit. Do we understand how significant Jesus is and what he did (and is doing)? What do we need help with? What do you not yet understand? How can we help?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
