Matthew 5:1-12 The Kingdom of heaven values different things to the world

theological

We're continuing in Matthew. The first in this series is here, and yesterday's passage is here.

Matthew 5:1-12 wrote:

Seeing the crowds, he went up on the mountain, and when he sat down, his disciples came to him. 2 And he opened his mouth and taught them, saying:
3 “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4 “Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.
5 “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.
6 “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.
7 “Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy.
8 “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.
9 “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.
10 “Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11 “Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. 12 Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

Today we're looking at the Sermon of the Mount. Jesus has begun His ministry and has gathered large crowds (4:25). Jesus begins this passage by going up on a mountain and preaching to them (verse 1). This passage is about giving a sneak peek to what is valued in the kingdom of heaven as opposed to what is valued on earth.

Humility is more valuable than pride:
We see this in verses 2 to 5. Those who are poor in spirit will have the right to the kingdom of heaven. Those who are mourning will receive comfort. The meek will inherit the earth. Perhaps this is because these people realise that they come to God with empty hands to receive Him and His plans for us.

Mercy and peace are more valuable than conflict:
We see this in verses 6 - 9. Those who hunger and thirst for righteousness will be satisfied. Those who are merciful will receive God's mercy. Those who are pure in heart will see God. Those who bring peace will be called sons of God. Mercy and peace look weak in our world. Conflict is usually brought about when we want to assert ourselves at the expense of others. When we follow God we want to assert God's way in our lives for the benefit of others.

Choosing this way is costly but it is worth it:
We see in verses 10 to 12 that this way will bring conflict. Persecution will come we see in verse 10, probably because this way of doing this is so different to the way the world does things. This should be an encouragement because when we are reviled and persecuted for choosing this option (verse 11) we are following in the path of the prophets who have come before us (verse 12).

A few thoughts for prayer:
Father please help us to realise that we come to you with empty hands. Please help us to receive what you have for us rather than what we think we have for ourselves.
Father thank you that you show us a better way. Please help us to value peace through your gospel rather than conflict originating from our fleshly desires.
Father please help us to see that following you is costly. Please help us to keep going for you day by day.

antiskeptic

theological wrote: »

We're continuing in Matthew. The first in this series is here, and yesterday's passage is here.



Today we're looking at the Sermon of the Mount. Jesus has begun His ministry and has gathered large crowds (4:25). Jesus begins this passage by going up on a mountain and preaching to them (verse 1). This passage is about giving a sneak peek to what is valued in the kingdom of heaven as opposed to what is valued on earth.

Humility is more valuable than pride:
We see this in verses 2 to 5. Those who are poor in spirit will have the right to the kingdom of heaven. Those who are mourning will receive comfort. The meek will inherit the earth. Perhaps this is because these people realise that they come to God with empty hands to receive Him and His plans for us.

Mercy and peace are more valuable than conflict:
We see this in verses 6 - 9. Those who hunger and thirst for righteousness will be satisfied. Those who are merciful will receive God's mercy. Those who are pure in heart will see God. Those who bring peace will be called sons of God. Mercy and peace look weak in our world. Conflict is usually brought about when we want to assert ourselves at the expense of others. When we follow God we want to assert God's way in our lives for the benefit of others.

Choosing this way is costly but it is worth it:
We see in verses 10 to 12 that this way will bring conflict. Persecution will come we see in verse 10, probably because this way of doing this is so different to the way the world does things. This should be an encouragement because when we are reviled and persecuted for choosing this option (verse 11) we are following in the path of the prophets who have come before us (verse 12).

A few thoughts for prayer:
Father please help us to realise that we come to you with empty hands. Please help us to receive what you have for us rather than what we think we have for ourselves.
Father thank you that you show us a better way. Please help us to value peace through your gospel rather than conflict originating from our fleshly desires.
Father please help us to see that following you is costly. Please help us to keep going for you day by day.

I don't see where "God" comes into this. The passage doesn't contain any reference to God except where it references Jesus. Since his name is also Truth and truth are the very things being referred to in the passage, there is no reason to suppose "God" is being referenced here.


You can easily take this passage to mean that those who exhibit these characteristics are those who are fulfilling God's criterion for salvation. The saved are made of this stuff. They anger at unrighteousness - even if they don't believe in "God". The are poor in spirit (or see themselves as lacking in themselves at root). They are meek for the same reasons.

Ultimately that is what God's question of the human race seems to be: despite your sin and your failings, is there still something that yearns after what is right. Right in the world. Right in yourself. If so, then blessed are you. For your type is what the kingdom of God is to be made up of, for that is what He is made up of.

His desiring right and our desiring right, if we so desire, in our deepest heart of hearts- and despite all we do that tramples over our heart of hearts - is what will make us sons.

We are, if we conform to what Jesus is saying, cut from the same piece of wood as the Father.

Conversely, if these things don't lie at your root then you are not cut from the same piece of wood. And will be lost.

Being these things is another way of saying you belong to the saved ones. They are markers of those who are saved (didn't the saved in scripture consider themselves to be the worst of sinners) or who will be saved. They are, afterall, giving answer to the question: who do you say I am. For if you are poor in spirit, if you are humble, if you hunger for righteousness then you are saying in effect, that He is Lord.

theological

antiskeptic wrote: »

I don't see where "God" comes into this. The passage doesn't contain any reference to God except where it references Jesus. Since his name is also Truth and truth are the very things being referred to in the passage, there is no reason to suppose "God" is being referenced here.


You can easily take this passage to mean that those who exhibit these characteristics are those who are fulfilling God's criterion for salvation. The saved are made of this stuff. They anger at unrighteousness - even if they don't believe in "God". The are poor in spirit (or see themselves as lacking in themselves at root). They are meek for the same reasons.

Ultimately that is what God's question of the human race seems to be: despite your sin and your failings, is there still something that yearns after what is right. Right in the world. Right in yourself. If so, then blessed are you. For your type is what the kingdom of God is to be made up of, for that is what He is made up of.

His desiring right and our desiring right, if we so desire, in our deepest heart of hearts- and despite all we do that tramples over our heart of hearts - is what will make us sons.

We are, if we conform to what Jesus is saying, cut from the same piece of wood as the Father.

Conversely, if these things don't lie at your root then you are not cut from the same piece of wood. And will be lost.

Being these things is another way of saying you belong to the saved ones. They are markers of those who are saved (didn't the saved in scripture consider themselves to be the worst of sinners) or who will be saved. They are, afterall, giving answer to the question: who do you say I am. For if you are poor in spirit, if you are humble, if you hunger for righteousness then you are saying in effect, that He is Lord.

God comes into it everywhere. The context is essential.

Jesus was born by the Holy Spirit for a mission, which was to save His people from their sins.

Jesus is God Himself, and John has prepared the way for Him. He brings the Kingdom of heaven with Him and calls all people to repent.

Jesus offers the Holy Spirit through His baptism for those who follow Him.

Jesus is God's chosen King who has His Spirit dwell on Him.

Jesus proclaims the gospel of the kingdom that is to "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand".

The Kingdom of heaven is directly related to God's chosen King.

Not withstanding this context, God is mentioned twice in this passage also. In the context of the first and the second Adam, Jesus is offering us a new beginning and explaining what that new beginning looks like for God's people.

As for your point about trees and being cut down, well that throws us back to John the Baptist in chapter 3 which urges us to bear fruit in keeping with repentance (verse 8).

We're going to see more in the next few pieces of Matthew that will show us what being fruitful in the Christian life looks like.

antiskeptic

theological wrote: »

God comes into it everywhere. The context is essential.

I was referring to the passage you quoted. God doesn't come into it. Rather characteristics (suffering, load bearing, trouble bringing characteristics) of people are listed. And those with those characteristics are to be saved. Says the passage.

Jesus was born by the Holy Spirit for a mission, which was to save His people from their sins.

Jesus is God Himself, and John has prepared the way for Him. He brings the Kingdom of heaven with Him and calls all people to repent.

Jesus offers the Holy Spirit through His baptism for those who follow Him.

Jesus is God's chosen King who has His Spirit dwell on Him.

Jesus proclaims the gospel of the kingdom that is to "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand".

The Kingdom of heaven is directly related to God's chosen King.

Not withstanding this context, God is mentioned twice in this passage also. In the context of the first and the second Adam, Jesus is offering us a new beginning and explaining what that new beginning looks like for God's people.

Most of this is besides to point I made.

Except for the end bit: "looks like for Gods people."

God's people are the people who are now His people and those who will become His people. You would agree.

And they have the characteristics outlined by Jesus. Not saved, not unsaved - for that distinction is not made here. Just those characteristics.

And if not yet saved, then saved they will be sometime. For theirs is the kingdom of God.

There is encouragement here for those who know not yet God.And who might only be on their way to obtaining those characteristics. For they will one day.

Question is: are they the characteristics of the saved. Or characteristics that save.

I mean, poor in spirit or yearning for righteousness are a place the unsaved can arrive at. I should know.

And they are hardly works ... are they?

theological

antiskeptic wrote: »

I was referring to the passage you quoted. God doesn't come into it. Rather characteristics (suffering, load bearing, trouble bringing characteristics) of people are listed. And those with those characteristics are to be saved. Says the passage.

Most of this is besides to point I made.

The context is where the passage fits into. In order to understand where something fits in we need to consider what is around the passage and how that influences how we should understand it.

You claimed it has nothing to do with God, but the entire context leading up to this is soaked with God and the Biblical background to where we are.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Except for the end bit: "looks like for Gods people."

God's people are the people who are now His people and those who will become His people. You would agree.

And they have the characteristics outlined by Jesus. Not saved, not unsaved - for that distinction is not made here. Just those characteristics.

And if not yet saved, then saved they will be sometime. For theirs is the kingdom of God.

I agree with what you are saying about God's people, but I would see this as Jesus painting a picture of what the kingdom of heaven looks like in comparison to the earthly kingdom. The characteristics in this passage are not valued in the world we live in and in the world that Jesus was in. Jesus' ministry marks a new beginning unlike the first beginning.

There is encouragement here for those who know not yet God.And who might only be on their way to obtaining those characteristics. For they will one day.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Question is: are they the characteristics of the saved. Or characteristics that save.

I mean, poor in spirit or yearning for righteousness are a place the unsaved can arrive at. I should know.

And they are hardly works ... are they?

Yes, but this yearning needs to be satisfied in the right place. I.E By coming to Jesus and accepting His ministry of repentance which He was preaching to the very same people who are listening now. The people who are in the crowd are the people in 4:25. If you look at the verses from 4:17-25 you see that Jesus' message was “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” (4:17), and we see that He was preaching the "gospel of the kingdom" in 4:23 before these people come to Him.

antiskeptic

theological wrote: »

The context is where the passage fits into. In order to understand where something fits in we need to consider what is around the passage and how that influences how we should understand it.

Whilst that is true, what doesn't appear possible is to connect vs 1-10 exclusively with that around it. What surrounds it can simply be a derivative of it, without being the whole story.

You will note that vs 1-10 refers to "them and those". And vs 11 switches to "you". Indeed, the NIV halts its indentation of vs 1-10 and goes full page width at vs 11, a seeming beatitude like the ones above but one which switches from "them and those" to "you".

Vs 1-10 then, can be taken on their own merit, without any necessary encompassing reference to what goes after that. You speak later of turning to Jesus and his ministry of repentence. Yet we know that people who were saved (and presumably shared the characteristics of those pointed to in vs 1-10) without Jesus and his ministry of repentence. Abraham being a case in point - not least because the way of salvation is rooted by Paul in him. No ministry of repentance a la common modern day Christian understanding (believe the gospel, accept Jesus as your Lord and Saviour, etc).


I contend that vs 1-10, thus isolated and making no mention of the means of salvation involving Jesus and his ministry of repentance say what they say. Such people are going to be saved. However that may be. And certainly not reliant on Jesus and his ministry of salvation as commonly understood.

Yes, saved through him. But forget all that stuff about having to hear the gospel, or believe in Jesus, or have water poured over your head and the myriad modern day Christian views by which one is saved. Its not in this text. And this text talks of who will be saved. Have those characteristics and you will be saved.

You claimed it has nothing to do with God, but the entire context leading up to this is soaked with God and the Biblical background to where we are.

God has everything to do with it. But there is no mention of God in the verses - in the sense of all these modern views on how one is saved. There is no mention of anything really religious at all. Just characteristics that even an atheist might come to display. Or a Muslim or a Hindu. The are religion-excluding. Just characteristics - whatever about your beliefs.

That's what's on the page.

I agree with what you are saying about God's people, but I would see this as Jesus painting a picture of what the kingdom of heaven looks like in comparison to the earthly kingdom. The characteristics in this passage are not valued in the world we live in and in the world that Jesus was in. Jesus' ministry marks a new beginning unlike the first beginning.

Those are characteristics of people in this world. Yes, they are valued by God because he values someone who will stand up against wrong for standing up against sake - because that is who He himself is. He will value someone who is merciful in a world that isn't merciful - for he is made of that stuff. He will value someone poor in spirit - for not to be poor in spirit is to think you have it sorted. When no one is sorted no matter how much they think they are.

Yes, but this yearning needs to be satisfied in the right place. I.E By coming to Jesus and accepting His ministry of repentance which He was preaching to the very same people who are listening now. The people who are in the crowd are the people in 4:25. If you look at the verses from 4:17-25 you see that Jesus' message was “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” (4:17), and we see that He was preaching the "gospel of the kingdom" in 4:23 before these people come to Him.

Abraham. No gospel. No ministry of repentence. But he was poor in spirit alright - for he had no heir and it troubled him so greatly he figured to patch the problem via an heir-of-sorts. And since the poor in spirit are going to be saved, he way, not surprisingly, saved.

As you might imagine, I have a bit of a beef with this believe in Jesus Christ / gospel / repent of your sins view of God's way of salvation. But at least my view doesn't confound scripture. Indeed, it is supported by it.

Those/them/saved

theological

antiskeptic wrote: »

Whilst that is true, what doesn't appear possible is to connect vs 1-10 exclusively with that around it. What surrounds it can simply be a derivative of it, without being the whole story.

The current sermon, the Sermon of the Mount is given to a particular crowd we've seen Jesus interacting with in chapter 4. It isn't unfounded to read these verses in the context of what comes before and after it. Matthew has arranged this gospel for a reason.

antiskeptic wrote: »

You will note that vs 1-10 refers to "them and those". And vs 11 switches to "you". Indeed, the NIV halts its indentation of vs 1-10 and goes full page width at vs 11, a seeming beatitude like the ones above but one which switches from "them and those" to "you".

Vs 1-10 then, can be taken on their own merit, without any necessary encompassing reference to what goes after that. You speak later of turning to Jesus and his ministry of repentence. Yet we know that people who were saved (and presumably shared the characteristics of those pointed to in vs 1-10) without Jesus and his ministry of repentence. Abraham being a case in point - not least because the way of salvation is rooted by Paul in him. No ministry of repentance a la common modern day Christian understanding (believe the gospel, accept Jesus as your Lord and Saviour, etc).

I disagree with you. These verses fall into a context. The context is that Jesus has been proclaiming a gospel of repentance (4:17) to the very same people who are listening (4:25). We've seen that Jesus has withstood the temptation in a way that Adam didn't, and we see that Jesus is offering a new beginning which is shown in part through His preaching ministry and in healing which we saw in chapter 4 also.

Part of working through Biblical material like this involves considering why Matthew has arranged the material in the way he has in this gospel.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I contend that vs 1-10, thus isolated and making no mention of the means of salvation involving Jesus and his ministry of repentance say what they say. Such people are going to be saved. However that may be. And certainly not reliant on Jesus and his ministry of salvation as commonly understood.

The means of salvation haven't been discussed insofar as we don't know about the cross at this stage in the gospel. But it is clear that Jesus is the Saviour and God's chosen king. We've been told these things in the gospel so far. They inform the collective understanding we're building by reading the gospel in context.

I disagree with you that we can read this section in isolation.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Yes, saved through him. But forget all that stuff about having to hear the gospel, or believe in Jesus, or have water poured over your head and the myriad modern day Christian views by which one is saved. Its not in this text. And this text talks of who will be saved. Have those characteristics and you will be saved.

I'm informing my understanding based on what I've read in this gospel so far. Not anywhere else.

antiskeptic wrote: »

God has everything to do with it. But there is no mention of God in the verses - in the sense of all these modern views on how one is saved. There is no mention of anything really religious at all. Just characteristics that even an atheist might come to display. Or a Muslim or a Hindu. The are religion-excluding. Just characteristics - whatever about your beliefs.

God is mentioned two times in this passage and extensively in the immediate context.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Those are characteristics of people in this world. Yes, they are valued by God because he values someone who will stand up against wrong for standing up against sake - because that is who He himself is. He will value someone who is merciful in a world that isn't merciful - for he is made of that stuff. He will value someone poor in spirit - for not to be poor in spirit is to think you have it sorted. When no one is sorted no matter how much they think they are.

They are characteristics. They are the characteristics of those who come to follow Christ. They are the things that God values. I agree with you here, what I don't agree with you is that salvation comes without following Christ. Jesus is the one through whom salvation comes (1:21).

antiskeptic wrote: »

Abraham. No gospel. No ministry of repentence. But he was poor in spirit alright - for he had no heir and it troubled him so greatly he figured to patch the problem via an heir-of-sorts. And since the poor in spirit are going to be saved, he way, not surprisingly, saved.

Repentance is the gospel that Jesus has been preaching to them, it is the gospel that enabled them to be in this crowd to hear this sermon now in the immediate context. The phrase "gospel of the kingdom" is used in 4:23, and the message of repentance is in 4:17. In the immediate context of the passage.

antiskeptic wrote: »

As you might imagine, I have a bit of a beef with this believe in Jesus Christ / gospel / repent of your sins view of God's way of salvation. But at least my view doesn't confound scripture. Indeed, it is supported by it.

Those/them/saved

I don't think my view does confound Scripture. We should be building our understanding based on what Jesus is telling us and what we're learning from the gospel. The context of the earlier passages and the content of this one informs me of my understanding.

I'm happy to be challenged by you, but it is a bit uncharitable to suggest that my view "confounds Scripture" when there is plenty in the immediate context that informs this understanding.

antiskeptic

theological wrote: »

The current sermon, the Sermon of the Mount is given to a particular crowd we've seen Jesus interacting within in chapter 4. It isn't unfounded to read these verses in the context of what comes before and after it. Matthew has arranged this gospel for a reason.



I disagree with you. These verses fall into a context. The context is that Jesus has been proclaiming a gospel of repentance (4:17) to the very same people who are listening (4:25). We've seen that Jesus has withstood the temptation in a way that Adam didn't, and we see that Jesus is offering a new beginning which is shown in part through His preaching ministry and in healing which we saw in chapter 4 also.

Part of working through Biblical material like this involves considering why Matthew has arranged the material in the way he has in this gospel.



The means of salvation haven't been discussed insofar as we don't know about the cross at this stage in the gospel. But it is clear that Jesus is the Saviour and God's chosen king. We've been told these things in the gospel so far. They inform the collective understanding we're building by reading the gospel in context.

I disagree with you that we can read this section in isolation.



I'm informing my understanding based on what I've read in this gospel so far. Not anywhere else.



God is mentioned two times in this passage and extensively in the immediate context.



They are characteristics. They are the characteristics of those who come to follow Christ. They are the things that God values. I agree with you here, what I don't agree with you is that salvation comes without following Christ. Jesus is the one through whom salvation comes (1:21).



Repentance is the gospel that Jesus has been preaching to them, it is the gospel that enabled them to be in this crowd to hear this sermon now in the immediate context. The phrase "gospel of the kingdom" is used in 4:23, and the message of repentance is in 4:17. In the immediate context of the passage.



I don't think my view does confound Scripture. We should be building our understanding based on what Jesus is telling us and what we're learning from the gospel. The context of the earlier passages and the content of this one informs me of my understanding.

I'm happy to be challenged by you, but it is a bit uncharitable to suggest that my view "confounds Scripture" when there is plenty in the immediate context that informs this understanding.

You are assuming contextual connection. But that would be to say Paul's doxology was contextual when it isn't. He is simply astounded by God's way of salvation and is driven to say so.

You are reading this like a book - assuming a linearity that simply need not be.

And you have a clue. Jesus is talking to "you" and the contextual setting is as you say - local whether you were there or reading it as an individual now. But then he diverts. As Paul diverts mid Romans to deal with an objection to the gospel he has been laying out. Only to return to the laying out again. His dealing with an objection has been labelled a parenthesis. He lifts his gaze for a moment, then moves on. Of course his dealing with an objection is in context - he is referring to all he has been explaining. But it's not a continuation of an explanation of the mechanism of salvation. He picks that up again after his parenthesis.

Similarily. Jesus gives you a clue. Talking to "you": a specific people in a place in time. Then he goes 'those and them'. It's a clear shift to a larger, global, for all time picture. And the whole structure changes too: from conversational to bullet point.

You have to note this. You cannot simply bulldoze through on the back of context. As if that was some kind of golden rule.

Think Nicodemus. "Who are you"

"I tell you, you must be born again"

Jesus didn't confine himself to context. He said what he said when he wanted to say it.

That we must deal with. And off to a global statement he has gone in vs 1-10. The language and bullet point speak say so.

Put it another way: if he was going global and leaving local for a second, as you must grant him permitted to do, how would that read, if not this way?

His saying that folk need to repent doesn't confound Vs 1-10. But since the saved/to be saved have these characteristics, we can conclude it it they that will repent. And begin to conclude that having these characteristics is what makes people repent.

It fits nicely into the view that a person reaching end of self and turning away from that (repenting) is the route to salvation. In other words, pain brings about surrender of self. Vs 1-10 describe that kinds of pain involved.

theological

antiskeptic wrote: »

You are assuming contextual connection. But that would be to say Paul's doxology was contextual when it isn't. He is simply astounded by God's way of salvation and is driven to say so.

Any text has context. Matthew is a gospel with a clear intention. When we isolate verses we need to be aware that they have a before and after and that influences how we see them.

antiskeptic wrote: »

You are reading this like a book - assuming a linearity that simply need not be.

Matthew is a book, it is arranged eyewitness material concerning Jesus.

antiskeptic wrote: »

And you have a clue. Jesus is talking to "you"and the contextual setting is as you say - local whether you were there or reading it as an individual now. But then he diverts. As Paul diverts mid Romans to deal with an objection to the gospel he has been laying out. Only to return to the laying out again. His dealing with an objection has been labelled a parenthesis. He lifts his gaze for a moment, then moves on.

I'm not doubting that the verses are relevant to us now. All of the Sermon of the Mount is relevant to us now, but it is worth understanding why it was relevant to the hearers then.

For what it is worth, it is also relevant to us that Jesus calls us to repent in 4:17 irrespective of where we are, and irrespective of how we feel about that.

I also disagree with you about Romans. Romans is actually very structured, each section follows from what has been left off in the previous, but perhaps we should study Romans like this when we are finished with Matthew. The doxology isn't random, it comes as a result of what has immediately preceded it in the book. Paul is amazed at God because of the truths he has written about in the previous chapters.

But, let's leave Romans until we work through it in a similar way.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Jesus gives you a clue. Talking to "you": a specific people in a place in time. Then he goes those and them. It's a clear shift to a larger, global, for all time picture. The whole structure changes to, from conversational to bullet point.

You have to note this. You cannot simply bulldoze through on the back of context. As if that was some kind of golden rule.

Think Nicodemus. "Who are you"

"I tell you, you must be born again"

Jesus didn't confine himself to context. He said what he said when he wanted to say it.

That we must deal with. And off to a global statement he has gone in vs 1-10. The language and bullet point speak say so.

Put it another way: if he was going global and leaving local for a second, as you must grant him permitted to do, how would that read, if not this way?

I'm not bulldozing anything, I'm simply saying things have a context which should be understood.

These verses in Matthew are speaking to two groups of people. Firstly, the direct hearers, and secondly the indirect hearers, those of us who are reading it in Scripture. Often, I would say pretty much always, we need to understand why it was important to the direct hearers before we draw implications for us the indirect hearers. Otherwise, the risk of taking passages out of context (for example, the famous Jeremiah 29:11) is very easy.

antiskeptic

theological wrote: »

Any text has context. Matthew is a gospel with a clear intention. When we isolate verses we need to be aware that they have a before and after and that influences how we see them.



Matthew is a book, it is arranged eyewitness material concerning Jesus.



I'm not doubting that the verses are relevant to us now. All of the Sermon of the Mount is relevant to us now, but it is worth understanding why it was relevant to the hearers then.

For what it is worth, it is also relevant to us that Jesus calls us to repent in 4:17 irrespective of where we are, and irrespective of how we feel about that.

I also disagree with you about Romans. Romans is actually very structured, each section follows from what has been left off in the previous, but perhaps we should study Romans like this when we are finished with Matthew. The doxology isn't random, it comes as a result of what has immediately preceded it in the book. Paul is amazed at God because of the truths he has written about in the previous chapters.

But, let's leave Romans until we work through it in a similar way.



I'm not bulldozing anything, I'm simply saying things have a context which should be understood.

These verses in Matthew are speaking to two groups of people. Firstly, the direct hearers, and secondly the indirect hearers, those of us who are reading it in Scripture. Often, I would say pretty much always, we need to understand why it was important to the direct hearers before we draw implications for us the indirect hearers. Otherwise, the risk of taking passages out of context (for example, the famous Jeremiah 29:11) is very easy.

I was actually editing as you were posting - elaborating, for example, on the contextual connection of the doxology for example. Of course stuff is related by some context. But not necessarily a linear step along the way. Eg you must be born again is a drip in, a grander statement. And the hearers might not have a clue what he is on about.

This insistence of Jesus and the gospel of repentence. How does that work for Abraham? He had no gospel. Yet you can say he was poor in spirit and you can say he repented in his turning away from self directed life. He surrendered to God on the matter of obtaining an heir after enormous effort to create an heir for himself. And you can say he was saved.

Self directed life (original sin) brings pain

That pain can produce the characteristics of Vs 1-10

That pain can cause one to surrender the self directed life.

Surrendering that life is repentence.

There is no need for a reference to Jesus in any of this. Those who surrender are saved and will follow him (truth, the way, for they are names too) without having or needing to have heard this particular name of his (Jesus)

You cannot divorce Matthew from scripture for all is informed by everything else and must be coherent with the whole.

Abraham is a problem to any view that says we have to have to NT gospel. Him the very father of the faith after all.

theological

antiskeptic wrote: »

I was actually editing as you were posting - elaborating, for example, on the contextual connection of the doxology for example. Of course stuff is related by some context. But not necessarily a linear step along the way. Eg you must be born again is a drip in, a grander statement. And the hearers might not have a clue what he is on about.

This insistence of Jesus and the gospel of repentence. How does that work for Abraham? He had no gospel. Yet you can say he was poor in spirit and you can say he repented in his turning away from self directed life. He surrendered to God on the matter of obtaining an heir after enormous effort to create an heir for himself. And you can say he was saved.

Self directed life (original sin) brings pain

That pain can produce the characteristics of Vs 1-10

That pain can cause one to surrender the self directed life.

Surrendering that life is repentence.

There is no need for a reference to Jesus in any of this. Those who surrender are saved and will follow him (truth, the way, for they are names too) without having or needing to have heard this particular name of his (Jesus)

You cannot divorce Matthew from scripture for all is informed by everything else and must be coherent with the whole.

Abraham is a problem to any view that says we have to have to NT gospel. Him the very father of the faith after all.

You're convincing me that we definitely need to read through Romans after we've worked through Matthew.

It isn't my insistence that the gospel of Jesus is about repentance. This has been laboured to us by Matthew on two separate occasions in 4 chapters both in the ministry of John the Baptist in chapter 3, and in the early ministry of Jesus in chapter 4.

Also, I'm not trying to "divorce" Matthew from other Scripture. I'm not convinced of your argument in respect to repentance and other parts of the Bible either, but I think it is important that we focus on Matthew, when we are looking at Matthew.

Edit: I've got 2 days more content lined up, but I'm happy to pause when we want to discuss things more in length.

antiskeptic

theological wrote: »

You're convincing me that we definitely need to read through Romans after we've worked through Matthew.

It's my favorite book tbh

It isn't my insistence that the gospel of Jesus is about repentance. This has been laboured to us by Matthew on two separate occasions in 4 chapters both in the ministry of John the Baptist in chapter 3, and in the early ministry of Jesus in chapter 4.

The gospel of Jesus is about repentance and many other things (salvation by faith belongs to the gospel of Jesus)


But the gospel of Jesus cannot be divorced from the somewhat larger issue that salvation isn't dependent on hearing, being aware of, believing .. the gospel of Jesus as you are laying out from Matthew

Abraham was saved and didn't believe in the gospel of Jesus as you are laying it out from Matthew, for instance

You said at the start: "Perhaps this is because these people realise that they come to God with empty hands to receive Him and His plans for us". That is a commentary imported into the text quoted. The text says such people "will see God". Not that they have any realisation of God whilst holding these characteristics. All the text says is all it says. It is standalone, even if having application and relevance to the gospel it is placed in.

Also, I'm not trying to "divorce" Matthew from other Scripture.

Indeed not. You have imported a commentary into the quoted text from an exterior-to-Matthew theology, for instance. But we cannot just hop into Matthew and pretend we know nothing about scripture. We know that no gospel centred on believing Jesus is required for salvation (whatever about availing of Christs sacrifice, whatever about salvation being by faith)

I'm not convinced of your argument in respect to repentance and other parts of the Bible either, but I think it is important that we focus on Matthew, when we are looking at Matthew.

I think you can only look at what Matthew contributes to the overall. It is a facet of the overall. You cannot derive your doctrine starting there as if the rest doesn't exist.

It's complicated I know - the whole of scripture to bear in mind whilst you examine the nuggets contained in Matthew. But I see no other way. The others have as much to contribute and if you were to start anywhere else you'd be arriving at different conclusions.

Say you were to start at Abraham's case. Would belief in Jesus feature? Well, no it wouldn't

Edit: I've got 2 days more content lined up, but I'm happy to pause when we want to discuss things more in length.

Fair enough. I don't want to derail your purpose.

antiskeptic

Another title for this thread, based on Vs 1-10 would be: certain people value things the world doesn't value*. And those people will be saved


*the world does value these things. We go to movies and rage at the corruption, cowardice and injustice the movies bring home to us. We shed a tear at a story of 50 firemen spending a week and ££££££ hauling a girls beloved dog from an abandoned mineshaft and follow the story detail by detail on our TV's

The problem isn't that the world doesn't value these things. It's that the world is addicted to sin and needs it's drug more. An addict would steal from his own mother for his fix.

As Romans 2 counters, we, who rail at corruption, cowardice and injustice visited upon other and upon ourselves do these very same things to others ourselves.

That is our problem. Addiction. Addiction to directing our own lives. On the somewhat demonstrably crazy assumption that we are suitably qualified!

theological

I think you're wrong about Abraham by the by. We should explore this separately. I definitely want to work through Romans on this thread at some stage, but Abraham responded to God according to the point in salvation history he was at. In the same way we are called to respond to God according to the point of salvation history we are at. Jesus is here, how we respond to Him matters. John the Baptist outlined this in chapter 3.

Edit: Also - I think I'm basing my opinion based on what we've learned so far in Matthew. I've commented on the other thread with a bit of explanation about what I'm doing with this series, and what I'm looking to get out of it.

antiskeptic

theological wrote: »

I think you're wrong about Abraham by the by. We should explore this separately. I definitely want to work through Romans on this thread at some stage, but Abraham responded to God according to the point in salvation history he was at.

He repented of his sin. His sin was the self directed life. In believing God he was repenting of his former belief: belief in, faith in leading to exercise of .. the self directed life. From whence sin.

Matthew 3 has people come and repent of their sin. What is repenting of your sin? It's repenting of the self directed life. Repenting of the original sin they were infused with, as it happens.

You seem to be focusing on the sin as someone focuses on the effect of the bullet fired. The interesting bit and the relevant bit is the trigger pull - not the downstream consequences. Sin is just a downstream consequence of something. Focus on it, and you focus on the wrong thing.

I'm not sure what you mean by point in salvation history. It's the same salvation at all points of history. Unless you think there are a number of different kinds of salvation?

If you microbore down into a particular piece of scripture, like I say, you will start to erect a wonky view. You already have a number of different types of salvation going: one that applied in Abrahams day and one that applies in Jesus' day and beyond.

theological

antiskeptic wrote: »

If you microbore down into a particular piece of scripture, like I say, you will start to erect a wonky view. You already have a number of different types of salvation going: one that applied in Abrahams day and one that applies in Jesus' day and beyond.

I'm going to focus on the comments about method.

I disagree. The Bible is the sum of its parts. Its parts work together. It is also helpful to know how the parts work in order to come to a fuller understanding of the whole, and not just the whole, but the unique function a particular part plays in the whole Bible.

The aim of this series is to understand how Matthew works in his presentation of eyewitness material concerning Jesus. The aim of the series isn't to understand how something is expressed in the whole Bible. That's systematic theology, this series is an attempt at Biblical theology. They are two different things that can and often work together.

antiskeptic

theological wrote: »

I'm going to focus on the comments about method.

I disagree. The Bible is the sum of its parts. Its parts work together.

You are agreeing with me there.

It is also helpful to know how the parts work in order to come to a fuller understanding of the whole, and not just the whole, but the unique function a particular part plays in the whole Bible.

That is certainly true of say Romans which is clearly a systematic assembly and bringing together of many different parts. And other parts of the Bible will have specific function, say John's focus on the divinity of Christ.

But not every part can fulfill every roll.


When you say, for instance, that Abraham's salvation was for his time and that there is this other salvation for Christ's time you are assuming a function for Matthew which might not be correct.

The aim of this series is to understand how Matthew works in his presentation of eyewitness material concerning Jesus. The aim of the series isn't to understand how something is expressed in the whole Bible. That's systematic theology, this series is an attempt at Biblical theology. They are two different things that can and often work together.

Hmmm. From what I've seen this far, efforts are being made to conclude systematically, for example you comment on two sorts of salvation. There either is one or there is not. If one (and systematic would appear to conclude so) then what use a Biblical approach that concludes more than one.

Or your questioning on 'until all is accomplished'. I'm not saying you would agree with the systematic conclusion I gave. But what point a method that has you arriving at that question scratching your head - you will be forced to look wider for an answer.

I really don't understand the process at work here.

theological

antiskeptic wrote: »

You are agreeing with me there.



That is certainly true of say Romans which is clearly a systematic assembly and bringing together of many different parts. And other parts of the Bible will have specific function, say John's focus on the divinity of Christ.

But not every part can fulfill every roll.


When you say, for instance, that Abraham's salvation was for his time and that there is this other salvation for Christ's time you are assuming a function for Matthew which might not be correct.



Hmmm. From what I've seen this far, efforts are being made to conclude systematically, for example you comment on two sorts of salvation. There either is one or there is

Agree. I only started discussing Abraham because you brought it up. I gave a quick response and said it would be better to deal with this when we look at Romans.

I think it is better to work through Matthew and figure out how it works.

Edit: The aim is to work through Matthew, understand how it works, and what it tells us / what we learn about Jesus incrementally. I explained why I think this is valuable.

antiskeptic

theological wrote: »

Agree. I only started discussing Abraham because you brought it up. I gave a quick response and said it would be better to deal with this when we look at Romans.

I think it is better to work through Matthew and figure out how it works.

Edit: The aim is to work through Matthew, understand how it works, and what it tells us / what we learn about Jesus incrementally. I explained why I think this is valuable.

Okay.

Question then. You open the thread by saying Vs 1-10 are about what is valued in the kingdom as opposed to what is valued on earth.

Given the word 'blessed' and the word 'for' (because) and the word (implied) 'saved', why would conclude 'valued'?

Would it not be more obvious that what is being described is the characteristics of those who are or will be saved?

You might infer those characteristics are valued (since God will likely save what he values), but that is not the primary meaning to be taken out from it?

theological

antiskeptic wrote: »

Okay.

Question then. You open the thread by saying Vs 1-10 are about what is valued in the kingdom as opposed to what is valued on earth.

Given the word 'blessed' and the word 'for' (because) and the word (implied) 'saved', why would conclude 'valued'?

Would it not be more obvious that what is being described is the characteristics of those who are or will be saved?

You might infer those characteristics are valued (since God will likely save what he values), but that is not the primary meaning to be taken out from it?

Blessed can mean multiple things. Blessed can mean that these are characteristics that receive God's favour, or are favoured in God's kingdom. Valued is a good synonym for favoured. By telling us that these people are blessed, He is effectively saying that these traits are valued in God's kingdom. I wouldn't jump to saved yet at this stage in the gospel. I reckon Jesus has much more to tell us about this as we work through Matthew. We know so far that Jesus has come to save us from our sins (1:21) and that he calls the first disciples to fish for men (4:19).

antiskeptic

theological wrote: »

Blessed can mean multiple things. Blessed can mean that these are characteristics that receive God's favour, or are favoured in God's kingdom. Valued is a good synonym for favoured. By telling us that these people are blessed, He is effectively saying that these traits are valued in God's kingdom. I wouldn't jump to saved yet at this stage in the gospel. I reckon Jesus has much more to tell us about this as we work through Matthew. We know so far that Jesus has come to save us from our sins (1:21) and that he calls the first disciples to fish for men (4:19).

I think "they shall see the kingdom of God" (which implies that those who don't have these traits won't see the kingdom of God) is a fair hint. Whether that is seen as saved or something else is neither here nor there.

These characteristics, those consequences. You forgot the "those consequences" bit in halting at merely valued. Blessed is tied directly to the consequence of having these characteristics: seeing God (no less!) and other favors.