The resurrection effectively reversed the charges against Jesus and confirmed his mission. We thus see that if he had saved his life at the cost of his proclaiming the divine lordship, he would have actually made himself independent of God and put himself in equality with him. ‘Whoever would save his life will lose it’ (Mark 8:35 par.). This was true of Jesus himself. He could not be the Son of God by an unlimited duration of his finite existence. No finite being can be one with God in infinite reality. Only as he let his creaturely existence be consumed in service to his mission could Jesus as a creature be one with God. As he did not cling to his life but chose to accept the ambivalence that his mission meant for his person, with all its consequences, he showed himself, from the standpoint of he Easter event, to be obedient to his mission (Rom. 5:19, Heb. 5:8). This obedience led him into the situation of extreme separation from God and His immortality, into the dereliction of the cross. The remoteness from God on the cross was the climax of his self-distinction from the Father. Rightly then, we may say that the crucifixion was integral to his earthly existence.
The cross gives meaning to the resurrection, the resurrection gives meaning to the cross. Each is incomplete without the other.
When we say Jesus was one with God we say this on the basis that Jesus fulfilled his whole mission — including death and resurrection. It is in this sense alone that Jesus was truly both fully human and fully God. Without the Cross we cannot make such a claim about Jesus. The Cross is integral to the message. “Although he was a Son, he learned obedience through what he suffered; and having been made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him….” (Heb 5:8,9 NRSV)
I think this fact reminds us that preaching the Gospel has to emphasize actually telling the story of Jesus more than teaching ideas derived from the story. It is the life, death and resurrection of Jesus that constitutes the Gospel. If part of it is left out, other parts lose their true significance as well. The theological claims that Christians make can only be asserted on the basis of the whole story.
So, the preacher needs to ask: am I telling the whole story or just parts of it? Or: am I just giving advice, teaching some ideas, venting my frustrations, and never telling the story at all?
Moral advice, good ideas, criticism of the world’s ideas and trends, political programs — all these things do not amount to the Gospel of Christ. We need to ever learn anew what it means to “tell the old, old story” to our current generation.
It s wrong to suppose that people are too shallow and self-absorbed to hear it. Someone is always out there to complain that people today are too vacuous, ignorant, or unspiritual. Yes, people are exploring sexuality and gender in ways previous generations did not. Yes, there is sexual promiscuity. There are trends that have arisen in the realm of technology and the internet that are troubling.
It doesn’t mean people are stupid or have lost the spiritual hunger for meaning and connection that is naturally constitutive of human nature. Sexual promiscuity and high intelligence often go together. Sexual searching and spiritual searching are not totally unrelated — one can substitute for the other.
Yes, some young people are not satisfied with traditional answers. But, they are asking questions. And some may want serious and well-considered answers. Prevenient grace means that God’s Spirit is striving with even the most apparently unlikely people.
Let’s learn to tell the story of Jesus in ways that are engaging, fresh, and faithful.
Yesterday I introduced this prayer from the apostle Paul and gave some some personal reflections. There was a time when I don’t think I could have talked about the ongoing stages of the Christian journey without reference to the power of the Holy Spirit. And, that would be the way I would still speak of it today. But, in Colossians Paul uses terminology that is more focused on Christ than on the Holy Spirit.
So, as I was saying, this section of the letter displays another common feature in Paul’s letters to the churches. He generally assures the Churches to whom he writes that he is praying for them. Churches should know that their pastors and leaders are praying for them.
In this passage John Calvin says that God sends people to Hell for no other reason than that God wishes to do so:
“Many professing a desire to defend the Deity from an invidious charge admit the doctrine of election, but deny that any one is reprobated…. This they do ignorantly and childishly since there could be no election without its opposite reprobation. God is said to set apart those whom he adopts for salvation. It were most absurd to say, that he admits others fortuitously, or that they by their industry acquire what election alone confers on a few. Those, therefore, whom God passes by he reprobates, and that for no other cause but because he is pleased to exclude them from the inheritance which he predestines to his children.”
You can find the definition of “reprobation” here at thefreedictionary.com: “(Theology) Christianity: condemnation to eternal punishment in hell; rejection by God.”
I find the doctrine of Calvinistic predestination — which Calvin himself says includes the idea of reprobation — i.e. that God sends people to Hell by God’s own choice and design — deeply distasteful.
John Wesley was also horrified by it:
John Wesley (1703-1791)
This is the blasphemy for which (however I love the persons who assert it) I abhor the doctrine of predestination, a doctrine, upon the supposition of which, if one could possibly suppose it for a moment, (call it election, reprobation, or what you please, for all comes to the same thing) one might say to our adversary, the devil, “Thou fool, why dost thou roar about any longer? Thy lying in wait for souls is as needless and useless as our preaching. Hearest thou not, that God hath taken thy work out of thy hands; and that he doeth it much more effectually? Thou, with all thy principalities and powers, canst only so assault that we may resist thee; but He can irresistibly destroy both body and soul in hell! Thou canst only entice; but his unchangeable decrees, to leave thousands of souls in death, compels them to continue in sin, till they drop into everlasting burnings. Thou temptest; He forceth us to be damned; for we cannot resist his will. Thou fool, why goest thou about any longer, seeking whom thou mayest devour? Hearest thou not that God is the devouring lion, the destroyer of souls, the murderer of men? Moloch caused only children to pass though the fire: and that fire was soon quenched; or, the corruptible body being consumed, its torment was at an end; but God, thou are told, by his eternal decree, fixed before they had done good or evil, causes, not only children of a span long, but the parents also, to pass through the fire of hell, the ‘fire which never shall be quenched; and the body which is cast thereinto, being now incorruptible and immortal, will be ever consuming and never consumed, but ‘the smoke of their torment,’ because it is God’s good pleasure, ‘ascendeth up for ever and ever.’ “
I occasionally get push back on this. Like this message, which I received several years ago:
Those who come will be accepted. You cite that like God will exclude any who come. Faith in the finished works of Christ (active and passive obedience) and repentance are the appointed means to salvation. faith and repentance as well as regeneration are the work of the Spirit (God) in us to point us to Christ (God-man), and it’s by grace from Abba Father (God).
I do not mean to deny salvation by grace. This person’s comment tries to put the best foot forward and ignore the chilling realities of Calvin’s doctrine. But, to “reprobate” people means that God has chosen to send them to hell “for no other cause but because he is pleased to exclude them from the inheritance which he predestines to his children.” They did not come because God had determined beforehand that they could not come.
This next correspondent was much more angry with me, he’s a little inarticulate, but he was probably so angry it was hard to type:
Sir,
God’s holiness, justice and righteousness is beyond anyone’s mind to measure, they did not come because they are determined to walk away and hate God. God left them condemned already in their own weight. Christ (the word who is God became flesh) came to the rescue of many appointed to salvation and the Holy Spirit intervenes, changed their inner being and to enable them to follow Him willingly this was to show His grace, mercy and love beyond measure, and off the chart of anyone’s capacity to comprehend.
Now, who is responsible for the damnation of the reprobates: is it God? Yes, because he is just to punish them, is God responsible for their committed crimes? no, it is not He who created sin in them, He did not. He made the decree of man’s disobedience but allowed it to happen because of man’s independent rebellion.
God is just to send all humanity to hell but by His sovereign electing grace chose a definite people for Himself and set them apart to express His mercy and love. This is the revelation of His attributes and He cannot abandon one attribute for the sake another and that’s what Christ did to satisfy justice and appeased wrath through His death on the cross and can now be still holy, just, righteous, gracious, merciful, and loving. You should have considered this.
Let me also explain this quote “God sends people to Hell for no other reason than that God wishes to do so” He has all the reason and God wishes to do so because of their sin, yet He is willing to save some for the praise of His glorious grace and that’s good news! Calvin simply wanted to refute the error of those who admit the doctrine of election, but deny that any one is reprobate which is illogical. reprobate is a ‘sinner’ who is not of the elect and is predestined to damnation and again, God did not predestined them to commit sin nor predestined anyone to commit suicide yet allowed it to happen anyway out of their own weight and predestined them into condemnation and there’s no need the power of God to make them reprobate but only out of their own weight. He is not surprised because He upholds everything from eternity past to eternal future.
Again God did not manipulate sin to enter but simply allows it to take place for a greater purpose and that includes the revelation of Himself to His creation through His redemptive acts recorded is Scripture.
Well, while I appreciate his rushing to the defense of Mr. Calvin, this is all gobbledygook to me. While this is not well written, the writer has stated the Calvinistic line pretty well (from what I know of it). But, it still doesn’t make any sense to me.
However, the “love” and “justice” of the Creator he describes is not either “love” or “justice” in any really meaningful sense. The love and justice of the Creator that he posits are contrary to love and justice as we would understand them.
Since we are spiritually shaped by the God we serve, this type of theology seems to me to be morally and spiritually toxic. It undermines the meaning of both love and justice. I know many very good Christians — and there have been many throughout Christian history — who subscribe to this type of theology but whose lives rise above it and I am thankful for that — and for them. Certainly God is faithful and sometimes overlooks our faults and misconceptions. Certainly there are many things about God that we will never understand fully because our minds are incapable of conceiving of God as God truly is. I believe all forms of determinism — this would include the Calvinistic theology to which this correspondent subscribes, but would also include naive forms of universalism, and atheistic forms of determinism — undermine the notion of moral responsibility and trivialize human action.
It does not exalt the sovereignty of God to make God a deterministic monster. I believe that the God revealed to us in Jesus Christ is a God of universal grace and love. I believe of Christ that: “in him was life, and the life was the light of all people.” (John 1:4 NRSV).
I believe that salvation is offered to all — not as a ruse, but as a reality.
John Wesley (1703-1791).
“I appeal to every impartial mind… whether the mercy of God would not be far less gloriously displayed, in saving a few by his irresistible power, and leaving all the rest without help, without hope, to perish everlastingly, than in offering salvation to every creature, actually saving all that consent thereto, and doing for the rest all that infinite wisdom, almighty power, and boundless love can do, without forcing them to be saved.”
— John Wesley, “Predestination Calmly Considered.”
P. S. Actually, there are some forms of Reformed theology to which I have little or no real substantive objection. And, while I often quote Calvin unflatteringly, he said and taught many good things — and at times, seems less strict in his “Calvinism” than many of his followers are.
People sometimes get idyllic notions of what the early Church was like. It is imagined that the early Church was more Spirit-filled, more unified, free from many of the problems the Church has today. It’s just part of that instinctive yearning people have for “the good old days.” I don’t know why people believe in this notion. It seems to be intuitive: sometime, way back when, people didn’t have the problems we have today. But, a careful reading of the letters of the apostle Paul in our New Testament will quickly disprove this notion.
The letters of Paul were often written to correct false teachings and false practices that had arisen in the churches to which he wrote. We owe much of the New Testament to the problems in the early Church.
Some of the unique features of Paul’s letter to the Colossians can be explained by the fact that the apostle Paul is replying to a type of false teaching (or false teachings) that were circulating in the Colossian church. This concern comes to the surface, for example here:
These reflections from New Testament scholar C. H. Dodd seem to me to be close to the heart of Wesleyan theology. He is reflecting here on the significance of the apostle Paul’s theology of the Christian life. Paul teaches that we are justified — set right with God — by faith. But, as with justification, what we often call “sanctification” (conformity to the image of Christ) is also by grace through faith.
C. H. Dodd (1884-1973)
The higher faiths call their followers to strenuous moral effort. Such effort is likely to be arduous and painful in proportion to the height of the ideal, desperate in proportion to the sensitiveness of the conscience. A morbid scrupulousness besets the morally serious soul. It is anxious and troubled, afraid of evil, haunted by the memory of failure. The best of the Pharisees tended in this direction, and no less the best of the Stoics. And so little has Christianity been understood that the popular idea of a serious Christian is modeled upon the same type of character. The ascetic believed that, because he was so holy, the Devil was permitted special liberties with him, and he found in his increasing agony of effort a token of divine approval. Not along this track lies the path of moral progress. Christianity says: face the evil once for all, and disown it. Then quiet the spirit in the presence of God. Let His perfections fill the field of vision. In particular, let the concrete embodiment of the goodness of God in Christ attract and absorb the gaze of the soul. Here is the righteousness, not as a fixed and abstract ideal, but in a living human person. The righteousness of Christ is a real achievement of God’s own Spirit in man.
It was characteristic of Paul to begin his letters with words of encouragement and congratulation. As we read further in this letter we will discover that he wrote it to correct false ideas that were current in the congregation. He was certainly concerned about the false teaching at Collosae — but, it did not approach his anger and outrage over the false teaching at Galatia. In Paul’s letter to the Galatians, he leaves the encouragement paragraph out altogether and launches immediately into his angry words of correction. But, here he wants his readers to hear a good word first. He takes time to give them encouragement and praise.
Another ground of these, and a thousand mistakes, is, the not considering deeply, that love is the highest gift of God; humble, gentle, patient love; that all visions, revelations, manifestations whatever, are little things compared to love; and that all the gifts above-mentioned are either the same with, or infinitely inferior to, it. It were well you should be thoroughly sensible of this, —’the heaven of heavens is love.’ There is nothing higher in religion; there is, in effect, nothing else; if you look for anything but more love, you are looking wide of the mark, you are getting out of the royal way. And when you are asking others, ‘Have you received this or that blessing?’ if you mean anything but more love, you mean wrong; you are leading them out of the way, and putting them upon a false scent. Settle it then in your heart, that from the moment God has saved you from all sin, you are to aim at nothing more, but more of that love described in the thirteenth of the Corinthians. You can go no higher than this, till you are carried into Abraham’s bosom.
I know that my perspective is shaped by the experiences I’ve been through. It’s true for everyone. In order to understand where someone is (as we say) “coming from” you need to understand the shaping influences in their life.
I think I’m a real Methodist “throwback” and I’m actually rather glad about it. My early experiences in the faith included Revival meetings and Camp Meeting and Prayer Groups and Evening Worship Services and Midweek Prayer Meetings, etc. They were all aids to discipleship. They were important at the time. And, unlike many who are now deconstructing their faith (no criticism intended), and am abidingly thankful for the influence they had one me.
Revivalism was a very important part of my early Christian experience. So, as a result, there is a special place in my heart for the Camp-meeting and revival meetings. The formative Christian experiences of my adolescence were closely related to these experiences.
I know a lot of people feel differently about it. I have heard some appalling stories; I’m not minimizing other people’s experiences at all. But, my experience was different. I’m eternally grateful to the people who first conveyed the Gospel of Christ to me.
Over time, I’ve drifted away a from the Camp-meeting. While our family lived in the Boyne City area, I was president of the local Camp-meeting Association for a brief time. But, by and large, since entering the pastoral ministry, I have not attended camp-meeting in the summer. And, yes, I used to feel that something was missing. Now (sad to say) I’ve just gotten used to it.
Now, let me be clear. I’m not talking about church camp. That’s a wonderful thing, too, but I never knew about that until I was an adult — and was asked to serve as a camp counselor. Sad to say, I don’t think that as a child or a teen anyone could have successfully even dragged me to church camp.
As a child, I was lost in the church. I was sent to Sunday school. Later, I was sent to confirmation class. I was sent to youth meetings. I was confirmed in the Congregational (U.C.C.) church.
In my estimation, the Church had nothing to offer. It seemed to be a sterile and pointless institution. It seemed like an organization of people engaged in the pitiful attempt to hold on to the forms, symbols and rituals of a faith they no longer (and perhaps had never) believed. They sought to make relevant a Book whose acknowledged mistakes, distortions and falsehoods made it an unlikely source of authority. An unfair accusation? No doubt. Maybe I shouldn’t have “written off’” the Church so quickly. But, please remember that the worst thing we can do to the Gospel is to make it look false, empty, boring and irrelevant to daily life. I haven’t forgotten that the “liberal church” never conveyed the Gospel of God’s love and grace and forgiveness to me.
So camp-meeting hit me pretty hard. There I heard some fiery and enthusiastic evangelistic preaching. Evangelists there spoke of a Gospel that was genuinely related to the struggles of my life. These people really seemed to believe that the Bible’s message was true. It was there I heard how faith in Jesus Christ related to personal guilt, decision-making, and daily life. There I heard about a real God with a genuine love for all people. My attention was now directed to the power, truth and relevancy of the very Book my Sunday school teachers had found embarrassing. I was told that Jesus Christ could change my life and give me a reason to live. I needed that.
In fear and trembling, I responded to the invitation. The pastor of the Methodist church our family had been attending made his way forward to pray with me. It was a step I have never since regretted.
Time has passed. Much has happened since those days. My outlook has changed in many ways. But, what the evangelist at camp-meeting told me was true. There is a God of love. There is a revelation from God. By faith in Christ, there is a life of peace, hope and love. I’m glad someone told me that.
Are camp-meetings (and revival meetings) an anachronism? It certainly appears so! They were a great evangelistic strategy of nineteenth century frontier revivalism. They were once the heart and soul of American Methodism. When the original camp meetings began to fall on hard times, the Holiness movement hit upon them as a strategy for spreading the message of Perfect Love.
But, many of the great camp-meetings are no longer in existence. Some of those that still remain have an uncertain future.
But — here’s my real gripe — what has taken their place? Where now is the point of entry for people like me who were lost in Church? Where now are we gathering together to call people to new commitments & into a deeper life of faith?
Yes, some camp-meetings still survive (as noted above). Yes, there have been other movements like the Lay Witness Mission or The Walk to Emmaus and so forth. These have fallen on hard times, too. But, I wonder if we are really doing all we should to help people find reality, strength, and spiritual depth in their faith.
I have not forgotten the debt I owe to those who told me the story of God’s love in Jesus Christ. It is because of the truth, power and relevancy of that message that I continue to remember these experiences with gratitude.
Long ago someone preached a message of hope and faith to me. I’d like to do that same favor for others.
The story of Jesus’ transfiguration dovetails with a persistent theme in all the Gospels: Jesus’ prayer life.
The Gospels let us know that Jesus often sought out times and places for private prayer. In this, Jesus stands out from the other Biblical characters. Yes, other Biblical characters are portrayed as people of prayer — Moses, Elijah, and others — but no one more than Jesus. This runs contrary to a naive theology: as the Son of God, it seems as if Jesus would be the least in need of prayer and solitude, and the other Bible characters, being mere mortals, the most. And, maybe they were. But, Jesus was the one who sought out the place of prayer the most.
Here is the fountainhead of all subsequent teaching on the life of prayer in the various Christian traditions — the prayer life of Jesus.
“Now about eight days after these sayings Jesus took with him Peter and John and James, and went up on the mountain to pray. And while he was praying, the appearance of his face changed, and his clothes became dazzling white. Suddenly they saw two men, Moses and Elijah, talking to him. They appeared in glory and were speaking of his departure, which he was about to accomplish at Jerusalem.” (NRSV.)
It was while he was praying that “the appearance of his face changed” (τὸ εἶδος τοῦ προσώπου αὐτοῦ ἕτερον). In Exodus 34:29-35, we are told the story of Moses coming down from the Mount with the two tablets of the covenant in his hand and it says: “Moses did not know that the skin of his face shone because he had been talking with God.” (Exodus 34:29 NRSV.) This is a similar case.
I can’t state it better than H. D. M. Spence did, as he waxed eloquent in the old Pulpit Commentary:
“The marvellous change evidently passed over Jesus while he was in prayer, probably because of his intense prayer. Real, close communion with God ever imparts to the countenance of the one who has thus entered into communion with the High and Holy One, a new and strange beauty. Very many have noticed at times this peculiar and lovely change pass over the faces of God’s true saints as they prayed — faces perhaps old and withered, grey with years and wrinkled with care. A yet higher degree of transfiguration through communion with God is recorded in the case of Moses, whose face, after he had been with his God-Friend on the mount, shone with so bright a glory that mortal eye could not bear to gaze on it until the radiance began to fade away. A similar change is recorded to have taken place in the case of Stephen when he pleaded his Divine Master’s cause in the Sanhedrin hall at Jerusalem with such rapt eloquence that to the by-standers his face then, we read, “was as the face of an angel.” Stephen told his audience later on, in the course of that earnest and impassioned pleading, that to him the very heavens were opened, and that his eyes were positively gazing on the beatific vision. Yet a step higher still was this transfiguration of our Lord. St. Luke tells us simply that, ‘as he prayed, the fashion of his countenance was altered.’”
Jesus appears transfigured before them. Christ appears now in his true glory. Christ appears now in his end-of-time glory. This story is quite different than the resurrection stories — for there Jesus’ ordinariness is emphasized: he is mistaken for the gardener, he meets with the two disciples traveling to Emmaus as a conversation partner — only to be recognized for who he is in the breaking of the bread. And so forth. The resurrection Jesus is not an overwhelming presence. But, the transfiguration Jesus is: his clothes are dazzling white.
Jesus is here identified with the Shekinah glory of God. This kind of thing brought later generations of Christians to speak of Christ as: “God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God….” (The Nicene Creed.)
And, with Jesus — talking to him actually — are Moses and Elijah. They represent the Law and the Prophets. Moses and Elijah are talking to Jesus about his “departure” (ἔξοδον = exodus). They are talking to him about the events of the Cross, and resurrection, and ascension (“They… were speaking of his departure, which he was about to accomplish at Jerusalem.“) Jesus’ mission is spoken of here in terms of his giving of himself to redeem humankind.
The implicit claim here is that everything in the religious traditions of Israel are now culminating in Jesus’ death and resurrection. For us, this points to a progressive unity of the Old and New Testaments. As Jesus says in the Gospel of Matthew he comes not to abolish the law and the prophets but to fulfill them (Matthew 5:17). Faith in Christ challenges us to see the Bible record as a progressive but continuous story, culminating with the account of Jesus Christ.
“Now Peter and his companions were weighed down with sleep; but since they had stayed awake, they saw his glory and the two men who stood with him. Just as they were leaving him, Peter said to Jesus, “Master, it is good for us to be here; let us make three dwellings, one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah” — not knowing what he said. While he was saying this, a cloud came and overshadowed them; and they were terrified as they entered the cloud.” (NRSV.)
The text implies: they almost slept through it! They were tired, but they saw it all since they had (as it happened) remained awake.
An old and unanswerable question here is: how did Peter know these were Moses and Elijah? I’ll leave you to speculate on that one….
But, it is clear that Peter is overwhelmed by this experience. Luke lets us know that he blurts out something stupid: “Master, it is good for us to be here; let us make three dwellings….” Then the cloud overshadowed them. Remember: clouds are often associated with the visible glory of God throughout the Bible. So, this is the Shekinah (שְׁכִינָה) glory of God, and they are terrified (ἐφοβήθησαν) as they enter it. While this is a form of the common verb for “fear” (φοβέω) — the verb is sometimes used to mean “reverent fear” (Mark 6:20; Luke 1:50; Acts 10:2; Ephesians 5:33; Revelation 11:18).
This, of course, is the quintessential Mountain Top Experience — a term preachers love to use. Notice: it was not sought. They were tired, but it so happened they were awake enough to experience this. And: it is not an end in itself. It is designed to impress them with the revelation of God in Christ — and their need to heed it.
“Then from the cloud came a voice that said, “This is my Son, my Chosen; listen to him!” When the voice had spoken, Jesus was found alone. And they kept silent and in those days told no one any of the things they had seen.” (NRSV.)
Christ’s voice is the voice they must heed above all. As Christians we come to understand the preparatory messages of the Law and the Prophets in the light of what God has done and said through Christ. Christ is the key. We interpret all that has come before in the light of Christ.
The whole point of this overwhelming encounter is to cement in their minds the need to heed Jesus Christ. “This is my Son, my Chosen; listen to him!” True discipleship is more than a mountaintop experience — it is a day to day following after Christ — giving heed to his example and teaching.
John Nolland remarks in the Word Biblical Commentary:
It is not possible—and it is not right — to freeze this moment of glory. The aftermath of the voice speaks as eloquently as had the voice itself. The moment of glory has vanished. Jesus is alone. The mountaintop experience has passed and what remains is the way of the cross as the way to permanence of glory. They have seen the glory that by right belongs to Jesus, but it belongs to him the other side of death and resurrection.
The Revised Common Lectionary gives preachers the option to include Luke 9:37-43. This is the story of Jesus delivering a demonized boy — after the disciples could not help. The contrast is sharp, and this has led to the common rhetoric about “Mountain Top Experiences” versus service “in the valley.”
Prayer and service go hand in hand.
A FREE GIFT TO PREACHERS: Here is a PPTX file for a sermon based on this passage . You can use this, edit this, change this however you wish — it is free for you to use (or not). Click this link: With Christ on the Mountaintop.
In this passage Jesus is continuing the series of antithesis statements he began in verse 21. In these he fleshes out what he means by coming not to destroy the law but to fulfill it. He goes beyond the law — not relaxing it, but pushing it further — pushing it toward its spiritual fulfillment. Jesus challenges us to consider more than just outward fulfillment; he pushes us to examine our motivations and inner lives.
In verses 21-37 the issues were: destructive anger, covetous sexual desire, divorce, and the swearing of oaths. Here the issues are vengefulness, enemies, peace, and universal love for all. Here the issue is how we treat — and think about — each other. This passage can be seen as a unit because of its closely related themes.
This is also one of those passages in the New Testament that uses the word τέλειος — often translated “perfect” — which gave rise to the phrase “Christian Perfection”— often used by John Wesley (and his followers) to talk about the spiritual life. The phrase has been misunderstood from the beginning and continues to be misunderstood today, and it’s easy to see why Looking at verse 48 in its context may help to sort out some of the confusion.
My goal in looking at this passage is much larger than that one issue — it is to understand how Jesus interprets the Old Testament law and applies it to life.
