Dan, I will agree with you on this point - The Message does feel very different and I would say the problem is it is an interpretation and can stray to far from the real "message" which is the gospel. We have to be careful not to make Christ out to be a pacifist. Taking all of scripture into purview is important. Christ made a whip out of chords and drove the money changers out of the temple. That does not seem very "kind" or "pacifist" to me. However, when I take the full breadth of scripture and use it to interpret and inform each piece I can come up with a cohesive understanding. The part in this message I most am concerned with is the part where you stated "First, when I’m feeling super spiritual I will say something along the lines of, “I’m not hating my enemy, I am speaking truth to them. It’s for their own good.”" Certainly I can see this happening and not being an action out of "our understanding" of love. But there are instances where "speaking truth to them. It's for their own good" could actually be the most loving and correct thing to do. In fact, I would argue that "speaking truth" is always the loving thing to do no matter the delivery. It is also the most loving thing to do for your enemy and if you really love them you will do it. Christ said many things we could think were unkind like "you brood of vipers" but he was revealing a truth about the state of some of the leaders hearts. We need to understand this passage in a wider context and yeah we can implement what Christ is talking about here in a 1-on-1 situation and in some wider audiences and we should strive to do that. But we must always be thinking about our wider audience as well if there is one. Certainly we should be humbled when it is revealed to us when we did not act out of love. I would suggest though that based on Christ's life itself and some of the actions He took and the words that He used and said weren't always pretty. With this understanding can we at least agree that "Love" doesn't always look like the world's definition of what love looks like or should be? Love may sometimes look "ugly" to those outside the kingdom.
Thanks Scott for the comment. To your summary point, "Love doesn't always look like the world's definition of what love looks like or should be?" Absolutely we can agree. It's why 1 Corinthians is listed here as the definition of love. This way of practicing love is subversive and counters the prevailing thoughts on love (including much Christian thinking on love). I think we can also agree that speaking the truth is always best, though we would disagree that delivery doesn't matter.
I appreciate your concern, as well. I can only speak for me, in that many times in my life my perception of "speaking truth" to people is not from a position of seeking to love, but of a desire to win or be right. In Ephesians 4:15, we see Paul wanting to hold the tension of "speaking truth in love." We too must hold both these things in tension.
I like to use the analogy of a friend with a booger on their nose. An unloving but nice thing to do is simply to ignore it. A truthful but unloving thing to do is loudly declare, point, and mock that they have a booger. The truthful and loving thing to do is to gently and quietly let them know there is a booger on their nose.
Sadly, I think I (and many Christians) choose to practice the second way of speaking truth. The world, often practices the first. I am trying to learn to practice the third way.
Your comparison of our personal interactions with Christ's cleansing fo the Temple is an odd connection for me when it comes to this passage. The desire to walk back Christ's words here in Matthew 5 is something that I see in many and it's almost always in connection to the cleansing of the Temple. Oddly, from the text we get no sense that he committed violence against another person, he did turn over tables in a righteous anger. I'm not sure this gets you down the road toward violence. I also, don't think that Jesus quoting Jeremiah 7 and the connotations that brings moves the needle on ignoring the Scriptural call to speaking truth in love. Not to mention the fact that for the follower of Christ the ends do not justify the means.
One last thought, you appear to be uncomfortable with my use of The Message. Yes, it's a paraphrase (I actually wrote about that at some length a while ago in an earlier post). For my daily devotional reading and responding (which is what these little posts are) I have found it helpful to jar me from my regular translations (NIV and NRSV). Peterson's paraphrase of the text is often helpful to me in turning the prism and thinking about a passage that I've read countless times before in a different light.
I would have to disagree with you on a couple points. I am not talking about walking back anything here. You do believe that Christ is God and is one with the Father? This is the same Father who ordered the complete elimination of an entire nation. I must take the full text into consideration. I believe that God had a "loving" reason for that. In regards to the cleansing of the temple, the turning over the tables itself could be considered "violence" albeit towards inanimate objects. It was also a "loving" action out of righteous anger. Christ hated how what they were doing not only was doing a disservice to the Father but also to their fellow man and He acted in love of them. I am not suggesting that we shouldn't "speak the truth in love." What I would say is that "love" can elicit emotions more than simply meekness. It is not "speak the truth meekly." It does not say "speak the truth nicely." If you love and care for someone, sometimes you need to be willing to argue with them. I see Christ "speaking the truth in love" when He calls the Jewish leaders a "brood of vipers." You see I feel that we need to let the spirit lead us on how to handle all situations.
Again, thanks for the engagement. We may need to lovingly agree to disagree. I think our interpretive frameworks on some of these passages may have us at a crossroads. My hermeneutical position is from a covenantal and reformed position that is centered on the Cross. From your interpretative statements, it appears that our hermeneutical approaches may lead us to differing conclusions.
I would encourage you to do more work in the conquest narrative, I’m not sure it makes the point you’re hoping for.
I too, agree that we are to submit to the Spirit. In so doing I believe we find that, more often than not, we are to follow the way of Christ as outlined in the Sermon on the Mount, and even in his approach toward Pilate.
Perhaps considering again, Paul’s writing in Colossians 3:1-17, Philippians 2:1-11, and Ephesians 5:1-20 and 6:10ff, and 1 Corinthians 13; we may be able find a sense of the way we ought to live as Christians in the world today.
I appreciate the dialogue and will consider your thoughts. May God grant you grace and peace as you continue to pursue Christ.
You are welcome. Again, as scripture says, iron sharpens iron. We can only keep challenging each other in order to grow. It is interesting what you say regarding the reformed position because I think I actually follow that somewhat closely. I am unaware though of the conquest narrative but i have been contemplating scripture very much driven by the James 4 passages. In particular I am interested in the "God is love" statements and what that means in perspective to the totality of scripture. I am well aware of the "love" passages and maybe some difficulties we reach from misunderstanding or misapplication of certain words. My wife wrote 1 Cor. 13 to me in the card she gave me on our wedding day and it has had an impact since. What has also been revealing is that there is a difference between "niceness" and "kindness." Niceness allows the friend who is running to the edge of cliff to run off the cliff. Kindness is when you tackle that friend to keep him from doing that. There is an interesting chapter in C.S. Lewis "Mere Christianity" that talks about the rich man not getting into heaven and he relates this to not just referring to money but also talents such as "niceness." People can very rich with talent of "niceness" and be proud of it without realizing that they are failing to give God thanks for that, give Him the glory for that, and realize their soul is not in alignment with God. I had a friend who was the nicest person that you could think of and whom I admired greatly. yet the more you got to know that person and dug down you realized how selfish they were and how much of what they did was very manipulative to achieve their own desires. This person taught in a church yet ended up leaving their spouse and remarrying within months of the finalization of the divorce and did all they could to demonize their spouse. I would agree that more often than not we are supposed to follow the way of Christ as outlined on the sermon of the mount. I took that approach with this friend. Being nice isn't the key to opening someone's eyes. Regardless of that, I think it also should be understood it doesn't mean that occasions will not arise that we will be inspired to take the approach of Jesus with the Jewish leaders and at the temple mount. Maybe we do not differ here as much as it may seem by the discussion. But consider this, I think the greater challenge we have is letting scripture define for us what "love" looks like and not letting cultural "mis"-understandings of love affect that definition. It is why I am seeking to take the "God is love" statement and letting the God revealed in scripture guide that with the understanding that God is immutable. Reading scripture from this point of view is very challenging and definitely doesn't fit what one feels is natural. I have found that much of what I thought regarding love (and it probably closely agreed what I think might be your understanding) has been challenged by this approach. In this, I think I am better understanding my Father who is the God in the totality of scripture. I am understanding better Him who is love.
I pray that God grants you grace and peace as well.
Okay, made a mistake here. Should have been 1 John 4 not James 4. But maybe that was divine intervention. Going through and doing a reading of that was profitable.
Dan, I will agree with you on this point - The Message does feel very different and I would say the problem is it is an interpretation and can stray to far from the real "message" which is the gospel. We have to be careful not to make Christ out to be a pacifist. Taking all of scripture into purview is important. Christ made a whip out of chords and drove the money changers out of the temple. That does not seem very "kind" or "pacifist" to me. However, when I take the full breadth of scripture and use it to interpret and inform each piece I can come up with a cohesive understanding. The part in this message I most am concerned with is the part where you stated "First, when I’m feeling super spiritual I will say something along the lines of, “I’m not hating my enemy, I am speaking truth to them. It’s for their own good.”" Certainly I can see this happening and not being an action out of "our understanding" of love. But there are instances where "speaking truth to them. It's for their own good" could actually be the most loving and correct thing to do. In fact, I would argue that "speaking truth" is always the loving thing to do no matter the delivery. It is also the most loving thing to do for your enemy and if you really love them you will do it. Christ said many things we could think were unkind like "you brood of vipers" but he was revealing a truth about the state of some of the leaders hearts. We need to understand this passage in a wider context and yeah we can implement what Christ is talking about here in a 1-on-1 situation and in some wider audiences and we should strive to do that. But we must always be thinking about our wider audience as well if there is one. Certainly we should be humbled when it is revealed to us when we did not act out of love. I would suggest though that based on Christ's life itself and some of the actions He took and the words that He used and said weren't always pretty. With this understanding can we at least agree that "Love" doesn't always look like the world's definition of what love looks like or should be? Love may sometimes look "ugly" to those outside the kingdom.
Thanks Scott for the comment. To your summary point, "Love doesn't always look like the world's definition of what love looks like or should be?" Absolutely we can agree. It's why 1 Corinthians is listed here as the definition of love. This way of practicing love is subversive and counters the prevailing thoughts on love (including much Christian thinking on love). I think we can also agree that speaking the truth is always best, though we would disagree that delivery doesn't matter.
I appreciate your concern, as well. I can only speak for me, in that many times in my life my perception of "speaking truth" to people is not from a position of seeking to love, but of a desire to win or be right. In Ephesians 4:15, we see Paul wanting to hold the tension of "speaking truth in love." We too must hold both these things in tension.
I like to use the analogy of a friend with a booger on their nose. An unloving but nice thing to do is simply to ignore it. A truthful but unloving thing to do is loudly declare, point, and mock that they have a booger. The truthful and loving thing to do is to gently and quietly let them know there is a booger on their nose.
Sadly, I think I (and many Christians) choose to practice the second way of speaking truth. The world, often practices the first. I am trying to learn to practice the third way.
Your comparison of our personal interactions with Christ's cleansing fo the Temple is an odd connection for me when it comes to this passage. The desire to walk back Christ's words here in Matthew 5 is something that I see in many and it's almost always in connection to the cleansing of the Temple. Oddly, from the text we get no sense that he committed violence against another person, he did turn over tables in a righteous anger. I'm not sure this gets you down the road toward violence. I also, don't think that Jesus quoting Jeremiah 7 and the connotations that brings moves the needle on ignoring the Scriptural call to speaking truth in love. Not to mention the fact that for the follower of Christ the ends do not justify the means.
One last thought, you appear to be uncomfortable with my use of The Message. Yes, it's a paraphrase (I actually wrote about that at some length a while ago in an earlier post). For my daily devotional reading and responding (which is what these little posts are) I have found it helpful to jar me from my regular translations (NIV and NRSV). Peterson's paraphrase of the text is often helpful to me in turning the prism and thinking about a passage that I've read countless times before in a different light.
Thanks again for interacting with the post!
I would have to disagree with you on a couple points. I am not talking about walking back anything here. You do believe that Christ is God and is one with the Father? This is the same Father who ordered the complete elimination of an entire nation. I must take the full text into consideration. I believe that God had a "loving" reason for that. In regards to the cleansing of the temple, the turning over the tables itself could be considered "violence" albeit towards inanimate objects. It was also a "loving" action out of righteous anger. Christ hated how what they were doing not only was doing a disservice to the Father but also to their fellow man and He acted in love of them. I am not suggesting that we shouldn't "speak the truth in love." What I would say is that "love" can elicit emotions more than simply meekness. It is not "speak the truth meekly." It does not say "speak the truth nicely." If you love and care for someone, sometimes you need to be willing to argue with them. I see Christ "speaking the truth in love" when He calls the Jewish leaders a "brood of vipers." You see I feel that we need to let the spirit lead us on how to handle all situations.
Again, thanks for the engagement. We may need to lovingly agree to disagree. I think our interpretive frameworks on some of these passages may have us at a crossroads. My hermeneutical position is from a covenantal and reformed position that is centered on the Cross. From your interpretative statements, it appears that our hermeneutical approaches may lead us to differing conclusions.
I would encourage you to do more work in the conquest narrative, I’m not sure it makes the point you’re hoping for.
I too, agree that we are to submit to the Spirit. In so doing I believe we find that, more often than not, we are to follow the way of Christ as outlined in the Sermon on the Mount, and even in his approach toward Pilate.
Perhaps considering again, Paul’s writing in Colossians 3:1-17, Philippians 2:1-11, and Ephesians 5:1-20 and 6:10ff, and 1 Corinthians 13; we may be able find a sense of the way we ought to live as Christians in the world today.
I appreciate the dialogue and will consider your thoughts. May God grant you grace and peace as you continue to pursue Christ.
You are welcome. Again, as scripture says, iron sharpens iron. We can only keep challenging each other in order to grow. It is interesting what you say regarding the reformed position because I think I actually follow that somewhat closely. I am unaware though of the conquest narrative but i have been contemplating scripture very much driven by the James 4 passages. In particular I am interested in the "God is love" statements and what that means in perspective to the totality of scripture. I am well aware of the "love" passages and maybe some difficulties we reach from misunderstanding or misapplication of certain words. My wife wrote 1 Cor. 13 to me in the card she gave me on our wedding day and it has had an impact since. What has also been revealing is that there is a difference between "niceness" and "kindness." Niceness allows the friend who is running to the edge of cliff to run off the cliff. Kindness is when you tackle that friend to keep him from doing that. There is an interesting chapter in C.S. Lewis "Mere Christianity" that talks about the rich man not getting into heaven and he relates this to not just referring to money but also talents such as "niceness." People can very rich with talent of "niceness" and be proud of it without realizing that they are failing to give God thanks for that, give Him the glory for that, and realize their soul is not in alignment with God. I had a friend who was the nicest person that you could think of and whom I admired greatly. yet the more you got to know that person and dug down you realized how selfish they were and how much of what they did was very manipulative to achieve their own desires. This person taught in a church yet ended up leaving their spouse and remarrying within months of the finalization of the divorce and did all they could to demonize their spouse. I would agree that more often than not we are supposed to follow the way of Christ as outlined on the sermon of the mount. I took that approach with this friend. Being nice isn't the key to opening someone's eyes. Regardless of that, I think it also should be understood it doesn't mean that occasions will not arise that we will be inspired to take the approach of Jesus with the Jewish leaders and at the temple mount. Maybe we do not differ here as much as it may seem by the discussion. But consider this, I think the greater challenge we have is letting scripture define for us what "love" looks like and not letting cultural "mis"-understandings of love affect that definition. It is why I am seeking to take the "God is love" statement and letting the God revealed in scripture guide that with the understanding that God is immutable. Reading scripture from this point of view is very challenging and definitely doesn't fit what one feels is natural. I have found that much of what I thought regarding love (and it probably closely agreed what I think might be your understanding) has been challenged by this approach. In this, I think I am better understanding my Father who is the God in the totality of scripture. I am understanding better Him who is love.
I pray that God grants you grace and peace as well.
Okay, made a mistake here. Should have been 1 John 4 not James 4. But maybe that was divine intervention. Going through and doing a reading of that was profitable.