The “You have heard it said, but I say to you,” sections seem to be addressed to those who had managed to tone down the Law. Whoever that is said to most pointedly, it seems to hit all of us. C.S. Lewis even likened it to being hit in the face with a sledgehammer. Even if this does manage to lower the status of those up top who have been exploiting others, I don’t think those on the bottom see this as purely good news. The stakes are too high.

Yeah, I guess that part doesn’t fit so well, does it? (Guess I should read the comments more carefully before posting, not to mention the whole SoM)

Jesus seems to get mad mostly at people who just don’t get it, not at people who do things wrong. Isn’t the whole context of the SoM starting with the Beatitudes an introduction to the kingdom, a reversal of score-keeping theology and a bashing of heads together of those who like score-keeping because they are good at it? (Might be beautiful music for the people on the bottom)

Did Jesus preach repentance per se? Seems like overall it was more good news that He’s here, and this is how things will be from now on, and this is what happens if you insist on a score-keeping mode.”Shape up and work harder to be good” - is this His usual mode of preaching?

We never outgrow the Gospels, but having absorbed them to realize Christ is the God we can know as a person, and through His person and work, be in relation with not just Him but the whole Trinity, we have to stop just staring at the page and also look at Him.

I grew up with the concept of a “personal relationship” with Christ. It was too abstract, too impersonal. Christ was some cosmic cashier. I’m struggling to cope with how much I *can* know Him. I envy those from *all* the various Christian traditions that have transcended the humanitive norm, and know Him, and thus what He is like, far better than I may ever know in this life.

PS - Just so I don’t *completely miss the point of the thread (tongue firmly in cheek), certain IM thread commentors make me feel far less restrained in echoing the assertion that the Reformation lost the book of Galatians to the church, and it was pretty much Luther’s fault. Heh.

George MacDonald had a character somewhere who absolutely loved the Epistles of St. Paul, and theological argumentation. Until tragedy struck.

Then all the theological arguments dried up, but suddenly he found great comfort from the person of Jesus in the Gospels. This seems absolutely correct to me.

Matt

Steve Martin

I really don’t appreciate the “many Christians attack Catholics, and then act like Catholics focusing on themselves” attitude. It puts you and yours at the front, by attacking and draging down others. “In humility consider others better than yourself.” Take the example of Christ who, though he knew better than the Blessed Virgin, yet descended to being led by her. Take the example of Christ who was found in the temple learning from Caiaphas. Please don’t attack your brothers.

Matt

“If your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.”

“If your right hand makes you stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to go into hell.”

AT Chaffee, you’re right. That sounds just like Placido Domingo. How could I have missed it before? What a gorgeous tenor voice, too.

Thank you again for this series and your practical approach. It is impossible to underestimate the need to know what Jesus was (is) like. The big news this week concerned the cult leader who sexually abused his followers while claiming to be Jesus. Could people really believe that Jesus is capable of that and accept it without question? When the life of Jesus is lost in intellectual concepts or emotional hype, I can see how can happen. We need to go back to the gospel texts to know that Jesus was (is) a living, breathing person who walked, taught, laughed, wept…and did not abuse either his followers or his enemies (reminds me of your basin-and-towel postings from Lent).

As cliche as it sounds, we are the only bible that some may read. Walmart employees wearing those signature blue smocks represent the entire corporation to those they greet. How much more, as imperfectly as we may, do we need to model Jesus, because we bear his name and image? I think the EO folks call this being living icons of God. Especially to a visually and media-driven world, what people see and experience has a bearing on the validity of the truth we bear. It is the work of the Holy Spirit that accomplishes this.

May it be unto me, according to his word.

BTW, you inspired me to finally start reading “Mere Christianity”.

In that vein, the SoM isn’t all about me, really, it’s more a picture of God somewhat like the nature psalms. “How beautiful is your Law, O God.”Or like Proverbs.

If someone were to listen to Placido Domingo and the only thing he could think of the whole time was all the ways in which his voice didn’t measure up to Mr. Domingo’s– seems like he’s missing something somewhere.

I am not in any way denying the value of commentary. You are taking my position to an exaggerated extreme.

This will always have a context. The original hearers might well have thought that when Jesus made lust tantamount to adultery that we should stone the lusters. I’d bet that the original hearers did NOT know what the teaching entailed.
Most of them probably had only the dimmest idea of who Jesus was when he gave the Sermon.

So we’re supposed to just take whatever we originally thought was the meaning and run with that. I remember when I was about eight hearing the Sermon on the Mount in one of the old Easter specials, probably King of Kings or The Greatest Story Ever Told. It was the Lucan version, and Jesus said, “Woe to those who laugh now, for they shall weep.” I thought, “I laugh. Jesus must not like that. I wonder why.” If no commentary is necessary or helpful, I guess I should have just gotten stuck there.

Or perhaps when I heard about calling my brother a fool, I should have just despaired and given up the faith. After all, you can go to hell for it. Merely doing it once. No good reason to bring in the forgiveness of sins. That would be importing.

When someone says that other material is not necessary, I have to wonder whether the Sermon on the Mount ever really hit him hard. If there is no escape hatch, we all blew it beyond redemption before we left childhood. I remember.

The Lutheran answers would have been very welcome to me when I was very young. Unfortunately, the adults around thought that ecumenism and guitar playing and doctrinal tolerance were enough. They weren’t when the text came in to haunt a young mind. I am thankful when we joined a Presbyterian church where the young were considered Christians and of value to teach. And I am thankful that they did not shy away from finding solutions to problems posed by one text by appealing to another.

The rigorous position presented here is bad enough when inflicted on adults. But it has implications for children, too. There are children out there who need the Pauline door left open. Questions of assurance know no age boundaries, and the Sermon on the Mount will sometimes hit a child harder than an adult. Why? Because the child knows he cannot order his or her life in ways that match the picture given in the Sermon.