You know the type

Morsels of food are delicious because of the little things, the subtle seasonings, the dash of salt, the sprinkle of garlic, the garnish of parsley, the touch of glaze, or the hint of lemon.  Ahhhh - so delicious!

You know the type.  You go to visit them.  You have to let yourself in or you get a brief "Hello" as you are let in.  You are invited to sit down.  And the formalities of the conversation begin.

"Hi.  How have you been doing?"
"Fine, thank you.  How about you?"
"Is anything new happening?"
"No, not much. Just the routine. Anything new for you?"
"Not really.  Different day, same stuff."

Somewhere about this point you get to actually start the conversation.  You talk about a particular incident or two that your children have been involved in, what your spouse is doing, maybe a project you're working on.  Usually someone else comes in the room about this time and the conversation base turns to them.  A little later the activity you came for begins.  Then everyone is off and flying.

Not too long ago some friends visited our house.  My wife and I greeted them at the door with friendly hellos.  It had been about a year since we had last seen them.  We all hugged each other.  We brought out tea for them to drink.  They had driven an hour and a half to see us.  The conversation was animated.  We had to know what had been going on in their lives since we saw them last.  The conversation bounced back and forth between them and us energetically.  After a spirited 30 minutes of talking, we began a meal.

What a contrast between the two conversations.  Both are true events.  Both left me with totally different feelings.  They also allow me to understand fully the episode in Jesus' life where he experienced the exact same conversations.  Luke 7.36-50 records the incident.

What happens in verse 39 is unconscionable in retrospect.  Especially two thousand years of retrospect.  How can one criticize the Son of God?  All I have to do is remember a few of the conversations like conversation #1 above.  People are so judgmental.  It happens all the time.  In some of these conversations people use diminuitives in their conversations like, "I like your little house here," or  "How's _____ (your son or daughter) doing?  You know that job (s)he has doesn't pay very much."  Sometimes it's the superlative judgment like "Did you get over your sickness.  It seems you are sick all the time lately," or "Have you lightened up on your workload.  You're gone from your kids so very much." There are a thousand other ways to show people they don't measure up.  So, it's no surprise at all that Jesus would experience the same kind of conversation.

I can picture it,  Jesus comes in, gets the formal greeting, "Hi, how are you doing.  It's been awhile... blah, blah.  Here have a seat.  In a minute we'll eat."  Then, someone of a higher station comes in to eat with Simon as well.  "Hi, how are you.  It's so good to see you.  Let _____ (the servant) wash your feet.  You've been in those awful streets.  I'll put some good smelling oil on your head so you feel (and smell) refreshed.  Have a seat."

I don't know how the woman that kneels behind Jesus' feet got into the house.  If it was Mary, Lazarus' sister, she was a woman of means.  That would account for the invitation and the expensive oil.  But, if it was not that Mary, then perhaps she whisked in unnoticed with her flask of good smelling oil.  Nothing is really said when Mary begins pouring the oil from the flask onto Jesus' feet.  But what Simon thought in this instance is so typical of what people say and think today.

Verse 39

ἰδὼν δὲ ὁ Φαρισαῖος ὁ καλέσας αὐτὸν εἶπεν ἐν ἑαυτῷ λέγων· οὗτος εἰ ἦν προφήτης, ἐγίνωσκεν ἂν τίς καὶ ποταπὴ ἡ γυνὴ ἥτις ἅπτεται αὐτοῦ, ὅτι ἁμαρτωλός ἐστιν

(The Pharisee that invited Jesus saw what happened and thought to himself, "If he were a prophet, he would have known who she was, what kind of background she has, and where she is from because the woman touching him has such a questionable character.)

It's clear that Jesus was invited by Simon to his house.  So, when Luke uses "the Pharisee" in this verse, it is a deliberate use to show the kind of person Simon was.  He was one of those judgmental types who prided himself in knowing the Talmud, which included all the oral traditions, and doing all the right things at all the right times.  He's a rule-keeper and polices others' actions to make sure that they are good rule keepers as well.  Who would want to be touched by someone of questionable reputation like Mary.  Jesus shouldn't allow her to touch him.

Jesus saw his transparent mind, maybe by reading his face, eyes, or posture.  Jesus knew what Simon was thinking.  He gave him a parable to think about as a result.  And very directly Jesus tells Simon that he was not treated well when he arrived - no foot wash, no embrace, no oil for refreshment.  In contrast "this woman"  (a very impersonal reference to Mary to sarcastically point out that he knew Simon's condescending thoughts about her) used tears to wash his feet, continually kissed his feet, and poured refreshing, sweet-smelling, expensive oil on them.  "This woman" had treated him as royalty, like an emperor, like the Son of God.

That is lesson enough for most people, but a tasty morsel comes in verse 47.  Jesus' words highlight the great difference between serving God from Simon's standpoint of deserving notice because of  his good behavior and Mary's picture of showing total gratitude for Jesus noticing her despite her background and regional origin.  She responded with a great show of love for who Jesus was and the change he allowed her with a second chance. 

Verse 47

οὗ χάριν λέγω σοι, ἀφέωνται αἱ ἁμαρτίαι αὐτῆς αἱ πολλαί, ὅτι ἠγάπησεν πολύ· ᾧ δὲ ὀλίγον ἀφίεται, ὀλίγον ἀγαπᾷ

(So, I am telling you her many failures are acquitted because she has shown so much love.  A person who has been acquitted of little, loves little.)

Can you see the arched eyebrows of the Pharisees present?  In fact, verse 48 says as much.  Jesus sees and knows this response too.  So, he addresses Mary directly and forgives failures and gives her one more insight.

 Verse 50

εἶπεν δὲ πρὸς τὴν γυναῖκα· ἡ πίστις σου σέσωκέν σε· πορεύου εἰς εἰρήνην

(Jesus also told the woman, "Your faith has saved you.  Move on in peace.")

I know the conviction but stubborn resistance and possible resentment Simon felt after this incident.  I have been in Simon's shoes on a great number of occasions.   I was raised in an environment just like Simon's and understand his arrogance and desire to be noticed for his piety.  I also have poured out my tears at Jesus' feet because of how grateful I am to have the Son of God look at me saying, "Your failures are acquitted because you have shown great love."  I have shared that same station in life that Mary was in and comprehend the great relief of being acquitted.

Without any doubt, Mary and all of us who have experienced an acquittal for wrongdoings, failures on our part to live up to a standard of decent living, know the great freedom that comes when the Son of God looks at us and says, "Your faith has saved you, move on in peace."  And we do.  We move on with a calm about us that only those who have been there understand.

This is how I am approaching 2016 - being acquitted, loving like crazy, moving ahead in peace!

Showing true attitude

Morsels of food are delicious because of the little things, the subtle seasonings, the dash of salt, the sprinkle of garlic, the garnish of parsley, the touch of glaze, or the hint of lemon.  Ahhhh - so delicious!

This week either is the actual week or represents the actual week 2019 years ago that the most famous and important Mary ever born traveled to Jerusalem for a census.  This is the week that began a change in direction for everything that had ever happened in history.  As such, I find inspiration in the opening chapter of the gospel I can trust - Luke because it tells me what happened with Mary and her cousin to bring to the world two really important people.

After addressing Theophilos, Luke narrates two stories.  The stories are exactly parallel in their structure.  More than likely that was done for ease of memorizing.  But, it could be that the events took place in the exact same manners.  The structure is as follows.

Verses for         Verses for
Zechariah          Mary               Portion of story

5-10                  26-27               Set up the character the story is about
11                     28                    Gabriel the angel appears
12                     29                    Character's reaction to Gabriel
13                    30-31                Gabriel explains his mission
14-17               32-33               Gabriel tells the significance of the child
18                    34                     Character's reaction to this announcement
19-20               35-37               Gabriel's parting statement
21-25               38-35               Aftermath of Gabriel's visit

These two stories set the stage for a big change that was about to happen in the world.  It is fitting that the set-up is told from the perspective of the mother of the Son of God most High.  Great debates rage from one generation to the next about Mary's exact role in the religion that sprung from Jesus' Earthly presence, but before the debate began, Luke gave a tribute to Mary by recording the beginning events of Christianity from her point of view.

The portion of the story giving the significance of each child in a private audience is worth recounting.  These children's significance was profound.  The first child was significant to the Jews because some were expecting "Elijah" to come before the messiah or because some thought the messiah to be the next Elijah.  The message to Zechariah set the record straight on that matter.  For non-Jews, it showed that there was a forerunner to announce the Son of God to the world.  Romans in particular understood this routine.  All the emperors had entourages of people to precede them anywhere they went to announce them with messages and trumpets.  The Son of God was no less prestigious than they were.

The Announcer (John)

Verse 15

εσται γαρ μεγας ενωπιον του κυριου και οινον και σικερα ου μη πιη και πνευματος αγιου πλησθησεται ετι εκ κοιλιας μητρος αυτου

He will be important as he goes before the Lord.  He will never drink wine and beer. He will be filled instead with the Holy Spirit from the time he is in his mother's womb.

Verse 16

και πολλους των υιων ισραηλ επιστρεψει επι κυριον τον θεον αυτων

And he will help many of Israel's children restore their God to an important position in their lives.

Verse 17

και αυτος προελευσεται ενωπιον αυτου εν πνευματι και δυναμει ηλιου επιστρεψαι καρδιας πατερων επι τεκνα και απειθεις εν προνησει δικαιων ετοιμασαι κυριω λαον κατεσκευασμενον

And he will go ahead of him in the spirit and power of Elijah to soften parents' hearts to childrens' hearts and their defiant rebellion to decent living and to make the people more pliant for the Lord.

Verse 15 is the key to why Zechariah is seeing Gabriel at the altar as he offered sacrifice.  There needed to be an announcement because John was important.  The people of Israel had hearts of stone.  They had to be changed into something more pliable, something that could handle Jesus' message that he represented the true and living God and that his teachings would lead the people to change their lives.  John's message would soften the people's hearts to make them more accepting like children.

The other child needed an announcement as well.  How often does the Son of God come to Earth?  One would think that if that ever happened, it would be no less of an event than the emperor visiting a town outside of Rome.  Right, messengers would be sent in advance.  Proper preparations would be made so that the governors, officials, soldiers, and people would know the event was magnanimous.  God did that, but he wanted his private audience first.  He prepared Zechariah for John's part in this visitation.  And, he prepared Mary as well, telling her of the importance of the child she would carry for him, the Most High.

The Announced (Jesus)

Verse 31

και ιδου συλληψη εν γαστρι και τεξη υιον και καλεσεις το ονομα αυτου ιησουν

Know this.  You will conceive and deliver a son. You will name him Jesus.

Verse 32

ουτος εσται μεγας και υιος υψιστου κληθησεταικ και δωσει αυτω κυριος ο θεος τον θρονον δαυιδ του πατρος αυτου

He will be important and will be called Son of the Most High.  The Lord God will give him the throne of David his father.

Verse 33

και βασιλευσει επι τον οικον ιακωβ εις τους αιωνας και της βασιλειας αυτου ουκ εσται τελος

And he will rule the house of Jacob forever and his realm will never end.


Yeah, news like this needed to be announced in private.  Gabriel represents the Most High.  Mary had worshiped him all of her life.  The message was brief and direct. The Most High wanted her to carry his baby for him.  Gabriel didn't have to say that the baby would be important, but he did go on to say that.  Astonishingly, Mary took the news rather well, considering.  And Gabriel's last word about the house of Jacob and the throne of David was to remove any doubt about whether this Son of God was also the Messiah.  Gabriel used the exact words needed to dispel any rumor to the contrary.  All Jews were looking for the messiah to be on the throne of David and to have an Earthly realm for the Jews.  God just one-upped them on that last part.  This messiah would have a realm that would never end.

The reactions to Gabriel's announcement are the tasty morsel in the story.  Zechariah was incredulous without a doubt, given his reaction.  I'm thinking that if you are in the temple alone offering sacrifices for people to God, that when you see his messenger, you might believe his words without question.  Perhaps, Zechariah doubted that Gabriel was from God. Or perhaps Zechariah couldn't wrap his mind around a God that could really break the limitations of the world he had created.  Whatever!  It cost him.  For saying, κατα τι γνωσομαι τουτο (And exactly how am I going to know this?) [verse 18], he was struck silent for 10 months until John was born.  And Gabriel showed a little attitude by retorting, "I am Gabriel who stands in God's presence... in return for your disbelief you won't speak."

Mary, on the other hand, responded not with a question of sarcasm, but with a question about logistics.  She was a virgin, so Gabriel received her query as one of "Tell me more" because the only known way of becoming pregnant was with another human being.  Gabriel explained it to her.  No, not this time.  God is dealing directly with you.  He's not using another human this time.  It's his son!
Mary's response is not disbelief, but one of total acceptance. ιδου η δουλη κυριου γενοιτο μοι κατα το ρημα σου (Then you are looking at the Lord's servant.  Let it happen to me according to what you have spoken) [verse 20].

As I enter this very important week of God beginning his visitation to this Earth, I review this story to remind me of two responses that I could give to this magnanimous event.  As one who has received a fair share of formal schooling and exposure to a scientific method that requires observation of existing facts to form a hypothesis, I can recount times and places where I have given Zechariah's response.  I say things like, "Show me something I can know by" or more sarcastically, "And just how can I know that this is true?" before I begin to look believingly at what I should have seen and believed.

Fortunately, Zechariah lived to have a chance to give a more credible reaction.  It's not recorded, but you know after John's birth, he didn't really question God's ability to do anything ever again.  And this is a good time of year for me to start again. It's the time of year to have Mary's response, something like, "I am the Lord's servant.  Let it happen according to your plans for me this day."

Gloria in excelsis Deo!

I can trust it

Morsels of food are delicious because of the little things, the subtle seasonings, the dash of salt, the sprinkle of garlic, the garnish of parsley, the touch of glaze, or the hint of lemon.  Ahhhh - so delicious!

Since the time of Jesus, the rise of the university has spawned the rise of scientific investigation.  Modern people have looked back over the span of 2000 years and many times have wrongly assumed that what was written in days of Jesus lacked the methods of scientific inquiry.  What gets glossed in that way of thinking is that scientific advancement was well and alive in the Roman Empire and is illustrated everywhere one wants to look.

Engineers for the Roman military were able to invent rapid fire weapons that humiliated the enemy.  Engineers for the government designed aquaducts that could bring water hundreds of miles using the force of gravity but some even go uphill when the terrain requires it.  They learned to drill for oil, mix concrete feet for piers underwater and move dirt by the ton to create mile-long ramps and bridges and extensions to a shoreline.  Their medicine was second to none.  Doctors had a whole array of hand tools in their bags and knew about the human body from years of investigation and observance of how the body acts and reacts.  Doctors had the training to show them how to validate their observations and findings.  Astronomical records were kept containing tremendous accuracy.  And in the navigation of seas, Rome had no equal in getting troops, supplies, and commercial products to their destinations with efficiency and without mishap for the great amount of water travel they used.

So, to think of the people of Jesus' day and time as simple and primitive, given to notional thinking about how things work, and experiencing life on the most basic terms would be the polar opposite of the truth.  And, if a person of wealth, or government official wanted to investigate something to ensure its accuracy and truth, he could do so with methods commensurate to other scientific pursuits in this advanced, ancient world.

The way the gospel of Luke opens is a true reminder of this second-to-none world of the Romans.  It has something to say to the person inclined to think that Jesus' time and place had little to offer a modern person.  To be sure, the Romans didn't consider the world outside of Greece and Italy as civilized, and in the realm of religion, the religions found in the provinces were merely superstitions for the locals.  So, it is very noticeable that in the middle of Rome's arrogance from all their advances in technology and their belief that no one else had anything to offer them, a medical doctor with a Roman name would take the time to address a Greek magistrate working for the Roman provincial government about a matter that really shouldn't have mattered - one of those outlying superstitious religions.

Verse 3 -

εδοξε καμοι παρηκολουθηκοτι ανωθεν πασιν ακριβως καθεξης σοι γραψαι κρατιστε θεοφιλε

(I thought it wise to write you, Most Excellent Theophilos, since I have followed the succession of everything closely and carefully from its inception.)

Like modern scientists, Luke described his method of recording the Jesus movement.  A scientist has to follow things closely when observing, and he or she has to record the order of successive stages carefully.  People in Luke's day were as curious as people now, and had just as much need to trust their experts when they drew conclusions from their observations.  Luke says this was the case as he examined Christianity ανωθεν (from its inception).

But it gets better.  Luke wanted Theophilos' trust.  He wanted him to trust him.  He was a doctor and knew how extremely important proper documentation was in gaining people's trust.  So, besides telling Theophilos that he followed everything closely and carefully from day one, he told him how he knew.

Verse 1 -

επειδηπερ πολλοι επεχειρησαν αναταξασθαι διηγησιν περι των πεπληροφορημενων εν ημιν πραγματων

(Seeing that many people have sat down to write a narrative from memory of the things that have happened among us.)

Evidently, records existed from a number of different writers who had circulated stories of the deeds of Jesus from the first third of the 1st century.  Luke had come along after these writers, but had their writings to refer to.  These works could have included  gospel of.  Mark in particular is thought to have been an early rendering of Jesus' events since it is so episodic in nature and contained no genealogy.  Luke records having a number manuscripts at his disposal or that he had collected for himself over the years.

Verse 2 -

καθως παρεδοσαν ημιν οι απ αρχης αυτοπται και υπηρεται γενομενοι του λογου

(and from what was imparted to us by eyewitnesses who were there from the start and from followers who became so as a result of their message.)

To the records he referred to in verse 1 that he had read, Luke adds two other pieces of evidence - eyewitnesses and subsequent followers.  Any serious inquiry would have to include primary evidence.  That's why he includes the eyewitnesses.  But, a movement is not a serious movement unless people have been affected by the message left by the originator and those who were actually there.  Thus, followers of Jesus' message who became Christians without the benefit of actually seeing Jesus in action became the secondary evidence that attested to Christianity's authenticity.

There is a tasty morsel contained in verse 4 of Luke 1.

ινα επιγνως περι ων κατηχηθης λογων την ασφαλειαν

(so that you can ascertain the accuracy of what you were briefed on.)

Theophilos was evidently a magistrate in some official capacity for Rome.  He had had his briefing on what to expect from the religions  in the province.  He would have definitely been advised of the Jews' beliefs and what to allow and disallow with them.  But the Christian movement was new.  How should he treat them?  Were they a threat in any way to Rome's security and dominance in the province?  Pliny the Younger in around 113 A.C.E. wrote Emperor Trajan concerning both of these matters 50 to 70 years later than Luke.  Pliny's letter serves as both verification and instruction about the concern provincial governors had in how to treat provincial Christians and illustrates how someone like Theophilos would need someone like Luke to help him understand this growing religion.

Luke had one other credential to support Theophilos' choice as the voice he wanted to hear about the Christian movement.  An official asks a person with scientific standing to expertly assess something, for sure, but Luke also was a part of this Christian movement. That's good news because Luke didn't just give Theophilos a favorable report from an outsider, Luke started at the beginning of the movement, cited primary evidence (eyewitnesses), showed the secondary effect Christianity had on people beyond the first generation, and admitted to being one of Jesus' followers.  Twice he refers to "us" as he told Theophilos that he could trust that the Christian movement was benign in its intents to usurp Roman authority.

των πεπληροφορημενων εν ημιν (the things that have happened among us)

παρεδοσαν ημιν (what was imparted to us)

That's comforting to me.  I don't have to depend on evidence merely from the early church fathers, from apocryphal literature, or from orthodox documents from the established church 2 1/2 centuries removed from Jesus.  I have a document written by a scientist, addressed to a government official containing sound scientific evidence that Jesus lived, died, rose, and influenced the next generation with his teachings.  What else could a modern person want!?  That the scientist had also been touched by Jesus' message?  With Luke, I have that too!

The plan in the wings

Morsels of food are delicious because of the little things, the subtle seasonings, the dash of salt, the sprinkle of garlic, the garnish of parsley, the touch of glaze, or the hint of lemon.  Ahhhh - so delicious!

The book of Revelation is supposed to be a revealing, an unveiling, a disclosure.  That's what the word apocalypse means in Greek.  When modern readers hear the word apocalypse, they receive a somewhat different idea because of the changes made to the word over the last two thousand years.  Now the word apocalypse seems to refer to a mega-catastrophe, an annihilation of some sort, or an end of time scenario.  While many people see this modern meaning of the word apocalypse in some of the reported visions of the book of Revelation, it is important to remember the meaning of the word apocalypse to the people the book was originally written to.

As the book opens, apocalypse appears as the first word.

αποκαλυψιϛ ιησου χριστου ην εδωκεν αυτω ο θεοϛ δειξαι τοιϛ δουλοιϛ αυτου α δει γενεσθαι εν ταχει και εσημανεν αποστειλαϛ δια του αγγελου αυτου τω δουλω αυτου ιωαννη

(A disclosure from Jesus Christ that God gave him to show his servants of what needs to happen quickly and that was given for delivery through a dispatched messenger to his servant John.)

The rest of the chapter sets forth what the book will illustrate.  Understanding the first chapter then reveals the organization and purpose for the rest of the book.

The first order of business in knowing how to view the book is noticing what the book's first word alludes to.  It means disclosure without question, but there is more to the word.  Apocalypse was a category, a genre of literature.  This genre was distinctive and recognizable.  It had certain identifiable characteristics that were evident in all the works of the genre.  Someone who represented God's people received visions and mysteries.  These visions and mysteries were delivered by a heavenly being whose responsibility was to also disclose their meanings. The visions were usually fanciful, having symbols created to convey ideas.  In some cases, miniature allegories rested inside the visions. The intent of the storyline and the impact of the symbols were meant to comfort and asssure God's people that He saw their needs and would act on them.  Oppression against his people would be crushed.  Apocalypses were popular in Judaism and in Christianity for about 400 years, 200 BCE to 200 ACE.  Representative books can be found in the Old Testament, the Old Testament apocrypha, the pseudipigrapha, the New Testament, and the New Testament apocrypha.

The natural question is, How do I know that Revelation belongs to this genre of literature?  The characteristics above are very pronounced in Revelation, and the image of Jesus in verses 12-17 is drawn from several of the apocalyptic books, Daniel, Zechariah, Ezekiel, Enoch, and 2 Esdras.

A another question then arises.  Is Revelation, like the other apocalyptic books, symbolic in nature rather than literal in nature?  Given the characteristics of all of the other books, and the symbolic interpretation used in understanding them, it seems rather logical to say that John's Revelation is not different from them.  The understanding from its first word on is that the images are symbolic and are to be interpreted by the heavenly beings that appear to John or are interpretable from their use in prior apocalypses.

One other verse of great importance in chapter one is verse 19.  It stands as the purpose of every vision and mystery to follow.

γραψον ουν α ειδεϛ και α εισιν και α μελλει γενεσθαι μετα ταυτα

(So write what you have known about, what is happening now, and what could happen as a result.)

The purpose had three parts to it.  The first part pertained to John's position or role as the last and only living apostle, possibly the last and only living eyewitness of Jesus.  If anyone knew about the things of Jesus, it was John.  He had been there.  Also, he had been an integral part of nurturing and guiding the followers of Jesus in Asia around the area of Ephesus.  He knew about what the Christians had faced in Asia as they followed Jesus.  The second part was about the current state of affairs in Asia.  John knew not only about the churches's development, but their current state of affairs.  The third part was about drawing a trajectory line and following logic.  If John knew the past and present, he could connect the dots and draw a dotted line for what would happen if nothing changed.  It was an a + b = c statement.  It wasn't a trajectory line of what was certain to happen.  It was a trajectory line of probability if things didn't change.

The third part, α μελλει γενεσθαι (what could happen) matches what was said in verse 1, α δει γενεσθαι (what needs to happen).  The Christians of Asia were suffering various forms of persecution.  These are mentioned in the letters that followed in chapters 2 and 3.  Such things were death at the hands of the Romans (Antipas was mentioned by name), slander from the mouths of the Jews, and misleading teaching on the part of church leaders who also called themselves apostles.  There were other things to too.  The Christians needed assurance that loyalty to Jesus was worth the persecution.  If they died, was there an better afterlife with Jesus?  If they were slandered by Jews, was there any truth to Jesus not being the son of God?  If apostle leaders were saying it was OK to eat meat offered to idols, was it wrong to do so?

So, John had to write his fellow believers to assure them that Christianity was worth its calling.  One of the best ways to do that would be to write in a style that Christians would understand and that Romans wouldn't.  Persecution was picking up.  He himself had survived an attempt on his own life.  So he needed definitely to write some words of assurance without jeopardizing the people who would read his words because his remarks were to stand against the persecution.  An apocalypse would be such a form that Romans wouldn't recognize.  He would use that literary style to convey his ideas.  The very first word from his pen would alert his readers to the genre.

A tasty morsel is found in the last two words of verse 19, μετα ταυτα (as a result).  Although after this is a possibility for a translation if the words before it were about time, as a result is a better translation since the words before can be seen as events rather than time.  As a result was more assuring for those finding it hard to follow Jesus.  Knowing that things from the ensuing letters and visions were tentative, that they were possible coming events if nothing in the environment changed would give hope that either things would change or that God would act if nothing changed.  Verse 1 contained the words, α δει γενεσθαι εν ταχει (what needs to happen quickly) because Christians faced immediate challenges to their faith.  If nothing was going to change, God's actions in favor of his people needed to happen quickly.

As it turned out, not long after John died, the emperors Hadrian and Marcus Aurelius eased the persecution against Christians for the next half-century.  The saints's prayers were answered and the disclosure of events in Revelation were delayed or canceled because of the faithfulness of John's generation of Christians.  The images were very meaningful over the next two hundred year period because of several other emperors's attempts at ridding the empire of Christians.  Early church leaders for the next two centuries referenced parts of Revelation.  And, in the end, by 325 BCE the Roman emperors fully embraced or fully allowed for the Christian faith.

If I look to Revelation for a message for my personal life, I see that I, too, go through periods of challenges to my faith.  I plead for God to intervene or give understanding for what is happening.  I ask for his quick relief.  During these periods of my life, I identify with the Christians in John's time and find comfort in his visions, especially in scenes like the one in Revelation 7 where God asks the four angels holding the winds at the corners of the Earth to stop everything until his people have been given their white robes.  At that point, all is well that ends.

This can't be true!

Morsels of food are delicious because of the little things, the subtle seasonings, the dash of salt, the sprinkle of garlic, the garnish of parsley, the touch of glaze, or the hint of lemon.  Ahhhh - so delicious!

The Sermon on the Mount represents the tenets of Jesus's teachings as he started his period of public teaching.  It also represents the tremendous departure from the norm of teaching from the rabbis and scholars of the Law, and from the rule-keeping views of the Pharisees.  It was not merely one phrase or teaching that distinguished Jesus from the above three groups, but a plethora of teachings that did so.  However, one phrase that did represent his great departure is found in three different forms in his representative Sermon on the Mount.

For the life of the Jews from the time of the exodus from Egypt until the time of Jesus, the name of God had a privileged place in their minds.  Perhaps, privileged captures only part of the idea.  Sacred, even holy also were part of the aura surrounding the name for God.  For part of the Jews's history the name Yahweh, written as YHWH in transliteration, was not pronounced it was so revered.  The Old Testament also used terms such as Most High and Lord of Hosts to ascribe proper aura to his name.

Into this high and holy aura for the person and name of God comes Jesus, a young man from outside Judea, the center of good Judaism, calling himself the Son of Man, a title reserved for the messiah, and giving a name to God that no human should ever ascribe to him - ever, simply because no human could ever approach being on a par with the Most High, the Lord of Hosts.

Matthew 5.48 ends the section of Jesus's teachings in which he taught about Makarioi for the common, average person and he gave a parody of the Talmud critiquing the scholars of the Law and the Pharisees.  Verse 48 concludes,

εσεσεθε ουν υμειϛ τελειοι ωϛ ο πατηρ υμων ο ουρανιοϛ τελειοϛ εστιν

(You should have the same integrity as your father in the heavens.)

What was that?  Your father.  Wow!  Compared to not even pronouncing the name Yahweh, your father was more than a bit informal.  Some were very put off at Jesus's irreverence.  God was much more than father to his nation of people.

Yes, there was the irreverent factor all right.  But, in addition to that, this was a personal father, not a "father of the nation" idea.  Now that just couldn't be.  God's relationship to people was creator to creation, not father to child.  No sir, that could never be right!

Immediately following the initial teaching (Matthew 5), the twelve men Jesus had selected to be his personal followers asked him to show them how to pray (Matthew 6).  So, Jesus said,

ουτωϛ ουν προσευχεσθε υμειϛ πατερ ημων ο εν τοιϛ ουρανοιϛ αγιασθητω το οναμα σου

(So you should pray like this. Our father in the heavens we honor your name.)

What is this?  Father again?  A prayer to the Most High using the appellation Father?  No, No, No, YHWH is not our personal father!

Then as Jesus was wrapping up his teaching on this occasion (Matthew 7.21), once again he spoke of God, this time speaking personally,

ου παϛ ο λεγων μοι κυριε κυριε ειϛ ελευσεται ειϛ την βασιλειαν των ουρανων αλλ ο ποιων το θελημα του πατροϛ μου του εν τοιϛ ουρανοιϛ

(Not everyone saying to me 'Lord' will enter the realm of the heavens, but the one doing the will of my father in the heavens,)

Now that's just too far.  Way too far!  Jesus is calling YHWH his very own father which means he originated in Heaven himself.

Jesus exceeded the limits there. Your father, our father, my father - absolutely not! Not from a young man who is not even a rabbi, not from Jerusalem, but Nazareth, and who is irreverent with the name YHWH.  Never in a million years could this be the messiah or God's son.

A very tasty morsel confirms that the Scholars of the Law and the Pharisees were having an adverse reaction to this part of Jesus's manner and teaching, and that they were not merely misunderstanding him. Jesus followed his idea of God as father with the phrase εν τοιϛ ουρανοιϛ (in the heavens).  Sometimes the word simply meant the skies, and still could even here, but the phrase was a stock phrase in Greek that had been existence a really long time.  Poets and songwriters used it.  Storytellers used it.  Anyone referring to the place where the gods of the Greeks lived used it.  It was the realm of the Gods.  It was all about deities, their origins, and their living quarters.  Those were the words Jesus was using for everyone's father, so there was no mistaking that this father was the deity the Jews worshiped, the Most High.  The Pharisees and scholars's minds short-circuited.  This couldn't be true!  They would not accept it!

The part with the most clarity came immediately before "my father in the heavens.  "Not everyone saying to me 'Lord' will enter the realm of the heavens."  Jesus had used the same stock phrase that every other Greek speaking person used in referring to their gods, and had added the realm where they all lived and originated.  Then, he followed with "my father" in this realm.  No, there was no mistake on Jesus's part.  He and his father originated in the realm of the Most High.



Jesus started the people's connection to the creator and his own  from the beginning.  It was no secret.  Animosity started from day one and gathered strength from there.

It's all in the report

Morsels of food are delicious because of the little things, the subtle seasonings, the dash of salt, the sprinkle of garlic, the garnish of parsley, the touch of glaze, or the hint of lemon.  Ahhhh - so delicious!

Television and cinema have made much of the four horsemen of the apocalypse of Revelation 6.1-8.  Writers for these visual panoramas see it as a sensational, unfolding of end-of-time series of events.  However, it's possible that John had an entirely different idea in mind when he penned the words from his island refuge of Patmos after a harrowing, death-defying experience with Roman authorities.

John had been rounded up as a Christian leader by the Romans in his latter years.  He had been put in a vat of boiling oil.  But, it didn't kill him.  The Romans, being a superstitious people, decided that the gods had deemed him worthy to live, so they honored that by not trying further to kill him.  Instead they banished him to the island of Patmos off the coast of present day Turkey.  While there John recorded a series of visions and experiences that became the book of Revelation.

John began the book by writing to the churches of Turkey surrounding Ephesus where he had lived during those late years of his life before his capture.  He wanted to leave them some words of encouragement and some words of warning.  He wrote to each church (Revelation 2, 3) at the beginning of the book to serve as set-up for the seals to follow with the purpose of encouraging his fellow brothers and sisters during their dire circumstances.  Having been nearly killed for his own faith, John was in a unique position to encourage those under the gun.

As a Jew, John had been instilled with the teachings of the Old Testament during his childhood and teenage years, his synagogue years.  He knew the laws and the prophets's oracles by heart.  So, to encourage his fellow Christians in Asia Minor, he relied on this knowledge to let them know that God was watching the terrible events unfolding on Earth and would soon act.  He recalled the 6th chapter of Zechariah where angels were summoned and then were sent from Heaven to view the actions of the peoples of the Earth and report back to God what they saw.

John began (Rev. 5) , as Zechariah did (Zech. 5), by setting up this angelic report with a scene from heaven with a scroll to read.  But in Revelation the living beings around the throne of God broke into worship for Jesus because he was the only one worthy enough in Heaven and Earth to break the wax used to seal the scroll from unintended eyes.

Then Jesus began to break the seals one at a time.  As he broke the first four seals, an announcement was made by one of the four living beings for a colored horse to come into view with a rider on it.  Each rider either had something with him or had something given to him or both as below.

White horse: ο καθημενοϛ επ αυτον εχων τοξον (the one sitting on it had a bow), and

εδοθη αυτω στεφανοϛ (a victory garland was given to him).

Red horse: το καθημενω επ αυτον (the one sitting on it), and

εδοθη αυτω λαβειν την ειρηνην εκ τηϛ γης (taking peace from the Earth was given to him).

Black horse: ο καθημενοϛ επ αυτον εχων ζυγον εν τη χειρι αυτου (the one sitting on it had a measuring cup in his hand).

Pale yellow: ο καθημενοϛ επανω αυτου ονομα αυτω ο θανατοϛ (the one sitting on top of it was named Death), and ο αδηϛ ηκολουθει μετ αυτου (the world of the dead followed him), and

εδοθη αυτοιϛ εξουσια επι το τεταρτον τηϛ γηϛ αποκτειναι εν ρομφαια και εν λιμω και εν θανατω και υπο των θηριων τηϛ γηϛ (power over a fourth of the Earth to end life by sword, famine, death, and wild animals was given to them). 

Zechariah 6 used exactly the same colors of horses and the same number of spirits (living beings) that John used in Revelation.  So, it would be logical to think that the mission of the horses would have been the same, that is, to patrol the Earth.  John needed very much to give Christians hope in their violent, dangerous world.  Some were dying for their faith.  Others were fearful.  Still others were fighting discrimination from the rich or from Jewish communities.  How could he give his "little children," as he called his fellow believers in his letters, the strength to carry on?

Each seal revealed what the horse patrols were reporting as the business of the world - people warring against each other (white horse), people living under the rule of oppressive authorities (red horse), people eeking out a living, enough to eat and stay alive (black horse), and people burying their loved ones due to various causes like hunger, violence, and natural death (pale yellow horse).

Letting them know that the Lamb and the powers of Heaven were reading the angels's sealed reports had to have lifted these Christians's spirits.  The one on the throne and the Lamb were absolutely seeing all the evil that was happening.

A tasty morsel lies in the middle of the passage.  The passage is mainly about what the riders of the horses had or had given to them.  But, in verse 6, associated with the actions of the black horse, a voice rose from the middle of the four living creatures with a message cryptically worded.

Χοινιξ σιτου δηναριου και τρειϛ χοινικεϛ κριθων δηναριου και το ελαιον και τον οινον μη αδικησηϛ (a day's measure of wheat and barley for a day's pay and don't allow the olive oil and wine to ruin).

The meaning of the saying was not given.  But, the four living beings had been doing nothing but singing praise to God in the previous two chapters.  Although the voice was not one of the living beings's voices, it rose from the middle of the beings that were constantly giving God praise and honor. So, the voice rising from their midst had to be most encouraging.  All was not lost.  The fears of the people were heard and the voice among the living beings was proof that God directly heard of his people's simple subsistence.  He would act as surely as he did in the days of Zechariah. Then, he reassembled his people from among the nations after 70 years to rebuild the temple.  During John's time, John was promising God would act in some similar earth-shattering fashion to bring together all the saints as he shows in chapter 7 of Revelation.

 The words Χοινιξ and χοινικεϛ in the message above are great words to use to depict the idea the daily grind. The words are different grammatical forms of the same word and mean the daily measure of grain for bread or cornmeal.  The idea here matches perfectly Jesus's model-prayer request, "Give us today our daily bread." And it matches the modern-day plea of Alcoholics Anonymous to its members, "Live one day at a time."  It's the perfect portrayal that God knows his people were living a day-to-day existence.  Bur, there;s comfort in the portrayal too.  Today, God will take care of me, and sometime soon he will act on the terror against his children.

I  receive this message in the same way that John's original readers received it.  During my life, all of the events reported by the horse riders have been true.  People have warred against each other, and war has touched my family.  I have faced scrutiny by the government and credit companies and background checks and fingerprinting.  I have lived out my simple existence and buried people I loved deeply who died from cancer, dementia, and other diseases.  Life has not been a bed of roses.

Am I looking forward to something magnanimous from God?  You betcha.  I take comfort in knowing that God is watching.  He hears his angels's reports.  He will act.  My days of eating my daily measure of wheat and barley are numbered.  I will get my white robe!  Let the heavens open!!

[For a fuller treatment of the entirety of the scene of the seven seals including the thoughts above about the four horsemen, read Discerning the Seven Sealed Scenes by David Singleton.]

It's about differentiation

Morsels of food are delicious because of the little things, the subtle seasonings, the dash of salt, the sprinkle of garlic, the garnish of parsley, the touch of glaze, or the hint of lemon.  Ahhhh - so delicious!

Sometimes the structure of things throws off what is being said.  And sometimes, the order of things confuses the mind just enough not to make connections.  Deceptive people use both of these ideas to hide information so that people cannot easily see what is being said or done.

When a person tries to understand the organizational patterns or the order of things in a culture long departed from the scene of present time, the result is the same as for deceptive people in modern culture.  The intention of the ancient writers and storytellers was not, however, to confuse and thwart understanding.  The organization was just different, one that matched the expectations of the people of that time.

Ancient literature typically had a design to it so that its recitation by those who would be telling it later could easily recall the contents.  Sometimes, the structure was like modern poetry where part of the design was a rhyme scheme.  But, more often it was some other feature.  Sometimes people remembered a list by stringing the items together with participles, sometimes with relative pronouns, sometimes with conditional correlatives, and sometimes with a parody of a former work.

Since the words of Jesus appear to have been orally transmitted before they were written in the form we see them today, they follow the accepted cultural design for remembering the contents of something in order to perpetuate the message.  The words of Jesus at the outset of his early public appearances as recorded in Matthew 5.21-48 do have a design to them. As one looks at the design it becomes immediately apparent that Jesus directly set himself up as someone in opposition with and totally unaccountable to the Jewish religious authorities and the system of worship and law keeping they had established. In effect, Jesus deliberately started the clock ticking toward the ultimate showdown from the very beginning of his teaching.

Introductions to the main message were necessary in oral transmission.  One had to give a general setting in which to couch the words to follow.  That's what Jesus did on this occasion.  The following is his introduction.  The English text has been translated to reflect the use of the contrastive phrasing found in the Greek text.

Matthew 5.17:

Don't think that I have         come to make     the Law and the Prophets   fall into disuse.

                         I have not  come to make      them                                    fall into disuse,
                  but                              to make     them                               have fuller meaning.

Matthew 5.18:
Even if earth and sky vanish,            not one of   the Law's  smallest nuances of meaning
                            will vanish  until     all of            it                  
                            has happened.

Matthew 5.19:
Whoever dismisses    what he considers to be an insignificant rule   and teaches that to someone
Whoever acts on                                                                  this rule   and teaches it

will himself be considered    insignificant    in the realm where God lives.
will himself be considered    great                in the realm where God lives.

The structure makes it easy to see the contrasts Jesus included.  And, it is these contrasts, these statements of opposition to each other, that set up his own very clear opposition and non-accountability to the established religious system.  His last statement of introduction highlights Jesus's opposition to the establishment's view of keeping the rules of the Law.

λεγω γαρ υμιν οτι εαν μη περισσευση υμων δικαιοσυνη πλειον των γραμματεων και φαρισαιων ου μη εισελθητε εισ την βασιλειαν των ουρανων (Matthew 5.20)

(I'm telling you that if the quality of your actions is not more evident than those schooled in the Law and the Pharisees, you won't have a chance at entering the realm where God lives.)

Jesus's opposition appears at the very beginning of this day of teaching.  He wanted there to be no mistake about the difference between the Son of Man and the two well known groups who were the well-known rule keepers among the Jewish population.  The rule keepers had missed the point of the Law and the Prophets, so Jesus wanted to clear up what the rules were really about, that there were intentions in the minds of people before they acted.  Rules were for keeping people's actions above board while intentions were for keeping people's spirits (their attitudes) cheerful and willing while living decently.

So, in his introduction to his message Jesus singled out the two groups of people most responsible for instilling the erroneous idea that rules were much more important than intentions.  The first group were the γραμματεων, (grammateon) the men schooled in the finest nuances of rule keeping based on the Talmud.  The English word grammarian comes from this word.  People generally have as much respect for the role of grammarians in our modern society as the Jews did for their "Law grammarians."  The second group was the φαρισαιων (Pharisees), generally upper class people and very proud of the way they knew and were able to follow all of the oral traditions of the Talmud.

One apparent contrast in this statement to the people on the hillside came in the form of a comparison between what Jesus taught and what he did and what the two groups identified by him taught and did. He used two words to show this comparison, περισσευση and πλειον.  The first word means to do better than, surpass, or exceed.  The second means more in quantity or in quality.  One can see right away that Jesus made the conscious decision to take on the two most recognized groups known for their piety and precision in rule keeping.  Jesus wanted to establish immediately that the Son of Man, the messiah, didn't rely on rules but intentions, attitudes from the heart, and he didn't need the tedious research, memorization, and finger-pointing in order to know if he himself or others were living decently.  So, he drove his stake in the ground on a principle he repeated throughout his public teaching career: one's actions needed to come from good intentions, more than was evident from the scholars and Pharisees if he or she was planning to set foot in the realm where God is living.

The structure of the teaching that follows further shows a contrast of thought and a design for easy recollection.  Jesus uses a parody of what the two groups have used for years and years - the structure of the Talmud.

You have heard that it was said... (then explaining the verse, then quoting footnotes of famous scholars and rabbis).

Jesus started the "correct and formal" way of teaching (You have heard that it was said), but he differentiated his teaching in the second part, the explanation part.  That's the area in which he substituted the intention of the rules for the parsing of the rules by all the famous scholars and rabbis.  People noticed.  They understood he was both critiquing the current method and giving the messiah's insight to the most important part of Jewish life - acting out the Law and Prophets.

Eating a tasty morsel enters at this point.  The six points that Jesus used in his parody are divided into two groups of three - murder, divorce, adultery (group 1); vows, injustice, and enemies (group 2).  But the two groups are not six random laws.  They are 3 laws that are paired with 3 intentions found in other laws.  Scholars and rule keepers saw laws as being separate from each other.  Jesus saw laws as being interconnected, thus showing that they were related to an intention.  This relationship or interconnection is shown below.

murder > loving enemies             adultery > bearing injustice          divorce > vows               
v. 21        v.43                                v.27          v.38                             v. 31        v.33                
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. 21     You have heard it said... You must not murder anyone.
V. 43     I'm telling you that if you're angry with someone leave your gift for God at the 
             altar and make the matter right.  Then return to offer your gift.

V. 27     You have heard it said... You must not have an affair in your marriage.
V. 38     I'm telling you if you study a woman to want her for yourself, you have already 
             had an affair with her in your heart.

V.31     You  have heard it said... A man should not send his wife away, but should give 
            her a certificate of divorce.
V. 33    I'm telling you that if a man divorces his wife he forces her to have an affair in her 
            marriage unless she is unfaithful to him, and a man who marries a divorced 
            woman is having an affair.

Modern readers are more aware of correlations in the above format, but in the Jewish culture one of the formats for correlating material was called chiasm.  There are many examples of this in the Old Testament.  It's a literary device used as a mnemonic, or easy design from which to recall details.  The structure of a chiasm is the ABCBA reasoning in the lines.  The two statements of A and B are parallel to each other. In the following case, A gives a premise; B gives another thought to further develop the same idea; C names the main idea of the premise.  The following idea comes back to the developmental thought B; A restates the premise.  Psalms 8.1-10 serves as a good example of chiasm.

A     Psalms 8.2-3   Oh Lord, our Lord, how awesome is your name in all the earth.
        B     Psalms 8.4   When I see your heavens, your handiwork, the moon and stars.
                C     Psalms 8.5   What are humans that you are mindful of them?
        B     Psalms 8.6-9   All sheep and oxen, even the beasts of the field.
A   Psalms 8.10   Oh Lord, our Lord, how awesome is your name in all the earth.

This chiastic structure is found in stories, like the story of Noah, and poetry, like Psalms 8, and in many other places.

The Jews were very familiar with the framework.  So when Jesus spoke about laws and intentions, he carefully wove his ideas into a structure easy to understand, remember, and retell.  Jesus couched his remarks in parallel chiastic statements, two parallel thoughts of A, two of B, two of C.  C was the crux of the matter which was the integrity of the person involved.  And Jesus ended this portion of his teaching in just this way: have the same integrity as your father (v. 48).

A     Verse 21   Oral tradition plus explanation - murder
         B     Verse 27   Oral tradition plus explanation - adultery
                 C     Verse 31   Oral tradition plus explanation - divorce
                 C     Verse 33   Oral tradition plus explanation - vows
         B     Verse 38   Oral tradition plus explanation - bearing injustice
A      Verse 43   Oral tradition plus explanation - revenge

Jesus's listeners that afternoon on the hillside received a number of messages as Jesus spoke.  The content was, of course, the main message.  But on top of that, they received his message in a format that they could easily recall; they heard a parody of the style used by those schooled in the Law, thus showing a certain amount of disdain, maybe only disagreement with what the Law had been reduced to; and they heard Jesus call out two groups of people for their lack of understanding of what the Law should produce, that is, people of decent living, not people burdened by rule-keeping.

Followers in the beginning understood that Jesus had set himself apart from the rest of religion.  Followers today understand the very same thing.  Since the time of Jesus, other religions have sprung up around the world.  But, like Jesus did from the very start of his pubic life, followers have learned to differentiate their living from all of the rest of the groups.

Just use your head

Morsels of food are delicious because of the little things, the subtle seasonings, the dash of salt, the sprinkle of garlic, the garnish of parsley, the touch of glaze, or the hint of lemon.  Ahhhh - so delicious!

What exactly would draw me to walk out of my village to spend a day walking 10 miles, listening to a teacher speak on matters of spirituality, and then walking back?  After I had listened to that teacher what would I remember?  What would I tell others?  What would make me go a second time to hear this teacher?

The words of Jesus found in Matthew 5.21-32 illustrate so well what I would have heard, repeated, and remembered.  It would have made me go back for more because I would have known that it was so different from the norm, so different that I would have had to judge it to be authentic or really, really fake.

Before this teacher appeared on the scene, I would have spent many days listening to the rabbis at the synagogue expound on the God of my fathers.  I would have listened to their really lengthy, but well-studied lessons about the Law passed on to us by all of our ancestors.  I would have heard of all of the traditions surrounding particular issues that were problematic in my society.  I would have heard the names of all the enlightened rabbis that had spoken on the subject because the Talmud would have been drilled into my psyche and reinforced every week of my life.  I probably would have wondered, like many, including my heroes of the past, the Maccabees, if a messiah would really come to establish a new Godly empire, and if so, when.

But, then I know my friends would have told me, "You've got to go hear this man.  He's not anything like you have ever heard before.  Really.  Go see him!"

So, I would have ventured out to hear Jesus.  And, I would have heard Jesus say, "ηκουσατε οτι ερρεθη τοις αρχαιοις" (you have heard it said to our ancestors).  I would have tuned out his voice at that point.  "Blah, blah, blah... I thought this was going to be different.  That's because I would have heard synagogue lessons like the following from the Talmud.

Tractate Kethuboth:  Folio 2a, Chapter 1
Mishnah [oral tradition, actual] : The saying is, "A maiden is married on the 4th day of the week and is a widow on the 5th day,"  because twice in the week the courts of justice sit in the towns, the 2nd and 5th days of the week.  If a husband has a claim as to the virginity of his bride, and he marries after the first day of the week, he has to wait until early on the morning of the 5th day of the week to go to the court of justice.

Gemara [rabbinical explanation of the Mishnah above]:
Kethuboth 2a - [paraphrase]
If a man marries on the 1st day of the week, he can go to the court of justice on the 2nd day to present his evidence for his wife not being a virgin.  But if the man marries after the 1st day of the week, he has to wait until the 5th day to present his evidence.  In the meantime, he is supposed to feed his new bride unless she is sick or is in her menstrual cycle.  Feeding her until the 5th day doesn't constitute marriage while he is waiting for the 5th day. Appropriate rabbis were cited.)

Kethuboth 2b, paragraph 2 - [actual, but partial, with rabbinical footnotes (fn)]
And with regard to divorce, it is not so (fn: An accident does not invalidate a divorce).  Accordingly, Raba holds that an accident is no plea in regard to divorce (fn: literally, "there is no accident with divorce).  Whence does Raba get this rule?  Shall I say from what we have learned: behold this is your bill of divorce if I don't return from now until 12 months (fn: These words the husband says to the wife. "From now until 12 months" means "within 12 months") and he died within 12  months, there is no divorce (fn: It is not the equivalent of a writ of divorce, that is, the divorce does not take effect).  If he died, there is no divorce (fn: because there can be no divorce after death),but if he became ill (fn: And he could not return within 12 months due to his illness), there is a divorce (fn: Which proves that we do not admit a plea of force majeure to invalidate a writ of divorce)....  Perhaps our teachers are excluded from this (fn: From the view of our teachers.  If this is the object of the Mishna of Cit. 76b, Raba cannot deduce from this Mishnah that if the husband became ill, the divorce took effect.  Also in the mishnah quoted by Rabbi Ahai).  For it has been taught: Our teachers allowed her to be married again (fn: "our teachers" regard her as divorced {against the Mishnah}and allow her to marry again without "halizah" {the ceremony of a brother taking off a shoe}.  If she is regarded as a widow and she has no children, she requires halizah before she can remarry).  And we said, "Who are 'our teachers?'" Rab Judah said that Samuel said that the court allowed the oil of the heathen.  They (fn: The members of the Court of Justice) hold like Rabbi Jose who said, "The date of the document shows it."....

"Yeah, I've heard enough of what was said to the ancestors," I would have thought.

I hope that I wouldn't have left, however.  Because if I had stayed, I would have listened to something very different.  It would have been refreshingly simple, memorably succinct, and unbelievably sensible.  I would have heard:

ηκουσατε οτι ερρεθη ου μοιχευσεις 

(You have heard it was said not to have an affair in your marriage) [Exodus 20.14].

εγω δε λεγω υμιν οτι πας ο βλεπων γυναικα προς το επιθυμησαι αυτην ηδη εμοιχευσεν αυτην εν τη καρδια αυτου
(I'm telling you if you study a woman to want her for yourself, you have already had an affair with her in your heart).

Now that was short and sweet.  It was the 7th commandment reworded for understanding and masterfully combined with the 10th commandment about επιθυμησαι (wanting your neighbor's wife for yourself). Simply brilliant!

But there was a little more.  Jesus had appealed to one's sense of reason.  No mishnah, no gemara, no reference to esteemed past or present rabbis, just a simple a appeal to a person's reason.

ει δε ο οφθαλμος σου ο δεξιος σκανδαλιζει σε εξελε αυτον και βαλε απο σου συμφερει γαρ σοι ινα αποληται εν των  μελων σου και με ολον το σωμα σου βληθη εις γεενναν

(If your dominant eye is causing you trouble, remove it and dispose of it.  It is much better to lose only a part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into the despicable dump of the Valley of Hinnom).

και ει η δεξια σου χαιρ σκανδαλιζει σε εκκοψον αυτην και βαλε απο σου συμφερει γαρ σοι ινα αποληται εν των  μελων σου και με ολον το σωμα σου εις γεενναν απελθη

(And if your favored hand is causing you trouble, cut it off and dispose of it.  It is much better to lose only a part of your body than for life to depart your body in the despicable dump of the Valley of Hinnom.)

So logical, but also a challenge.  It's not easy to end something before it grows to be much worse at a later time.  Better a mistake than a downfall.  But, even so, it's hard to do.

There's a really tasty morsel at this point.  Jesus's term for where a person's body was to be thrown was the horrid Valley of Hinnom.  The events that happened there are recorded in three places in the Old Testament (2 Kings 23.10; 2 Chronicles 28.3, 33.6; Jeremiah 7.31-32, 19.2-6, 32.35).  γεενναν (gehenna) was the Greek word.  In Jesus's time the Valley of Hinnom, Gehenna, was a trash dump where refuse was brought to be burned along with animal carcasses.  Jesus probably had both meanings in mind when he spoke to the people on the hillside this fair day, what happened in the place in Israel's history and the current function of the place as a dump ground.

The whole point of the comparison was about the specific issue of divorce.  Jesus's teaching seemed to have three applications to it.  First, marriages would have no problem if the partners didn't look for love in all the wrong places.  The 10th commandment told a person not επιθυμησαι (to want his neighbor's wife for his own), or covet his neighbor's wife.  It was a matter of a person's heart being in the right place.

The 2015  Country Music Awards Song of the Year illustrates very well what is meant by επιθυμησαι.  If the thoughts of this song are running through a man's mind when he sees another woman, then the rest of Jesus's advice about the eye and hand might apply.

Second, marriages don't usually survive if cheating is going on.  So, divorce can be avoided altogether by stopping a cheating heart before a truly unconquerable problem arises. Divorce shows a heart problem.  And third, that heart problem leads to actions that cause people to face dire choices after two people split on the order of the decisions made long ago at the despicable fires of γεενναν (gehenna), a place of putrid smells.  An affair would indicate this black heart.  One's marriage would be lost probably, one's status in the community would be lost, one's relationship with his or her children would be lost.  One's integrity would be lost (linking this idea to verse 48).  It was simple.  Don't let it happen.

On the hillside that afternoon, I would have heard this refreshingly simple, succinct, and sensible teaching along with others.  I know I would have been impressed, given the laborious, ever-so-tedious recitation of the Talmud that took place in the synagogues.  I would have gone back for more occasions of this kind of teaching.  I would have followed the reports of this teacher as he made his way around the countryside.

That's what I would have done.  But, I have to measure that against what I am actually doing today, 2000 years removed from the time speculated about.  Jesus's teachings still amaze me.  They are still simple, succinct, and sensible.  They form the basis for my heart condition today.  I have learned that life is not about the tedium of study but about the color of my heart - black or white.

Could it be - the messiah?

Morsels of food are delicious because of the little things, the subtle seasonings, the dash of salt, the sprinkle of garlic, the garnish of parsley, the touch of glaze, or the hint of lemon.  Ahhhh - so delicious!

From the beginning of the time Jesus chose to start his public teaching and healing, he established that he was the expected messiah.  He spoke of his father as if he had been in his presence talking to him.  He called himself by a title, the Son of Man, that clearly identified him as the one whom the Jews were expecting to lead them into a new earthly empire (as opposed to the Roman Empire and the Greek empire before that).  But what the people remembered most clearly about his teachings, and the reason so many went to the hills to hear him speak, was the way Jesus distinguished himself from the way the Law was taught and practiced.  To the everyday people, Jesus stood apart from the rabbis and the religious sects that had grown up in Judaism.

Matthew (5.17-48) records the way Jesus presented himself to the everyday people with six verse viewpoints that immediately followed the μακαριοι sayings.  These viewpoints were easy to remember because they resembled the rabbis's teachings.  Given the nuances that can be seen in some of the language used, it would appear that Jesus was using a well known form but with great irony so that the people could see how simple and sensible the Law really was.  The people admired Jesus at first because he was refreshingly so different in his view of how the Old Testament was to be practiced.  As time went on, many decided that he was indeed the messiah.  And as more time passed, people understood that Jesus was also saying he was the Almighty's son.  But, this last part wasn't so distinguishable as Jesus spoke this one afternoon on the side of a hill to people who had gathered to see him.

Jesus began with what makes one favored in his father's sight, then ventured into the idea that merely following rules wasn't the Law's intent.  The Law's intent was to show people how they should think about life's circumstances.  It was to show them where their hearts should be centered so that the decency of their actions could be seen.  The sayings themselves were not designed to be law replacements but were explanations using a style that rabbis were in the habit of using.  The explanations showed the spirit of the Law succinctly and plainly.

Jesus was very clear about his position and purpose concerning the Law and the Prophets.

μη νομισητε οτι ηλθον καταλυσαι τον νομον η τους προφητας 

                  ουκ ηλθον καταλυσαι αλλα πληρωσαι

(Don't think that I have come to make the Law and the Prophets fall into disuse.

                           I have not come to make them fall into disuse, rather to make them have                             fuller meaning.)

εως αν παρελθη ο ουρανος και η γη ιωτα εν η μια κεραια 
  ου μη παρελθη απο του νομου εως αν παντα γενηται
(Even if earth and sky vanish, not one of the Law's smallest nuances of meaning
                             will vanish until it has all happened.)

Of course, Jesus knew his purpose as messiah was to usher in the beginning of a new age, ending the age of the Old Covenant, so he felt free to give the Law proper tribute and prepare them for the age of the messiah.  With great ease he used the familiar form of instruction the rabbis used to organize their teachings.  He chose five points of the Law to give fuller meaning to.  He started with quoting them, then clearly associating them with the condition of one's heart while acting on the point.

Jesus spoke:

You have heard it was said to our ancestors, "Don't murder.  If you do, you're accountable for your sentence."  I'm telling you if you make another person mad at you, you're accountable for a sentence.  If you call someone a libelous term, you're accountable to the high court.  And if you tell someone they don't have the mental capacity to deal with a situation, you're accountable to the Valley of Hinnom's fire of atrocity." (Matthew 5.21,22)

Six times Jesus quoted the Law.  Six times he told of a person's heart condition so that the people could see the underlying sense of the Law rather than the drudgery of doing what it said.

ηκουσατε οτι ερρεθη… εγω δε λεγω υμιν 
(You have heard it was said... I'm telling you.)

1) Verse 21 - You have heard it was said to our ancestors... (Exodus 20.13)
    Verse 22 - I'm telling you that...
2) Verse 27 - You have heard it was said... (Exodus 20.14)

    Verse 28 - I'm telling you that...
3) Verse 31 - It was said... (Deuteronomy 24.1)
    Verse 32 - I'm telling you that...
4) Verse 33 - You have heard it was said to our ancestors... (Numbers 30.2)
    Verse 34 - I'm telling you...
5) Verse 38 - You have heard it was said... (Exodus 21.24, Leviticus 24.20,
                  Deuteronomy 19.21)
    Verse 38 - I'm telling you...
6) Verse 43 - You have heard it was said... (Leviticus 19.18)
    Verse 44 - I'm telling you...

Jesus gave the everyday people a really clear sign that he was not a part of the business-as-usual crowd of the power establishment.  His manner of "scripture" presentation was accompanied with such a manner of ease it seemed irreverent.  The rabbis had created a "holy" aura surrounding the handling of scripture.  The two presentation styles were so different the people had to have been curious to see how well this new teacher would hold his own.  Jesus had no schooling in the rabbinic tradition to know the Law so well.  Yet he did.  He handled the verses with such facility and poignant application, it was as if he had been alive when it was written.  As the people listened on this afternoon, I'm sure that several thoughts crossed their minds, "How could this young man teach as if he had been a rabbi all his life.  How did he know what the intent of the Law was so well?  Am I a sucker to think he is the messiah?"

Another stylistic comparison jumped out at the people.  There was a certain style the rabbis had of explaining the Talmud.  I as a gentile reader haven't always had the appreciation that Jews have had for the Talmud.  The Talmud included the Old Testament verses, but also included the oral traditions that had grown up around the Old Testament.  These oral traditions, too, had been written down, so one could refer to the written text of the Old Testament, the explanation of the current rabbis, and the written record of oral traditions of rabbis from years before.  This latter had a particular form.  Many times it would begin with "You have heard it said..." with an explanation to follow.  It was customary for former rabbis to be quoted.  But if not, a set of footnotes followed to show how the rabbis had arrived at the conclusions of their explanations over the years.  An example of such a style is linked here.  There are labels for the different sections, but it is the style that is important, not the names of the various sections.

The people noticed the difference between this careful, meticulous, rabbinic style and Jesus's non-meticulous, off-the-cuff style.  Jesus taught in the hills and valleys, in places with no walls and roofs not mostly in the synagogues.  On the occasions Jesus did teach in town synagogues, it was in various places as a guest speaker, not in a specific place so that he could build a reputation there.  Jesus taught with no preparation for his comments (How did he do that?) rather than poring over a verse to see what had been written about it for years and years.  Jesus referred to his own thinking, not the thinking of other current or past rabbis.  The people loved Jesus for this.  They came to hear him because his reputation had preceded him.  Even people from Jerusalem had heard from northern Galilean Jews that the messiah had come, so they too were drifting up to see for themselves.

In the verses here there are two tasty morsels - one at the beginning, one at the end.  Jesus began two of the six explanations with,  ηκουσατε οτι ερρεθη τοις αρχαιοις (You have heard it said to our ancestors). The word for ancestors,  αρχαιοις, was a pun.  Other Greek documents used the word to refer to something that was worn out and ready for something new.  Assuming that people understood the pun, they knew the primary meaning of "ancestors," but they also understood that Jesus was saying, "You have heard this worn out oral tradition...."  You have to love Jesus for being so plain spoken and subtly trying to ready the people for the new age.  Even if the pun was not a part of the phrasing in the Aramaic that Jesus spoke, Jesus's later followers used the Greek language to apply the pun.

In addition, Jesus had begun this portion of his sayings with people's behavior.  But, his teaching ended with a note about the "father's" behavior.  The use of the term "father" was Jesus's trademark difference from the teaching of the rabbis about the Almighty of the Talmud.  Who would dare to refer to God so flippantly?  Of course, Jesus didn't make it flippant, those steeped in oral tradition made it flippant.  Jesus used "father" to show that God was still very present in his children's lives, the everyday people's lives, whose taste of God came from traditions of the Talmud, which was often viewed as oppressive and distant.  They needed to hear from the messiah, if so he was, that God was not only the God of the ancestors but a God who was familiar with them too.

So Jesus ends with a note about their father:

εσεσθη ουν υμεις τελειοι ως ο πατηρ υμων ο ουρανιος τελειος εστιν

(So have intergrity of your father in heaven.)

This last word of these six explanations about people's behavior derived from the principle of verse 45, God's behavior, and God's behavior was highlighted with the word "integrity."  God's integrity was unmistakable because he sent his rain on good and evil people alike, and allowed his sun to rise on decent and indecent people alike.  The part with a pun was the word for integrity, τελειος.  It also meant maturity .  It's as if Jesus was also saying that he just outlined for everyone what adults do, not children.  They should just behave decently.  That's how adults act in a mature world.  Rules were made to help people mature.  When they grow up, then they act from the knowledge of the right thing to do.

People were hoping for a messiah.  People were ready for a messiah.  Their faith was worn out.  Jesus was the messiah, bringing his people to a new age.  They would live together in harmony and with integrity.  They would act from good hearts and their father would smile on them favorably.  The first followers felt relieved that Jesus, the messiah had finally come.  I am sure they would have raised their voices to sing the following song with all of us whose hearts need a shock treatment because our faith is worn out.