A Passage People Rush Through - Matthew 23:1-12

Today's passage isn't really considered deep from a study perspective - there are minimal analogies and Biblical history involved, nothing that demands digging into original languages, and no prophetic elements.  However, from the viewpoint of personal application, there is an abundance of critical information here.  I mean, think about it - if the God of the universe says something is important enough to go in His Book, we should pay attention, right? ;-)  Anyway, because of the nature of this passage, I recommend that you read this post at a time when you're not rushed so that you can reflect on your own heart along the way.  I prompt these private reflections in green lettering.

Let's dive in! :-)

 

 

1 Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples,

 

2 saying: "The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses;

 

3 therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them.

 

"Seating themselves in the chair of Moses" is a way of saying that these religious leaders were trying to get others to recognize them with the ultimate status, prestige, and authority.  To put this in modern terms, it's someone putting himself in the chair of the Pope or Billy Graham.

 

In what ways do you seek to be above any others, whether that be in status/prestige or in authority over them?

 

These religious leaders were also hypocrites, demanding that others obey enormous sets of rules that they themselves couldn't even follow.

 

Are there things you judge other people for doing, yet also struggle with yourself?  Or, is your issue comparing sins - thinking that what you do wrong is "less bad" than what others do?

 

In this case, Jesus told the listeners to follow the teachings of the religious leaders, I think likely because of the reasons Paul referenced in 1 Corinthians 8, limiting the freedom in Christ you know you are entitled to so you don't offend others.  (There may be other reasons in this specific case, as well.)  But motivation is key here - we don't want to become just like the Pharisees in the process!  So, we should constantly keep humility at the forefront of our minds.

 

Are there situations where you've gone along with something you considered legalistic or unnecessarily restrictive to avoid offending people, then began to get comfortable with it and expect others to live the same way?  (I'm not talking about things that really were wrong to begin with and you came to learn that.)

 

4 "They tie up heavy burdens and lay them on men's shoulders, but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger.

 

We've already talked about the hypocritical legalism aspect of this, but another application to modern life I've seen has to do with effort.  I've seen situations where some people look like they're really involved in a ministry or project, but really just be organizing and delegating.  Now, sometimes, this can be a genuine manifestation of the gift of administration, but other times, it can be a very, very bad thing where someone wants all the credit for doing little of the work.

 

Does what I've said above strike a chord with any aspect of your life?

 

5 "But they do all their deeds to be noticed by men; for they broaden their phylacteries and lengthen the tassels of their garments.

 

Phylacteries and tassels were both accessories to religious garb in Ancient Israel (they're still used by some Jewish sects).  So, big phylacteries and long tassels both said "Look how religious I am!" in two ways: They were more cumbersome, making the wearer look more sacrificial, and their size simply drew the eye.

 

Although the specifics have changed, this problem still runs rampant in the Church today.  Sometimes a person who doesn't normally wear a cross necklace for themselves will suddenly wear one just to look extra religious for others.  Or someone who rarely prays to God on their own will be asked to pray over a meal on a religious holiday and go over-the-top with something more like a KJV-stylized speech than a conversation with God.  Of course, there are many, many more manifestations of this.

 

Matthew 6:1-6 has much to say about this topic, as well.

 

What aspects that you associate with your faith would you not do if no one else was around and it was just you and God?

 

6 "They love the place of honor at banquets and the chief seats in the synagogues,

 

7 and respectful greetings in the market places, and being called Rabbi by men.

 

8 "But do not be called Rabbi; for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers.

 

9 "Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven."

 

Once again, this is far too applicable to the modern Church!  I cringe when I hear a religious leader insist on being called "Reverend so-and-so" or "Pastor so-and-so" or "Dr. so-and-so."  Someone in this person's congregation choosing to call them "Pastor so-and-so" doesn't  normally strike me as an issue, since it's naming their spiritual gift and the leader himself did not request to be called that - but in virtually any other situation, I see it as flying in the face of these verses.

 

Even calling a pastor "Pastor so-and-so" doesn't sit totally okay with me if it's prevalent in a congregation, but for another reason: the clergy-laity divide.  Basically, I don't like anything that separates the "official" clergy/ministry team/whatever you want to call it from what is considered the congregation.  We all have spiritual gifts, and are all intended to use them at church gatherings, so the concept of official clergy is highly unbiblical (see my extensive exploration of spiritual gifts here) (verses 8-9 get at the fact that all believers are equal, as well).  So, if we call someone with the gift of pastoring "Pastor so-and-so," should we call someone with the gift of celibacy "Celibate so-and-so" or the gift of poverty "Willingly-Poor so-and-so" or the gift of tongues "Tongues-er so-and-so"???  But anyway... :-)  This paragraph is more my views that I base on the Bible, and is not something I'm claiming to be taught directly in Scripture.

 

If you're involved in some sort of ministry, do you make a point to mention that as part of your identity when meeting people, or love it when other people bring that up?

 

(One little side-note about verse 9: That's not saying you can't call your dad "Dad," or even that you can't consider the person you brought you to Christ your "father/mother in the faith" - Paul calls Timothy his son, for example.  But what this is getting at is elevating some religious leader to an overly high status, so that it becomes a form of idolatry.)

 

11 "But the greatest among you shall be your servant.

 

12 "Whoever exalts himself shall be humbled; and whoever humbles himself shall be exalted.

 

These final verses are a message we have heard over and over and over and over in Matthew.  That repetition reveals that it's a major issue!  And the many times we've encountered it through Matthew in multiple different contexts, and have seen multiple modern parallels to those contexts, further demonstrates how critical it is to constantly keep this in mind.

 

 

Image credit: "The Synagogue in Florence, Italy" by Toksave.  Wikipedia.  Used by permission.

Eternal Life How-to: Matthew 19:16-26

The Scripture

 

16 And someone came to Him and said, "Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may obtain eternal life?"

 

17 And He said to him, "Why are you asking Me about what is good?  There is only One who is good; but if you wish to enter into eternal life, keep the commandments."

 

18 Then he said to Him, "Which ones?"  And Jesus said, "YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER; YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY; YOU SHALL NOT STEAL; YOU SHALL NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS;

 

19 HONOR YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER, and YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF."

 

20 The young man said to Him, "All these things I have kept; what am I still lacking?"

 

21 Jesus said to him, "If you wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me."

 

22 But when the young man heard this statement, he went away grieving; for he was one who owned much property.

 

23 And Jesus said to His disciples, "Truly I say to you, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.

 

24 "Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

 

25 When the disciples heard this, they were very astonished and said, "Then who can be saved?"

 

26 And looking at them Jesus said to them, "With people this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."

 

Brief Notes on the Approach to This Study

 

I know that for people who have been Christians for a while, they've heard this story over and over.  But stick around - I hope we'll all walk away with some new nuggets from this important story. :-)

 

Also, sometimes I approach a passage topically, with neatly organized notes separated out based on what's related to what.  For this passage, it's framing itself out chronologically in my mind, so that's what you'll find below. :-)

 

What Good Thing Shall I Do...

 

From our perspective where we know that eternal life is the result of accepting Christ's forgiveness, not earning it through good works, this man approaches Jesus with the absolute wrongest question.  But - he is indeed seeking the Truth...and Jesus answers him.  This tells me two things about our God: (1) God wants humans to come to know Him so much - no matter how far away a person is from Him, if that person seeks the Truth even the slightest bit, God will reveal Himself to him/her.  (2) We can apply this after we are saved, as well: We can come to Christ any time with any question about His will or His truth and ask Him to reveal the answer to us, and if we pay attention to the various ways He speaks to us (Bible verses/passages, life circumstances, spiritual insight/"words" from mature beleivers, "speaking" to us in our hearts, etc.), we will find that He is answering.

 

The first part of verse 17 has been taken ways.  We know from the rest of the Bible that Jesus is God, so in saying that only God is good here, He is not denying being God (see this fantastic list of Bible verses declaring Jesus to be God).  So, what's Jesus saying here?  I interpret it as Him saying it sort of tongue-in-cheek.  He is pointing out what the man is either unwilling to admit verbally or perhaps even to himself - that he truly believes that the "Teacher" he questions is God, the Messiah.

 

Now, Jesus's answer, at face value, appears as if He's telling the man that he really can achieve eternal life by living a perfect life - but we know that to be impossible.  Note also that this is not an exhaustive list of all that's required - He's giving examles representative of the Mosaic Law.  But the point of this list is get to the final item, "love your neighbor as yourself," which sticks out like a sore thumb because it's the only one on that list that's not part of the ten commandments, one of the two most important ones (because loving God and loving others have to do with motives, not rules), and, most importantly for our discussion, it was the commandment this man had failed at!

 

I highly doubt that this man really had managed to keep the commandments - I think he was probably pretty self-disillusioned.  But, regardless, Jesus focuses on his biggest problem: He was selfish, treating money like an idol and neglecting the poor.  But there are two points to this story - the first is salvation through grace alone, and the second is not that we need to donate our stuff to charity.  The point is that we all have that one thing that battles with Christ for holding first place in our lives.  For you or me, it may be popularity, reputation, a sense of control over your life, a particular relationship, a pasttime, a lifestyle, whatever.  But if Christ is truly our Lord, we need to be willing to give that up for Him and obey His simple call to "Follow Me!"

 

At the same time, however, I think money is quite a common idol for many people, especially in America, so I don't want to gloss over the seriousness of that facet.  I'd like to challenge us all to take a deeper look at how much we value money in our lives.  What do we spend it on?  Do we spend any on what God asks of us?  How much time do we spend obtaining more money?  How much time do we spend serving and getting to know God?  How much time do we spend longing for more money?  How much time do we spend thinking about God?  What do these answers reveal about how our love of money compares to our love of God?

 

Finally, Jesus's brief analogy about the camel tells us two things.  First, it is a reiterration that it is God's forgiveness, not our good works, that grant us salvation from our sins.  Second, it demonstrates that God can forgive absolutely any sin - no person, no matter what they have done, is beyond God's grace.

 

If you haven't accepted God's forgiveness and would like to, click here to find out how in English or here in your own language.

 

Questions for You

 

What have you asked God to reveal to you?  What did He reveal?

 

What "one thing" that competes with Christ for lordship in your life causes you the most difficulty?  How has God helped you in making progress to conquer it?

 

Image Citations

 

Number One: Chinese depiction of Jesus and the rich man.  Wikipedia, uploaded by Ai.kefu.  {{PD-ART}} Public domain in source country and the United States.

 

Number Two: Bimarin Casket.  Wikipedia, used by permission.



Correction and the Number Two: Matthew 18:15-20

Correcting a Fellow Christian

 

15 "If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother.

 

16 "But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that BY THE MOUTH OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES EVERY FACT MAY BE CONFIRMED.

 

17 "If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

 

18 "Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven."

A lot of church-goers in American society think that you should never take another believer aside and point out something they're doing that's sinful or may appear sinful to others because to do so would be "judging them," which we are clearly instructed against.  But it all comes down to your heart, motivation, and how you handle the situation.  Judging would mean thinking less of them or more of yourself, or making assumptions about their overall state based on that behavior.  But when you lovingly correct a believer, your motivation is to help them get back on track with Christ.  In that regard, correcting them is an act of extreme love.

 

The ideal way such a situation can turn out is one-on-one.  If it works, it doesn't spread to others who might engage in judgmentalism, and the person repents immediately.  We are given instructions on what manner we are to do this in:

 

Galatians 6:1

Brethren, even if anyone is caught in any trespass, you who are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness; each one looking to yourself, so that you too will not be tempted [presumably tempted to judge or join in the behavior].

 

2 Thessalonians 3:15

Yet do not regard him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.

 

Also note that this isn't about a sin they openly acknowledge they're struggling with; it's something they're either perhaps unaware of or choosing to not take action to rectify.  However, if they're struggling with it, you might offer help, guidance and prayer in helping them improve - especially if their sin is causing problems for other believers.

 

If the person doesn't listen to you, bring one or two other solid Christians who you know won't gossip, will approach the correction with the right heart (as outlined above), know the person well, love the person as a brother/sister in Christ, and have witnessed the sinful behavior or a strong indication of the sinful behavior.  The point to this is that if the person didn't respect your opinion or thought you didn't know what you were talking about, hearing it from more than one person might convince them of the truth.

 

If the person still chooses to continue in that sin, bring it before the Church.  I would personally suggest handling this by bringing it before the clergy first.  They can choose if it's wiser to approach the sinful person as representatives of the congregation or bring it before the whole congregation itself (this way, it doesn't spiral out of control into gossip).  I think the clergy, as the spiritual leaders, should definitely be involved in this process to at least some degree.  One reason the leaders may choose to bring it before the entire congregation is outlined in 1 Timothy 5:20: Those who continue in sin, rebuke in the presence of all, so that the rest will also be fearful of sinning.  It's a reminder of the seriousness of sin.

 

So what's the punishment?  They are kicked out of the church, excommunicated, removed from fellowship.  If they are not living as a follower of Christ, they cannot fellowship with followers of Christ.  This is precisely what the bit about Gentile and tax collector means (because the Jews did not associate with those groups), and what the whole "binding and loosing" refers to (we did a giant study on that one phrase; check it out here if you don't remember it).  2 Thessalonians 3:14 tells us, "If anyone does not obey our instruction in this letter, take special note of that person and do not associate with him, so that he will be put to shame."  This type of church discipline is partly to protect the others in the flock, but it also still has the objective of drawing the person to repentance - because not being able to fellowship will demonstrate to them the seriousness of their sin and how they cannot possibly be right because everyone else agrees that they are wrong.  Once it's apparent that they have genuinely repented, they are to be welcomed back wholeheartedly into fellowship!  2 Corinthians 2:6-11 is emphatic about this point.

 

So far we've focused on how to correct another, but it should also be noted that this is a lesson for how we should respond when another believer corrects us!!!  I have been both a corrector and a correctee - it's healthy!  We shouldn't be so focused on learning the correct procedure to correct another that we don't realize we will be on the other end at times.

 

Are there exceptions?  Yes, perhaps.  For example, Titus 3:10-11 takes a particularly strong stance on those who cause division within the church.  And while 1 Timothy 5:19 requires multiple witnesses to a church elder's sin in order for there to be discipline, the power of passages such as 2 Peter 2:1 and Revelation 2:18-29 makes it seem as if false/heretical teachers/leaders should be dealt with swiftly and definitively for the protection of the flock (which means you must determine the line between a leader being a heretic and a leader being in sin).  I would suggest approaching any such situation with prayer, reliance on the Holy Spirit's guidance, and the advice of a trusted spiritual leader.

 

Two or Three, Two or Three

 

19 "Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven.

 

20 "For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst."

 

Some people will try to take verse 19 as an absolute promise that they can "claim" to manipulate/force God to do whatever they want - like make them rich, or heal them of cancer.  But we must look at the context: The verses before it are clearly referring to a situation in which a group of Christians are fully tapped into the Holy Spirit and actively seeking God's will.  The fact that they are gathered together in Jesus's name (verse 20), a phrase which (in the original Greek) communicates living as He did and seeking His will, makes it explicitly clear that what is "asked" in that situation is in alignment with God's will.  The word for ask is also aiteo, or "request," so it's spoken with the right attitude, not as a way to try to force God into anything.  So, with all that clarifying out of the way, what is the actual point of the statement?  That when Christians actively seek God's will together, He will absolutely, positively bless their efforts.

 

Finally, verse 20's statement that God is in our midst when 2-3 Christians are gathered together does not mean that He isn't with each one of us all the time.  We know that when we accept Jesus as our Lord and Savior, the Holy Spirit comes to live in us, and that God has promised to never leave us.  So, what this refers to is that special presence where the Holy Spirit is especially heavy to the point that you can sometimes even feel it.  When believers are gathered together to seek His will, that extra presence will abide!

 

Questions for You

 

Have you been in a situation where you corrected or were corrected by another believer?  Was the situation handled well, as outlined above?  What was the correctee's response?

 

Do you have any other comments, insights, Scripture references, opinions, or life experiences to add to our discussion?  Or any questions?

 

Leave 'em below. :-)

 

Giving Credit Where It's Due

 

Image: A Women's Bible Study on the USS John F. Kennedy, by Photographer's Mate 3rd Class Chris Weibull.  Wikipedia.  Public domain in the United States.

Tackling Binding and Loosing - Matthew 16:15-19 (and 18:15-19)

The Scripture Passages

 

In our last study post, we arrived at the point where Jesus mentions the issue the American Church knows as "binding and loosing."  I saved the topic for its own post because it is a very complex, important issue to address.  It is only mentioned twice in Scripture, both in Matthew; we will look at both of those occurences, along with some surrounding verses to provide context (which is critical for their interpretation).  Like some other sayings of Jesus that appear multiple times, this phrase can have multiple different (albiet related) meanings in different contexts.

 

Matthew 16:

 

15 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"

 

16 Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."

 

17 And Jesus said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.

 

18 "I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.

 

19 "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven."

 

Matthew 18:

 

15 "If your brother sins, go and who him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother.

 

16 "But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that BY THE MOUTH OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES EVERY FACT MAY BE CONFIRMED.

 

17 "If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

 

18 "I truly say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.

 

19 "Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything that theyu may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven."

 

The Controversy

 

Different denominations, doctrinal groups, and scholars interpret the issue of binding and loosing to mean many different things.  What follows will be my personal view on the matter, a view backed up by two solid Bible teachers whom I trust.  However, I do not stand as firm on this issue as I do many of my other stances precisely because there are so many views, and so little Scriptural material from which to derive and understanding of this matter.

 

One interpretation of "binding and loosing" that I do stand against with firmness is the idea that every time a believer is tempted to do something, he can "bind Satan" for tempting him.  There are multiple Scriptural and logical flaws with this:  (1) Satan will not be "bound" until Revelation 20, at the end of the Tribulation; (2) if Christians have to keep binding him, clearly he keeps getting free...so clearly, it doesn't work and is not backed up by God's authority by which he grants Christians power to command demons; and, (3) it ignores that fact that, in addition to being tempted by Satan and his demons, we are also tempted by our own fleshly natures and by the world (Matthew 13:22, 1 Corinthians 2:12, Galatians 4:3, Ephesians 6:12, etc.).  I think this practice also has the negative consequences of denying personal responsibility, distracing Christians from God because they're obsessed with the demonic realm, and damaging Christians' witness to unbelievers since it appears "crazy."

 

That said, however, again, what follows now is very much just my view on binding and loosing.  Everything I post on this blog except the core of the Gospel I identify as my opinion, but this matter I am less firm in my stance than other issues.

 

Yay, Grammar (but it's Important)!

 

I really like how the NASB translates these verses, because rendering the verb tenses correctly, even at the cost of easy readability, is imperative when it comes to this matter's interpretation.  Let's look at Young's Literal Translation (which stives for pure literalness, not readability at all), and then a modern rendering of it from another Bible teacher I trust:

 

...whatever thou mayest bind upon the earth shall be having been bound in the heavens, and whatever thou mayest loose upon the earth shall be having been loosed in the heavens.

 

...whatever you shall bind on earth shall have been bound already in heaven, and whatever you shall loose on earth shall have been loosed already in heaven.

 

Now, let's look in the original Greek:

"Bind" is deo, meaning to bind or forbid.

"Loose" is luo, meaning to loose or allow or destroy.

So that gives us:

 

...whatever you shall bind/forbid on earth shall have been bound/forbade already in heaven, and whatever you shall loose/allow/destroy on earth shall have been loosed/allowed/destroyed already in heaven.

 

And finally circling back to interpreting our Scripture passages... :-)

 

Matthew 16

 

As we discussed last time in a bit more detail, Jesus was stating that Peter's faith was remarkable, that that type of faith would be the basis of Christianity, and also that Peter would be a Church leader.  That genuine type of faith would never be overcome by the devil.

 

In Matthew 16, I believe binding and loosing refers to Jesus transfering His authority and backing to those with Peter's faith in their witnessing efforts - basically, He's saying He is pleased with that faith, and was planning to use it to further His kingdom.  Where do I get this?  Context, and a whole lot of verses using the same wording, such as these examples:

 

Acts 2:24 KJV

God has raised up, having loosed the pains of death.

 

Psalm 147:3

He heals the brokenhearted and binds up their wounds.

 

Ezekiel 34:16

I will seek the lost, bring back the scattered, bind up the broken and strengthen the sick.

 

So, God is the ultimate One who looses pains, cords, chains, etc., allowing them to go free, and binds  up their wounds, forbidding their sin to rule them.  With the literal renderings of today's verses, He has already done these, but will use us to accomplish that on earth.

 

Matthew 18

 

In Matthew 18, the context is about Church discipline - if you see a Christian living in sin (not struggling with it - living in it), you're to approach him about in alone first; if he doesn't repent, bring a couple other solid believers with you, and if he doesn't repent after that, bring the matter before the Chruch (not in a gossippy manner - with the American Church setup, I personally, generally recommend bringing the matter to the Church leadership, who can bring the manner before the Church in a more controlled manner than a layperson can).  If he doesn't repent even then, fellowship is cut off (he's "excommunicated" - no longer treated as a believer).  This process is outlined repeatedly in the New Testament.

 

Forbidding and allowing obviously fit in here, pertaining to partaking of fellowship with other believers - you allow or forbid them to continue fellowshipping with believers.  So, this variation of the same issue is that when God cuts off His own relationship with someone because they openly reject him by unabashedly living in unrepentant sin, He gives His Church the authority to cut off fellowship as well, and when He has a relationship with someone, the Church is to welcome them as well.

 

Tying Them Together

 

So, binding and loosing in both Matthew 16 and 18 are different variations of the exact same issue: When God creates or cuts off a relationship with a human, He gives authority to His followers to manifest physically/on this Earth what He's already done.

 

Questions for You

 

That's my take - but what are your thoughts?  I want to know! :-)

 

Or, if you haven't really thought about this issue before (because, admittedly, the verses are a bit easy to gloss over in reading), was there anything I didn't make clear?

The Predictable and the Unprecendented: Matthew 14:1-14

The Crime Scene

1 At that time Herod the tetrarch heard the news about Jesus,

2 and said to his servants, "This is John the Baptist; he has risen from the dead, and that is why miraculous powers are at work in him."

3 For when Herod had John arrested, he bound him and put him in prison because of Herodias, the wife of his brother Philip.

4 For John had been saying to him, "It is not lawful for you to leave her."

5 Although Herod wanted to put him to death, he feared the crowd, because they regarded John as a prophet.

6 But when Herod's birthday came, the daughter of Herodias danced before them and pleased Herod,

7 so much that he promised with an oath to give her whatever he asked.

8 Having been prompted by her mother, she said, "Give me here on a platter the head of John the Baptist."

9 Although he was grieved, the king commanded it to be given because of his oaths, and because of his dinner guests.

10 He sent and had John beheaded in prison.

11 And his head was brought on a platter and given to the girl, and she brought it to her mother.

Compared to the writing styles we're used to in the Western World, this passage may seem distractingly non-chronological.  But it seems that Matthew wanted to emphasize the important point first - that Herod thought Jesus might be John the Baptist back from the dead - before going back and explaining how John the Baptist died.  He blurts out the critical information first, then explains the backstory.

To start out with, Herod was a Roman tetrarch.  The Roman Empire was far too enormous for one man to effectively rule by himself, especially in an age before airplanes and e-mail.  So, the government was set up so that the Caesar indeed had ultimate authority, but a number of rulers were set up over different regions of Rome in a stratified ruling system.  The tetrarchs, like Herod, were directly under Caesar.  But rather than being Vice Presidents, they were kings in their own right, and only really answered to Caeser when something major happened.  Therefore, Herod's role was a volatile mix of the power of a king to do whatever he wanted, with the fear of what Caesar would do to him if he screwed up.  Both of these elements would influence his behavior to his detriment, as we shall see.

The problem started when Herod decided he fancied his sister-in-law Herodias.  They began an affair, then Herod divorced his own wife, brought about a divorce for Herodias, and then the two of them married.  By God's established standards for marriage, this is atrocious.  His overall depravity (still relatively mild by ancient Roman standards, however!) is even more clear later in the passage, when he gets so turned on by his step-daughter's strip-tease that he makes the terrible mistake of promising her anything she wants.  As you can see, this entire situation was an abomination - it's no wonder John the Baptist called Herod out on his behavior.

But this brings up an interesting controversy: How are WE to handle similar situations today?  On one hand, we see numerous Biblical instances, like here, of God's followers standing up for what is morally right and calling rulers out on it.  Yet, 1 Corinthians 5:9-13 makes it clear that we are to call out individual sins only in other believers, not in unbelievers.  You see, telling your unbelieving friend that it's wrong to lie (for example) won't really do any good - even if they stop lying, becoming morally better doesn't bring them any closer to God.  It's a spot clean, with no real effect on their eternal soul.  So, how do we reconcile these?  I offer a few Biblically-based ideas about this issue.  Note that these are my opinions; I do not think the Bible anywhere specifically spells out this issue, so I have done my best to come up with some guidelines.  If you have more to add, or disagree with me, please share in the comments. :-)

1. All the instances I can think of where an individual is called out (not just behavior condemned in general) is when they are a very public figure who serves as an influential example.  It seems to be perfectly acceptable to do so in such an instance.
2. When dealing with "regular" people who are unbelievers, however, I highly recommend condemning sinful behavior in general, but not individual people.  For example, I fully believe that abortion is the murder of a baby, but if I were to meet a woman who had an abortion, I would certainly not call her a murderer!  It's is love, not hate-speech, that brings people to repentance. 
3. Follow the prompting of the Holy Spirit.  Seriously.  This is extremely important every single time we communicate with others about God, because we Christians misrepresent Him so often.  Pray for Him to lead you in each encounter, and tune your spirit to listen to Him.

Okay, so Herod hated John's guts for condemning his behavior (thus humiliating him, destroying the people's respect for him, and usurping his power), but he had a problem - the people loved John, viewing him as a prophet sent from God.  If he killed John, the people would revolt - and the one thing that everyone (the people, the Jewish leaders, and the Roman leaders) feared most at this time was a revolt.  Mass casualty would occur, leaders could be executed for "failing," and the entire social system would become chaos.  It would be bad for everyone, plain and simple.  But it seems that his sister-in-law/wife Herodias didn't think, or perhaps didn't care, about the consequences.  John was humiliating her too, and she wanted him dead.  So, knowing Herod's lust, she devised the little scheme...and we see what happened.

Although there were plenty of reasons for Herod not to kill John the Baptist, he ultimately went the way that all the Old Testament prophets did, and that so many people who have spoken out on moral issues throughout history go - a grissly death.  We should keep in mind that if we choose to be bold for Christ, too - as we are commanded to be - we risk this same fate.  2 Timothy 3:12 tells us, "All who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted."  Are you willing to suffer for the Truth?

The Emotional Aftermath

12 His disciples came and took away the body and buried it; and they went and reported to Jesus.

13 Now when Jesus heard about John, He withdrew from there in a boat to a secluded place by Himself; and when the people heard of this, they followed Him on foot from the cities.

14 When He went ashore, He saw a large crowd, and felt compassion for them and healed their sick.

We catch a beautiful glimpse of Jesus's deep love in this passage.  I find it so stirring that our God can relate to our every emotion.

First off, it seems obvious why Jesus was so emotionally torn-up when we consider that John was His cousin.  But, then take a look at Matthew 12:46-50 - we are Jesus's family!  Take a moment to think about what this means - whenever you're going through something, God isn't detached or indifferent - He suffers right alongside you.

Second, He was clearly so depressed that He just wanted to be alone, yet when the crowd followed Him, He had compassion and ministered to them anyway.  Not only does this demonstrate His love, but it's also a wonderful example of how we should strive to act, as well.

Questions for You

What thoughts do you have on the issue of calling out sin, like John did to Herod?

Is there anything else you noticed in the passage, or that it made you think about, that you'd like to share?

Any questions?  Do I need to clarify something? :-)

Giving Credit Where It's Due

Image Number One: Salome with the Head of John the Baptist by Carvaggio.  Wikipedia.  Public domain in the United States.

Image Number Two: Sea of Galilee, by Pacman.  Wikipedia.  Public domain.

The Unforgivable Sin - Matthew 12:22-35

22 Then a demon-possessed man who was blind and mute was brought to Jesus, and He healed him, so that the mute man spoke and saw.

23 All the crowds were amazed, and were saying, "This man cannot be the Son of David, can he?"

24 "But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, "This man casts out demons only by Beelzebul the ruler of the demons."

25 And knowing their thoughts Jesus said to them, "Any kingdom divided against itself is laid waste; and any city or house divided against itself will not stand.

26 "If Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself; how then will his kingdom stand?

27 "If I by Beelzebul cast out demons, by whom do your sons cast them out? For this reason they will be your judges.

28 "But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.

29 "Or how can anyone enter the strong man's house and carry off his property, unless he first binds the strong man? And then he will plunder the house.

30 "He who is not with Me is against Me; and he who does not gather with Me scatters.

31 "Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven.

32 "Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come.

33 "Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or make the tree bad and its fruit bad; for the tree is know by its fruit.

34 "You brood of vipers, how can you, being evil, speak what is good? For the mouth speaks out of that which fills the heart.

35 "The good man brings out of his good treasure what is good; and hte evil man brings out of his evil treasure what is evil.

Instead of moving chronologically, let's address this topically: (1) The unforgivable sin/blasphemy of the Holy Spirit; (2) a deeper look into this specific casting-out-a-demon scenario; (3) the chunk about the power of words.

The Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit

 

People get into all sorts of fights about what this unforgivable sin of blaspheming the Holy Spirit is - some claim suicide, or adultery, or a million other things that simply have no Biblical basis as being "unforgivable."  Rather, the only unforgivable sin is: not being saved.  How do I get this?  Here's my logic, and bear in mind that the vast majority of Protestant theologians have the exact same view, so it's not just me. :-)

 

(A) John 15:26 shows us that the Holy Spirit is the One who leads us to Christ.  (B) John 16:8-9 shows us that the Holy Spirit convicts us and shows us we are sinners.  (C) John 16:13-14 shows us that the Holy Spirit directly draws us into faith in Jesus.  (D)  Notice in verse 32 of today's passage the wording of "speaks a word against the Son of Man" versus "speaks against the Holy Spirit" - the first is temporary (i.e., whatever blasphemies we utter against God that we ask forgiveness for will be forgiven, but the second is a continued state of blaspheming unrepentantly - spitting in God's face.  (E) So, the Holy Spirit's job is to pull us out of rejecting and blaspheming Jesus, but if we keep rejecting and blaspheming the Holy Spirit, we can never get to that point, and thus will never be saved and thus cannot be forgiven.

 

So, whatever blasphemies we say, think, etc. can certainly be forgiven, but the "blasphemy of the Holy Spirit" - the continual rejection of the Holy Spirit (e.g. relabeling our conscience as "societal prejudices" prevents us from coming to know Christ, which means we won't ask for His forgiveness.

 

So...what's this got to do with the context of this passage?  Well, the Pharisees had just seen so much proof that Jesus came from God (we'll get to that more in a minute), and refused to accept Him as such because of their pride.  The Holy Spirit was demonstrating Jesus's deity, and they refused to believe it.  That's blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, right there.

 

Satan Casting Out Satan?

 

I wanted to make a clarification about this section of today's passage.  Is Jesus saying that anyone who is able to cast out a demon is from God?  No - Matthew 7:21-23 and Mark 9:38-39 directly discuss the presence of non-Christians casting out demons.  Also consider how shahmans, witch doctors, and pracitioners of other religions are sometimes able to seemingly control demons and cast out sicknesses and such - in these cases, I believe the demons are playing along with the act to trick those people into thinking their religion is real.

 

The issue here is that the Pharisees were holding Jesus to an unequal standard than "their sons" (i.e. other Jews who cast out demons), and - here's the big thing - they were ignoring all the other evidence that Jesus was from God.  Also consider how wide-spread the healings and casting-outs of demons that Jesus was performing were, and the fact that he was setting all these people free, permanently.  If that really were Satan playing a trick by ordering his own demons out, then it absolutely would be detrimental to his demonic kingdom!

 

So, the point here is: Look at the fruit!  Jesus Himself points this out here in this passage, in verse 33-35.  Matthew 7:16 tell us, "You will know them by their fruits," and Galatians 5:22 lists the fruit of the Spirit as: "love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control."  If these are present, as they were in Jesus, then the work is by the Holy Spirit.

 

I don't have any official discussion-starting questions for you today, but if you have any questions, or comments, leave them below. :-)

 

Giving Credit Where It's Due

 

Image: Woe unto You, Scribes and Pharisees by James Tissot.  Wikimedia Commons. {{PD-1923}} Public domain in the United States.  {{PD-old-100}} Public domain in countries with a copyright term of life of the author plus 100 years or less. 





Defying Our Culture - Matthew 11:17-24

Dancing like Robots

 

16 "But to what shall I compare this generation? It is like children sitting in the market places, who call out to the other children,

 

17 and say, 'We played the flute for you, and you did not dance;we sang a dirge, and you did not mourn.'

 

18 "For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, 'He has a demon!'

 

19 "The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, 'Behold, a gluttonous man and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!' Yet wisdom is vindicated by her deeds."

 

Jesus launches into this sub-point in the middle of a monologue defending both John the Baptist as a genunine prophet and Himself as the Messiah. He continues this here, but also branches it off into a larger point.

 

Let's first figure out who Jesus is addressing this rebuke to - so, what does He mean by "generation"? The Greek word is genea, meaning race, family, generation, or kind. Many Bible scholars agree that it means different, or multiple, things in different contexts, including a literal generation (i.e. people living during a certain time period), the nation of Israel, or a type of people living across time and nations (e.g. human nature in general, all believers, or all unbelievers). In this case, I personally think it's the last one - human nature in general - because of how the rest of the passage plays out.

 

One more clarification before we dive deeper: what does He mean by "eating and drinking"? It can't be literal - I mean, John would die in a matter of days if he literally didn't eat or drink, and we know from the Bible that John ate locusts and wild honey, so doesn't that contradict this? Well, "eating and drinking" refers to eating and drinking like a normal person in Jewish culture at the time - going to feasts and drinking wine as opposed to the religious practice of frequent fasts and abstaining from certain foods. So, John "came neither eating nor drinking" because he survived on the wild, minimalist diet of a prophet, but Jesus "came eating and drinking" because he dined with people regularly (see Mark 2:14-22, our study on the parallel passage here in Matthew, and John 2:1-11).

 

Finally moving on to the actual point of the conversation! :-) The whole play-the-flute-so-you'll-dance, sing-a-dirge-so-you'll-mourn deal is all about the culture demanding that everyone comply with it's expectations and demands. It's basically peer pressure on a national scale. Think about it in America today - it's "normal" to be "Christian" only in the sense of basically believing God exists, owing a King James Version Bible that you never read, attending church only on Easter and Christmas, and basically trying to be a good person. But when we follow the Bible and try to share the Gospel, refuse to engage in sinful behavior like premarital sex and drunkeness, and make God the very essence our our identities, we're labelled as intolerant, bigots, fundamentalists, Bible thumpers, etc. Christians are called to live outside the norm of our cultures, and the world operates in direct opposition to Christianity - so why should we expect anything else than for those around us to be annoyed or angry that we don't comply with their expectations?

 

There are many reasons  for the culture to react this way. Let's look at just a couple. (1) They have genuinely bad experiences with Christians who fell into sin and were hateful or somehow otherwise misrepresented Christ. Think about the people who picket at gay soldiers' funerals, or the Crusades (from my knowledge of history, the first couple were justified, but then officials' corruption and greed got involved...but I'm not going to get into that right now ^_^), or when some pro-life groups scream at women who have abortions that they're murderers and are going to hell. Is there a time and a place to express that homosexuality and abortion are wrong Biblically? Yes - but in a loving manner. (Wow, I got off on a tangent there...) (2) Our attempts to live godly lifestyles make them feel guilty, perhaps only subconsciously, so the only way to feel good about themselves is to convince themselves that we, not they, are in the wrong. Of course, this means they are rejecting the Holy Spirit trying to convict them to bring them to repentance and into relationship with Him...but they see our openly Christian lives as pushy and holier-than-thou. [Please excuse my us-and-them language; I'm not trying to be offensive or unsympathetic - just to convey it in the most coherent way possible.]

 

And then we get to the issue of how we can never please everyone - someone will always hate us. John the Baptist came as the purist, the radical, the religious zealot - and he was hated for it. Jesus came as a man of principle who lived among them, accepting them regardless of their lifestyles and interacting even with the outcasts and religious society - and He was hated for it. The best we can do is just to live life with God, loving people as much as we can and trying to bring as many people who we interact with as possible into the kingdom. The world won't be happy unless we reject Christ - and that is something we can never do.

 

"Wisdom is vindicated by her deeds." In the very end - that is, at the judgement - the world will see that we were right, and they were wrong to hate us. But let us not take this message as a way to look forward to saying, "Ha! I told you!" Rather, may it prompt us to share Christ's love and His gospel all the more, so that there will be fewer souls on that day who realize how wrong they were far too late.

 

Speaking of the Judgment...

 

20 Then He began to denounce the cities in which most of His miracles were done, because they did not repent.

 

21 "Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles had occured in Tyre and Sidon which occured in you, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.

 

22 "Nevertheless I say to you, it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment than for you.

 

23 "And you, Capernaum, will not be exalted to heaven, will you? You will descend to Hades; for if the miracles had occurred in Sodom which occured in you, it would have remained to this day.

 

24 "Nevertheless I say to you that it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for you."

 

Ouch! This isn't exactly a fun passage to read. But Jesus wasn't exactly in the habit of tickling people's ears (or dancing when the said dance, or mourning when they sang a dirge...), and neither am I - so we'll study it through, anyway. :-)

 

First off, in case some of you aren't familiar with these cities' names, Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum were all Jewish cities, and Tyre, Sidon, and Sodom were Gentile cities that God destroyed in judgment. The key thing here is that Jesus is pointing out that the Gentile cities were less evil that the Jewish cities! A huge part of this is that the Jews had everything they needed to identify the Messiah, as they were taught the prophecies concerning Him from birth - yet they still refused to believe that Jesus was He, and they rejected Him. With this in mind, let us each ask ourselves: What has God been telling Me lately that I've been ignoring?

 

Okay, now we get into the sticky bit about it being worse for some cities on the day of judgment than it will be for other cities. Does this mean that there are hierarchies in hell? That view has long been rejected by Protestantism as a whole because it's a Catholic belief, it was horribly distorted in Dante's Inferno, and it's not explicity stated in the Bible. But...the Bible tells us hardly anything about hell, period. We know that sin is sin, regardless of how bad that sin is, and deserves eternal punishment. So how do we deal with a passage like this one? I'm not totally rejecting the idea that there are degrees of punishment in hell, but here are a couple of other possibilities: (1) It could mean that some of the inhabitants of those destroyed cities chose to follow God, so even though they left those cities they were still counted as "members" or "residents" of those cities...so, that in terms of sheer numbers, more members of those cities would be welcomed into heaven than would be those of the Jewish cities that rejected Jesus as Messiah. (2) It could go back to what I mentioned above about how the Jewish cities had far more opportunity to accept God than the other cities did, so their judgment would be worse in terms of the magnitude of their shame and guilt.

 

I don't want to end on such a negative note (although such "downer" stories definitely serve a purpose - they remind us how serious this is, and motivate us to continue walking with God), so I thought I'd share a success story of one evil city, bound to be destroyed by God, that did respond to God's call for repentance: Nineveh, in Jonah 3:1-10

 

Now the word of the Lord came to Jonah a second time, saying "Arise, go to Nineveh the great city and proclaim to it the proclamation which I am going to tell you." Now Jonah arose and went to Nineveh according to the word of the Lord. Now Nineveh was an exceedingly great [meaing huge] city, a three days' walk. Then Jonah began to go through the city one day's walk; and he cried out and said, "Yet forty days and Nineveh will be overthrown." Then the people of Nineveh believed in God; and they called a fast and put on sackcloth from the greatest to the least of them. When the word reached the king of Nineveh, he arose from his throne, laid aside his robe from him, covered himself with sackcloth and sat on the ashes [these are signs of mourning]. He issued a proclamation and it said, "In Nineveh by the decree of the king and his nobles: Do not let man, beast, herd, or flock taste a thing. Do not let them eat or drink water [he's calling for a fast]. But both man and beast must be covered with sackcloth; and let men call upon God earnestly that each may turn from his wicked way and from the violence which is in his hands. Who knows, God may turn and relent and withdraw HIs burning anger so that we will not perish." When God saw their deeds, that they turned from their wicked way, then God relented concerning the calamity which He had declared He would bring upon them. And He did not do it.

 

Questions for You

 

How have you seen verses 16-19 played out in your own life?

 

What other reasons can you think of why our culture is so offended by how we live?

 

What do you think about the judgment issue - can you think of a Biblical basis for or against the idea of degrees of hell? Can you think of other meanings of this passage?

 

Giving Credit Where It's Due

 

Image Number One: "Morris dancing in the ground of Wells Cathedral, Wells, England" by Adrian Pingstone. Wikimedia Commons. Public domain worldwide. Used by permission.

 

Image Number Two: The Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah by John Martin. Wikimedia Commons. {{PD-1923}} Public domain in the United States. {{PD-old-100}} Public domain in countries with a copyright term of life of the author plus 100 years or less.

Sneaky "Righteousness" - Matthew 5:20-37

20 "For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.

A Stark Contrast

Right before today's passage, Jesus had just started talking to His disciples about how to be a light to the world by making your good works evident.  It is understandable, then, that the topic of what constitutes good works would come up.

It becomes a bit concerning, however, when He states that we must be more righteous than even the scribes and Pharisees - those who were (perceived as being) the most righteous men of Jesus's day - if we want a shot at heaven.  But then Jesus breaks down why the scribes and Pharisees are not truly as righteous as they seem: righteousness is a heart issue.

With this in mind, it becomes clear that it is actually quite easy to surpass their fake righteousness.  We'll examine each of Jesus' examples individually, then sum it all up.  Sound good? :-)

21 You have heard that the ancients were told, 'YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER,' and 'Whoever commists murder shall be liable to the court.'

22 But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, 'You good for nothing,' shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, 'You fool,' shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell.

Sins of the Heart

Jesus starts out with a seemingly obvious anti-righteousness, namely, the act of murder (pulled directly from the the Ten Commandments [Exodus 20:13] of all places!).  But then he flips it on its head.

He states that calling someone "good for nothing" (worthless) or "fool" (idiot) is just as bad - it's still sin.

Let's say there's a coworker who annoys you.  Now, unless you're a complete psychopath, you're not going to kill them.  But, you might wish they'd get fired...that's wishing ill will on another.  Perhaps they make you so mad, it even crosses your mind that you wish they'd die.  Aren't these both sin?  Yes!  You didn't kill anyone, but you still can't approach God with a blamelss heart.

The point here is that righteousness has far less to do with what we physically do than with what's in our hearts.  If we are focused on loving others, we won't be filled with hatred and (undeserved) anger.

23 Therefore if you are presenting your offering at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you,

24 leave your offering there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and present your offering.

25 Make friends quickly with your opponent at law while you are with him on the way, so that your opponent may not hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the officer, and you be thrown into prison.

26 Truly I say to you, you will not come out of there until you have paid up the last cent."

There's no Extra Credit when it comes to Righteousness

Here's what I see this part of the passage as saying:

Let's say you know you have some sin in your life - in this case, you've deeply hurt the feelings of another believer, and you feel convicted by the Holy Spirit to go apologize to them.  But, you've always hated apologizing - it's embarrassing.  So, you figure you can ease you guilty conscience by doing "something else" for God (maybe volunteering to do something at your church or tithing some extra money this month).  But do you really think that when that hurt believer is crying out to God in prayer (verse 25), that your "something else"s will negate that?

There is no extra credit when it comes to righteousness!  It's not about total points, so it doesn't matter what "else" you do.  Rather, it is about doing what God tells us to, when He tells us to.  It's not some strategy game of figuring out how we can get our necessary level of righteousness with the least amount of work - it's about our relationship with God!

27 You have heard that it ws said, 'YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY';

28 but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

29 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.

30 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.

31 It was said, 'WHOEVER SENDS HIS WIFE AWAY, LET HIM GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE';

32 but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the cause of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

Excuses and Ways Out

Adultery, like murder, serves as an example of a heart issue: if you don't have an affair with someone, but want to, it's still sin.  (We'll dive deeper into the topic of divorce sometime later.)

Then comes the hard-to-digest part about hacking off body parts.  I think it should be taken literally if you are actually convinced that not having whatever part part genuinely would stop whatever sin.  But I also think that, given that this is rarely the case, reading the passage figuratively in this case is actually more convicting.  For example, let's say your group of friends likes to hang out at the mall, but everytime you go there, you get greedy and obsessed with material possessions.  It will be very difficult to give up your trips there, since that also means giving up time with your friends, but going to the mall is your eye or hand.  So, the point is: stop making excuses, and act to prevent yourself from continually falling into the same sin.

There's one more point here with the mention of the certificate of divorce (pulled from Deuteronomy 24:1-3).  As Jesus explains in Matthew 19:3-9 , God only allowed the divorce system because He knew they'd do it anyway, and wanted to establish some semblance of order.  We should never confuse God allowing something to happen with God approving of something.  Again, true righteousness is about pleasing God, not getting away with stuff.

33 Again, you have heard that the ancients were told, 'YOU SHALL NOT MAKE FALSE VOWS, BUT SHALL FULFILL YOUR VOWS TO THE LORD.'

34 But I say to you, make no oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God,

35 or by the earth, for it is the footstool of His feet, or by Jerusalem, for it is THE CITY OF THE GREAT KING.

36 Nor shall you make an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black.

37 But let your statement be, 'Yes, yes' or 'No, no'; anything beyond these is of evil.

Just DO It

There are two separate things I see going on here.  For the first one, we must consider that the Jews of Jesus's day were known for their sneaky vows - vowing according to things like the temple, which would suffer no consequences if they failed.  That way, they were perceived as righteous by others because they made these lofty vows, but thought that nothing bad would come of not following through.  Simply put, it doesn't matter one bit how righteous others think we are - only what God thinks of us.

The second thing I see is this: rather than making these lofty, fancy commitments to God, isn't it better to simply do what you feel Him prompting Him to do throughout your day?  True righteousness isn't about meeting your goals, like some sort of sales quota; it's all about that relationship.

In Summation

This has been quite a multi-faceted exploration of true righteousness.  Boiled down, it can be summarized by two key points: (1) it comes down to what's actually in your heart, and (2) it comes down to your relationship with God.

Fortunately, even when we fail (and we all do), God offers us His righteousness through His Son, Jesus Christ (see 2 Corinthians 5:21).

Let's Make it a Discussion

Do you have any more insights on these examples - something I missed?  Can you think of more examples of ways people fall into or avoid these false-righteousness traps?  Anything else you'd like to ask or comment on?