Taking Jesus Seriously
We’ve talked many times on this podcast about things that Jesus has said. When we look at the teachings of Jesus, it seems that there are often inconsistencies with the way we actually live out what he taught.
Statements like “Turn the other cheek” or “Don’t worry about what you will eat or drink” often end up getting responses that start with, “yeah, but…”
So when do we actually take Jesus seriously? Is it possible to start with what he said and not our cultural bias? And if so, why don’t we?
Beyond the Box returns to a shorter format this week. We welcome any comments about the length that you might want to offer. Were the episodes getting a bit long for you? Do you prefer this shorter format? The comments section is yours, so have at it 
Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 32:36 — 22.4MB) | Embed
May 13th, 2009 at 10:26 am
[...] This post was Twitted by pianosteve – Real-url.org [...]
May 13th, 2009 at 11:28 am
Thanks for the episode. This gave me an idea for a comment I now want to make on your last episode…
As much as I enjoy listening, I must admit I like the shorter format. Would you consider making longer episodes and breaking them up into two parts? Or even record two separate times.
When do I take Jesus words seriously? My tongue-in-cheek response to Steve on twitter was “When they overlap with secular humanist ethics, of course. There, I saved you some recording time.
”
By the way, you quoted one of my favorite Bible verses, but not in my favorite translation. KJB says this one so much more poetically in my opinion, “Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.”
The problem is that too many Christians are convinced they already have cast out their own beam and believe that they see their brother’s mote all too clearly. The mote in one’s own eye prevents one from even looking into a mirror clearly.
May 14th, 2009 at 11:57 am
Ray & Steve,
Another great episode. Tying in with non-violence, how would you apply Matthew 10:34 and Luke 22:36-38. Jesus said himself he’s coming with a sword and he told his disciples right before He went to the cross to bring swords. In fact, he told them to sell their clothes if they didn’t have any. This seems like a contradiction to non-violence.
I know Matthew 10:34 is poetic speech but Luke 22 is very clear. So why do you think Jesus told the disciples to get swords? They apparently took Him seriously. Granted, Peter misused his sword but when do you think Jesus wanted the disciples to use their swords?
Also, what about the violent act of driving the money-changers out of the temple with a whip? How does that fit into a non-violent take on Jesus?
Not trying to nit-pick or pin you down, just trying to get some answers. I’ve heard a lot of teaching on righteous violence and pacifism and I’d like to get your take on it.
Thanks,
John @theOJG
May 15th, 2009 at 12:13 am
Hi Jon,
Good questions.
You said:
“Also, what about the violent act of driving the money-changers out of the temple with a whip?”
We addressed this subject more at length in the comments section of the episode “The Cross and the Sword.” This very example was brought up and I have addressed it there.
As to your question about Luke 22:36, I want to address this more at length, but I will have to wait until tommorow night as I am typing this at 1:15am. I will be interested to see what you think.
May 15th, 2009 at 10:02 pm
John you said:
I know Matthew 10:34 is poetic speech but Luke 22 is very clear. So why do you think Jesus told the disciples to get swords?
I think that this is one of those situations where a reading of the entire passage really helps to clarify the meaning. If Jesus was advocating that the disciples needed to use the swords He mentions in self-defense, then verse 38 doesn’t make much sense.
The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.” “That is enough,” he replied.
If it was going to be necessary for the disciples to each go and get a sword, then why does Jesus say that having only two swords is enough? There were at least 11 disciples present, so how could two swords be enough for 11 (or more) people? Earlier John, you mentioned what I believe might be one of the keys to understanding this passage. In verse 50 Peter cut’s off the ear of the high priest’s servant, and in verse 51 Jesus rebukes Him for using the sword, and then heals the ear of the servant. This incident only happened a few hours after verses 36-38. So here we have Jesus saying in one instance for the disciples to sell their cloaks to buy swords, and then, only a few hours later, He rebukes Peter for using the sword in defense of Jesus. What is going on?
Well, first let me say that I am not completely sure myself. This is truly a tricky passage, and to be honest with you, the only passage I have yet found pertaining to violence that I have had to really struggle with (and am still struggling with.) But, here goes!
Context is everything! Let’s look at a little more detail in this conversation.
Then Jesus asked them, “When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?”
“Nothing,” they answered.
He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.”
The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.”
“That is enough,” he replied.
Right in the middle of this conversation, Jesus refers to a prophecy regarding the Messiah that He said “must be fulfilled in me.” That prophecy was that Jesus would have to be numbered among the transgressors. Now before, I would have thought that this was referring to Jesus being crucified between two criminals. But, why would Jesus seem to arbitrarily mention this in the midst of this conversation? Well, I don’t think it was arbitrary.
It would seem that the posse sent from the chief priest could not simply arrest Jesus for any reason. Maybe this is why Jesus said, “Am I leading a rebellion, that you have come with swords and clubs?”(v. 52)
Could it be possible that Jesus wanted the disciples to have some swords with them so that the officers would have a reason to arrest Him? So that it would give them an excuse to take Him away? So that it would look like a rebellion? It’s obvious that Jesus didn’t expect or desire that the disciples would actually use the swords, for He declard that only two were enough and then He rebuked Peter for using his. Maybe Jesus fulfilled the Messianic prophecy of being numbered with the transgressors by being arrested under the guise of being a transgressor, or a seditionist. This explanation, while maybe unpopular, would seem to harmonize more with the context of the passage in question. It seems to make more sense of Jesus’ words and subsequent actions.
What do you think?
May 18th, 2009 at 2:11 am
I want to know way the non violence discussion keeps going to the nation vs nation level and very little discussion about violence to each other or our family. Am I to believe that after a man breaks into my home beats me half to death , rapes my wife and young daughter kills my son I should then get make him a hot cup of coffee and give him a hug ? I believe we should follow in his footsteps and lay down our lives if required but I did not get the let them does as they will to your family. No greater love hath a man then to give up his life to save another. defending your family and sacrificing your self to save you child is not a kill them all let God sort them out philosphy.
May 19th, 2009 at 1:47 pm
Ray and Steve,
I am continuing to absolutely love and am getting so much out of all your Podcasts. Clearly the Holy Spirit is speaking in your hearts and through you to me. I am so grateful for your continuing to do these.
In this episode, you both mentioned that you were “reducing back” each Podcast to 30-40 minutes.
Just to put in my “two cents,” I personally enjoyed it much better when you both expanded each episode to 1 hour (with those cute “spots” from other’s websites). You both have so much substance to share, and honestly, I didn’t mind the 1-hour at all. In fact, I prefer it!!
I listen to you both as I take my little dog, Howie, for his walks, so 1-hour works out well for “us.”
However, and of course, do what you both can.
As other listeners have mentioned, I cannot believe the amazing technology you both use, by recording these through phone conversations. Honestly, it seems as though you two are sitting right with eachother, simply engaging in life and inviting us into your conversation. The audio/sound quality is amazing, and so stream-lined, I never would even guess that it’s all done over the phone.
I actually encouraged some of my readers over at my blogpage about 1.5 weeks ago to come listen to both the “Heritage” and “Cross and the Sword” Podcasts for understanding into the origins of institutional religious Christianity.
Anyway, again, thank you and I am looking forward to this week’s Podcast.
Blessings,
~Amy
Walking In The Spirit
http://amyiswalkinginthespirit.blogspot.com
May 19th, 2009 at 11:21 pm
Stan,
Thanks for joining the discussion and welcome.
I want to know way the non violence discussion keeps going to the nation vs nation level
I don’t know exactly what you are referring to. I don’t recall much discussion at all on the podcast or in the comments section about violence between nations. Most of our discussion has revolved around questions regarding how Jesus taught or demonstrated non-violence toward enemies and the effect that His example should have on believers.
As to your comment about making a “cup of coffee” and giving “a hug” to someone who commits violence against you or your family, I think you might be waxing a bit hyperbolic.
I guess that I have been “putting myself out their” quite a bit on this topic. I have made it pretty clear how I believe we as followers of Jesus should respond to our enemies. I am totally open to the possibility that I am misinterpreting the words/actions of Jesus (Lord knows I have been guilty of this before.)
Please understand, I am simply trying to learn how to apply the teachings of Jesus to my life. I am very much still “in process” and don’t have everything nailed-down or figured out. But, if we are going to take Jesus at His word when He says that “he who believes has eternal life”, are we to take Him any less literally when He tells us how to treat our enemies?
So everyone, instead of me continuing to pound away at what I believe Jesus is saying/doing, I would like to hear your thoughts and interpretations of the words and actions of Jesus and the early disciples. Do you believe that I or Steve are misrepresenting Jesus or His early followers? How do you understand statements from Jesus such as:
I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you. (Matthew 5:39-42)
Or how do you interpret Paul in Romans 12?
Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse…Do not repay anyone evil for evil…If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head. Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. (Romans 12:14-21)
How about the non-resistance of the early disciples towards persecution? How do you interpret their actions?
My ears are open
May 19th, 2009 at 11:26 pm
Amy,
Thank you so much for your kind words! I am glad that you are enjoying the discussions. Please feel free to join the dialog with your thoughts and opinions any time. We would love to hear your input on any of the topics that we discuss. Your “2 cents” are always welcome.
Thanks again!
May 20th, 2009 at 11:49 am
Raborn
Thankyou foryour response. And I will admit i went straight to the extreme circumstance. But i remember when in the police academy a series of 911 tapes they played for us to remind us of what we are training for and who we are to protect. And several calls stood out 1 dealing with a woman who manage to get a call out to 911 before a rapist got to her. the guy left the phone off the hook while he did what he did. the 911 operator prayed the whole time for the woman as we heard her screams. The Police did catch the man as he was fleeing down the steet ( Thank God). I now work at a hospital in a area that deal’s with children and teenagers who have the most horrorific things happen. I know the coffee and hug thing was a bit much, and I am far a removed from being a stranger to Christ word, I just have a real hard time with it. Everything I remember from my readings in the NT in the 4 gospels deals with the individual and how you should grow and act if struck, not if a loved one is. These events take place daily. I also wonder what else Christ taught that we don’t know about. we only have a partial picture of the last three years of his life. He came to live without sin and be the perfect lamb, and if I recall he did so many works and spoke to so many that it would fill a library. Maybe at one time he dealt with this or some things were kept from us during the creation of a single bible for all the people by the councel. I am currantly reading Proverbs in th OT and finished Hebrews about a month ago dealing with Christ as the High Priestin the order of Melchizedek. I know our goal is to sit down on the Throne with Christ as he was won the victory and sat down with his Father on his ( see Revelations) I guess I just have a reall hard time with somethings. I have been going back in your archives and have enjoyed your shows I will keep listening and actually prefer your 1 hr shows. May the Holy Spirit guide your show.
May 20th, 2009 at 11:55 am
I POSTED COMMENT 10 I Put RABORN NAME IN THE WRONG PLACE. I SORRY, THOSE COMMENTS ON 10 ARE ALL MINE NOT RABORN’S AT ALL IN NO WAY. AGAIN MY FAULT.
SORRY STAN
May 20th, 2009 at 10:06 pm
This is my first post ever, so I’m a little nervous. I want to preface this by saying I take the words and deeds of Jesus very seriously.
Lets keep in mind that Jesus was the word made flesh and the scriptures (law, psalms, and prophets) all spoke of Him. Prior to the cross the old covenant (a type and shadow of things to come) was still in effect. Jesus was the finest teacher of the law. Remember, the religious elite of the day had watered down God’s law so that it was “livable”. Jesus’ public teaching clarified the law in letter and intent. He taught of coming judgment and to “keep the law and believe” in order to be saved. However, the law made being human illegal. No one could keep the law. Plus, the amount of belief required was enough to move mountains.
Judgment did come. God declared none worthy save one, Jesus. Jesus went to the cross to bring an end to the old covenant and usher in the new. The old was a covenant between God and Man (which man constantly failed to keep his end of the deal). The new is between God and God. Jesus drew all humanity into himself as a hen covers her chicks. He offered himself once for all. He was the perfect sacrifice. And in that day, the day of the Lord, Jesus redeemed of the world. He put an end to the sacrifices, cause and effect religion. The separation between man and God was healed. The curtain torn. All law and prophesy was fulfilled. We all died with Him that day and were raised with Him.
The gospel (good news) is peace between God and man. A free gift. The law was good. We establish it for what it was intended. This side of the cross, we are set free from the law. Even the requirement to believe. As a result of the finished work of the cross, God has imputed His righteousness unto us. Everyone is perfect and righteous in his sight. He now dwells within our hearts and we in His. “In my father’s house are many places to dwell…”
If we weren’t continuously bound by doctrines which produce sin consciousness, but (eating from the tree of knowledge – law) rather, freed through righteousness consciousness (eat from the tree of life – grace), the world would be a much different place.
“There is no bad news in the good news”
But that’s just my opinion
Chris
May 22nd, 2009 at 8:42 am
Rayborn,
Thanks for your response. This is the 1st time I’ve been able to read it. I will think about what you’ve written.
Cheers,
John
May 24th, 2009 at 11:07 am
Stan,
Thanks for thinking through these things with us.
Chris,
No need to be nervous here. Feel free to “put yourself out there” any time. You said:
This side of the cross, we are set free from the law. Even the requirement to believe.
I appreciate what you are saying, but this line throws me somewhat of a curve. I can’t say that I completely agree with you here. The request to believe seems to be rooted in almost the entirety of the New Testament. The words of Jesus and the teachings of the early disciples are packed with the admonition to believe in the work and person of Christ, and also caution of the failure to receive the benefits of Christ for those who don’t believe. How do you address these statements/teachings? Alot of this comes back to the idea of Ultimate Reconciliation. We did a podcast on this a while back. I am still open to the possibility (sounds great to me), but I still have a hard time reconciling this idea with the words of the New Testament.
John,
Thanks for taking the time. If you have any further thoughts I would love to hear them.
May 25th, 2009 at 10:20 pm
Rayborn,
What I have come to recently understand is that God through Jesus redeemed the entire world without man’s consent. That the bible describes two things as sin, transgressions of the law, and unbelief. Paul gives us the clear teaching that were there is no law there is no transgression. It is also clear that at the cross no-one believed not even the disciples. It is written that God prevented them from believing so that the words of Isaiah may be fulfilled (John 12).
The will of father is that all men be saved. Jesus came to do the will of His father. He came for judgment, not to judge, but to be judged.
Paul teaches in Romans 5:12-21 that through the act of one man (Adam) all died, likewise, through the one man (Jesus) all were made alive. 1st Adam = Judgment & Condemnation of all men, last Adam = Justification of all men.
Evangelical Christianity says one must believe to make the redemption of the cross effectual for the individual. However, the bible teaches that God and Jesus redeemed mankind at the very point when no one believed, saving us from having to bare God’s wrath against sin. Jesus said in John 12:31-33
“31 Now is the judgment of this world; now the ruler of this world will be cast out. 32 And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoples to Myself.” 33 This He said, signifying by what death He would die.”.
If we remove the added word “people” and read it again in context we see that what He would draw to Himself was all judgment.
If Christ died for our sin, is it possible He died for the sin of unbelief as well?
I am saved from any judgment whether I believe or not. For it is not my faith that saved me but the faith of Christ. 2 Timothy 2:13 If we are faithless, He remains faithful, for he cannot deny Himself. The gospel is not about what I think of God, but, what God thinks of me. God calls me son, beloved. He has imputed His righteousness to you and I and everyone. We are all righteous in His sight.
Here is where believing comes in. We have established that like gravity, God’s redemptive plan effects everyone whether you believe in it or not. Paul talked about salvation as a renewing of your mind. When we repent (change our minds) of our worldly ways (trying to earn God’s acceptance through our own self efforts) and believe in the finished work of the cross, there is a great burden lifted. We received the victory over Sin and death through Christ. We are free from dead work. Free to follow our hearts. Free to live life. Free to be wrong. Free to grow in grace.
Believing is a wonderful thing.
Chris