Matthew 25:31-46 Who is Jesus' brethren and are who are being judged?

Matthew 25:31-32 draws the context of the judgement scene clearly. When Jesus comes with his angels He would gather the nations and separate those who are a part of the kingdom from those who are not.

The difficulty with this scenario is that the basis of judgement is vs 35 and 36 a persons response to the need of the people around him. These people are referred to as the “brethren” of Christ. The difficulties which immediately arise are:-

1. It is a gospel of works if mankind is judged as per this criterion

2. Why are the poor and hungry the brethren of Christ? Does it mean that the rich are not?

If we see the context of the parable, we see the following:-

a. It is the third of a series of judgement parables, the first being the wise and foolish virgins, the second the parable of the talents and then this.

b. It is preceded by the Olivet Discourse which is addressed to the disciples and followed by the Last Supper.

In the context of the location of the parable in the gospel narrative, it appears to be addressed to the disciples and appear to be a warning to them not to presume on their special relationship with God but their life needs to reflect their faith ala James.

Then the warning to the disciples is:-

 1. Foolish virgins – they need to be Spirit filled and alert

2. Talents – they need to invest their material resources in the things of God and be active in the ministry

3. Goats and Sheep – they need to reflect the love of God to mankind, and to show generosity to the needy.

 This then is not a gospel of works but the same as James that you faith is seen in your life style.

 If we accept this interpretation then the brethren become the believers as Jesus defines it in Matthew 12:48-49.

 The only difficulty with this interpretation is that the setting of the parable as the judgement scene of the nations appears misleading or irrelevant.

 Any ideas?

The Structure of the Epistle of James

Does James’ epistle have a coherent structure that helps us interpret the epistle? Mark Taylor in his Ph.D dissertation surveys the existing studies on this subject and summarises his conclusion as follows:-

According to Taylor, all proposals thus far have four things in common.

First, they all deviate from Dibelius and insist that James is not a hodge-podge of ethical practices penned down without any noticeable coherence, any definable continuity, or any theological objective, which would prevent any contextual interpretation.

Second, while there is no “scholarly consensus regarding the details of the structure of James” ... “there is a growing sense that the text of James is a literary, coherent whole ... with its catchwords, theme expansion and recapitulation, ... bears the marks of intentionality (and displays) even a sequential progression at points.” To identify the structure of James, therefore, would be immensely helpful in grasping and applying its message.

Third, “many (scholars) are convinced that Chapter 1 holds the key to the letter’s structure,” since it “functions to introduce the letter’s major themes that are subsequently expanded in the letter body.”

Fourth, they are virtually all persuaded that “major blocks, such as James 2:1-13, 2:14-16, 3:1-12, and 4:1-10, and smaller units like James 1:2-4, 3:13-18, and 5:1-6 exhibit a discernible structure and a sustained treatment of a unified topic.” This justifies the conclusion that the letter is a more or less “coherent literary whole,” even if the question remains, “how the units in James relate to one another in order to accomplish James’ purpose for writing.” The latter calls for “a convincing analysis,” which takes “the surface syntactical structure in the text itself” seriously,” “demonstrates how the major themes of perfection, law, judgment, speech and action in James work together,” and “how by way of quotation (explicit and implicit) and allusion ... James appropriates the ‘law’ in the light of the teaching of Jesus.” The bottom line is that on each of the four counts the study of James has made a good deal of progress, even if much eludes us as yet, and a finished product is not in sight!

I have generally taken the third of the positions mentioned, that chapter 1 is the key to the somewhat loose structure of the epistle of James. The Greek word “peirasmos” is translated as trials, tests and temptation and can mean any of these or all of them. Chapter one puts forward a thesis that trials or tests of ones faith makes one grow (1:2) in his spirituality but can also destroy a person if his response to the test is incorrect (1:13-14). This does not make the test bad, but our response bad (1:17), just as sin does not make the Law bad but shows our inner nature to be sinful (Rom 7:7-8).

After making this premise James then begins to illustrate what the wrong responses are to different kinds of tests. This is which takes most modern readers by surprise as they on reading the word “trials” assume some disaster or extremely difficult situation. But that is not what James means. Rather it is how you handle day to day situations like

a. James 2:1-13 – how do you respond when a rich and powerful man meets with you! (This passage has a small digression for those who feel that James is nit-picking with peccadilloes – a small sin has the same end as a large sin!)

b. James 3:1-12 – how do you conduct yourself in your day to day speech.

c. James 4:1-6 How do you deal with conflict or how do you desire with the petty wants of our natural self.

Each of the passages have a digression at the end. James 2 ends with James 2:14-26 on works being a result and proof of faith. James 3 ends with James 3:13-17 on the wisdom of humility which comes from God and controls our speech. James 4 ends with James 4:7-17 calling for repentance and turn to trust in God.

James 5 is a closing exhortation again using the theme of faith.

Suicide - a short cut to hell?

A query was asked: "Can suicide-cases enter heaven?"

 

My response:

 

1. I am a Christian because I believe in Jesus Christ, and what I do has nothing to do with the Law, or going to heaven and hell, but to do with my faith in Christ. So, yes, committing suicide does show a lack of faith in the future Christ has laid out for me. So I need to think, how can I show my faith in Christ in this situation.

 2. Since salvation has nothing to do with our actions but rather with our faith, the question for us to ask is, “Can a person who has faith in God become so depressed that even though she believes in Christ she opts to kill herself?” Let me put the question in a different way, “Can a person who believes in Christ, become so scared of a situation that he lies to get out of that situation?” or “gives a bribe” etc.? Would the person who said a lie or gave a bribe lose his salvation? Obviously not. So why treat a suicide differently? We need to remember that there are no big sins and small sins. There is big faith and little faith.

3. This is not to excuse the saying of lies and giving of bribes. Each of these actions weaken our faith and slowly wean us away from God and a life of joy and victory in Christ.

 

4. Rather than telling believers that 'they will go to hell' I would rather try and strengthen their faith by referring them to good Bible passages, help them review their purpose in life as a believer again by taking them through relevant Bible passages. Also lead them to a genuine encounter with Jesus where the 'cares of this world' will fade away.

 

 

Who has the anointing?

A question was raised as to who could give the anointing of the Holy Spirit to someone else. And further if a person who could give the anointing to someone else, did it not show that he had the anointing himself?

Each person in the kingdom of God has his own call from God which is essentially to follow Christ and to serve the church in the place where he is. To fulfil these responsibilities the Holy Spirit gives different gifts to different people, and the sign of the anointing of the Spirit is the ministry done by the person on whom the anointing has come.

In the Old Testament the sign of the anointing of the Holy Spirit was seen in the manifestation of 'prophecy' - Genesis 41:38, Numbers 11:25-26, 24:2, I Samuel 10:10, Isaiah 61:1-2, Joel 2:28-29 etc. Another manifestation of the Spirit was in the ability to fight wars against the enemies of Israel. A third was skill to build the Tabernacle in Exodus 31:1-3.

In the New Testament in Revelations it says that the testimony of Jesus is the Spirit of prophecy Rev. 19:10.

So the sign of the Spirit is the ministry one does, the prophecies which comes to him and not the manifestations of ecstasy, though this was occasionally present in the case of Elisha, Saul and others. John writes in I John 4:1-3 says that the only way you can make out if a person has the right Spirit or not is the doctrine he teaches, not the signs or wonders he does.

In Jesus' own teaching in Matthew 7:21-23 He says that even prophecy and signs and wonders are no guarantee that a person is in the kingdom of God and many who do signs and wonders will be rejected by Christ.

Then how does one know if the Spirit of God is present or not?  If we see the judgement scene painted by Jesus Christ in Matthew 25:31-46 people are judged by the love in their hearts rather than the "gifts" they have. This is the same as what Paul says in Galatians that the fruit of the Spirit is the sign of the presence of God.

This fruit can be imitated. I do not deny that. But when one is not aware that he is being observed the true Spirit is revealed. These are the only indications that the word of God gives as to the presence of the Spirit:-

1. Prophecy
2. Ministry
3. Love and the fruit of the Spirit

Ideally all should be these should be there.

Lok Pal Bill

I am rather tired at the mindless glorification of Anna Hazare and the call for Lok Ayukta’s and the Lok Pal Bill. I have not gone into the details of the whole affair but would like to urge a word of caution.

In all Christian legal systems the burden of proof is on the accuser and if there is a shadow of doubt the defendant is set free. Because of this in all countries which follow a free and fair legal system, people with power and money are impossible to convict of any misdemeanours  and they get away with all sorts of crimes. The issue we are facing today of corruption in high circles is one such, which no country in the world has been able to prevent because of a free and fair legal system.

Because of this, people have tried to weaken the fairness of the legal system so that people can be punished even when there is a shadow of doubt. So we had the system of sending people into exile in ancient Athens and ‘police’ encounters in modern India, Guantunamo Bay in the U.S.

The Lok Pal bill is from whatever I can make, out an attempt to beat the legal system, by providing something which is not as vicious as ‘police encounters’ but not as tame as a free and fair legal system. It is also an attempt to give power to the people. Both are dangerous and will hurt minority communities in the long run.

The NDTV website in their attempt to explain the Lok Pal bill defines it as follows:-

The Jan Lokpal Bill (Citizen's ombudsman Bill) is a draft anti-corruption bill drawn up by prominent civil society activists seeking the appointment of a Jan Lokpal, an independent body that would investigate corruption cases, complete the investigation within a year and envisages trial in the case getting over in the next

Read more at: http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/what-is-the-jan-lokpal-bill-why-its-important-96600?cp

It is based on the assumption that ‘good’ people will be in charge and so will ensure justice. All children of tyrannical parents know what ‘good’ parents have done to us. We also know how many of the ‘good’ people who pilloried Clinton in the US turned out to be having not so ‘good’ lives. Lord Acton’s warning should be kept in mind – power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. If the Lok Ayukta’s and other such institutions are given power they will only breed more corruption.

Our present voting system (which is one of the cleanest and fairest in the world) is to ensure that ‘good’ people are elected. Instead 25 % of the MP’s are criminals. That does not justify doing away with our fair system and replacing it with an ‘honest’ dictator!

We need to use the force of Gandhian logic and moral courage to fight corruption and not seek more powers. Gandhian logic was – do without. If a man wants a bribe to give you what you deserve, do not pay him and do without. Lead peaceful protests and use the RTI Act to the maximum extant. Form organisations which will help people use the RTI Act. Moral courage is to stand for justice when you are in a position of power and not succumb to pressure and threats against you. This is, I believe, is the way of Christ – not crusades and more power.

It pains me to see so many ‘Christian’ forums giving mindless support for the movement of Anna Hazare. I would wish that they would form NGO’s to fight for justice with the present legal systems available.

Prayer

The Lord's prayer goes as follows:-

1. Our Father who art in heaven
2. Hallowed be thy name
3. Thy kingdom come
4. Thy will be done on earth ...

Once we have said Thy will be done, is there any meaning in further prayer? There are two extreme views on prayer - both of which I think misses the mark.

The first sees God in complete control and all that has to be done is His will and so prayer is an attempt to ascertain His will. It is a conversation with God where I am through discussion understanding God's plan and purposes. The second makes prayer much simpler where it is asking God for whatever you need or think you need :).

James 4:2 and 3 reads as follows, "yet ye have not, because ye ask not. Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts"

This brings out the following points:-

1 You do not have because you do not ask. This means that you need to ask otherwise it will not happen. It is not just a question of telling God - your will be done, but it means based on our understanding asking God for specific needs and requirements.
2. Prayer is not about asking for things you want. God does not answer prayer which is to fulfil your lusts!!

So what is prayer? I build my understanding of prayer on the following premises:-

1. II Cor 5:15 - we are no longer living for ourselves but for Jesus. The focus of our lives is the kingdom Matt 6:33.
2. My prayer is therefore always linked to the kingdom and what I need for the purposes of the kingdom - which includes peace of mind, basic needs etc.
3. Ezek 22:30 - God sought for a man, but since he was not found God's wrath came upon the nation. In other words the future of the nation was in the hands of the man who was meant to pray for the nation.
4. Hezekiah's prayer where God changes His word on his request.
5. The doctrine of freewill. We were not meant to be robots, but people with a personality, emotions and desires.

I believe that as we walk in the path laid out for us, God has given some freedom to us to create out own future. At times God over-rides events we create by His acts, but He never over-rides our will. That requires willing submission. So I need to plan for the future and decide on courses of actions using the intellectual abilities God has given me, AND I NEED TO PRAY THESE INTO EXISTENCE. In prayer, as you come to understand God's mind you may change the plans and the prayers.

In essence then, prayer is not just telling God let your will be done, or just trying to understand God's will - which is essentially the Islamic understanding of God and prayer, but an interactive exercise between you and God in creating the future in your area of responsibility.

Judas

How sustainable is the argument that Judas was not wanting to betray Jesus but was rather trying to precipitate a crisis so that Jesus' messiahship would be forced to into the open? This has been a view of a few but has little support with most Christians. What are the arguments in support of such a view?

1. The remorse he felt when Jesus did not resist arrest but went willingly to be crucified. Judas' suicide is taken to mean that the result of his betrayal was not what he expected.

I do not find any other support for such a view of Judas' betrayal.

What are the arguments against such a view?

1. The fact that the apostles were unsympathetic to Judas and saw it as a simple betrayal for money
2. John (John 12:6) says that Judas was a thief supporting the view that once he lost faith in Jesus' pacifist ways he decided to convert Jesus into money.
3. The view is pure speculation as it has no Biblical documentation.

What probably happened?

1. After the feeding of the 5000 Jesus' teaching was focused on preparing the apostles for the event of the cross. He teachings were focused on what it means to live the life of the cross in your day to day to life. It would appear that this teaching led Judas to lose faith.
2. The anointing of Mary may have been a turning point - when he saw Jesus majoring on non-essentials on (adulation of women) and ignoring the essentials the liberation of the Jews. After the period of popularity (which Judas probably saw as the laying of the foundation of a following) Jesus' teaching changed tack and He lost a lot of followers - John 6:66. This loss of followers would have raised many queries in Judas' mind about the intention of Jesus.
3. When he came to betray Jesus, one look by Jesus into his eyes (speculative) must have shattered him just as Peter's betrayal shattered Peter.

I do not see any need for speculation on Judas' motive when the Bible says .