Matthew

In Matthew 18:21-35, Jesus told a parable to illustrate the principle that we should forgive others. The perspective we need is how much God has forgiven us.

So how big is God's gift of forgiveness to us, then?

The man who was forgiven by the king in verse 24 was in debt to the tune of 10,000 talents.

Back in February, we looked at the story of the baptism of Jesus in Matthew's gospel. ("We", as in "Kemsing Church").

We noted that we don't need to work out how to understand what went on there. God himself explains it for us. He does so with a sight (heaven opens and a dove alights on Jesus) and a cry ("this is my beloved son"). So the baptism shows us Jesus as the Son that God the Father loves, the one on whom the Spirit rests to achieve God's purposes on earth.

As we reach Matthew 27:45-50, we are at the end of Jesus' public ministry. Here again, we have a sight and a cry.

There is a real danger that we are so familiar with John the Baptist fulfilling Isaiah 40:3 that we lose sight of the staggering implication this has for Jesus.

So France comments:

R T France is characteristically helpful as he discusses what the phrase "kingdom of God" (Mark and Luke) or "kingdom of heaven" (Matthew) means:

Jesus warns the 12, as he sends them out in Matthew 10, that if they speak to others of him they will be opposed. The warning is given in the context of their mission during Jesus' earthly ministry, but many of the details in there make fuller sense in the period after his ascension. Jesus taught them with the deliberate intention of preparing them for more than just that one mission, and Matthew recorded those words with the Great Commission at the end of his gospel in mind.

Many of us have been taught many times over that the gifts of Gold, Frankincense and Myrrh pointed respectively to Jesus royalty, his priestly role or his divinity, and his forthcoming death and burial.

R T France would caution us here, and helpfully allows the rest of the Bible to tell us what they signify. Letting Scripture interpret Scripture is always a far safer bet than guessing or importing symbols from elsewhere. So here is what he suggests:

Helpful words from R T France on the visit of the Magi. The star's role changes as they leave Jerusalem for the final leg of their journey to Bethlehem:

“Whereas hitherto Matthew has described them as travelling to Jerusalem because they saw the rising of the star, not as actually led by it, his words here indicate that the star now first moved ahead of the magi and then stopped … in a position which indicated the location of the child. What sort of phenomenon gave this impression to expert observers as they travelled south from Jerusalem must be a matter of conjecture. They already knew from Herod that Bethlehem (a mere five or six miles from Jerusalem) was their destination, so that they did not need the star to tell them that; their extravagantly expressed joy is hard to explain unless the star somehow indicated the actual house rather than just the village as a whole. It seems, then, that the star’s movement gave them the final supernatural direction they needed to the specific house ‘where the child was’.” (Page 74)

Yesterday, I quote from John Stott on the Sermon on Matthew 5:38-48. It may seem impossible that we live in the way Jesus teaches.

Here is Stott again:

“It had been written of [Jesus] in the Old Testament Scripture: ‘I gave my back to the smiters, and my cheeks to those who pulled out the beard; I hid not my face from shame and spitting.’ And in the event first the Jewish police spat on him, blindfolded him and struck him in the face, and then the Roman soldiers followed suit. They crowned him with thorns, clothed him in the imperial purple, invested him with a sceptre of reed, jeered at him, ‘Hail, King of the Jews,’ knelt before him in mock homage, spat in his face and struck him with their hands. And Jesus, with the infinite dignity of self-control and love, held his peace. He demonstrated his total refusal to retaliate by allowing them to continue their cruel mockery until they had finished.” (page 106)

John Stott, in his magnificent commentary on the Sermon on the Mount, makes these remarks on 5:38-48:

“Our duty to individuals who wrong us is not retaliation, but the acceptance of injustice without revenge or redress.” (page 105)

Jesus then gives 4 example of what this looks like in practice.

“Each introduces a person (in the context a person who is in some sense ‘evil’) who seeks to do us an injury, one by hitting us in the face, another by prosecuting us at law, a third by commandeering our service, and a fourth by begging money from us.” (page 106)

All 4 of those example feel very contemporary, with the possible exception of the third (conscription). But, look at the cultural situation in which Jesus said this, and:

The third example “could be applied today to any form of service in which we find ourselves conscripts rather than volunteers.” (page 106)

In summary:

“In each of the four situations, Jesus said, our Christian duty is so completely to forbear revenge that we even allow the ‘evil’ person to double the injury.” (page 106)

Whet your appetite for more? Why not join us this coming Sunday morning in Kemsing church at 9.30am.

Matthew 28:19 has a command ("go and make disciples"), followed by two participles: "baptising... , and teaching...".

Here's France again:

The order in which these two participles occur differs from what has become common practice in subsequent Christian history, in that baptism is, in many Christian circles, administered only after a period of ‘teaching,’ to those who have already learned. It can become in such circles more a graduation ceremony than an initiation. If the order of Matthew’s participles is meant to be noticed, he is here presenting a different model whereby baptism is the point of enrollment into a process of learning which is never complete.