Matthew 16:21–23

Matthew 16:21–23 (ESV): Jesus Foretells His Death and Resurrection

Synopsis

The ESV heading for this passage is “Jesus Foretells His Death and Resurrection,” but it could just as well be “Jesus Rebukes Peter,” because I’m sure that’s how most people think of this passage. (After all, that’s how I think of it, so surely everyone else does too…)

The passage starts off with Jesus explaining to his disciples all that has to happen; that he will suffer at the hands of the religious leaders, and be killed, but then be raised on the third day. This doesn’t sit well with Peter, however, to takes Jesus aside and tries to tell Jesus that this will never happen. (Verse 22 (ESV) says that Peter was actually trying to “rebuke” Jesus.) Jesus’ response to Peter is pretty well known:

But he turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me. For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man.” (verse 23 (ESV))

Thoughts

It’s interesting to me that Peter would even try to correct Jesus in the first place. In fact not just correct him, but rebuke him. But I’ve always seen this as Peter trying to demonstrate his loyalty to, and faith in, Jesus. I imagine Peter was still riding pretty high from the immensely good words received from Jesus in the last passage about how blessed Peter was, and maybe saw this as another opportunity to garner some more good words from his teacher.

The thing which really stands out in this passage, though, is obviously Jesus’ “Get behind me Satan!” response to Peter in verse 23 (ESV). And of course Jesus is right, Peter does have his mind on the things of man, rather than the things of God; dying is what Jesus came to Earth for. For Peter to tell Jesus that he would not die in this way shows a profound lack of understanding by Peter on Jesus’ role. (Not that I necessarily blame Peter; I can’t claim that I would have understood things any better. It’s only in retrospect that things seem so clear.)

But I wonder if there is also an aspect of Jesus being fully man and fully God. As much as Jesus never sinned, he was a human, and I think the human part of him was sometimes at odds with his godly nature. (At least, as much as it could be without crossing the line into sin!) I think, for example, of the prayer in Gethsemane when he prayed “My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will.” (See Matthew 26:36–46 (ESV).) Jesus came to us for one main reason, to die on the cross and be punished for our sins on our behalf, but that doesn’t mean that he, as a man, was always happy about it. I need to be careful how I phrase this, because I don’t think there’s any respect in which Jesus was going to the cross against his will, but it seems that there was also, from time to time, an attitude sort of along the lines of “if only there were another way.” (The fact that there wasn’t another way—that the only way for us to have a relationship with God was for the Son to take our punishment on our behalf—shows us again how serious the problem of sin really is.)

It may be that this is why Jesus’ response to Peter is so harsh in this instance. Is it possible that it was tempting for Jesus the human to not do what he came here to do? I don’t mean “tempting” in the sense of actually crossing over the line into sin; I just mean that a temptation was placed in front of Jesus, which he had to resist.

Matthew 16:13–20

Matthew 16:13–20 (ESV): Peter Confesses Jesus as the Christ

Synopsis

This passage starts off with Jesus asking his disciples who people say that he is. They respond by listing some of the ideas that people have about him: John the Baptist; Elijah; Jeremiah or one of the prophets. He then follows up with another question: so who do the disciples think that Jesus is? Peter answers, and his response is famous (in Christian circles):

Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” (verse 16 (ESV))

Jesus is very pleased by Peter’s answer, and tells him so:

And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” (verses 17–19 (ESV))

The passage ends with Jesus commanding the disciples not to tell anyone that he is the Christ.

Thoughts

This is a very interesting passage, and (in my mind at least) inextricably linked with the next passage in verses 21–23 (ESV) when Jesus rebukes Peter. Jesus starts in a roundabout way, by asking the disciples what others think of him before asking them what they think of him, showing the contrast between the confused opinions of the masses and the… slightly less confused opinions of the disciples.

I guess I should point out, for those who haven’t read this over and over again, that the word “Christ” means “Messiah” or “Anointed One.” (I’m not a biblical scholar, and don’t know ancient Greek, but I think we could also use the word “saviour.”) The disciples didn’t fully understand Jesus’ role—like most other people of their day they probably expected a political saviour; someone who would save the Jews from the Romans and become their new king, like King David—but they did understand that he was the one prophesied in the Old Testament. And they did understand that he is the ‘Son of the living God” (verse 16 (ESV)), so they know that he’s more than just a human man.

We should note that Jesus isn’t, strictly speaking, praising Peter for his response, so much as he’s joyously calling out the fact that God the Father has revealed this truth to him. Notice that he doesn’t say “good work, Peter!” he tells Peter that he’s blessed. God has given this knowledge to Peter, for which Jesus is rejoicing.

Now… I never really read much into this, until reading the ESV Study Bible notes, but apparently verse 18 (ESV) is “one of the most controversial and debated passages in all of Scripture.” Let’s look at it again:

“And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

The reason for the controversy is the difference in interpretation between Catholics and Protestants; Catholics say that this verse indicates that Peter was the first pope. Protestants, of course, don’t believe in popes, so obviously they would disagree with that assertion. I don’t have the learning or the knowledge to argue for or against this position; however, the ESV Study Bible notes do point out some interesting facts:

… Protestants generally have thought that it refers to Peter in his role of confessing Jesus as the Messiah, and that the other disciples would share in that role as they made a similar confession (see Eph. 2:20 (ESV), where the church is built on all the apostles; cf. Rev. 21:14 (ESV)). Jesus’ statement did not mean that Peter would have greater authority than the other apostles (indeed, Paul corrects him publicly in Gal. 2:11–14 (ESV)), nor did it mean that he would be infallible in his teaching (Jesus rebukes him in Matt. 16:23 (ESV)), nor did it imply anything about a special office for Peter or successors to such an office. Certainly in the first half of Acts Peter appears as the spokesman and leader of the Jerusalem church, but he is still “sent” by other apostles to Samaria (Acts 8:14 (ESV)), and he has to give an account of his actions to the Jerusalem church (Acts 11:1–18 (ESV)). Peter is presented as having only one voice at the Jerusalem council, and James has the decisive final word (Acts 15:7–21 (ESV)). And, though Peter certainly has a central role in the establishment of the church, he disappears from the Acts narrative after Acts 16 (ESV). … (Part of the ESV Study Bible note on verse 18, emphasis in the original, with links to Bible verses (on Bible Gateway) added.)

The author of this note is giving the Protestant view, and then using the examples quoted from Scripture to show that in the early Church Peter didn’t seem to have any greater authority than the other Apostles.

I’m guessing that the idea of Saint Peter standing at the “pearly gates,” granting people admission into Heaven, probably comes from Jesus telling Peter in verse 19 (ESV) that he is giving him the “keys of the kingdom of heaven.” Of course I think this is much too literal of an interpretation of Jesus’ words to Peter; that decision—as to who “gets in” and who doesn’t—belongs to God the Father, and Him alone. (I suppose that’s why Saint Peter is always pictured as checking in a book, to see who is allowed in; I guess God would have written the names in that book, and Peter is simply informing people what God has already decided.) Although I think this notion of Peter standing at the gate as a heavenly bouncer is nonsense, that doesn’t mean I properly understand what Jesus is saying to Peter; the ESV Study Bible talks of Peter being given the authority to admit entrance through the preaching of the Gospel, and then goes on to say that this same authority is granted to anyone who preaches the Gospel (not just Peter), but to me that seems like a bit of a stretch of Jesus’ words. In this passage Jesus is talking to Peter, and there seems to be a specific meaning for him. It seems to me that Jesus is talking about the leadership role that Peter will take in giving the Gospel to people in the beginning days of the Church; not in a pope-like role, as the Catholics believe—the passages mentioned above show Peter having now more authoritative role than the other Apostles—but in the sense that he seems to lead the way. And he definitely does seem to be the boldest proclaimer of the Gospel in the early chapters of the book of Acts, at least until the focus is shifted to Paul.

Finally, at the end of the passage Jesus commands his disciples not to tell anyone that he’s the Christ. That always confused me, in my early days as a Christian; wasn’t the whole point of Jesus coming to the world to tell everyone that he was the Christ?!? Why is he hiding it? I mentioned above that the disciples were probably confused about the actual role of the Christ/Messiah/Anointed One, and were probably expecting more of a political saviour than a spiritual one, and if they were confused the general public would definitely be confused; the ESV Study Bible points out that Jesus was probably thinking of this confusion of the role of the Christ when he told the disciples not to tell anyone. Why confuse the situation with people thinking that Jesus was going to claim the throne of Israel, which would muddy the spiritual message(s) he was trying to convey? Added to this, I think it also simply wasn’t yet time for Jesus to go to the cross. There are numerous passages in the Gospels where Jesus tells his disciples that it’s not yet his time, and I’m thinking this might be another instance of that.

Matthew 16:5–12

Matthew 16:5–12 (ESV): The Leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees

Synopsis

In this passage Jesus warns the disciples to avoid the “leaven” of the the Pharisees and the Sadducees (verse 6 (ESV)). Because the disciples have forgotten to bring any bread (and seem to have food on their minds), they talk amongst themselves and come to the group conclusion that Jesus is probably being literal—that he’s warning them not to use any leaven given to them from the Pharisees and Sadducees.

Jesus, however, has no patience for the disciples in this instance:

But Jesus, aware of this, said, “O you of little faith, why are you discussing among yourselves the fact that you have no bread? Do you not yet perceive? Do you not remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many baskets you gathered? Or the seven loaves for the four thousand, and how many baskets you gathered? How is it that you fail to understand that I did not speak about bread? Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” (verses 8–11 (ESV))

At this point the disciples realize that Jesus is not talking about physical leaven, but about the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

Thoughts

When Jesus fed the 4,000 men (plus women and children), I commented that although I thought the disciples were being a bit… er… dense, Jesus didn’t really get exasperated with them. So I might have been judging them too harshly. However, in this passage he does.

But we should also notice that Jesus isn’t calling them slow, or dumb, or ignorant. He calls them “you of little faith.” (One of my pastors once mentioned that Jesus uses this phrase so often that it’s practically a nickname for the disciples—“Little Faith.”) This isn’t an issue of them not understanding what Jesus is saying so much as it is an issue of them not having faith. They really are focused on bread! Even though they were present when Jesus miraculously fed 5,000 men (plus women and children), and again when he miraculously fed 4,000 men (plus women and children), they are so focused right now on the fact that they don’t have any bread that they can’t pay attention to Jesus’ teachings. After seeing those two miracles, do the disciples really think that they’re going to starve?

But as usual I try not to judge the disciples too harshly unless I’m judging myself even more harshly. How often do we doubt God’s promises to us? Even though He has promised to take care of us, how often do we think that this is the one exception in all of history—the one instance where He will be powerless to take care of us, despite the fact that He has never been powerless before? Of course we don’t think of it in those terms, any more than the disciples were consciously thinking that Jesus was going to let them starve; it’s an attitude in our hearts, which, while we don’t consciously think about it, still drives our actions. Even if the only action that it drives is to cause us to worry, that’s still enough for us to be judged lacking by God; we should never worry. It is a matter of faith; it’s a matter of believing—not just in our minds, but also in our hearts—that God is in control, and that He will take care of us. He has promised to do so, and the situation we’re currently going through is not the one exception in all of history when He will not live up to His promises.

Matthew 16:1–4

Matthew 16:1–4 (ESV): The Pharisees and Sadducees Demand Signs

Synopsis

In this passage the Pharisees and Sadducees approach Jesus and ask him for a sign from heaven, to test him. But Jesus doesn’t even bother with them:

He answered them, “When it is evening, you say, ‘It will be fair weather, for the sky is red.’ And in the morning, ‘It will be stormy today, for the sky is red and threatening.’ You know how to interpret the appearance of the sky, but you cannot interpret the signs of the times. An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah.” So he left them and departed. (verses 2–4 (ESV))

Short, and to the point!

Thoughts

As stated in verse 1 (ESV)—when it says that they are “testing” Jesus—the Pharisees and Sadducees are not actually looking for proof that Jesus is who he claims to be; they’ve already made up their minds that he’s not, and are simply looking for evidence to back up their claims. Jesus doesn’t bother to give them one, but he does tell them that they should already have enough evidence as it is; they are simply not able (or not willing) to interpret “the signs of the times” (verse 3 (ESV)).

On “the sign of Jonah,” I’ll be lazy and simply quote the ESV Study Bible rather than putting it in my own words:

Jonah’s being rescued by God was a sign to the people of Nineveh that his message was from God. Jesus’ death and resurrection (see 12:40 (ESV)) will likewise be God’s sign to the present generation.

Matthew 15:32–39

Matthew 15:32–39 (ESV): Jesus feeds four thousand men (plus women and children)

Synopsis

In 14:13–21, a very famous incident, Jesus fed 5,000 men (plus women and children). In this passage he repeats the miracle, and the scene is very similar to what happened in the previous passage:

• Jesus tells his disciples that he has compassion on the crowd, and doesn’t want to send them away “lest they faint on the way” (verse 32 (ESV))
• The disciples ask him where they could possibly get enough bread to feed the crowd
• Jesus finds out how much bread and fish they have (seven loaves and two small fish), gives thanks, and distributes it to the disciples who in turn distribute it to the crowd, which eats and everyone is satisfied
• We are told that there are 4,000 men present (plus women and children)

Thoughts

A lot of Christians don’t read through the Bible in a straight path, they get led hither and thither on the whims of their devotional books. That’s great for getting into various parts of the Bible, but it tends to make you miss certain story points; this particular one is a point that I’d missed, when first starting to read the Bible—I didn’t realize for a long while that there were two feedings, one of 5,000 men (plus women and children), and then this second feeding of 4,000 men (plus women and children). Frankly, I thought this was one of those “inconsistencies” that people are sometimes talking about—sometimes the Word says the feeding was 5,000 men (plus women and children), and sometimes it says 4,000. But if you read through Matthew from beginning to end, you come across both feedings.

Which makes the reaction of the disciples kind of baffling, when you get to the second feeding. Jesus has already performed this miracle once. In fact, not only has he already performed it, he performed it by feeding more people, with less food. When Jesus tells the disciples that he has compassion on the crowd because they’re hungry, I’m thinking that the disciples’ reaction should have been something like, “Good idea, Jesus, we’ll get the bread and fish and you can help us distribute it to the people!” Instead, the reaction is:

And the disciples said to him, “Where are we to get enough bread in such a desolate place to feed so great a crowd?” (verse 33 (ESV))

I’ve always been baffled by the disciples’ reaction in this situation, after having already been present at the feeding of the 5,000 men (plus women and children), however, I also notice that there is no record of Jesus getting exasperated with them, so I might be judging them too harshly.

Matthew 15:29–31

Matthew 15:29–31 (ESV): Jesus Heals Many

Synopsis

The title pretty much says it all, on this one. Jesus moves on to a particular region where there is a mountain and sits down, and “great crowds” come to him, bringing people who need to be healed, whom he does indeed heal, “so that the crowd wondered…. And they glorified the God of Israel” (verse 31 (ESV)).

Thoughts

There’s really so little to say about this passage. There are many instances of Jesus healing people in the Gospels, and to me this is just one more. I’m sure it’s probably part of a larger story arc that Matthew is weaving about the path Jesus’ ministry took, but I’m afraid all I see is another instance of Jesus displaying his power.

Not that one should ever get blassé about Jesus’ power! Nobody else who lived could have done this—or, if they could, they’d simply be doing it in Jesus’ name, not of their own power—so this was a spectacular event. I just don’t have any deep insights about what it means, other than that Jesus is God, and can do what He pleases. What he pleases, in this passage, is to help people, alleviate suffering, and cure diseases/ailments.

Matthew 15:21–28

Matthew 15:21–28 (ESV): The Faith of a Canaanite Woman

Matthew 15:10–20

Matthew 15:10–20 (ESV): What Defiles a Person

Synopsis

This passage continues on from the last passage. The Pharisees and scribes had been talking about the disciples not washing their hands, so Jesus gathers the people around and explains to them that it is not what goes into a person’s mouth that “defiles” them (or makes them “unclean”), but rather what comes out of the mouth.

The disciples then approach Jesus in private to inquire if he is aware that what he’s said has offended the Pharisees, but Jesus isn’t worried about what the Pharisees think:

He answered, “Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be rooted up. Let them alone; they are blind guides. And if the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a pit.” (verses 13–14 (ESV))

At this Peter asks Jesus to explain the parable to them, and Jesus seems to get a bit exasperated with them, asking in verse 16 (ESV), “Are you also still without understanding?”

But he explains to them that what goes into a person doesn’t make that person unclean; it eventually ends up passing right on through. However, what comes out of a person comes from the heart, and therefore that defiles a person. The sinful things that come out of the heart—“evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander” (verse 19 (ESV))—are what defiles someone, but eating with unwashed hands does not.

Thoughts

I find it interesting that the disciples are worried about offending the Pharisees. That seems almost silly to us; we all know that the Pharisees were legalistic and missed the point of the Gospel (not to mention the point of the Old Testament Scriptures, which they knew so well). And we see Jesus on numerous occasions showing their logic to be flawed, along with their understanding of God and religion. But at the time, the Pharisees were considered to be the religious leaders of the day; it’s not surprising that even Jesus’ disciples would be uncomfortable, from time to time, when Jesus would disagree with the Pharisees, or openly offend them.

I can’t remember if we’ve seen Jesus getting exasperated with the disciples so far in Matthew—there was a long period of inactivity on the blog, and my memory doesn’t go back that far (I’ve been in Matthew for over a year now)—but it’s not something that’s unheard of in the Gospels; the disciples didn’t always understand what Jesus was trying to teach them, and sometimes it seems that they should have understood. There were times when they would ask Jesus clarifying questions and he would patiently answer them, and other times when they would ask and he’d berate them for being slow to understand. Since Jesus was without sin we know that his exasperation with them wasn’t sinful; he wasn’t just getting impatient because he was tired, for example. It seems that there were times when the disciples had enough information that they should have understood what Jesus was saying, but for whatever reason (having to do with being fallen, sinful humans), they didn’t, and Jesus had to explain things that he clearly felt he shouldn’t have had to explain.

This is one of the cases where Jesus is trying to explain to his listeners that the Old Covenant laws and religious rules handed down by God only go so far; there are deeper issues at play. The Pharisees took a rule which was aimed at God’s priests before performing their religious duties and (as mentioned in the last post) tried to generalize it and apply it to all Israelites, at all times. (Well… not at all times, but every time they ate.) But as clean as you can make yourself physically, the cleanliness that God had ordained for His priests before performing their duties was only symbolic; they weren’t actually clean before Him. They were still sinful. They still had ‘evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, [and] slander” (verse 19 (ESV)) in their hearts, regardless of how many times they washed their hands and their feet.

The Pharisees took the Old Covenant laws and regulations, which were impossible for any sinful person to perfectly keep, and added their own rules on top making it even harder to keep all of the rules perfectly. The problem is that they didn’t realize this; they thought they were keeping the rules. When Jesus told them that regardless of how many times they washed their hands their evil hearts were still making them unclean, it’s not surprising that they’d get offended.

The key for us, as modern-day Christians, is to remember that we’re just as sinful, and wouldn’t be any better at keeping the Law than the Pharisees were; probably worse. Especially when we take into account Jesus’ New Testament teachings, indicating that it’s even worse than disobedience of the law because even evil thoughts make us guilty before God. But because of Jesus’ work on the cross, I won’t be punished for my transgressions, and neither will anyone else who believes in Him.

Template

I'm playing around with my Blogger template, and might be making more and more changes as I go. If it gets disconcerting, I apologize in advance.

Matthew 15:1–9

Matthew 15:1–9 (ESV): Traditions and Commandments

Synopsis

In this passage the Pharisees and scribes come to Jesus to question him. (Verse 1 (ESV) says that they are coming “from Jerusalem,” which the ESV Study Bible points out means that these are the highest-ranking Pharisees and scribes.)

Their main question centres around why Jesus’ disciples are breaking “the traditions of the elders”—for example, not washing their hands before they eat (verse 2 (ESV)). However, Jesus doesn’t even bother to answer the question the Pharisees and scribes are asking, but instead he immediately turns it back around on them:

He answered them, “And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?” (verse 3 (ESV))

He then goes on to give an example of one of the “traditions of the elders” which, under the Pharisees’ and scribes’ teachings, supercede the commandment to honour one’s father and mother. As Jesus says, “for the sake of [their] tradition [they] have made void the word of God” (verse 6 (ESV)).

He ends the passage even more harshly:

“You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said:

“‘This people honors me with their lips,
  but their heart is far from me;
in vain do they worship me,
  teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’”

(verses 7–9 (ESV))

Thoughts

When the Pharisees and scribes are talking about “the traditions of the elders,” they’re talking about traditions that have probably been handed down generation by generation, for hundreds if not thousands of years. Even if it wasn’t that long, even if it was only a few generations, I can see why the Pharisees and scribes were seeing the traditions as being so binding; these are traditions that they’ve grown up with their whole lives, that have been taught to them and by them as a core part of their religious instruction. And my understanding is that these traditions came about for very understandable reasons; at some point, in the history of the Israelites, the rabbis started trying to lay down some guidelines that would help the average Israelite to understand and follow God’s law. For one good example that comes to mind, the law says not to work on the Sabbath, but what constitutes “work”? How is the common person supposed to know if a particular task is considered “work” or not? So to try to help with this situation, the rabbis started coming up with rules on what is and what is not “work” for the purpose of helping Israelites understand what they should or shouldn’t do. My understanding of this is that the original intent was right; they wanted to help people follow God’s law, and were providing some guidelines to help them do so. But there were some problems:

• These are complex issues, and the more you try to define something the more definition is needed. Using the same “what constitutes work on the Sabbath” example, you can easily see how it can spiral endlessly out of control: “Does cooking count as work? Hmm, does it make a difference if you cook over a fire? Or something you have to stir? Or something you have to kneed? Does eating count as work? Does it make a difference if you’re eating something you have to peel, or if you use utensils, or…”
  • If you think these examples are far-fetched, they might not be. I remember an example that I read about in one study Bible or another in which Israelites were allowed to give to the poor on the Sabbath, but the poor had to reach their hands inside the door to receive it, because if the Israelite were to open the door and go out to the poor person it would count as “work.”
• As rules were created, and added, inevitably there would start to arise conflicts. To use the example above, how can it be permitted to give to the poor if it’s not permitted to leave the house? So more rules have to be added, to deal with the conflicts.
• As so much emphasis starts to get placed on rules the religion starts to become legalistic, rather than a relationship with God—and, indeed, legalism is the main thing we think of, when we think of Pharisees. Jesus is constantly calling them hypocrites for looking good on the outside—following all of the rules they’ve created for themselves—while not actually having any kind of relationship with God.
  • The example given by the Pharisees and scribes in this section is sort of an example of this; the tradition about washing hands before eating actually came from rules that God had given the priests, about washing their hands and feet before performing their religious duties; the rabbis then thought, hey, why not take that further, and apply it to everyone?

This would all be something that could be dealt with under the right frame of mind (well, maybe not the legalism), but the main problem was that the rabbis started to come to see these rules—which had originally been intended as clarifications to God’s Law (at least that’s my understanding)—as equal to the Law itself. And in fact, with all of the extra rules that were being added, eventually some were added which actually conflicted with the Law, and in these cases the rabbis started to consider their rules to take precedence over the Law itself. That seems to be the main thing Jesus is taking issue with in this passage.

Jesus often has very harsh things to say about the Pharisees (it seems the word “hypocrite” comes up very often when he deals with them), and the reason is that to outward appearances they seem to be very religious and spiritual, but in reality they hold the Word of God to be of less value than their own teachings and traditions. That’s very dangerous, and it can (and will) lead people astray; it’s the reason Jesus says, in 23:15 (ESV):

“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel across sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves.”

So what’s the lesson we need to take from this? Rest assured that God did not give us this passage simply so that we could feel smug and superior to those hypocritical Pharisees; we are just as much in danger of holding to our own traditions—and even considering them more important than God’s Word—as they were. More churches are split in North America over questions of musical style than over questions of doctrine, so I’m sure there are Christians who have acted unlovingly toward other Christians because of these arguments, being more concerned about the style of music (a tradition, and one on which the Bible is silent—there are no passages talking about what type of music is good or bad for worship) than about loving their neighbour. Part of the problem is that it’s sometimes so hard to pull apart what we believe because of our society and traditions and what we believe because it’s proper Christian doctrine. But we need to always go into the Word of God ready to receive what He has for us and to learn—and, perhaps more importantly, possibly to unlearn, if we believe things that aren’t correct or if our traditions are getting in the way of the Word.