THE GOLDEN RULE

"And just as you want people to do to you, do to them in the same way" (Luke 6:31).
 

“Everything then, whatever you want people to do to you, in the same way also do to them; for this is the Law and the Prophets” (Matthew 7:12).
 

Just about everyone seems to have some knowledge of the verse in the Bible known as the Golden Rule found in Jesus' Sermon On The Mount.
 

We have two different versions of this rule, which differ slightly.  When we remember that Jesus was most likely speaking in Aramaic, while Matthew and Luke have given it to us in Greek, and that both give us condensed versions of the Sermon, the differences can be easily accounted for.  The real difficulty is that Luke places it early in the Sermon, tucked into a longer passage on love, while Matthew places it much later, separating it from other sayings.

Why is this?  I believe that the simplest answer is that Jesus said it twice.  Most preachers (myself included) repeat themselves in the same sermon, so why couldn't He?  The first time it's spoken (Luke 6:31), it is tucked away within Jesus' commands regarding loving our enemies.  The second time was nearer to His closing remarks.

Most people could probably recite the Golden Rule in one form or another, or at least paraphrase it.  It also seems to be the verse most often deliberately misquoted:

·       “Do unto others what they do unto you.”

·       “Do unto others before they do unto you.”

·       Or (my personal favorite) simply:  “Do others!”



The saying (sometimes referred to as the ethic of reciprocity) is so familiar to Christians who know that it’s a quote from Jesus, that they are often surprised to find that this concept is also found in many religions and cultures.  A Google search will quickly show many similar sayings in Buddhism, Baha’i, Hinduism, Islam and Judaism, as well as in many ancient writings much older that the Gospels.  A few samples:

• Buddhism:    
• "...a state that is not pleasing or delightful to me, how could I inflict that upon another?" Samyutta NIkaya v. 353
• Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful." Udana-Varga 5:18
• Confucianism:
• "Do not do to others what you do not want them to do to you" Analects 15:23
• "Tse-kung asked, 'Is there one word that can serve as a principle of conduct for life?' Confucius replied, 'It is the word 'shu' -- reciprocity. Do not impose on others what you yourself do not desire.'" Doctrine of the Mean 13.3
• Hinduism:   This is the sum of duty: do not do to others what would cause pain if done to you. Mahabharata 5:1517
• Islam: "None of you [truly] believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself." Number 13 of Imam "Al-Nawawi's Forty Hadiths." 3
• Judaism: 
• "What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man. This is the law: all the rest is commentary." Talmud, Shabbat 31a
• "And what you hate, do not do to anyone." Tobit 4:15 4

 

Theologically liberal Christians gladly receive this information as evidence that all religions are equal.  Theologically conservative Christians are sometimes rattled or upset, feeling that this sort of thinking is a threat to the uniqueness of Jesus.
 

But is it?  Does finding truth in other religions threaten the uniqueness of Jesus?
 

No way!

• First of all we need to realize that not everything Jesus said was original with Him.  Every word He said was and is true, not because it was all original with Him, but because He is God.
• Secondly the doctrine of natural revelation teaches us that God has revealed Himself in many ways.  “…that which is known of God is evident among them (humankind), for God made it evident to them” (Romans 1:19).  “For whenever gentiles, those not having the Law, do by nature the things of the Law, these, though not having the Law are a law to themselves, such ones as show the work of the Law written in their hearts…” (2:14, 15).

 

But Jesus’ statement is unique for a number of reasons.  The first reason is that it is the word of the Son of God and as such has an authority over His hearers that the other sayings do not.  Also, many (though not all) of the other sayings were in a negative form (“Do not…”), whereas Jesus’ was in a positive form.

Many of the other sayings were stated or could be interpreted with a utilitarian motive, i.e., be nice to others, so that they will be nice to you.  Jesus gives a different reason for this behavior, “…for this is the Law and the Prophets.”  This, I believe, is the radical difference.
 

Jesus’ hearers were mostly Jews, living under the Old Testament Law of Moses.  In Matthew's Gospel we read that Jesus had already devoted a large portion of this sermon to the proper understanding of that Law (5:17-48).  He taught that God’s Law is not simply about the performance or non-performance of external acts, but began with the thought life.  Much of that teaching was in a negative fashion.  Here, in this one statement, He gives a positive summation of the keeping of the Law, as well as the teachings of the Old Testament prophets.

 

Later, when Jesus is questioned by a Pharisaic law expert (Matthew 22:34-36; Mark 12:28) as to which is the greatest commandment in the Law, Jesus replied, “’You will love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’  This is the first and great commandment.  And the second is like it, ‘You will love your neighbor as yourself.’  On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets” (Matthew 22:37-40; Mark 12:29-31).

 

Jesus here was quoting from two texts in the Mosaic Law, Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18b.  And He ties these two together as a summation of the Law and the Prophets.  Jesus quoted these passages a number of times, but sometimes only the second, Leviticus 19:18b, about loving one’s neighbor.
 

I would even venture to say that when He placed the two love commands together, He was implying a link between them – an unbreakable link.  Can one actually love his neighbor without loving God?  Can a person love God without loving His neighbor?
 

And if the “Golden Rule” and the Law of Love are both said to be the fulfillment of God’s Law, can we not assume that they are one and the same?  This elevates the Rule to more than a utilitarian social ethic.  Though it may be found to be good practical advice, it is so much more than that.  It is an expression of the Love of God worked out in our lives.  As John, one of Jesus’ 12 disciples, would later write, “We love because He first loved us” (1 John 4:19).
 

The other disciples also grasped this concept.  James, Jesus’ brother, who was not a believer at the time Jesus preached the Sermon, but may very well have heard it, wrote of it in his letter, referring to it as “the perfect Law, the Law of Liberty” (James 1:25) and “the Royal Law” (2:8).
 

And then there’s Paul, another who was an unbeliever at the time of the Sermon, who probably never heard Jesus at all, and who many believe wrote before the Gospels were written.  Yet he grasps Jesus’ sayings and almost paraphrases Him.
 

“For all the Law is fulfilled in one word in this, ‘You will love your neighbor as yourself’” (Galatians 5:14).
 

“Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another, for the one who loves the other has fulfilled the Law.  For this, ‘You will not commit adultery, you will not murder, you will not steal, you will not covet,’ and if there’s any other commandment, it is summed up in this word, ‘You will love your neighbor as yourself.’  Love does not do evil to a neighbor, therefore love is the Law’s fulfillment!’” (Romans 13:8-10).
 

So for the follower of Jesus, the “Golden Rule” is more than just good advice, more than the best advice.  It is the living out of the love of Christ in our relationships with others.
 

{NOTE:  Most of the above thoughts were previously posted on THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT, 20.}

LOVE MY ENEMIES?

Luke 6:27-35

          "But I'm saying to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you!  To the one who hits you on the cheek, offer the other as well, and from the one who takes away your coat, do not withhold your shirt!  Give to everyone who asks from you, and from the one who takes away your stuff, don't demand it back! (verses 27-30)

          And just as you want people to do to you, do to them in the same way. (verse 31)

          And if you love those who love you, what grace is that to you?  For even sinners love those who love them!  And if you do good to those who do good to you, what grace is that to you?  Even sinners do the same thing.  And if you lend to those from whom you expect to receive what grace is that to you?  Even sinners lend in order that they may receive back the same! (verses 32-34)

          However, love your enemies and do good and lend, not hoping for anything back, and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because He is kind to the ungrateful and wicked.  Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful!" (verse 35)

When Jesus was questioned elsewhere as to what the first and great commandment of the Law was, he replied:  “’You will love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’  This is the great and first commandment.  And the second is like it.  ‘You will love your neighbor as yourself.’  All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments” (Matthew 22:35-40; Mark 12:28-31; See also Matthew 19:19).

Jesus was quoting, of course, from the Old Testament Law.  The commandment to love the LORD was from Deuteronomy 6:4, 5.  The commandment to love one’s neighbor came from Leviticus 19:18.

We should note that in the same chapter in Leviticus that Jesus quotes, there is another commandment:  “The stranger (or alien) who resides with you shall be to you as a native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt” (Leviticus 19:34).  Both verse 18 and 34 conclude with “I am the LORD!”

And later, when a lawyer (teacher of the Law) tried to find a loophole by asking, “And who is my neighbor?” Jesus told him a story of how one about whom the lawyer held racial and religious stereotypes (a Samaritan) behaved as a neighbor, and then told the lawyer to do likewise (Luke 10:25-27).

So then, our neighbors include not only those who look, behave and worship like we do, but also aliens, and people of different races and religions.

And here in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus tells us that we are to love those who hate and persecute us, and we are even to pray for them!  I don’t see how this excludes anyone.  There are no loopholes!

We will have enemies; we’re not told that we won’t.  The New Testament is filled with promises and examples of persecution and conflict.  But I don’t believe that we are to choose our enemies, nor to consider those with whom we simply disagree as our enemies.  Nor are we to pray for their demise.  We can’t prevent some people from being our enemies, but we should leave the choice to them.  And we are to love them.

And the reason given for loving indiscriminately is “You will be sons of the Most High.”  I don’t believe Jesus is speaking here of that sonship that we have through faith in Him, but rather He’s referring to a concept found throughout the Bible.  To be “the son of” someone meant to be characterized by the same traits as that person.  Paul says in Romans 4:11, 12, that Abraham was “the father” of those who believe, even though not physically related.  Jesus accuses the Scribes and Pharisees in Matthew 23:31 of being “sons of the murderers of the prophets.”  In similar fashion we show our family relation-ship to our Heavenly Father when we love and do good indiscriminately.

We often tend to read Jesus' commands rather abstractly.  We nod our heads and agree with Him without really considering what it means to love another person. 

There was a dear sweet lady in a church I pastored years ago, but she had an uncontrolled tongue; gossip and hurtful sayings were often part of her conversation.  When I finally confronted her about these things, she gave me a sad puzzled look and said, "But I just loove everybody!"  I'm afraid many of us, myself included, tend to use this as our defense or excuse. 

But Jesus doesn't just give us this command in the abstract.  He gives us specific examples of how that love is to be worked out toward even our enemies:

          Do good to them.

          Bless them.

          Pray for them.

          Don't retaliate.

          Don't withhold.

          Give expecting nothing in return. 

Can we really say that we love our enemies? 

{NOTE:  Most of the above thoughts were previously posted on THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT.]

THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT, 24

Two Foundations

Matthew 7:24-29

It seems that almost weekly we are told of some prominent public figure who has failed morally.  Politicians and preachers seem to be competing with each other for the prize of the week, which is usually that of becoming the subject of late-night comedians’ monologues.  Often as we are told on our news media of the latest scandal, we are appalled (at least I am), not only at the sin committed, but its brazenness.  How could they be so stupid?  Well, perhaps it is because they were not building on the right foundation.

Am I?

“So then, everyone who hears these words of Mine and does them is like a wise man, who built his house on the rock.  And the rain came down and the rivers rose and the winds blew, and they smashed against that house and it didn’t fall, because its foundation was on the rock (24, 25).

And everyone who hears these words of Mine and doesn’t do them is like a stupid man, who built his house on the sand.  And the rain came down and the rivers rose and the winds blew, and they crashed against that house, and it fell!  And what a big collapse! (26, 27)

And so it was when Jesus completed these words the crowds were amazed at His teaching, because He was teaching them as One Who had authority and not as their scribes” (28, 29).

Jesus has come to the final words of His Sermon on the Mount.  As He draws nearer and nearer to the conclusion, we can almost feel the intensity increasing.  He keeps confronting His hearers with choices that they must make, expressed by various sets of twos:  two gates, two roads, two destinations, two trees, two fruits.  In this paragraph He presents a final pair from which His hearers must choose.  The choice here is the foundation on which one builds:  the rock or the sand.

Some will argue over whether this should be called a parable or not; I would call it one.  A parable is simply an extended simile or an extended metaphor.  In this case, it is an extended simile, a comparison of two unlike things which have something in common.  Notice the word “like.”

Not every detail in a parable has meaning so we should be careful not to let our imaginations run wild.  This parable seems clear.  There are two builders:  a wise man and a stupid man and two foundations:  rock and sand.  These also correspond with the previously mentioned sets of two.

The houses of the two builders are not compared.  We are left to assume that the differences are not in their construction or materials.  Perhaps they were both expert craftsmen and used only the best materials.  Nor are we told what the houses represent.  Perhaps they represent one’s present life.  Very possibly they represent the ministry of the prophets or teachers, if Jesus is continuing the warnings of 7:15-23.  Paul used similar metaphors in 1 Corinthians 3:10-15, speaking of one’s life and ministry.

Jesus gives a pretty clear explanation of who the builders are.  The other elements of the parable are less clear.  From other passages we find that Jesus is often referred to as the Rock, or Stone (21:42; Acts 4:11). And we may want to use that same interpretation here.  But the implication here is that the Rock represents Jesus’ “words” or His sayings, and He is probably implying that it especially is the words He has just been speaking, i.e., this Sermon.

It is not simply that these are wise words, good advice to follow.  Jesus doesn’t simply say “My words,” but “these words of Mine,” which gives them special emphasis.

The concluding comment by Matthew (verses 28 and 29), though it follows a set formula (see 11:1; 13:53; 19:1; 26:1), also tells us something about Jesus’ words.  He tells us not only what the crowds' reaction was, but why they reacted the way they did.  “He was teaching them with authority.”  They had undoubtedly heard some good teaching before, even some that was based on the authoritative Scriptures of the Old Testament, but Jesus’ teachings were inherently authoritative.  His authority’s derivation was directly from the Father (Matthew 28:18).

Jesus doesn’t tell what the sand represents.  I suppose that the implication is that it is anything that is not the rock (1 Corinthians 3:11).

As far as the rain, the floods and the wind, we are not told what they represent.  They are the same for both houses.  We may think of them as everyday trials and the hardships of life, but in the prophetic writings of the Old Testament, they sometimes represent trials sent by God to reveal and judge the actuality of one’s life or speech.  In Ezekiel 13:9-16, the false prophets of Ezekiel’s day were told that “flooding rain and hailstones” would destroy the wall that they had built.  The parallel is not exact; there the destruction was due to faulty construction, while here it is due to building on the wrong foundation.

The warning is broad enough here to cover both groups in Jesus’ audience:  His disciples and the crowds.  And it has that same application today.  There is a warning here, both for believers and unbelievers, as well as an assurance for believers.

To withstand the vicissitudes of life we must build on the only foundation, Jesus Christ and His Word.  Anything else is bound for failure.  We may build a beautiful structure – a “successful” life, a successful ministry, but neither has permanence without Jesus.

It would be oversimplifying to simply say, “build your life on Jesus and His Word and everything will turn out – you’ll have a great success in your business, your family, your ministry, whatever”, but that seems to be the implication.  To not do so would definitely be to fail.  And we need to remember that God’s ruler for measuring success is different from ours.

THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT, 23

WHO GETS IN?

Matthew 7:21-23

“Not everyone who says to Me ‘Lord, Lord’ will enter into the Kingdom of the Heavens, but the one who does the will of My Father, Who is in the Heavens.

Many will say to Me in that day ‘Lord, Lord, didn’t we prophesy in Your name, and cast out demons in Your name, and do many miracles in Your name?’

And then I will declare to them ‘I never knew you!  Depart from Me, you workers of lawlessness!’”

This passage raises a number of serious questions and has frightened a number of people.  In fact, it has often been used to frighten people.  The main questions that are raised in people’s minds have to do with their eternal destiny.  Is this a warning that my behavior determines whether I’m saved or not?

I’ve looked at a number of commentaries and most seem to lean in that direction.  Often James 2:14-19 is referred to (“Faith without works is dead”).  So the claim is that Jesus is telling His hearers that unless they can produce works as evidence of their faith, then their faith is unreal and they can’t be saved.

A few comments on the phrases used in the text.  First, the phrase “enter into the Kingdom of the Heavens” (or as used elsewhere “enter into the Kingdom of God”) is used frequently by Jesus and is synonymous with “have eternal life” or “enter into life” or “be saved’.  See Matthew 19:16-25, where all four expressions are used in parallel.  It is apparently what Jesus was talking about when He told His hearers “enter in through the narrow gate.”  It speaks of that future time when we enter into Jesus’ eternal Kingdom.

In Matthew 18:3, Jesus says “Amen, I tell you, unless you turn and become as the little children, you will in no way enter into the Kingdom of the Heavens.”  In John 3:5, Jesus tells Nicodemus that the new birth is the requirement for one to “enter the Kingdom of God.”

Then the phrase, “The will of My Father.”  This is another expression that Jesus uses frequently.  In John 6:40 Jesus says “For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who sees the Son and believes on Him should have eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.”

So, if I may boil this down, Jesus is not coming up with multiple requirements for salvation.  There is one requirement:  faith in Him.  Whether we think of it as child-like faith or the new birth, it is the one great desire of the Father.

Jesus is still dealing with the warning against false prophets (verses 15-20).  His warnings there were in the second person (“watch out,” “know”) but here He switches to the third person.  It is those false prophets who are speaking here.  As He said in that warning, the test of a prophet is fruits.  Now He adds that it is not simply addressing Him by the title “Lord” that makes one a true prophet.  One can even acknowledge the lordship of Christ without saving faith.

There will be those who profess their miraculous deeds as qualifications for entrance to the Kingdom.  The works mentioned in verse 23, are the works one would expect a prophet to do.  Jesus doesn’t question the validity of the prophecies, exorcisms and miracles, which would seem to indicate that they were genuine.  Nor does He question the assertion that they were done in His name.  All of this is irrelevant.

The real issue, the requirement for entering the Kingdom is a relationship with Jesus.  Only those He knows will enter.  Does He know us?  Jesus gives this warning at least two other times (Matthew 25:12; Luke 13:27).  Familiarity with Him, good works done in His name, do not count.  It is only genuine faith in Him.

THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT, 22

FALSE PROPHETS

Matthew 7:15-20

“Watch out for the false prophets, the ones who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inside are ravenous wolves. (15).

You will know them by their fruits.  People don’t gather grapes from thorn bushes or figs from thistles do they? (16)

Likewise, every good tree produces good fruit, and every bad tree produces bad fruit.  A good tree isn’t able to produce bad fruit, neither is a bad tree able to produce good fruit. (17, 18)

Every tree which doesn’t produce good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.  So then, you will know them by their fruits.” (19, 20)

The above passage looks pretty relevant today.  If I were leading a discussion on this passage and asked for suggestions for candidates, I would probably hear the following:

·        That preacher who said the world would end last week.
·        The preacher in Florida who got all that publicity for threatening to burn a Koran.
·        The people from that church in Kansas who picket servicemen’s funerals with their GOD DATES FAGS signs.
·        That preacher up in Michigan who denies hell.

We could all probably come up with some more:  preachers who say bizarre or crazy things; preachers whose own lives and behavior do not align with their moral pronouncements.  These people give Christianity and Christ a bad name.

But are they all false prophets in the sense that Jesus meant?  How can we be sure?  What are our criteria for knowing?

I believe that while there are many preachers out there with whom I would disagree vehemently, I (we) must be very careful about judging them.  Jesus has already warned of this danger (7:1-5).  So before we name some specifically, we need to back up and look at this concept of false prophets.  It did not originate on the lips of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount.

First, we need to define what a prophet is.  The popular idea is that a prophet is one who predicts the future.  Certainly that is true, but a prophet was much more than simply a predictor.  The Greek word from which we get our English word, the word used here, is prophetes, which is made up of two Greek words, the prefix pro, which has the idea of precedence, “before” or “in front of,” and phemi, “speak.”  The word has the basic meaning of “one who speaks forth” and in the New Testament is one who speaks for God (or a god).  Prediction was only one aspect of the prophets’ work.  The word in the Hebrew Old Testament is NABI, which has essentially the same meaning.

In Deuteronomy, the fifth book of the Torah – the Mosaic Law, Moses gives two criteria for examining whether a prophet was a true or false prophet.  The first, found in Deuteronomy 13:1-5 is, if a prophet – even if his prophecies come true – entices God’s people to worship other gods, he is a false prophet.

The second criterion, found in 18:20-22 is, if a prophet – even though he speaks in the name of the LORD – gives prophecies that don’t come true, he is a false prophet.

So the two criteria for judging a prophet were the truth of his statements and the truth of his worship or behavior.  And if either proves him false, he was to be put to death.

Jesus now gives His hearers what appear to be new criteria:  “fruit.”  We understand that this word is an analogy.  It stands for something, but what?  The word is used frequently throughout the New Testament and usually seems to be speaking of the products of one’s life.  For the believer the fruits are the tangible evidence of the life of Christ in the believer, the products of the Christian life.  In the Gospels the word is found not only in Jesus’ speech but also that of John the Baptist (Matthew 3:8-10).  We find it also in the writings of Paul and James, as well as in the Book of Hebrews.  In some passages it may also speak of converts (John 15:2-8; Romans 1:13).  In Galatians 5:22, 23, Paul describes “the fruit of the Spirit” as the particular character traits produced by the Holy Spirit in the believer’s life.

The New Testament is full of similar warnings.  Jesus Himself had much more to say.  All the New Testament writers did.  Paul even picked up Jesus’ analogy and warned that these people were not always outsiders, as he warned the elders of the church at Ephesus.

“I know that after my departure, fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock, and men will rise up from your own selves, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them” (Acts 20:19, 20).

In 7:1-5, Jesus had warned of the danger involved in judging a “brother.”  He did not, however, condemn judging in the sense of discernment.  He actually expects His hearers to discern and be concerned about restoring a sinning brother.  And He also expects His hearers to know the difference between a brother and a “dog” or “pig” (verse 6).  He expects His hearers – and us – to be able to distinguish the true from the false when it comes to those who claim to speak for God.

I believe the “fruits” we are to look for in anyone who claims to speak for God are similar to those two requirements of the Law – truth in statements and truth in worship or behavior.

We are responsible for evaluating the truth claims of those who claim to be proclaiming the truth.  We have a standard – the Scripture – the written Word of God.  We have a great example in the Bereans who “received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures every day to see if these things were so” (Acts 17:11).  They had what could be called a healthy skepticism, even of the great apostle Paul.

And we should also examine the lifestyle of those who claim to be spokespersons for God.  Does their life line up with what they speak?  Are they living a life which would bring honor to Christ?  Do they have a personal relationship with Him?  These are valid questions.

However, there is a need for a few warnings:

·        This passage is speaking of “prophets,” and by extension, teachers.  Jesus is not giving us a license to be “fruit inspectors” of our brothers and sisters in order to grade them or even fail them.
·        Differences in doctrine do not make one a false prophet.  We must remember that a person who disagrees with us is not necessarily disagreeing with God.
·        We are not called on to judge a preacher or teacher’s motives (see 1 Corinthians 4:1-5).  The word fruits applies to what can be seen.  We cannot see what goes on in a person’s mind.

THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT, 21

Two Gates and Two Roads

Matthew 7:13, 14

“Enter in through the narrow gate, because wide is the gate, and broad is the road that leads to destruction and many are those who are entering in through it.  And because narrow is the gate and restricted the road that leads to life and few are those who find it.”

Jesus is leading into the conclusion of His Sermon on the Mount.  He lists for His hearers a series of pairs, and urges them to make appropriate choices.  The first four of these pairs are given in verses 13 and 14:

·        Two gates – the wide one or the narrow one.
·        Two roads – the broad one or the restricted one.
·        Two destinations – destruction or life.
·        Two kinds of people – the many or the few.

Jesus is not giving His hearers four individual choices, but only one.  He is, in a sense, summing up all of life in this one choice.  What is this choice that Jesus lays before His hearers?  Though what that choice is seems clear to many, there are those who try to work around it.

As He often does, Jesus with a few words paints a picture for His hearers, depicting that major choice.

I can visualize the scene – the two gates standing open – one wide, with vast numbers of people streaming through.  Looking beyond the gate, I can see the broad road, covered with these multitudes as they continue rushing along.  The other road is narrow with just a trickle passing through.  As I peer through this gate, I see a road that is restricted, perhaps with high walls on both sides keeping the travelers on the path.  I am at the parting of the way while the crowd is carrying me along by the force of their numbers.  I can allow them to carry me through the broad gate, or I can choose the narrow one.

Notice that the gate is the first thing we see.  The road is on the other side of the gate.  Jesus is not equating the gate and the road.  They are two different entities.  To enter the gate is an instantaneous action; to travel the road takes time.

I believe that entering the narrow gate is a metaphor for conversion.  It speaks of that moment – that instant – when a person places his or her faith in Jesus Christ as Savior – when His work is personally appropriated.  Jesus said, (using a different metaphor), “I am the Door.  If anyone enters in through me he will be saved … “ (John 10:9).  The words “enter in through” are the same words as in Matthew 7:13.

But once one enters through the narrow gate, according to the figure Jesus gives in the Sermon, he has not yet arrived.  There is a road to be travelled – a road that is described as “restricted.”  This is actually a participle form of the Greek verb Thlibo which has the idea of pressing together or squeezing.  Mark 3:9 speaks of the multitude (literally) “squeezing“ Him.  The noun form of this verb is Thlipsis, which is often translated “affliction” or even “tribulation.”  In Acts 14:22, Paul and Barnabas warn the new disciples that  “… through many afflictions we must enter the Kingdom of God.”

Jesus also said, “I am the Road …” in John 14:6, using the same word (hodos).  This road hat is entered through the gate is the road of discipleship with Jesus.  Though the gate entered and the road travelled are different entities, they are not separated.  Once a person comes to Christ by faith, that person enters the road of discipleship, whether or not that person desires to travel the road.

What I’m trying to say here is that our eternal destiny is determined by our faith in Christ.  He paid for our salvation.  Faith is our appropriation.  This is what the narrow gate represents.  The number who actually find life in Christ is small.

But the road that we travel between that choice of faith and our arrival at our eternal destiny, while it may be long or short, is a restricted road.  And everyone who enters through the narrow gate must travel this road.

This is not “lordship salvation,” nor is it "cheap grace.”  All who choose to enter experience free grace.  And all who enter embark on a difficult path.

The destination of the journey is “life.”  This is eternal life as contrasted with eternal destruction.  Jesus uses the expression “enter into life” as a synonym for “have eternal life” (19:16, 17) and as a contrast to eternal torment (18:8, 9).  The word translated “destruction” is apoleia and has the idea of eternal destruction.  It is related to the word apollumi which is translated “perish” (8:25) and often has the meaning of eternal damnation (John 3:16).

We have to be careful of carrying the metaphor too far.  The narrow gate is to be chosen.  People are “entering” both gates, but Jesus says that the narrow gate is to be “found.”  He does not say this of the wide gate.  The implication seems to be that it is not a matter of conscious choice.  The vast majority of humankind is headed through the wide gate and is headed for eternal destruction.

It has been claimed by some that the Sermon on the Mount is the gospel, while it has been complained by others that it does not even contain the gospel.  Certainly it does not contain a clear exposition of the work of Christ as Paul outlines in his writings, especially 1 Corinthians 15:1ff.  But then we must remember that this Sermon was preached before Jesus died for our sins.

But the Sermon does contain enough!  Certainly the requirements Jesus gives clearly show His hearers their need for grace, that they – we -- are sinners who cannot attain to God’s standards.

And here Jesus is clear that the way to find eternal life is a matter of conscious choice.  Though neither the words “believe” or “faith” are used here, it is clear that one must put his faith in Jesus as the only Way of salvation.

See:   THROWING OUT THE BABY.

            WHO CAN BE SAVED?

THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT, 20

The Golden Rule

Matthew 7:12

“Everything then, whatever you want people to do to you, in the same way also do to them; for this is the Law and the Prophets.”

Just about everyone seems to have some knowledge of the verse in the Bible known as the Golden Rule.  Most people could probably recite it in one form or another, or at least paraphrase it.  It also seem to be the verse most often deliberately misquoted:

• “Do unto others what they do unto you.”
• “Do unto others before they do unto you.”
• Or (my personal favorite) simply:  “Do others!”

 The saying (sometimes referred to as the ethic of reciprocity) is so familiar to Christians who know that it’s a quote from Jesus, that they are often surprised to find that this concept is also found in many religions and cultures.  A Google search will quickly show many similar sayings in Buddhism, Baha’i, Hinduism Islam and Judaism, as well as in many ancient writings much older that the Gospels.  A few samples:

• Buddhism:  
• "...a state that is not pleasing or delightful to me, how could I inflict that upon another?" Samyutta NIkaya v. 353
• Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful." Udana-Varga 5:18
• Confucianism: 
• "Do not do to others what you do not want them to do to you" Analects 15:23
• "Tse-kung asked, 'Is there one word that can serve as a principle of conduct for life?' Confucius replied, 'It is the word 'shu' -- reciprocity. Do not impose on others what you yourself do not desire.'" Doctrine of the Mean 13.3
• Hinduism:   This is the sum of duty: do not do to others what would cause pain if done to you. Mahabharata 5:1517
• Islam: "None of you [truly] believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself." Number 13 of Imam "Al-Nawawi's Forty Hadiths." 3
• Judaism: 
• "What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man. This is the law: all the rest is commentary." Talmud, Shabbat 31a.
• "And what you hate, do not do to anyone." Tobit 4:15 4

Theologically liberal Christians gladly receive this information as evidence that all religions are equal.  Theologically conservative Christians are sometimes rattled or upset, feeling that this sort of thinking is a threat to the uniqueness of Jesus.  My orthodoxy as a teacher has even been called into question by some for even discussing the existence of such sayings. 

But does the recognition of truth in other religions threaten the uniqueness of Jesus? 

No way!

• First of all we need to realize that not everything Jesus said was original with Him.  Every word He said was and is true, not because it was all original with Him, but because He is God.
• Secondly the doctrine of natural revelation teaches us that God has revealed Himself in many ways.  “…that which is known of God is evident among them (humankind), for God made it evident to them” (Romans 1:19).  “For whenever gentiles, those not having the Law, do by nature the things of the Law, these, though not having the Law are a law to themselves, such ones as show the work of the Law written in their hearts…” (2:14, 15).

But Jesus’ statement is unique for a number of reasons.  The first reason is that it is the word of the Son of God and as such has an authority over His hearers that the other sayings do not.  Also, many (though not all) of the other sayings were in a negative form (“Do not…”), whereas Jesus’ was in a positive form.

Many of the other sayings were stated or could be interpreted with a utilitarian motive, i.e., be nice to others, so that they will be nice to you.  Jesus gives a different reason for this behavior, “…for this is the Law and the Prophets.”  This, I believe, is the radical difference.

Jesus’ hearers were mostly Jews, living under the Old Testament Law of Moses.  Jesus had already devoted a large portion of this sermon to the proper understanding of that Law (5:17-48).  He taught that God’s Law is not simply about the performance or non-performance of external acts, but began with the thought life.  Much of that teaching was in a negative fashion.  Here, in this one statement, He gives a positive summation of the keeping of the Law, as well as the teachings of the Old Testament prophets.

Later, when Jesus is questioned by a Pharisaic law expert (Matthew 22:34-36) as to which is the greatest commandment in the Law, Jesus replied, “’You will love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’  This is the first and great commandment.  And the second is like it, ‘You will love your neighbor as yourself.’  On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets” (Matthew 22:37-40).

Jesus was quoting from two texts in the Mosaic Law, Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18b.  And He ties these two together as a summation of the Law and the Prophets.  Jesus had quoted these passages a number of times, but sometimes only the second, Leviticus 19:18b, about loving one’s neighbor.  He even referred to it earlier in this Sermon (Matthew 5:45).

I would even venture to say that when He placed the two love commands together, He was implying a link between them – an unbreakable link.  Can one actually love his neighbor without loving God?  Can a person love God without loving His neighbor?

And if the “Golden Rule” and the Law of Love are both said to be the fulfillment of God’s Law, can we not assume that they are one and the same?  This elevates the Rule to more than a utilitarian social ethic.  Though it may be found to be good practical advice, it is so much more than that.  It is an expression of the Love of God worked out in our lives.  As John, one of Jesus’ 12 disciples, would later write, “We love because He first loved us” (1 John 4:19).

The other disciples also grasped this concept.  James, Jesus’ brother, who was not a believer at the time Jesus preached the Sermon, but may very well have heard it, wrote of it in his letter, referring to it as “the perfect Law, the Law of Liberty” (James 1:25) and “the Royal Law” (2:8).

And then there’s Paul, another who was an unbeliever at the time of the Sermon, who probably never heard Jesus at all, and who many believe wrote before the Gospels were written.  Yet he grasps Jesus’ sayings and almost paraphrases Him.  (See:  PAUL AND JESUS 4/11/09.)

“For all the Law is fulfilled in one word in this, ‘You will love your neighbor as yourself’” (Galatians 5:14).

“Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another, for the one who loves the other has fulfilled the Law.  For this, ‘You will not commit adultery, you will not murder, you will not steal, you will not covet,’ and if there’s any other commandment, it is summed up in this word, ‘You will love your neighbor as yourself.’  Love does not do evil to a neighbor, therefore love is the Law’s fulfillment!’” (Romans 13:8-10).

So for the follower of Jesus, the “Golden Rule” is more than just good advice, more than the best advice.  It is the living out of the love of Christ in our relationships with others.

Also see:  THE SECOND GREAT COMMANDMENT .