Why Say “Kingdom of the Skies” Instead of “Kingdom of Heaven”?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 5 พ.ค. 2024
- Sermon on the Mount Q+R 2 (E19) - How do we reconcile Jesus’ words about the Law with other New Testament teachings? How is God’s justice with gehenna different from karma? And why does the BibleProject translation of the Sermon on the Mount refer to the Kingdom of Heaven as the Kingdom of the skies? In this episode, Tim and Jon respond to your questions on the first four case studies about righteousness (episodes 9-14) in the Sermon on the Mount series. Thank you to our audience for your incredible questions!
Show Music:
Original Sermon on the Mount music by Richie Kohen
BibleProject theme song by TENTS
Show Credits:
Jon Collins is the creative producer for today’s show, and Tim Mackie is the lead scholar. Production of today’s episode is by Lindsey Ponder, producer; Cooper Peltz, managing producer; and Colin Wilson, producer. Tyler Bailey is our supervising editor, and Aaron Olsen edited and mixed today’s episode. JB Witty does our show notes, and Hannah Woo provides the annotations for our app. Audience questions compiled by Christopher Maier. The hosts of today’s episode are Jon Collins and Tim Mackie.
These podcasts are always the best way to start my week. Thank you everyone at the Bible Project!
What shines through most in all of this is the sheer honesty humility and integrity of what you attempt to do.
Thank you Tim, John and Bible Project team for all you do.❤
Thank you for these Q&R podcasts.
Jesus lives ♥️ and is God 🙏🏻 Christ ✝️ and King 👑
Thank you for the words to describe what we sometimes intuitively know but can't articulate. Such a blessing!
Calling the person the fool vs calling them out for acting like a fool. You could call someone stupid to bring them down, lower their value below what they have to contribute, but you could also call someone out when they should know better, they're not contributing everything they have to offer/they're lowering their own value below what they have to contribute via poor choices and actions.
Wow its been 4 months since I followed this series ❤I am so blessed from all the teachings
Really enjoying this Sermon on the Mount series
Thank you so much for sharing this with us! It's great to hear our resources are impacting you in such a meaningful way.
The Q&A podcasts are the best.
Thanks so much for all your work❤
hi jon and Tim thankyou for all your wonderful work and your teaching gift a lifeline for me love listening to your podcast series with carrisa i recently bought a coupke of Jon and wifes book about why emotions matter and so glad i did because i can see now what emotion is kinda always there for me and its sadness ............... heres a spookey bit went for a walk and sat in a park to read your book then on way on way home the car infront of me had its petrol cap door open it was very obvious and i wondered if the driver and passenger new anyhow went home and read more of your book and in it you mention the same thing regarding the dashboard keep up these wonderful teachings in this special gift you have love from England ♥😊
This apparent contradiction can be reconciled by understanding the context and the Greek words used.
In Matthew 5:22, Jesus says, "Whoever calls someone a fool will be in danger of the fire of hell." (NIV) The Greek word used for "fool" here is "moros," which means a foolish or stupid person.
However, when Jesus calls the Pharisees "fools" in Matthew 23:17 and 19, the Greek word used is "foolish" (aphrón), which means unwise or senseless. Jesus is not using the same word as in Matthew 5:22.
In the context of Matthew 23, Jesus is denouncing the Pharisees' hypocrisy and spiritual blindness. He is not simply name-calling but rather pointing out their foolish behavior and lack of understanding.
Jesus' teaching in Matthew 5:22 is about not insulting or demeaning others, while his rebuke of the Pharisees in Matthew 23 is about confronting their spiritual pride and error. The context and Greek words used clarify the difference, showing that Jesus is not contradicting himself but rather teaching and correcting in different situations.
To illustrate the difference, consider these examples:
- "You're so stupid (moros) for leaving your phone unlocked in public!" (personal attack)
- "That was an unwise (aphrón) decision to invest all your money in a risky scheme!" (criticizing the action)
Thanks for helping me to think about and understand the deeper meanings in Matthew!
I think being willing to swear an oath in court is similar to the idea behind "give to Ceasar that which is Cesar's". I feel like I should respect the authority of government officials to a certain degree and probably more than I'd like to.
The problem is it is the government pretending to be God. It is claiming that the authority of God is within the realm of the government's control or even worse than that if you lie here on the Bible God will see and judge you. Which is pretty much like forcing a person into being judged by God via threat of the state. And that is complete idolatry, especially thinking about how Jesus acted while on trial himself. The government was not good, moral, or right for killing Jesus and it was used to highlight the failure of human authority and humanity itself in its attempt to replace divine judgment with our own.
Also, I think being wary of those in power is the most logical and Godly thing you can do especially considering what I just said above. Right now, you have people in power in the US who are supporting a genocide in Gaza that has killed 15,000 children and is being silenced and covered up by the media. Both Republicans and Democrats are massive in support of this death, and both claim to be followers of Jesus. This is why you need to remember that you should have no judge outside of God and understand that regardless of what you think, anyone else thinks, or even what the government thinks... It will not change what God thinks. So, live a life every day getting ready for God's judgment. Because I promise you those "leaders" in power right now are going to regret every word, action, and thought they have once they realize that having power in the US Congress =/= safety or power.
And just for the record I also know that if my judgment is off God himself will judge me and punish me.
Commenting on Michelles Q, I grew up with my mom always refusing hand to Bible, and saying "I Affirm". Then it was a big deal, but apparently really common now
Reconciling divorce in the Old Testament (OT) and Jesus' teaching requires understanding the historical context and biblical progression.
In the OT, divorce was permitted due to hardness of heart (Deuteronomy 24:1-4, Matthew 19:8). However, Jesus' teaching in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 limits divorce to cases of sexual immorality (porneia), emphasizing the original creation intent of marriage as a lifelong union (Matthew 19:4-6, Genesis 2:24).
Regarding Matthew 5:19 vs 5:32, Jesus is not contradicting Himself. In 5:19, He emphasizes the importance of keeping even the "least" commandments, while in 5:32, He provides an exception to the general rule of marriage being indissoluble.
Regarding abuse, it's important to recognize that Jesus' teaching on divorce was given in a patriarchal culture where women had limited rights. While the Bible doesn't explicitly mention abuse as a grounds for divorce, we must consider the spirit of the law (Matthew 23:23-24) and the value of protecting human life and dignity (Exodus 20:13, Matthew 22:37-40).
In cases of abuse, divorce may be a necessary protection for the victim, aligning with the biblical values of love, compassion, and justice. This understanding is not "relaxing" the commandments but rather applying them in a way that prioritizes the well-being and safety of all individuals involved.
Ultimately, we must approach these complex issues with sensitivity, seeking guidance from the Holy Spirit and recognizing the complexities of human relationships.
Also, comment (and I might have this entirely wrong), "Karma" more accurately translates as "consequence", with the ultimate consequence being the nature of one's rebirth. But consider that this process is always ongoing. I don't especially see a conflict in that from a certain point of view G-d can "appear" impersonal, and certainly He doesn't "hold grudges" per se in the same way that a petty human would.
25:00 when we obsess of over the word of the law and which words are acceptable to utter universally, are we thinking like the pharisees?
Are those rules of threes applying to the Trinity understanding of God as well? Father, Son and Holy Spirit, the middle is the only one that has been visible to humans (more specifically to all humans, not a select group), died for humanity, was on the human side of the covenants with God, and I'm sure even more I'm missing. The Holy Spirit assists humans but it's still the human acting there deciding to accept guidance/assistance, where Jesus, the Son, acted directly as a human.
I thought of the Trinity as God in gaseous, solid and liquid form, The Father, invisible, ungraspable, like air, the Son, physically visible and interacting with the world in that way, so solid like every human is solid (technically humans have a lot of liquid too, but you get the idea, skin is 'solid' physical boundary), and the Holy Spirit is often talked about as being poured out onto people, still invisible and ungraspable, but portionable, like how water is clear when still so you could look through it without knowing it's there, can't be held in the palm of your hand, but a portion can be collected in an appropriate vessel. It's also why I don't really like applying three specifically to Him, and think of Him more as One and infinite simultaneously, He is the One and only, but in the form of the Holy Spirit He is infinite full portions for all the humans who accept Him. Yes, there aren't infinite humans, but no matter how many there are, each will still receive a full portion of the Holy Spirit.
Thank you for sharing all this wonderful analysis on the Word of God. Jesus is God. He knows we will read his Word. God is not a god of confusion. He knows all kinds of peoples would read his word throughout time. And He teach for all, not to groups in different circumstances. He is clearly teaching us to keep the Law, which includes to love God. So Jesus is God, Jesus is the word, and therefore the Law. All the Word is clar and true. Be careful what you may imply.
Something I noticed you guys didn't mention (many don't) is that He says, in relation to keeping the least of the laws, "until all is fulfilled / finished", and "tetelestai" ie "It is finished" are his last words in John.
Oh, and amazing work as always. Constantly recommending the work to new and old followers, and of course "Follower curious" ;) Thanks !
I don't think Jesus calling the scribes and pharisees "Fools" can be contrasted with Mathew 5. It doesn't nuanced it. I'm not sure Bible project guys thought it through enough. Tim should be aware of Dallas Willard take in it . "we can trust Jesus and God with anger where we cannot trust ourselves with it".
.id add likewise Mathew 7 where were are told " not to judge"..but Jesus judges people. The sermon on the mount is given to fallen humanity to give us God's wisdom. It's not something Jesus" himself needed. Too many Christians make excuses for their holding anger towards others. By saying "Jesus had righteous anger".
Anger is a feeling that can led to sin in sinful humans if not dealt with
Dealing with anger is the first step in transformation.
Well… as someone mentioned above, the Greek words (both translated to the English “fool”) are different. Jesus tells us to not call people “fool” (moros): idiot, half-wit, or moron. Don’t build yourself up by putting others down.
But he called the Pharisees “fools” (Aphron): short-sighted, lacking wisdom, or failing to apply their knowledge rightly. So yes, there is nuance, of the etymological variety. English is just a terrible language.
@@rivendells_shona we get fooled ))
Still Jesus can be trusted where we can't. His anger cannot led to sin. Ours often does
@@Liminalplace1I don’t disagree with those points. Nevertheless, the fact remains that the original words were not the same. What Jesus told us not to do (insulting people) and what He did (calling out sin) were not the same thing.
@@rivendells_shona I just checked my interlinear.. the same Greek word is used in Mathew 5:22 and 23:17 by Jesus. ...which comes from the word to "shut up" . I'm by no means a Greek scholar. But you'd need evidence to see a contrast. I don't know where you are seeing different words from.
As an aside:
The context is thatJesus is talking as a prophet to that generation of religious leaders (leading up to the destruction of Jerusalem (70AD in historical context rather than general) as Mathew 23:36.".this will come upon this generation "
36 .
26:12 Kaitlyn Schiess has a voice doppelganger in Chicago 😊