Wow, it’s been a long while. I think once I “fell off the horse”, I didn’t want to get back on unless I was committed to continuing to blog. I’m still not sure what my future in blogging looks like.
In any case, Helen and I had a very inspiring conversation recently that I thought might be thought provoking, and perhaps inspiring. And I’d certainly appreciate any feedback people have about this.

I’ve been reading The Divine Conspiracy, by Dallas Willard off and on. Ostensibly it’s a commentary on the Sermon on the Mount from Matthew. Somehow it put me into a different frame of mind about some things Jesus said in Matthew 25. One of the theses of the book is that Jesus was the smartest man who ever lived and so the order in which He says things in His teaching makes a difference. This idea of the order being significant helped me read Matthew 25:31-26:13, and see some connections that I hadn’t seen before.
First, Jesus teaches about how we will be assessed in the end, by God. He says it will be like separating sheep and goats. Those who will be rewarded are those whose love for Him manifested in works of charity, kindness, and mercy to “the least of these brothers of mine”. As Keith Green said that the difference was “what they did, and didn’t DO!” Jesus says that showing love to “the least of these brothers of mine” is in some way equivalent to showing love to Jesus Himself. Ok, pretty standard stuff, nothing new here. But wait. Let’s watch for connections in the following, seemingly unconnected passages. Jesus finishes His teaching session with His disciples by telling His disciples how He will be killed. Why does He do this now? How is this connected to the teaching on helping the poor? Insight #1: This teaching would be irrelevant to the disciples as long as Jesus was right there amongst them, and they could love Him every day directly.
Then suddenly we cut to an extremely short scene in the palace of the high priest and we hear how the religious leaders of Israel are plotting to kill Jesus. Contrast the instruction Jesus gives His disciples to love Him, with the religious leaders plotting to kill Him, and keep in mind that these were the legitimate religious leaders of the day. The people, the government, and the cultural tradition accepted them as leaders. Insight #2:If anyone was supposed to know about loving God, it was supposed to be them. I’m so used to thinking of the Pharisees and the Sanhedrin as the ‘bad guys’ that its hard for me to put that aside to consider what a common person of the day would have thought of them. Matthew is presenting a contrasting approach to Jesus from the mainstream religious establishment.
The next scene (Matt26:6) opens in Simon the Leper’s house. A woman pours out very expensive perfume on Jesus’s feet and wipes them with her hair. This is extravagent love lavished on Jesus. The disciples are thinking of Jesus’s previous teaching about the sheep and the goats: helping the poor=loving Jesus, and so they berate the woman for wasted the perfume which could have been used to do “good works” for the poor. Here’s the kicker: Jesus basically tells them, “You missed the point. I didn’t tell you about the sheep and the goats to get you to help the poor. I was telling you how to concretely love Me when I’m no longer with you. When I’m here, love Me. When I’m gone, love the least of these as if it were Me, because I’ll receive it that way.” Jesus spoke about the poor always being with us merely as a contrast to Himself, who would be going away in a short while. I’m sure there’s more to be had from the utterance, but I think it was primarily a contrast, not a prophecy. Insight #3: The poor always being with us means that we will always have a way of loving on Jesus. For me, this moves loving the poor out of some abstract moral conversation into an ethical conversation about loving the man Jesus. The disciples (and I) leap into the error of considering good works done to the poor as the valuable part. I now see how good works done to the poor is just a means of loving Jesus and if we lose sight of the purpose, we lose the true meaning of serving the poor. It reminds me of Mother Teresa, and how when asked why she cares for dying people in the street she talks about how she’s loving Jesus, not about how the poor need mercy, or service, or help. It’s all about loving Jesus. Jesus Himself did not seem too impressed with the plight of the poor. There were times when Jesus was moved with compassion for those lost in the world, but in Matthew 26, He seems to minimize the importance of the poor’s plight in relation to the importance of loving Him.

Well, there it is. I recommend you don't come to my blog for polished writing, or presentations. I'm just trying to get the raw ideas out there. Let me know what you think.

- posted by Jor @ 1:06 AM -