On Thursday, October 17, 2013, Yujin wrote,
Then Jesus said to His disciples, “If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me. For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it; but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it. For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul? For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and will then repay every man according to his deeds" (Matthew 16:24-27).
And He summoned the crowd with His disciples, and said to them, “If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me. For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake and the gospel’s will save it. For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world, and forfeit his soul? For what will a man give in exchange for his soul? For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will also be ashamed of him when He comes in the glory of His Father with the holy angels" (Mark 8:34-38).
And He was saying to them all, “If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross daily and follow Me. For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake, he is the one who will save it. For what is a man profited if he gains the whole world, and loses or forfeits himself? For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when He comes in His glory, and the glory of the Father and of the holy angels" (Luke 9:23-26).
He who loves his life loses it, and he who hates his life in this world will keep it to life eternal (John 12:24).
Every Gospel records some version of Jesus' call to His followers to surrender their lives for Him. The context makes clear that Jesus had His own death immediately in view. As He would be persecuted and killed, they too, as His followers, would likely suffer a similar fate. As He would take up the cross, they too had to be ready to bear their cross. Their response to persecution would be the the litmus test for their faith, whether it was true or false. Even though Peter at one point disowned Jesus in the courtyard of the high priest, by the Lord's mercy this was not his last word. He was restored. But Judas had no such opportunity.
The language of these calls to surrender one's life for Jesus is sharp and absolute. We would be wrong to water it down by simply suggesting it refers only to secret intention and not to reality. Surrendering one's life to Christ must be a real surrender, but Peter's example demonstrates that this surrender may be imperfect and floundering. But ultimately tradition tells us that Peter was crucified for his witness, and when he died, he requested that he be crucified upside down because he felt unworthy to die in the same manner as his Lord. Peter's faith was a genuine faith, for I believe it was given and fortified by the Lord. Remember what Jesus said to Peter before his betrayal:
Simon, Simon, behold, Satan has demanded permission to sift you like wheat; but I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail; and you, when once you have turned again,strengthen your brothers (Luke 22:31-32).
Friends, Who is it that fortifies our faith? Is it not this same Jesus?:
Who will bring a charge against God’s elect? God is the one who justifies; who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us (Romans 8:33-34).
God began the work of salvation in us, and He will complete it:
For I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus (Philippians 1:6).
Our confidence is not in our freedom or ability to believe, for, just like Peter, our faith would fail if it depended upon us. But we are upheld by God, even Jesus, so that our faith will not and cannot fail.
On Saturday, October 20, 2012, Fernando wrote,
Matthew 16
20�Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ
Why not?
We are not told why.
Perhaps it was to prevent his untimely death. After even before his birth people were looking to kill him, forcing his parents to flee to Egypt.
Perhaps it was to prevent the focus of his mission to be hijacked. People were looking for their kingdom to be reestablished, the Son of man, the Sond of David, was coming - but this time he came to prepare the greatest earthly kingdom starting with our souls.
Perhaps though it was done so that only the truly faithful would be discovered. 'jews' were not being healed, gentiles were; the faithful were, the ones whose father was God himself - including many Jews. We make Christianity an membership with easy prerequisites, for 'we should not prevent the little ones from coming.' And we shouldn't.
But the little ones will come when they hear his voice. Jesus didn't jave to say who he was, people just fell at his feet, and people started declaring it, even children praised him.
He leaves his identity eclusively to the humble. Later, he gives further exclusivity to Peter, John and James in Matthew 17:
9�And as they were coming down the mountain, Jesus commanded them, �Tell no one the vision, until the Son of Man is raised from the dead.�
Jesus was planting the seeds of faith until the harvest came, the time after he had been glorified in his resurrection. When this happened people cam out shared stories and changed the world.
-----
Matthew 17
12�But I tell you that Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him, but did to him whatever they pleased. So also the Son of Man will certainly suffer at their hands.�
OT said he would come. But it was a type a figure not real. Often God speaks in types and figures. Judgment passages often use the same illustrations. Taking literal every passage isn't a bad idea, but we should remain mindful how God operates - if I were too staunch on my interpretation I would have argued with Jesus that the book said 'this' so he must be wrong.
No reincarnations, as some have used this passage; but rather taking the familiar to explain the new.
------------
Matthew 17
20�He said to them, �Because of your little faith. For truly, I say to you, if you have faith like a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, �Move from here to there,� and it will move, and nothing will be impossible for you.�
I commented last round about the pervasiveness our faith should have.
I have thought this particular passage was saying something like 'because of the littleness of that which your faith is on' (as opposed to the giantness of God). I resisted the notion that he was suggesting an increasing of faith because it sounds very word-of-faith-like; as if you needed more midi-chlorians to pull off miracles - something relating to 'more of you.'
But my wife had mentioned she thought this passage had to do with growth. The seeds mentioned are 1-2 mm and mustard 'trees' are actually considered shrubs; they grow to 20' in height.
What I think is interesting: these trees grow as wide as they do tall.
I continue to see that God seeks breadth in our reliance on him - there seems to be a link that I have never considered before.
God cares how I treat my wife, I'm warned my prayers may not be heard (1 peter 3:7). I am told not to make offerings if I have neglected to reconcile with a brother (Matthew 5:23). I'm told that my faith is some sort of abomination, an undead kind of thing if I say right words and my works don't line up (James 2:14-26).
I might think I have deep faith, because I would die professing, or because I would starve for another, but if I can't be patient, or seek reconciliation, or be merciful, then I may have a littleness of faith- my faith may only be spotty in my life.
God is very much interested in the whole picture of your life. To continue the tree image, a tree doesn't usually grow wide in the proportion to its height, the Mustard shrub does; our faith, as deep and monastic as it may be, should be as pervasive and intrusive in every crevice of our lives, covering everything. Then it seems God is well pleased and glorified.
-------
Observation: 9�And as they were coming down the mountain, Jesus commanded them, �Tell no one the vision, until the Son of Man is raised from the dead.�
this is the first time he mentions his death; odd time. Right after be has been glorified before their eyes.
Its as if to show something awesome then say 'but don't get excited yet, there's another bump in the road to endure.'
On Wednesday, October 17, 2012, Yujin wrote,
After Jesus and his disciples arrived in Capernaum, the collectors of the two-drachma temple tax came to Peter and asked, “Doesn’t your teacher pay the temple tax?” “Yes, he does,” he replied. When Peter came into the house, Jesus was the first to speak. “What do you think, Simon?” he asked. “From whom do the kings of the earth collect duty and taxes—from their own children or from others?” “From others,” Peter answered. “Then the children are exempt,” Jesus said to him. “But so that we may not cause offense, go to the lake and throw out your line. Take the first fish you catch; open its mouth and you will find a four-drachma coin. Take it and give it to them for my tax and yours.” (Matthew 17:24-27).
Here is a remarkable story. The two-drachma temple tax was apparently the money that God told Moses to collect as ransom for deliverance from the plagues in Egypt and for the service of the tabernacle. This was required of every person twenty years and older (Exodus 30:11-16). Peter presumptuously tells the tax collectors in Capernaum that Jesus does pay this tax.
Jesus confronts Peter with a question. But it is not at first about the temple tax but about the secular tax. Jesus asks Peter whether earthly kings collect tax from their own children or from others. Peter answers that it is from others. So, Jesus concludes, "the children are exempt" from paying. But then, he tells Peter to go ahead and pay the tax, but it is not the secular tax, but the temple tax (2 2-drachmas = "four-drachma coin"). What was Jesus trying to teach Peter?
First, Peter had just declared in Matthew 16:16 that Jesus was "the Messiah, the Son of the living God." And Jesus told Him that God, His Father in heaven, had revealed this to Peter. So Jesus is the Son of God and the disciples are children of God by virtue of their relationship to Jesus. Thus, Jesus and Peter are children of the King. And just as secular kings do not collect taxes from their own children, Jesus rejects the validity of the temple tax with respect to Him and His disciples.
Even so, Jesus tells Peter to pay the temple tax. So you would expect Peter to go to Judas Iscariot, who had charge of the money bag (John 13:29), and ask for a four-drachma coin, right? No! Jesus tells Peter to take it out of the mouth of the first fish he catches. Jesus miraculously provides the tax money. Why? Isn't Jesus here demonstrating to Peter that He is greater than the temple (cf. Matthew 12:6)? He is God, of whom it is written,
Who has a claim against me that I must pay?
Everything under heaven belongs to me (Job 41:11).
But Jesus, even though He is the Son of God and the Maker of heaven and earth and does not need to pay the temple tax, pays it anyway. Why? "So that we may not cause offense." Remember, He is not here referring to secular authorities but to religious ones. Even though He and Peter are free not to pay the temple tax, they will defer and pay so as not to needlessly offend these Jewish temple tax collectors.
I believe this is the basis for what both Peter and Paul would write later in their epistles with respect to how to relate to their "weaker" Jewish brothers and sisters, who were still tied to the Mosaic Law. So in 1 Corinthians 8:13 Paul would write with respect to the Jewish dietary restrictions, "If my eating meat causes my brother to stumble, I will never eat meat again." As a general rule Paul warns believers, "Be careful, however, that the exercise of your rights (i.e. your freedom in Christ) does not become a stumbling block to the weak" (1 Corinthians 8:9). Again, Paul writes,
Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters... Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a person to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother or sister to fall (Romans 14:1,19-21).
Now, while the Jewish dietary laws are what Paul had in mind, he does bring up other Jewish traditions as well (cf. Romans 14:5; Colossians 2:16-17) that have been made obsolete in Christ. He, along with the other apostles in Acts 15, sought to follow Jesus' example in not causing offense but preserving peace. Yet, it should be clear that what they did, whether paying the temple tax, not eating certain foods, or worshipping on certain days, were not done out of obligation to the Law but as a voluntary sacrifice for the sake of the faith of their weaker brothers.
What might be a contemporary application? Paying tithes, keeping the Sabbath, eating kosher, getting circumcised, or following other ordinances from the Mosaic Law may be contemporary equivalents to matters for which Christians are set free but which more knowledgable Christians sometimes endure for the sake of peace with those who do not yet comprehend their freedom in Christ. However, as Paul clearly declares in the Book of Galatians, when the practice of these laws are seen as a requirement for salvation, or as an obligation to remain saved, then it is dangerously wrong, for it takes away from the Gospel of salvation by grace through faith. Paul even pronounces a curse on such people who teach this (Galatians 1:8-9).
On Wednesday, October 17, 2012, Stephen wrote,
I cannot help but to think about what Yujin shared with us yesterday regarding faith healer's claim and interpretation when the sick are not healed. The disciples were trying to drive out demon from this poor boy who'd been suffering from many episodes of seizures and of the seeming suicide attempts but to no avail! Jesus answers them when asked why they were not be able to work a miracle, "Because you have so little faith...." Doesn't it sound totally different from the reason that all those so-called faith healers come up with. When one is not healed from any illnesses even after their enthusiastic attempt to heal him, the sick has little faith, not the healer. Only way we will not be deceived, brothers and sisters, is immersing ourselves in the Word of God and meditating day and night!
On Sunday, January 15, 2012 (Last Updated on 10/17/2012), Bill wrote,
The Pharisees ask for a miraculous sign to show that he is the son of God.
"He replied, "When evening comes, you say, ‘It will be fair weather, for the sky is red,’ and in the morning, ‘Today it will be stormy, for the sky is red and overcast.’ You know how to interpret the appearance of the sky, but you cannot interpret the signs of the times. A wicked and adulterous generation looks for a sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah." Jesus then left them and went away" (Matt 16:2-4)
Christ chastises the Pharisees (teachers of the law) for not recognizing the 'sign of the times', His coming. Israel refused to acknowledge Jesus as the fulfillment of prophecies, despite having acknowledged earlier (Matt 2:3) that the messiah would come from Jesus' hometown. There were many reasons for the Pharisees to believe but they chose not to. Here they ask for an additional sign and Christ chastises them for it.
Is it wrong to ask for a sign? I don't think so, they are many references to signs given by God. In this case I think there are two differences. Firstly, there had been many signs for Israel yet it seemed never enough. For Israel their problem was not lack of signs but lack of faith. Secondly, their real motive was to show that Christ was not who he said he was - the son of God. In other words their heart was not pure but deceitful. Often I think that people who delay doing Gods will really want to put the onus on God for their responsibility. They don't move ahead because they haven't been given the go ahead from God. When in reality God has given them enough signs - starting with Gods word.
Finally, Christ says the only sign we need is the sign of Jonah. This is in reference to Jonahs (the prophet for a town called Nineveh) spending 3 days in the belly of a whale before being spewed out onto dry land and the people of Nineveh repented. Christ will be buried for 3 days after his crucifixion that we may all be made righteous before God. Christ is telling unbelievers the only sign you need (the only one that will be given) is my death and resurrection.
Today many unbelievers want to see a sign (evidence) before they believe… and I think that sometimes they miss the signs already around them. Their recognition of their morality, their dismay at the pointlessness of the rat race, their 'hole' in their chest that cant be filled with things are signs of God in my opinion. And mostly, Gods Word which tells us our purpose and Gods redemption of humanity through Christ. If people spend time in Gods Word (faithfully searching) he will work a miracle in our heart - "
For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart" (Hebr 4:12).
On Thursday, October 20, 2011 (Last Updated on 10/17/2012), Fernando wrote,
Matthew 16:8 But Jesus, aware of this, said, "O you of little faith, why are you discussing among yourselves the fact that you have no bread? 9 Do you not yet perceive?
Matthew 14:31, Peter had faith to ask Jesus to call on him, enough to walk, but there was a limit to his faith; it was revealed when the winds blew and the waves crashed, he started sinking. Jesus told him, not that he didn't have faith but, that it was limited. His faith did not encompass every aspect of his life.
Matthew 15:28 the Samaritan woman pleads for a blessing, is rejected, then pleads again, and again is rejected, and pleads further humbling herself to accepting being called a dog. There was no end revealed in this woman's faith. Jesus told her she had great faith, not that she was limitless in faith, but none was found there whose faith was greater.
Matthew 16:8 Jesus gives a quick word of wisdom, and the disciples got stuck on food. Jesus rebukes them reminding them, 'Really? I just created food, why is the lack of food even on your radar?!' Had their faith been all-encompassing, their minds would not have paused on their lack but instead would have sought the deeper mind of God. This greatness of faith should be life-consuming. In other words it should be vast, covering how I treat the poor, my customers, my wife, as well as my attitude during suffering and loss and during great gains. May your faith be great and all-consuming!
On Tuesday, October 18, 2011, Unmi wrote,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” (Romans 9:14-15)
On Monday, October 17, 2011 (Last Updated on 10/17/2013), Yujin wrote,
Friends, I would like to share a few lessons from today's reading.
The first, from Matthew 15:1-9, has to do with Jesus' rebuke of the hyprocrisy of the Pharisees, who put their traditions above the Word of God. Their hypocrisy was in their double standard. They accused Jesus' disciples of transgression because they ate with unwashed hands. While this was no violation of Scripture, it was a violation of their tradition. Jesus in turn accused them of transgressing Scripture by their tradition, because they allowed people to break God's command to honor their parents by giving their support instead to the religious rulers. What money would have supported their parents could thus be redirected to the priests as a "gift to God." Jesus concluded, "Thus you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition" (Matthew 15:7). And over them He cited the condemning prophecy of Isaiah regarding those who feign worship and elevate their own agenda rather than God's Word. (See the more detailed parallel in Mark 7:5-12)
Friends, I personally know a man who was torn between helping his needy parents versus giving his tithe to the church. I know another man, who lived many years in deep indebtedness but never failed to give his tenth to the church. Toward these people I hear in certain pulpits a preaching that says that if you give God your tithe, He will open the store of heaven and multiply riches to you. If this were true, why wouldn't anyone forgo giving to their parents or paying their debts. After all, soon God will give me more than enough to support my parents. Soon God will give me more than enough to pay my debts. Might I suggest there was a similar kind of logic used by the religious rulers in Jesus' day to espouse their traditions over God's Word.
I remember sitting down with a pastor to show him why the current understanding of tithing is a distortion of the bibilical definition of it. Also, I showed from the Scripture why it was connected to the Law of Moses and how Christians are no longer bound by it. He said, "But the principle of it is in the Old Testament." Well, the principle of sacrifice is there too. Should we today sacrifice our cats and dogs as well? The principle of eating only kosher food is there. Should we never eat pork? The principle of "an anvenger of blood" is there also. Should we take personal revenge against others who harm our family? The principle of circumcision is there. Should we then all be circumcised? No, dear friends. Just because it is referenced somewhere and somehow in the Bible does not mean that we should follow it. After all, if you just read that Judas went and hung himself, would you follow his example? Of course not! This is why the Bible says, "Study to show yourselves approved unto God... rightly handling the Word of truth" (2 Timothy 2:15). The tithe as a rule to follow is definitely connected to the Law of Moses, from which we have been set free (See my discussion on the Law and Tithing here).
But then the pastor said, "If we don't teach the tithe (ten percent), people will give little or nothing at all." I remember pausing, and thinking for a moment, "Why is this man a pastor?" We need leaders that preach the Word without worrying about how people might react or not react to it. Are we not going to preach the truth because it does not produce the kind of reaction we desire? Should Isaiah have rebutted God when God told him to go preach to a people that would reject his message? Should Jesus have apologized to the people for confusing them with words that suggested they eat His flesh and drink His blood? Let us preach and teach the Word without watering it down and without modifying it. If there is one principle that is universally affirmed, staying faithful to the letter of God's Word seems to be it (Matthew 5:18-19; Deuteronomy 4:2 with respect to the Law; Revelation 22:18-19).
Finally, the pastor said, "I warn you. You are trying to change long years of established tradition." At this point, I could not help remembering the passage in Mark 7, where Jesus taught how the Pharisees were nullifying the Word of God with their tradition. Could this pastor be doing the same thing. A couple of years have passed, and I have since read many others that preach and teach tithing. And I've come to realize that the tradition of tithing is a somewhat "hallowed" tradition, because it provides the bread, butter and luxurioius extras to many churches and leaders, allowing them "to do what they do." Most people run roughshod over the Scriptures to defend tithing. Others, while trying to honor the Scriptures, stretch and pull the Scriptures with unwarranted assumptions, grasping at any hint of support. For some of these churches, I'm afraid the prophecy of Isaiah will come to bear:
These people draw near to Me with their mouth,
And honor Me with their lips,
But their heart is far from Me.
And in vain they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men (Matthew 15:8-8; Isaiah 29:13).
Remember, the religious rulers of Jesus' day were devout in their own right and zealous for God, but it was not based on knowledge (Romans 10:1-3), for they forsook the Word of God for their traditions. They did not submit to the righteousness of God and sought to establish their own.
--------------
A second observation concerns Matthew 15:21-28, where Jesus repeatedly ignores a Canaanite woman, who is appealing to Him to heal her daughter. What is most surprising is that He seems to insult her, calling her, or perhaps her race, "dogs" over the Jews, who were "children." This is shocking to many theologians because Jesus is normally seen as compassionate and undiscriminating. But would they also be shocked in reading in the Old Testament that God commanded the extermination of the Canaanite people, men, women, and even children and animals? Clearly, there is a reason that we are told that this woman was "a woman of Canaan." She is a foreigner to Israel, and she is a loathed Canaanite. The disciples do not urge Jesus to heal her but to send her away. Notice that she acknowledged Jesus as the Messiah, for she calls him "Son of David," which is a Messianic designation.
Jesus responds to her almost insultingly, "I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." How will the woman respond? When Jesus told the rich young man, "Go, sell everything you have and give it to the poor, and then follow me," he went away because he cared more for his "great wealth" than Jesus' call. But here, as Jesus challenged the woman's pride, she did not respond by gruffly walking away. Instead, we are told that "she came and worshiped Him..." This tells me that she acknowledged Jesus not merely as the "son of David" but also "the Son of God." Even more, she received the insult in stride with humility: "Yes, Lord, yet even the little dogs eat the crumbs which fall from their masters' table."
I believe Jesus intended all along to heal her, but He was testing her faith and also demonstrating to His disciples that even a loathed foreigner as this Canaanite woman could believe and receive the benefits of the kingdom.
--------------------
Finally, I would like to make an observation on Matthew 17:14-21, regarding the healing of the epileptic boy. We are told that the disciples could not heal the boy. There are only a few instances where there is ever a failure to heal in the ministry of Jesus or the apostles. Jesus never failed to heal; however, the disciples did on a couple of occasions. This passage is perhaps the only one where the reason is given for their failure. And suprisingly, it was not because the boy or his father failed to believe. The lack of faith was on the part of the healers, the disciples. Jesus had clearly given His disciples power to heal, and even to move mountains, but it was only effective in keeping with the genuineness of their faith.
Today, there are many "so-called" healers. I am more and more convinced that they are all either charlatans or misguided. First, because all their "documented healings" are functional (back pains, neck pains, leg stretching, etc.) and not organic (lameness, blindness, deafness, death). All functional recoveries can be psychosomatically generated. Jesus and the apostles performed organic healings. Second, in many healing rallies today the "faith healer" attributes the non-healing to the lack of faith in the one being healed rather than their own lack of faith. Yet, Scripture makes clear that even people without faith are healed (e.g. consider the deaf and mute boy or the dead girl or Lazarus). Now, some more conservative "faith healers" say that they fail to heal because it is not God's will, though they do not know when it is and when it is not God's will. I wonder, then, that they should call themselves "faith healers" at all. Peter boldly declares to the lame man in Acts 3:6, "In the Name of Jesus, rise up and walk!" Could you imagine Peter saying instead somethinig like "In the Name of Jesus, maybe rise up and walk." Or even worse, after such a bold declaration, the man tries to rise only to immediately crash to the ground?
Friends, be wary of anyone that claims that they have the power to heal someone or that they have the gift of healing. A little research will show you that every religion has such claimants, as does Christianity, and thousands of gullible followers as well, but the lack of documentation has caused thoughtful Christians to shake their heads at how the truth of the Gospel and the real power of God have been made a mockery by what is counterfeit and weak.
On Tuesday, October 19, 2010 (Last Updated on 10/17/2012), Yujin wrote,
One of you asked me... Matthew 16:19, "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."
What is the meaning of this?
I answered... This is a key passage for Roman Catholics, who argue for apostolic, and particularly Petrine, succession (i.e. the Popes). I don't think this is what the passage is teaching. To read some kind of apostolic succession would be reading into the passage more than is intended. Here's the key text:
So Peter is specifically and uniquely given these keys. There is no indication that the generations after him are given this authority. Also, I like the rendering "will have been" over "will be," both of which are grammatically possible. The former shows the priority in heaven, which is also in keeping with the Lord's prayer, "Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven." Along with certain theologians, I take the keys of Peter to represent the three realms for which the way of salvation was opened: for the Jews, for the Samaritans (half-Jews), and for the Gentiles, as represented in the book of Acts (chapters 2, 8 and 10). In each instance Peter was the necessary hinge for the baptism of the Holy Spirit coming on people, which united the believers in each of these groups with the others. Also, the text does not read "whoever you bind" but rather "whatever you bind." So, rather than seeing Peter having authority to determine the destiny of individuals, it is more plausible to see him as the instrument of God to unlock the kingdom of heaven for the various groups of people.
Again, one of you asked... Matthew Chapter 15:16-18
And he said, "Are you also still without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into the mouth passes into the stomach and is expelled? But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a person.
When I read this, it makes sense to me, a post-OT soul. But isn't Jesus saying this in an OT time? If it weren't Jesus, I would tell the person saying this, 'what is 'holy' and 'defiling' is according to God's ordinances,' but its as if Jesus/God is stating the New Testament ways before anyone fully understand who it is that is speaking. Is that what he is doing? Stating the New Testament?
I answered... As he often does (e.g. Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5-7), Jesus clarifies the OT Law, which has been corrupted by rabbinic tradition, and then, as One who has authority, even expands and changes it. In Matthew 15:6 Jesus says, "Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition." Jesus is saying that there is no violation in eating with unwashed hands (Matthew 15:20) as the religious leaders had accused the disciples of doing (cf. Matthew 15:1-2). This may be a violation of their rabbinic tradition, but it was not a violation of the Law. The violation was only eating certain kinds of animals, which the Law forbids.
But then Jesus went further, as He often did, to "declare all foods clean" (cf. Mark 7:19), showing that the real issue of defilement really concerns the heart. For all kinds of evils (e.g. evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander) begin in the heart, so the matter of defilement is chiefly a heart issue.
What Jesus achieved in His rebuttal of the religious rulers was two-fold. First, He showed that they "nullified" the Law by putting their man-made traditions over God's Word. Second, He inaugurated a new emphasis on the heart, instituting a greater standard of righteousness than they had understood from the Law of Moses.