How to Read the Bible

Just like with a jigsaw puzzle, it's helpful to see the overall picture on the box first.

Author: Randy Pritts

The question often arises along these lines: I want to start reading the bible... where is the best place to start? Whether you are the one asking the question or the one answering the question, the answer should be the same - it is not as important where one starts as it is how. To help prove this to you and to fill in some of the crucial context, I would like to propose that both of us turn to Jesus' most famous sermon - the Sermon on the Mount ( kjv@Matthew:5-7).

Let's both read the sermon first, get familiar with the text, come back and meet here, I'll add in the additional context required. ( If you would rather listen to it, here is our audio clips of today's text: audiobible@Matthew:5 audiobible@Matthew:6 audiobible@Matthew:7 )

Introduction - Context Context Context

So we've altered the question from where to start reading the Bible to how to start understanding the bible no matter where one starts to read. Congratulations! Some of you have just read your first passage from the Bible! Now what about the Bible do you really understand?

The people that first went up the mount to hear from Jesus and were there came back down that hill understanding very little. This lack included His twelve trusted disciples. Remember that they went away only commenting on the authority with which Jesus spoke, it being different from that of their present Scribes and Pharisees? Could it be the same with us?

I suppose that if all one left with from this sermon was a sense of Jesus different type of authority, this would be a most welcome thing. This is perhaps the first sermon of many Jesus the master teacher had given. Being the master teacher, Jesus would have known His audience and how far towards His incomprehensible personal understanding He'd be able to stretch their ears without them breaking.

So then the first piece of outside context we need to add back into this reading is this idea of understanding being torn down and slowly builded (as much as we can bare) back up. When reading the Bible this specific context is always the case.

Notice Jesus' frequent use in this sermon of the phrase "ye have heard it said". Of course the audience that evening had heard it said, they were all Jews. They had all been brought up in the [Torah] (first five books of the Bible by Moses). They had been raised in the culture and schooled by the scribes in the long held oral traditions. They knew their religion with its' feast and rites and rituals and implications inside out. They were suffering at the hands of heathen occupiers for their treasured beliefs and understandings. What Jesus essentially is saying is that the scriptures are absolutely correct but the understanding of them that has been given falls considerably short. Then He lists off several penetrating observable examples "but I say"; tearing down not the scriptures but the failing understandings of them for the purpose of building them back up correctly.

As you venture out into reading other passages in the Bible, remember this context and it will take you far. There is everything previous in our lives that has built up and coagulated in our understandings that we each go into reading the Bible with. Some of this gunk might well be made of something scriptural (at least it started out such) but has held us back or slowed us down or hardened into a hard binding plague. Some of this gunk has no scriptural basis. It is just the world through and through and somehow our faith has just simply absorbed and integrated it. Most of the gunk is just mankind and his feral rebellious spirit, gods in their own mind, God made in man's crafty image. This is the kind of gunk that the master's words and teaching eventually have to overcome, for if He presses too hard the feral spirit runs away back behind the barn to avoid.

EDIT

Let's say that you were going to start reading the Bible by reading Jesus' most famous sermon "The Sermon on the Mount". Let's assume that you are coming into this inquiry without much other acquaintance or biblical context. Like the multitude that climbed the hill that evening, they went up to hear out a man whom they had heard many rumors about; some had perhaps experienced or known someone touched by this man's healing ministry. There has a lot of "buzz" surrounding this man and his quickly expanding movement. You are there to get more of a sense about him. Very well then, welcome! I encourage you to sit, enjoy the evening, listen in for a spell!

Well, the problem as I immediately see it (and later biblical context proves out) is this: the multitude of people went up the the hill that evening expecting to hear it all, have a full sense of what this is and what profit they might have becoming part of it. They left back down the hill only having a sense of the unusual authority with which Jesus taught, authority much different from how their familiar Scribes and reforming Pharisees. Nobody attending that sermon had a clue as to His fullest meaning, not even His own attending disciples; as we will find out in the remainder of the Gospel story.

I suppose that it is good that people are willing to go up the mount and at least come back with a sense of Jesus' authoritative style of teaching. That would be a good start indeed. But, was also proven by this is the fact the master teacher Himself is aware that neither the time nor the condition of the listeners' heart is right for the full complete "kingdom of heaven" message to be divulged and received. The time must proceed to prove Jesus to be the glorified risen Christ. The heart must be prepared to receive the word and surrender itself. So then tonight is a "let's get the long process going" introductory occasion.

The sermon will begin with nine short percussive declarations left unexplained to clear the air and to set the table ( kjv@Matthew:5:3-12). I would like to propose these short statements as a portable outline you can take with you wherever your reading interests want to go on how to better read the Bible. Let me use the opportunity however to fold in some much needed sermon and Bible context in relation to each point.

kjv@Matthew:5:3 "Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."

We begin with the word "blessed". Blessed in the original Greek is along the lines of supremely happy or supremely fortunate; supremely fortunate are the poor in spirit. Very well, what does Jesus mean by "poor of spirit"? He doesn't at this time give us any other indication. All we know is that the poor of spirit are supremely fortunate because theirs is the kingdom of heaven. The meaning is left dangling out there for anyone out there to interrupt.

I would imagine that there are people out there that would consider this "poor of spirit" as something undesirable. We live in a day and age that people rather fancy being "rich of spirit", the "you can do whatever you put your mind to" go out and get it crowd. It might make them well off in this life, but according to Jesus it won't get them the "kingdom of heaven". They might become self made and worldly fortunate, but that is not the same as supremely blessed.

I would imagine that there is that religious type as well. They may have started out from a low spiritual estate, but now they have law and ritual and oral tradition. They pray and they tithe and they are recognized as great men of faith by their local congregations. "Rich in spirit" they now are thanks to religion. Consider it poor in one sense as compared to the richer worldly view, but still not the "poor of spirit" that that Jesus identifies as "theirs is the kingdom of heaven".

There might a more universal interpretation lingering around this as well. In a sense we can all think of ourselves as "poor of spirit". Most are not overly rich nor religious, we are well aware of our faults, humble and hard working, maybe stumbling into misfortune, maybe depressed or impoverished or made victim. Jesus might be starting this message being all inclusive.

Let's say for the moment that everyone listening this evening has their own sense of what He means by "poor of spirit" and in one shape or form feel that they are included in this number. What is going to be proven over the course of this sermon and over the next several months is that no one within ear shot of Jesus' voice will prove out to be this "poor of spirit". They all will confront Jesus in one way or another, all will take some offense, many will leave else convict Him else reject Him in some fashion; including His own men. "Poor of spirit" is not just something any of us already are, it is something some of them will be brought to under the conviction of the Holy Spirit later, after all is said and done, when all that they interpreted and set themselves to has come to not, all things play out and are proven to be as Jesus had all along said. Then "theirs is the kingdom of heaven".

What we are talking about needs to be implemented into any further Bible reading plan. One cannot simply read the Old Testament in order to find out what the words of Jesus mean. The Jews knew their scriptures inside and out for more than 1400 years and still that wasn't enough for them when Jesus finally came. Over that time they had bent the proper interpretation over their own wills 180 degrees. They could not recognize Him for who He was nor could they understand what He was saying. They did not know what He was going to mean by "poor of spirit" nor "kingdom of heaven" even though He was speaking their language and quoting their sacred scriptures.

What we have to realize as we begin reading the subsequent Gospels is that "poor of spirit" is not something we naturally are, it is process through which over time we are driven.

kjv@Matthew:5:4 "Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted".

There's that word again "blessed" (supremely happy/fortunate). What could there be that is fortunate about having to mourn? There might be an indication by the Greek word for comfort - to call/invite near.

Now it could be that we Jesus is making an all inclusive statement. Death has touched near and dear to us all. We all mourn, maybe then we all will be comforted. It is just as likely that the who we are all supposed to now grieve is none other than this same Jesus Christ and in grieving His death by His resurrection we are called/invited/drawn near. How can this be? Jesus has yet to speak of His death and resurrection, it won't be until He prepares for His final trip into Jerusalem that He draws our attention to it (lest He give His enemies ideas). No, but the prophecies of old suggest His rejection/death and resurrection.

Let's suppose again that every one thinks that they are included in this blessed number. What does time alongside Jesus and after prove out? How many sought His comfort at the death of a loved one? Only sisters Martha and Mary that we know of. How many who have grieved for Jesus' death and their part in it have not been called near to Him in resurrection? Everyone has ever since.

What does this mean for the beginning Bible reader? It means the preparation of the heart is key to the profound supreme blessings the Holy Scriptures intend to bring. The Gospel message did not come without a very stiff price being paid by the Only Begotten Son of God (through whom and by whom all things were created...for whom all things exist and have meaning). Detach one's self from this fact and you will get out of it very little. Attach one's self to it and you will get every supreme blessing Jesus Christ has intended.

kjv@Matthew:5:5 "Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth".

By the worlds definition meek describes someone that is plain Jane, unnoticed, perhaps lacking spine or vigor. I don't think anyone could say that any one of these disciples who went on to become Apostles were meek by this definition. In fact, each one exhibited a boldness, valor, uncompromising air. What shall we say about this meekness other than to look to how they would describe it? They each would describe themselves as servants. They humbled themselves and their own ambitions to take on the Lord's.

Think of this in terms of the master/servant relationship. Who is in the primary role? So much of the time it seems as if we are the master, God is here to serve us (I want this/bring me that/do this for me/do it now). If there is any servant's heart in us it is in the "here God I will do this for you" (what we are feeling up to doing not simply as HE instructs).

Jesus is probably the best example to learn of this meekness. Perhaps the Apostle Paul put it best:

Meek also flows along the lines of mild/calm/steady of spirit. Scripture describes Jesus by the same Greek word as meek ( kjv@Matthew:21:5) as He entered the city Palm Sunday to the cheers of the multitudes on the donkey. The prophetic picture here perhaps is of a king riding resolutely/without distraction towards his ultimate reward, his work yet before him ( kjv@Isaiah:62:11). Like Jesus at that point, we have yet to receive our reward, our work is still ahead of us, nothing else matters so greatly than to accomplish the Father's will, all other things are but earthly distractions. That is the picture we shall take of meekness.

"Inherit the earth" is quite the confusing matter. No doubt there are people in this crowd that perceive it as "take it by force" as in Jesus being their long hoped for political/military leader. That false perception will be carried on throughout Church history by some of great influence and stain the hands of the Church in peoples minds for centuries to come. There are people as well that perceive this inherited gift as universal in nature, "we all receive this regardless our standing or opposition to the family of Christ". Why then would Jesus say "Blessed are the meek" specifically?

The picture of inheritance rather is someone that has amassed a great wealth, upon death has legally bequeathed it in certain measures to His descendants that will follow. In this case Jesus amasses the earth, it is created through and for Him, He returns incarnate to recapture full dominion, in doing so He willingly suffers death, He is raised to the Father's right-hand throne, He awaits as His Father puts His enemies under His footstool. Who else then but His own children will receive inheritance of the earth? His children are known by Him and they know His voice.

How does this further context best suit the new reader? Well it's this same idea of meekness. If you are coming at this thinking that you already know already or can easily discern Christs' meaning, you likely are stuck on a whole lot smaller thing.

Think of it as Christ planting fence posts. You look at the post and say "well that is not much it is just a fence post", till you see the fence wire and notice how big of a property the fence now contains. A new reader might not have the context yet to know all that the expansive property of a concept like meekness actually is to mean. At first meekness might simply mean the acknowledgement that there is so much more yet to be seen that will string this all together, and the calm steadiness of a servants heart to press on towards the greater reward unflinching and undeterred. Understanding is not what we already have, it is what what if we follow along will receive.

What it also means is that reading the Bible is simply an intellectual endeavor, it is a servant's endeavor to better know who the master is, what He has done, what it He wants me to do, how to do that. The object is not to put one's self at center stage, it is to put Jesus in His rightful place of honor before others.

"Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled". ( kjv@Matthew:5:6)

Righteousness here is translated from a Greek word pointing to the "equity of character or act" specifically as it is related to justification. This word translated in the English as "righteousness" is used by Jesus four times in this sermon. It would do us well to review each occurrence that He uses it:

To summarize we can say that whatever this righteousness is:

1. It is something to hunger and thirst for as if you were starved for it.
2. It is something you may well become persecuted by others for having/wanting.
3. It is something not having excludes one (even some of the most religious and zealous) from the kingdom of heaven.
4. It is something that must sought from God and searched out. 

as Jesus means it.

To hunger and thirst for it means that we do not have it, it is not ours, it is outside of us and we should be striving beyond our selves to get to it. To be persecuted because of it means that not everyone is open and accepting of people hungering and thirsting for it. To be excluded from the kingdom of heaven means that though there are a lot of people making themselves appear to have it religiously for self gain they really don't have it. To seek first the righteousness from above means not to search for it anywhere else but there and from no one else. I will more fully address each of these indications from Jesus when we come to each in the sermon. Let me take the time here to address what it means to hunger and thirst for it as applied to good Bible reading.

Let me borrow a phrase from Jesus: "You have heard it said...."

You have heard said that the God of the old testament Bible is an angry God. That is part of the reason you do not hunger and thirst to read the Bible for said righteousness, at least not in full. This is similar to saying that our dad is a big meany because he won't get us happy meals for breakfast dinner and lunch.

What we have to understand is that the old testament focuses in on a very particular covenant relationship between Jehovah and the children of Abraham - Israel. What I mean is that the two parties swore themselves to a mutually beneficial agreement. Israel, from day one, continually proceeded to break this covenant. No other nation did Jehovah put to such a covenant. No other nation did Jehovah treat in such a measured covenatial way. The object here on God's part was not to prove that the nation of Israel was good enough to keep covenant if they only tried, it was to prove to all nations the utter inability of humankind to keep covenant by any kind of human effort. HE could bring the other nations to understand this without having to put the other nations through the same covenant directly. The long periods of time of God's long-suffering with rebellious Israel are underscored by infrequent moments of anger in order to parent Israel back into proper and good standing covenant (which they were only able to maintain for a couple hours/days/months/decades at most despite best intentions).

Is it that pleasing God is that difficult? No, the terms of that covenant were pretty straight forward and easy. To sum it up it was to love the LORD your God with all your heart soul and mind, to love others as you have loved yourself. The difficult lays at the doorstep of man. The carnal man does not serve God you see, God serves him. He only loves the god that best serves him, the images of god that suit him best. The history of covenant Israel is ravaged with the carnage of false gods. Without being grounded in the love of God the love of others as yourself falters greatly as well.

You might find it odd that when Adam and Eve fell to temptation in the Garden, God didn't make any mention of law and covenant being the ultimate deliverer back out for mankind. HE gave only a vague prediction of a certain seed one day crushing the head of the Serpent. All of this time between then and this time of Jesus has been spent proving that even by flood, by exodus, by law giving, by promise land, by covenant, by judge or king or political system, the heart of man is deceitful/cold/lifeless/hardened, essentially hostile and feral toward God. Would it be right for God Jehovah to leave the matter to man like that? What then can be done for man except by Christ? How can Christ do this all except for taking upon Himself the penalty for man's great sin, to purge by His own blood and cleanse, to dress him up in the coat of His righteousness before presenting him to His Father at the seat of judgment, to lead the redeemed heart on into glory and holiness by the indwelling of His Holy Spirit? In a word to crush the head of the serpent after being bit Himself on the heel?

Christ then having done all this can be said to be our only righteousness. God in advance of Christ did act and show forth HIS character righteously and equitably with an eye unwavering on this final solution. Christ is at the center of this righteousness from Genesis 3. Christ is the reason God did not simply end it with man at any of the numerous times the covenant nation through it back in God's face.

The build up to Christ is the righteousness readers of the Old Testament should be reading to see. Shadows and types and patterns of Him are strategically planted in it for all to see. The arrival of Christ and what said arrival and death and resurrection and accession come to mean to all the nation and ages of man is the righteousness readers of the New Testament should be reading to see. Christ is the righteousness in each chapter and story-line throughout the Bible readers should be hungering and thirsting for; our most immediate need.

"Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy". ( kjv@Matthew:5:7)

Two different pictures are giving in the Greek in this sentence - "merciful" and "mercy". In the English the difference may not be as easy to see. Merciful here is a rare word used only twice in the entire New Testament meaning compassion that is given. The other is used more frequently to describe compassion that is obtained from or pleaded for, almost always compassion that is divine. The difference between the two words can be thought of as largely directional (who it is giving it) and in the consistency/shape/size.

The giving "merciful" we are to be is in the form of forgiveness, perhaps food or shelter or assistance, it might be judicial as in a reduced sentence or pardon etc... Typically mercy is thought of as unearned/unmerited/undeserved on the part of whom it is given, yet for some compassionate reason the giver voluntarily gifts or bestows it. The mercy that God gives and we obtain is much the same only much purer and can also include the larger forms of salvation, deliverance, healing, purification, atonement, justification etc... Again we must state that to obtain in this case does not mean that mercy is earned or entitled or deserved; it is only pleaded for by us knowing our impossible position and voluntarily given.

I imagine a survey of any audience would reflect most all people unexplained consider themselves already to be merciful/compassionate. However, I believe there is a problem in the way we conceptualize objective compassion. For instance, you will hear it said "all compassionate God". What they really mean by this phrase is "a God who does not judge" anything or anyone. What is the difference between that non-judgmental God and a God who does not exist or one that is nothing more than an indentured magic genie. That surely is the deceptive heart at play, an image of God made to justify our self regardless of what self does. Couldn't a non-judgmental God at least be fashioned with the dignity of self will, morality and discernment?

It appears here in this verse that God's mercy is on the condition of our being merciful one to another. It is really more a result of having been granted it. The rich man grants his indebted servant debt forgiveness, it is now the rich man's expectation that the liberated servant behave towards other debtors in the same way. It is proof that those that have obtained understand the undeserved nature of the gift and the unusual kindness of the gift giver.

As we read, throughout the Bible "merciful" best describes how we should approach understanding its story lines and characters. The lives described within are all flawed and human. Their histories are mostly tug and pull/back and forth with themselves, their neighbors, their ancestral tribes, their nation, their God Jehovah; as would be expected. These are different times, from a different language and world view and culture, in varied and unfamiliar forms of literature. Yet, there is no better place left for us to dive in and experience them. It is obvious that God is using them. Because God has used them, HE now reveals a good measure of HIMSELF to us who are mercifully reading. Blessed are the merciful in this for certain respect - They shall come to know their God and in that ask to obtain HIS wondrous mercy!

"Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God". ( kjv@Matthew:5:8)

There are two things for us to notice about this sentence right from the start. Both would also be of concern to the first time Bible reader. The first is that if the object for us is to "see God" future tense, you'll notice that there is something that Jesus is placing that must come before that - becoming pure of heart. The second, along similar lines, is that the problem isn't that there is no God to be seen, it is that it is the heart of man that is keeping him from seeing God. Let me add some important context to these points.

John the Apostle later says:

yet, there are at least two citations I can find that claim a man having seen (Jacob kjv@Genesis:32:30) (Manoah kjv@Judges:13:22). Is John suffering from contradiction/amnesia? No, I don't think so. Remember that it was Phillip that begged: "Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us." ( kjv@John:14:8).

What was Jesus' reply?

Jesus does not equate Himself to God here in this sermon like He will in future talks. With good reason - the audience is not yet pure enough of heart to see. It is up to the Father via HIS many confirmations and the convicting Holy Spirit later to draw these hearts in. When He does finally speak about this, that is when the push back really comes; that is when the heart of man really begins to be revealed. How far will their impure hearts go to not see God in revelation? All the way to nailing Jesus to a cross. How far will they stick to the comfort of their well proven corrupt forms of religion? All the way to the observance of a Passover feast that hastens His execution.

This then is the essence of the true question: how much does one truly want to "see" God? the real God?

One would think it would be as simple as God standing here face to face, "here I am", "yes this is God", "thank you God for appearing", "I see you now". Well the story line of the Old Testament is that millions of newly liberated people could walk across the floor of the Red Sea to the other side, watch the pursuing enemy get swallowed up when the walls of water crash down, and still not see that it was God, build a golden calf alter to another God within days or weeks. Perhaps you do not believe like me that that was literal, but the lesson is just the same of how the impure heart always (especially at times of divine revelation) deceives. Throughout the Testament, so many stories, so much evidence, even among people with the best intentions, the message proves to be the same. The second Testament records that the peoples of the surrounding region that witnessed the divine confirmations of Jesus (miracles) the most, having seen more than their share of the "son of Man"/"Son of God" works, did not in return receive Him. Does that mean that Jesus was not God as He claimed and divinely confirmed or does that mean that the deceptive heart even after seeing God is still that - impure/deceptive. I leave it to the reader to determine that, but the possibility that it is the heart to blame can be very well documented.

Today, of course, we do not have that direct one on one face to face opportunity with Jesus. We do have the witness of the men who went on to become Apostles of Jesus, how they had failed at first to see Him, how it radically revolutionized their hearts and ways of thinking. They surrendered their remaining lives to the unabashed proclamation of this. Jesus did not write His message on to papyrus or stone, He wrote it into loyal and committed purified flesh. They are the "salt of the earth"/"city on a hill"/"light lit not under a bushel" spoken of soon in this sermon. Why did God leave all to this? We must assume that this was the best way of all available ways to reach deep all the way into us.

"Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God". kjv@Matthew:5:9

A tranquil evening top a tranquil hill, a breeze, a gathering, a sermon. Tranquil is not surely the same as peace. Something else is brewing the more Jesus says and the more He becomes known.

Let me ask you this: Is Jesus (the "King of Peace") a peacemaker?

Might I suggest very much to you that He is. It depends though on what you consider peace ultimately to be.

There is a peace here and now, as in the absence or diminishment of trouble/conflict. I am in the process of reading a biography on the Chinese house movement lay pastor Samuel Lamb. Brother Lamb spent a good part of his life imprisoned in a repatriation camp under severe mental and physical torture. His crime essentially was injecting the peace of Christ into an authoritarian society bent on a systematic heavy handed peace of their own. The Gospel of Christ is a threat to the peace of Maoism.

The Gospel of Christ is a threat to the peace of a lot of here and now things we deem peaceful. Jesus was a threat to the peace of a very touchy relationship Rome with Israel. Though Pilot could not find anything illegal that Jesus was guilty of, he washed his hands clear of the matter and released the insurrectionist Barabbas from prison for crowd appeasement. In this case Jesus is deemed the disruption and Barabbas the peace atonement.

Therefore, we must conclude that the peacemaker Jesus is referring to is not making peace as the world itself expects it. Too many times we read these words and think that Jesus means for us to be pacifists, to negotiate mutually suitable compromise, to let things develop and proceed on their own course. Others describe it as not doing anything to make others object or take notice of you. Neither Jesus nor His Disciples nor the early Church show any sign of any of being that. They were peaceable people no doubt, but that is not the same as being peacemakers. Makers are the important concept here. Something tangible is produced that would not otherwise be there from its natural course.

"Children of God" is in a future conditional tense. In it there is the sense of adoption into the family of God, with familial rights/position/privileges/inheritance/respect, with instruction/correction/responsibilities/duty to maintain family order, uphold honor as. The believer/follower of Christ becomes this because of the work of Christ, it has been made possible in this respect whereas it was not possible to become this beforehand. Christ in a very real sense is the ultimate peacemaker having broken through the barrier of sin and death thus establishing the entry way toward peace with the Father God. The believer is ransomed out of the clutches, made clean, has the righteousness of Jesus imputed upon them, therein is justified before God, adopted and possessed and separated, granted full right and inheritance and instruction. Much different than a person simply claiming to be else demanding to be by direct lineage to Abraham etc...

The first time reader may not know all of this from the start. There is no way for them to know this unless it is made known by a caring peacemaker coming alongside. Having this all important context from the beginning though is most valuable, especially if one is truly sincere about finding the message of the Bible out.

"Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven". kjv@Matthew:5:10

We are back to two concepts Jesus had bullet pointed earlier - "righteousness" and "kingdom of heaven". Remember that the "kingdom of heaven" was first associated with the "poor in spirit", "righteousness" with the "hungering and thirsting" for on the part of the believer. Second mentions typically elevate the importance of a thing in the mind of the speaker (e.g. I wouldn't bring this up again if it wasn't so crucial for one to understand/a further light for one to understand it under). This time round both of these concepts are to be considered in the pretense of persecution. This is also the first of two times consecutively we will be considering persecution, so underline it too as very important.

Since we have two swipes at this consideration, I would like to look at this from the standpoint of the persecutor first pass. What makes one to look down upon another for their beliefs enough to persecute them? The best I can come up with is their presumption of righteousness; they posses the superior righteousness, the persecuted do not. That is how central to this conversation in terms of "kingdom of heaven" righteousness is. The "righteous" are compelled to enforce their righteousness upon others either to change the other's mind else to punish them in front of others so that their unrighteousness does not spread. Propagating persecution upon others has happened from the time of Cain and Abel, it is world wide, has been performed by nearly all religions and social/political persuasions including Christianity.

The problem is the fallen deceptive heart of man universally in the assessment of how much righteousness it does actually possess. Jesus starts from the position that man does not have a righteousness. This is why He placed such an importance of becoming "poor of spirit", "mourning", "meekness", "hungering/thirsting" for an external righteousness, being "merciful", becoming "pure of heart", becoming "peacemakers"; having these character traits will make it less likely His followers will take part in persecuting. Righteousness is something that He has done in sacrificial obedience to His Father, the rewards of which only He has been crowned. We are made righteous not by our own works or position or deserving, but by our faith in the all sufficiency of His. If the master, who is righteous above all, did not partake in persecuting, neither shall His followers by emulating. At least that is the way Jesus meant for it to be.

One looks at the history of the Christian Church however, it is plain to see men reverting back to their self justified and hostile brand of righteousness. There has even been Church sanctioned wars and persecutions, performers of which were granted complete pardon of their sins thus guarantying exclusion from purgatory and immediate entry into heaven (oh and all the earthly spoils of conquest to reward their violent effort). Perhaps this is why so many of you have put off all this time reading the Bible, because of all the ugliness Christians in the name of religion of piled up over top it.

Christianity began its' life as being the willingly persecuted not the persecutor.

EDIT

One would think that the God honest truth would be so important to the heart that one would gravitate upon hearing it to it almost irresistibly, it would make so much sense, all argument or conflict with it would simply melt. If you believe that man is essentially good, has total freewill, is above all rational, this explanation of man's interaction with truth would be most appealing. Obviously this is not the case as evidenced by the fervor of persecution built up against it. One might say: "well then the evidence suggests that this faith/truth is not the God honest truth". Another might say: "well other faiths are persecuted in similar amount and fashion as well". Some might say: "If Christianity is this truth, it has persecuted others as much as any".

The easiest way to examine

Comment Board: Tags: t[Tags:],

Further Resources:

Child Threads: