Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW
Probably as an example how Jesus/God talks to everyone, but really only to a few (the MOTAs and their followers). The others might as well not have been there because they were just the "Jews."
|
I find that as a whole, WL took a less-than-desirable approach to the Gospel of Matthew. The Kingdom of Heaven is a particular aspect of our relationship with God (much of which is conveyed in Matthew). While the concept itself is simple, I am afraid that WL was intent on hopelessly complicating it, and assigning his own meaning to it.
In the beginning of the LS of Matthew, WL makes the claim that Christians don't understand what the kingdom is, and he goes so far as to claim that a proper understanding only came after he studied the matter for a number of years. Right off the bat, WL sought to redefine the kingdom. He even introduced his own terminology like "kingdom people" and "kingdom constitution".
In reference to the kingdom, if we heard someone say
kingdom people it would probably be assumed that they were referring to Christians. Given WL's claim that Christians don't understand the kingdom, did he really wish to convey the notion of
kingdom people being average Christians? I doubt it, in fact, I could almost be certain that he wished to imply that
kingdom people are LCers. The same goes for the term
kingdom constitution, it takes on a different meaning, since the kingdom principles that Jesus put forth in Matthew are not the governing principles of the LC. Obviously WL had no interest in Jesus's teachings on morality. That was viewed as being 'low'. This shift in meaning is what I find to explain WL's redundant 'kingdom' terminology. The existence of kingdom already implies that there is a citizenship. The existence of a kingdom already implies the existence of a constitution. The heavy usage of such terms seems to convey an esoteric meaning.
Getting back to the sermon on the mount, what I find interesting is that in the LS of Matthew, WL discusses the existence of an inner-circle and outer-circle there. While this interpretation is not necessarily incorrect (and I should note that John Piper also uses this same interpretation), it seems to gravitate towards exclusivity. No doubt, Jesus' followers were not just limited to the group of his disciples. The 'crowd' could have contained all kinds of people, and I'm sure there are numerous debates about who was actually there. What I think is unwise is to claim Jesus' teachings was only for limited audience. Maybe his disciples better understood him than the rest, but there is no evidence to suggest the rest of the audience was unimportant. WL's view definitely leans towards that of a exclusive message being given to a select few.