Sunday 22 February 2026 - Lent 1

Theme(s): Facing temptation / Prayer and Fasting / Confronting sin through Christ / Study God's Word to resist the Devil

Sentence: Lord be gracious to us; we long for you. Be our strength every morning; our salvation in time of distress (Isaiah 33:2)

Collect: Bosco Peter's Book of Prayers in Common March 2025

God of the desert,

Jesus was led by the Spirit

to fast forty days in the wilderness

and was tempted as we are, yet without sin;

give us grace to observe the disciplines of Lent;

and, as you know our weakness,

so may we know your power to save;

through Jesus Christ,

who is alive with you,

in the unity of the Holy Spirit,

one God, now and for ever.

Amen.

Readings:

Genesis 2:15-17; 3:1-7
Psalm 32
Romans 5:12-19
Matthew 4:1-11

Commentary:

Genesis 2:15-17; 3:1-7

Some controversy attends the story popularly known as 'the Fall' because, in an age of evolutionary understanding of the history of life, it appears incredible that Christians could subscribe to a view which seemingly requires us to believe that no death occurred in nature after Creation until the Fall.

Further, the way the story of the Fall is told, it can be read as a story which contributes to the subjection of women to men (cf. 1 Timothy 2:12-15). Neither space nor time permit an extensive reflection on such controversies here - probably sermons this Sunday do not permit that either, limited as most preachers are by time! So the following approach to this passage acknowledges such controversies while largely sidestepping them ...

In the big story of the world, told through Scripture in terms of the world's relationship to God the Creator, the story of the Fall marks and acknowledges a very simple fact about human life: we sin, we stuff up, we get things wrong, we fail, we let God, others and ourselves down. From sin flows pain and sorrow. Every day in the news media we are confronted with evidence of this simple fact. Likely everyday in our homes, workplaces and shopping malls we are confronted with evidence of this same fact. "You said you would ...". "I didn't realise when you said X that you actually wanted me to ..."

In Scripture this simple fact of life closes the door to the first part of the story of the world, the story of the Creator creating the world, and opens the door to the next part, the Creator becoming the Redeemer to redeem the world. In the latter story the Redeemer undoes the effects of the Fall (forgive sin, heal pain, turn sorrow into joy) and begins the restoration of the world to what God intended the created world to be, a place of perfect fellowship between God and humanity and between human people.

To retell this part of the story today, the first Sunday in Lent, is to acknowledge that we (once again) journey with Jesus to the cross which is the culminating action of God the Redeemer, and beyond the cross to the resurrection which is the inaugurating action of God the Healer of fallen Creation.

Psalm 32

If we take seriously the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross because of our wrong-doing, then we will take seriously our sinful, fallen nature - our part in, our responsibility for the state of the world.

When we acknowledge our sin we cannot be seriously concerned about that if we do nothing. To do something about our sin is to be penitent, active in repentance in which our lives turn from sin to holy living.

Psalm 32 is a penitential psalm which captures neatly the stress of continuing in unrepented sin while charting the happy state of those without imputed sin, who live lives attuned to God's ways.

Romans 5:12-19

One way to understand this passage is to understand it as Paul's account of what I have tried to express above in my comments about the Genesis reading for today: the big picture story of the world in relationship to God is Creation, Fall, Redemption.

In Paul's account he draws in the symmetry of the fall through 'one man' (12), specifically named as 'Adam' (14), and salvation through 'the one man, Jesus Christ' (15, 17). He also names two parts to the period in which 'death exercised dominion' following the fall (14), the period from Adam to Moses when there was sin without the law (13-14) and the period from Moses to Jesus Christ when sin continued, with the law (given by God to Israel via Moses) intended to constrain sin actually having 'the result that the trespass multiplied' (20).

(Note, as an aside, that Paul writing in 1 Timothy 2:12-15, mentioned above, can focus on the role Eve played in the dynamics between the snake, Adam and Eve, but here subsumes Adam and Eve as a couple into 'one man', presumably to make the symmetry re Jesus Christ: through one man came sin, through one man came salvation.)

In the battle between good and evil, between life and death, between sin and righteousness, Paul here states clearly, carefully (i.e. logically) and conclusively (i.e. no Christian need be in any doubt about the matter) that goodness, life and righteousness are the winners. Sin abounds, but grace abounds more (15, 20). Death exercised dominion but now righteousness and life (17) as well as grace exercise dominion (21).

All this comes about because 'at the right time Christ died for the ungodly' (6). So we journey through Lent with Jesus to the cross, not because we celebrate suffering and sacrifice for its own sake, but because through the cross comes life.

Matthew 4:1-11

Lent as a period of 40 days relates precisely to this period of testing in Jesus' own life (2). But that period itself is an analogy of Israel's 40 years in the wilderness as it journeyed towards the Promised Land. In both periods, 40 days / 40 years, there were tests and tribulations. Would Israel trust in God (for water, for food, for healing, for conquest of their Promised Land)? Will Jesus' trust in God?

In these verses in Matthew we learn of Jesus' own tests and tribulations. First, the general test of fasting and ending up in a famished state (2). Then, secondly, the particular tribulations at the hands of the tempter (who appears to intentionally test or tempt Jesus when he is weak rather than strong, verses 3-10).

Clearly Jesus is tempted on matters concerning his messiahship, here focused in Matthew's telling on the matter of his title and status as 'the Son of God' (3, 6). What better way to be acclaimed as Messiah than through a miracle concerning food or a dramatic rescue which fulfilled ancient prophecy (3-7). Jesus is resolute, so the tempter a.k.a the devil (5) or Satan (10) tries a third and final time to tempt Jesus to submit to his rather than to God's authority. In this third temptation Jesus is offered, literally, the world (8-11). Not just Israel would be his domain.

The fact that Jesus rebuts and rejects these temptations shows us that his messiahship will not be expressed in a worldly way (courting popularity, demonstrating powerfulness).

Apart from that lesson, what might Christian disciples learn from the example of their Teacher?

An important observation is that Jesus rejects the voice of the devil with the word(s) of God: 'it is written' (4, 7, 10). Indeed one of the citations is a citation about the word(s) of God, 

"One does not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God" (4).

The power to live a holy life draws on the power of God's written Word in Scripture. Knowledge of the truth counters the lies and deceptions of the devil. Obedience to God's laws gives life which obedience to the devil's lures would not. Jesus trusts God and trusts the promises of God made to him via the written Word of God.

If Lent is a period for fasting, it is also a period for study of God's Word. 

Sunday 15 February 2026 - Epiphany 6

Theme(s): Kingdom living / Church without party politics / Reckoning with God being in charge

Sentence: Happy are those whose way is blameless, who walk in the law of the Lord (Psalm 119:1)

Collect: Bosco Peter's Book of Prayers in Common March 2025

O God,

you promise to abide with those who are just and pure in heart;

give us your grace to live in such a way

that we are a dwelling pleasing to you;

through Jesus Christ,

who is alive with you,

in the unity of the Holy Spirit,

one God, now and for ever.

Amen.

Readings:

Deuteronomy 30:15-20
Psalm 119:1-8
1 Corinthians 3:1-9
Matthew 5:21-37

Commentary:

Deuteronomy 30:15-20

Do not read this passage if you think life consists of greys instead of black and white, or that God is kinda a real good dude who just wants to bless you whatever you choose to do. No!

'See, I have set before you today life and prosperity, death and adversity.' (15)

If we squirm at the thought of a binary (good/bad, life/death) approach to decision-making and its consequences, it may be worth considering what kind of a God would offer something different to what we read here. Would God be much of a god if the offer was, say, 'It would be neat if you chose to obey me, but it doesn't matter if you disobey me'?

Of course there is no need to be at all uncomfortable in the presence of the God who speaks to us through this passage. Its resounding plea is 'Choose life' (19).

Though today we might hear the voice of God speaking to us as individuals about the course and destination of our lives, this original plea was to Israel. What kind of people would she choose to be? God's people living in God's way and thus blessed by God in the land promised to them by God? Or a dying people (18) enjoying the shortest of stays in the land they entered with hearts turned away from God towards other gods (17)?

As a matter of fact, Israel's history was a mixed bag. There was obedience (and times of blessing, notably in the reigns of David and Solomon) and there was disobedience (and times of cursing, notably exile, from the perspective of which, Deuteronomy was written in the form we read it today). In other words, whatever our feelings in the 21st century about shades of grey versus black and white as we understand the times in which we live, ancient Israel, as its writings were compiled, edited and finalised into what we Christians read as the Old Testament, looked back on its history as a nation once blessed and now cursed. No greys!

Psalm 119:1-8

Famously nearly* every verse of this longest psalm refers to the Law (e.g. law, statute, precept, commandment, decree, word, ordinance, way). It celebrates the keeping of the 'law of the Lord' (1) and mixes up the promise of blessing for obedience (1-2) with prayer for steadfastness (5), reminder of God's will that his commandments be kept (4), and statement of intention to obey (7-8).

The connection with our gospel reading is clear: Jesus is outlining in Matthew 5:21-37 what he meant when he said that he had not come to abolish the law but to fulfil it (5:17-20). A Christian following Jesus' teaching on the law of God can enter fully into the spirit of Psalm 119, eager to be an obedient citizen of the kingdom of heaven.

*Can you find the exceptions? Reputedly there are two ... or three!

1 Corinthians 3:1-9

We continue through 1 Corinthians (with readings which are not intended to 'relate' to the gospel reading of the day).

Having eloquently spoken of the true spiritual wisdom found in (and only in) Christ (chapters 1 and 2), Paul is frank and robustly critical of his Corinthian audience.

He compares a potential 'spiritual' audience with the 'people of the flesh' to whom he writes (1, also 2,3).

On the one hand 'spiritual' is comparable to 'immature' or 'infantile' (so also comparison between feeding with 'with milk, not solid food' (2)).

On the other hand 'still of the flesh' is the state of 'jealousy and quarrelling' (3) specifically linked to a form of party allegiance: 'one says, "I belong to Paul," and another, "I belong to Apollos" (4).

This dissension in the Corinthian ranks has already been introduced as a topic for the letter (chapter 1). Now Paul addresses it further, in an argument which will continue through to the end of chapter 4.

We could puzzle endlessly about the nature of the party allegiances. Was it an allegiance to perceived difference in teaching content between Paul and Apollos (and Cephas, mentioned in 3:22)? Was each teacher being treated as a kind of principal of a particular school of Greek philosophy (or rabbinical leader of a Jewish school of interpretation)? Or was the allegiance more human than that, so that the allegiance was heartfelt affection towards the apostle who brought the party loyalist into faith through baptism?

However the allegiances came about, Paul is clear that a strong sense of 'belonging' is involved (4). So he takes up this sense of belonging in verses 5-9. What are Paul and Apollos? We could perhaps use the word 'just' here: just servants of the Lord; just servants of the Lord who happened to be in Corinth at a certain time so that Corinthians came to belief through one or other as the Lord 'assigned to each' (5). Just so, no more, no less.

Paul then makes a distinction between the work of each. He 'planted', Apollos 'watered' (6). Perhaps Paul preached first and Apollos second. Not for the last time in the history of evangelism, the later preacher (so to speak) reaped the harvest from the seed sown by the first. Here in Aotearoa New Zealand we might look back over two hundred years to Marsden preaching with little fruit re conversions in 1814 (and successive preaching trips, and no great fruit from the missionaries' efforts in the 1810s and 1820s) and then forward to the 1830s when many Maori converted to the Christian faith. 

Where does the real credit for the success of the apostolic mission in Corinth (or Aotearoa New Zealand) lie? With God: 'but God gave the growth' (6).

Thus, Paul says, neither he nor Apollos (by comparison) amount to 'anything' (7). What matters is 'God who gives the growth' (7). This is where the Corinthians' allegiance should be placed.

With this unifying factor in place in his argument Paul draws out the implications in verses 8 and 9. Paul and Apollos have had a 'common purpose' in their work. They are not their own men but 'God's servants, working together.' The Corinthians are not many parties of Christians but one entity: 'you are God's field, God's building.'

But we do not read this passage for a lesson in Corinthian church history. What is God the Holy Spirit saying to the church today through this passage?

Is the message here about growth into Christian maturity as a congregation? Whether riven with party conflicts or not, congregations can be torn in two or three by other divisions. (Is there a question for the global church about its (im)maturity as a church of many denominations?)

Is the message about how we see ourselves in ministry? It is natural to seek limelight, even in the church. Theoretically we deplore party allegiances, secretly (unconsciously) we might wish we had a following! Do we need to take a sober reckoning of our personal ministry role as simply that of a servant of the Lord: what counts is God's work in the church.

If God's work in the church is what counts, where do we see that work occurring? If the work of the servants of the Lord counts for little by comparison with the work of God, then that frees us from worrying that (say) we do not seem to have giants of the faith around us today as we had in former days. One kind of anxiety in the church concerns where the Pauls and Apolloses of the 21st century are to be found. But does that matter? What is God up to? Surely the power of God at work in the world is no less today than two thousand years ago!

Matthew 5:21-37

There is a lot of material here! Topically we have murder/hate (21-22); reconciliation (23-24, 25-26); adultery/lust (27-28, with added comment re parts of our bodies which cause us to sin, 29-30); divorce (31-32); oaths (36-37). There is a challenging and meaty sermon series laid out for us to follow. However that is not our task with this passage, which is to preach one sermon on these seventeen verses.

It could be that we take the opportunity to major on just one topic - that would be a reasonable way to respond to the passage. In which case we might want to delve into a commentary for consideration of important subtleties: e.g. what was in the background concerning life in Jesus' day which led to the way he teaches about oaths, reconciliation and divorce? How do we honour Jesus' words about remarriage in verse 32 with due seriousness, words which bluntly state that remarriage of a divorced woman creates a state of adultery?

To an extent (being frank), a sermon which sweeps across the whole passage offers the option of not addressing difficult issues such as those within verse 32. Yet such a sermon cannot avoid the fact that taken together, these verses confront just about every member of the congregation with some challenge or another. Who among us is reconciled to every person we have ever had a quarrel with? What person is free of lust? We live in an age in which many marriages end in divorce. In the language of yesteryear, a gentleman's word used to be his bond and business deals were struck on the shake of a hand, but now, it seems, nothing can happen without some voluminous contract being vetted by lawyers.

We might also reckon with the fact that many readers/hearers of verses 29-30 are genuinely troubled by what these verses mean. Do they literally apply so the solution to lust is plucking one's eyes out and the end of thievery is bound to follow from losing one's hands? (To respond quickly on this matter: as is the case elsewhere in the gospels, Jesus is exaggerating to make a point. Self-mutilation is not required by Christians taking the Sermon seriously. But radical action may be the only solution to problems such as lust and theft. To cease lusting, I need to stop watching TV and trawling the internet. To cease shoplifting, I need to stop going into shops. Etc.)

So, what then for the preacher? I suggest we have a nice long cup of coffee or tea or smoothie and think through what it would mean to be faithful to Jesus to preach on his Sermon.

Would it be faithful to preach on this passage as though we were the kind of rabbi Jesus seemed to despise, the kind who found ways around the laws of God rather than insisted on obedience to them?

(Conversely) would it be faithful to Jesus to preach on this passage in such a way that we were like another kind of despised rabbi (per gospel reminiscences), the kind who makes their hearers feel more weighed down and oppressed by the end of the sermon than they were at the beginning, suffocating under the weight of obligation to be perfect now in both outward action and inward attitude?

If the Sermon is a charter or manifesto for the kingdom of God, then it sets out a vision for how we will live in a renewed society of God's people. A restored humanity within this society lives in harmony with one another: neither murder nor hatred nor unreconciled relationships are compatible with this vision. Betrayal in marriage through adultery, imbalanced relationships between the sexes because lust fuels domination of one sex over the other is not compatible either. Drastic action may be required to match the deeds and attitudes of members of the kingdom with the vision of the kingdom. Truth telling is also vital to the kingdom, whether we think of faithfulness to marriage vows in particular, or commitment to any vow made simply. The opposite of thieving in the kingdom is more than the cessation of stealing, it is generosity and sharing of material goods.

Can we, in our sermons this week, capture the seriousness of what is at stake in this teaching of Jesus with the inspiration of what God desires of his kingdom people?  

Sunday 8 February 2026 Epiphany 5

Theme(s): Salt / Light / Righteousness according to Jesus / Wisdom / Discipleship / Christian character / Spiritual truth / True spirituality

Sentence: Shine forth from your throne upon the cherubim; restore us O God; show us the light of your face and we shall be saved. (Psalm 80:1,3)

Collect: Bosco Peter's Book of Prayers in Common March 2025

Keep the whānau/household of your church, O God,

safe in your tender compassion,

so that we who entrust ourselves totally to your heavenly grace

may always be defended by your protection;

through Jesus Christ,

who is alive with you,

in the unity of the Holy Spirit,

one God, now and for ever.

Amen.

Readings:

Isaiah 58:1-9a
Psalm 112:1-9
1 Corinthians 2:1-12
Matthew 5:13-20

Commentary:

Isaiah 58:1-9a

With an eye on the gospel reading (from the Sermon on the Mount) in which Jesus teaches what the real oil is on what God expects of God's people about the way they live, we read this stirring passage as a challenge in a similar vein: what does God really, really expect of us?

The prophet fastens on fasting as an issue. He paints a picture of his fellow Israelites fasting intently and faithfully and then complaining that God seemingly offers no accreditation (v.3). To them he says, as the voice of God speaks through him, your fasting is a sham. Verses 3-7 outline both the problem (fasting covers over unjust treatment of others) and the remedy (understand the true fast of God and do that instead of going without food).

Once the prophet launches into his memorable method of outlining what true fasting is, by asking an emotively powerful set of rhetorical questions, all Jewish and Christian ethics would never be the same again.

'Is not this the fast that I choose: to loose the bonds of injustice .. Is it not to share your bread with the hungry and bring the homeless poor into your house ...' (vss. 6-7)

Psalm 112:1-9

This psalm ties neatly into the Old Testament reading re just living (vss. 5-6, 9) and with the gospel, especially Jesus telling the disciples that they are the light of the world = 'They rise in the darkness as a light for the upright, they are gracious, merciful and righteous' (vs. 4).

Indeed one way to summarise the whole of the Sermon on the Mount could be to say that those disciples who live accordingly will be 'gracious, merciful and righteous.'

One feature of the life encouraged by the psalm is that the righteous live lives of 'happy stability' (see vss. 1, 6-8).

1 Corinthians 2:1-12

This is a very deep passage on which we could linger in theological reflection at many points. Its depth comes from Paul exploring the 'mystery of God' in the context of Corinth, a seaside city of many cultures with a church of several allegiances informed by two great philosophies of the day, Hellenism with its interest in 'wisdom' and Judaism with its interest in 'signs' (1:22).

Wisdom communicated itself in those days with 'lofty words' (2:1) and 'plausible words' (2:4), that is, in the rhetorical (persuasive) style of speech familiar to the Hellenistic world. 

On the one hand Paul seems to have been poor at such an approach (2:3-4). 

On the other hand, he is proud of this inability for what he has to say (the gospel of the crucified Christ) is not an argument to be presented persuasively ('so that your faith might rest not on human wisdom but on the power of God', v.5) but a 'demonstration of the Spirit and of power' (v.4).

Picking up the flow of Paul's themes developed in this and the previous chapter, he is saying that the pitiful weakness of a crucified man (and an obscure resident of Palestine on the edge of the empire at that) is 'foolish' for Greeks (1:23 etc) and a 'stumbling block' to Jews (1.23 etc) has no power in the usual way of persuasion to persuade hearers of the gospel that on the cross true wisdom lies and in the cross is the greatest sign of God at work in the world. No, the effectiveness of preaching the gospel lies with the Spirit's power to convict hearers that truth lies in the 'mystery of God' at work in Jesus Christ crucified rather than the opposite (e.g. if Jesus were a great philosopher in the mode of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle and a miracle worker in the style of Elijah and Elisha).

Understanding this, Paul goes on to say, Jesus Christ is the actual wisdom from God (1:30; 2:6-7).

What then follows in the passage, 2:9-12 (and 2:13-16) is an account of how God's truth is discovered: God reveals it (2:7, 10); the Spirit of God is the agent of revelation (2:10-13); the Spirit is able to reveal because only the Spirit of God 'comprehends what is truly God's' (2:11).

Note how the emphasis falls in this passage on truth being a gift from God, enabled by God and made available by God according to God's timing. On this matter Paul would have been in accord with his Jewish readers/hearers but out of sync with his Greek hearers/readers whose Hellenistic background assumed 'wisdom' was discoverable by insightful human intellectual exploration.

Much more could be said on this passage. One specific point of reflection would be to consider what this passage says to the church today about communicating the gospel. To offer one tiny illustration of where such reflection might go: is the church tempted to think that its problems with communication of the gospel are about getting the right advertising agency involved in marketing the gospel? If so, to what extent is an "advertising agency involved in marketing" a 21st century equivalent of 1st century Hellenistic philosophers plying their rhetorical (persuasive) trade?

Matthew 5:13-20

If, last Sunday, we observed The Presentation transferred (instead of Epiphany 4 = Matthew 5:1-12), then this Sunday we dive into the Sermon on the Mount without a Sunday to reflect on how the sermon begins, Matthew 5:1-12. A quick reminder is that the beginning of the Sermon sets the tone for what follows (e.g. the theme of blessing, the unexpectedness of who is blessed and thus preparing us for the 'upside down' ethical world of the kingdom of God).

We also miss the setting in which Jesus draws his disciples aside yet we must compare this with what we learn at the end of the Sermon, that the crowds 'were astounded at his teaching' (7:28): thus a tension is created which the church has wrestled with ever since: are the high demands of the Sermon for all Christians or for a more select group (e.g. those called to monastic orders).

Now to today's passage: once again we are in biblical territory where many themes are densely packed into a few verses.

We could easily preach a whole sermon on being salt of the earth (v. 13) or light of the world (v.14-15) or the relationship between good works (v. 16) and faith.

Books get published on the meaning of 5:17-20 in respect of Jesus' understanding of the importance and continuing relevance of the Law of Moses for Christians living in the age of a new covenant with God.

Perhaps more so than other weeks, the few following remarks make no pretence to offer a route of avoidance of effort looking up a decent commentary or three!

What we might usefully consider as one reflection on this passage, 5:13-20, is to ask a question about what is at stake here.

Jesus has begun the task of bringing the kingdom of God into the world (or, if you prefer, bringing the world into the kingdom of God). He has preached the gospel of the kingdom and enacted kingdom business: that is, whether we think of the kingdom as the intimate (and immanent) reign of God over the affairs of the world, or as the restoration of creation, Jesus has announced that reign is at hand and has begun to restore creation through healings and deliverance (4:17-25).

Now in this wide-ranging sermon Jesus addresses the question of how those in the kingdom (disciples who have responded to Jesus' call to follow him) should live. Kingdom living, by implication from chapter 4, will be life lived which demonstrates the rule of God over disciples and which lives out the original vision of creation of humanity being in loving harmony with one another.

Even just a few living in this way will be like salt in food: its presence makes a difference to the food. A little light (even a few disciples living in the kingdom way) destroys a lot of darkness. Living saltily and lightfully will draw people to praise God.

We could pause right here in our sermon and ask of ourselves as well as of our hearers, Does anyone in our community/workplace/sports club know that we are Christians? What is different about our lives which demonstrates the rule of God over us and which offers a sign of creation being restored?

In similar vein we could tackle 5:17-20 (on which, we remember, books have been written).

If we go back to what the 'law or the prophets' (v. 17) were about, they were not about Israel living by a random set of strange rules, the stranger the better for demonstrating how faithful Israel was to a strange God. No! They were on about Israel living in a fallen world a community life in which people sought to live harmoniously with one another while honouring the rule of God over their lives, with the plus that some rules provided for ways of restoration (of people to God and to one another) when things went wrong). 

The prophets often made the point that one other thing could go wrong with trying to live in this way: the rules might be misunderstood so that the comparatively tiny ones (e.g. about the finer points of ceremony) could outweigh the actually important ones (like living justly and treating others mercifully).

With this in mind we could understand 5:17-20 in this way: Jesus is saying that the vision for life underlying the law and the prophets was his vision too. Accordingly he has not come to change anything about the law and the prophets as they relate to living under God's rule and to living in harmony with one another. We need to put those italicised words into the picture because clearly Jesus did change some rules (e.g. about clean/unclean foods).

What we then find Jesus doing in 5:21 and following verses is not to undo the law but to intensify it. Looking ahead to just one such treatment, re murder, 5:21-22, Jesus affirms that murder is wrong (it dishonours God who has made each of us equal in his sight; it (obviously) breaks harmony in society) and then goes beyond that. Hatred of another also dishonours God and disrupts social harmony.

Back to 5:13-20. Jesus can end this section by saying the disciples' righteousness must exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees (see also 'You must be perfect' at the end of chapter 6) because life in the kingdom is no less a vision for living under the rule of God and for living in harmony with one another than the vision that drives the scribes and the Pharisees to live as they do.

What is (and could or should be) interesting about the weeks ahead in Matthew's Gospel is asking the question, what difference does Jesus make to these two ways to live out the same vision?