He was received up into heaven (Acts 1)

So, back to the New Testament, and Acts chapter one. Some people believe that Luke's gospel and the book of Acts were actually intended as documentary evidence for the trial of Paul, the former being an overview of Christianity and the latter the story of Paul and his role in the church. There are a lot of supposed contradictions here that are pretty easy to deal with. Right off the top, Does the gospel of Luke contain everything that Jesus did? No, of course not, and I think it's silly to imply Luke is making such a claim. What is most likely is that Luke is saying he included everything important that Jesus did, or even quite possibly the "all" represents the opposite Venn diagram of what the SAB implies, i.e. that all of Luke's gospel contains things Jesus did (which is not strictly true either, but we're just taking "all" too seriously here).

I answered when Jesus ascended in John chapter 20; the answer is 40 days as described here, the only passage that gives a specific time frame. Where did Jesus tell his disciples to go after his resurrection? It's always been my understanding that Jesus told them to go to Galilee, where they would see him, and then back to Jerusalem, where they would see him again and he would ascend into Heaven. Sure, it can be confusing. Should the gospel be preached to everyone? Yes! There is some information missing on this page, I would say. While Jesus's ministry during his time on earth was generally limited to the Jews in Judea and Galilee, it's recorded that he went to the Samaritans in John 4, and the the Canaanite woman in Matthew 15 was ministered to. After Jesus was resurrected, he told his disciples to bring the Gospel to all people, so this apparent limiting of preaching to Jews only seems to have been for pre-resurrection times only. In addition to this, the passage from Acts 16 quoted is a bit odd, as Galatia is actually in Asia! Clearly Paul did preach in Asia, as he established several churches there, so whatever is going on in Acts 16:6 was temporary. (The seven churches written to in the first few chapters of Revelation are all in Asia, actually.) It's understood historically that the Apostles actually went pretty far with the Gospel just in the first century; some went to the area around the Black Sea, while others went to Parthia, which may have included parts of modern-day India. The Gospel also went pretty quickly to Ethiopia, perhaps by way of the eunuch mentioned in Acts chapter eight?

The "science" note on verse eleven I think can be outright dismissed as silly; just because someone somewhere had a weird interpretation of a Bible verse doesn't mean everyone has to care. (I assume that since it was brought up, it may have mattered to Galileo, but what happened to him is a whole can of worms outside of my scope here. I've read a lot about Galileo, and it's fascinating both what he accomplished as a scientist and what persecution he faced from the church because of it.)

What were the names of the Apostles? I actually addressed this in Matthew chapter ten, but I probably wasn't quite as thorough as I should have been. I honestly don't think there is such a thing as a "rank" of Apostles (although, yes, Peter is always listed first and Judas Iscariot is always last), so the real issue is discrepancy in the actual names. I think it's a safe assumption that Simon the Canaanite and Simon the Zealot are the same person; the hard one is whether Lebbaeus Thaddeus is the same person as Judas, brother of James. If you don't want a contradiction, you'd have to assume so; the Bible doesn't say they are, but it doesn't say they aren't, either. As I said in my previous comments, Lebbaeus Thaddeus seems to possibly be a nickname, so it's not out of the question. How many believers were there at the time of the ascension? I don't think this is a real problem. There's nothing in the text to indicate that these two verses are describing the same moment in time. I think the number given here in Acts is not the total number of believers, but the number that happened to be present when Peter was speaking. The "above five hundred" in 1Corinthians actually doesn't necessarily even mean believers; this could have happened in Galilee to a mixed group of believers and nonbelievers (the nonbelievers would mostly have not been aware that Jesus was resurrected, not having been witnesses of his death). It's really not specified. When was the Holy Ghost given? I know I've addressed this before, maybe several times, but I'll try and give a definitive answer here and make sure it's linked to on the page. As Jesus said earlier in this very chapter, there was a special event that happened on Pentecost when the believers were "baptized with the Holy Ghost". This is a special giving of the Holy Ghost that was for all believers in Jesus, and many theologians believe that from that day forward, the Holy Ghost was given to every believer from the time of their conversion. However, the Holy Ghost existed from eternity along with the other two persons of the Trinity, and there were special times and people before Pentecost that had the anointing of the Holy Ghost. The existence of these people is not a contradiction to the fact that the Holy Ghost was given on Pentecost; it's just that what happened on Pentecost was a major change in the role the Holy Ghost played in the Bible. Before Pentecost, even those mentions in the Old Testament of the "Spirit of God" are referring to the Holy Ghost.

Okay, on verse 18, there are three questions that are all intertwined, so I will answer them together: Who bought the potter's field? How did Judas die? What did Judas do with the silver? I actually addressed these in Matthew chapter 27, but let me reiterate here as a single narrative that puts this all together. Judas feels remorse for betraying Jesus, so he returns to the priests, and throws the silver down in front of them. He goes out and finds a field with a tree in it, and hangs himself on it. After his body hangs for some time, it somehow falls down and breaks open on the ground (and honestly, it doesn't make sense for a living human to burst open just from falling down; he would have to either fall from some height or have something wrong with him, like a partially decomposed body). The priests don't know what to do with the silver, because it's blood money, and they can't take it back, but they decide to buy the field Judas hanged himself in to serve as a cemetery; because the money was Judas's, in a sense he vicariously bought the field through the priests. The only thing not completely tied up by this narrative is why the field is called "the field of blood"; the answer is for both reasons given.

Okay, so the Psalms quoted by Peter were, in fact, written by David; I don't know why the SAB says they weren't. Yes, technically they weren't about Judas, but prophetically, scripture can have different shades of meaning, and I don't understand the basis for picking on Peter's choices like this.

Does God know and see everything? Yes, he does, and the verses being suggested to make a point against this are mostly misunderstood. Let me clear out a bunch of them by three statements: (1) Just because God asks a question doesn't mean he doesn't already know the answer, (2) the fact that people sometimes try to hide from God doesn't mean the attempt is in any way useful, and (3) when God tests someone it's so they will know themselves. In Genesis 11, the fact that God came down to see Babel doesn't imply he couldn't see it before, he's just putting in a more personal appearance for unknown reasons. Genesis 18:17 says nothing whatsoever about God not knowing something. In Genesis 18:20-21, God already knows about Sodom and Gomorrah, but for some reason feels it appropriate to have a face-to-face encounter with these people, so to speak (perhaps to call out comparatively righteous people like Lot?). I believe Hosea 8:4 is implying that God was in no way a part of the process of setting up these kings. Does God know what is in everyone's heart? I'm not sure why this is a separate question, but the answer is pretty much the same.

Does the Bible condemn gambling? This is a particularly interesting question for me on a personal level, because my degree is in mathematics, and my senior thesis was on gambling theory, with a particular focus on blackjack. I also at the end of my senior year took a class on the history of mathematics, and so for a project in that class, I did a report on the history of gambling. The simple answer to this question is "no" as the SAB itself admits, but it gets complicated because a lot of religious people have suggested that gambling is sinful, and have suggested verses in the Bible to support that idea. The thing I want to say about the history of gambling is that most forms of gambling have their roots in religious practices of divination. There certainly are places in the Bible where gambling is happening, but a lot of what the SAB implies to be gambling is just standard forms of divination. It simply was very common in many cultures, including the ancient Jewish world, to pray for the guidance of a god and then cast lots, or roll dice, or some such thing. So with all that being said, there's something to be said about items in both categories. Most of the verses on the "yes" side are about getting rich in general, which the Bible seems to be against. Proverbs 13:11 does seem particularly applicable to gambling, however, as it talks about "wealth gotten by vanity" (rather than hard work). 2Thessalonians 3:10 perhaps could be applied to gamblers, because most people don't consider gambling "work", but it's a controversial verse anyway. The Roman soldiers casting lots for Jesus's robe are probably the clearest case of actual gambling in the Bible, and it's pretty clear it's not something to look up to. As for all the verses in the "no" section, those are just standard methods of divination, as I said above. So here in Acts, the lot falls on Matthias to be the new member of "the twelve", and we never hear him mentioned again.

And if ye will receive it, this is Elijah, which was for to come (John 1:15-51)

Can God be seen? This is actually a complicated question. Strictly speaking, except for in the person of Jesus, God doesn't have a physical body, so the answer is no. However... There are a lot of instances in the Bible where people see things that are a manifestation of God (that is, God makes something visible that is a representation of himself), or they have a vision of God (that is, they have something like a dream where they see something symbolic of God), or there is the strange instance in Exodus 33:18-23, which seems to be God somehow literally allowing Moses to see some sort of physical form. That latter one is the only one I have no explanation for, and I've always thought it was very weird since I read it as a kid. So for the other two, and the distinction between the verses in the two categories on that page, the general idea is when someone is "seeing" God on earth, they are usually seeing a light that is the glory of God's presence (this may also be the "burning bush" in Exodus 3, "a smoking furnace and a burning lamp" in Genesis 15:17, and the pillar of fire in Exodus 13:21), and when they are a prophet seeing God in an apparent physical body, they are having a vision, in which the things they are seeing are symolic (when Habakkuk saw horns in God's hands, horns are almost always symbols of strength). It's worth noting that most Christians, as I think I mentioned in my last entry, believe that the "Angel of the Lord" in the Old Testament is a preincarnate Jesus. In such an appearance, often there is no clear distinction between the angel speaking and God speaking. It's also worth noting that while it doesn't say outright that Adam and Eve saw God, in Genesis 3, it seems that God is physically present in the garden of Eden in some form.

Was John the Baptist Elijah? There is really a verse that is missing from this page, and that's Luke 1:17,

And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.

Generally, when there's confusion over a matter in the Bible, you go by what Jesus says. Jesus said John was Elijah (less directly in Mark 9:12), so he was. So why the confusion? Well, one explanation that I have heard--and I don't know how widely accepted this is that the spirit of Elijah was reincarnated in John, but John had no memory of his previous life. Strange to talk about reincarnation in a Christian context, I know, but I've heard it suggested, and it seems to fit the Luke verse.

Where did John baptize? on the face of it, there's no contradiction here, as "beyond Jordan" most likely simply means in the Jordan River, but on the east bank. However, there is the issue raised not on the linked page, but back in the footnote on the John 1 page, which points out that Bethabara (Βηθανια in my Greek version) is not known. My study guides say that "Bethabara" is Hebrew for "ferry-house" which would suggest perhaps that this was not so much a city as simply a place where one could cross the Jordan.

Did John the Baptist recognize Jesus as the Son of God? Yes, but obviously, some explanation is needed here. The verses in the "no" column are coming from John when he's locked away in prison. While he recognized Jesus's true identity at his baptism, he has to be wondering, if the Messiah has come, what am I doing behind bars? There are a couple of possibilities for this message here. One is sarcasm; John is calling out to Jesus and saying, "Hey, I'm in trouble! Are you the Messiah or not?" The other is desperation: because John is in this situation, he's starting to question himself and what he thought he saw. Either way, it's not really a contradiction.

Which came first: the calling of Peter and Andrew or the imprisonment of John the Baptist? There are two things that need to be said about the content of this page, and either or both could explain it. First of all, it should be noted that the so-called "calling" of Peter and Andrew here in John is not the same event shown in the other two Gospels; they look different, and I believe the events in Matthew and Mark happened later. It's worth observing that the behavior displayed by Peter and Andrew isn't the sort of behavior you would expect from people who didn't already have a history of interaction with Jesus; you don't just walk up to a stranger and say, "Follow me!" and have them come. The event in John's Gospel is just some of the people who would later be his Apostles meeting Jesus for the first time. They are "following him" in the sense that they want to see where he goes and what he does, not in the sense of yet being dedicated disciples. The second thing that needs to be said about John's Gospel in general is that John is not really trying to tell a linear story. Until we get to Palm Sunday, John's Gospel is just a bunch of stories thrown together in no particular order; once get to Holy Week, John is more concerned with getting events in order.

How did Peter find out that Jesus was the Messiah? This is actually a matter of understanding the difference between what's going on between these two verses. Yes, Peter's brother told him that Jesus was the Messiah, but I think the difference is that by the later time that Jesus is talking in Matthew 16, Peter had truly internalized the truth and fully believed in him. I mean, if you think about it, if someone just told you, "Hey, there's this guy, and he's the Messiah!" you would probably check it out, but questioningly. After you had been with Jesus for a while, heard his teaching and seen his miracles, you wouldn't be questioning any more.

How did Peter and Andrew become Jesus's disciples? Part of this I answered above: the story in Matthew and Mark happened later than the story in John. However, how does the story in Luke fit in? There are two possibilities. One is that Luke is simply telescoping events and Peter follows Jesus after this event, but not necessarily immediately. The other, which seems more likely to me, is that Luke is giving greater details of the story than Matthew and Mark did. This may be a bit strange, because as I may have noted when I went through Mark, it's generally understood that Mark's Gospel is largely made up of material Mark got from Peter.

Where did Peter and Andrew live? This is definitely unclear, but one thing that can be said about this inconsistency is that Capernaum and Bethsaida are right next to each other at the north end of the Sea of Galilee. If I had to venture a guess, I'd say it's more likely Mark made a mistake, since John was actually there.

Lastly in this chapter, the SAB notes that what Jesus tells Nathanael as a failed prophecy. I have to disagree with this assessment, of course. It could be that this prophecy was fulfilled and simply wasn't recorded by any of the four Gospels we have; Nathanael didn't write a Gospel. Much more likely, however, at least in my opinion, is that this is symbolic language, and Jesus is talking about some aspect of his ministry in which angels were involved in some way, and Jesus's incarnation in some way facilitated an opening of Heaven.

Judge not, that ye be not judged (Luke 6)

Luke 6 does open with a bit of odd wording, as the SAB notes, but it quickly develops into a story that's a common one for the Gospels: arguments between Jesus and the Pharisees over the technicalities of the Sabbath. It's good to note first of all that what Jesus and his disciples were doing was not considered stealing in that culture. When a person passed through a field of grain or an orchard, they were allowed to pick whatever they could eat as they walked. The Pharisees however still considered the picking of grain to be an act of harvesting, which would be work, and therefore unlawful on the Sabbath. Jesus brings up the story of David taking some bread from the Tabernacle in a time when he was desperate, the point being that when you're hungry and desperate, you shouldn't let tradition stop you from eating. (The idea that picking a few heads of grain to eat was harvesting was not part of the Mosaic law, but rather Jewish tradition.)

The SAB asks regarding this story, Was David alone when he asked for the holy bread at Nob? I think this is a misunderstanding of the passage in 1Samuel, as you can see in verse 21:4 that the priest says "...if the young men have kept themselves at least from women." If David is alone, then who are "the young men" being referred to? David was not alone, although he may have come into the presence of the priest alone.

The SAB marks Jesus' act of healing a man's hand with the "science" icon. I'm never sure if I really need to comment on such things. Jesus did a lot of supernatural things, which are of course going to go against science. What is there to say about it?

The SAB asks Who were the apostles? and shows that in each of the four Gospels, there's a list, and none of the lists are completely identical. The most likely explanation for the discrepancy is that many of the apostles had more than one name, and so Jesus may have given a secondary name to Judas the brother of James, and that name was apparently Lebbaeus Thaddeus.

Did Jesus preach his first sermon on a mountain or a plain? This appears to be the so-called "sermon on the mount", but Luke clearly states that this is happening on a plain. There are a couple possibilities. First, this may have been one of several similar sermons that Jesus gave in a few different places. Second, the way the sermon is described in Matthew's Gospel seems to set up the acoustics all wrong; if you stand on a mountain with people below you, it's going to be hard for them to hear, so it would make more sense that Jesus found a place with a mountainside near a plain to set up a sort of natural amphitheater. In that case, the answer would be "both".

In verses 24-26, the SAB has a series of questions that I'm going to answer as one. I don't think that this section of the sermon is suggesting that these people are going to Hell. What I do think is going on is that like the things before Jesus said one would be "blessed" for, Jesus is suggesting that there is going to be a reversal of the status quo. Why he's suggesting this, I'm not really sure, but I've heard it said time and again that the "sermon on the mount" isn't about salvation issues, but rather about earthly issues.

Verse 27 is marked as "Good Stuff", but is also marked as contradicting other passages. In the issue of How should enemies be treated? I think one needs to see that the verses in the second column are, for the most part, not commands about how to treat enemies, but rather individual instances of people having less than charitable reactions to enemies. The exception to this is the very last verse given, but I think that verse fits in better with the second question, How should nonbelievers be treated? In this case, and on that page, there are a few different issues being dealt with. In the first verse, this is a specific law given to Jews with respect to their fellow Jews. Yeah, it seems pretty harsh, but its purpose is to keep religious purity within the nation of Israel. In the second case, I think "shun them" is an overstatement of what's being admonished here. Most people that I know of interpret this verse to mean that it's best to not enter into business partnerships with unbelievers if possible.

Verses 29-30 have Jesus suggesting some rather extreme acts of kindness, taking "Love thy enemy" to its full extent. The SAB marks the passage as absurd, and really, it is. I think it's a difficult passage that the Christian has to decide whether it was meant to be taken literally or whether it may have been hyperbole, but Jesus appears to be sincere.

Is God merciful? It's hard to sugar-coat this one; the SAB comes up with a lot of verses that seem to show God being unmerciful, some of them even saying outright that God is not showing mercy. The fact is that while God called merciful several times, this is not an attribute of God that He displays all the time. It's a common theme of Christian sermons that we can see that God is merciful because every single one of us is a sinner, and yet God doesn't simply send us all to Hell right this moment. That's certainly a matter of perspective that I don't expect too many skeptics to buy into unless they really understand the issue of sin and how it effects our standing before God. It's probably not something I can really explain, but would be willing to try in the comments so as not to make this post twice as long as it already is.

To judge or not to judge? I think most unbelievers are familiar with the Bible verse, "Judge not," but miss that there is more to the phrase. Here in Luke, the full verse goes, "Judge not, and ye shall not be judged." In any case, the verses in the Bible that warn against judging are not saying that a person cannot judge, but rather are warnings that when you become a judge, you are going to warrant others, including God, to judge you in return. While this may not rule out judging completely, it should give one pause. As Jesus goes on to say here, you may be judging someone for a little speck of sin when you have an entire log in your own eye. That's not a good place to be.

It seemed good to me also (Mark 1)

Well, I disputed with myself for quite a while whether or not I should simply continue with the Gospels. On the one hand, it seems sort of logical, and on the other hand...well, there are a few reasons why not. My main reason had been repetitiveness. Years ago, a friend of mine who was not a Christian told me that she was going to read through the New Testament, straight from beginning to end. I actually advised her that this might not be the best idea, and that once you read Matthew, the act of jumping into Mark will have you saying, "Didn't I just read all this?" I think it's easier for a Christian who has some enthusiasm for the subject material, but for the casual reader, the first three books of the New Testament can get boring especially for this very reason.

In my case, as I would have to work my ways through the issues brought up by the SAB, it's probably bound to be boring to be covering the same issues all over again, and thus I would have a similar experience. There's going to be a lot or repetition, I think.

I'll admit that when it comes to Mark 1, there is the additional issue of what to do with the very first note the SAB presents, which is an unusual one. Generally, the SAB uses the King James version, and as such, sticks to it with admirable devotion. Here on the very second verse, however, the SAB points out an issue not with the KJV, but with the ancient documents on which the KJV may have been based. I'm not an expert in the ancient documents myself, but I am somewhat familiar with the expert being consulted here: Bart Ehrman. Ehrman is the sort of author that anyone who finds the SAB an enjoyable read would enjoy. Apparently once a devoted Christian (if I'm remembering his story correctly) he decided to embark on a course of study that would allow him to examine the original manuscripts upon which the New Testament is based. Rather than finding enlightenment as many do, he was shocked to find that these manuscripts were not telling the unified and clear story that he expected them to tell, and thereafter set forth on a career of publishing books that examined what he considered to be important errors, not in any particular translation, but in the manuscripts on which the translations are based.

Anyway, I've read at least one of his books, and while I found it interesting, I disagreed with the majority of his conclusions, although not all of them. I don't know if an author like Ehrman is proving anything quite so clearly as he supposes he is. Literary interpretation from any age can be a shaky subject, and I tend to think of Ehrman as being probably as convincing as I am, despite having some advanced degrees and far better knowledge of ancient languages. If you're at all of a curious or skeptical mind, he's probably worth reading, but I don't think I have anything to say regarding his footnote here.

So, to the repetitiveness: As I said in Matthew 3, I don't think that slight differences in wording really should bother people.

"What did Jesus do after his baptism?" I would say that as Mark says, he went to the wilderness for 40 days. The passage being used in the Gospel of John is not talking about the day after Jesus' baptism, but the day after John talked about Jesus' baptism; the time frame is far from clear there.

I answered at length in Matthew 4 concerning the timing of the calling of the disciples, mainly saying that I believe the story in John is a separate story than the calling here.

"Where was the home of Peter and Andrew?" This looks like a problem until you look at a map and see that Bethsaida is just the next town over from Capernaum, it looks like about two miles away by my map, making it easy to have left a synagogue in one town and go straight away to a home in the other.

"Are those who believe Jesus is the Christ of God?" You know, I may have to hand it to the SAB that this is a genuine contradiction; I don't know anything I could say here at all except that maybe John means human beings only? Who knows, so I'll leave it on an up for the SAB.

He taught them as one having authority (Matthew 5)

So, we move on to Matthew 5 and the "Sermon on the Mount" as it is called. Of course it's called that because Matthew 5:1 says that he went up on a mountain to preach it, but is this correct? The SAB points out that Luke 6 has Jesus giving this sermon on a plain. Yeah, this could be a contradiction, but I do have a couple thoughts on this. First of all, the sermon starting in Luke 6 is not exactly the same as the sermon here, and while it could be two different recollections of the same sermon (Luke's Gospel is, I believe, not purporting to be a first-hand account as the other three are) it's also possible that these are two different sermons, each of which was in a different place. Another thing to consider, although I'm not sure it quite covers the wording of Luke, is that I don't think Jesus was literally standing on top of a mountain anyway, as such a setting would afford very poor acoustics. Jesus was probably on a flat spot in a mountainous area where his audience would be standing on a slope overlooking him in a sort of natural amphitheater. At least, that's how I've always imagined it.

The SAB marks a few lines in the sermon as "good stuff", but as often is the case when it does so, I'm perplexed as to the choice. Why verses 5, 7, and 9, but not 6 and 8? I mean, coming from an atheistic point of view, I get why not 10 and 11, but what's wrong with "they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness" and "the pure in heart"? So long as we're not talking about self-righteousness (because who can stand that?) aren't righteousness and purity good things?

Should we let others see our good works? I think this is one of those things that people take too strongly in those verses in which seem to support an answer of "no". I don't think that the issue is whether our good works are seen so much as whether we were doing it to show off. For most people, our intentions are mixed, so it's subtle. Take this blog as an example: as much as I am making these posts to educate people and have a healthy dialogue with the SAB, I think I'm doing a good thing; as much as I'm doing it to show off my debating skills and seem holier-than-thou (which I'm sure I'm not 100% free of) I'm being sort of a jerk. Jesus is saying that doing the right thing matters, and why you do it matters as well.

Jesus takes a moment starting in verse 17 to say he supports the Old Testament law, and it raises some issues for the SAB. I don't think I need to say much for the charge of injustice and violence on verse 17, as that's really a question of how you view the whole of the OT, and I don't see me addressing such a big question here. What I can address, although it's pretty big too, is whether Christians have to obey the OT law. There's an important distinction to be made with most of the verses in the "yes" column on that page, and this passage as well: they're addressed to Jews living in Israel. It's always been my position that the OT laws were binding to the nation of Israel and not to gentile Christians, but I'll admit that such an assessment leaves some gray area. Jewish Christians? People living in modern Israel? I don't know, but I don't think so. The thing that I know is that whether the OT law must be followed, Jesus is saying it's important, and he's certainly not going to replace it with lawlessness.

Will the earth last forever? There are a couple things to say about this. First and simply, I think verse 18 is poetic language, and rather than implying that earth will be destroyed, Jesus is saying that the OT is something that is more durable than even the earth itself. That being said, I do think that the Bible teaches that the earth is a temporary thing, albeit an incredibly long-lived thing. I think in most of the passages where the Bible says that the earth is given "for ever" it's really saying "as long as you live", which is long enough for anyone. I think there is a more complicated theological view that the earth will last as long as time, which will itself last for a finite amount.

There are many questions on verse 20, but I think I can respond to them all with another appeal to poetic language. when Jesus says "your righteousness shall exceed..." he's not giving a formula for salvation, he's saying "Think of the most righteous person you can think of; that's not righteous enough to be saved on account of righteousness." The point is not to set the bar high, but to say that the bar is higher than you can possibly imagine.

I don't think that Jesus is saying that saying the word "fool" gives someone an immediate one-way ticket to Hell. I think what he's saying is that anger leads to violence, so people should be careful about what they say.

I have to admit that I am probably just as confused by verse 28 as the SAB is. While I think I understand it as a symbolic principle, that is, that lusting is in many ways as bad as actually committing sexual sin, taking it fully literally is confusing. (And there are people who insist that we should take it that way!) The SAB asks if this means that someone who lusts should be given the punishment of an adulterer, i.e. death. In fact, it seems to be asking whether the woman being lusted after should be killed as well, which highlights to me the real absurdity of comparing lust to adultery in completely equivalent terms: in the former case, the woman hasn't done anything, has she? I think in this matter as in much of this sermon, Jesus is utilizing hyperbole.

Case in point, in the next two verses, Jesus says that people should pluck out their eyes and cut off their hands to avoid sin. The reason I think this is hyperbolic language (and I'm far from the only one to make such a judgment) is that a person who is struggling with lust doesn't have a problem with their hands or eyes, they have a problem with their brains, and you can't pluck those out. Sure, if you have an issue with masturbation, cutting off your hands will stop it, but it's not going to stop the lust that's driving it.

Is divorce ever permissible? While the SAB is astute in noticing that Mark 10:11 and Luke 16:18 don't mention any exceptions, it is of course generally understood that when there has been adultery, the wronged party has divorce as an option. (Yes, as the SAB points out, the case of an unfaithful wife is the only one mentioned and not the gender reverse, but most modern churches interpret these passages with gender neutrality.) Deuteronomy 24:1-2 refers to adultery, in my opinion, and 1Corinthians 7:15, although odd, makes some sense, as it would be unfair to make someone stay married to someone who had abandoned them.

The matter of whether one should ever make an oath is also hyperbole, and I covered it in the second-to-last paragraph of this entry. Basically Jesus is saying it's better to just be an honest person than someone who has to make a special oath in order to be believed.

It may be that the hyperbole in verses 39-41 may have some cultural significance. I've heard it said that in respect to verse 41, there was a custom in the Roman empire that a Roman soldier could compel a person to carry their pack for them for up to a mile. Jesus is saying here in many ways that even people you don't like (such as members of an occupying foreign army) are opportunities to show kindness, and you should love your enemy. Clearly the Bible is full of people not loving their enemies, but I don't think that renders the principle void. (The theological question of how God should treat His enemies is a bigger issue I'm not going to try to tackle here.)

So to finish up this chapter, which has already gone on far too long, I'm going to dismiss verse 45 as being poetic as well, and the point thereof being that people of all levels of righteousness have to live in the same world, and not to categorize what level of righteousness any particular person might have. As for the question raised by the SAB on verse 48...maybe there's something there, but I'm not sure what to say at this point. As it comes up in the next chapter, maybe I'll pick it up there.