vs 33
Fairly obvious statement. Unless you're trying to hide something, you don't put lights under bowls or under your bed.
vs 34
So according to Jesus, everything starts with the eye. It will either keep you good, or it will start you on a path to darkness.
vs 35
How can light be darkness? Oddly worded, but you get the idea - have light in you, not darkness. The idea being that you'll either have one or the other.
vs 36
Light is obviously good, and darkness bad. Beyond that, there's not a lot we can say about the particularities of what Jesus means. I think this passage is more about the eyes than it is about defining the light.
vs 37
Jesus is a really accepting guy. I don't know how many of us would accept invitations to go to all and sundry's houses, especially if some of them are just going to question us all night.
vs 38
I mean, he even gets stared at for not washing his hands.
Now I will point out here that ceremonial cleansing is NOT a hygiene issue. It's about symbolic cleanness before God. My personal opinion about 'added benefits' such as it also being clean to do so is that it's totally garbage. This whole idea of trying to match modern scientific discoveries with ancient cultural practices in an attempt to show how great God is in looking after his people is to me a sad play to convince ourselves of the necessity of science, rather than the greatness of God. You don't need science to prove God. Science hates the spiritual. Remember that. It's useful for inventing microwaves and fuel injection. Use it to build a better mousetrap, not to prove how great God is.
vs 39
So they purify their cups and dishes, but not themselves. Ha! Considering the picture I just gave you of science being stupid - consider this! They clean their cups and dishes, but not to make them clean, only to make them holy. They themselves seek to do ritual cleansing to make themselves holy, but they don't actually clean up their act and continue on with wickedness.
vs 40
And doesn't he care as much about the inside as the outside? Doesn't he care about the inside more? No serious reading of the OT can leave you in doubt that God cares about the attitude of the heart more than the necessity of sacrifice. Or any sort of ritual.
vs 41
I'm not quite sure what Jesus is saying here - whether they should be giving their food to the poor, or giving themselves to the poor. I think both make sense.
vs 42
Jesus says that both were important, but the one they left out is a pretty obvious indictment. I mean, does God really need your mint?
vs 43
So they are also self important. When really, they should be putting other people before themselves.
vs 44
Que? That one's a little much for me. I'm open for ideas.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Well, okay, I'm happy to speculate: I think it could be read as a sister statement to the "whited sepulchres" notion.
Grave = death, decay, no life etc.
Unmarked = everything seems fine and dandy and pastoral on the outside, to the extent that people pass by without even knowing there's this rotten stuff underneath (ie, in the Pharisees - or any legalistic religion practicer of your choice).
While I'm on the speculative path, I do think it's possible to draw a slightly longer bow from vss 33-36 than light good, dark bad, eyes important because stubbed toes hurt (okay, maybe that bit was mine). Or, rather, I think you can spell it out a bit more.
Eyes gather by far the most information which we make decisions on about what to do with our bodies - where to step, when to duck, when to open a door before walking forward etc. So when our eyes see well - are full of light - our whole body shares in this blessing because we move it wisely, and often avoid stubbed toes. Our whole body is in the light, because we can see what to do with it.
Similarly, when our eyes are full of darkness, our whole body suffers the effects of darkness (including the toes). Therefore, make sure that the information you're making decisions on is good - being blind is bad, but it's worse to be blind and think you can see perfectly well. And (to translate the metaphor into its psychological and spiritual meaning) I see plenty of people thinking they've got everything sussed and are making what they think are smart decisions, and they don't thank you for pointing out that they don't know what they're doing.
Or not. My bow might be too long. Wouldn't be the first time... xfpze!
It's interesting, because up until this point, Jesus has been saying things that are pretty much either obvious or explained through context or his own comments.
This stuff, by comparison, is almost Johanine. Especially the light and darkness bit - John really liked light and darkness.
Regarding the tombs, I think it's interesting that he says it without any reference to anything, no commentary at all. No because.
You link it to the whitewashed tombs, but to be fair, that illustration is not anywhere near this comment. I do like the idead that they are dead, and don't even know it. I wouldn't care to stretch it much past on this verse alone.
Light in eyes bit, I might just point out that you have misinterpreted the verse a bit here. The eyes aren't "full of light", as you say - it's the body that is full of light. You are right in saying that the light enters the body through the eyes - that is why the good eye is literally described as haplous, or clear. And to me, a bad eye, when contrasted to a clear eye, is a foggy eye (basically a blind eye). The KJV translates it "single" eye and "evil" eye. Which is of course complete garbage. NASB again does a good job on the individual words.
And again, it's not the eyes that are full of darkness, but the body that becomes full of darkness.
I guess that's what I thought I was saying - that the body with the good eyes is full of light meaning that the whole body is blessed by/receives the light the eyes perceive. Ditto darkness. The important point, to me, still being: how good is the information you're making decisions on?
Re tombs, I agree - to me the link comes from imagery alone, pretty much; as Jesus doesn't unpack the statement we can't say for sure, it still makes sense to me. I don't know if I would have read that meaning into it if I weren't also aware of his sepulchres statement - but I don't know what else I would have interpreted it as.
Post a Comment