v31
Wow, this chapter just keeps on going, doesn't it?
I find it interesting that first of all, the Deuteronomical law doesn't actually have anything to say about the way certificates of divorce work. It's just assumed that there's this system of divorce in place. Deuteronomy 24:1-4, which Jesus is referring to here, is not a commandment about certificates; rather, it is a section about how if you do divorce someone you can't marry them again if they get married in between. I've honestly no idea why this is the case, but I assume it's more than a simple "you've had your chance" thing. Perhaps it's a purity thing, or an inheritance thing, or it could even be a way of protecting women from frivolous divorces (it does give divorce a certain finality). All I know is that Moses says it is detestable in God's eyes. I would take an odds-on bet that it has to do with sex, due to the reference to 'defiled'.
Anyway, my point is that when we read the next verse, we have to have Deuteronomy 24 in mind, rather than just have our 21st century marriage radar on.
v32
Without the context of the previous verse and its (most likely sexual) reference to Deuteronomy, this verse is actually very, very weird. After all, how does divorce automatically make someone the victim of adultery? Because you remarry and have sex with your new spouse, of course. And how does marrying a divorced woman make you guilty of adultery? Again, sex. Jesus doesn't say that, but he doesn't need to.
Or does he? The alternative - which I will point out isn't pants-on-head crazy given verses 27 and 28 previously - is that the divorce/marriage itself is adulterous, regardless of whether you get it on in any way.
What's the difference? Well, in my mind I'd say that the first is simply making commentary about the activities of the recently divorced (which would mean sending a woman away with a divorce certificate is not adultery if you remain otherwise unmarried), while the second is saying that the act of divorce itself is inherently sinful in most cases (note it provides an out in cases of sexual immorality - by the way, does that include any sexual immorality, or only adultery?).
The wording of these two verses is actually really quite sloppy - but only if you think of it as a listing of rules that we must follow. If you think of it in the context in which it is given (a sermon on the nature of God, his laws, his perfectness and expectations) then all of a sudden this looks a lot more like a summary line, an example, an illustration that provides fodder for the big picture of the sermon: namely that God's standards are higher than you've ever imagined, and the petty rule-making that you have engaged in is not what he respects or expects. It will not work to make you acceptable to him.
I'm not saying we shouldn't strive to meet the (essentially unobtainable) measures of perfection listed in the sermon on the mount. We should. That's the Christian life. But we should also read them in the context of forgiveness that the gospels are built around. Just because "forgive" doesn't appear /n doesn't mean that we shouldn't remember it.
v33
Leviticus 5 makes it clear that making an oath and then failing to follow through is a sin. I say "clear"... honestly, these laws are almost as badly drafted as anti-terrorism legislation - it's more about what sacrifices to make than how oaths work. Numbers 30 is a little clearer, although it's still really more about relationships between women and others in terms of oath-making. Oaths, it seems, are something that people just generally understand. Deuteronomy, meanwhile, tells Israel twice that they should only take oaths in God's name.
Just as an aside, most of the times the word "oath" comes out in the Pentateuch, it's referring to God's oath to his people about the promised land.
v34
Jesus says don't make oaths at all. His reasons are interesting: first of all, he says don't swear by heaven, because that's God's and not yours. It's unlikely to cost you much.
v35
Don't swear by the earth either; funnily enough, that belongs to God too. So does Jerusalem. Why are you making all these oaths on things that aren't yours? "I swear on my grandmother's grave" has always struck me as this kind of oath. What's going to happen to her if you break this oath? Does she come back to life to berate you for being a liar?
At least the (often desperate) oath of "I swear on my child's life" is rather more serious, although in modern times it's unlikely that someone will actually call someone on it and kill their child, so it's also pretty toothless (barring superstitious beliefs I guess). I've heard drug addicts and wife-beaters use this one to make their spurious claims sound more believable. It's still usually bollocks.
v36
Even your head, which is yours, is not really something that you have a lot of control over. You can't change the colour of your hair (permanently anyway). I love how it refers to white and black - the two hair colour options of Jesus' day. Brown, blonde, red, auburn - these are not options to your average 1st century Middle Eastern Jew.
v37
Here's the thing about oaths: they are basically a way of making a promise that you'll actually do something. When you're a lawyer, or just a sneaky person, you instantly see that this kind of system means that any statements made about doing things that are not done with an oath can just be broken. And that is a stunning dissimulation! Jesus says, "Just do what you say all the time. Be trustworthy because you are, not because you promised to be on pain of some supernatural consequence". Sounds good to me.
v38
The NIV footnotes tell me this verse is repeated three times in the OT. Nasty. But not unfair. In fact, you'll see lots of people suddenly want this when something bad happens. There's some sort of inbuilt justice in equality of retribution that appeals to people (when it's not happening to them or their loved ones anyway).
Just as an aside, did you notice that several times Jesus has said, "You have heard that it was said"? He keeps saying it too. This is just a gentle reminder that although the Jews did have a pretty good literacy rate for their time period, most people still relied on others reading out scripture (and interpreting it, a la the Pharisees, teachers of the law etc) to hear from God. There's nothing wrong with this, just some context. It could actually also help explain why Jesus feels the need to provide teaching on these things: as a corrective against the incorrect interpretations being proffered by Jewish leaders.
v39
Oh man, turn the other cheek. What a passage this is. People will often say that Jesus preached this but didn't actually do it, referring to things like his storming the temple and overturning tables in anger. But this verse isn't about anger, it's about retribution, justice even. And both God and Jesus turn the hell out of their cheeks when we sin against them. Sin is the equivalent of a slap in God's face. What's his response? Send Jesus. God is very patient with our sin. Lightning rarely hits people the moment sinful thoughts enter their minds. I am regularly reminded of this.
v40
Interesting that this example is all about a lawsuit. It's not a thief taking your shirt, it's someone who seeks recompense for something done. Now, it's assumed that their suit isn't genuine, because the last verse makes it clear we're talking about "resisting evil person(s)". Not everyone who brings a lawsuit is evil, by the way. This little verse implies that Jesus knows full well that people abuse the justice system (a system built on "eye for an eye", by the way). It's not justice that's the problem, it's people. It's always people.
Tuesday, February 20, 2018
Thursday, February 08, 2018
Matthew 5
v21
Starting right here with the word "murder" or "kill", from the Hebrew "ratsach" (because the first is a quote from Exodus, the 10 commandments in fact). From what I've read, "murder" is the more correct word to use here - it is a specific act, not an accident or something done in service to a cause.
v22
The real lesson is here: Jesus is equating anger, a simple rudeness and dismissal of another, will be held to the same standard. Imagine if you were taken to court for calling someone a fool - everyone in Australia would be in jail! Jesus even mentions hell!
I tell you, it's really interesting living in a country where, although people are not arrested for anger, it is taken very seriously for the damage it does to relationships. There are lots of things to get angry with here too - bureaucracy is so frustrating sometimes I feel like I might die - but showing even disappointment does not help your cause. This is one of those commands of Christ that we tend to undersell in the west I think, while we focus more heavily on sex.
v23
Not that you have something against them. This is you proactively taking the problem you've caused back to the person you wronged. We really do know that we've wronged people so often. Even in my marriage there are times I know I did the wrong thing, and stepping up to apologise can be very difficult.
v24
We don't view gifts the same way, and I'll bet many churches today would struggle to preach telling people not to give if they aren't right with others around them. But we have to remember that providing gifts to the temple was a much bigger deal, played a much bigger role in the culture of the time. Not doing it, waiting to do it, is a sacrifice that needs to be made. Not that I'm saying the more common application of "this is a religious thing that is before God so be right with people before you come to God" is wrong; we need to remember both.
v25
Long before official negotiations were a thing in the west, Jesus is here talking about settling matters outside of court. Again, relationship is the thing that is being protected. Or is it? Because the warning is not "you will ruin a relationship", but "you might lose and end up in prison". In fact, this could be a place where Jesus is bringing the mundane into the supernatural, talking about our relationship with God in heaven. After all, that's kind of the whole point of his sermon here: that we are to live the way God wants us. And God wants us to mend bridges with others as a reflection of the fact that he calls us to do the same thing before we end up in hell.
v26
Note here that either the assumption is that you are actually either owing something - so you are in the wrong - or that you aren't in the wrong but get found wanting by the judge anyway. I think the former makes more sense, anticipating that the listeners are in the wrong somewhere.
v27
Pretty straightforward. Or at least you'd think so...
v28
Does adultery require marriage in some part? Are two people who are not married having sex committing adultery? We would tend to treat it like that now, but I'm not sure if it's that then. Remember, adultery is punished by death - Jesus in fact stopped the stoning of a woman for adultery (where was the man? Nevermind, I'm not writing about John here). The idea that two young unmarrieds having sex would get stoned to death seems far-fetched. Certainly the Old Testament does not treat them that way (eg Exodus 22:16-17). But I'm honestly not sure. Certainly there's a good argument that the term "sexual immorality" in the New Testament refers to sex between unmarrieds among other things.
I'm quite happy with this passage being specific to adultery, given that contextually most people were married as a matter of cultural course, and even it this passage is exclusive to adultery, there are other passages elsewhere that talk about how marriage is a substitute for sexual immorality.
v29
The point this verse makes though is that this isn't really about adultery. It's about sin. It's about living a life that takes sin so seriously you'd be prepared to lose an eye if it meant stopping yourself from being sinful. God takes sin seriously. Sin's consequence is hell.
v30
Now of course we can't stop ourselves from going to hell, even if we cut all our bits off. So we do have to take these instructions with a grain of salt. Because if we could stop ourselves from sinning by cutting off legs and cutting out eyes, we wouldn't need Jesus' atoning sacrifice. But we do. So what then is the purpose of these passages? As I say: take sin seriously. Aim for a life that respects God and his ways, but don't lose sight of salvation coming from Christ alone.
I should address a common position that is stated amongst churchgoers when it comes to sin - particularly in sins involving young people. They will often take these verses and say, "If your music is a bad influence, you should cut it out of your life. If playing computer games distracts you from your homework, you should stop playing them altogether. After all, Jesus says "better to pluck out your eye than to sin". I feel I need to point out that Jesus says we should pluck out our eyes if they cause us to sin, but NO-ONE suggests that we should actually pluck out our eyes. While I have no problem with people suggesting that you should avoid temptation (there are great verses for this - 1 Cor 6:18 and 10:13 for instance; and all the verses about marriage being a foil to immorality too), this verse is not a pinch hitter for this idea (am I using that term right? I don't care). If it is, start removing your eyes, because I think if you start applying this verse selectively in that way, you're doing it a grave disservice. There really is only so much you can do to remove sinfulness from your life. If we aren't prepared to pluck out eyes, I think there are probably some other things that we don't need to remove either. Common sense and wisdom should probably prevail.
Starting right here with the word "murder" or "kill", from the Hebrew "ratsach" (because the first is a quote from Exodus, the 10 commandments in fact). From what I've read, "murder" is the more correct word to use here - it is a specific act, not an accident or something done in service to a cause.
v22
The real lesson is here: Jesus is equating anger, a simple rudeness and dismissal of another, will be held to the same standard. Imagine if you were taken to court for calling someone a fool - everyone in Australia would be in jail! Jesus even mentions hell!
I tell you, it's really interesting living in a country where, although people are not arrested for anger, it is taken very seriously for the damage it does to relationships. There are lots of things to get angry with here too - bureaucracy is so frustrating sometimes I feel like I might die - but showing even disappointment does not help your cause. This is one of those commands of Christ that we tend to undersell in the west I think, while we focus more heavily on sex.
v23
Not that you have something against them. This is you proactively taking the problem you've caused back to the person you wronged. We really do know that we've wronged people so often. Even in my marriage there are times I know I did the wrong thing, and stepping up to apologise can be very difficult.
v24
We don't view gifts the same way, and I'll bet many churches today would struggle to preach telling people not to give if they aren't right with others around them. But we have to remember that providing gifts to the temple was a much bigger deal, played a much bigger role in the culture of the time. Not doing it, waiting to do it, is a sacrifice that needs to be made. Not that I'm saying the more common application of "this is a religious thing that is before God so be right with people before you come to God" is wrong; we need to remember both.
v25
Long before official negotiations were a thing in the west, Jesus is here talking about settling matters outside of court. Again, relationship is the thing that is being protected. Or is it? Because the warning is not "you will ruin a relationship", but "you might lose and end up in prison". In fact, this could be a place where Jesus is bringing the mundane into the supernatural, talking about our relationship with God in heaven. After all, that's kind of the whole point of his sermon here: that we are to live the way God wants us. And God wants us to mend bridges with others as a reflection of the fact that he calls us to do the same thing before we end up in hell.
v26
Note here that either the assumption is that you are actually either owing something - so you are in the wrong - or that you aren't in the wrong but get found wanting by the judge anyway. I think the former makes more sense, anticipating that the listeners are in the wrong somewhere.
v27
Pretty straightforward. Or at least you'd think so...
v28
Does adultery require marriage in some part? Are two people who are not married having sex committing adultery? We would tend to treat it like that now, but I'm not sure if it's that then. Remember, adultery is punished by death - Jesus in fact stopped the stoning of a woman for adultery (where was the man? Nevermind, I'm not writing about John here). The idea that two young unmarrieds having sex would get stoned to death seems far-fetched. Certainly the Old Testament does not treat them that way (eg Exodus 22:16-17). But I'm honestly not sure. Certainly there's a good argument that the term "sexual immorality" in the New Testament refers to sex between unmarrieds among other things.
I'm quite happy with this passage being specific to adultery, given that contextually most people were married as a matter of cultural course, and even it this passage is exclusive to adultery, there are other passages elsewhere that talk about how marriage is a substitute for sexual immorality.
v29
The point this verse makes though is that this isn't really about adultery. It's about sin. It's about living a life that takes sin so seriously you'd be prepared to lose an eye if it meant stopping yourself from being sinful. God takes sin seriously. Sin's consequence is hell.
v30
Now of course we can't stop ourselves from going to hell, even if we cut all our bits off. So we do have to take these instructions with a grain of salt. Because if we could stop ourselves from sinning by cutting off legs and cutting out eyes, we wouldn't need Jesus' atoning sacrifice. But we do. So what then is the purpose of these passages? As I say: take sin seriously. Aim for a life that respects God and his ways, but don't lose sight of salvation coming from Christ alone.
I should address a common position that is stated amongst churchgoers when it comes to sin - particularly in sins involving young people. They will often take these verses and say, "If your music is a bad influence, you should cut it out of your life. If playing computer games distracts you from your homework, you should stop playing them altogether. After all, Jesus says "better to pluck out your eye than to sin". I feel I need to point out that Jesus says we should pluck out our eyes if they cause us to sin, but NO-ONE suggests that we should actually pluck out our eyes. While I have no problem with people suggesting that you should avoid temptation (there are great verses for this - 1 Cor 6:18 and 10:13 for instance; and all the verses about marriage being a foil to immorality too), this verse is not a pinch hitter for this idea (am I using that term right? I don't care). If it is, start removing your eyes, because I think if you start applying this verse selectively in that way, you're doing it a grave disservice. There really is only so much you can do to remove sinfulness from your life. If we aren't prepared to pluck out eyes, I think there are probably some other things that we don't need to remove either. Common sense and wisdom should probably prevail.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)