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.
Monday, January 29, 2018
Matthew 5
v11
For some reason in the NIV, vs3-10 are indented like a poem or a saying, but v11 is not. Not sure why, because v11 and 12 seems to fit in pretty well with the rest.
Note that the persecution is not for the sake of justice or even for other kinds of injustice (eg political opinions, being ugly) - it's because of Christ. It can be easy for Christians to play the persecution card, especially in the west where the persecutions don't actually look too bad (I'm not devaluing them, because in all sufferings we have to realise that they are subjectively borne), but that undercuts the value of what's being said here. The blessing isn't persecution itself; it is persecution in the name of Christ.
v12
Persecution for the sake of God's message and his service is as old as the hills really. It's a longstanding situation, and so we shouldn't be surprised. Instead, we should look back at those heroes of the faith and be glad that we share the same struggles they did. It means we're like them, both in service to God and hopefully in relationship with God. How many times have people said, "I wish I heard from God like Moses did"? Well, live the life of devotion to God that Moses did, and then you can suffer like he did.
v13
The NASB and KJV add the pretty unnecessary "of men". It's probably in the Greek. I don't think the NIV's loss of it damages the meaning.
I've often heard the story about salt in NT times being mixed with dirt so that you had a bowl of it on your table, and you would pinch it between fingers and grind it so that the salt would fall and the dirt stays in your fingers. I've no idea if that's true. What is true is that if salt loses its flavour, it is just a white powder that is pretty much worthless. We are that flavour of God in the world. I'm not sure that we are actually all that flavourful at times. How often do people desire what we offer? Our lives need to be so obviously better that people want what we have in their own lives. And I don't just mean rich - that is so painfully obviously how it seems to work here, and that's sad, especially in the context of Jesus' previous words about the poor in spirit.
v14
Again, our light should be so bright that we can't hide it, that it's obvious to anyone looking or even glancing in our directions. How do we do this? I think this actually sets up the hard teachings of Jesus that will come subsequent in the sermon on the mount.
v15
This is more than just chance seeing now, Jesus is talking about motive. We need to be active in not just being lamps, but being put on lampstands.
v16
Jesus directly explains it. Our lives shouldn't just stand out, we should be bold in making sure we're in the world where people can see us. Behind closed doors is not where the gospel shines. How can we ignore that?
v17
There is a difference between abolishing a law and fulfilling it. In both instances they are done away with, but one is done away with because it has become or perhaps always was wrong (eg abolishing slavery); the other is fulfilled because its good purpose is complete (eg laws about the actions of barber surgeons are no longer needed, because we now have hospitals and proper surgeons).
That can be confusing for some people, and the role of the OT is regularly one of difficulty. It's historical difficulty in interpretation and application has created huge problems; South Africa is a great example, and if you don't know what I mean just read a little about the Calvinism of the Trekboers.
v18
I would argue that what is accomplished is primarily the death and resurrection of Christ, but I think you could also persuasively argue that the accomplishments are on a sliding scale from that to eternal glory, and as such the laws of God decrease as grace increases. That does fit in with the "heaven and earth passing away" language of Christ too.
v19
Reading this passage on its own makes it sound like we're still completely under the law. But that's a very irresponsible reading. You need to read it in the context of other things Jesus says about the Sabbath, about food laws, about tithing...
v20
These laws serve a purpose in the new age of Christ's coming, but not in the brutally legalistic way that the Pharisees and teachers of the law put it forward. Relationship is key. Yes, God is holy and pure and powerful, and that can be scary. But he is also loving and kind and forgiving, and we should relate to him on both bases. Dogs are scary, but we have them as pets. Of course, God is not a dog - good dogs are just a fantastic example of how we should live. We don't tame God, he is domesticating us in a way. But instead of turning us into simple servants, like the modern world has done with pets he is turning us into members of his family.
This is complicated and difficult, and I don't think we should expect anything less from dealing with God. Again, it seems clear to me that this is a message that is being set up to show the quality of the life that a Christian should lead. It should be more righteous than a Pharisee - but perhaps not because we are more pedantic about law-keeping; rather because we do so in an attitude of love and service to God through Christ.
For some reason in the NIV, vs3-10 are indented like a poem or a saying, but v11 is not. Not sure why, because v11 and 12 seems to fit in pretty well with the rest.
Note that the persecution is not for the sake of justice or even for other kinds of injustice (eg political opinions, being ugly) - it's because of Christ. It can be easy for Christians to play the persecution card, especially in the west where the persecutions don't actually look too bad (I'm not devaluing them, because in all sufferings we have to realise that they are subjectively borne), but that undercuts the value of what's being said here. The blessing isn't persecution itself; it is persecution in the name of Christ.
v12
Persecution for the sake of God's message and his service is as old as the hills really. It's a longstanding situation, and so we shouldn't be surprised. Instead, we should look back at those heroes of the faith and be glad that we share the same struggles they did. It means we're like them, both in service to God and hopefully in relationship with God. How many times have people said, "I wish I heard from God like Moses did"? Well, live the life of devotion to God that Moses did, and then you can suffer like he did.
v13
The NASB and KJV add the pretty unnecessary "of men". It's probably in the Greek. I don't think the NIV's loss of it damages the meaning.
I've often heard the story about salt in NT times being mixed with dirt so that you had a bowl of it on your table, and you would pinch it between fingers and grind it so that the salt would fall and the dirt stays in your fingers. I've no idea if that's true. What is true is that if salt loses its flavour, it is just a white powder that is pretty much worthless. We are that flavour of God in the world. I'm not sure that we are actually all that flavourful at times. How often do people desire what we offer? Our lives need to be so obviously better that people want what we have in their own lives. And I don't just mean rich - that is so painfully obviously how it seems to work here, and that's sad, especially in the context of Jesus' previous words about the poor in spirit.
v14
Again, our light should be so bright that we can't hide it, that it's obvious to anyone looking or even glancing in our directions. How do we do this? I think this actually sets up the hard teachings of Jesus that will come subsequent in the sermon on the mount.
v15
This is more than just chance seeing now, Jesus is talking about motive. We need to be active in not just being lamps, but being put on lampstands.
v16
Jesus directly explains it. Our lives shouldn't just stand out, we should be bold in making sure we're in the world where people can see us. Behind closed doors is not where the gospel shines. How can we ignore that?
v17
There is a difference between abolishing a law and fulfilling it. In both instances they are done away with, but one is done away with because it has become or perhaps always was wrong (eg abolishing slavery); the other is fulfilled because its good purpose is complete (eg laws about the actions of barber surgeons are no longer needed, because we now have hospitals and proper surgeons).
That can be confusing for some people, and the role of the OT is regularly one of difficulty. It's historical difficulty in interpretation and application has created huge problems; South Africa is a great example, and if you don't know what I mean just read a little about the Calvinism of the Trekboers.
v18
I would argue that what is accomplished is primarily the death and resurrection of Christ, but I think you could also persuasively argue that the accomplishments are on a sliding scale from that to eternal glory, and as such the laws of God decrease as grace increases. That does fit in with the "heaven and earth passing away" language of Christ too.
v19
Reading this passage on its own makes it sound like we're still completely under the law. But that's a very irresponsible reading. You need to read it in the context of other things Jesus says about the Sabbath, about food laws, about tithing...
v20
These laws serve a purpose in the new age of Christ's coming, but not in the brutally legalistic way that the Pharisees and teachers of the law put it forward. Relationship is key. Yes, God is holy and pure and powerful, and that can be scary. But he is also loving and kind and forgiving, and we should relate to him on both bases. Dogs are scary, but we have them as pets. Of course, God is not a dog - good dogs are just a fantastic example of how we should live. We don't tame God, he is domesticating us in a way. But instead of turning us into simple servants, like the modern world has done with pets he is turning us into members of his family.
This is complicated and difficult, and I don't think we should expect anything less from dealing with God. Again, it seems clear to me that this is a message that is being set up to show the quality of the life that a Christian should lead. It should be more righteous than a Pharisee - but perhaps not because we are more pedantic about law-keeping; rather because we do so in an attitude of love and service to God through Christ.
Friday, January 19, 2018
Matthew 5
v1
Getting into the brass tacks now, as we turn a corner into the sermon on the mount. It's interesting that Jesus sat down. I think he is mostly pictured as standing to teach in the sermon on the mount. I'm not sure just how mountainous a mountainside is, but when you look at the pictures Penny brought back from Israel, it's pretty hilly to say the least. It could be for the purpose of a natural ampitheatre sort of thing.
v2
Did he ever teach them. These could be some of the best known words of the best known lesson ever.
Interestingly, the non NIV translations have the words "he opened his mouth and taught them". I mean, that's probably more literal, but seemingly unnecessary to me. I don't think anyone is arguing he taught in sign language or interpretive dance.
v3
There is an interesting divide here between Matthew and Luke: Luke only says "poor", but Matthew adds "in spirit". The Lucan is pretty simple and clear, unless we are meant to read 'poor' with some sort of underlying metaphorical significance. But 'poor in spirit' is a much more nebulous term, especially when the blessing they receive is considered. It could be a jibe at the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, and be referring to those who look poor in spiritual actions. That seems a bit of a long bow to me. But the NASB has a note saying, "That is, those who are spiritually arrogant." So I guess it's a legit direction to take it.
Can it mean that those who are far from God will come to him and inherit the kingdom? Certainly that is the case. That is a pretty strong message to, say, gentiles too. I think it would be too much to say that there is a pattern of opposites in the beatitudes, but there are certainly multiple lines that simply report that these people will inherit the kingdom.
v4
Some people read these blessings as non-exclusive - so this one doesn't say that it is particularly blessed to be mourning if it means a heavenly comfort; more that this is just an expansion of the normal blessings that we know. This is in contradistinction to a more exclusive interpretation, that says that these are the real eternal blessings, and that other blessings (like being rich or happy in this life) are fleeting. This is backed up by other scripture (eg Luke 16:25). Hard to say. I guess I tend to fall on the latter simply because these are hard teachings, and I think they're meant to be that way - they're meant to turn the world upside-down.
v5
This is a great example of the flipping of the natural order. The meek are not usually the ones in power or the ones to receive the big benefit. That is a heavenly thing, not an earthly thing.
v6
Not all of these are doing that world-flipping though; some just seem to point out, like this one, that the right thing will be rewarded, will come out on top eventually. Doing the wrong thing does not pay long-term dividends.
v7
Of course, you could take exclusiveness too far. There are plenty of people who lacked mercy who will be shown mercy by God (which is I think what this is talking about, rather than just a sort of prid pro quo wisdom saying). But I guess even then they should show mercy once they've received the mercy.
v8
Are the pure in heart the only ones to see God? Certainly not if history has anything to say about it. But I guess if there is a non-exclusive element to this teaching, Jesus doesn't do much to imply it. Not here, at least.
v9
Doesn't really say by whom they will be called this. I assume the only person it really matters to be from though is God.
v10
And another claiming of the kingdom, this time for the persecuted. Again, there are a number of verses that make it pretty clear that the path of Christianity is a path of persecution. If someone is really living the Christian life, then persecution should really follow in some form. Sure, there are people who make deathbed choices and stuff; but this is a general rule rather than a slavish one, I think. They probably all are.
Getting into the brass tacks now, as we turn a corner into the sermon on the mount. It's interesting that Jesus sat down. I think he is mostly pictured as standing to teach in the sermon on the mount. I'm not sure just how mountainous a mountainside is, but when you look at the pictures Penny brought back from Israel, it's pretty hilly to say the least. It could be for the purpose of a natural ampitheatre sort of thing.
v2
Did he ever teach them. These could be some of the best known words of the best known lesson ever.
Interestingly, the non NIV translations have the words "he opened his mouth and taught them". I mean, that's probably more literal, but seemingly unnecessary to me. I don't think anyone is arguing he taught in sign language or interpretive dance.
v3
There is an interesting divide here between Matthew and Luke: Luke only says "poor", but Matthew adds "in spirit". The Lucan is pretty simple and clear, unless we are meant to read 'poor' with some sort of underlying metaphorical significance. But 'poor in spirit' is a much more nebulous term, especially when the blessing they receive is considered. It could be a jibe at the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, and be referring to those who look poor in spiritual actions. That seems a bit of a long bow to me. But the NASB has a note saying, "That is, those who are spiritually arrogant." So I guess it's a legit direction to take it.
Can it mean that those who are far from God will come to him and inherit the kingdom? Certainly that is the case. That is a pretty strong message to, say, gentiles too. I think it would be too much to say that there is a pattern of opposites in the beatitudes, but there are certainly multiple lines that simply report that these people will inherit the kingdom.
v4
Some people read these blessings as non-exclusive - so this one doesn't say that it is particularly blessed to be mourning if it means a heavenly comfort; more that this is just an expansion of the normal blessings that we know. This is in contradistinction to a more exclusive interpretation, that says that these are the real eternal blessings, and that other blessings (like being rich or happy in this life) are fleeting. This is backed up by other scripture (eg Luke 16:25). Hard to say. I guess I tend to fall on the latter simply because these are hard teachings, and I think they're meant to be that way - they're meant to turn the world upside-down.
v5
This is a great example of the flipping of the natural order. The meek are not usually the ones in power or the ones to receive the big benefit. That is a heavenly thing, not an earthly thing.
v6
Not all of these are doing that world-flipping though; some just seem to point out, like this one, that the right thing will be rewarded, will come out on top eventually. Doing the wrong thing does not pay long-term dividends.
v7
Of course, you could take exclusiveness too far. There are plenty of people who lacked mercy who will be shown mercy by God (which is I think what this is talking about, rather than just a sort of prid pro quo wisdom saying). But I guess even then they should show mercy once they've received the mercy.
v8
Are the pure in heart the only ones to see God? Certainly not if history has anything to say about it. But I guess if there is a non-exclusive element to this teaching, Jesus doesn't do much to imply it. Not here, at least.
v9
Doesn't really say by whom they will be called this. I assume the only person it really matters to be from though is God.
v10
And another claiming of the kingdom, this time for the persecuted. Again, there are a number of verses that make it pretty clear that the path of Christianity is a path of persecution. If someone is really living the Christian life, then persecution should really follow in some form. Sure, there are people who make deathbed choices and stuff; but this is a general rule rather than a slavish one, I think. They probably all are.
Tuesday, January 09, 2018
Matthew 4
v12
What an interesting verse. It seems to suggest that Jesus was not keen to be arrested, so he went rural. I've never heard that before (obviously I've read it here, but don't remember it). Jesus was clearly never in danger of being arrested "early", but perhaps didn't want to foment more trouble.
v13
It makes so much more sense when you know where these places are. Maps are good for that, as are visits to Israel.
v14
Now did Jesus move there to fulfill the prophecy, or did his movement just fulfill it?
v15
It's amazing to me that Galilee was called "of the Gentiles" even way back then. This prophecy was given like 700 years before Christ, and yet the place is still the same (or different, but the name still applies): it's a place where Gentiles live.
v16
Now it's unsure whether this verse is talking about the Gentiles living there, or the Jews living in a place of darkness because of the Gentiles. I think when I preached on this passage of Isaiah I said the second one primarily for that verse; I think I'd say the fulfillment of the prophecy is talking about everyone there, since the light is Jesus.
v17
This is the central message of Jesus' ministry. It's the same as John TB's, with the added "the kingdom is near".
v18
We're getting into M stuff here (ie stuff that is the same as Mark).
v19
There had to be more than that. You don't just follow a total stranger, for instance. Yet this is how Matthew paints it - not necessarily that they're strangers, but that it was as simple as Jesus coming up and saying, "Come, follow me." Had Jesus preached in a synagogue yet? I don't think so. Were these guys already disciples of John TB? Maybe. They might have seen Jesus' baptism (although remember that was at least 40 days before, if not longer!).
v20
It's even more amazing that he uses the words "at once" to show that this was an immediate thing. He didn't come ask them to follow him, and they packed stuff up, sorted out their families, their retirement plans, their income streams; they just went. Feels kind of familiar (note: we did spend like a year raising funds though; I know missionaries who would have said "I've been called" and just gone and trusted God to support them).
v21
The way this is painted is like it's on the same day, one right after the other. Maybe it was; they were all fisherman after all, all at the lake.
v22
These guys are there working in the family business, and they just skip off. This isn't skipping off for an early Friday or something; they are gone for three years (though 'gone' is a speculation; they do spend a fair bit of time in and around Galilee, so who knows if they didn't go back and visit). Matthew doesn't seem to feel it important to mention that they leave Zebedee with the hired men (as Mark does). Maybe he felt it was implied. But why not include it if you were working from a source similar to Mark? Maybe he didn't have it. This is all before Jesus has called Matthew, after all.
v23
And now Jesus' ministry starts. This is a pretty all-encompassing summary of that ministry.
v24
It's one thing to go around visiting places and speaking and having 'healings'. There are plenty of stories of pre-organised healing shows where people are actors or whatever. But for people to come from such a long way away, and for everyone to be healed, not just a select few... it's incredible. For people to be healed no matter their problem... that's phenomenal.
v25
It's little wonder so many people followed him. Why wouldn't you? Clearly something amazing is happening, and clearly the things he taught would have been incredibly entertaining and thought-provoking and meaningful. But that's not the end of the story, is it?
What an interesting verse. It seems to suggest that Jesus was not keen to be arrested, so he went rural. I've never heard that before (obviously I've read it here, but don't remember it). Jesus was clearly never in danger of being arrested "early", but perhaps didn't want to foment more trouble.
v13
It makes so much more sense when you know where these places are. Maps are good for that, as are visits to Israel.
v14
Now did Jesus move there to fulfill the prophecy, or did his movement just fulfill it?
v15
It's amazing to me that Galilee was called "of the Gentiles" even way back then. This prophecy was given like 700 years before Christ, and yet the place is still the same (or different, but the name still applies): it's a place where Gentiles live.
v16
Now it's unsure whether this verse is talking about the Gentiles living there, or the Jews living in a place of darkness because of the Gentiles. I think when I preached on this passage of Isaiah I said the second one primarily for that verse; I think I'd say the fulfillment of the prophecy is talking about everyone there, since the light is Jesus.
v17
This is the central message of Jesus' ministry. It's the same as John TB's, with the added "the kingdom is near".
v18
We're getting into M stuff here (ie stuff that is the same as Mark).
v19
There had to be more than that. You don't just follow a total stranger, for instance. Yet this is how Matthew paints it - not necessarily that they're strangers, but that it was as simple as Jesus coming up and saying, "Come, follow me." Had Jesus preached in a synagogue yet? I don't think so. Were these guys already disciples of John TB? Maybe. They might have seen Jesus' baptism (although remember that was at least 40 days before, if not longer!).
v20
It's even more amazing that he uses the words "at once" to show that this was an immediate thing. He didn't come ask them to follow him, and they packed stuff up, sorted out their families, their retirement plans, their income streams; they just went. Feels kind of familiar (note: we did spend like a year raising funds though; I know missionaries who would have said "I've been called" and just gone and trusted God to support them).
v21
The way this is painted is like it's on the same day, one right after the other. Maybe it was; they were all fisherman after all, all at the lake.
v22
These guys are there working in the family business, and they just skip off. This isn't skipping off for an early Friday or something; they are gone for three years (though 'gone' is a speculation; they do spend a fair bit of time in and around Galilee, so who knows if they didn't go back and visit). Matthew doesn't seem to feel it important to mention that they leave Zebedee with the hired men (as Mark does). Maybe he felt it was implied. But why not include it if you were working from a source similar to Mark? Maybe he didn't have it. This is all before Jesus has called Matthew, after all.
v23
And now Jesus' ministry starts. This is a pretty all-encompassing summary of that ministry.
v24
It's one thing to go around visiting places and speaking and having 'healings'. There are plenty of stories of pre-organised healing shows where people are actors or whatever. But for people to come from such a long way away, and for everyone to be healed, not just a select few... it's incredible. For people to be healed no matter their problem... that's phenomenal.
v25
It's little wonder so many people followed him. Why wouldn't you? Clearly something amazing is happening, and clearly the things he taught would have been incredibly entertaining and thought-provoking and meaningful. But that's not the end of the story, is it?
Monday, January 08, 2018
Matthew 4
v1
I'm not sure why this takes place in the desert. My imagination is that it's this big confrontation between two powerful people, and so it needs to take place in the middle of nowhere to save people from all the explosions.
v2
It's funny, but to me the preparation for facing a big challenge would not be to fast, it would be to do the opposite and make sure I was well fed and energised. But fasting is one of those things that people have oft used to focus themselves. I'm not sure exactly what kind of fasting it was they did back then. Thinking of it as 'no food or water' is not helpful, because it's rarely that (I think the thing the Jews wanting to kill Paul do is like that, but it's more a vow than a fast). But it does say "40 days and 40 nights", which discounts the sort of Ramadan fasting of only during the day.
The point is that Jesus is hungry. A pretty normal human emotion after fasting for 40 days.
v3
This first temptation seems to be related to questioning whether Jesus is really the son of God. How many people have said to me over the years, "If God is real, he should just prove it to me right now by doing X"? I hadn't realised till now that this is pretty much the exact same question that "the tempter" puts to Jesus here. It's also related to food, because as is stated before, Jesus is hungry.
v4
And I think the answer is actually the same now as it was then. It's not that bread isn't important, and it's not that proof isn't important too - Jesus does plenty of miracles, and actually becomes transfigured in front of the Three - but the important thing is what God says. God says Jesus is his son. That's what you should pay attention to. Yes, I know there are trust issues there for modern people that aren't there for the devil(he knows), but there is in my opinion more than sufficient evidence for the reliability and trustworthiness of the scriptures to scaffold a faith in God and his word. Rarely is someone's objection purely logical.
v5
I have often wondered if anyone saw Jesus standing on the top of the temple and they were like, "He's gunna jump!" I don't know. This could have all happened in Jesus' head for all I know.
v6
What is the temptation here? It's very similar. The question is once again "If you're the son of God". But now instead of relying on his own power to do things, it's relying on God's power to do things. Instead of, "If you're the son of God, do this," it's, "If you're the son of God, God will do this for you."
The way the devil twists the words of scripture is quite informative. For one, there's a big difference from doing something that needs to be done and being kept safe, and doing something unnecessarily reckless and being kept safe. The fact is that Jesus does throw himself off a metaphorical temple roof - he puts himself in the hands of God's enemies and is crucified and dies. And God does rescue him from that by raising him from the dead.
v7
There's also the obvious element of testing, which Jesus refers to here. If the only purpose of jumping off the temple is to see if God will fulfill his promise, then that's not really faithful. What kind of messiah wouldn't have faith in God to save him when he really needs it?
v8
This is what makes me think that it's in Jesus' head, because I'm pretty sure there is no mountain where you can see all the kingdoms of the world and their splendour. The argument about whether the devil showed Jesus in his mind or on big TV screens on the top of a mountain, or if they both used their superpowers, is pretty moot anyway I would hope.
v9
It's kind of strange that the devil offers this to Jesus. Firstly, can he even do this? I think the answer is yeah, kinda. After all, he is the ruler of the power of the air. I often get focused on comparing Satan's power to God's, which of course makes Satan look pretty pants. But he is still by no means powerless. He has been given authority over some things, so earthly kingdoms is a thing he could put Jesus in charge of. I think this is appealing to a human desire (who doesn't want to be lauded as royalty?), but also there is a godly desire here too: God really wants all the kingdoms of the earth to bow before him.
v10
But therein lies the rub: Satan's job is not to be bowed to. God alone is the one to be worshipped and served. This is most probably the most common temptation that we face today, and it's disturbing how often we all fail. But then, that's what Jesus came for.
v11
Satan is hence defeated by Jesus in their preliminary bout. Funnily enough, angels do come and attend him just as Satan promised in verse 6. God does have a sense of humour.
I'm not sure why this takes place in the desert. My imagination is that it's this big confrontation between two powerful people, and so it needs to take place in the middle of nowhere to save people from all the explosions.
v2
It's funny, but to me the preparation for facing a big challenge would not be to fast, it would be to do the opposite and make sure I was well fed and energised. But fasting is one of those things that people have oft used to focus themselves. I'm not sure exactly what kind of fasting it was they did back then. Thinking of it as 'no food or water' is not helpful, because it's rarely that (I think the thing the Jews wanting to kill Paul do is like that, but it's more a vow than a fast). But it does say "40 days and 40 nights", which discounts the sort of Ramadan fasting of only during the day.
The point is that Jesus is hungry. A pretty normal human emotion after fasting for 40 days.
v3
This first temptation seems to be related to questioning whether Jesus is really the son of God. How many people have said to me over the years, "If God is real, he should just prove it to me right now by doing X"? I hadn't realised till now that this is pretty much the exact same question that "the tempter" puts to Jesus here. It's also related to food, because as is stated before, Jesus is hungry.
v4
And I think the answer is actually the same now as it was then. It's not that bread isn't important, and it's not that proof isn't important too - Jesus does plenty of miracles, and actually becomes transfigured in front of the Three - but the important thing is what God says. God says Jesus is his son. That's what you should pay attention to. Yes, I know there are trust issues there for modern people that aren't there for the devil(he knows), but there is in my opinion more than sufficient evidence for the reliability and trustworthiness of the scriptures to scaffold a faith in God and his word. Rarely is someone's objection purely logical.
v5
I have often wondered if anyone saw Jesus standing on the top of the temple and they were like, "He's gunna jump!" I don't know. This could have all happened in Jesus' head for all I know.
v6
What is the temptation here? It's very similar. The question is once again "If you're the son of God". But now instead of relying on his own power to do things, it's relying on God's power to do things. Instead of, "If you're the son of God, do this," it's, "If you're the son of God, God will do this for you."
The way the devil twists the words of scripture is quite informative. For one, there's a big difference from doing something that needs to be done and being kept safe, and doing something unnecessarily reckless and being kept safe. The fact is that Jesus does throw himself off a metaphorical temple roof - he puts himself in the hands of God's enemies and is crucified and dies. And God does rescue him from that by raising him from the dead.
v7
There's also the obvious element of testing, which Jesus refers to here. If the only purpose of jumping off the temple is to see if God will fulfill his promise, then that's not really faithful. What kind of messiah wouldn't have faith in God to save him when he really needs it?
v8
This is what makes me think that it's in Jesus' head, because I'm pretty sure there is no mountain where you can see all the kingdoms of the world and their splendour. The argument about whether the devil showed Jesus in his mind or on big TV screens on the top of a mountain, or if they both used their superpowers, is pretty moot anyway I would hope.
v9
It's kind of strange that the devil offers this to Jesus. Firstly, can he even do this? I think the answer is yeah, kinda. After all, he is the ruler of the power of the air. I often get focused on comparing Satan's power to God's, which of course makes Satan look pretty pants. But he is still by no means powerless. He has been given authority over some things, so earthly kingdoms is a thing he could put Jesus in charge of. I think this is appealing to a human desire (who doesn't want to be lauded as royalty?), but also there is a godly desire here too: God really wants all the kingdoms of the earth to bow before him.
v10
But therein lies the rub: Satan's job is not to be bowed to. God alone is the one to be worshipped and served. This is most probably the most common temptation that we face today, and it's disturbing how often we all fail. But then, that's what Jesus came for.
v11
Satan is hence defeated by Jesus in their preliminary bout. Funnily enough, angels do come and attend him just as Satan promised in verse 6. God does have a sense of humour.
Saturday, January 06, 2018
Matthew 3
v1
I wonder how soon before Jesus John TB started preaching in the wilderness. We're not told, but you may recall from the recounting in Luke that John TB and Jesus were cousins, and only born a few months apart. So if John started his ministry when he turned 30, he'd only have been baptising people for a few months. I get the feeling that it was longer, but who knows. You could argue that it would be hard for him to have the following he did in just a few months, but Jesus only had a following for three years before he died and now has a global church, so go figure.
v2
John TB's message was about repentance. I think repentance often gets a single-sided focus: either you're focused on purity (get your life straightened up) or apology (being sorry for what you've done wrong). It is of course both: you acknowledge your wrongdoing and seek to change.
v3
Again this is the sort of prophetical exegesis I wouldn't necessarily agree with were it not being done in scripture itself. Look this passage up in Isaiah, and you'll see it gets translated more or less the same, but the commas and quote marks are in different spots, lending a different emphasis to the words "in the wilderness". Now you can't make too much of that - there are no quote marks in the Hebrew or the Greek. The truth is that the Isaiah verse at the very least can be translated both ways (the NIV has a footnote to that effect). There isn't one for this verse; I wonder why.
My point being that changing the focus of "in the wilderness" from the speaker to those listening is a change of meaning. Now all of Matthew's messianic prophecies are going to be a change of meaning, aren't they? Part of the nature of prophecy is a dual meaning. But I wouldn't be comfortable making that change myself, or at the very least I'd be very cautious.
At the end of the day though, the message is more or less the same: Israel is being called to prepare the way for the good news about God's coming to them. In Isaiah it was (I think) a message to Israel that God would bring them home from their second 'wilderness' experience (the exile), having just prophesied that Babylon was going to come take them away. Now it's the coming of Jesus to them.
v4
He dressed a bit strangely is the connotation. He's doing weird things, like the prophets did. In fact, the reference to a leather belt and a hair garment is from 2 Kings 1:8 and is about Elijah. Definitely a style choice there.
I heard someone one say that locusts are not the insect but a type of fruit which also goes by this name. This goes against the Greek though: unless you think that God bombards the earth with fruit in Revelation 9.
v5
As I said earlier, lots of people went to John TB. There was an obvious thirst for the message he had. People have described John TB as a rock star, and I don't think that's too far off. Remember, preaching was a form of entertainment as well as information distribution, even rough sermons like John's about the need for repentance.
v6
Baptism was not something that made up the religious ordinances of Israel, and so it's free here to have a meaning put upon it by John TB. Clearly it's a baptism linked to repentance - not necessarily forgiveness at this point, although if it were that would be in keeping with the OT message anyway.
v7
It's good to know that Jesus' attitude to the Pharisees was not lonely. John TB (no doubt through the spirit's leading) felt the same way about them. If there's one thing that gets the sharp end of the stick in the gospels, it's always hypocrisy and failures of leadership.
v8
But even then the message is the same: it's not enough to say you repent, you need to produce fruit in keeping with it.
v9
Because this was the kind of thing they would say (and in fact did say to Jesus). Reliance on historical relationships to God is important but not sufficient - never has been, never will be. You need to relate to God yourself, in the present. That's how God relates to us: both historically and in the moment.
v10
God is a winnower, he is a decision-maker. A time of decision comes. God is slow in it sometimes (the OT attests to that readily!) but it does always come. It's never a good idea to wait. In fact, the attitude of waiting shows that you don't understand anyway, because this isn't a game where you can stave off having to fulfill responsibilities till the last moment; this is where you have a moment by moment and ongoing relationship of love that you always want to be involved in (imagine a man who continues to enjoy prostitutes until his wedding night - that would not be cool!).
v11
John TB makes it clear that his baptism is merely symbolic and holds no special power beyond the announcement by the person that they accept the need for repentance and do so. The one John TB is expecting is Jesus, who will baptise with the Holy Spirit and fire. Now I'm not quite sure what he means by "and fire".
v12
Oh wait, yes I am. it's clear that the baptism of fire is not a good one. Either you receive the Holy Spirit and become a Christian, or you receive the fire and it destroys you (I'm not preaching annihilationism here, although you have to admit the picture of a burning fire burning stuff up is pretty destructive). It certainly isn't some sort of purgatorial picture.
v13
This is pretty awkward. I should point out that in my understanding geographically John is near Jerusalem (see v5, although that's not conclusive). The fact is though that even v5 shows that people came from everywhere in Judea to get baptised. So Jesus coming from Galilee could well be a very long way.
v14
But John TB isn't disturbed by the distance, but by the fact that Jesus is here asking for his entirely inconsequential baptism, when Jesus is the one who will baptise with the Holy Spirit and fire! If you've ever had to give a sermon in a room full of Bible college lecturers, then you know how easy it is to feel inadequate in the face of someone way better than you. I imagine it would be similar to building the house of a famous architect or something.
v15
But Jesus assures him that this is the way to fulfill righteousness, and when Jesus does that, can you really argue? I'm not sure why it needed to be this way. It could be that by Jesus being baptised here, it gives creedence to the preaching of John TB.
v16
And of course this descent of the Holy Spirit onto Jesus is what gives that tick of approval from God himself, both onto Jesus and onto John's baptism in a way.
v17
The voice from heaven doesn't have anything to say about John TB's baptism; something a little more important is happening here. God is stating in a way that no-one who was there would be able to deny that Jesus is his son, loved by and pleasing to God. This is not the kind of voice you would ignore, although I'm sure many did.
I wonder how soon before Jesus John TB started preaching in the wilderness. We're not told, but you may recall from the recounting in Luke that John TB and Jesus were cousins, and only born a few months apart. So if John started his ministry when he turned 30, he'd only have been baptising people for a few months. I get the feeling that it was longer, but who knows. You could argue that it would be hard for him to have the following he did in just a few months, but Jesus only had a following for three years before he died and now has a global church, so go figure.
v2
John TB's message was about repentance. I think repentance often gets a single-sided focus: either you're focused on purity (get your life straightened up) or apology (being sorry for what you've done wrong). It is of course both: you acknowledge your wrongdoing and seek to change.
v3
Again this is the sort of prophetical exegesis I wouldn't necessarily agree with were it not being done in scripture itself. Look this passage up in Isaiah, and you'll see it gets translated more or less the same, but the commas and quote marks are in different spots, lending a different emphasis to the words "in the wilderness". Now you can't make too much of that - there are no quote marks in the Hebrew or the Greek. The truth is that the Isaiah verse at the very least can be translated both ways (the NIV has a footnote to that effect). There isn't one for this verse; I wonder why.
My point being that changing the focus of "in the wilderness" from the speaker to those listening is a change of meaning. Now all of Matthew's messianic prophecies are going to be a change of meaning, aren't they? Part of the nature of prophecy is a dual meaning. But I wouldn't be comfortable making that change myself, or at the very least I'd be very cautious.
At the end of the day though, the message is more or less the same: Israel is being called to prepare the way for the good news about God's coming to them. In Isaiah it was (I think) a message to Israel that God would bring them home from their second 'wilderness' experience (the exile), having just prophesied that Babylon was going to come take them away. Now it's the coming of Jesus to them.
v4
He dressed a bit strangely is the connotation. He's doing weird things, like the prophets did. In fact, the reference to a leather belt and a hair garment is from 2 Kings 1:8 and is about Elijah. Definitely a style choice there.
I heard someone one say that locusts are not the insect but a type of fruit which also goes by this name. This goes against the Greek though: unless you think that God bombards the earth with fruit in Revelation 9.
v5
As I said earlier, lots of people went to John TB. There was an obvious thirst for the message he had. People have described John TB as a rock star, and I don't think that's too far off. Remember, preaching was a form of entertainment as well as information distribution, even rough sermons like John's about the need for repentance.
v6
Baptism was not something that made up the religious ordinances of Israel, and so it's free here to have a meaning put upon it by John TB. Clearly it's a baptism linked to repentance - not necessarily forgiveness at this point, although if it were that would be in keeping with the OT message anyway.
v7
It's good to know that Jesus' attitude to the Pharisees was not lonely. John TB (no doubt through the spirit's leading) felt the same way about them. If there's one thing that gets the sharp end of the stick in the gospels, it's always hypocrisy and failures of leadership.
v8
But even then the message is the same: it's not enough to say you repent, you need to produce fruit in keeping with it.
v9
Because this was the kind of thing they would say (and in fact did say to Jesus). Reliance on historical relationships to God is important but not sufficient - never has been, never will be. You need to relate to God yourself, in the present. That's how God relates to us: both historically and in the moment.
v10
God is a winnower, he is a decision-maker. A time of decision comes. God is slow in it sometimes (the OT attests to that readily!) but it does always come. It's never a good idea to wait. In fact, the attitude of waiting shows that you don't understand anyway, because this isn't a game where you can stave off having to fulfill responsibilities till the last moment; this is where you have a moment by moment and ongoing relationship of love that you always want to be involved in (imagine a man who continues to enjoy prostitutes until his wedding night - that would not be cool!).
v11
John TB makes it clear that his baptism is merely symbolic and holds no special power beyond the announcement by the person that they accept the need for repentance and do so. The one John TB is expecting is Jesus, who will baptise with the Holy Spirit and fire. Now I'm not quite sure what he means by "and fire".
v12
Oh wait, yes I am. it's clear that the baptism of fire is not a good one. Either you receive the Holy Spirit and become a Christian, or you receive the fire and it destroys you (I'm not preaching annihilationism here, although you have to admit the picture of a burning fire burning stuff up is pretty destructive). It certainly isn't some sort of purgatorial picture.
v13
This is pretty awkward. I should point out that in my understanding geographically John is near Jerusalem (see v5, although that's not conclusive). The fact is though that even v5 shows that people came from everywhere in Judea to get baptised. So Jesus coming from Galilee could well be a very long way.
v14
But John TB isn't disturbed by the distance, but by the fact that Jesus is here asking for his entirely inconsequential baptism, when Jesus is the one who will baptise with the Holy Spirit and fire! If you've ever had to give a sermon in a room full of Bible college lecturers, then you know how easy it is to feel inadequate in the face of someone way better than you. I imagine it would be similar to building the house of a famous architect or something.
v15
But Jesus assures him that this is the way to fulfill righteousness, and when Jesus does that, can you really argue? I'm not sure why it needed to be this way. It could be that by Jesus being baptised here, it gives creedence to the preaching of John TB.
v16
And of course this descent of the Holy Spirit onto Jesus is what gives that tick of approval from God himself, both onto Jesus and onto John's baptism in a way.
v17
The voice from heaven doesn't have anything to say about John TB's baptism; something a little more important is happening here. God is stating in a way that no-one who was there would be able to deny that Jesus is his son, loved by and pleasing to God. This is not the kind of voice you would ignore, although I'm sure many did.
Thursday, January 04, 2018
Matthew 2
v13
If I were writing this and wanted to make it suspenseful, I'd have had the Herod story first then the fleeing story. But Matthew probably doesn't want to make it suspenseful. I think he wants to make it clear, and perhaps even knows that this might be read a lot and so wants it to serve that purpose instead.
Interesting that the dream comes to Joseph. I guess, again, he's the husband, so he's the one that will need convincing.
v14
And again Joseph is obedient. Good on him. Egypt is a long way to go!
v15
This is one of those prophetic exegeses that I would not countenance if anyone else made it; but when you find it in scripture, you are kind of bound by it.
v16
This is terrible violence, but not altogether uncommon from royalty of the time unfortunately. For instance, Herod got into an argument with the Hasmoneans, and so gave an order that all their male inheritors should be killed. Politics was a bloody business.
This is one of the things that bring praise for democracy - plurality of power increases stability and apathy, reducing these kinds of violence.
Also it's clear that the time between Jesus birth, the magis' visit, and Herod realising that they had not returned to him, is around two years.
v17
It just strikes me at this moment that if you asked me to independently point to all those passages of scripture that align neatly enough with Christ's life and death that they could be prophecies, I'd be rubbish at it. The knowledge of scripture of the Jewish people at the time must have been amazing. Besides, what else did they have to read? Scripture was knowledge, education, entertainment and culture. It's true that our increase in media distracts us from knowing God's word - even Christian media. I'm not sure what the answer to that is though. Be all the more thankful for people who study it full-time and share their knowledge with us!
v18
And so Christ's birth was celebrated by magi, and by shepherds, and mourned by so many mothers whose children were lost in an attempt to kill him. Christ's arrival is a source of joy, but also causes human terror.
v19
So Joseph didn't even have to wait for a report from travellers - he got a dream that was essentially a newspaper article.
v20
I assume that the dream was to assure him that the danger was gone and to also encourage him to head back to Judea, since it would have been easy to stay in Egypt, but that would have made for quite a different Christian story!
v21
Once again, Joseph was obedient, and I think there's a difference between the obedience of following instructions that take your family out of harm's way, and the obedience of putting your family in harm's way. Both are important, but one is easier.
v22
And there was danger - Archelaus was Herod's son (known also as Herod Archelaus, so he's another Herod), and upon his father's death killed 3000 people in Jerusalem for arguing with him about a justice matter. This is not the kind of person you want to be King of the Jews near. And so that is why Jesus was born in Bethlehem, became a refugee in Egypt, and then grew up a Galilean.
v23
And he lived in a place called Nazareth, which was yet another fulfillment of prophecy. "Nazarene" later came to refer to a sect of Jews who followed the teachings of a man from Nazareth called Jesus. In fact, Christians in some Middle Eastern countries are still called Nazarenes - you might recall that when those ISIS losers took over parts of Syria and Iraq to play at being rulers, they painted an Arabic ن (the letter N) on the houses of Christians to mark them out: N for Nazarene.
If I were writing this and wanted to make it suspenseful, I'd have had the Herod story first then the fleeing story. But Matthew probably doesn't want to make it suspenseful. I think he wants to make it clear, and perhaps even knows that this might be read a lot and so wants it to serve that purpose instead.
Interesting that the dream comes to Joseph. I guess, again, he's the husband, so he's the one that will need convincing.
v14
And again Joseph is obedient. Good on him. Egypt is a long way to go!
v15
This is one of those prophetic exegeses that I would not countenance if anyone else made it; but when you find it in scripture, you are kind of bound by it.
v16
This is terrible violence, but not altogether uncommon from royalty of the time unfortunately. For instance, Herod got into an argument with the Hasmoneans, and so gave an order that all their male inheritors should be killed. Politics was a bloody business.
This is one of the things that bring praise for democracy - plurality of power increases stability and apathy, reducing these kinds of violence.
Also it's clear that the time between Jesus birth, the magis' visit, and Herod realising that they had not returned to him, is around two years.
v17
It just strikes me at this moment that if you asked me to independently point to all those passages of scripture that align neatly enough with Christ's life and death that they could be prophecies, I'd be rubbish at it. The knowledge of scripture of the Jewish people at the time must have been amazing. Besides, what else did they have to read? Scripture was knowledge, education, entertainment and culture. It's true that our increase in media distracts us from knowing God's word - even Christian media. I'm not sure what the answer to that is though. Be all the more thankful for people who study it full-time and share their knowledge with us!
v18
And so Christ's birth was celebrated by magi, and by shepherds, and mourned by so many mothers whose children were lost in an attempt to kill him. Christ's arrival is a source of joy, but also causes human terror.
v19
So Joseph didn't even have to wait for a report from travellers - he got a dream that was essentially a newspaper article.
v20
I assume that the dream was to assure him that the danger was gone and to also encourage him to head back to Judea, since it would have been easy to stay in Egypt, but that would have made for quite a different Christian story!
v21
Once again, Joseph was obedient, and I think there's a difference between the obedience of following instructions that take your family out of harm's way, and the obedience of putting your family in harm's way. Both are important, but one is easier.
v22
And there was danger - Archelaus was Herod's son (known also as Herod Archelaus, so he's another Herod), and upon his father's death killed 3000 people in Jerusalem for arguing with him about a justice matter. This is not the kind of person you want to be King of the Jews near. And so that is why Jesus was born in Bethlehem, became a refugee in Egypt, and then grew up a Galilean.
v23
And he lived in a place called Nazareth, which was yet another fulfillment of prophecy. "Nazarene" later came to refer to a sect of Jews who followed the teachings of a man from Nazareth called Jesus. In fact, Christians in some Middle Eastern countries are still called Nazarenes - you might recall that when those ISIS losers took over parts of Syria and Iraq to play at being rulers, they painted an Arabic ن (the letter N) on the houses of Christians to mark them out: N for Nazarene.
Wednesday, January 03, 2018
Matthew 2
v1
"King Herod" sets a time period. Seriously, there is so much historical stuff in the gospels that to claim Jesus never existed is such bollocks.
The KJV uses the old-fashioned "wise men", the NASB uses "magi" and the NIV interestingly uses "Magi" with a capital M. Not sure what the idea is there.
v2
The magi's question is so amazing, "Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him." I love that line in Life of Brian where Brian's mum asks what star sign he is (Capricorn) and what they're like, and their response is, "He is the Son of God, the Messiah, king of the Jews!" "So that's Capricorn, is it?" "No, no, that's just him." The reason I refer to that is that it's not like there is a prophecy in scripture that talks about a star rising to establish when the Messiah will be born - if there was, it would be very likely Matthew would have included it in his gospel. This means God not only honoured the beliefs of the eastern magi so that their idea of what the star would mean was right, but he used it to communicate the coming of the Messiah in the east, but not in Jerusalem! (Save for Joseph; and Mary and the shepherds, but that's a different gospel.)
v3
The first time that Jerusalem hears of the birth of the Messiah is from some eastern magi. No wonder they were disturbed. It's like it happened without any fanfare - for them, anyway.
v4
The Jews were looking out for a Messiah. I don't mean they had active Messiah Patrol or something necessarily, but the fact is that Herod knew that the Bible had word that there was to be a Messiah, and he expects the Bible to have answers about where that Messiah would be born. Note also that when the magi turn up and ask about the "King of the Jews", Herod instantly translates this as "Messiah". They weren't messing around here.
v5-6
And there is indeed an answer - Bethlehem. Here is Matthew once again pointing to scripture as prophecying Jesus' coming. The Jews don't get told when, but they do get told where. This is why I say they didn't necessarily have a Messiah Patrol; if they did, you'd assume someone would have heard about Jesus' birth and asked the question, "Could this be the Messiah?"
v7
Uh-oh. We all know how this story ends, but honestly, what noble reason would there be to know when he was born?
v8
See, this command would have been just as legit without verse 7's little investigation. But at least he does tell them where to go.
v9
This is no ordinary star. This is not just astrology. This star moves. It stops moving. There's something special about it. What was it? What did it look like? No idea. Doesn't say, doesn't matter. The point is that it guided them to where they were going - and it had to be a guidance more specific than "here's Bethlehem" because they already knew that bit from Herod.
v10
I think part of their overjoyment was the fact of the star's specialness itself. This is an obviously special thing. They had come all this way for something special, and they were not disappointed.
v11
They worshipped him. That doesn't mean they necessarily accepted him to be God; there is plenty of attestation of the Greek word προσκυνέω as simply meaning to give someone the appropriate homage or respect due to their superior rank over you. This was at the very least a king; you bow to kings. Of course, it doesn't mean they didn't think he was God too. Just saying. I mean, the whole star thing might happen when God has his Messiah born; but it's pretty darn special.
v12
And I imagine the dream fed into that too; that's also fairly special. They certainly took it to heart, because they followed its warning. Again, this doesn't mean the magi instantly associated Jesus with God - although the whole virgin birth story, which they would no doubt have heard upon turning up on Mary's doorstep, is a really strong contender there, even if you're not looking for the Isaiah prophecy.
"King Herod" sets a time period. Seriously, there is so much historical stuff in the gospels that to claim Jesus never existed is such bollocks.
The KJV uses the old-fashioned "wise men", the NASB uses "magi" and the NIV interestingly uses "Magi" with a capital M. Not sure what the idea is there.
v2
The magi's question is so amazing, "Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him." I love that line in Life of Brian where Brian's mum asks what star sign he is (Capricorn) and what they're like, and their response is, "He is the Son of God, the Messiah, king of the Jews!" "So that's Capricorn, is it?" "No, no, that's just him." The reason I refer to that is that it's not like there is a prophecy in scripture that talks about a star rising to establish when the Messiah will be born - if there was, it would be very likely Matthew would have included it in his gospel. This means God not only honoured the beliefs of the eastern magi so that their idea of what the star would mean was right, but he used it to communicate the coming of the Messiah in the east, but not in Jerusalem! (Save for Joseph; and Mary and the shepherds, but that's a different gospel.)
v3
The first time that Jerusalem hears of the birth of the Messiah is from some eastern magi. No wonder they were disturbed. It's like it happened without any fanfare - for them, anyway.
v4
The Jews were looking out for a Messiah. I don't mean they had active Messiah Patrol or something necessarily, but the fact is that Herod knew that the Bible had word that there was to be a Messiah, and he expects the Bible to have answers about where that Messiah would be born. Note also that when the magi turn up and ask about the "King of the Jews", Herod instantly translates this as "Messiah". They weren't messing around here.
v5-6
And there is indeed an answer - Bethlehem. Here is Matthew once again pointing to scripture as prophecying Jesus' coming. The Jews don't get told when, but they do get told where. This is why I say they didn't necessarily have a Messiah Patrol; if they did, you'd assume someone would have heard about Jesus' birth and asked the question, "Could this be the Messiah?"
v7
Uh-oh. We all know how this story ends, but honestly, what noble reason would there be to know when he was born?
v8
See, this command would have been just as legit without verse 7's little investigation. But at least he does tell them where to go.
v9
This is no ordinary star. This is not just astrology. This star moves. It stops moving. There's something special about it. What was it? What did it look like? No idea. Doesn't say, doesn't matter. The point is that it guided them to where they were going - and it had to be a guidance more specific than "here's Bethlehem" because they already knew that bit from Herod.
v10
I think part of their overjoyment was the fact of the star's specialness itself. This is an obviously special thing. They had come all this way for something special, and they were not disappointed.
v11
They worshipped him. That doesn't mean they necessarily accepted him to be God; there is plenty of attestation of the Greek word προσκυνέω as simply meaning to give someone the appropriate homage or respect due to their superior rank over you. This was at the very least a king; you bow to kings. Of course, it doesn't mean they didn't think he was God too. Just saying. I mean, the whole star thing might happen when God has his Messiah born; but it's pretty darn special.
v12
And I imagine the dream fed into that too; that's also fairly special. They certainly took it to heart, because they followed its warning. Again, this doesn't mean the magi instantly associated Jesus with God - although the whole virgin birth story, which they would no doubt have heard upon turning up on Mary's doorstep, is a really strong contender there, even if you're not looking for the Isaiah prophecy.
Tuesday, January 02, 2018
Matthew 1
v18
The comparisons of the translations in this passage are hilarious. On the one hand the birth of Jesus "came about" (NIV), "was as follows" (NASB) and "was on this wise" (KJV); Mary "was pledged to be married" (NIV), "had been betrothed" (NASB) and "was espoused" (KJV); was "found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit" (NIV), "found to be with child by the Holy Spirit" (NASB) and "found with child of the Holy Ghost" (KJV). On the other hand, "before they came together" (NIV), "before they came together" (NASB) and "before they came together" (KJV).
Now I get it. The word is συνέρχομαι, it means "to come together or accompany", so it gets used in Mark 3 to describe the crowd assembling for example - and that's pretty much exclusively how it is read throughout the NT. So it could refer to the time before Mary and Joseph having assembled as husband and wife. I'm not suggesting that it should be translated "bumped uglies" or anything (although it could be a reason why translators have been so reticent to clarify). I'm just surprised that this language has remained so constant when almost everything else in the verse has changed.
We often, perhaps almost exclusively, think of this early Christmas-y narrative synergistically - putting the bits from the different gospels together. So we read Matthew and think, "Yes, Mary had that whole encounter with the angel and stuff." But that information is not important to Matthew. It just says here, "She was found to be preggers before her and Joseph had 'come together' (aka gotten their freak on)." So the focus here isn't on Mary and her situation, but on Joseph.
v19
And the point is that Joseph, coming across this situation, is a pretty cool dude. Sure, he's not going to just accept that his new wife is up the duff with some unknown baby, but he's not going to ruin her because of it either. The verse goes so far as to point out that this is not because he has feelings for her, or because it costs him nothing; it's because it's the righteous thing to do.
v20
I love this bit, because honestly there is no other way that Joseph is going to be reasonably convinced of what's happened here without an angel appearing. If Mary were to say, "God told me that this baby is from him," Joseph would be pretty gormless if he said, "Oh, okay. That's totally not an excuse a girl in our society would try on to avoid endless shame and negative consequences."
Moreover, Joseph made a righteous decision! If you read the NIV's primary translation, he did what was right in the eyes of the law. But sometimes God breaks the rules, and what would ordinarily be absolutely godly to do suddenly becomes wrong, and you have to change your plan to remain obedient to God. But when God is going to do something that really throws a spanner in the works, he will let you know. It won't always be an angel - in fairness, this is Jesus being born, so it is worthy of a heavenly singing telegram, but most things that happen in our lives aren't that.
v21
And Joseph doesn't need this extra bit of info either. He could have just been told, "This is God's will, so get onto it, mate." But God brings Joseph in on the secret, because Joseph is going to be a big part of this. He's the adopted dad of Jesus the Messiah. That's a big deal.
v22
The NIV separates this from the angel's speaking with a paragraph break; the others use the word "Now" which is probably included in the Greek. So this is Matthew breaking down the prophecy fulfillment for us. You have to wonder if the Jews were actively looking for this prophecy to be fulfilled, or if it was just sort of sitting on a shelf somewhere with people thinking, "Yeah, that could happen." I don't know the answer to that.
v23
What I do know is that it is a pretty kick-ass prophecy. Whatever it meant to Ahaz back in the day (I can't imagine it meant much beyond that God had plans that involved peace and being with his people), the whole virgin birth thing is a big deal as a fulfillment of a prophecy that is utterly God-worked. Sure, it could have just meant "young woman" in Isaiah, and I'm cool with that. But God picks the harder version for his son's birth, and rightly so.
v24
And imagine how grateful Mary must have been - to God and to Joseph - for doing it this way. Jesus could have been born to a single mum. But instead God wanted Jesus to be born in a family of mum and dad, and also for that dad to have a lineage that went back to David. There is talk about Mary also having that lineage, but let's face it: without a dad, even an adopted dad, he was always just going to be a bastard, because it's not like angels were going to appear to everyone who met him to give them the same heads up as they gave Joseph.
v25
Just in case you were wondering if they did the nasty while Mary was pregnant. Maybe this is to prove that Jesus isn't Joseph's biological kid (although I would think the understanding of pregnancy is once you're preggers, you can't get pregnant again from doing the nasty). I think as much as anything this is about confirming that they were married, even though the marriage wasn't consummated on the wedding night as was tradition (and yes, people probably checked; there are still plenty of cultures where this happens). This actually means a fair bit to those cultures who think that marriage isn't marriage if you didn't do any horizontal mambo. We in the west definitely know full well that sex doesn't equal marriage. But I think even in the west we still perhaps need to learn that marriage doesn't always equal sex. And I'm not saying it never does or anything - the Bible makes it clear that kids are generally born in marriages, and that sex is generally done in them too. But marriage is bigger than those things.
The comparisons of the translations in this passage are hilarious. On the one hand the birth of Jesus "came about" (NIV), "was as follows" (NASB) and "was on this wise" (KJV); Mary "was pledged to be married" (NIV), "had been betrothed" (NASB) and "was espoused" (KJV); was "found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit" (NIV), "found to be with child by the Holy Spirit" (NASB) and "found with child of the Holy Ghost" (KJV). On the other hand, "before they came together" (NIV), "before they came together" (NASB) and "before they came together" (KJV).
Now I get it. The word is συνέρχομαι, it means "to come together or accompany", so it gets used in Mark 3 to describe the crowd assembling for example - and that's pretty much exclusively how it is read throughout the NT. So it could refer to the time before Mary and Joseph having assembled as husband and wife. I'm not suggesting that it should be translated "bumped uglies" or anything (although it could be a reason why translators have been so reticent to clarify). I'm just surprised that this language has remained so constant when almost everything else in the verse has changed.
We often, perhaps almost exclusively, think of this early Christmas-y narrative synergistically - putting the bits from the different gospels together. So we read Matthew and think, "Yes, Mary had that whole encounter with the angel and stuff." But that information is not important to Matthew. It just says here, "She was found to be preggers before her and Joseph had 'come together' (aka gotten their freak on)." So the focus here isn't on Mary and her situation, but on Joseph.
v19
And the point is that Joseph, coming across this situation, is a pretty cool dude. Sure, he's not going to just accept that his new wife is up the duff with some unknown baby, but he's not going to ruin her because of it either. The verse goes so far as to point out that this is not because he has feelings for her, or because it costs him nothing; it's because it's the righteous thing to do.
v20
I love this bit, because honestly there is no other way that Joseph is going to be reasonably convinced of what's happened here without an angel appearing. If Mary were to say, "God told me that this baby is from him," Joseph would be pretty gormless if he said, "Oh, okay. That's totally not an excuse a girl in our society would try on to avoid endless shame and negative consequences."
Moreover, Joseph made a righteous decision! If you read the NIV's primary translation, he did what was right in the eyes of the law. But sometimes God breaks the rules, and what would ordinarily be absolutely godly to do suddenly becomes wrong, and you have to change your plan to remain obedient to God. But when God is going to do something that really throws a spanner in the works, he will let you know. It won't always be an angel - in fairness, this is Jesus being born, so it is worthy of a heavenly singing telegram, but most things that happen in our lives aren't that.
v21
And Joseph doesn't need this extra bit of info either. He could have just been told, "This is God's will, so get onto it, mate." But God brings Joseph in on the secret, because Joseph is going to be a big part of this. He's the adopted dad of Jesus the Messiah. That's a big deal.
v22
The NIV separates this from the angel's speaking with a paragraph break; the others use the word "Now" which is probably included in the Greek. So this is Matthew breaking down the prophecy fulfillment for us. You have to wonder if the Jews were actively looking for this prophecy to be fulfilled, or if it was just sort of sitting on a shelf somewhere with people thinking, "Yeah, that could happen." I don't know the answer to that.
v23
What I do know is that it is a pretty kick-ass prophecy. Whatever it meant to Ahaz back in the day (I can't imagine it meant much beyond that God had plans that involved peace and being with his people), the whole virgin birth thing is a big deal as a fulfillment of a prophecy that is utterly God-worked. Sure, it could have just meant "young woman" in Isaiah, and I'm cool with that. But God picks the harder version for his son's birth, and rightly so.
v24
And imagine how grateful Mary must have been - to God and to Joseph - for doing it this way. Jesus could have been born to a single mum. But instead God wanted Jesus to be born in a family of mum and dad, and also for that dad to have a lineage that went back to David. There is talk about Mary also having that lineage, but let's face it: without a dad, even an adopted dad, he was always just going to be a bastard, because it's not like angels were going to appear to everyone who met him to give them the same heads up as they gave Joseph.
v25
Just in case you were wondering if they did the nasty while Mary was pregnant. Maybe this is to prove that Jesus isn't Joseph's biological kid (although I would think the understanding of pregnancy is once you're preggers, you can't get pregnant again from doing the nasty). I think as much as anything this is about confirming that they were married, even though the marriage wasn't consummated on the wedding night as was tradition (and yes, people probably checked; there are still plenty of cultures where this happens). This actually means a fair bit to those cultures who think that marriage isn't marriage if you didn't do any horizontal mambo. We in the west definitely know full well that sex doesn't equal marriage. But I think even in the west we still perhaps need to learn that marriage doesn't always equal sex. And I'm not saying it never does or anything - the Bible makes it clear that kids are generally born in marriages, and that sex is generally done in them too. But marriage is bigger than those things.
Monday, January 01, 2018
Matthew 1
Well, it's been a long time since I did this - a verse by verse commentary on my reading of the Bible - but it feels like, with 2018 upon us and Penny and I being here in Namibia, it's a good time to kick it off again. I still promise nothing other than my own scintillating wit and opinion. Starting with Matthew because it's actually one of only two books of the NT that I haven't done one of these for. That's not surprising - the NT is shorter, more accessible, and was easier and more relevant to read when I was younger.
v1
I find it interesting first off that the NIV doesn't use a comma between "Jesus the Messiah" and "the son of David". The KJV and NASB both do. Probably not much to read into that. What does strike me is that this is the very first verse of the gospel, and it pulls no punches: Jesus is the Messiah. To say he's a son of Abraham doesn't say much beyond that he's a Jew really; to say he's the son of David puts him in a kingly line, and not just by being from the tribe of Judah, but actually being in the line of the best king. It's a big claim.
v2
There's Judah right there.
v3
I'll be honest, while some of these names stand out, many of them are pretty boring. Tamar isn't though: one of the women that is mentioned in Jesus' genealogy. I'm not doing Genesis, so I won't go into her story here (although it is amazing), but she is one of the most righteous people in Genesis, so while perhaps interesting that she is mentioned, maybe not super surprising because she's well-known and a picture of righteousness. We don't know Tamar's background, but given Judah married a Canaanite woman, it's probable that he got Canaanite wives for his kids too.
v4
Nahshon is the leader of the tribe of Judah during the Numbers period. This genealogy is really the same as the one from the end of Ruth - unsurprising, given that...
v5
Two women named in the same verse! So woman number two is Rahab, another picture of great faithfulness and faith. These women really know how to step it up. Is it really that Rahab? I mean, Rahab was right at the beginning of the conquest. But there's several generations before you get to David, so I think it works. What this means is that Rahab married an Israelite, Salmon (funny name) - David's line has another non-Jewish mother! I don't think it's so big a deal, as there are plenty of stories of people taking non-Jewish wives (even though it's frowned upon by God; Rahab is an exception to that anyway, as she gets naturalised by God through the killing of Ai).
Ruth is the third woman mentioned in Jesus' genealogy. Famous for having a whole book written about her, like Esther. Again, another gentile mother! But with a story like hers, why wouldn't you claim such a heritage.
v6
And of course now we get to David. The mention of David brings forth all the ideas of the greatest king of Israel, and then is immediately dashed by the fact that Solomon's mother is mentioned - not by name, interestingly, but rather "Uriah's wife" to remind us all that David wasn't all that and a bag of potato chips. Speaking of non-Jewish mothers, there's no mention of Bathsheba's heritage, but her husband was a Hittite.
v7-11
And now we get the list of kings of Judah. That's a pretty sorry list. Good kings are rare, bad kings are so frequent that I can't even remember all the bad things they're known for. It's a royal line, absolutely, but when you read those names you remember that these guys leave a lot to be desired. Josiah is my favourite king, because his story is a story of God's faithfulness even in the midst of judgment. But then comes those words: "exile to Babylon".
v12
These names we don't know so well. Zerubbabel we know as the leader of the exiles in their return (I still remember that story of the whole bible thing where the guy used the mnemonic of 'za-rubber-ball' - I don't remember much else except that Herah dies, awww).
v13-14
This Zadok isn't the famous one; he was a Levite priest during the time of David. There's also a scribe called Zadok post exile, but he's also not this Zadok.
v15
This isn't the famous Eleazar either; he's one of Aaron's sons. There's another one in Ezra; it's not him either.
v16
And here's the big shebang: Joseph, Jesus' dad, comes from the line of David. And people make a big fuss about how Joseph isn't Jesus' real dad, but I think that's kind of the point of the whole thing. Joseph adopts Jesus, and inheritance and lineage is passed on just as strongly to an adopted child as it is to a fruit-of-your-loins kid. This adoption is, I've always thought, a picture of God's adoption of us. Besides, as we've just seen, the human line is pretty crappy anyway. Being able to draw your lineage as "me, son of God, who has done all that great stuff you've read about" is much more impressive.
We also have the mention of Mary, which makes it clear that she is Jesus' mum, and the lineage draws no other connection to Jesus bar that Joseph was married to her. This is clearly different to the rest of the genealogy; we don't have all the names of the mothers for everyone else (Ruth, Rahab, Tamar and Bathsheba notwithstanding). Mary is, so I'm told, a good Jewish girl though.
v17
What's the significance of the three 14s? Well, three is of course a number of completeness (I always think of the Trinity); seven is the number of God, and 14 is that doubled. Are there people missing from this genealogy? Probably, I've no idea, I didn't count (that's what scholars say though). The numbering gives structure and order, and the point is that God, as a god of order, has ordained this. Maybe. I mean, there are actually only 41 generations in total if you count them, so the three 14s that Matthew is talking about are fanciful. It's interesting that Matthew didn't make up one though; the hardest one to edit would be the most recent one of course, because it's the most accurate and well-remembered. So he just works with it.
v1
I find it interesting first off that the NIV doesn't use a comma between "Jesus the Messiah" and "the son of David". The KJV and NASB both do. Probably not much to read into that. What does strike me is that this is the very first verse of the gospel, and it pulls no punches: Jesus is the Messiah. To say he's a son of Abraham doesn't say much beyond that he's a Jew really; to say he's the son of David puts him in a kingly line, and not just by being from the tribe of Judah, but actually being in the line of the best king. It's a big claim.
v2
There's Judah right there.
v3
I'll be honest, while some of these names stand out, many of them are pretty boring. Tamar isn't though: one of the women that is mentioned in Jesus' genealogy. I'm not doing Genesis, so I won't go into her story here (although it is amazing), but she is one of the most righteous people in Genesis, so while perhaps interesting that she is mentioned, maybe not super surprising because she's well-known and a picture of righteousness. We don't know Tamar's background, but given Judah married a Canaanite woman, it's probable that he got Canaanite wives for his kids too.
v4
Nahshon is the leader of the tribe of Judah during the Numbers period. This genealogy is really the same as the one from the end of Ruth - unsurprising, given that...
v5
Two women named in the same verse! So woman number two is Rahab, another picture of great faithfulness and faith. These women really know how to step it up. Is it really that Rahab? I mean, Rahab was right at the beginning of the conquest. But there's several generations before you get to David, so I think it works. What this means is that Rahab married an Israelite, Salmon (funny name) - David's line has another non-Jewish mother! I don't think it's so big a deal, as there are plenty of stories of people taking non-Jewish wives (even though it's frowned upon by God; Rahab is an exception to that anyway, as she gets naturalised by God through the killing of Ai).
Ruth is the third woman mentioned in Jesus' genealogy. Famous for having a whole book written about her, like Esther. Again, another gentile mother! But with a story like hers, why wouldn't you claim such a heritage.
v6
And of course now we get to David. The mention of David brings forth all the ideas of the greatest king of Israel, and then is immediately dashed by the fact that Solomon's mother is mentioned - not by name, interestingly, but rather "Uriah's wife" to remind us all that David wasn't all that and a bag of potato chips. Speaking of non-Jewish mothers, there's no mention of Bathsheba's heritage, but her husband was a Hittite.
v7-11
And now we get the list of kings of Judah. That's a pretty sorry list. Good kings are rare, bad kings are so frequent that I can't even remember all the bad things they're known for. It's a royal line, absolutely, but when you read those names you remember that these guys leave a lot to be desired. Josiah is my favourite king, because his story is a story of God's faithfulness even in the midst of judgment. But then comes those words: "exile to Babylon".
v12
These names we don't know so well. Zerubbabel we know as the leader of the exiles in their return (I still remember that story of the whole bible thing where the guy used the mnemonic of 'za-rubber-ball' - I don't remember much else except that Herah dies, awww).
v13-14
This Zadok isn't the famous one; he was a Levite priest during the time of David. There's also a scribe called Zadok post exile, but he's also not this Zadok.
v15
This isn't the famous Eleazar either; he's one of Aaron's sons. There's another one in Ezra; it's not him either.
v16
And here's the big shebang: Joseph, Jesus' dad, comes from the line of David. And people make a big fuss about how Joseph isn't Jesus' real dad, but I think that's kind of the point of the whole thing. Joseph adopts Jesus, and inheritance and lineage is passed on just as strongly to an adopted child as it is to a fruit-of-your-loins kid. This adoption is, I've always thought, a picture of God's adoption of us. Besides, as we've just seen, the human line is pretty crappy anyway. Being able to draw your lineage as "me, son of God, who has done all that great stuff you've read about" is much more impressive.
We also have the mention of Mary, which makes it clear that she is Jesus' mum, and the lineage draws no other connection to Jesus bar that Joseph was married to her. This is clearly different to the rest of the genealogy; we don't have all the names of the mothers for everyone else (Ruth, Rahab, Tamar and Bathsheba notwithstanding). Mary is, so I'm told, a good Jewish girl though.
v17
What's the significance of the three 14s? Well, three is of course a number of completeness (I always think of the Trinity); seven is the number of God, and 14 is that doubled. Are there people missing from this genealogy? Probably, I've no idea, I didn't count (that's what scholars say though). The numbering gives structure and order, and the point is that God, as a god of order, has ordained this. Maybe. I mean, there are actually only 41 generations in total if you count them, so the three 14s that Matthew is talking about are fanciful. It's interesting that Matthew didn't make up one though; the hardest one to edit would be the most recent one of course, because it's the most accurate and well-remembered. So he just works with it.
Saturday, August 26, 2017
Same sex marriage and the not-a-plebiscite
Here in Australia, the government has asked its people to vote in a non-binding, non-compulsory postal survey on the question of whether the definition of marriage should be legally changed so as to permit same sex couples to form a legal union with the name "marriage".
I don't think the actual legal issue in question is a hugely important issue in and of itself (probably partly because of its low impact on me). However, because many people see it as part litmus test, part slippery slope, part political football, part personal attack, part culture war and just generally representative of much larger issues, I find myself feeling more strongly about it than I think it otherwise deserves (there are certainly much bigger fish to fry out there - a recent talk I heard about the plight of Aboriginal peoples highlighted a lot of issues that we as a nation should be dealing with!). But just because it's not the most important issue doesn't mean now is not a good time to deal with it. It has taken up a huge slice of Australia's public discussion pie over the last five years or more (at least five - I gave a sermon that touched on it five years ago, and this year was asked to preach on the same passage, and lo and behold it is still an issue). It presently makes up around 3-5% of my Facebook feed for whatever that's worth (lower than on a day where something triggers people to talk about it, about the same amount of posts as those about yesterday's Game of Thrones episode). I think 3% of my own personal media consumption is pretty big.
As someone who considers themselves fairly informed about the Australian political scene and who has tried to keep up with the numerous positions that float by, I feel like I have a reasonable coverage of the broad issues involved here. I find myself a swinging voter in all this - a curious position for me, since when it comes to political issues I'm usually pretty forthright in my own opinions. I can see reasons for three different positions, and while one of them is certainly the weakest, I do find my voting mind shifting between the three positions as I consider the issues, watch friends comment, and interact with the media storm that continues to rumble. I actually think it's the intensity and overall low quality of the media interaction on this topic (both big and small media - so whether it's news coverage, the blogosphere or individual people's posts on social media) that has made me so unable to settle on a position. The quality of public debate has been pretty terrible on all sides. Increasingly I believe that we as western society are unable to have reasoned discussions anymore. I thought it was just big media that went over-the-top to get a reaction from readers and sell its product. Apparently not. At least small media people have the excuse of finding it an emotive issue.
It's a problem though, because my reaction when I see a bad argument is to want to distance myself from it. I'm also not the most empathetic guy, so the emotional pleas that are made by all sides tend to have a repulsive effect too, because that's just one more form of bad argument (ie the logical fallacy of appeal to emotion). Note: that's different from the people who just express how the debate is making them feel - that is a legitimate thing to put forward, and I do pay attention to that. So I've turned to writing this little blog post, mostly to help myself understand what I'm going to do come postal voting day. I figure if I actually stick it on my blog, then if someone asks me what my position is on this topic, I can point them to it.
So let's start with that weakest position: the No vote. I think the No vote is the most difficult to reasonably put forward. This might explain why it's also been the one that has been the least well argued. It's certainly where my vote pendulum has spent the least amount of time. That doesn't mean it's indefensible, but it certainly does require some stretch, some faith (not religious, I just mean trusting the people making the arguments), and a fair degree of convolution to make a reasonable point.
Let me see if I can explain. Take a moral argument for a No vote. I am a Christian, and I believe that homosexuality is not in line with God's plan for people according to how I read scripture. That is not by any means a universal view, though it is an orthodox one and it is also mine. For some people, the argument ends there - "I think this, and the government is asking me what I think." That belief alone, however, is not a sufficient condition for a No vote. The government is not asking my opinion on what I would like the law to be for me, but for the whole country. For a moral argument to be valid, I would need to add to this a belief that my interpretation of God's morality is robust enough to be worth forcing on others, and that governments enforce morality, and that God wants me to enforce my moral view onto non-believers, and that God wants governments to enforce his morality in this way, and that all of this is not superseded by more general provisions of God's will like "love your enemy" and "do for others as you would have them do for you". That is one of the shorter and more direct lines of reasoning for a No argument. If someone can tick all those boxes, they have a reasonable reason for voting No. Knock out just one, and to me it's looking pretty shaky.
Even if someone can tick all those boxes, if they want to avoid hypocrisy they should also be lobbying the government to enforce all their other moral beliefs. The scary thing is if I give a list of examples like altogether outlawing homosexual practice, divorce, sex outside of marriage, and the consumption of sugar, there are probably a number of people who would think that's fine and good. They won't lobby for them - people are lazy - but they might support an organisation who would (ACL perhaps, though I'm no sure of their attitude towards sugar). So instead, let me create another list: shall we ask the government to outlaw infant baptism, the ordination of women, or the use of musical instruments in church? (By the way, the whole "marriage definition" argument fits in here: if you think marriage is a term of religious art, then do you really want governments made up of people who aren't of your faith telling you what it means?)
Although we may not remember it, the reason we say no to that idea is because we have already fought a war about this in the west: the Thirty Years' War. We adopted pluralism in the west - even back when pluralism only meant including different Christian denominations - because after eight million people died we realised that it was unworkable for a government to enforce religious or ideological affiliation when its people hold different beliefs. Still, if people really want to unravel the Peace of Westphalia, they are welcome to do so, and a No vote makes sense for them.
What I find super interesting about the No campaign as a whole is that the moral argument (which I think is the most powerful No argument) is not the one that generally headlines. It's certainly out there, and were I not a student of both theology, history and politics I might find it compelling. But No campaigners know that even if this is what they believe, it won't sell to the common Australian. The average Aussie doesn't particularly care what God thinks to the point of legislating it: their morality finds its source elsewhere. Another source of authority must be found, and so we come to the "big issue" argument - which apparently isn't anything to do with homelessness.
Many No vote campaigns (because there are several) focus on highlighting "bigger picture" issues that people seem to think or feel are at stake in this debate. For instance, a campaign might link same sex marriage with the right of children to have a mother and a father. Now, the survey isn't about children; not directly, at least. But they see a link (usually with marriage as a social convention for the raising of children), and the reasoning goes something like this: same sex marriage will change the cultural pattern of family relationships in our country by changing the underlying meaning of marriage, devaluing the role of mother and father in the life of children, which is the healthiest thing for children, and (importantly) children are voiceless and so we need to speak up on their behalf.
These kinds of arguments are problematic because the majority of No campaigns I've seen don't actually spend time explaining their position, they just say "trust me" and use these arguments to appeal to emotion. This looks an awful lot like fear-mongering to me. That's not cool. If you're going to make an argument based on claims like this, you have to outline what the problem really is, how it's apparently going to happen, how big of a factor is it in that thing happening, and what the chances are of it actually happening because of that thing you're against. After all, even if you do think children have a "natural right" (whatever that is) to grow up with their biological mother and father (who are super important because why?), if this debate is only going to make it 1% more likely that society ditches its preference for biological parents, is it worth opposing on that 1% basis?
Some at least try to prove these statements by offering authoritative scholarly material that supports their case. The problem with scholarship is what judges call the "experts at 10 paces" scenario. One side calls an expert, so the other side calls another expert, and as if by magic both experts say exactly what the people paying them want them to say. Thankfully, in court a judge can toss both of these experts into a conference and actually force them via a code of conduct and their own professionalism to come to some agreements that might actually help the judge make a decision. This is not generally an option for the average voter when confronted with reams of academic papers from both sides which say opposite things. When you strip away an objective backing for your position (eg God says so), the easiest way to diffuse your "we think it's gunna be bad" argument is to counter with "we think it's gunna be fine".
Moreover, as lofty as evidence-based policy making seems, it may be unattractive due to consequences that flow from it that don't reflect what people actually want. People are usually more wed to what they want than what evidence tells them is best. I think it's called confirmation bias, or selfishness, or basically being a human. Sugar should probably be illegal, but if you try and ban cake I will definitely not vote for you (unless you also free refugees from detention and settle them here - seriously, I will take the hit if that's what it takes).
Another example might be the argument that this is a step in the erosion of religious or personal freedoms, and we will eventually end up living in a country where churches, mosques or whoever will no longer be allowed to preach their position publicly that same sex marriage is wrong, because once the government sanctions it as legal, people will begin to push for anti-discrimination legislation to prevent people from dissenting against what is after all now lawful (or that existing legislation will come into effect). Whether this is a slippery slope argument really depends on how it is framed. It certainly attracts a lot of slippery slope rhetoric. Putting the argument at its highest though, the problem I see is that if I'm worried about anti-discrimination legislation and religious or personal freedoms, I should probably be campaigning about that directly, rather than indirectly via same sex marriage. I actually do think Australia has some problems in the area of personal and religious freedoms (why isn't Christianity an ethno-religion, NSW?), and these things should be addressed - but directly, not through the convoluted means of the same sex marriage debate. Taking an issue that has captured public interest and twisting it to your own ends is good politics, but generally poor form. That doesn't mean it's not right to talk about your legitimate concerns. But if this is your big issue, why vote No in a survey that has no actual power to change anything? Why not just vote Yes, but campaign for Yes But Only If You Protect My Right To Not Marry People If I Don't Want To And To Continue Dissenting. You need to show that same-sex marriage being legislated is a necessary or sufficient condition to the erosion of your rights. It merely being a contributing factor is not enough.
There are lots of terrible arguments for why people should vote No (looking at you, neo-nazis), but the only one I really want to comment on is the one that I find most attractive: the group membership argument. Basically it goes like this: you're Christian/Muslim/politically conservative/etc; you need to represent your fellow group members who are against this issue; we need our voice to be heard because this is after all what we believe. At its worst, this is a sort of no true Scotsman fallacy. But its attraction is undeniable, especially to members of these types of groups. No-one wants to be a black sheep, no-one wants to let the side down (and it goes double when you draw your wages from this group too! I certainly feel that pressure as a missionary, and I imagine that there are many ministers and other Christian workers who feel likewise). And you know what? Having a voice is important, and that's what campaigning is for. Despite lots of rhetoric attempting to take your voice away (I'll get to that), no-one has actually done so. But is a strong showing in a government survey for your position a strong showing for your voice? It is only if you claim the whole result as your position, and I think that's a pretty bankrupt thing to do. I have no doubt that if the survey comes back with a 51% No vote, this is precisely what the government will do (eg "This is a vote of confidence in Malcolm Turnbull"). I can sure as heck tell you that if I voted No, it wouldn't be that for me!
And therein lies another problem: when it comes to putting forward your position in the public forum, campaigning is a lot more effective than actually voting. A vote is a blunt instrument, because it will be interpreted in ways that are far outside your control. A No vote from me would not mean I hate people who want to be same sex married, but while I might get the opportunity to express my nuanced opinion to some people within my sphere of influence (if I had the balls to say how I voted on Facebook, for instance, although on second thought not that many people actually listen on social media, they just wait their turn to yell), the fact is the vast majority of people directly affected by this vote are not going to hear my voice, but they are going to look at the percentage of Nos and say, "This many people hate me." And that sucks. When I saw the results of a poll showing that 10% of people in Australia want same sex marriage legislated so as to force churches to marry same sex couples against their will, that was quite a shock. 10% is a lot. Imagine what it would feel like if you thought 30% of people hated you. Or 51%.
So even if I construct the most powerful No position I can, I can't tick enough boxes in my convoluted argument of choice to make it reasonable, I don't have enough faith in the people I'd need to trust that they're right, and I'm not comfortable stretching the picture to be quite so big as to co-opt same sex marriage into the equation. (Other people could tick the boxes, and in doing so are following a reasonable argument.) I don't want my fellow conservative Christians to feel like I'm abandoning the fold. I really do believe that this whole argument is an opportunity to tell people that Jesus loves them regardless of who they are or what they do (I haven't linked to articles in this blog post, but I think this one deserves a link, because it is such a good example of using this issue as an opportunity to spread the gospel). But I don't actually need to vote No to do that.
On we go to the Yes campaign then. There are some well-constructed Yes positions that are pretty persuasive. I'm not swayed by utilitarian considerations as a rule, but many people are and they're allowed to be, and the Yes campaign is well placed there. I am rather fond of democracy, and while I don't think the mob should determine policy, legislation should certainly reflect the society from which it comes. There are a lot of pragmatic elements of the position that ring true, although you have to be careful that some of them don't just sound more palatable because the opposing position has been so badly stated.
Were I to attempt to create the Yes argument that is most attractive to me, it would look like this: moral coercion is inappropriate, the legislative change is almost entirely symbolic, the immediate changes it would produce are almost entirely socially positive, the longer term changes to society's structure are possible but questionable, the message of support it would send to a marginalised and mistreated minority would be positive and inclusive, and it offers a way to show love to people who need it. That's a very dry position statement. Let me tell you a story instead.
When I used to work in a petrol station, I was finishing a Christmas Day shift at 8pm and handing over to my workmate Mohammed. This year it also happened to be Ramadan at Christmas time, and Mohammed (an Indian national over here doing his MIT and working several jobs to make ends meet) had just finished a shift at another petrol station elsewhere in Sydney and travelled to this one on the Northern Beaches to do back-to-back shifts. Because it was daylight when he left his last shift, and night-time by the time he got to my servo, he hadn't eaten all day. And because he was a devout Muslim, even though it was now nightfall he couldn't eat anything in the store because it wasn't halal (I think he could have eaten some Cadburys, but that's hardly a meal). He was starving. I was getting off my shift, and so I offered to get him something to eat. He was very thankful, but told me it would have to be halal because that was his conviction.
I can tell you that at the time, having been a Christian for only a year or two and attending a quite conservative and biblically based church, I was in conniptions about what to do. Here was a guy who needed food, and surely I should be helping him out. But if I bought it for him I'd be supporting his religious views, which were not only different from my own, but I firmly believed were wrong and unnecessary. Of course, I drove to the nearest place that was open on Christmas Day night that had halal food and bought him some curry, and I got some too, and we ate together. I did it because I'd rather show someone that I love and care for them than hold them to a Christian lifestyle that they don't see a need to uphold; I'd rather not judge them for that failure to love Jesus as I do; I'd rather do for them what I would hope they would do for me. And when I say "I'd rather", I actually mean Jesus would rather me do that, and so that's what I did.
I don't think people should practice homosexuality for no other reason than I believe God doesn't want them to. God doesn't coerce people into following his ways, and so neither will I. People should do what God wants because they love God, and so people loving God is what I care about most. A loving relationship with God through Jesus Christ comes first; how you live your life after that is detail. Some people think that God does not put a ban on homosexuality, and they're also welcome to their religious opinions in this pluralistic society we live in. Furthermore, in my opinion (as someone who has studied politics, political philosophy and law, and also who has participated in the political sphere at a reasonable level), whilst legislation may provide some influence on cultural moral mores, it doesn't dictate or enforce morality. While many people may tie this particular issue to bigger issues, I think a focus on the actual issue at hand is more intellectually responsible as the perceived threats are not substantial. Again I will stress that other people may not have these opinions, and that is fine. But these are the opinions that impact on my decision-making.
There are a few other side things that line up for me too: for instance, while I can't be sure that this whole debate is causing young LGBTI+ people to commit suicide, if I think the chance of harm to people because of a No result is sufficiently proportional to the chance that conservative people will crack a sad if there's a Yes result (proportional because obviously people dying is a bit more important than people being sad), I'll fall on the side of people not killing themselves. Dead people can't be evangelised. I'm not so convinced by the possibility of the debate itself causing harm that I think the debate as a whole should be stifled and silenced altogether, however.
I will also admit that the ability to be able to say I voted Yes, whilst providing me with a position to express my love for the people around me who are deeply affected by this issue, would also put me in a position where I would avoid being labelled a bigot, a homophobe, an imbecile and so many other kinds of terrible names. And that brings me rather neatly to some of my problems with the Yes positions.
It might just be me, or it might be because many No arguments threaten ephemeral catastrophes that seem rather toothless when you don't agree with the arguments, but in my exposure to the various arguments that form both sides, while the No position has its jerks (that poster down in Melbourne of late is a good example... assuming it's real), the overall trend in their campaigns has been one of strong disapproval but not disrespect towards No voters (I can certainly understand how same sex couples themselves may feel victimised). The Yes campaigns, meanwhile, have been bloody awful. I'm not sure if it's because the Yes campaigners think they've got it in the bag, but as a swinging voter I can tell you that being told I'm a Nazi for even considering the opposite position is not exactly a vote winner. The perpetual pillorying is not good campaigning. Instead of fear-mongering it's shaming, and for a position whose argument is that they have been seriously injured by shaming, that's rather hypocritical. As I said earlier, I'm a fan of democracy, and the tactic that has been employed of seeking to shut down debate is to me untenable, and hiding behind the health and wellbeing of children in an attempt to do so is exactly the same kind of bad argument that's being made by No campaigns.
Furthermore, many of the arguments and slogans that the Yes campaigns put forward almost seem to invite ridicule and encourage flawed understandings. I received a handout from Rainbow Labor at the train station the other day, and it gave me three reasons to vote Yes: "1) Tony Abbott doesn't want you to, 2) Our weddings will be bloody fab, 3) All love is equal." How serious are you taking this thing? Do you want me to take it as seriously as that? Coming off as cocky winners before a vote's been held is pretty unAustralian, and I don't say that as a joke. Aussies don't like tall poppies, and are always more conservative at the ballot box than they are in any poll. Now, I get that there's a fair bit of marketing spin in this, and a desire to paint a picture of hip and fun. But the voting bloc you need to win in Australia is not youth, and for people like me who are really trying to decide what to do, a lack of serious says to me that if I don't take your position it doesn't matter.
What does "all love is equal" mean? What does "love is love" mean? Is my love for my wife the same as my love for my dog? Is my love for my parents the same as the love for my friends? Is my love for chilli the same as my love for God? I certainly don't think so, and I reckon you don't either. I know what the slogan means: that romantic and companionly love between people of the same gender should be seen as equal to that kind of love between heterosexuals. I don't have a problem with that, and I recognise that it doesn't fit on a bumper sticker. But in a context where one of the arguments against you is at worst a slippery slope argument (namely that those in favour of polyamory or more extremely not normative relationships like between adults and children will use this as a stepping stone) but at best a limitation of rights argument (polyamorous people should be given the right to marry more people, since at present they're the ones who face criminal charges if they try), it seems like a bad decision to promote a slogan that leaves you open to this kind of criticism by almost overtly suggesting that you are actually supporting some or all of these causes. If you actually are (and I imagine that polyamory is actually supported by at least some Yes campaigners), own it as much as you need to (which, given this vote isn't about that, isn't really that much, but it's not zero either if you are campaigning to further a bigger issue). Don't say, "It's not about that". If it's a bad argument, counter it. If it's not, then uh-oh.
Just as a kicker, I'm not a huge fan of how the Yes vote has garnered a significant amount of neo-capitalist support for the reason that it provides a good platform for supporting an ultra-individualist message that ultimately assists capitalism to ruin everything. This is not a "bad people support your side" argument (this has been done by both sides, and it's a stupid argument: I brush my teeth regardless of whether Hitler did); this is an "I don't agree with the ultra-individualism that forms part of your argument hence making it attractive to the bourgoisie" argument. But really that's probably just me. Most people love capitalism.
Again, there are plenty of terrible arguments for voting Yes (the ones that bother me most are the legal or rights-based arguments that are factually inaccurate). There probably isn't a great point in me going through and debunking them; they're bad arguments. They don't need my attention. The point is they aren't going to convince me to vote Yes.
So on the one hand I have a No campaign that is not very well argued and needs to draw a long bow to be reasonable, but can be defended and makes me feel like part of the team and while fervent is more respectful; on the other hand I have a Yes campaign that is more easily defended and aligns with far more of my broad beliefs about politics and law, but doesn't seem to take itself seriously, seeks to shut down debate and threatens to shame me if I don't agree with them loudly enough.
Enter the third option: don't vote at all. I saw some early support for this position coming from the now Yes camp, although it seems that it got shot down, and I can understand why. I strongly dislike this option, at least partly because I think public expression of opinion in politics is valuable to policy-making, but also probably partly because I'm Australian and compulsory voting feels right. And yet it says a lot that at the moment this is the position that holds my attention the most. There are some good reasons for this: the vote has become less and less legitimate (from compulsory to voluntary, from a plebiscite to a mail survey); the government has made no firm statement about how they will evaluate the response and no firm statement on what they will do in the case of a result (and may not be trustworthy even if they did); there is every possibility that whatever way I vote it is going to be counted in that blunt-instrument style I mentioned earlier towards some ideological position to which I do not subscribe; and it doesn't prevent me from entering the debate to put forward the stuff I think is important.
And then there are a number of arguments that, while not hugely strong on their own, do still have some appeal: I don't think this issue is so important that I need to be voting on it; it means I get to stop thinking about it; it's a cop-out vote that saves me from the pressure of both sides - while it's unlikely to make me any friends, it's unlikely to lose me any either; and it's possible that whatever anyone votes, if the Coalition does nothing Labor will simply pass legislation to this effect when they next gain power. (I wish I could say 'likely', but the ALP are a bit spineless these days. Why does Australian politics suck so hard? Oh, wait, it's because of us voters. Derp.) Toss in that it's the lazy option (I can literally do nothing and follow this position) and it looks kinda appealing.
The sad thing for me is that possibly the single biggest reason I'd vote Nothing (or even No) rather than Yes is because of Yes campaigning itself. I have absolutely no problem with people in the Yes camp expressing themselves however they want, but the result of their choice of expressions has meant that even though their position, reasonably presented, is the one I think makes the most sense, I might not vote that way because I'm just sick of being told I'm stupid, I'm worthless, my voice is not welcome, my vote (not just my opinion, my actual vote) is illegitimate, this issue has nothing to do with me, and that my Christian friends who may vote No are even worse.
I am a sinner, and sometimes I make decisions out of a desire for comfort, security, personal benefit or laziness. But I pray that I don't vote (or not vote) for selfish reasons, because to me love is about making sacrifices for other people's benefit, even if they don't deserve it. A little something Jesus taught me.
----
A few more words about legislating morality
After writing this, I found myself in a bit of a moral quandary regarding my position that governments should not legislate morality. I was listening to quite a good sermon on the need for us to invest in the lives of others, and the preacher said something like, "Often people ask, 'Why does God allow so many people to live in poverty?' Well, God tells us to care for the poor. I don't think the problem is that there isn't enough to go around. The problem is that we like to hoard our wealth." Damn right.
This is one of the key reasons that I feel we should have a socialist government that more equally distributes resources: life matters more than wealth. But if I'm asking the government to regulate people's wealth in order to essentially bypass or enforce their charitability because God wants us looking after the poor, how is that different to someone seeking to enforce a law preventing same sex couples from marrying because God doesn't like it?
I'm actually not 100% sure of an answer here, so I thought again I'd put words on electronic paper and see if it helped my train of thought. I will probably make absolutist statements, but of course all this stuff is just my opinion, and it doesn't mean that there aren't reasonable opinions to the contrary (I will, as usual, trash some less reasonable ones in my eyes). I'll also be taking a Christian perspective, since that's where I'm coming from.
I've read some articles that boil everything down to a "natural law" which we must follow. This argument generally comes from a verse like Romans 13:4-7. The problem is this verse isn't about being in power, it's about submitting to power (I do believe that this passage, along with others, sets out a broad deontological framework for punishment; Kant agrees with me here). We all know that governments don't always follow God's morality; rather, God uses governments as agents despite their imperfection (like Assyria or Babylon). Nations are as sinful as the people who live in them. One author talked about how we don't legislate our morality, or your morality, but the morality. That's pretty simply falsifiable; not necessarily because there is no the morality, but because no-one has the authority to point to it or articulate it besides God. God hasn't made it as clear as we might like on some issues, and there is even argument about how clear the boundaries between clarity and opacity are. At this point we're back at the need for the Peace of Westphalia.
I've read some articles that attempt to define morality in terms of a sort of personal adherence only, and say that Christians should seek to legislate freedom (giving people as much leeway to serve God as possible) and justice (protecting the weak from the evils of others when necessary). They use verses like John 8:1-11 to show that Jesus did not enforce morality on people, and Genesis 2:16-17 to show that God's creative order is not one of force but choice; and any of the hundreds of verses that talk about God's desire for justice (Deuteronomy 16:20 stands pretty well for me here).
These are pretty good points. One problem with this pattern of reasoning is it seems to lead in the literature to a libertarian mode of government: minimum government providing maximum freedom to its citizens. At least, that's where our western minds take it, because we're individualists. Christians (particularly American Christians) try to say that Christianity is the reason we have freedoms in the west. It's not; we can thank the Enlightenment project and its focus on individualism for that. Don't believe me? Just point me to where individual freedoms sprung up under European Catholic rule between 400AD and 1500AD. Human value? Absolutely. But human freedom? I'm not certain, but I'd certainly like to see the evidence.
Another problem is how we define justice. Justice is a pretty difficult eel to nail down. We can end up coming right back to the whole Peace of Westphalia thing in trying to come to a definition of what justice is, or whether something is or isn't just. The benefit of "justice" over "morality" is that I think you're at least more likely to come to a group definition of a principle or concept that defines a process than you are a list of proscribed or prescribed actions or activities.
All this would be easier if I just thought that individuals were the core currency of government. Then I could just say 'whatever is in the majority wins, and minorities just lump it'; then government just becomes a machine for determining and enforcing majority sentiment. Likewise, I guess if I just thought power was the most important thing, I'd be happy with the rich making all the decisions, and we could live in some sort of realpolitik aristocracy.
The thing is, in my opinion government isn't about individuals; it's the intersection between individual and community. God values both of those things; so should we. I should point out that when I say individual I mean something like "a single person or a group of persons who align by choice"; when I say communal I mean something like "a group of people aligned due to circumstance". A group of friends or a church are examples of a group of individuals held together ultimately through the choice of its individual members. A family or a nation-state are examples of a group of individuals held together by factors outside of their control, membership of which cannot be easily avoided. (It's not a perfect definition - adoption obviously brings someone into a family by choice; some can choose to leave family or change nationalities. But these things are not straightforward or even possible for many.) Community basically forces people to interact, and government and its laws are the grease that make those forced interactions work. (As an aside, when you think about the prevalence of organised marriage in the past, suddenly it makes a lot more sense why marriage is a government issue and why its relevance seems to slip a little in modern times in the west where marriages are far more by mutual consent.)
Moreover, government is about utilising power for the benefit of the community as a whole. That doesn't mean the fruits of that power need to be entirely egalitarian (I mean hey, bring it on), but I think God makes it clear that those in power should be looking out for the poor, the marginalised and the oppressed, and to the extent they aren't doing that they are not following him. This is probably one of the reasons democracy is so popular: it tries to balance the individual with the communal, and it leaves space for leadership to countermand majority opinion when that opinion is clearly not in the best interests of minorities. It's not perfect (nothing is), but at least it attempts to address these problems.
Ultra-individualist libertarianism is not better than some sort of theocratic totalitarianism (if anything, I'd lean towards the latter if I had to choose, depending on the leadership). Instead, it seems that freedom and justice need to be tempered by one another. This is not an either/or dichotomy; it is a spectrum upon which governments may move. The needs of society may at times require a shift in that spectrum in one direction or the other, and that is the work of leaders to decide. The distinction between a Christian seeking to legislate a specific set of moral acts and a Christian seeking to legislate a specific position on the broad spectrum of freedom and justice is kind of like the difference between act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism. I'm not advocating the consequentialist moral position that utilitarianism provides though - rather, I'm talking about a sort of act vs rule deontology. I don't know if that's a thing (pardon my philosophical ignorance on this point!) but it's a good enough comparison for me, so it's going to have to do.
So where does that leave us? It leaves us with a system where Christians living in a democracy get a say in what is legislated, but have to realise that their voice is not the only one that gets to be heard. However, it also leaves us with Christians who in their decision-making need to recognise that their opinions in political matters should not be made simply along personal moral guidelines, but in terms of what decisions are best for the smooth running of a pluralist community thrust together by circumstance. That's the moral thing to do, and at the end of the day, even if I think that Christians shouldn't legislate morality, I still believe they should legislate morally. The decisions made, whether as an MP, a lobbyist, or a voter, will be and should be made within a personal moral framework, and that framework must include the needs of all. In terms of big picture decisions (such as structure of government or even which political party should be in power) this is going to mean taking the good with the bad. There are no perfect choices this side of heaven, except the one to love God and believe in his son Jesus Christ.
I don't think the actual legal issue in question is a hugely important issue in and of itself (probably partly because of its low impact on me). However, because many people see it as part litmus test, part slippery slope, part political football, part personal attack, part culture war and just generally representative of much larger issues, I find myself feeling more strongly about it than I think it otherwise deserves (there are certainly much bigger fish to fry out there - a recent talk I heard about the plight of Aboriginal peoples highlighted a lot of issues that we as a nation should be dealing with!). But just because it's not the most important issue doesn't mean now is not a good time to deal with it. It has taken up a huge slice of Australia's public discussion pie over the last five years or more (at least five - I gave a sermon that touched on it five years ago, and this year was asked to preach on the same passage, and lo and behold it is still an issue). It presently makes up around 3-5% of my Facebook feed for whatever that's worth (lower than on a day where something triggers people to talk about it, about the same amount of posts as those about yesterday's Game of Thrones episode). I think 3% of my own personal media consumption is pretty big.
As someone who considers themselves fairly informed about the Australian political scene and who has tried to keep up with the numerous positions that float by, I feel like I have a reasonable coverage of the broad issues involved here. I find myself a swinging voter in all this - a curious position for me, since when it comes to political issues I'm usually pretty forthright in my own opinions. I can see reasons for three different positions, and while one of them is certainly the weakest, I do find my voting mind shifting between the three positions as I consider the issues, watch friends comment, and interact with the media storm that continues to rumble. I actually think it's the intensity and overall low quality of the media interaction on this topic (both big and small media - so whether it's news coverage, the blogosphere or individual people's posts on social media) that has made me so unable to settle on a position. The quality of public debate has been pretty terrible on all sides. Increasingly I believe that we as western society are unable to have reasoned discussions anymore. I thought it was just big media that went over-the-top to get a reaction from readers and sell its product. Apparently not. At least small media people have the excuse of finding it an emotive issue.
It's a problem though, because my reaction when I see a bad argument is to want to distance myself from it. I'm also not the most empathetic guy, so the emotional pleas that are made by all sides tend to have a repulsive effect too, because that's just one more form of bad argument (ie the logical fallacy of appeal to emotion). Note: that's different from the people who just express how the debate is making them feel - that is a legitimate thing to put forward, and I do pay attention to that. So I've turned to writing this little blog post, mostly to help myself understand what I'm going to do come postal voting day. I figure if I actually stick it on my blog, then if someone asks me what my position is on this topic, I can point them to it.
So let's start with that weakest position: the No vote. I think the No vote is the most difficult to reasonably put forward. This might explain why it's also been the one that has been the least well argued. It's certainly where my vote pendulum has spent the least amount of time. That doesn't mean it's indefensible, but it certainly does require some stretch, some faith (not religious, I just mean trusting the people making the arguments), and a fair degree of convolution to make a reasonable point.
Let me see if I can explain. Take a moral argument for a No vote. I am a Christian, and I believe that homosexuality is not in line with God's plan for people according to how I read scripture. That is not by any means a universal view, though it is an orthodox one and it is also mine. For some people, the argument ends there - "I think this, and the government is asking me what I think." That belief alone, however, is not a sufficient condition for a No vote. The government is not asking my opinion on what I would like the law to be for me, but for the whole country. For a moral argument to be valid, I would need to add to this a belief that my interpretation of God's morality is robust enough to be worth forcing on others, and that governments enforce morality, and that God wants me to enforce my moral view onto non-believers, and that God wants governments to enforce his morality in this way, and that all of this is not superseded by more general provisions of God's will like "love your enemy" and "do for others as you would have them do for you". That is one of the shorter and more direct lines of reasoning for a No argument. If someone can tick all those boxes, they have a reasonable reason for voting No. Knock out just one, and to me it's looking pretty shaky.
Even if someone can tick all those boxes, if they want to avoid hypocrisy they should also be lobbying the government to enforce all their other moral beliefs. The scary thing is if I give a list of examples like altogether outlawing homosexual practice, divorce, sex outside of marriage, and the consumption of sugar, there are probably a number of people who would think that's fine and good. They won't lobby for them - people are lazy - but they might support an organisation who would (ACL perhaps, though I'm no sure of their attitude towards sugar). So instead, let me create another list: shall we ask the government to outlaw infant baptism, the ordination of women, or the use of musical instruments in church? (By the way, the whole "marriage definition" argument fits in here: if you think marriage is a term of religious art, then do you really want governments made up of people who aren't of your faith telling you what it means?)
Although we may not remember it, the reason we say no to that idea is because we have already fought a war about this in the west: the Thirty Years' War. We adopted pluralism in the west - even back when pluralism only meant including different Christian denominations - because after eight million people died we realised that it was unworkable for a government to enforce religious or ideological affiliation when its people hold different beliefs. Still, if people really want to unravel the Peace of Westphalia, they are welcome to do so, and a No vote makes sense for them.
What I find super interesting about the No campaign as a whole is that the moral argument (which I think is the most powerful No argument) is not the one that generally headlines. It's certainly out there, and were I not a student of both theology, history and politics I might find it compelling. But No campaigners know that even if this is what they believe, it won't sell to the common Australian. The average Aussie doesn't particularly care what God thinks to the point of legislating it: their morality finds its source elsewhere. Another source of authority must be found, and so we come to the "big issue" argument - which apparently isn't anything to do with homelessness.
Many No vote campaigns (because there are several) focus on highlighting "bigger picture" issues that people seem to think or feel are at stake in this debate. For instance, a campaign might link same sex marriage with the right of children to have a mother and a father. Now, the survey isn't about children; not directly, at least. But they see a link (usually with marriage as a social convention for the raising of children), and the reasoning goes something like this: same sex marriage will change the cultural pattern of family relationships in our country by changing the underlying meaning of marriage, devaluing the role of mother and father in the life of children, which is the healthiest thing for children, and (importantly) children are voiceless and so we need to speak up on their behalf.
These kinds of arguments are problematic because the majority of No campaigns I've seen don't actually spend time explaining their position, they just say "trust me" and use these arguments to appeal to emotion. This looks an awful lot like fear-mongering to me. That's not cool. If you're going to make an argument based on claims like this, you have to outline what the problem really is, how it's apparently going to happen, how big of a factor is it in that thing happening, and what the chances are of it actually happening because of that thing you're against. After all, even if you do think children have a "natural right" (whatever that is) to grow up with their biological mother and father (who are super important because why?), if this debate is only going to make it 1% more likely that society ditches its preference for biological parents, is it worth opposing on that 1% basis?
Some at least try to prove these statements by offering authoritative scholarly material that supports their case. The problem with scholarship is what judges call the "experts at 10 paces" scenario. One side calls an expert, so the other side calls another expert, and as if by magic both experts say exactly what the people paying them want them to say. Thankfully, in court a judge can toss both of these experts into a conference and actually force them via a code of conduct and their own professionalism to come to some agreements that might actually help the judge make a decision. This is not generally an option for the average voter when confronted with reams of academic papers from both sides which say opposite things. When you strip away an objective backing for your position (eg God says so), the easiest way to diffuse your "we think it's gunna be bad" argument is to counter with "we think it's gunna be fine".
Moreover, as lofty as evidence-based policy making seems, it may be unattractive due to consequences that flow from it that don't reflect what people actually want. People are usually more wed to what they want than what evidence tells them is best. I think it's called confirmation bias, or selfishness, or basically being a human. Sugar should probably be illegal, but if you try and ban cake I will definitely not vote for you (unless you also free refugees from detention and settle them here - seriously, I will take the hit if that's what it takes).
Another example might be the argument that this is a step in the erosion of religious or personal freedoms, and we will eventually end up living in a country where churches, mosques or whoever will no longer be allowed to preach their position publicly that same sex marriage is wrong, because once the government sanctions it as legal, people will begin to push for anti-discrimination legislation to prevent people from dissenting against what is after all now lawful (or that existing legislation will come into effect). Whether this is a slippery slope argument really depends on how it is framed. It certainly attracts a lot of slippery slope rhetoric. Putting the argument at its highest though, the problem I see is that if I'm worried about anti-discrimination legislation and religious or personal freedoms, I should probably be campaigning about that directly, rather than indirectly via same sex marriage. I actually do think Australia has some problems in the area of personal and religious freedoms (why isn't Christianity an ethno-religion, NSW?), and these things should be addressed - but directly, not through the convoluted means of the same sex marriage debate. Taking an issue that has captured public interest and twisting it to your own ends is good politics, but generally poor form. That doesn't mean it's not right to talk about your legitimate concerns. But if this is your big issue, why vote No in a survey that has no actual power to change anything? Why not just vote Yes, but campaign for Yes But Only If You Protect My Right To Not Marry People If I Don't Want To And To Continue Dissenting. You need to show that same-sex marriage being legislated is a necessary or sufficient condition to the erosion of your rights. It merely being a contributing factor is not enough.
There are lots of terrible arguments for why people should vote No (looking at you, neo-nazis), but the only one I really want to comment on is the one that I find most attractive: the group membership argument. Basically it goes like this: you're Christian/Muslim/politically conservative/etc; you need to represent your fellow group members who are against this issue; we need our voice to be heard because this is after all what we believe. At its worst, this is a sort of no true Scotsman fallacy. But its attraction is undeniable, especially to members of these types of groups. No-one wants to be a black sheep, no-one wants to let the side down (and it goes double when you draw your wages from this group too! I certainly feel that pressure as a missionary, and I imagine that there are many ministers and other Christian workers who feel likewise). And you know what? Having a voice is important, and that's what campaigning is for. Despite lots of rhetoric attempting to take your voice away (I'll get to that), no-one has actually done so. But is a strong showing in a government survey for your position a strong showing for your voice? It is only if you claim the whole result as your position, and I think that's a pretty bankrupt thing to do. I have no doubt that if the survey comes back with a 51% No vote, this is precisely what the government will do (eg "This is a vote of confidence in Malcolm Turnbull"). I can sure as heck tell you that if I voted No, it wouldn't be that for me!
And therein lies another problem: when it comes to putting forward your position in the public forum, campaigning is a lot more effective than actually voting. A vote is a blunt instrument, because it will be interpreted in ways that are far outside your control. A No vote from me would not mean I hate people who want to be same sex married, but while I might get the opportunity to express my nuanced opinion to some people within my sphere of influence (if I had the balls to say how I voted on Facebook, for instance, although on second thought not that many people actually listen on social media, they just wait their turn to yell), the fact is the vast majority of people directly affected by this vote are not going to hear my voice, but they are going to look at the percentage of Nos and say, "This many people hate me." And that sucks. When I saw the results of a poll showing that 10% of people in Australia want same sex marriage legislated so as to force churches to marry same sex couples against their will, that was quite a shock. 10% is a lot. Imagine what it would feel like if you thought 30% of people hated you. Or 51%.
So even if I construct the most powerful No position I can, I can't tick enough boxes in my convoluted argument of choice to make it reasonable, I don't have enough faith in the people I'd need to trust that they're right, and I'm not comfortable stretching the picture to be quite so big as to co-opt same sex marriage into the equation. (Other people could tick the boxes, and in doing so are following a reasonable argument.) I don't want my fellow conservative Christians to feel like I'm abandoning the fold. I really do believe that this whole argument is an opportunity to tell people that Jesus loves them regardless of who they are or what they do (I haven't linked to articles in this blog post, but I think this one deserves a link, because it is such a good example of using this issue as an opportunity to spread the gospel). But I don't actually need to vote No to do that.
On we go to the Yes campaign then. There are some well-constructed Yes positions that are pretty persuasive. I'm not swayed by utilitarian considerations as a rule, but many people are and they're allowed to be, and the Yes campaign is well placed there. I am rather fond of democracy, and while I don't think the mob should determine policy, legislation should certainly reflect the society from which it comes. There are a lot of pragmatic elements of the position that ring true, although you have to be careful that some of them don't just sound more palatable because the opposing position has been so badly stated.
Were I to attempt to create the Yes argument that is most attractive to me, it would look like this: moral coercion is inappropriate, the legislative change is almost entirely symbolic, the immediate changes it would produce are almost entirely socially positive, the longer term changes to society's structure are possible but questionable, the message of support it would send to a marginalised and mistreated minority would be positive and inclusive, and it offers a way to show love to people who need it. That's a very dry position statement. Let me tell you a story instead.
When I used to work in a petrol station, I was finishing a Christmas Day shift at 8pm and handing over to my workmate Mohammed. This year it also happened to be Ramadan at Christmas time, and Mohammed (an Indian national over here doing his MIT and working several jobs to make ends meet) had just finished a shift at another petrol station elsewhere in Sydney and travelled to this one on the Northern Beaches to do back-to-back shifts. Because it was daylight when he left his last shift, and night-time by the time he got to my servo, he hadn't eaten all day. And because he was a devout Muslim, even though it was now nightfall he couldn't eat anything in the store because it wasn't halal (I think he could have eaten some Cadburys, but that's hardly a meal). He was starving. I was getting off my shift, and so I offered to get him something to eat. He was very thankful, but told me it would have to be halal because that was his conviction.
I can tell you that at the time, having been a Christian for only a year or two and attending a quite conservative and biblically based church, I was in conniptions about what to do. Here was a guy who needed food, and surely I should be helping him out. But if I bought it for him I'd be supporting his religious views, which were not only different from my own, but I firmly believed were wrong and unnecessary. Of course, I drove to the nearest place that was open on Christmas Day night that had halal food and bought him some curry, and I got some too, and we ate together. I did it because I'd rather show someone that I love and care for them than hold them to a Christian lifestyle that they don't see a need to uphold; I'd rather not judge them for that failure to love Jesus as I do; I'd rather do for them what I would hope they would do for me. And when I say "I'd rather", I actually mean Jesus would rather me do that, and so that's what I did.
I don't think people should practice homosexuality for no other reason than I believe God doesn't want them to. God doesn't coerce people into following his ways, and so neither will I. People should do what God wants because they love God, and so people loving God is what I care about most. A loving relationship with God through Jesus Christ comes first; how you live your life after that is detail. Some people think that God does not put a ban on homosexuality, and they're also welcome to their religious opinions in this pluralistic society we live in. Furthermore, in my opinion (as someone who has studied politics, political philosophy and law, and also who has participated in the political sphere at a reasonable level), whilst legislation may provide some influence on cultural moral mores, it doesn't dictate or enforce morality. While many people may tie this particular issue to bigger issues, I think a focus on the actual issue at hand is more intellectually responsible as the perceived threats are not substantial. Again I will stress that other people may not have these opinions, and that is fine. But these are the opinions that impact on my decision-making.
There are a few other side things that line up for me too: for instance, while I can't be sure that this whole debate is causing young LGBTI+ people to commit suicide, if I think the chance of harm to people because of a No result is sufficiently proportional to the chance that conservative people will crack a sad if there's a Yes result (proportional because obviously people dying is a bit more important than people being sad), I'll fall on the side of people not killing themselves. Dead people can't be evangelised. I'm not so convinced by the possibility of the debate itself causing harm that I think the debate as a whole should be stifled and silenced altogether, however.
I will also admit that the ability to be able to say I voted Yes, whilst providing me with a position to express my love for the people around me who are deeply affected by this issue, would also put me in a position where I would avoid being labelled a bigot, a homophobe, an imbecile and so many other kinds of terrible names. And that brings me rather neatly to some of my problems with the Yes positions.
It might just be me, or it might be because many No arguments threaten ephemeral catastrophes that seem rather toothless when you don't agree with the arguments, but in my exposure to the various arguments that form both sides, while the No position has its jerks (that poster down in Melbourne of late is a good example... assuming it's real), the overall trend in their campaigns has been one of strong disapproval but not disrespect towards No voters (I can certainly understand how same sex couples themselves may feel victimised). The Yes campaigns, meanwhile, have been bloody awful. I'm not sure if it's because the Yes campaigners think they've got it in the bag, but as a swinging voter I can tell you that being told I'm a Nazi for even considering the opposite position is not exactly a vote winner. The perpetual pillorying is not good campaigning. Instead of fear-mongering it's shaming, and for a position whose argument is that they have been seriously injured by shaming, that's rather hypocritical. As I said earlier, I'm a fan of democracy, and the tactic that has been employed of seeking to shut down debate is to me untenable, and hiding behind the health and wellbeing of children in an attempt to do so is exactly the same kind of bad argument that's being made by No campaigns.
Furthermore, many of the arguments and slogans that the Yes campaigns put forward almost seem to invite ridicule and encourage flawed understandings. I received a handout from Rainbow Labor at the train station the other day, and it gave me three reasons to vote Yes: "1) Tony Abbott doesn't want you to, 2) Our weddings will be bloody fab, 3) All love is equal." How serious are you taking this thing? Do you want me to take it as seriously as that? Coming off as cocky winners before a vote's been held is pretty unAustralian, and I don't say that as a joke. Aussies don't like tall poppies, and are always more conservative at the ballot box than they are in any poll. Now, I get that there's a fair bit of marketing spin in this, and a desire to paint a picture of hip and fun. But the voting bloc you need to win in Australia is not youth, and for people like me who are really trying to decide what to do, a lack of serious says to me that if I don't take your position it doesn't matter.
What does "all love is equal" mean? What does "love is love" mean? Is my love for my wife the same as my love for my dog? Is my love for my parents the same as the love for my friends? Is my love for chilli the same as my love for God? I certainly don't think so, and I reckon you don't either. I know what the slogan means: that romantic and companionly love between people of the same gender should be seen as equal to that kind of love between heterosexuals. I don't have a problem with that, and I recognise that it doesn't fit on a bumper sticker. But in a context where one of the arguments against you is at worst a slippery slope argument (namely that those in favour of polyamory or more extremely not normative relationships like between adults and children will use this as a stepping stone) but at best a limitation of rights argument (polyamorous people should be given the right to marry more people, since at present they're the ones who face criminal charges if they try), it seems like a bad decision to promote a slogan that leaves you open to this kind of criticism by almost overtly suggesting that you are actually supporting some or all of these causes. If you actually are (and I imagine that polyamory is actually supported by at least some Yes campaigners), own it as much as you need to (which, given this vote isn't about that, isn't really that much, but it's not zero either if you are campaigning to further a bigger issue). Don't say, "It's not about that". If it's a bad argument, counter it. If it's not, then uh-oh.
Just as a kicker, I'm not a huge fan of how the Yes vote has garnered a significant amount of neo-capitalist support for the reason that it provides a good platform for supporting an ultra-individualist message that ultimately assists capitalism to ruin everything. This is not a "bad people support your side" argument (this has been done by both sides, and it's a stupid argument: I brush my teeth regardless of whether Hitler did); this is an "I don't agree with the ultra-individualism that forms part of your argument hence making it attractive to the bourgoisie" argument. But really that's probably just me. Most people love capitalism.
Again, there are plenty of terrible arguments for voting Yes (the ones that bother me most are the legal or rights-based arguments that are factually inaccurate). There probably isn't a great point in me going through and debunking them; they're bad arguments. They don't need my attention. The point is they aren't going to convince me to vote Yes.
So on the one hand I have a No campaign that is not very well argued and needs to draw a long bow to be reasonable, but can be defended and makes me feel like part of the team and while fervent is more respectful; on the other hand I have a Yes campaign that is more easily defended and aligns with far more of my broad beliefs about politics and law, but doesn't seem to take itself seriously, seeks to shut down debate and threatens to shame me if I don't agree with them loudly enough.
Enter the third option: don't vote at all. I saw some early support for this position coming from the now Yes camp, although it seems that it got shot down, and I can understand why. I strongly dislike this option, at least partly because I think public expression of opinion in politics is valuable to policy-making, but also probably partly because I'm Australian and compulsory voting feels right. And yet it says a lot that at the moment this is the position that holds my attention the most. There are some good reasons for this: the vote has become less and less legitimate (from compulsory to voluntary, from a plebiscite to a mail survey); the government has made no firm statement about how they will evaluate the response and no firm statement on what they will do in the case of a result (and may not be trustworthy even if they did); there is every possibility that whatever way I vote it is going to be counted in that blunt-instrument style I mentioned earlier towards some ideological position to which I do not subscribe; and it doesn't prevent me from entering the debate to put forward the stuff I think is important.
And then there are a number of arguments that, while not hugely strong on their own, do still have some appeal: I don't think this issue is so important that I need to be voting on it; it means I get to stop thinking about it; it's a cop-out vote that saves me from the pressure of both sides - while it's unlikely to make me any friends, it's unlikely to lose me any either; and it's possible that whatever anyone votes, if the Coalition does nothing Labor will simply pass legislation to this effect when they next gain power. (I wish I could say 'likely', but the ALP are a bit spineless these days. Why does Australian politics suck so hard? Oh, wait, it's because of us voters. Derp.) Toss in that it's the lazy option (I can literally do nothing and follow this position) and it looks kinda appealing.
The sad thing for me is that possibly the single biggest reason I'd vote Nothing (or even No) rather than Yes is because of Yes campaigning itself. I have absolutely no problem with people in the Yes camp expressing themselves however they want, but the result of their choice of expressions has meant that even though their position, reasonably presented, is the one I think makes the most sense, I might not vote that way because I'm just sick of being told I'm stupid, I'm worthless, my voice is not welcome, my vote (not just my opinion, my actual vote) is illegitimate, this issue has nothing to do with me, and that my Christian friends who may vote No are even worse.
I am a sinner, and sometimes I make decisions out of a desire for comfort, security, personal benefit or laziness. But I pray that I don't vote (or not vote) for selfish reasons, because to me love is about making sacrifices for other people's benefit, even if they don't deserve it. A little something Jesus taught me.
----
A few more words about legislating morality
After writing this, I found myself in a bit of a moral quandary regarding my position that governments should not legislate morality. I was listening to quite a good sermon on the need for us to invest in the lives of others, and the preacher said something like, "Often people ask, 'Why does God allow so many people to live in poverty?' Well, God tells us to care for the poor. I don't think the problem is that there isn't enough to go around. The problem is that we like to hoard our wealth." Damn right.
This is one of the key reasons that I feel we should have a socialist government that more equally distributes resources: life matters more than wealth. But if I'm asking the government to regulate people's wealth in order to essentially bypass or enforce their charitability because God wants us looking after the poor, how is that different to someone seeking to enforce a law preventing same sex couples from marrying because God doesn't like it?
I'm actually not 100% sure of an answer here, so I thought again I'd put words on electronic paper and see if it helped my train of thought. I will probably make absolutist statements, but of course all this stuff is just my opinion, and it doesn't mean that there aren't reasonable opinions to the contrary (I will, as usual, trash some less reasonable ones in my eyes). I'll also be taking a Christian perspective, since that's where I'm coming from.
I've read some articles that boil everything down to a "natural law" which we must follow. This argument generally comes from a verse like Romans 13:4-7. The problem is this verse isn't about being in power, it's about submitting to power (I do believe that this passage, along with others, sets out a broad deontological framework for punishment; Kant agrees with me here). We all know that governments don't always follow God's morality; rather, God uses governments as agents despite their imperfection (like Assyria or Babylon). Nations are as sinful as the people who live in them. One author talked about how we don't legislate our morality, or your morality, but the morality. That's pretty simply falsifiable; not necessarily because there is no the morality, but because no-one has the authority to point to it or articulate it besides God. God hasn't made it as clear as we might like on some issues, and there is even argument about how clear the boundaries between clarity and opacity are. At this point we're back at the need for the Peace of Westphalia.
I've read some articles that attempt to define morality in terms of a sort of personal adherence only, and say that Christians should seek to legislate freedom (giving people as much leeway to serve God as possible) and justice (protecting the weak from the evils of others when necessary). They use verses like John 8:1-11 to show that Jesus did not enforce morality on people, and Genesis 2:16-17 to show that God's creative order is not one of force but choice; and any of the hundreds of verses that talk about God's desire for justice (Deuteronomy 16:20 stands pretty well for me here).
These are pretty good points. One problem with this pattern of reasoning is it seems to lead in the literature to a libertarian mode of government: minimum government providing maximum freedom to its citizens. At least, that's where our western minds take it, because we're individualists. Christians (particularly American Christians) try to say that Christianity is the reason we have freedoms in the west. It's not; we can thank the Enlightenment project and its focus on individualism for that. Don't believe me? Just point me to where individual freedoms sprung up under European Catholic rule between 400AD and 1500AD. Human value? Absolutely. But human freedom? I'm not certain, but I'd certainly like to see the evidence.
Another problem is how we define justice. Justice is a pretty difficult eel to nail down. We can end up coming right back to the whole Peace of Westphalia thing in trying to come to a definition of what justice is, or whether something is or isn't just. The benefit of "justice" over "morality" is that I think you're at least more likely to come to a group definition of a principle or concept that defines a process than you are a list of proscribed or prescribed actions or activities.
All this would be easier if I just thought that individuals were the core currency of government. Then I could just say 'whatever is in the majority wins, and minorities just lump it'; then government just becomes a machine for determining and enforcing majority sentiment. Likewise, I guess if I just thought power was the most important thing, I'd be happy with the rich making all the decisions, and we could live in some sort of realpolitik aristocracy.
The thing is, in my opinion government isn't about individuals; it's the intersection between individual and community. God values both of those things; so should we. I should point out that when I say individual I mean something like "a single person or a group of persons who align by choice"; when I say communal I mean something like "a group of people aligned due to circumstance". A group of friends or a church are examples of a group of individuals held together ultimately through the choice of its individual members. A family or a nation-state are examples of a group of individuals held together by factors outside of their control, membership of which cannot be easily avoided. (It's not a perfect definition - adoption obviously brings someone into a family by choice; some can choose to leave family or change nationalities. But these things are not straightforward or even possible for many.) Community basically forces people to interact, and government and its laws are the grease that make those forced interactions work. (As an aside, when you think about the prevalence of organised marriage in the past, suddenly it makes a lot more sense why marriage is a government issue and why its relevance seems to slip a little in modern times in the west where marriages are far more by mutual consent.)
Moreover, government is about utilising power for the benefit of the community as a whole. That doesn't mean the fruits of that power need to be entirely egalitarian (I mean hey, bring it on), but I think God makes it clear that those in power should be looking out for the poor, the marginalised and the oppressed, and to the extent they aren't doing that they are not following him. This is probably one of the reasons democracy is so popular: it tries to balance the individual with the communal, and it leaves space for leadership to countermand majority opinion when that opinion is clearly not in the best interests of minorities. It's not perfect (nothing is), but at least it attempts to address these problems.
Ultra-individualist libertarianism is not better than some sort of theocratic totalitarianism (if anything, I'd lean towards the latter if I had to choose, depending on the leadership). Instead, it seems that freedom and justice need to be tempered by one another. This is not an either/or dichotomy; it is a spectrum upon which governments may move. The needs of society may at times require a shift in that spectrum in one direction or the other, and that is the work of leaders to decide. The distinction between a Christian seeking to legislate a specific set of moral acts and a Christian seeking to legislate a specific position on the broad spectrum of freedom and justice is kind of like the difference between act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism. I'm not advocating the consequentialist moral position that utilitarianism provides though - rather, I'm talking about a sort of act vs rule deontology. I don't know if that's a thing (pardon my philosophical ignorance on this point!) but it's a good enough comparison for me, so it's going to have to do.
So where does that leave us? It leaves us with a system where Christians living in a democracy get a say in what is legislated, but have to realise that their voice is not the only one that gets to be heard. However, it also leaves us with Christians who in their decision-making need to recognise that their opinions in political matters should not be made simply along personal moral guidelines, but in terms of what decisions are best for the smooth running of a pluralist community thrust together by circumstance. That's the moral thing to do, and at the end of the day, even if I think that Christians shouldn't legislate morality, I still believe they should legislate morally. The decisions made, whether as an MP, a lobbyist, or a voter, will be and should be made within a personal moral framework, and that framework must include the needs of all. In terms of big picture decisions (such as structure of government or even which political party should be in power) this is going to mean taking the good with the bad. There are no perfect choices this side of heaven, except the one to love God and believe in his son Jesus Christ.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)