Posts Tagged ‘law’

« Older Entries

Being good or being godly – Joseph takes Mary as wife

December 20, 2025

Advent 4 – 2025

Matthew 1:18-25

Marian Free

With Joseph and Mary, and all the prophets and saints, may we never fear responding to the call of God, no matter how difficult, or outrageous the call. Amen.

Some of you may remember that on Advent 1 I said that being a Christian is not about being good, but about being in relationship. At the time no one challenged me so I’m thinking that we are all on the same page – that we understand that following Christ is the centre of our faith and that goodness flows from that relationship not the other way around. Goodness on its own does not build ties of loyalty, develop a depth of spirituality, encourage submission to the Creator of the universe, or create an understanding that even though we can never be good enough, we are loved and treasured just as we are. 

My view is this: being good does not in itself distinguish a Christian from a non-Christian. Anyone can be good in the conventional sense – by not breaking laws of the state or of the church, by being kind and thoughtful to others and by observing cultural norms. However, I would claim that goodness and godliness are two different things and that godliness does not always equate with goodness – in fact just the opposite. There will be times when being godly (allowing our lives to reflect the presence of God) may require us to be anything but good in the conventional sense. In fact, godliness may demand only that we ignore the norms of the society in which we live, but that we challenge and even overthrow those norms. 

For proof of this view, we need look no further than the example of Jesus, but here in the Christmas narrative are the first signs that responding to and following God does not mean following the crowd. In both Matthew and Luke, the Jesus’ story has barely begun when already we are confronted by the fact that through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus God is turning everything upside down. It is no wonder that the ‘good’ people of the day failed to see what was happening and that God was acting in ways that they hadn’t begun to imagine. 

It would appear from the gospels that the leaders of the day had begun to confuse goodness with godliness, observance of rules with relationship. For example, the Pharisees believed that if only they could get the minute details of the law right, they would be put right with God. The priestly class on the other hand appear to have relied on getting the Temple rituals right as a means of getting close to God. Society as a whole seemed to believe that not rocking the boat would enable them to keep on the right side of the Roman oppressors would. 

To be fair – they might have been misguided but they did believe that they had to put themselves right with God and they did it the only way they knew how – obedience to law and proper observance of ritual. The problem was that though they hoped that God would send a Saviour, they believed that it was their actions that would lead God to act, thus demonstrating that they had totally missed the point. Observance of rituals and law were simply evidence that, at least subconsciously, they believed that their own efforts could force God’s hand– that they, not God, were responsible for their own salvation. 

At the heart of John the Baptist’s message is the refrain: “Repent for the Kingdom of God is near”. The Greek word “metanoia” does not mean “to be sorry”, but “to turn.” Both John, then Jesus are calling the people not to be good, but to turn their lives around, to turn towards God, to live lives that demonstrate a relationship with the living God. From the very beginning faith in Jesus was never about being good, but about being godly, about allowing the divine in us to have full reign – which has nothing to do with goodness as it is usually understood.

Take the story of Joseph – whose first reaction is to separate himself from the pregnant Mary. If we forget the sentimentality that presents Joseph as holy and righteous and selfless and take a look at some hard cold facts, we see a different story. 

Joseph is minding his own business when he learns that Mary – his betrothed – is pregnant. He does not know who the father is only that it is not him.  Can you imagine how that news must have hit him? He knows the baby cannot be his, he presumably wonders if he completely misjudged Mary and he almost certainly feels cuckolded. Did Mary tell him or does he know because of the gossip that is swirling around the village? No matter how he responds his reputation has already been ruined. He will have lost face in the eyes of community. Mary’s shame will not only be his shame but will reflect on his whole family. 

Joseph was within his rights to claim compensation, to expose the situation further – even demand the legal consequences – Mary should be stoned to death. He does none of these things but resolves to quietly free Mary of her obligations to him. This will not diminish the shame but will spare Mary the added consequences of her pregnancy. Already Joseph has shown a casual disregard for the law, but when the angel appears his actions become even more radical. In response to God’s call, Joseph ignores his obligations to his church, his community and his family. He agrees to marry Mary and to raise a child who is not his own one consequence of which will be that the child will inherit and Joseph’s line may come to an end. Not only that, his actions mean that he will lose face in the eyes of his community. 

It is easy to read this as a sentimental story about an honourable man protecting his fiancé, but in the cold, hard light of a first century day, Joseph is both defying the law by not allowing Mary to be stoned to death and breaking convention through his decision to marry her regardless of the shame. But, and here’s the point, Joseph is being obedient to God even though obedience to God means disobedience to religious law, cultural norms and familial obligations.

Joseph chooses fidelity to God over observance of human law; he chooses godliness over goodness, so should we no matter the cost or the shame. 

Tags:, , , , , , ,
Posted in Advent, Matthew | Comments Off on Being good or being godly – Joseph takes Mary as wife

Jesus and divorce

October 4, 2024

Pentecost 20 – 2024

Mark 10:2-16

Marian Free

In the name of God, Earth-maker, Pain-bearer, Life-giver. Amen.

“Till death us do part.” “What God has joined together let no one separate.” These daunting words from today’s gospel formed a part of the marriage vows until the revision of the Book of Common prayer in 1978, which means that those of my age and older will have made this promise (and heard this threat) at their wedding. Two of my close friends, both of whom found themselves in unhappy (and in one case violent) marriages, felt bound to stay in their marriages because of the  weighty commitment they had made before God.  

The Prayer Book that was approved in 1995 has softened the language somewhat, but the sentiment “as long as we both shall live” remains in the vows and the blessing over the couple retains the words: “What God has joined together let no one separate”. No matter what the circumstances, how unsatisfactory, how violent the marriage, the church, using the language of the gospels, adds an incredible burden to individuals who find themselves in what are impossible circumstances. 

Many of us will remember with some sorrow and regret a time in the church’s recent history when these phrases coupled with Jesus’ apparent prohibition against divorce meant that those whose marriages had ended in divorce were refused remarriage in the church. Some faithful, divorced people felt so ashamed, or so excluded by the church’s attitude that they stopped coming to church altogether. 

We now understand that there are many reasons why marriages end – domestic violence, coercive control, incompatibility, a growing apart, the loss of a child. All are a form of death – the death of trust, the death of a sense of self, the death of companionship, the death of communication. In the church (and in the wider community) we still hope that those who love each other enough to commit to marriage will be able to nurture and sustain that love, but now we also understand that that is not always possible. That marriages end for all kinds of reasons is understood and divorcees can remarry in church if that is their desire.

This still leaves us with Jesus’ response to the Pharisees in today’s gospel and our interpretation that Jesus is condemning both divorce and remarriage.

I suggest that centuries of misinterpretation, ignorance and cultural biases have led to a misrepresentation of what is happening here. Let me make a couple of points. Firstly, it is important to recognise that this is not Jesus’ teaching per se but is his response to a question – a question from the Pharisees that is designed to test him – to make him unpopular with the Romans, or with the Jews. It is even possible that this was a live issue at the time – after all John the Baptist lost his head for challenging the remarriage of Herodias. Secondly there are two parts to the discussion: Jesus’ debate with the Pharisees and Jesus’ response to a question from the disciples.

Jesus is no doubt exercising some caution with his answer, trying not to be too confrontational and toeing the party line. His listeners however would have heard the sting behind his seemingly benign words.  In Jesus’ time and culture, it was possible for a man to divorce a woman on almost any pretext putting her to shame and forcing her to depend on the family of her birth. A woman on the other hand had no such escape, no matter the provocation. Seen in this light, Jesus’ teaching is radical and gives women the security they might not otherwise have had– that is that they could not be summarily dismissed, forced to endure the shame of divorce or find themselves in a financially precarious situation. Jesus is doing what he is doing best – turning the law on its head to protect the vulnerable.

Interestingly, Jesus also makes his response personal. Whereas the Pharisees ask: “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” Jesus’ response is to turn the question on them: “What did Moses say to you?” This raises the question whether the Pharisees, with their obsession with the law, are the ones who are seeking to justify divorce. Certainly, this makes sense of Jesus’ comment: “Because of your hardness of heart” which could be directed at the Pharisees rather than the audience in general. Jesus reinforces his point by quoting from Genesis, the creation story – as Adam and Eve were once one body, so in marriage they become one flesh (Gen 2:24). It is Jesus adds the interpretation: ‘Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

The question of remarriage is raised by the disciples in a later discussion. This no doubt relates to Jesus’ reference to the law (Deut 24:1-4). The passage to which Jesus directs the Pharisees has more to do with remarriage than divorce and this is important with regard to the church’s teaching on remarriage. What is prohibited in not remarriage in general – otherwise a divorced woman would have no possibility of any sort of life if her husband had divorced her.  What is prohibited is remarriage in its true sense – remarriage to the original wife after she has married someone else.

Given the context of the original discussion and the Old Testament passages that are quoted, it is difficult to imagine that Jesus envisaged his words restricting and even harming generations so far removed from his own.

When we approach the New Testament, we have to remember a) that it is culturally based, b) that many laws have a use-by date and c) that Jesus was a lawbreaker. When Jesus could see that a law caused harm instead of protecting from harm, he was quite happy to break it – think healing on the Sabbath, not washing before meals, eating with tax collectors, prostitutes and sinners. Jesus responds to the question about divorce by redefining the law by which the Pharisees sought to live. That there came a time when in turn that “law” became harmful was surely not Jesus’ intention. 

I don’t imagine that for one minute that Jesus expected the church to condemn people to violent or loveless marriages for the sake of maintaining a harmful and outdated “law”, a comment that he offered in response to a question that was designed to trap him.

We do not live in a static world. In the last century women have made gains that could not have been envisaged in the first century. They are no longer dependent on men for social standing or financial support. Science has helped us understand much that Jesus’ contemporaries could not explain except through the supernatural. Psychology and sociology have thrown light on the behaviour of individuals and groups. What Jesus said and taught addressed a particular time and place. Our task is to investigate Jesus’ underlying principles of compassion, inclusion and his desire to act in ways that led to good not harm, so that we can understand what to keep and what to revise rather than slavishly holding “beliefs” that condemn others to lives of exclusion and pain.

Tags:, , , , , , ,
Posted in Mark's gospel | Comments Off on Jesus and divorce

You have heard it said, but I say

February 11, 2023

Epiphany 6 – 2023
Matthew 5:21-37
Marian Free

In the name of God, who sees not only our outward behaviours, but who also knows the state of our hearts. Amen.

“But let’s not fool ourselves; there is a place called hell. It’s the place we create for each other every time we choose an easy and austere legalism over an arduous and radical love.”

As I prepared for this week’s sermon, I was particularly taken by this quote from Debie Thomas’s reflection on today’s passage. Jesus’ teaching and, in particular the way in which Matthew records Jesus’ teaching, has all too often led to a narrow, legalistic and therefore harsh, judgemental and condemnatory understanding of Jesus’ teaching and therefore of God.

A first look at the so-called anti-theses of the Sermon on the Mount would certainly seem to suggest that Jesus is presenting a stricter, tighter view of the law than the contemporary interpretation of it. Six times he says: “I have heard it said, but I say to you.” “You have heard it said: ‘Do not murder,’ but I say to you whoever calls their brother ‘fool’ is liable to the hell of fire.” “You have heard it said: ‘you shall not commit adultery’, but I say to you: ‘whoever looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery in with her in his heart.’” When one considers that Jesus has introduced these verses by saying that he had not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it, it is possible to mistakenly believe that Jesus’ purpose was to ensure strict adherence to the letter of the law, and to refine the definition of certain laws so that there might be no mistaking what it meant to break the law.

A closer reading of the text (and the gospel as a whole) reveals that Jesus’ intention is just the opposite – that instead of imposing “an easy and austere legalism” he is preaching “an arduous and radical love”. Jesus is not, as it might first appear, insisting that his followers be more righteous than the scribes and the Pharisees. Instead, he is using exaggeration to expose the absurdity of a strict legalistic point of view. Jesus makes it clear that while it is relatively easy to obey the letter of the law, it is almost impossible to truly honour the intention of the law – which is a relationship with God and with each other that is free from pettiness, competition, hatred, selfishness, and all other emotions that come between us. Indirectly then, Jesus is making it clear to the self-righteous, law-abiding citizens of Israel, that it is not the letter of the law, but the spirit of the law that is important. In other words, a superficial observance of the law will not change the heart, nor will it restore broken relationships, demonstrate compassion, show forgiveness or indicate understanding instead, it will lead to judgmentalism and self-righteousness or to self-loathing, fear, and anxiety.

That Jesus is using hyperbole is evident in the phrase with which this section of the Sermon on the Mount concludes: “Be perfect therefore as your heavenly Father is perfect.” Jesus’ listeners would have understood that no one could achieve perfection, let alone compare themselves with God. This would have put all that preceded these words into perspective. They would have realised that if no one can be perfect and in true humility have lowered their expectations of themselves and others – making them less judgemental and more tolerant and forgiving.

That Jesus is critiquing the outward observance of law is evidenced in the next section of the Sermon (which will be read on Ash Wednesday) in which Jesus warns against “practicing piety before others in order to be seen by them” (6:1). That Jesus’ interpretation is expansive rather than restrictive and that he is speaking of “radical love not narrow legalism” is demonstrated through a thorough investigation of this whole argument – not simply of the three anti-theses that we are asked to read today.

There are six anti-theses in all. In each Jesus expands the contemporary interpretation of the law – emphasising generosity of spirit over hardness of heart. If the first four can be misread as Jesus’ tightening legal restrictions, the last two certainly cannot and it is in the light of these (and in what follows), that we must interpret them all. “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. But I say to you Do not resist an evil doer. If anyone forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile” (5:38-42). “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbour and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, ‘Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you’” (5:43-47).

Jesus begins with the 6th commandment: “You shall not murder.” Then, as now, there would have been people who congratulated themselves for keeping the 10 commandments and thought that thereby they had fulfilled the requirements of the law. They would have congratulated themselves because they were not murderers or adulterers, not thinking to ask if at the same time they despised or demeaned other people, or whether they objectified or depersonalised women – faults that are not so blatant to be sure, but which are equally damaging.

It is people such as these whom Jesus is calling to task. He is exposing the fact that keeping the letter of the law is relatively easy, but that we can’t congratulate ourselves for not being murderers when our hearts are filled with hatred or contempt for our fellow human beings. Jesus’ anti-theses are not intended to create a new legalism or to weigh his listeners down with impossible demands. Rather by using hyperbole to make his point, Jesus’ anti-theses shine a light on a narrow interpretation of the law which is limited and limiting, controlling, and damaging –to the perpetrator as well as to the target.

Jesus exposes the limitations of an interpretation of the law which allows people (who have adopted and “easy and austere legalism”) to believe that they have fulfilled the law’s requirements, and which gives them permission to overlook their shortcomings.

Through six ante-theses, Jesus enlarges the understanding of the law, reminding us that perfection is almost certainly beyond our reach. In so doing Jesus saves us from self-reliance, self-satisfaction and pride – which are the real sins that separate each other from God.

“But let’s not fool ourselves; there is a place called hell. It’s the place we create for each other every time we choose an easy and austere legalism over an arduous and radical love.”

Tags:, , , , , , , ,
Posted in Matthew | Comments Off on You have heard it said, but I say

The law stands, but its interpretation may not

February 4, 2023

Epiphany 5 – 2023
Matthew 5:13-20
Marian Free

In the name of God, source of all being, word of life and abiding spirit. Amen.

If Jesus had been one of the theological students in the Parish, and you had to write a sermon review on the Sermon on the Mount, what might you have said? If it were me I might have commented that while some of the material was helpful, the sermon was too long, that it consisted of a series of apparently unconnected sayings and that it would have been useful if the sermon had a theme which the preacher introduced, explained and concluded.

The current Pope has had a lot to say about preaching, including his recent off-the cuff comment that homilies at Catholic churches were a “disaster”. He suggested that every sermon be no longer than 8-10 minutes and that they include “a thought, a feeling and an image.” According to these criteria, the Sermon on the Mount does not come up to standard. (It is too long for starters.)

Indeed, if one was to believe that the gospels were real-time accounts of Jesus’ teaching, one would have to imagine Jesus – as one movie of his life depicts him – wandering through Palestine, spouting apparently unconnected lists of sayings. Take chapter 6 for example, “Do not store up treasures on earth, the eye is the lamp of the body, no one can serve two masters, do not worry about tomorrow” and so on. It is difficult to see in what way these sayings are related and to understand why Jesus would simply utter them one after the other without providing any explanation.

In reality, Jesus almost certainly did not speak like this and what we now call the “Sermon on the Mount” was probably no such thing. It is unlikely that Jesus, who appears to have been an excellent teacher, would have thought that making a list of apparently unconnected pronouncements – to a large crowd, from a sitting position – was good pedagogical practice. A more likely scenario (as I have suggested in the Parish Notes) is, that after his death, Jesus’ followers repeated his sayings to each other and to new believers and that over time these sayings were gathered together. Then, when Matthew and Luke wrote their accounts of Jesus, they accessed this material and used it according to their particular narrative purpose.

In the case Matthew, the author has organised Jesus’ sayings into five distinct groups – broadly speaking, the law, mission, parables of the kingdom, instructions for community living and judgement. These so-called discourses are separated by narratives about Jesus’ life, his journeys and healings. Of the discourses, the first and longest collection of sayings – three chapters in all – is centred around a discussion of the law and Jesus’ declaration – found only in Matthew’s gospel that he is the fulfilment of the law.

A closer inspection of Matthew’s “Sermon” reveals that, though the sayings don’t seem to fit one particular theme, there are connections that link groups of sayings together. For example, the Beatitudes lead easily into the sayings about salt and light, the saying about the fulfillment of the law introduces the following section in which Jesus evaluates or refocuses the law. In turn the section on the law concludes with a statement about being perfect which leads into a number of statements about how to interpret the idea of perfection.

The beatitudes, with which the sermon begins are statements of fact, a description of the present situation. “Blessed are the poor, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” “Blessed are the merciful, for they will receive mercy.” A consequence of knowing oneself blessed, is that one becomes a blessing for others – for example, the poor become the merciful and so on. In this way, those who are already blessed become a blessing to those around them. The next few verses – about salt and light reinforce this idea.

Both salt and light exist to be useful – to enhance taste and to enable sight in the darkness. For salt to be flavourless or for light to be hidden would be a nonsense – even an impossibility. Jesus is using exaggeration to make his point here, both ideas are utter foolishness. Salt does not lose its flavour and light that is hidden under something goes out (is no longer light). Jesus is commenting (as he does in the beatitudes) on the current state of affairs telling the listeners – “you are salt of the earth”, “you are light of the world.” In other words, as followers of me (Jesus), you cannot help but be light and salt in the world – unless that is, you do something foolish and unthinkable.

Our final verses do not really belong with the blessings and the responsibilities of those who are blessed but rather introduce the next section of sayings in which Jesus corrects some misinterpretations of the law. In case anyone thinks otherwise, Jesus is adamant that while he might critique the law or rather the interpretation of the law, he is not in the business of overthrowing the law – just the opposite. Jesus needs to re-frame the current understanding of the law so that it becomes clear to the world, that he is the fulfillment, the end point, the goal of the law. Jesus’ life and action demonstrates the way in which the law is to be understood as the covenant relationship between God and God’s people.

Through the sayings collected in the Sermon on the Mount, the author of Matthew, makes it clear that the contemporary understanding of the law is flawed at best and misguided at worst. In order to put things right, Jesus has to turn everything upside down – the poor (not the rich) are blessed, those who grieve (not those who are happy) are blessed, storing up treasures on earth does not lead to happiness and so on. Jesus does not abolish the law but restores it to its true meaning and purpose.

The Sermon on the Mount is not a sermon, but its individual parts come together to make a coherent whole that the law stands forever, but that human interpretation of the law, was and probably always will be flawed and inadequate.

Epiphany 5 – 2023

Matthew 5:13-20

Marian Free

In the name of God, source of all being, word of life and abiding spirit. Amen.

If Jesus had been one of the theological students in the Parish, and you had to write a sermon review on the Sermon on the Mount, what might you have said? If it were me I might have commented that while some of the material was helpful, the sermon was too long, that it consisted of a series of apparently unconnected sayings and that it would have been useful if the sermon had a theme which the preacher introduced, explained and concluded.

The current Pope has had a lot to say about preaching, including his recent off-the cuff comment that homilies at Catholic churches were a “disaster”. He suggested that every sermon be no longer than 8-10 minutes and that they include “a thought, a feeling and an image.”  According to these criteria, the Sermon on the Mount does not come up to standard. (It is too long for starters.)

Indeed, if one was to believe that the gospels were real-time accounts of Jesus’ teaching, one would have to imagine Jesus – as one movie of his life depicts him – wandering through Palestine, spouting apparently unconnected lists of sayings. Take chapter 6 for example, “Do not store up treasures on earth, the eye is the lamp of the body, no one can serve two masters, do not worry about tomorrow” and so on. It is difficult to see in what way these sayings are related and to understand why Jesus would simply utter them one after the other without providing any explanation.

In reality, Jesus almost certainly did not speak like this and what we now call the “Sermon on the Mount” was probably no such thing. It is unlikely that Jesus, who appears to have been an excellent teacher, would have thought that making a list of apparently unconnected pronouncements – to a large crowd, from a sitting position – was good pedagogical practice. A more likely scenario (as I have suggested in the Parish Notes) is, that after his death, Jesus’ followers repeated his sayings to each other and to new believers and that over time these sayings were gathered together.[1] Then, when Matthew and Luke wrote their accounts of Jesus, they accessed this material and used it according to their particular narrative purpose.

In the case Matthew, the author has organised Jesus’ sayings into five distinct groups – broadly speaking, the law, mission, parables of the kingdom, instructions for community living and judgement.  These so-called discourses are separated by narratives about Jesus’ life, his journeys and healings.  Of the discourses, the first and longest collection of sayings – three chapters in all – is centred around a discussion of the law and Jesus’ declaration – found only in Matthew’s gospel that he is the fulfilment of the law.

A closer inspection of Matthew’s “Sermon” reveals that, though the sayings don’t seem to fit one particular theme, there are connections that link groups of sayings together. For example, the Beatitudes lead easily into the sayings about salt and light, the saying about the fulfillment of the law introduces the following section in which Jesus evaluates or refocuses the law. In turn the section on the law concludes with a statement about being perfect which leads into a number of statements about how to interpret the idea of perfection.

The beatitudes, with which the sermon begins are statements of fact, a description of the present situation. “Blessed are the poor, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” “Blessed are the merciful, for they will receive mercy.” A consequence of knowing oneself blessed, is that one becomes a blessing for others – for example, the poor become the merciful and so on. In this way, those who are already blessed become a blessing to those around them. The next few verses – about salt and light reinforce this idea.

Both salt and light exist to be useful – to enhance taste and to enable sight in the darkness. For salt to be flavourless or for light to be hidden would be a nonsense – even an impossibility. Jesus is using exaggeration to make his point here, both ideas are utter foolishness. Salt does not lose its flavour and light that is hidden under something goes out (is no longer light). Jesus is commenting (as he does in the beatitudes) on the current state of affairs telling the listeners – “you are salt of the earth”, “you are light of the world.” In other words, as followers of me (Jesus), you cannot help but be light and salt in the world – unless that is, you do something foolish and unthinkable.

Our final verses do not really belong with the blessings and the responsibilities of those who are blessed but rather introduce the next section of sayings in which Jesus corrects some misinterpretations of the law. In case anyone thinks otherwise, Jesus is adamant that while he might critique the law or rather the interpretation of the law, he is not in the business of overthrowing the law – just the opposite. Jesus needs to re-frame the current understanding of the law so that it becomes clear to the world, that he is the fulfillment, the end point, the goal of the law. Jesus’ life and action demonstrates the way in which the law is to be understood as the covenant relationship between God and God’s people.

Through the sayings collected in the Sermon on the Mount, the author of Matthew, makes it clear that the contemporary understanding of the law is flawed at best and misguided at worst. In order to put things right, Jesus has to turn everything upside down – the poor (not the rich) are blessed, those who grieve (not those who are happy) are blessed, storing up treasures on earth does not lead to happiness and so on. Jesus does not abolish the law but restores it to its true meaning and purpose.

The Sermon on the Mount is not a sermon, but its individual parts come together to make a coherent whole that the law stands forever, but that human interpretation of the law, was and probably always will be flawed and inadequate.

Epiphany 5 – 2023

Matthew 5:13-20

Marian Free

In the name of God, source of all being, word of life and abiding spirit. Amen.

If Jesus had been one of the theological students in the Parish, and you had to write a sermon review on the Sermon on the Mount, what might you have said? If it were me I might have commented that while some of the material was helpful, the sermon was too long, that it consisted of a series of apparently unconnected sayings and that it would have been useful if the sermon had a theme which the preacher introduced, explained and concluded.

The current Pope has had a lot to say about preaching, including his recent off-the cuff comment that homilies at Catholic churches were a “disaster”. He suggested that every sermon be no longer than 8-10 minutes and that they include “a thought, a feeling and an image.”  According to these criteria, the Sermon on the Mount does not come up to standard. (It is too long for starters.)

Indeed, if one was to believe that the gospels were real-time accounts of Jesus’ teaching, one would have to imagine Jesus – as one movie of his life depicts him – wandering through Palestine, spouting apparently unconnected lists of sayings. Take chapter 6 for example, “Do not store up treasures on earth, the eye is the lamp of the body, no one can serve two masters, do not worry about tomorrow” and so on. It is difficult to see in what way these sayings are related and to understand why Jesus would simply utter them one after the other without providing any explanation.

In reality, Jesus almost certainly did not speak like this and what we now call the “Sermon on the Mount” was probably no such thing. It is unlikely that Jesus, who appears to have been an excellent teacher, would have thought that making a list of apparently unconnected pronouncements – to a large crowd, from a sitting position – was good pedagogical practice. A more likely scenario (as I have suggested in the Parish Notes) is, that after his death, Jesus’ followers repeated his sayings to each other and to new believers and that over time these sayings were gathered together.[1] Then, when Matthew and Luke wrote their accounts of Jesus, they accessed this material and used it according to their particular narrative purpose.

In the case Matthew, the author has organised Jesus’ sayings into five distinct groups – broadly speaking, the law, mission, parables of the kingdom, instructions for community living and judgement.  These so-called discourses are separated by narratives about Jesus’ life, his journeys and healings.  Of the discourses, the first and longest collection of sayings – three chapters in all – is centred around a discussion of the law and Jesus’ declaration – found only in Matthew’s gospel that he is the fulfilment of the law.

A closer inspection of Matthew’s “Sermon” reveals that, though the sayings don’t seem to fit one particular theme, there are connections that link groups of sayings together. For example, the Beatitudes lead easily into the sayings about salt and light, the saying about the fulfillment of the law introduces the following section in which Jesus evaluates or refocuses the law. In turn the section on the law concludes with a statement about being perfect which leads into a number of statements about how to interpret the idea of perfection.

The beatitudes, with which the sermon begins are statements of fact, a description of the present situation. “Blessed are the poor, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” “Blessed are the merciful, for they will receive mercy.” A consequence of knowing oneself blessed, is that one becomes a blessing for others – for example, the poor become the merciful and so on. In this way, those who are already blessed become a blessing to those around them. The next few verses – about salt and light reinforce this idea.

Both salt and light exist to be useful – to enhance taste and to enable sight in the darkness. For salt to be flavourless or for light to be hidden would be a nonsense – even an impossibility. Jesus is using exaggeration to make his point here, both ideas are utter foolishness. Salt does not lose its flavour and light that is hidden under something goes out (is no longer light). Jesus is commenting (as he does in the beatitudes) on the current state of affairs telling the listeners – “you are salt of the earth”, “you are light of the world.” In other words, as followers of me (Jesus), you cannot help but be light and salt in the world – unless that is, you do something foolish and unthinkable.

Our final verses do not really belong with the blessings and the responsibilities of those who are blessed but rather introduce the next section of sayings in which Jesus corrects some misinterpretations of the law. In case anyone thinks otherwise, Jesus is adamant that while he might critique the law or rather the interpretation of the law, he is not in the business of overthrowing the law – just the opposite. Jesus needs to re-frame the current understanding of the law so that it becomes clear to the world, that he is the fulfillment, the end point, the goal of the law. Jesus’ life and action demonstrates the way in which the law is to be understood as the covenant relationship between God and God’s people.

Through the sayings collected in the Sermon on the Mount, the author of Matthew, makes it clear that the contemporary understanding of the law is flawed at best and misguided at worst. In order to put things right, Jesus has to turn everything upside down – the poor (not the rich) are blessed, those who grieve (not those who are happy) are blessed, storing up treasures on earth does not lead to happiness and so on. Jesus does not abolish the law but restores it to its true meaning and purpose.

The Sermon on the Mount is not a sermon, but its individual parts come together to make a coherent whole that the law stands forever, but that human interpretation of the law, was and probably always will be flawed and inadequate.

=[1] Scholars have called this material Q (from Quelle meaning Source) however there is no evidence that this was ever a written document.

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Matthew | Comments Off on The law stands, but its interpretation may not

How many laws?

October 24, 2020

Pentecost 21 – 2020

Matthew 22:34-46

Marian Free

In the name of God who created us and loves us for who we are. Amen.

In the midst of the pre-election debates in the United States, the shocking rise of COVID cases (and deaths) throughout the world, the conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia and other equally disturbing and gripping news, it would have been easy to miss a most extraordinary and startling statement made by Pope Francis in a documentary “Francesco” released this week. He said, “Homosexual people have a right to be in a family. They are children of God. Nobody should be thrown out or be made miserable over it.” This appears to be a radical departure from the current position of the Catholic Church with regard to homosexuality.  For Francis, though his position is not new. When he was still the Archbishop of Buenos Aires Francis, who opposed legislation in support of same sex marriage did argue for legal protection for gay couples. In 2013, on a flight from Brazil to Rome Francis remarked to the journalists who had covered his trip: “If someone is gay and seeks the Lord’s will, who am I to judge?”[1]

The Pope’s statements, especially in with regard to the right for homosexual people to be in a family, recognises God’s love for all humankind and also the need that every human being has to be loved.

In today’s gospel, Jesus’ debate with the leaders in Jerusalem is coming to an end. His opponents have failed to trick him with their questions about authority, resurrection and taxes. In a last-ditch effort to expose him, a lawyer, one of the Pharisees asks a question about the law. The Pharisees were experts with regard to the law. Believing that the Temple – its priests and its sacrifices – were corrupt, Pharisees had built an alternative way of serving God – adherence to the law. A thorough search of the Torah had revealed not 10 commandments but 613! They could comfortably assume that Jesus, who was not one of them, would not be able to answer correctly. 

This you will remember was not a friendly debate, but a battle to influence the hearts and minds of the people. The Jerusalem leaders were fighting for their position and their dignity, yet once again, they have underestimated Jesus’ wisdom and ability. He was not, as they had imagined, a country bumpkin with no knowledge of the scripture or of its interpretation. He has already demonstrated that he is not so easily caught out. While we have no idea how Jesus gained his education it is clear that directly, or indirectly he has absorbed both the arguments and the debating techniques of his opponents. 

In this instance, Jesus’ response is not original. Broadly speaking the Ten Commandments cover two main areas – first, the love of God and the relationship between the Israelites and God and second the ways in which people should relate to their fellow human beings. The first half of Jesus’ answer comes directly from Deuteronomy 6:5 and the injunction to love one’s neighbour is taken from Leviticus 19:19. It was common to sum up the law as love of God and love of neighbour. These, as Jesus claims, are the foundation of all the other commandments – whether it be the Ten given to Moses or the 613 discovered by the Pharisees. A person who loves God with their whole being cannot help but be in the right relationship with God and someone who loves their neighbour as themselves will never cause or wish them harm. All the other commandments are simply an expansion of these two. 

Jesus has dispensed with 611 commandments and replaced them with two that have love at their heart. 

If only it were that easy! We all know that loving all God’s children freely and graciously does not come easily. It is hard to love those who have caused us offense, or those whose lifestyle and culture is vastly different from our own. It is difficult to love those who do not love us back. Further, love is vague and ill-defined. If only it were spelled out – with 613 smaller rules, then we could be sure to get it right. 

The problem is, as Jesus continually points out, rules of any kind limit and place conditions on love. Commandments on their own free us to judge and exclude others. They allow us to mete out and to drip feed love while at the same time giving us a standard against which to measure ourselves. It is easy to keep the commandment: “Do not commit murder;” but it is much harder to avoid the mean-spirited, judgemental behaviour that causes a person (or group of people) to die inside over and over again. It is relatively easy to keep the command not to commit adultery, but less easy to maintain a relationship which is constantly meeting the ideals of love that are enumerated in 1 Corinthians 13. It is easy, as the Pharisees demonstrate, to keep the letter of the law. It is much more difficult to keep the Spirit of the law.

Love is at the heart of Jesus’ ministry. Jesus’ love for God was revealed in his complete trust in God – no matter how unpromising his circumstances and Jesus loved without condition and with no thought for himself. Jesus loved the good and the bad, the in-crowd and the out-crowd, the law-keepers and the lawbreakers. Jesus loved to the point of death – having made no demands on those for whom he died. He loved freely and with wild abandon and gave everything as a consequence of that love. 

There are only two commandments of any consequence – love God and love your neighbour. If only we can rid ourselves of all the other laws (written and unwritten) which bind and constrict us, then we can begin the terrifying work of learning what it really is to love.

[1] Reported on the ABC news site, this week (18-25th October).

Tags:, , ,
Posted in Matthew | Comments Off on How many laws?

No wriggle room

July 13, 2019

…

Pentecost 5 – 2019

Luke 10:25-37 (some thoughts)

Marian Free

In the name of God who asks that we be bound by the spirit of the law, not the letter of the law. Amen.

When it comes to paying taxes there are both individuals and corporations who will do everything possible to minimize the amount that they pay. We are informed that billion dollar companies and the extremely wealthy find so many loop holes in the tax laws that they are able to avoid paying the amount of tax that their incomes would seem to suggest. Both individuals and companies are able find ways to reduce their incomes (at least on paper) or to funnel their income into off-shore accounts making it possible to be taxed on figure much lower than their actual incomes. While the very rich pay very little tax, few people on low incomes have the resources to recoup any of their expenditure. It is not that those on high incomes are breaking the law, it is that they know how to use the law to their advantage. By keeping within the limits of the law they ensure that their vast incomes benefit only themselves and they deny the community at large the infrastructure, welfare and other programmes that taxes are levied to support.

There are all kinds of examples of people who use the law to their own advantage or who interpret the ‘letter of the law’ in such a way that they go so far and no further. For example an employer who scrupulously pays award wages but who subtly makes unreasonable demands of his or her employees that are difficult to quantify and harder to challenge. Or the politician who makes extravagant use of their parliaments allowances but always ensures that such use fits (if only narrowly) within the criterion laid down for such claims. Such persons often allow themselves to feel a certain smugness and self righteousness, after all they are doing nothing more or nothing less than the law allows.

I wonder about the lawyer in today’s gospel. It is clear that he knows the law, but he seems to want to know if there is any wriggle room, any way he can limit the effect of the law on his life. Surely, he seems to be thinking, there must be boundaries on neighborliness, definitions that restrict the people whom one is required to love, or criteria for determining who must be loved and who can be refused that love. Just as the modern day tax laws spell out the exact conditions under which a person must pay tax and the specific consequences of failing to observe the tax law, so the lawyer is hoping that Jesus can provide him with the legislative detail that will enable him to find the loopholes that will narrow down the number of people whom he must love ‘as he loves himself’. He seems to be looking for a way in which he can observe the minimum requirements of the law, a way which will cause him the least inconvenience and yet guarantee him the same return – eternal life.

Jesus’ response is to challenge the lawyer’s view of the law. The parable of the Good Samaritan does not answer the lawyer’s question. It does not tell the lawyer what he wants to know, nor does it refine the definition of neighbour (except indirectly). Instead, it tells the lawyer how a good neighbour should behave and it confronts stereotypes relating to goodness (‘Jews are good and Samaritans are bad’). The parable does not provide a direct answer to the lawyer’s question, but it does expose the limitations of the law, the law’s inability to cover every circumstance relating to neighbourliness and the dangers of trying to protect oneself by observing the letter of the law rather than trying to come to grips with the spirit of the law.

As Paul points out in the letter to the Galatians (5:23) it is impossible to create laws to govern love, joy, peace, patience and so on.

In the end our relationship with God informs and directs our relationships with one another. Our love for God and our understanding of God’s love for us gives us the tools to determine how to interpret the law (secular and religious). Guided by God’s expansiveness and generosity of spirit, God’s compassion and tolerance and God’s inclusive and all-embracing love we come to understand that keeping the letter of the law might be to our benefit but that it will not benefit anyone else, it might protect us from harm, but it will limit and stunt our growth and that it will keep us inward-looking rather than outward looking. Love of God and love of neighbor cannot be nearly categorized and defined, but must be informed by God’s intention that lies behind the law.

The lawyer’s question does not evidence a desire to know, but a desire to justify his own selfishness and an unwillingness to be put out. Jesus will not indulge him by giving him the easy way out. Neither will Jesus indulge us. There are no simple solutions, no quick fixes and certainly no wriggle room. If we are to inherit eternal life, we must give our all and cede our all so that the law of God (whatever that may be) may be worked out in our lives and in our actions.

Tags:, ,
Posted in "Good Samaritan", Luke's gospel | Comments Off on No wriggle room

Breaking the law/keeping the law

March 3, 2018

Lent 3 – 2018

Exodus 20, John 2:13-22, (Mark 11:15-18 )

Marian Free

In the name of God to whose greater wisdom, we must always defer. Amen.

Adrian Plass tells the story of a church that had decided to imitate the Salvation Army and go to the pub to meet local people. Hearing this Beth, an older member of the congregation, drew herself up in her chair and stated categorically: “I would never do that!” Plass looked at her at said: “Suppose that Jesus were to come through that door right now – today – and say: ‘Beth, I want you to come down to the King’s Head with me.’ would you go?” “I would not,” she responded. “But, Beth”, he persisted, “we’re talking about Jesus, the son of God, asking you personally if you would go with him. Would you not go?” “I have never set foot in a public house in my life, and I’m not about to start now,” she stated adamantly. “But if Jesus himself asked – “ “It’s a good witness,” interrupted Beth, “alcohol has never passed my lips and it never will.” “Okay”, Plass said, “Jesus doesn’t want you to actually drink anything intoxicating, he just wants you with him in the King’s Head and – “ Beth shook her head firmly: “No!” Plass continued, “Jesus, God himself, the creator of everything, the reason why we’re all here today – he comes in and he says, ‘Beth, I really need you to come to the pub with me today, so please, please make an exception, just for me.’ Would you go with him?” A tiny crack of uncertainty began to appear. “I suppose”, Beth said, “if he really did have a really, really good reason for asking, I might go.”[1]

Rules make everything clear do they not? They allow us to believe that there is right and there is wrong. As long as we do what is right we are OK. More than that, as long as we don’t break the rules we can feel safe. Beth thought she knew right from wrong, but the rules on which she based her life prevented her from seeing that there were other ways of viewing the world and her faith.

There are a number of problems with believing that rules are fixed and immutable for all time. One is the presumption that it is possible legislate for all the things that really make us better people, a better society. In the letter to the Galatians Paul reminds us that there are no laws that can compel us to love, to be gentle, patient and kind. Such things come from inside a person and cannot be enforced by regulation. A second problem is this – it is simply impossible to draw up legislation to cover every possible eventuality. A man may pride himself on not being a murderer but by his actions and words may behave in ways that are soul-destroying for those around him. A woman may feel self-satisfied because she has never committed adultery but at the same time her words and actions may indicate that she has withdrawn her love from her husband. A third issue, as our common law illustrates, is that there are sometimes mitigating circumstances that lead a person to break the law. So for example, our law distinguishes between murder and manslaughter and accepts that years of abuse may drive a woman to the brink.

The money changers and stall holders in the Temple were doing nothing wrong – just the opposite. The Temple, unlike the church, was not a place in which liturgy was celebrated. Rather, it was primarily the place to which people came to make their offerings (as required by the law) to God. Without money changers and traders it would have been impossible for the Temple to operate as it was intended[2].

If the practice of exchanging money and the selling animals was necessary to the functioning of the Temple, how can we explain Jesus’ actions? The Old Testament quotes suggest that Jesus was not concerned that people were breaking the law. His actions were intended to be symbolic and prophetic, he was not quibbling about details; he was demonstrating that the whole system needed to be replaced.

Today we have heard the account as told by John. Interestingly Mark (and therefore Matthew and Luke) tells the story very differently. According to Mark, Jesus’ actions in the Temple occur in the very last week of his life, at the end of his ministry. The controversy that has dogged Jesus throughout his ministry has come to a head when he enters Jerusalem. It is in the Temple that his final confrontations with the authorities occur and it is here that they determine to kill him. When Jesus drives the people out of the Temple he combines quotes from Isaiah (56:7) and Jeremiah (7:11): “Is it not written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations’? But you have made it a den of robbers.” Mark’s listeners would have heard behind these two quotes their original context. Isaiah is imagining the coming of the kingdom as a time when all peoples will flock to Jerusalem. Jeremiah is criticizing the people of Israel who had placed their trust in the superficial, outward signs of faith rather than in inward change and commitment to God. Marks’ readers would have recognised that Jesus was dramatically illustrating what he had been preaching from the beginning of his ministry: “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come near; repent, and believe in the good news.”

Unlike Mark, John places the story at the very beginning of his gospel. Mark highlights Jesus’ preaching. John’s purpose is to illustrate the ways in which Jesus replaces the traditions and practices of Judaism. That is, ‘Jesus’ life, death and resurrection definitively fulfill the meanings of Temple, feasts and Torah’[3]. By driving the money changers and traders out of the Temple, Jesus is making the point that in him the sacrificial system has come to an end, there is no more need for the Temple and its practices because ‘his own self-offering will permanently fulfill the purpose of Temple sacrifice’[4]. In John, Jesus quotes from Zechariah (14:20-21). “Stop making my Father’s house a market place”. He is claiming an intimate relationship with God and, in effect, asserting that the Temple is his house, his body (a claim that is substantiated in the latter part of the reading). The Temple and its practices are no longer necessary, because it is in and through Jesus that the faith will move into the future.

After his death, Jesus’ disciples recall these words and connect them with Psalm 69:9 that also speaks of “my Father’s house”. “Zeal for my Father’s house will consume me.” Retrospectively they understand that this quote is prophetic in two ways – Jesus’ zeal for change led to his crucifixion and it was the authority’s zeal for the present practices and structures that led them to plot Jesus’ death.

Both Mark and John present a Jesus who recognises that the old ways have out-lived their usefulness and who, in the Temple dramatically illustrates the end of the old and the beginning of the new. We can be like Beth, firmly grounded in a rigid an unchanging law, or we can allow Jesus’ words and actions to continue to challenge our present circumstances. Jesus challenges us to see beyond the law to God who gave the law; to rely on God and God’s goodness rather than on a set of prescriptions; to grasp that it is impossible for any number of laws to make us perfect; and to place Jesus (not a set of regulations) between us and God because in Jesus all the barriers have been broken-down and we can relate to God as if face-to-face.

 

 

[1] Cabbages and Kings. Adrian Plass.

[2] The law stipulated that offerings had to be made for specific events and occasions such as when a male child was born or when the crops were harvested. Then there was the question of the Temple Tax. Roman coins carried the image of the Emperor with the designation ‘Son of God’. Even to carry such a coin was considered idolatrous, and using it to pay the Temple tax was impossible. In order for the Temple to function there needed to be people who could exchange Roman coins for Temple money and others to sell the pre-requisites for sacrificial practices.

[3] Denis Hamm liturgy.slu.edu/2LentB030418/the word/hamm/html

[4] op cit

Tags:, , , , , , ,
Posted in John's Gospel, Temple | Comments Off on Breaking the law/keeping the law

In God’s image

October 21, 2017

 

Pentecost 20 – 2017

Matthew 22:15-end

Marian Free

In the name of God who is and was and ever more shall be. Amen.

According to Cambridge University: “Competitive debating is a fun activity akin to a game in which we examine ideas and policies with the aim of persuading people within an organised structure. It allows us to consider the world around us by thinking about different arguments, engaging with opposing views and speaking strategically[1].” The same website states that judges measure a good debater according to three criteria:

Content: What a person says and the arguments and examples he or she uses.
Style: How the debate is presented – that is the language and voice that is used.
Strategy: How well someone engages with the topic, responds to other people’s arguments and structure what they say.

At its best good debate is like a piece of theatre – full of drama, repartee, humor and a clever turn of phrase. Good debaters know how to put their point convincingly and how to expose the weaknesses of their opponent’s arguments. If they are particularly clever and astute, they may be able to throw the other team off course and force them team to put a foot wrong and thereby lose the debate.

Jesus often engaged in debate with those who opposed him. These debates were not for fun, but were serious affairs in which one or more persons tried to bring Jesus into disrepute in order to enhance their own status and honour. In today’s gospel three groups of people try to discredit Jesus through questions about politics, faith and the Jewish law.

First the Pharisees, assisted by the Herodians, come up with a question that they think will force Jesus into a corner. If Jesus says that it is lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, he will alienate the majority of his audience who resent the taxes exacted by Rome. On the other hand, if he states that the taxes should not be paid his challengers will have grounds to report him for sedition. Jesus appears to be in a lose-lose situation. Not so. Jesus refuses to fall for their trap. His response not only fails to give them what they want, but it also exposes their hypocrisy and their faithlessness.

Jesus then asks for a coin and one is readily produced. In a sense, by being in possession of a coin, his adversaries have answered their own question. The coin signifies identification with the Empire. The Herodians had publicly aligned themselves with the Romans, but the Pharisees, who prided themselves on keeping the law, should have refused to carry a coin engraved with an image of “Tiberius Caesar, August, son of the divine Augustus, high priest” – a graven image forbidden by the 10 Commandments. (Even if the coin belonged to an Herodian, the Pharisees would tainted by association.)

Jesus goes further and asks them a question: “Whose image[2] is this, and whose title?” (“Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s”. )Too often, Jesus’ response here has been used to justify a separation of church and state which, at its extreme, allowed Christians to go along with or to ignore the policies of the Nazi state. What is at stake is more than an issue of earthly authority vs the authority of heaven[3].  The power of the Emperor is not a separate power from that of God. All heaven and earth are under God’s dominion; all powers and principalities are subordinate to the overarching authority and power that belongs to God. The image on the coin implies authority, power and divinity in this case for the Emperor. Paying taxes returns the coin to the Emperor whom it represents. If we give the coin to the Emperor, what do we give to God? What is it that bears God’s image. Humanity is made in the image of God and it is ourselves, our whole selves that we must return to God.

Jesus’ diversion with the coin was more than just a clever response to what was meant to be a difficult question. Jesus’ was confronting the Pharisees’ failure to live out their role as the image of God and to give to God what was God’s.

When the Sadducees saw that the Pharisees had failed to score a point against Jesus, they came up with a question of their own – one that related to a matter of belief. The Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection of the dead. They hoped to confuse Jesus with a complicated question about the resurrection. Jesus’ response showed that they were approaching the question from completely the wrong point of view. He reminded them that it was foolish to think of the resurrection in purely human terms.

In a final attempt to discredit Jesus, the Pharisees sent a lawyer with a question about a matter of the law. The Pharisees wanted to expose Jesus’ ignorance with regard to matters of the Jewish law. Which law was the greatest – that would be something only those who were students of the law might know. Jesus was not just some yokel from Galilee. He was politically astute; he knew the tenets of his faith and was well versed in the law. None of his opponents were able to trap or outsmart him.

Having proven himself Jesus turns the tables on his adversaries. He has a question. How can the Christ be both David’s son and David’s lord? They cannot of course and Jesus’ opponents slink away – defeated.

When we listen to accounts such as these that we allow ourselves a certain amount of smugness – the Pharisees and Sadducees were definitely in the wrong and on the wrong track, we think. We wouldn’t make that mistake. But I wonder about that: how often do we call God into question, try to pin God down or force God into a corner? How often do we pit our wills against God – seeking answers to questions that may be well beyond our ability to comprehend? How often do we enter into competition with God, trying to get God to prove Godself? In the final analysis perhaps that is the point of today’s gospel. It reminds us that contending with God is futile. The truth is that no matter how smart or how educated we are we simply cannot plumb the depths of God. There is so much that is beyond our comprehension. God is mysterious and complex and awe-inspiring. God cannot be contained or captured by slogans or simple formulas.

Jesus’ response to his challengers reveals two possible actions – we can accept and submit to God’s dominion and be a part of the kingdom or we can challenge or defy God’s sovereignty and thereby demonstrate that we want no part of the kingdom. We need to choose a side – do we stand with the Pharisees and with all who contest with God? or do we acknowledge God as our Lord and Jesus as our Saviour. There is always a choice let us be sure to make the right one.

 

 

 

 

 

[1] cus.org

[2] Note the Greek word “icon” is often translated as “head” which makes it more difficult to grasp Jesus’ meaning.

[3] Dennis Hamm and others

Tags:, , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Matthew | Comments Off on In God’s image

A Jewish Christian view

June 17, 2017

Pentecost 2 – 2017

Matthew 9:35-10:42[1]

Marian Free

In the name of God who reveals Godself to us in many and varied ways. Amen.

Thanks to the interruption of Lent and Easter, you may be forgiven if you had forgotten that this is the Year of Matthew. What that means is that just as we travelled through Luke last year, so this year we will make a journey through the gospel of Matthew. Matthew has many distinctive characteristics that will, I hope become obvious as we work our way through the passages set for the remainder of the year. Today I’d like to provide a broad bush stroke of some of the characteristics that set Matthew apart from Mark and Luke.

By way of reminder, it is believed that the first gospel to be written is the one that we know as the Gospel according to Mark. Within a decade, Luke and Matthew put quill to papyrus and composed their own accounts. To do this both Matthew and Luke used the gospel of Mark extensively. They have also used a common source that scholars have named Q. At the same time Luke and Matthew include material that is unique to them. In the first 12 chapters Matthew relies heavily on Q after which he follows Mark quite closely. Material that is unique to Matthew includes the parable of the 10 maidens and the parable of the sheep and the goats.

In trying to come to grips with Matthew’s gospel it is important to understand something of the background situation. The gospel is written, we think, for a Jewish Christian community in the 80’s of the first century. That is, it is written after the Jewish revolt that led the destruction of Jerusalem and, more importantly, the destruction of the Temple. The Temple was not only a symbol of unity and the liturgical centre of the Jewish faith; it was also the place where God met the people and the place in which reconciliation with God was possible. Without a Temple, the Jews had to rethink who they were and how they would continue as a people of faith.

Fortunately, the Pharisees, with their scepticism in regard to the Temple and their emphasis on the oral law, were well placed to step into the vacuum. In fact it can be argued that without them Judaism might have fallen into disarray and eventual decline. Instead their practice and teaching led to the development of rabbinic Judaism with its focus on the interpretation of the law. One consequence of this development was that there was less tolerance of difference and this included their fellow Jews who believed that Jesus was the one sent by God for their salvation.

Matthew’s community, that consisted of Jews who believed in Jesus also had to re-think who they were – in relation to the law and in relation to their ancestral religion that no longer held them to be members. Who were they in this vastly changed environment and how would they govern their life together? This search for identity and meaning explains what appears to be an over-emphasis on the law in Matthew’s gospel. While the Pharisees were building a new look for the Jewish people based on the law, the Jews who believed in Jesus had to determine what their relationship with that law would be. In the light of their relationship with Jesus, would they abandon the law altogether, would they transform the law or would they keep the law more rigidly even than the Pharisees?

In respect to the community’s relationship with Judaism, the author of Matthew’s gospel is determined to assert that faith in Jesus is not only consistent with Judaism but that Jesus is firmly rooted in Judaism. In the introduction, Matthew’s genealogy makes it clear that Jesus is descended from Abraham (the founder of the Judaism) and of David (from whom the Messiah was to come). What is more, over and over again (explicitly and implicitly) Matthew makes it clear that Jesus is not only the fulfilment of the Old Testament promises but he replaces the Temple as the way in which the people are reconciled to God.

Because the law and its interpretation take centre stage in this gospel; Jesus is presented as the new Moses – the one who gives the law and who interprets the law.

Just as significant as the setting of the gospel is the way in which Matthew has organised his account. Matthew takes the material that is available to him and arranges it in a way that sayings and stories that have a common theme are gathered together in the same place. It is possible to discern five distinct discourses or sermons each of which concludes: “when Jesus had finished saying these things”. The parables of growth are found in chapter 13, teaching about community life is located in chapter 18 and instructions for the disciples in chapter 10. Accounts of Jesus’ healing and casting out demons are concentrated in chapters 8 and 9.

Today’s reading bridges two sections of the gospel – it concludes the accounts of Jesus’ healing ministry and leads into Jesus’ instructions for the Twelve, the second of the five discourses. Interestingly, the setting for this sermon is very similar to that of the Sermon on the Mount – Jesus is going about Galilee proclaiming the kingdom the curing disease. On this occasion, instead of Jesus’ healing being followed by teaching, Jesus’ compassion for the crowds is followed by action, that extends his ability to respond. He summons the twelve and equips them to cast out unclean spirits and to cure every disease and sickness. In other words, they are authorised to all that Jesus does.

The discourse continues by telling the twelve how they are to go and what they can expect along the way, but the lectionary makes us wait till next week for that.

Matthew’s gospel is a rich treasure trove to be examined and explored. It reveals an aspect of early church development that we find nowhere else and it presents a view of Jesus that is both similar to and different from that of the other gospels. For the remainder of the year we will be working our way through Matthew’s Gospel. Can I encourage you to read the gospel for yourselves, to have the courage to question it and to tease out things that you do not understand? Let us take this journey together – tell me if my explanations are not clear and share with me the parts that you find difficult or incomprehensible. As we probe the text together we will discover more about what make Matthew’s gospel distinct and why.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[1] The reading for the day is much shorter, but the sermon gives an overview of the chapter.

Tags:, , , , , ,
Posted in Identity of Jesus, Matthew | Comments Off on A Jewish Christian view

When good is perceived as evil

June 6, 2015

Pentecost 2 -2015

Mark 3:20-35

Marian Free

 In the name of God whose ways are not our ways and whose thoughts are not our thoughts. Amen.

If you have never read the Gospel of Mark from beginning to end, may I suggest that you take the time to do so. Mark’s account of Jesus is quite short and I think most of us could read it in one or two sittings. This is important, because, it is only by reading the gospel from start to finish that we can gain some idea of the plot development and of the themes that run through the gospel. For example, a prominent theme is Mark’s gospel is that of “conflict”, in particular a conflict regarding who has authority – Jesus or the religious leaders? The question can be narrowed down still further to “who has God’s authority – the authority to represent God before the people?” – Jesus or those who have been given, or who have assumed the authority to interpret scripture and to guard and to pass on the traditions of the faith. When the question is narrowed down still further, we begin to see that the conflict is a contest between good and evil, between the heavenly authorities and earthly authorities, between God and Satan.

The earthly authorities (whether the Pharisees, the scribes, the Sadducees, the priests or the Herodians) try over and over again to discredit Jesus, to demonstrate that he not only disregards the law and the traditions of the elders, but that he willfully breaks the law and ignores the traditions. The “authorities” are determined to assert their own authority to represent God, and to expose Jesus as a madman, a fraud, a blasphemer or worse, an agent of Satan. Instead of which they themselves are exposed as self-serving, misrepresenting God, misinterpreting scripture, enforcing a tradition that has reached its use-by date and worse, as blasphemers. Despite the best effort of “the authorities”, in every confrontation Jesus is able to turn the tables on his accusers and to reveal them to be guilty of the very things of which they accuse him.

Jesus is accused of breaking the Sabbath, but whereas his actions (of healing) lead to wholeness and life, the action of the authorities on that same day is to plot Jesus’ death. The authorities try to entrap him with questions about divorce and about the resurrection, but Jesus knows the scriptures so well that he is able to point out that they simply do not understand. They accuse Jesus of breaking the law only to have Jesus point out their hypocrisy and their propensity to twist the law to suit themselves. All their attempts to entangle Jesus or to cause him to lose face before the people have the opposite effect. A result of the conflict – which they have instigated – is that the so-called “authorities” are revealed as loveless, legalistic hypocrites.

Nowhere is the battle between good and evil so clear as in today’s gospel. This is the last of the first series of confrontations between Jesus and the authorities. So far Jesus has been accused of blasphemy, of breaking the laws of ritual purity, of failing to observe fast days and of breaking the Sabbath. At the same time the crowds have identified Jesus as “one having authority” and the evil spirits have recognised Jesus as the Holy One of God. The end result is a conspiracy to destroy him.

In today’s gospel, the scene is set when Jesus’ family, made anxious by reports that he is “out of his mind”, come to restrain him. The idea that Jesus himself might be possessed by an evil spirit is taken up by the scribes (who apparently have come all the way from Jerusalem to Galilee to attack him). The scribes accuse Jesus of having Beelzebul (Satan) claiming that only Beelzebul would have the power that Jesus has to cast out demons.

Such a claim is so ridiculous that it is easy for Jesus to demonstrate that it is utterly baseless. No one would possibly try to defeat an opponent by destroying members of their own team. Jesus points out that is only because he has already defeated Satan that he can now so easily dispense with Satan’s minions. Having dealt with the attack on him, Jesus turns the tables on his accusers. He suggests that by identifying him with Satan, the scribes have revealed their true nature and committed the most serious sin of all – that of the sin against the Holy Spirit which is the only sin for which there is no forgiveness. In Jesus, the scribes have seen evil and not good and in so doing they have confused God with Satan. Their attack on Jesus has exposed just how completely they have come to depend on themselves and on earthly authority and how, as a consequence, they have effectively shut God out of their lives. They cannot recognise in Jesus God’s beauty, love, wisdom and compassion. Instead they see in him only evil and threat.

Worse, what is good has become to them so threatening and so disturbing, that they believe that they have to destroy it. The scribes are so intent on preserving their position and their traditions that anything that shakes the status quo is, by their definition, evil. The goodness and life that Jesus represents is to them the source of evil and death.

This then, is the unforgivable sin, to mistake what is good for evil. The scribes have become so blind to goodness that they have closed their hearts to all that is good and true. Believing themselves to be arbiters of good and evil, the scribes simply cannot see that they are in need of forgiveness. They have so effectively locked God out of their hearts and lives that they have put themselves out of reach of God’s loving compassion. It is not so much that God won’t forgive, but that they will not allow God to forgive because instead of seeing in Jesus an example of God’s goodness, they can only see the destruction of everything that they have come to hold dear.

Seeing evil in what is good is not limited to Jesus’ first century opponents. A willingness to rely on human authority and a desire to maintain the status quo has led to acts of oppression and injustice and that have seen the imprisonment and torture of good and prophetic men and women. It is fear of change and distrust of the other that has allowed humanity to turn a blind eye to the abuse of power and the destruction of innocents discrimination against those who are different and rejection of those whom we imagine would threaten our lifestyles.

My our lives be so focused on God that we are not so afraid of change or so determined to hold on to what we have known and believed to be true that we fail to see goodness when it is right in front of us. May our lives be so driven by God’s love and wisdom and compassion that we do not hear the voice of change as the voice of evil when the change is for the greater good.

Tags:, , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Mark's gospel | Comments Off on When good is perceived as evil

« Older Entries