In Matthew 5:21-37 (Year A Epiphany 6), Jesus proclaims the rule of God in the context of establishing a distinctive vision of that in which righteousness consists of. Jesus begins to reveal what going beyond the righteousness of the Pharisees means for ordinary men and women. The antithetical form commends itself to catechetical instruction as the Jewish-Christian church early saw the need to distinguish its views from that of the synagogue.[1] Jesus appears here with a claim that was reserved for divine prerogative. The framing of the series of antitheses through the first and sixth antitheses makes clear that Matthew sees the center of the Old Testament in love. The opposition that Jesus sets up here creates a sense of newness from the prevailing sentences of law. In offering such a criticism of the Law, setting his word in opposition to it, the question is whether he devalues the Law in favor of the loving disposition one is to have toward others. However, for Matthew, love is the fulfillment, not the abolition of law and prophets. The love commandment does not abolish the "least commandments" but relativizes them from case to case. In this sense, law and prophets "hang" on the love commandment. The twofold command of love, while a summary of the Law, stands over against tradition as a critical principle. The evidence for this in the “I say to you” in this passage over against the Law of Moses. The Law of Moses governs the people of God in how to live in this world. These statements will show what living in God’s world is like, as it focuses on the heart.[2]
Matthew 5:21-26 contains sayings of Jesus concerning killing. This first antithesis contains three wisdom sayings of Jesus.
In verses 21-22, formed in legal style,[3] 21 the first clause containing the opposing standpoint: "You have heard that it was said to those of ancient times, "You shall not murder', the sixth commandment; and "whoever murders shall be liable to judgment.' The second clause contains the new standpoint: 22 But I say to you, he will enumerate several things that will broaden the application of such statements, that if you are angry, the normal beginning of abuse, with a brother or sister, a member of the Christian community, you will be liable to human judgment.[4] And if you insult (Ῥακά, an Aramaic word without translation: You Blockhead) a brother or sister, you will be liable to the human religious council; and if you say, "You fool,' you will be liable to the divine judgment of the hell of fire. However, it may be that Jesus does not point to three different court, but three expressions of the death penalty building in a crescendo. The terms of abuse are harmless enough, even if spoken in il-humor, is an offence worthy of death. It is on the same level as murder and a more severe punishment liable for eternal death. The paradox brings home to the hearers the terrible seriousness of sins of the tongue in the eyes of God and hence save them from having on their consciences the everyday ill feelings towards a member of the community that might appear innocuous but in fact poison relationships. Membership in the coming rule of God and its order is demonstrated by taking sin this seriously.[5] In rabbinical texts, there are statements that understand wrath in extreme cases as such a grave offense that there is no human but only a divine punishment for it. The angry person will not stand before God. It has the grotesque character of many sayings of Jesus, for what human judge can arraign anger unless it find expression? However, the grotesqueness lies in the absoluteness of the demand of Jesus. Even anger that does not find expression in a single word is compared to a fatal blow. Anger is the first step toward murder. Anger has the full gravity of sin.[6] The emphasis is on the community and the harm done to it. Jesus understood that the dehumanizing act of murder has its roots in the dehumanizing of another person through our anger. And not only does anger dehumanize the other, but it also dehumanizes us, too. Every time we decide to allow anger to smolder inside of us, we become less than fully human, less than the people God created us to be. Instead of merely avoiding murder, we should embrace reconciliation, which leads to community. Other Jewish writings contain similar widening of the interpretation of the sixth commandment.
II Enoch 44:2-3
And whoever insults a person’s face, insults the face of a king, and treats the face of the Lord with repugnance. He who treats with contempt the face of any person treats the face of the Lord with contempt. He who expresses anger to any person without provocation will reap anger in the great judgment. He who spits on any person’s face, insultingly, will reap the same at the Lord’s great judgment.
For some people, anger inspires them. They can write, pray, and preach well because it quickens the attention and sharpens the understanding.[7] However, anger is a sign that something wrong is emerging within us. Something is not working right. Evil, incompetence, or stupidity is lurking within us. Anger is like a sixth sense as it senses something wrong in our souls. It does not tell us whether something is wrong outside us or inside us. We usually assume the wrong is external. If we stay with the anger, however, we usually find something wrong is within us in that we have inaccurate information, inadequate understanding, or underdeveloped heart.[8]
In a first interpretation of the antithesis, offered in legal style, 23 So when you are offering your gift at the altar, assuming the existence and validity of temple worship with its sacrificial system, offering the condition in the first clause: if you remember that your brother or sister has something against you, the second clause containing an imperative: 24 leave your gift there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother or sister, and then come and offer your gift.[9]
Sirach 34:21-22
21 If one sacrifices ill-gotten goods, the offering is blemished; 22 the gifts of the lawless are not acceptable.
The point moves away from words and toward the positive act of reconciliation, which involves actual love toward the member of the community. The one who shows mercy has the right to offer sacrifices. Important are the statements concerning the unity of ethics and cult, made particularly in wisdom tradition: Sacrifices by godless people are an abomination to God: the one who shows mercy offers sacrifices. In these texts also, the cult takes second place to ethics, without being abrogated. As often with Jesus, so we have here a categorical, hyperbolically sharpened exemplary demand that aims at a new basic attitude to the fellow human and, as such, enjoins more than its literal fulfillment. In a comparable manner, Abraham Lincoln advised that the best way to destroy an enemy is to turn him into a friend, and Mahatma Gandhi said, "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." All these leaders knew that punishment and revenge never succeed in breaking the cycle of violence.
In the second interpretation of the antithesis, a saying on agreement with one’s opponents, 25 (Luke 12:57-59) [10] Jesus says in an imperative Come to terms quickly with your accuser while you are on the way to court with him, or your accuser may hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the guard (the judicial servant who is in instrument of the courts to execute sentences), and you will be thrown into prison. Jesus sets before his followers the urgency of removing the wrongs that people do to each other.[11] The focus is upon the responsibility of the debtor in relation self and to the destiny of the debtor, a responsibility that the debtor must accept for the sake of self interest so long as there is time. The guard illustrates the inevitability of approaching judgment unless there is timely perception and conversion.[12] 26 Truly I tell you, (the sole ground of his authority for the demand of God expressed through him[13]) you will never get out until you have paid the last penny. As in your civil life at times you place the greatest emphasis on not having to appear before the judge, so you should take care that you need fear no accuser before the heavenly judge. However, in this context, it is a warning to be reconciled with a legal opponent in this world.[14] Matthew applies the saying to the conduct of the new community formed by Jesus. They are a metaphorical exhortation to reconciliation, since the judge points to God. Just as in civil society we do everything at the proper time so as not to be brought before the judge, we must do the same in the sight of God, so repent at the right time.[15] Common sense suggests that one settle quickly with legal opponents, being ready to take the first step in healing a quarrel between neighbors. The saying concerns reconciliation with the trial opponent before the court session, letting an exhortation that begins in everyday life take a sudden and surprising turn that lets the last judgment shine through behind the trial situation. Jesus assumes the cold and merciless quality of human courts. Do not rely upon them. Settle out of court. This text is pragmatic and finds its parallels in similar counsels of expediency in the wisdom tradition. You are shortly to appear before the judge, so act while you are still free to do so. You must seize the opportunity before it is too late. Act immediately, for there is still one last final chance of reprieve. Jesus sees people rushing to their destruction. He points the threatening nature of the situation. It is the last hour. The respite is running out. [16]
The word of Jesus is challenging here for a culture leaning toward anger and resentment. It is one thing to disagree with the other. It is another to stand in judgment because the other is inferior morally to you. Such distancing of oneself from the other will not lead to reconciliation. Human life, whether in our individual experience or as we become aware of our history, gives us plenty of reasons to be angry. One who is not angry when there is cause to be may well open the door to sin. Unreasonable patience nurtures many vices in that it fosters negligence in correcting what is wrong.
Anger is like a fire in that safely used we derive great benefit, but uncontrolled it can do great damage. We are not to let the sun go down on our anger, allowing resentment to simmer and endanger others. Do not hang on to anger obsessively. Those who live their lives driven by anger eventually pay a bitter personal price. Among the seven deadly sins, anger may be the most fun.[17] We get to lick our wounds, smack our lips over grievances long past, roll our tongues over the prospect of bitter confrontations still to come, savor to the last morsel the pain someone gave you and the pain you give back. We have a feast fit for a king. Of course, the chief drawback is that what you are wolfing down so joyfully is yourself. The skeleton at the feast is you.
Bitterness reflects a form of sustained anger that keeps calling to mind experiences of hurt or pain. It is possible to revel in victimhood. Such bitterness can be present at a cultural level, for every nation has an imperfect past that has left wounds with which the present generation must deal. We have all known injured people who just cannot let it go. Some people go to their graves feeling bitter for the way their parents or their spouses or their children failed them. Or they castigate themselves for some missed opportunity decades in the past. Bitter talk, when it continues for an exceedingly long time without let-up, causes terrible emotional harm to the speaker — not to mention misery for everyone who must listen to their complaints. Such sustained anger blocks thinking rationally and seeking reasonable courses of action.
Anger is usually something we experience as an outburst, learn what we can from it, and move on to a flourishing human life. Anger inhibits rational thought and action. It distorts our perception of history and the world. Forgiveness of sin is prerequisite for a relationship with God. Even in our personal lives, a relationship cannot move toward something good if the aggrieved party does not extend forgiveness.
Matthew 5:27-30 are sayings regarding adultery. The new righteousness Jesus is explaining now touches upon the most personal of relationships, that of marriage. John 8:1-11 contains the response of Jesus to one caught in the act of adultery. John 4 and the story of the woman at the well offer another story of Jesus with one who was clearly not sexually pure. Luke 7:36-50 tells the story of a woman with a bad reputation disturbing a dinner, at which Jesus offers her forgiveness.
In verses 27-28, framed in legal style,[18] the first clause containing the opposing standpoint: 27 "You have heard that it was said, "You shall not commit adultery,' the seventh commandment, and the second clause contains the new standpoint: 28 But I say to you, in a way that broadens the application of the commandment, that everyone who looks at a woman with lust (ἐπιθυμῆσαι) has already committed adultery with her in his heart. Such a statement is consistent with what Jews at the time taught concerning lust, as we see in the tenth commandment not to covet the wife of the neighbor. Even the ancient world in general would have agreed. Is there something special in this demand of Jesus? Jesus obviously had a very relaxed relationship to women who were at a disadvantage according to the Israelite law of God. His freedom even to turn to prostitutes, the discipleship of women, and the support of the circle of Jesus by them testify to it. Lust dehumanizes people into objects that we use for our own pleasure. We might be able to avoid the physical act of adultery and thus obey the law, but we forget that the emotional or psychological attachment of lust is just as destructive. Jesus here calls us not to merely avoid breaking the law but to avoid breaking the fidelity of marriage that supports community, trust, and love. Jesus here calls us not to merely avoid breaking the law but to avoid breaking the fidelity of marriage that supports community, trust, and love -- the kind of fidelity that Christ himself has with his bride, the church. God's new world is characterized by faithfulness, and when we embrace fidelity in our hearts and in our relationships, we will learn how to embrace it forever.
Verses 29-30, (Mark 9:47, Matt 18:8-9), we find a further application of the antithesis in showing that certain parts of the body are expendable in comparison to moral choices. 29 If your right eye, symbolic of good, precious, and important, causes you to sin (σκανδαλίζει, causes you to stumble), tear it out and throw it away; it is better for you to lose one of your members than for your whole body[19] to be thrown into hell (γέενναν). 30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away; it is better for you to lose one of your members than for your whole body to go into hell (γέενναν). The double saying is a warning against sin, related to standing phrases. To avoid it, one is to give everything, even the most important and precious thing, away. Here, the focus is attention to the danger we can become to ourselves. Such a radical saying, suggesting a marred, incomplete body, which was abhorrent in Jesus’ day, was something a follower of Jesus was to prefer to the submission to temptation. The point is ensnaring oneself rather than others. Jesus rejects the notion that one cannot treat the symptom and still get to true repentance. He uses humor here to make absurd the notion that one can eradicate sin performed by various parts of the body by amputating that part of the body. Sin does not arise in the body. It arises in the human soul, in the spirit or in the heart. In this way, Christ’s teaching is the exact opposite of Greek philosophies, such as Gnosticism, that attributed a degenerate nature to the human body. In a true Israelite perspective, the body and the soul are one. The body does not drag the soul down into “earthly” debaucheries. A heart and mind turned in the wrong direction uses the body in sinful ways. If sin rules your life, Jesus argues, then you are not eligible to receive new birth and enter the new life of the resurrection; therefore, rooting out sin is the only way to enter that new life. Jesus does not require his followers to make such an extreme gesture. All that Jesus asks of us is that we endeavor to rid our lives of sin that arises from human will. These verses, however, are not about maiming, but more about the blessing of life; God is more important than parts of our body. To allow hand, foot, or eye to bring one to the unquenchable fires of hell is unthinkable.[20] One could also argue that although the individual is in view in these verses, Matthew weds words about the individual to his earlier words about communal offense because he wants to highlight the individual in relation to the community. Thus, the individual's sin affects the community, not only the person who commits such a sin. Therefore, the person's actions have consequences not only for self but also for others.
Matthew has referred the saying to the seduction to commit adultery and understood eye and hand as instruments for it. One might think of the context of such sayings as warnings of the final judgment and the threat of Hell.
“Gehenna” suggests spiritual destruction. The image of “hell” which appears in this passage is one adapted from ancient Israelite history to correspond with the Greek notion of Hades. Unlike the Greeks, the ancient Israelites did not have a concept of Hades, or Tartarus, namely an underworld filled with fire and brimstone in which the wicked were tortured for all eternity. Sheol, the ancient Hebrew abode of the dead, was simply a pit into which the dead disappeared, never to arise again. Gehenna, however, is the New Testament equivalent of Hades, the name of which is a graecization of the Hebrew place name ge ben Hinnom, or “valley of Ben Hinnom.” It was here, in the small valley outside the Jaffa gate, that ancient Israelite kings committed the sin of child sacrifice and constructed a tophet or child sacrifice burial ground offered by fire to the pagan gods Moloch and Baal (Jer 7:30-34, 32:35). The image of gehenna then, evoked in the minds of Jewish hearers, is a place of unimaginable horror, death and depravity. After this practice ceased due to the reforms implemented by King Josiah (II Kings 23:10), the valley became a trash dump where fires continually burned to consume the garbage. It was a place where maggots constantly fed and multiplied. Eventually, in some strands of Jewish thought, this valley became associated with what the wicked would experience in the future, one in which "their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched" (v. 48).[21]
Matthew 5:31-32 is a saying of Jesus framed in legal style concerning divorce.[22] The first clause contains the opposing standpoint: 31 "It was also said, in a paraphrase of Deut 24:1-2, the intent making remarriage possible, "Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.' The second clause contains the new standpoint: 32 But I say to you, (Luke 16:18), that anyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity (παρεκτὸς λόγου πορνείας, corresponding to Deut 24:1, apart from dining some scandalous matter, referring to sexual immorality or some form of licentiousness in general, but most likely adultery here).[23] Unchastity was an abomination that desecrates the land of Israel, a case which requires divorce. The phrase suggests a legal saying rather than the insight we expect from the wisdom tradition. If a man divorces his wife for another reason, he causes her to commit adultery. And whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery, a statement that is not in the interest of the disadvantaged woman. Whereas in the days of the prophets a husband mght pardon his wife in the case of infidelity, as in Hosea 3:1ff, in the time of Jesus the Law was stricter, with an adulterous wife forbidden to have any further intercourse with her husband or the adulterer, so her husband to divorce here (Sota 5.1, Testament of Reuben 3:15.) The Jewish-Christian audience of Matthew at this point is told that the husband is driving the woman into adultery, under current Jewish law.[24] The Jewish command to the husband to pay the marriage bond at a divorce, on the other hand, meant at the same time practicable and effective protection for the woman. The theological question becomes how such a demand relates to the general principle of the love of God and neighbor being in a critical relationship to the Law. The point may well be that divorce is permissible, but it is not righteous because it represents human failure and falls short of the intent of God in marriage. If our hearts are focused on maintaining the relationship, then our hands will be less apt to sign the dismissal papers.
Among exegetes, the inclination is most widespread to associate it with Jesus' kindliness to women. He curbs the power of the man to dismiss the woman, thereby protecting the woman. The prohibition of divorce would then be an expression of the love of Jesus and of God for the disadvantaged woman. However, some things puzzle us. There also was a general rejection of divorce in Qumran, but not out of love for the disadvantaged woman. In Judaism, the intent of ordinary divorce was to make a remarriage possible. This prohibition could be devastating for the divorced woman. Thus, it is probable that Jesus thinks based on the pure, unconditional will of God, rather than out of consideration for disadvantage women. Yet, the reality is the absolute rejection of divorce and remarriage of divorced persons has the potential of lovelessness. The question is how the love of God for us, the love we are to show to our neighbors, combines with the absolute demand of the indissolubility of marriage.
Jesus clearly expected his married disciples and the larger band who followed him to remain married. Mark 10:11-12 and Luke 16:18 both say that the man who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery, and the divorced woman who marries another commits adultery. Matthew in this passage and in 19:9 has the exception that if the woman has committed adultery, the man may rightfully divorce and remarry.
I would like to begin by offering some comments that stay close to the text and slowly move to application to today. The text offers me an opportunity to give proper precedence to the Bible as the primary witness to the kind of life Christians are to lead while also showing that proper biblical interpretation is a matter of carefully handling biblical materials. My perspective on this text is like when I approach a text that the disciples left everything to follow Jesus (Mark 1:16-20), that Jesus told the rich man to sell everything he had and follow him (Luke 17:22), and that the first followers of Jesus after the resurrection held everything in common (Acts 4:32-37). If we were to approach such texts in a legal way, the church would unlikely have stayed in existence. The church realized that it was in a different social setting that when Jesus travelled Israel with his small band of disciples and followers. Rules applicable to the disciples and the followers of Jesus before the resurrection may need some adaptation in different social settings.
Under the supposition of many scholars that when there are multiple versions of a saying of Jesus in the gospels, the hardest saying is the saying of Jesus, we can assume that the exception clause for unchastity is an addition within the tradition. Jesus taught an absolute prohibition of remarrying after divorce for his disciples and those who follow him. Jesus applied the rule against priests marrying divorced women in the Holiness Code (Lev 21:7, 13-14, focusing on priests marrying a virgin) to the community he formed. The early church struggled with the pastoral application of this saying of Jesus to the new setting several decades after the death of Jesus. The early church, rather than adopt a rule-oriented approach to a saying of Jesus, sought to apply the teaching of Jesus in the same spirit that Jesus understood the Torah and prophets. Out of love for God and neighbor, it considered that adultery would be an occasion when the offended party could divorce remarry. Jesus, in Matthew, reminds them of the saying that whoever divorces his wife is to give her a certificate of divorce.
(Deu 24:1-4) Suppose a man enters into marriage with a woman, but she does not please him because he finds something objectionable about her, and so he writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house; she then leaves his house {2} and goes off to become another man's wife. {3} Then suppose the second man dislikes her, writes her a bill of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house (or the second man who married her dies); {4} her first husband, who sent her away, is not permitted to take her again to be his wife after she has been defiled; for that would be abhorrent to the LORD, and you shall not bring guilt on the land that the LORD your God is giving you as a possession.
The many Jewish laws concerning marriage show a careful safeguarding of this area of human life. The grounds for divorce here are finding something “objectionable,” “disgraceful,” or “scandalous,” in the woman. Note, however, that the court system has nothing to do with the divorce. Ending the marriage is between the man and the woman. Over time, Jewish law limited divorce so that it was not just at the whim of the husband. In the Code of Hammurabi, #137-140, we find no such requirement upon the husband. The only continuing debate about divorce in first‑century Judaism existed between the followers of the more conservative Shammai School and the more liberal Hillel school. Shammai taught that the "objectionable" behavior that could give a husband just cause for divorcing his wife was adulterous behavior or the wife's extreme failure to observe Jewish law. Hillel, however, allowed that any behavior that caused the husband annoyance or embarrassment was legitimate grounds for giving the wife a bill of divorcement. There also was a general rejection of divorce in Qumran. In Judaism, ordinary divorce was intended to make a remarriage possible. The Jewish command to the husband to pay the marriage bond at a divorce, meant at the same time practicable and effective protection for the woman. As we continue with the text in Matthew, Jesus then says that anyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity (“porneia” can only mean adultery here, a phrase that suggests a legal saying rather than the insight we expect from the wisdom tradition), causes her to commit adultery. Such a prohibition could be an expression of love toward the woman in a society that placed limits on women. However, Jesus continues, whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery, a statement that is not in the interest of the disadvantaged woman. In Rom 7:3, Paul says that people will call a woman an adulterer who lives with a man other than her husband while her husband is alive. Only if he dies does she have the right of remarriage. In I Thess 4:3, Paul points his readers to the will of God as their sanctification, and therefore they are to abstain from “unchastity,” the same word Matthew uses in the exception clause, but here Paul may refer to the broader use of the word as any form of sexual immorality. However, Paul finds a reason to refuse a strict rule-oriented approach to the saying of Jesus as he considered another pastoral situation and came down on the side of love:
1 Cor 7:15 (NRSV)
15 But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so; in such a case the brother or sister is not bound. It is to peace that God has called you.
He suggests that if a non-Christian spouse divorces the Christian spouse, the Christian should be at peace with the decision and the implication is that remarriage is acceptable. In all of this, there was a potential element of lovelessness. The theological question becomes how such a demand relates to the general principle of the love of God and neighbor being in a critical relationship to the Law. The point may well be that divorce is permissible, but it is not righteous because it represents human failure and falls short of the intent of God in marriage. If our hearts are focused on maintaining the relationship, then our hands will be less apt to sign the dismissal papers. At the same time, the context in which both Jesus and Paul address themselves to marriage is the soon arrival of the end, so the possibility that of living an extended period without the blessing a happy marriage, even a second one, did not realistically occur to them. Further, the early centuries of the church developed increasing asceticism, to the point where celibacy became valued more so than a happy marriage. It makes sense, in such contexts, that remarriage after divorce would not find acceptance.
Commenting upon marriage, divorce, and remarriage in the Bible and church tradition carries some risks. For the one who has experienced divorce as a Christian, it can appear one is justifying after the fact an action one has taken. That is not my goal, but that will always be the suspicion. A heightened risk occurs when one takes the Bible seriously as a guide for our lives. As I have sorted through these matters, I have sought to use an approach to the Bible that is similar to what I have used to support women in ministry, the nature of the husband and wife relationship, and homosexuality. I invite you to be patient as we consider in a prayerful way the matters before us.
First, how does Jesus respond to people caught in the web of sexual confusion and sexual sin? I direct you to John 4, where Jesus has a respectful discussion with a woman who has had multiple sexual relationships. In John 8, he refuses to condemn a woman caught in the act of adultery. In Luke 7, we find another occasion in which Jesus extends forgiveness to a woman who has had a loose sexual history. In all these cases, he refuses to isolate them, or to heap upon them shame and guilt. In fact, I offer that the response of Jesus is consistently in this direction – except when it came to those in political and religious authority. Regardless of what Jesus may have expected from his followers regarding divorce and re-marriage, he clearly would not want them to adopt the harsh attitudes of the Pharisees of his day.
Second, I invite you to reflect upon the nature of the ancient household. Proper household management was a matter of crucial social and political concern. The parallel to our culture would be a reflection on family and work. To upset the household was a potential threat to the order of society. The attraction to the early Christian movement of women and slaves made it suspect. Paul may have needed to respond to the accusation. The type of guidance offered assumes that Paul respected the social order and assumed that his churches would need to live in it. The guidance of Paul here is at least consistent with other passages. For example, in I Cor 11:2-16, Paul urges women to wear a veil as a sign that they are under authority. God made woman from man and for the sake of man, an obvious reference to the story in Genesis 1-3, but we see their interdependence in the fact that man comes to live through woman. In any case, he respects the “custom” of the woman wearing a covering for her head, even though he finds no such custom in the churches. Yet, while he assumes in I Corinthians 11 that women will pray and prophecy in church, he says in 14:34-36 that women are to remain silent in church because they are subordinate to the husband. In I Cor 7:20-24, Paul offers the general advice that if one becomes a follower of Christ as a slave, one should remain a slave. In the letter to Philemon, Paul has run into a run-a-way slave, and now asks the master for the freedom of the slave Onesimus so that he can serve Paul. The point here is that Paul respects the master and slave relationship. Interestingly, the assumption is that each member of the household Paul treats as a moral agent with a choice to make. The code for the household becomes part of the apostolic wisdom. To state the obvious, in Proverbs, we find abundant advice for parents, husbands, wives, children, masters, and slaves.
If we read with open mind and heart, we will find that the nature of the household would change dramatically if Christians followed the advice of the apostles. Marriage would become more like a partnership of mutual love. Raising children would become a compassionate enterprise. The master-slave relation would dissolve in practice, if not in official structure.
Husband-wife were central to the household. It would have been normal to guide the wife to submit to the husband. The challenge the New Testament offers is that the husband love the wife, even as Christ loved the church. Here is a transformation of ordinary life. We find a reflection on the puzzling nature of romantic love in the Song of Solomon. Ephesians 5:21-33, Col 3:18, and I Peter 3:1-7 offer some different guidance, considering the character and virtue the Christian community seeks to develop. We see another example of life in the household in I Cor 5, 6:12-7:40. The point I would stress is that secular culture has changed the ordering of family and work in significant ways. While our advice regarding family and work would change, one should conduct it in a similar spirit as did Paul. A general principle (I Cor 7:17-24) is that they are to remain in the outward, socially acceptable setting in which they found Christ. The key point is that God has bought all of them with a price. In that sense, every member of the highly structured household is on the same footing.
Third, let us consider the unique challenge that divorce and remarriage presented to the operation of the ancient household. The issues affected the structure of the basic unit economic unit of society. We can easily see why Jesus said that a woman must not separate from her husband and a husband must not separate from his wife, and even why the divorced must remain unmarried, given the hope for reconciliation. Such counsel protected the vulnerable woman from the male who misuses his social power. We can all agree that the plan of God is life-long union. Yet, we dare not interpret as church law that which Jesus gave as ethical ideal. Paul (I Cor 7:10-16) considers a possibility that did not fall under the general rule he had from Jesus (Luke 16:18; Matt 5:32, 19:9). He counseled that if an unbelieving spouse wants a divorce, the Christian should allow that happen. The believer is no longer bound to that marriage, meaning the believer is free to remarry. We see Paul taking a pastoral approach to the new situation, showing his consistency with the teaching and action of Jesus. Many churches are right to make such adjustments in our secular culture. I invite you to consider the pastoral approach of the church to the human brokenness expressed in divorce. The basis for looking at divorce and remarriage differently is the changed cultural setting and (I emphasize this) the biblical conversation we see occurring.
Fourth, church tradition has had a responsibility to keep the conversation going. Divorce and re-marriage are examples of the dialogue within the biblical tradition and within the tradition of the church. The church tradition assumes from a theological perspective that human beings cannot dissolve marriage. Yet, the direction of the Bible and the tradition on this matter, the allowance for divorce and remarriage became a pastoral necessity. In later tradition, the death of the person from one is divorced becomes another sufficient allowance for remarriage. The Orthodox Church has taken this path before the church of the west did in that it considered the possibility of two divorces as allowable. It also considered that after the second divorce, the church would not remarry, for the person ought to consider the possibility that marriage is simply not for him or her. The ecumenical councils of the church deal with second marriages in a variety of ways, all stressing the seriousness of divorce. They give guidance on what happens if a man marries a divorced woman, and then wants to become clergy. They give guidance on the procedure for penance if someone divorces. Just as the New Testament considered proper grounds for divorce, the tradition continues that discussion, as well as grounds sufficient for a second marriage. In the context of sexuality, ecumenical councils defended marriage against attacks from the growing celibate community. The growing Christianizing of European culture led to less tolerance of divorce and even more so of remarriage.
Fifth, the proper grounds or rationale for divorce and remarriage are serious matters. If one assumes that both partners of the marriage are Christian, they receive the blessing of the church, and the culture supports Christian teaching and values, one ought not to be surprised that divorce and remarriage have less tolerance. However, the church continued its struggle to identify proper grounds. This means that the church is not against divorce. Rather, from a pragmatic perspective, it seeks to give spiritual and moral guidance as to the proper occasion for it.
God takes the act of divorce seriously. Anyone who has been through a divorce knows that there is plenty of sin to go around. We also know it represents a human failure and falls short of God’s intent in marriage. Even if one is attentive to the relationship, one never knows the darkness that may reside within. The woman may have a deep anger toward men that only marriage brings to the surface. The man may have residual anger the spills toward the woman and children. In both cases, the marriage may bring out the worst rather than the best. Sexual experimentation may reside deeply within either the man or woman. None of this darkness demands divorce. Yet, the church must offer its spiritual guidance that respects scripture and tradition, while also respecting the demands of a new cultural setting. The value of commitment and fidelity, the value of raising children, and the value of entering a relationship genuinely other in terms of sexuality, helps us to experience the good that God intends. Marriage and family are the primary ethical and moral training ground for us as human beings. God treats divorce seriously. God treats it as the ethical, moral, and spiritual issue that it is, rather than as an item of law. Therefore, the Bible does not mean that divorce and remarriage are unforgivable. Whatever sin we experience in divorce, God is fully capable of forgiving that sin. Further, as God forgives, God forgets. The same needs to become true of the church. We have the obvious biblical emphasis upon our need for grace and forgiveness because of sin. Therefore, a view consistent with the dialogue the Bible began would be that divorce is permissible, even if it is not a righteous choice. In an imperfect world, people sometimes make choices that are the lesser of evils. Further, I suggest that remarriage is not an adulterous condition. Sexual relations within the second marriage are holy.
Matthew 5:33-37 are exhortations around oaths in the legal style.[25] The source is Matthew but with a relationship with James 5:12 as well, where James urges his readers not to swear at all, either by heaven or earth, but rather, let your Yes be Yes and No be no. 33 The first clause contains the opposing standpoint:"Again, you have heard that it was said to those of ancient times, "You shall not swear falsely, the ninth commandment, but carry out the vows you have made to the Lord.' The second clause contains the new standpoint: 34 But I say to you, Do not swear at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, 35 or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. The concern shows that, like Judaism of his time, Jesus had a concern for the sanctification of the name of God. 36 And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. 37 Let your word be "Yes, Yes' or "No, No'; anything more than this comes from the evil one. The point is that they are to let their word be yes or no. They are to be honest and truthful in all they do. Anything more than this comes from the evil one. Even in the Hellenistic world, the oath was undignified and contrary to ethical principles. The person should be reliable, rather than need an oath toward some external authority. Critique of oaths may take on an enlightenment, antireligious note: appeal to the gods is superfluous because the reliability of the human being along is decisive. The true sage does not need oaths because he carries God in himself. To swear an oath means to pull God down into human affairs. One finds many of these Hellenistic motifs again in Philo. Jesus demands unrestricted truthfulness of the human word. The reliability of the human being alone is decisive.[26] Interestingly, according to Josephus, the Essenes rejected oaths so much so that Herod released them from the fealty oath of subjects. In rabbinic Judaism, the point was to prevent the misuse of the divine name by false or superfluous oaths. Matthew 23:16-22 may testify to the limited sense in which this prohibition found interpretation in early Christianity. In that passage, Jesus calls the Pharisees hypocrites for not taking oaths seriously. Paul also made use of the oath.
Wisdom sets aside jargon and abstract speculation, whose purpose is to obscure and impress rather than to illuminate and inform. Plain speech is so difficult because we are afraid of what other people will think. We will need to listen to the divine center of our lives to have simplicity of speech.[27] In American legend, “Silent Cal” was a master of simplicity. He had some memorable sayings that have some wisdom behind them.
• No one ever listened himself out of a job.
• I’ve never been hurt by something I didn’t say.
• The business of America is business.
• If you don’t say anything, you won’t be called on to repeat it.
• If you see 10 troubles coming down the road, you can be sure that nine will run into the ditch before they reach you.
Is there wisdom in simplicity? Is there depth of thought in simplicity of words? We often associate simplicity with lack of depth or shortage of intelligence. We ascribe intelligence to people who communicate using big words or hard-to-grasp concepts. We assume someone speaking in a dense, academic style must be smart. Of course, the issues we face in life are complex and full of intricacy. Yet, part of our task in life is to bring clarity. Simplicity is a skill we need to learn to guide our way through the complexities of life. Simplicity is also a skill a person needs to communicate to others. Simplicity is not easy, for it refuses to take shortcuts and it does not deny the complex reality of a human life. The wisdom we find in simplicity and clarity is a hard-fought battle in which we face thoughtfully and prayerfully the complexities of life.[28] George Plasterer is working on this virtue of keeping his writing simple.
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4] Verses 21-22a mirror a time when special rules were applied to behavior within the community of believers.
[5] J. Jeremias, TDNT, VI, 975-6.
[6] Stahlin, TDNT, V, 420.
[7] Martin Luther.
[8] Eugene Peterson, Under the Unpredictable Plant: An Exploration in Vocational Holiness (Eerdmans, 1992), 157.
[9] Verses 23-24, even though from a time when the sacrificial system was active, has the terminology of Matthew.
[10]
[11] Behm, TDNT, IV, 973.
[12] Rengstorf, TDNT, VIII, 539.
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17] (Frederick Buechner Wishful Thinking, 1973.
[18]
[19] Some scholars think it refers metaphorically to the body of the Christian community, at a time when it had to develop regulations for excluding members who did not conform to patterns of accepted behavior. To lop off members appeared preferable to having a contaminated body. Of course, the saying suggests that one should prefer a crippled body to the repeated ravages of temptation.
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23] Kittle, TDNT, IV, 105.
[24] Hauck/Schulz, TDNT, VI, 591-2.
[25]
[26] Schneider, TDNT, V, 177-81.
[27] Richard Foster, Celebration of Discipline, (New York: Harper & Row, 1978), 81.
[28] Inspired by John C. Maxwell, “Connectors keep it simple,”
No comments:
Post a Comment