Monthly Archives: July 2019

Matthew 6: 16-18 Exploring Fasting and Righteousness

6 Replies

Ivan Kramskoy, Christ in the Desert (1872)

Matthew 6: 16-18

16 “And whenever you fast, do not look dismal, like the hypocrites, for they disfigure their faces so as to show others that they are fasting. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward. 17 But when you fast, put oil on your head and wash your face, 18 so that your fasting may be seen not by others but by your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you.

The third practice of righteousness that Jesus lifts up is fasting. Fasting, like prayer, is often considered in terms of personal piety but most of the discussion of fasting in the scriptures, like here, pushes against a public demonstration of piety. The disciple again acts in private, but their actions related to the community are to embody the justice they are to live. Much of the discussion of fasting in the Hebrew Scriptures comes in the prophets as they criticize the way fasting is done by other members of the community and attempt to reunite fasting with the practices of righteousness.

Both Jeremiah and Isaiah have the LORD rejecting the fasting of the people because of the wider practices of unrighteousness. This stark language from God in Jeremiah will draw protest from Jeremiah for the people’s sake:

The LORD said to me: Do not pray for the welfare of this people. Although they fast, I do not hear their cry, and although they offer burnt offering and grain offering, I do not accept them; but by the sword, by famine, and by pestilence I consume them. Jeremiah 14: 11-12

Even though the LORD commands Jeremiah to no longer pray for the people, Jeremiah does exactly that to intercede on their behalf. The prophet is still in a person where the words and actions are seen and heard by God for the people, but the practices of the people cannot be separated from either fasting or offering sacrifice. In a similar way the prophet Isaiah criticizes the disconnection of religious practices from practices of righteousness in his familiar critique:

Shout out, do not hold back! Lift up your voice like a trumpet! Announce to my people their rebellion, to the house of Jacob their sins. Yet day after day they seek me and delight to know my ways, as if they were a nation that practiced righteousness and did not forsake the ordinance of their God; the ask of me righteous judgments, they delight to draw near to God. “Why do we fast, but you do not see? Why humble ourselves, but you do not notice?” Look, you serve your own interest on your fast day, and oppress all your workers. Look, you fast only to quarrel and to fight and to strike with a wicked fist. Such fasting as you do today will not make your voice heard on high. Is such the fast I choose, a day to humble oneself? Is it to bow down the head like a bulrush, and to lie in sackcloth and ashes? Will you call this a fast, a day acceptable to the LORD? Is not this the fast I choose: to loose the bonds of injustice, to undo the thongs of the yoke, to let the oppressed go free, and to break every yoke? Is it not to share your bread with the hungry, and to bring the homeless poor into your house; when you see the naked, to cover them, and not to hide yourself from your own kin?  Isaiah 58: 1-7

I’ve quoted Isaiah at length because this understanding of fasting also connects with final teaching of Jesus in Matthew’s gospel where the righteous are those who fed the hungry, gave drink to the thirsty, clothed the naked, welcomed the stranger, cared for the sick and visited the imprisoned. (Matthew 25: 31-46)

Fasting is an appropriate practice of righteousness as a practice of repentance (see for example Joel 1: 13-18; 2: 12-17; Jonah 3: 5-9) and is practiced by the followers of John the Baptist (Matthew 9: 14-15) and Jesus’ followers are criticized for their lack of fasting in comparison with the Pharisees and the followers of John the Baptist. Fasting is appropriate to times and seasons, but it is also to be a practice which doesn’t exempt the disciple from their normal manner of interacting with the community. Fasting is not an excuse for oppressing workers or quarreling and fighting. Instead fasting is to be an act seen by God and is to be instead of a mournful act a joyful act for the kingdom. As the prophet Zechariah can state:

The word of the LORD of hosts came to me, saying: Thus says the LORD of hosts: The fast of the fourth month, and the fast of the fifth, and the fast of the seventh , and the fast of the tenth, shall be seasons of joy and gladness, and cheerful festivals for the house of Judah: therefore love truth and peace. Zechariah 8: 18-19

Matthew 6 is read in churches that follow a lectionary at the beginning of the season of Lent where fasting is one of the practices that Christians may choose to practice in this time of forty days. Fasting can be a challenging discipline to practice but it does not exempt the disciple choosing to fast from engaging in the life of the community or the world around them. The community which practices fasting and righteousness will be seen, even when the individual disciple’s fast is not. They will be seen by the way they loose the bonds of injustice and their fasting allows them to hunger and thirst for righteousness. Fasting may be an occasion for repentance but should also be practiced in joy, for such seems to be the fast that the Jesus chooses for his disciples.

Matthew 6: 5-15 Exploring Prayer, Forgiveness and Righteousness

7 Replies

James Tissot, The Lord’s Prayer (1896-1894)

Matthew 6: 5-15

Parallels : Mark 11: 25-26, Luke 11: 1-4

5 “And whenever you pray, do not be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, so that they may be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward. 6 But whenever you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you.

7 “When you are praying, do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do; for they think that they will be heard because of their many words. 8 Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.

9 “Pray then in this way:
Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name.
10 Your kingdom come. Your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.
11 Give us this day our daily bread.
12 And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.
13 And do not bring us to the time of trial, but rescue us from the evil one.

14 For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you; 15 but if you do not forgive others, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses. 

This second practice of righteousness is prayer, but the prayer is between the disciple and their heavenly Father and is not done to either impress the surrounding community or God with their piety or eloquence. As mentioned above, the righteousness that we are encountering in Matthew has little to do with the way we often think of religious piety. Instead it is based upon the security of the individual and the community in their covenant with their heavenly Father. The disciple’s actions may be done in secret, but the community who trusts in God’s provision and attention will be visible.

Jesus, like the law, the prophets and psalmists, viewed the relationship between the people and God as founded on their righteousness as practiced in mercy toward their neighbors and prayer is an important part of maintaining that relationship. As Samuel Ballentine when writing about prayer in the Hebrew Scriptures can state:

prayer is a principal means of keeping the community bound to God in an ongoing dialogue of faith. I suggest that the church is summoned to a ministry that both promotes and enables this dialogue. (Ballentine, 1993, p. 275)

Prayer is, in Ballentine’s language, “a service of the heart” which breaks into the mundane reality of daily life with the presence of the sacred. (Ballentine, 1993, p. 274) Prayer can happen in the public places, the synagogue and the street corners for example, and prayer led in the community has a long-standing place within the community’s worship. Yet, the community is made up of disciples who can also have the private and unseen places interrupted as the language of the heart encounters the heavenly Father who knows the needs of the heart.

Instead of prayer being fashioned around rubrics and phrases that are piled one upon another, prayer for the followers of Jesus is simple because it lifts up to God what God already knows. One is not in prayer to appease a god with one’s eloquence or to impress the divine with one’s piety, for with the heavenly Father one’s righteousness is already seen. It is not for public display and recognition, but this wise prayer recognizes and honors the already existing relationship between the disciple and their God who sees.

The Lord’s Prayer, as given in the gospels, is slightly different than most Protestant Christians learned through worship. The most notable difference is the deletion of the final phrases about “the kingdom and the power and the glory” being God’s. Ultimately this change comes from the tools available to scholars and translators that were not available when the influential King James Version, and other early English translations were produced. The King James version of the Bible used a simple majority of early texts to determine what was translated, while later translations (like the NRSV which I’m using as a basis for this reading) are able to use technologies like carbon dating to determine the age of a manuscript and privilege the oldest manuscripts. It appears that the addition of the phrases attributing glory to God appear later and are then incorporated into later copies of the gospels, perhaps reflecting an already existing practice in the early church.

The language of this prayer is familiar to most Christians, addressing God as the heavenly Father and asking God to make holy the name of God. From a scriptural perspective there is the commandment that the people of God are not to profane the name of God, but the relationship also allows the one praying or in dialogue with God to declare than an action by God would bring God’s name dishonor. For example, during the dialogue between God and Moses after the construction of the golden calf by Israel, Moses’ appeal to God not to destroy the people hangs upon this understanding:

Moses appeals to God’s own character by reminding God that God has already taken an oath (v. 13: nisba’ta lahem bak, “You have sworn to them by your own self”), the violation of which would jeopardize trust in the divine character. (Ballentine, 1993, p. 138)

The book of Psalms and Jeremiah also frequently uses this tactic in appealing to God to act in accordance with maintaining the sanctity of God’s name and honor.

The prayer continues with the prayer for the coming of the kingdom of heaven where God’s will is done on earth as well. The community and the disciple trust in God for the provision of the things they need. Like the people of Israel in the wilderness, where God provided mana, now the followers of Jesus can trust that God will provide the bread they need, even when their physical ability to provide resources is unable to sustain the crowds that gather around Jesus (see for example Matthew 14: 13-21 and Matthew 15: 32-39).

Forgiveness is lifted up within the prayer and immediately following the prayer and in both occurrences divine forgiveness and the practice of forgiving others is linked.  The link with the Apocryphal book of Sirach (sometimes called the Wisdom of Sirach or Ecclesiasticus) is often noted:

Forgive your neighbor the wrong he has done, and then your sins will be pardoned when you pray. (Sirach 28:2)

While Jesus and Matthew may or may not have been familiar with the book of Sirach, both are pulling on a long tradition of wisdom literature interpreting both law and righteousness to the hearer, and here the wise and righteous one forgives the neighbor in the context of prayer and in their actions. The practice of forgiving debts goes back to the practice of remitting debts every seventh year (see Deuteronomy 15: 1-18). Additionally, it is important to note that in Matthew both the practice of forgiving economic debts (see also Matthew 18: 23-35) and trespasses (wrongdoing or sin, see also Matthew 18: 21-22 where a question about forgiving sin is answered with a parable about economic justice). Both cases, economic and trespasses link the disciple’s forgiveness with their reception of divine forgiveness. This is a community where justice is practiced, but the merciful receive mercy (Matthew 5:7). Ultimately a community where reconciliation is practiced, and anger is addressed will need to be a community of forgiving disciples.

Finally, the prayer concludes with a prayer not to be brought to the time of testing and deliverance from the evil one. The disciple’s life rests in their heavenly Father’s hands and it is God who can deliver them in the times when their trust in God is tested. Following Jesus may involve suffering, but that does not mean that one prays for that suffering to enter one’s life. The presence of the evil one is assumed throughout Matthew. The devil and those who are actively or passively working for him will resist the approach of the kingdom of their heavenly Father.  Ultimately God is the one who can deliver from both temptation and the evil one.

Prayer and forgiveness, along with acts of mercy (almsgiving) are all ways in which righteousness is practiced for the individual within the community of the faithful. It is a community where thoughts and prayers are also surrounded by actions of justice and personal piety involves commitment to the good of the neighbors in the community. It is a place where the kingdom of heaven approaches the community of the faithful and God’s will is done in these places where earth and heaven meet. Prayer and forgiveness are practiced as a part of the relationship between the God of the disciples and the community they share. Everything is done in the confidence of God’s provision for the needs of the community as a whole and the disciples as individuals. The heavenly Father is the one they trust to rescue them from the temptation and persecution they will encounter.

Matthew 6: 1-4 Exploring Righteousness and Justice

5 Replies

Lady Justice at the Castellania in Valletta, Malta shared by user: Continentaleurope under Creative Commons 3.0

Matthew 6: 1-4

highlighted words translation will have comment below on translation

1 “Beware of practicing your piety before others in order to be seen by them; for then you have no reward from your Father in heaven.

2 “So whenever you give alms, do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, so that they may be praised by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward. 3 But when you give alms, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4 so that your alms may be done in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you.

Righteousness is an important concept to Matthew, and that is one of the reasons the translation of dikaisune as piety instead of righteousness in verse one obscures this linkage. While piety may capture the idea of the concrete religious acts like giving to the poor, prayer and fasting it also doesn’t capture the way that Jesus in Matthew’s, and the Hebrew Scriptures prior to this link a life lived in faithfulness to the covenant as more important than sacrifice or cultic ritual for one’s being in a right or just relationship with the God they come to worship. Justice/righteousness (the same word in Greek and Hebrew) is a critical concept of how one lives in relationship with one’s neighbor and ultimately with God in Jewish thought. Now the reason for practicing this righteousness is examined in view of the neighbor.

In the musical Wicked, Elphaba (the ‘wicked’ witch of the West as she will be known in the Wizard of Oz) sings about how ‘No Good Deed Goes Unpunished” after several losses in her story. A few of her lyrics are worth quoting as we consider practicing righteousness before others:

One question haunts and hurts
Too much, too much to mention
Was I really seeking good
Or just seeking attention?
Is that all good deeds are
When looked at with an ice-cold eye?
If that’s all good deeds are
Maybe that’s the reason why
No good deed goes unpunished

What is the reason for these practices of righteousness, are they seeking good or seeking attention? If the deeds are done to build up honor for the self, to place oneself as the righteous (in comparison with the unrighteous ones), or to win the admiration of the neighbor then the righteousness has become a public piety for others to see rather than a practiced righteousness seeking the justice for my neighbor. It is the type of practiced righteousness that allows those hungering and thirsting for righteousness to be filled.

This warning about how one practices righteousness is followed by three whenever statements (verse 2, 5 and 16) which expand upon this just practice of righteousness. The first has to do with the practice of providing for those in need. The Greek work eleemosune is one of two words, the other being dikaisune used in verse one, used in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures) to translate the Hebrew tsadeqah. (Case-Winters, 2015, p. 87) Justice/righteousness in Hebrew thought involves how one cares for the at risk members of the community and there are numerous provisions in the law to ensure that there is a means for the poor, the widow, the orphans and the strangers in the land to be cared for.  We think of alms in terms of charity for the poor, but the Hebrew people thought of this in terms of justice and righteousness. Yet this righteousness is not to be proclaimed to call attention to the giver, but instead is done for the benefit of the neighbor. It is done without fanfare and without consideration for the reward of the individual but instead is done for the sake of the community that the person able to give to those in need is called to live within.

The paradox of the visible community (see Matthew 5: 13-20) and doing righteousness in secret may seem strange to people used to thinking about righteousness and its practice in individualistic terms, but the key is that the disciple acts in a way that calls attention to the community and not to the individual. As Warren Carter can cleverly state, “Disciples are to “fish for” people, not impress them.” (Carter, 2005, p. 159)  Yet, it is the community of disciples which are the bait which lures people in the nets of the kingdom. One’s future security depends on the community and ultimately on the God the community serves rather than the individual acts to secure one’s prosperity. In a community where people give to those who beg of them and not refuse those who borrow from them acts of giving to those in need are a part of the character of the community. This is a community where the poor in spirit can experience the kingdom of heaven and truly be blessed.

Behind these actions of righteousness is the trust in a God whose kingdom has come near. God may provide for both the righteous and unrighteous, but the righteous can trust that God to provide for them as they live in a community of justice. This type of community and trust may be difficult to imagine for people living in an individualistic society where the weight of providing for one’s security rests upon the ability of the solitary individual, but in a kingdom where God provides the daily bread and where God’s will is done on earth as it is in heaven one can learn that practicing justice toward one’s neighbor requires neither public recognition nor assurances of recompense. The community that the Sermon on the Mount envisions rests upon the provision of a Father who sees the hidden things and knows the needs of the righteous ones of God.

Matthew 5: 33-47 A Community of Truthful Speech, Non-Violence and Love

5 Replies

Fra Angelico, Fresco in the Cloister of Mark in Florenz (1437-1445)

Matthew 5: 33-47

Parallel Luke 6: 27-36

Highlighted words will have comment on translation below

33 “Again, you have heard that it was said to those of ancient times, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but carry out the vows you have made to the Lord.’ 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. 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.

38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39 But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also; 40 and if anyone wants to sue you and take your coat, give your cloak as well; 41 and if anyone forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile. 42 Give to everyone who begs from you, and do not refuse anyone who wants to borrow from you.

43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 so that you may be children of your Father in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous. 46 For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47 And if you greet only your brothers and sisters, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

This is the final three of the six examples that Jesus provides his new followers of how to interpret scripture, live according to a law that has been fulfilled, He points to the type of community the kingdom of heaven embodies. Previously unreconciled anger, uncontrolled sexuality and broken relationships were revealed as things that undermined the type of community the Sermon on the Mount evokes, now untrue speech, violence and limited love are also revealed to be contrary to the nature of a community of the kingdom of heaven.

Jesus doesn’t quote a specific commandment or verse, but the discussion of vows or oaths occurs several places in the law and the making of vows or swearing of oaths occurs frequently in the narrative of the Hebrew Scriptures. The closest linguistic link is to Leviticus 19: 12, “You shall not swear falsely by my name, profaning the name of your God: I am the LORD.” In this passage in Leviticus the breaking of an oath sworn in God’s name is a violation of the commandment making wrongful use (profaning) the name of the LORD, the God of Israel. But throughout the law making oaths, even in the name of the LORD, are assumed and Deuteronomy 23: 21-23  for people in general and Numbers 30: 1-15, referring to which vows made by women are binding, give additional justification within Israel for the practice of making and keeping vows. Yet, Jesus moves away from this tradition of truthful speech as bound by an oath to a society where all speech is to be truthful.

I think many people would long for a world where truthful speech was the norm and one of the struggles of our digitally pluralistic society is that truthful speech may be indistinguishable from partial truths, obfuscations and maliciously told lies. As I think about the issues facing society: immigration, global warming, poverty, discrimination, and many others it is amazing the number of both conspiracy theories and misinformation that are given equal space to information that is well thought out and accepted by those working in the various fields. Perhaps reflecting on the untruth operating on his own society in the mid-1930s, Dietrich Bonhoeffer could comment in Discipleship:

There is no truth towards Jesus without truth toward other people. Lying destroys community. But truth rends false community and founds genuine fellowship. There is no following Jesus without living in the truth unveiled before God and other people. (DBWE 4: 131)

Yet, even churches and communities of faith can easily become places that do not value truth, but rather seek either easy accommodation or avoiding controversial topics of conversation. Even organizations that expressly claim to value truth in their mission or value statements may, by their actions demonstrate a preference for a convenient lie.

When we look at why people knowingly do not speak honestly there may be several reasons including fear of consequences and the desire to belong. In the type of community Matthew’s gospel attempts to point to truthful speech would not have consequences within the community and acceptance by the community would be assured. Even within the New Testament we see the early church struggle with conflict, belonging, and consequences both within and outside the community when people attempted to speak truthfully. The current expression of the body of Christ continues to struggle with being a place where truth can be honored and spoken, with or without vows. There has also been a reduction of truth in light of Postmodernity’s critique of Modernity’s search for an overarching truth that was universal for all people. The fracturing of truth to individual experience has both positive and negative aspects. On the positive side perspectives that were previously ignored or unvalued are being heard, but the reduction of truth to an individual’s experience of truth has made it easy to disregard other’s experience of truth that do not reinforce one’s own chosen truths. In a society of fractured truths, perhaps a community where truthful speech was welcomed and expected could be a place where the various perspectives, experiences and narratives could be brought together and both the community and their understanding of God, the world and one another could be enriched. Although I am a realist who can acknowledge the brokenness of truth in the church and in society; I am enough of an optimist to dream of a community where truthful speech can be heard and the ones who speak it honored.

The fifth commandment that Jesus references is commonly called the lex talionis (literally law of talons) which people believe mistakenly points to the brutality of the Hebrew Scriptures conception of law. Yet, Exodus 21: 12-27 which expands upon the commandment not to commit murder is about setting a limit to the violence that can answer violence. In contrast to witness of Lamech in Genesis 4: 23-24 where he boasts:

Lamech said to his wives, “Adah and Zillah, hear my voice; you wives of Lamech listen to what I say: I have killed a man for wounding me, a young man for striking me. If Cain is avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventy-sevenfold.”

In contrast to this expanding violence modeled by Lamech and by those who believe that revenge excuses the unlimited violence available to the vengeful one, lex talionis limits the violent response to be equivalent to the wound suffered:

If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.  (Exodus 21: 23-25)

But here violence is met with non-violence: cheeks are turned, coats and cloaks are handed over and the response to being forced to carry something one mile is to go the second. Responding to acts of violence non-violently are incredibly challenging to those, like myself, who were raised believing the paradox that violence may be wrong but also redemptive. A community of faith that practiced non-violence would be visible in contrast to the surrounding community that enforced its will through power or domination.

In the temptation narrative, (Matthew 4: 1-11) Jesus is offered domination over all the kingdoms of the world, which he rejects rather than worshipping the devil. Now the kingdom of heaven’s approach to the world is not like the bloody peace that Rome secured for its borders but instead a non-violent, enemy loving peace that is embodied in Christ’s life. During his arrest Jesus tells his disciples to put their swords away and when he is struck he does not respond in kind, the command to give coat and cloak is realized as the soldiers divide Jesus’ clothes among themselves, and in the person of Simon of Cyrene we see one compelled to carry a burden that is not their own by those in power. The cross itself becomes an alternative to the sword, the humiliation by the chief-priests, the scribes, Pilate and the soldiers is accepted rather than summoning twelve legions of angels. The far easier way, the way of the temptation narrative, is for one who is the Son of God to let the angels be commanded concerning his well-being and to bring the kingdoms into domination, but instead the way of Christ leads us to God’s offer of peace at the cross.

A community of peace, who embodies non-violent responses to the violence of the world is something that I both long for and struggle with. Prior to beginning seminary, I was a captain in the U.S. Army and growing up I saw myself as a career officer following in the footsteps of many in my immediate family who made their career in the military. I am aware of the way the stories I read, hear and watch are often stories of good in conflict with evil, but the struggle is done in terms of physical or military might rather than overcoming evil with love. I can admire the theological work of people like Walter Wink and John Howard Yoder who can talk about, and in Wink’s case be engaged in non-violent work. If the kingdom of heaven can reach Centurions in the gospels and warriors of any age, it will need to be a place where the practices of violence can be unlearned. I sometimes worry that people think of non-violence as a way to achieve one’s goals by other means, and while I do believe that there is a creative and disruptive response in each of these practices, which I will address below, I think one needs to acknowledge the risk involved in responding to violence with non-violence. This is a part of bearing one’s cross to follow Jesus.

Turning the other cheek does force the one who responded in violence to move from a slap to a more violent hit with the back of the hand. Giving one’s coat and one’s cloak leaves the person standing naked in the courtroom or public place which brings shame on both the naked one and the one who has sued for the coat. Going the second mile goes beyond what a soldier was supposed to ask a person to do. Non-violence can be effective but using non-violence may be met with increased violence. Practicing non-violence can be done individually but it can only change the world when it is practiced by the community. Jesus may be able to die on the cross and change the world, but we can only be the body of Christ in community. There are also times where political non-violence is advocated by people who interact with people individually in a way that does not value who they are in the community. John Howard Yoder, who book The Politics of Jesus highlighted Jesus’ call for non-violence, was also accused by many women of abuse, harassment and assault.[1] Ultimately non-violence without truthful speech, healthy relationships, restraint of lust and reconciliation of anger doesn’t embody the kingdom of heaven that Jesus calls for.

Paired with these practices of non-violence is a type of giving that conflicts with our own limits and self-preservation. Giving to everyone who begs and not refusing those asking to borrow seems maybe more unbelievable than the practice of non-violence to many Christians. I do think Jesus is pointing to a way of life where one places one’s treasure where one wants their heart to be (Matthew 6:21) and as we have seen earlier in the Sermon on the Mount the focus is on a community where the poor in spirit, the mourning, the meek and those hungering and thirsting for righteousness can be truly blessed. I do think trying to live the ideals of the Sermon call for wisdom and patience and an ability to hold in tension the vision of the kingdom and the experience of the church one encounters.

The final reinterpretation which expands the command to love neighbors to include loving enemies expands the boundaries of these practices beyond the community of faith and beyond the network of people in the community or nation. The command to love one’s neighbor is vulnerable to the tribalism of nation, ethnicity, class, religious community and any other boundary that humans naturally establish. In the gospel of Luke the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10: 25-37) is another reexamination of this commandment to love the neighbor in narrative form. Throughout the scriptures the people of God are encountered by enemies and there are times where they are commanded to eliminate them (for example Deuteronomy 7: 1-5) and often the petitioner may ask God to judge or condemn their enemies but here the enemy is to be treated as the neighbor. In a kingdom of reconciliation there is a place for my enemy at the banquet of the Lord. Just as I was to be reconciled with a brother or sister prior to bringing my offering to the altar, so now I am to be reconciled with my enemy and to treat them as my brother and sister. In this community that is to be a light set on a lampstand or a city on the hill the practices are not the same as the practices of the nations. A community that is to be the salt that preserves the world does not only preserve the portions of the world where my neighbor lives, but the entire world. Like their God who provides for the righteous and unrighteous and causes the sun to rise on the good and evil.

The final line of the chapter has encouraged people reading it in English translations to hear the Sermon on the Mount within the parameters of being perfect, however the word translated perfect is better translated whole or complete. I’ve written about perfection and blamelessness in the Bible elsewhere and framing the Sermon on the Mount in terms of moralistic perfection has caused many to view it as an unattainable ethic for either the individual or the community. Telios which is the word behind perfect is a word for a goal (it for example is the prefix in the English telescope). I think it is enlightening that Luke’s parallel of this is “Be merciful, just as your heavenly Father is merciful” which takes the emphasis in a different direction. This final line in Matthew 5 brings together ideas from Leviticus 19:2 and Deuteronomy 18:13:

Speak to the congregation of Israel and say to them: You shall be holy, for I the LORD your God and holy. (Leviticus 19:2)

You must remain completely loyal to the Lord your God. (Deuteronomy 18:13)[2]

Matthew does imagine a community that reflects the Lord they follow. Like Israel before them, now the community of disciples is to be that which preserves and illuminates the earth. They are to be a community that stands out among the nations like a city on a hill. The vision, apart from the one who calls us into it and the promise of the advent of the kingdom of heaven, may seem foolish when compared with the wisdom the nations practice. A community that attempts to live into this vision may be persecuted for righteousness sake because they will be visible by their practices. For Matthew the law remains a gift for the community of the faithful and the community of disciples will now be expected to practice a mercy and righteousness that exceeds that of the communities of the Pharisees or Sadducees. This type of community may seem like an impossible dream or an unreachable goal, but I do think as a goal to move toward and to orient the community of disciples in the practices and life it can be a gift to the community that listens to it and allows it to reshape them. A community where reconciliation is practiced and anger does not dominate, where women and men and relationships are valued, where words are truthful, where violence does not dominate, physical needs are met, and enemies can become neighbors and even brothers and sisters. May we seek this wholeness that God embodies for us.

[1] In October 2014 the Anabaptist Mennonite Biblical Seminary Board (where Yoder taught) issued the following statement: “As an AMBS Board, we lament the terrible abuse many women suffered from John Howard Yoder. We also lament that there has not been transparency about how the seminary’s leadership responded at that time or any institutional public acknowledgement of regret for what went so horribly wrong. We commit to an ongoing, transparent process of institutional accountability which the president along with the board chair initiated, including work with the historian who will provide a scholarly analysis of what transpired. We will respond more fully once the historical account is published. We also support the planning of an AMBS-based service of lament, acknowledgement and hope in March 2015”

[2] I have highlighted completely loyal because the NRSV here translates the Hebrew tamim (often rendered holy in the NRSV) in a way that blurs the connection between Deuteronomy and Matthew.

 

Matthew 5: 21-32 Law and Relationships in the Kingdom

6 Replies

James Tissot, Sermon on the Beatitudes (1886-96)

Matthew 5: 21-32

Parallel Mark 9: 43-48; 10: 11-12; Luke 12: 57-59; 16:18

Highlighted words will have comment on translation below

21 “You have heard that it was said to those of ancient times, ‘You shall not murder’; and ‘whoever murders shall be liable to judgment.’ 22 But I say to you that if you are angry with a brother or sister, you will be liable to judgment; and if you insult a brother or sister, you will be liable to the council; and if you say, ‘You fool,’ you will be liable to the hell of fire. 23 So when you are offering your gift at the altar, if you remember that your brother or sister has something against you, 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. 25 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, and you will be thrown into prison. 26 Truly I tell you, you will never get out until you have paid the last penny.

27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away; it is better for you to lose one of your members than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 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.

31 “It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ 32 But I say to you that anyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

This is the first half on six examples that Jesus provides his new followers of how to interpret scripture, live according to a law that has been fulfilled and points to the type of community the kingdom of heaven embodies. Often these are heard as moralistic, as Jesus intensifying the commandment to the point where no mere mortal could keep it and as an unattainable goal that we are expected to reach to appease God. I do believe there is much to be gained in wrestling honestly with these words and trying to discern how they may indeed be a gift to the community of disciples and how they may point to a life that is worth striving for. These commandments and their interpretation are a gift that point to a type of society embodied in the kingdom of heaven. As mentioned before, I do believe that Jesus is operating out of a hermeneutic of mercy and I do believe that, especially as these words go against the ways often practiced in society and church, that they do point towards a type of community that would be visible in the midst of the world around them because of their actions toward others in the community, those outside the community and even those who would label the members of this community as enemies. It is a community in which anger is overcome, lust does not dominate our relations with one another, language is simple and truthful, retaliation is renounced and even enemies are met with love rather than hatred. (Hays, 1996, p. 321)

Jesus takes up the mantle of Moses both from his position on the mountain and the articulation of the commandments, but he also boldly goes beyond the commandments of Moses by following each commandment with, “But I say to you.” The first command that receives interpretation is the commandment related to murder or killing (Exodus 20: 13, Deuteronomy 5:17) and the additional line about whoever murders shall be liable to judgment probably refers to the expansion on the commandment on murder in Exodus 21: 12-27 and in Exodus and Deuteronomy the commands related to murder are to create a society where my neighbor’s life is more important than any grievance I may have with my neighbor. I don’t think any rational person wants a society where the killing of one’s neighbor is permitted but Jesus points towards a society where not only my neighbor’s life but my neighbor’s reputation and my relationship with my neighbor are to be protected. I was brought up with the proverb that, ‘sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me,’ and those who have been in any community I’ve served have heard my reshaping of this proverb to, ‘sticks and stones may break my bones but words will send me to therapy.’ Words can indeed wound and can not only damage my neighbor’s standing in the community but also my neighbor’s relationship to me. Matthew wants us to understand the importance of reconciliation in the community and he will also have us hear Jesus teaching on this in Matthew 18.

I have struggled with several of the passages in the Sermon on the Mount because I heard them as articulating a type of moralistic perfection which I have never been able to practice. While I can agree with Proverbs that, “Whoever is slow to anger has great understanding, but one who has a hasty temper exalts folly.” (Proverbs 14: 29) I’ve come to accept that anger is a necessary and sometimes helpful emotion when it helps us realize when something is unjust or when it helps to signal something that is unhealthy for us. Hearing this interpretation of the commandment through the lens of moralistic perfection my practice was to suppress anger but that is also an extremely unhealthy practice which has consequences for relationships and for physical health. It is possible that Jesus is articulating a commandment which forbids some of our most basic and primal emotions, many have interpreted Jesus this way, but I do think the direction of this command is towards the life of the community.

If I allow myself to remain in a place of anger towards my brother or sister without working toward reconciliation, then I do place myself in a position of being liable to judgment. If my words spoken in anger or judgment towards my neighbor cause loss of status in the society or create emotional wounds that they have to bear I am responsible for attempting to reconcile their position in the society and to attempt to heal the wounds I have caused. With the prophets and the psalms, we hear in Jesus that our life in the world is our preparation to be in place to offer sacrifice. As is Psalm 24,

“Who shall ascend the hill of the LORD? And who shall stand in his holy place? Those who have clean hands and pure hearts, who do not lift up their souls to what is false, and do not swear deceitfully.” (Psalm 24: 3-4)

For Jesus reconciliation with my neighbor whom I have offended or wounded is more important than any act of sacrifice or worship. Relationships are at the center of this kingdom of heaven which has come near in Jesus. This way of life also extends beyond the boundaries of the community toward those who do not practice it. Those who would bring me to court over my actions are practicing the litigious practices of the world in which the disciples will find themselves in, but the disciples are instructed to work towards reconciliation even with those who view litigation as the default method of handling differences.

The commandment on adultery is also expanded in a similar manner to now include looking at a woman with lust in one’s eyes. It is possible that Jesus is declaring that men are not to desire women sexually and there are those who interpreted this commandment in terms of an interim ethic of physical and spiritual celibacy but again this would articulate a type of moralistic perfection that I have never been able to practice. I do believe that we were created for connection and that our sexuality is a part of the gift that God has granted us and yet it is a gift that has an impact on the way we interact in community. Sexuality is a highly charged topic of discussion both within religious communities and throughout society and for many what happens in the bedroom should stay in the bedroom but as uncomfortable as these discussions may be they are necessary to our life of faith.

As a starting point for this discussion of Jesus’ interpretation of the commandment on adultery let’s begin with the dehumanizing experience of sexual harassment. As I mentioned above in the discussion on the commandment to murder, one doesn’t need to physically wound someone to either emotionally wound a person or damage their place within the community. Women (and men although less frequently) may be viewed as sexual objects rather than people worthy of respect and dignity. In the kingdom of heaven men and women are viewed instead as people set apart as treasured possessions, a nation of priests and chosen people. The relationships between women and men are to be different than those embodied in the community around them where women, in particular, may be not be valued as full citizens of the kingdom.

The Sermon on the Mount is about creating a community that embodies the kingdom of heaven, and relationships within that community are essential. Sexuality is a powerful part of the relationship we share with others in the community. While the commandment on adultery is primarily viewed in the Hebrew Scriptures as protecting the male in the relationship, polygamy was practiced and if a woman was not married or promised then there were provisions to bring her into the relationship with the person who had intimate relations with her (desired or undesired, see for example Deuteronomy 22: 15-30) but now the command places the responsibility upon the male not to objectify the woman as an object of desire.

We live in a world where women do have rights and protections that did not exist in the time of Jesus, however wrestling with how we as a community embody this commandment are as important today as they have been at any point in our history. The ‘me too’ movement and the exposure of a number of prominent men (and a few women) who have used their power and authority to sexually harass, abuse and assault employees, co-workers and relations should be a clarion call for we as a community of Christ to talk about what healthy sexuality looks like. In addition, we live in a time where sexuality has become highly commercialized and readily available. One of the risks to relationships in our digital age is the easy availability of sexually explicit imagery on the internet. If men and women are being conditioned to look at other bodies as sexual objects rather than a gift for relationship then we have moved far away from the vision of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount. There are powerful forces behind the way sexuality is used and misused in our society. As Stephanie Coontz could state prior to the internet:

 “the consumerist values that had already made sex a marketable commodity” were increasingly applied to female and gay sexuality as well as to traditional gender roles and marriage, for purposes dictated by the multi-billion-dollar sex industry, not for the aims of personal liberation or social transformation. (Coontz, 1992, p. 265)

The kingdom of heaven is about communal liberation and social transformation and it is not for commercial gain. It is about relational reconciliation rather than sexuality exploitation. It is about a community that embodies a different way of modeling the relationships between men and women. Yet, I think it is important to remember that this is about something different than moralistic perfection, in our individualistic world we many ask, “What should I do?” but the kingdom of heaven is about a community where we can ask, “What should we do?” What kind of community could we imagine where we can talk to young men and women, and adults as well, about how we relate to one another sexually while valuing one another’s place within the community. Perhaps the easier road is the one of celibacy which Jesus discusses in Matthew 19: 10-12 but not everyone, myself included, could accept this teaching.

Matthew places between the commandment on adultery and the discussion on divorce the harsh words about removing eyes or hands to demonstrate the serious nature of relationships in the kingdom of heaven. On one hand it is important to state that this is probably not intended to be taken literally in an individualistic manner, but as a community it is important to live in a way that embodies the kingdom of heaven and there may be times where a member of the community is cut off or cast out (see Matthew 18, although the hope is also for reconciliation with the community). This is also the first time in the gospel of Matthew we encounter the concept of Gehenna, translated hell. For most Christians the term hell carries a lot of baggage and there has been a long tradition of imagining hell as a place of torture. Most of the Hebrew Scriptures do not have an equivalent concept of Gehenna or hell, Sheol is a place of the dead but not a place of condemnation. Jesus, especially in Matthew and the synoptic tradition, does include punishment for those who choose the path of the wicked. The gospels use the term Gehenna a term that originates with the valley of Hinnom, which was considered a cursed place and a place where trash from Jerusalem was burned but it also is used as the opposite of the kingdom of heaven. Choose the kingdom of heaven or choose Gehenna, it is a choice between wisdom and foolishness. I think it is difficult to argue that Jesus does not have some conception of a judgment that goes beyond this life that parallels the resurrection that also transcends this life. Yet, this choice, like the choice between wisdom and foolishness, is so that people may choose the way of this visible community that is embodying the way of life articulated in the sermon.

Finally comes the first discussion of divorce in Matthew, also addressed in Matthew 19: 3-12, which indicates this may have been an issue that Matthew’s community needed to hear addressed multiple times. Before I begin this discussion, we all are shaped by our own stories and mine includes divorce and remarriage and I have had to wrestle with this text and others in the New Testament as I attempted to walk through these as faithfully as possible. I’ve shared more on my experience of divorce here. I also serve a community where many in the community have divorce as a part of their story. I once believed that there was always something someone could do to prevent a divorce, but ultimately a modern relationship relies upon both parties investing in the relationship. Jesus lived in a time where marriage was understood differently, marriages for most of history were primarily an economic relationship arranged between families to attempt to ensure a good match for the child and the family’s economic future. Within this economic arrangement a divorce placed the woman in a tenuous situation because she was no longer a favorable match for a second partner and may not be welcomed back into their father’s home. In a world of limited economic opportunities, a woman may be reduced to begging or prostitution.

This passage refers to Deuteronomy 24: 1-4 is the only place in the law where divorce is discussed for the general population of Israel (there are provisions in Leviticus for priests). Now Jesus links this provision with the commandment on adultery. The Greek term porneia which is translated unchastity by the NRSV is open to debate about its exact meaning: illicit sexual relations with a person other than the spouse, premarital unchastity or even (in relation to Leviticus 18) being married too closely in family relations (an incestuous marriage in the eyes of the law). In Greek this term is a general term relating to sexual-misconduct but it is a different term than moicheoo which is translated adultery in this passage. Yet, when compared to its Markan parallel we see that this exception is added in Matthew’s version. As Richard B. Hays can state:

No matter what interpretation is put upon the clause, it is undeniable that we see here a process of adaptation, in which Jesus’ unconditional prohibition of divorce is applied and qualified in the interest of predicatability. Here, as elsewhere, to work out a balance between rigor and mercy, between the demands of discipleship and the realities of the community’s situation. (Hays, 1996, p. 355)

Within the New Testament divorce is addressed in Matthew, Mark, Luke and 1 Corinthians and even within the formation of the New Testament we see the community trying to find the balance between rigor and mercy, between discipleship and the reality of their community situation. Paul, for example, in 1 Corinthians has to deal with the issue of believers who are married to non-believers and whose non-believing spouses may want to terminate the relationship.

The discussions related to divorce in churches, along with other issues of sexuality, can be difficult because the issues impact people at their deepest and most intimate levels of desire for connection. In a time where marriages are based on love and emotion, I do think it is important to acknowledge the danger of this dependence on the immediacy of feeling to maintain a lifetime relationship. As Stephanie Coontz can articulate:

Our dependence on love leads us to demand the constant renewal of romance, gift exchange, and self-revelation. But as soon as we can take someone’s gifts for granted, or their novelty wears off, the love is at risk. Boredom, argues sociologist Richard Sennett, is the logical consequence of relationships constructed according to the cult of private intimacy; infidelity and planned obsolescence are consumer society’s answer to boredom: “When two people are out of revelations…all too often the relationship comes to an end.” (Coontz, 1992)

Jesus’ vision of relationships is very different that the vison of relationships articulated in our individualistic and consumeristic society. I do think Stanley Haerwas’ framing of the question differently is a helpful starting point:

In similar fashion the question is not whether a divorced woman should be allowed to marry, but what kind of community must a church be that does not make it a matter of necessity for such a woman to remarry. If Christians do not have to marry, if women who have been abandoned do not have to remarry, then such a church must be a community of friendship that is an alternative to the loneliness of the world. (Hauerwas, 2006, p. 70)

Jesus is articulating a way of being that embodies the kingdom of heaven, where relationships are central, where reconciliation is important and where men and women can dwell together in safety and love. The community of faith has rarely, if ever, fully embodied this vision and we deal with broken relationships, abused trust and hurtful words and actions. Yet, even though the accusation could be justly made that this type of vision is utopian in outlook we are talking about articulating the kingdom of heaven. Israel and now this community of disciples is intended to be an alternative community to the world around it. They are intended to be salt to preserve and light to illuminate and a city on the hill which the nations can stream to. It is a goal towards which the community of the faithful can strive towards but there also needs to be done within a way of reading that is merciful and allows a space for forgiveness.

Gehenna, Tartaros, Sheol, Hades and Hell

9 Replies

Mauricio Garcia Vega “Visita al infierno’ shared by artist under Creative Commons 3.0

 

For many Christians the concept of hell has a lot of baggage associated with it. In the New Testament Gehenna, Sheol, or Tartaros which are translated Hades (Sheol) or Hell (Gehenna or Tartaros) did not carry the same level of imagined meaning to its hearers. The New Testament is not primarily concerned with heaven and hell as locations for the afterlife reward and punishment, which is how most people hear these terms today.

The Afterlife in the Hebrew Scriptures

For most of ancient Judaism heaven was the place that God reigned from, but it was not a place where humans (except for a select few like Elijah and Enoch) were brought to be with God. The Hebrew Scriptures are primarily concerned with the relationship between God and the people of God in this life. The blessings of covenant faithfulness were to be experienced in the provision of God for the people and the curse of covenant unfaithfulness was experienced in the struggle and strife that occurred through invasion, famine and illness. There is a long history of lament when the blessings of covenant faithfulness seem to be denied by God unfairly, but this faithful protest to God still expected God’s action within the lifetime of the prophet or poet calling for God’s action. There is a concept of Sheol, a place where the dead rest, but it is not a place of punishment or reward but simply a place where the dead are. Two quick examples of the concept of Sheol in the Hebrew Scriptures: it occurs frequently in Psalms and Proverbs as a place where the dead go and where the faithful one will end up if God does not intervene. In Psalm 6:5 the author attempts to bargain with God to deliver them because, “For in death there is no remembrance of you; in Sheol who can give you praise?” Additionally, there was an understanding that, even though it was prohibited magic for the Jewish people, a medium was summoning the shade of a dead one from somewhere which we see in the story of Saul consulting the medium at Endor. (1 Samuel 28)

Belief about death would evolve near the end of the time where the Hebrew Scriptures were written because the experience of the people appeared to be in tension with the promise of covenant faithfulness. As Samuel Ballentine, quoting Peter Berger, can state:

“All socially constructed worlds are inherently precarious,” P. Berger observes. They are precarious because the socially managed consensus concerning right and wrong, good and evil, actions and abilities that are acceptable and those that exceed tolerable limits, is constantly threatened by chaos. (Ballentine, 1993, p. 139)

At the end of Isaiah, we see the first idea of an everlasting punishment for those who have rebelled against God. This is set within the larger context of an ingathering of the nations where all flesh worships before God but there is articulated a judgment for those who rebel against God that goes beyond this life:

And they shall go out and look at the dead bodies of the people who have rebelled against me; for their worm shall not die, their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh. (Isaiah 66:24)

In the Jewish writings like 2 Maccabees, Enoch and 2 Esdras, which are written between the time of the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament, we see the evolution of the resurrection of the dead but at the time of Jesus this is not a universal belief (the Pharisees and Jesus accept it but the Sadducees do not.)

In the New Testament

Tartaros occurs only in 2 Peter 2:4 and refers to a place where the rebellious angels are sent. This is combined in later theology to make hell the domain of the devil and the fallen angels, but this evolution has not occurred at the time when the New Testament is written. Satan has fallen from heaven, but his place seems to be on the earth at the time of the gospels. There is the concept of the Abyss in Revelation as well as angels and demonic forces which are unleashed from the sea and the earth as well as punishment in the lake of fire in Revelation 20: 11-15 where the devil and those who align themselves with him end up.

Sheol in the New Testament is translated Hades and is often in parallel with death. It seems to serve a similar function to the use of Sheol in the Hebrew Scriptures as a place where people are brought down to at death, but it also becomes personified as an entity (along with death) that is resisting God’s reign. In Matthew it is used twice, once in reference to Capernaum which has had ample opportunities to hear Jesus’ message and repent but since there has not been repentance will be brought down to Hades (Matthew 11:23) and most famously after the declaration of Peter:

And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. (Matthew 16: 18)

Gehenna is used more in Matthew than in any other book of the New Testament (Matthew 5:22, 29, 30 [parallel Mark 9:43, 45,47] 10:28 [Parallel Luke 12: 5]; 18:9; 23: 15 and 33). The only uses outside of Matthew and Mark and Luke is James 3:6 (speaking about the tongues ability to set on fire being itself set on fire by Gehenna). To further explore Matthew’s concept, I’ve listed each place Matthew uses the idea of Gehenna.

22 But I say to you that if you are angry with a brother or sister, you will be liable to judgment; and if you insult a brother or sister, you will be liable to the council; and if you say, ‘You fool,’ you will be liable to the hell of fire… 29 If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away; it is better for you to lose one of your members than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 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. Matthew 5: 22, 29, 30 [parallel Mark 9:43, 45,47]

28 Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell. Matthew 10:28 [Parallel Luke 12: 5]

8If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away; it is better for you to enter life maimed or lame than to have two hands and two feet and to be thrown into the eternal fire. 9 And if your eye causes you to stumble, tear it out and throw it away; it is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and to be thrown into the hell of fire (Matthew 18: 8-9)

15 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you cross sea and land to make a single convert, and you make the new convert twice as much a child of hell as yourselves. Matthew 23: 15

33 You snakes, you brood of vipers! How can you escape being sentenced to hell? Matthew 23: 33

Additionally Matthew does have a concept of the age of punishment in contrast to the age of life in Matthew 18:8, 19: 16, 29 and 25: 41 and 46. (I am intentionally not using the NRSV and most modern translations’ usage of eternal punishment and eternal life because these also have a lot of baggage in the Christian tradition).

Deror Avi, Picture of the Valley of Hinnom (2007) Shared by photographer under GNU Free Documentation License 1.2

Jesus, especially in Matthew and the synoptic tradition, does include punishment for those who choose the path of the wicked. The gospels use the term Gehenna a term that originates withthe valley of Hinnom, which was considered a cursed place and a place where trash from Jerusalem was burned but it also is used as the opposite of the kingdom of heaven. Choose the kingdom of heaven or choose Gehenna, it is a choice between wisdom and foolishness. I think it is difficult to argue that Jesus does not have some conception of a judgment that goes beyond this life that parallels the resurrection that also transcends this life. Yet, rather than giving us terrifying descriptions to fuel the imaginations, Jesus uses the term in a way that the people of his time would understand and that we can only approach through the accumulated tradition and imagination of the church and artists. Jesus doesn’t focus on Gehenna or heaven as a destination, instead he is focused on the kingdom of heaven’s approach to earth. Gehenna is the place that those who oppose the kingdom of heaven find themselves.

How do we as Christians almost two thousand years after Jesus death and resurrection approach this concept of judgement and hell? Here is some wisdom I can share that I’ve learned from other wise thinkers on our tradition. The first comes from Miroslav Volf in his work Exclusion and Embrace where in the final chapter he makes the point:

Most people who insist on God’s “nonviolence” cannot resist using violence themselves (or tacitly sanctioning its use by others). They deem the talk of God’s judgment irreverent, but think nothing of entrusting judgment into human hands, persuaded presumably that this is less dangerous and more humane than to believe in a God who judges! That we should bring “down the powerful from their thrones” (Luke 1: 51-52) seems responsible; the God should do the same, as the song of that revolutionary Virgin explicitly states, seems crude. And so violence thrives, secretly nourished by belief in a God who refuses to wield the sword.

My thesis that the practice of nonviolence requires a belief in divine vengeance will be unpopular with many Christians, especially theologians in the West. To the person who is inclined to dismiss it, I suggest imagining that you are delivering a lecture in a war zone (which is where a paper that underlies this chapter was originally delivered). Among your listeners are people whose cities and villages have been first plundered, then burned and leveled to the ground, whose daughters and sisters have been raped, whose fathers and brothers have had their throats slit. The topic of the lecture: a Christian attitude toward violence. The thesis: we should not retaliate since God is perfect noncoercive love. Soon you would discover it takes the quiet suburban home for the birth of the thesis that human nonviolence corresponds to God’s refusal to judge. In a scorched land, soaked in the blood of the innocent, it will invariably die. And as one watches it die, one will do well to reflect about many other pleasant captivities of the liberal mind. (Volf, 1996, pp. 303-304)

Additionally, I would add the way we often use the concept of eternal damnation and salvation incorrectly, something I learned from Lesslie Newbingin:

In the debate about Christianity and the world’s religions it is fair to say that there has been an almost unquestioned assumption that the only question is, “What happens to the non-Christian after death?” I want to affirm that this is the wrong question and that as long as it remains the central question we shall never come to the truth. And this for three reasons:

    1. First, and simply, it is the wrong question because it is a question to which God alone has the right to give the answer….
    2. The second reason for rejecting this way of putting the question is that it is based on an abstraction. By concentrating on the fate of the individual soul after death, it abstracts the soul from the full reality of the human person as an actor and sufferer in the ongoing history of the world…
    3. The third reason for rejecting this way of putting the question is the most fundamental: it is that the question starts with the individual and his or her need to be assured of ultimate happiness, and not with God and his glory.(Newbingin, 1989, pp. 177-179)

Ultimately questions of heaven and hell, salvation and damnation are not in my control, and that is something I am thankful for. I do trust that God is wiser than I am in judgment and that ultimately the injustice in this world will not outlast God’s justice. The world’s violence will not ultimately thwart God’s kingdom of peace. Beyond this I can accept that there is an opposite to the kingdom of heaven that Jesus announces to those who hear him, but instead of focusing on Gehenna and the path of foolishness I attempt to follow the path of the kingdom and share it with those who have ears to hear. Beyond this part which I can live and proclaim I leave the rest in God’s capable hands.