Brenda Lister emailed me some questions and comments that I thought would be helpful to post here. I have a feeling that others have the same concerns. So with Brenda's permission, here are her comments:
It does give me a bit of "heartburn" to have you use "pseudepigrapha" which is translated "false writing" and was not considered as worthy of being canon-ized as a basis for explaining the meaning of Jesus' teaching on hunger and thirst after righteousness. I think the example of what this means is found in Jesus Himself when confronted with Satan in the wilderness, after being without food and water for 40 days, still used Scripture (not pseudepigrapha) as a basis of defeating Satan. This says to me that it is better that we desire God (and His righteousness, that is, what He says is right) more than we would desire food and water if totally deprived of it.
Also, I contend that the account in Matthew''s Gospel is directed to the believing Jews to whom Matthew and the 12 (after Judas was replaced) were sent (see Matthew 10:5). Thus, the salvation message of belonging to the kingdom is for the Jew to whom Christ came to fulfill the prophecies and promises of the OT. In His earthly ministry, Christ directed His message to the Jews, "the lost sheep of Israel" and not to Gentiles (see Isaiah 53 which prophesizes to whom Messiah was sent).
Dan, will you draw this distinction, in teaching this class? Put simply, if every letter of Paul were torn from the Bible, would a person reading the OT and the Gospels in this day (in this dispensation) know how to be saved? I say no, for the finished work of Christ on the Cross, sufficient for the sin penalty, and Christ's resurrection, which is our means of being raised from the power of sin, is not found except in the Pauline epistles because it was only revealed to him by Jesus Christ Himself after He was ascended. Matthew taught about the "kingdom" whereas we are taught in Paul's teaching that Jesus Christ is not the King of the church, but rather, He is the Head and we are part of His body. This is unlike any Old Testament teaching, again because it was revealed to Paul alone.
I therefore was a bit confused when I heard members of class talking about the Sermon on the Mount emphasizing the way "in" the church. Perhaps the discussion focused on "church" as meaning the assembly of Jews, who began to believe that Christ was Messiah. These are the same Jews to whom Peter preached in Acts 4-6 and continued by Stephen in Acts 7. Both preached to law-keeping Jews the message of salvation by accepting that Jesus Christ was Messiah. So the church in which Peter, Stephen, and James preached was made up of the Circumcision and Gentiles who converted to Judaism. Paul spoke directly against this practice of forcing Gentiles to become, in effect, circumsized law-observers in Galatians.
Friday, June 25, 2010
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Righteousness in Matthew 5:6
In class I was asked a very insightful question that I dismissed with a simplistic answer. My intent was not to avoid the question, but to honestly answer the question with what I perceived to be valid riposte. Upon further study, I have found that my answer did not do justice to the question. Once again, back to the drawing board.
When we arrived at Matthew 5:20 and discussed the word “righteousness” I eventually made the claim that Matthew is going to use this word to describe what God demands from his people. The question was then proposed, “What about Matt 5:6? Does ‘righteousness’ here also mean ‘What God demands of his people?’”
Here is what I have found. It is widely agreed that Matthew does use the word “righteousness” to denote what God demands of his people (At this point in my reading, I cannot find anyone who disagrees with this statement). However, there is a split as to whether Matthew uses “righteousness” in this way every time (the word occurs seven times in Matthew: Matt 3:15; 5:6, 10, 20; 6:1, 33; 21:32). Thus, when we come to Matt 5:6 there are two options of interpretation proposed: (1) Hungering and thirsting for righteousness is what God expects of his people or (2) the verse should be understood as hungering and thirsting for (God’s) justice. Let’s discuss option (1) first.
In the OT, there was an understanding that one is to pursue righteousness, and if they do they will find righteousness (Prov 21:21 “He who pursues righteousness and loyalty / finds life, righteousness, and honor”). In the Testament of Levi 13:5 (found in the Pseudepigrapha and probably written during the 2nd century B.C.) there is an emphasis for doing righteous deeds in order to be found in heaven (“Work righteousness, my children, upon the earth, that you may find it in heaven”). Wisdom of Solomon 5:15 (found in the Apocrypha and written during the 1st century) reflects the belief that God looks after the righteous (“But the righteous live forever, and their reward is with the Lord; the Most High takes care of them.”). These three passages emphasize the desire one should have to pursue righteousness and the promise that God will provide in some fashion in the future, but they fail to use the same language that is used in Matt 5:6. However, there is one other NT passage that may shed some light on what Jesus is intending. In John 4:34, Jesus says, “My food is to do the will of him who sent me and to complete his work.” Here Jesus uses the language of food to represent what the Father expects him to do (and doing the will of God is pursuing righteousness).
Option (2) also has some Jewish literature to defend its case. Maybe the most explicit is found in Ps 107:5, 8–9. The passage reads: “hungry and thirsty, their soul fainted within them. Let them thank the LORD for his steadfast love, for his wonderful works to humankind. For he satisfies the thirsty, and the hungry he fills with good things.” This passage represents the “justice” of God as he is faithful to satisfy the needs of his hungry and thirsty people. See also Isa 41:17–18 where God is the one who supplies water for the thirsty. Also, Isa 51:5 where God’s justice is drawing near to those who are in need. Thus, in this view, the righteousness/justice of God reflects God’s faithfulness to come to the aid of his people.
It seems to me that both options have something to commend them. Yet, I feel that option (2) provides the better fit considering the context of Matt 5:3–12. In a context that is promoting the “poor in spirit,” the “mourning,” the “gentle,” and the persecuted, it seems that “hungering and thirsting” reflect some type of oppression rather than something that God demands. In this oppression the disciple is seeking righteousness; that is, God’s justice and deliverance. I believe that Prov 107 provides an adequate defense for this interpretation.
When we arrived at Matthew 5:20 and discussed the word “righteousness” I eventually made the claim that Matthew is going to use this word to describe what God demands from his people. The question was then proposed, “What about Matt 5:6? Does ‘righteousness’ here also mean ‘What God demands of his people?’”
Here is what I have found. It is widely agreed that Matthew does use the word “righteousness” to denote what God demands of his people (At this point in my reading, I cannot find anyone who disagrees with this statement). However, there is a split as to whether Matthew uses “righteousness” in this way every time (the word occurs seven times in Matthew: Matt 3:15; 5:6, 10, 20; 6:1, 33; 21:32). Thus, when we come to Matt 5:6 there are two options of interpretation proposed: (1) Hungering and thirsting for righteousness is what God expects of his people or (2) the verse should be understood as hungering and thirsting for (God’s) justice. Let’s discuss option (1) first.
In the OT, there was an understanding that one is to pursue righteousness, and if they do they will find righteousness (Prov 21:21 “He who pursues righteousness and loyalty / finds life, righteousness, and honor”). In the Testament of Levi 13:5 (found in the Pseudepigrapha and probably written during the 2nd century B.C.) there is an emphasis for doing righteous deeds in order to be found in heaven (“Work righteousness, my children, upon the earth, that you may find it in heaven”). Wisdom of Solomon 5:15 (found in the Apocrypha and written during the 1st century) reflects the belief that God looks after the righteous (“But the righteous live forever, and their reward is with the Lord; the Most High takes care of them.”). These three passages emphasize the desire one should have to pursue righteousness and the promise that God will provide in some fashion in the future, but they fail to use the same language that is used in Matt 5:6. However, there is one other NT passage that may shed some light on what Jesus is intending. In John 4:34, Jesus says, “My food is to do the will of him who sent me and to complete his work.” Here Jesus uses the language of food to represent what the Father expects him to do (and doing the will of God is pursuing righteousness).
Option (2) also has some Jewish literature to defend its case. Maybe the most explicit is found in Ps 107:5, 8–9. The passage reads: “hungry and thirsty, their soul fainted within them. Let them thank the LORD for his steadfast love, for his wonderful works to humankind. For he satisfies the thirsty, and the hungry he fills with good things.” This passage represents the “justice” of God as he is faithful to satisfy the needs of his hungry and thirsty people. See also Isa 41:17–18 where God is the one who supplies water for the thirsty. Also, Isa 51:5 where God’s justice is drawing near to those who are in need. Thus, in this view, the righteousness/justice of God reflects God’s faithfulness to come to the aid of his people.
It seems to me that both options have something to commend them. Yet, I feel that option (2) provides the better fit considering the context of Matt 5:3–12. In a context that is promoting the “poor in spirit,” the “mourning,” the “gentle,” and the persecuted, it seems that “hungering and thirsting” reflect some type of oppression rather than something that God demands. In this oppression the disciple is seeking righteousness; that is, God’s justice and deliverance. I believe that Prov 107 provides an adequate defense for this interpretation.
Two ambiguous words: "in" and "out"
It seems that two simple prepositions have become the source of much confusion. At the time I figured my drawing of a stick-man inside a circle with a couple of arrows would adequately explicate the complexity of E.P. Sanders' argument. Well, my much beloved stick-man has failed me. So, I have come back to the drawing board, in hopes of making my statement ("Matthew is not concerned with getting in, rather he is concerned about what it looks like for those who are in") more clear.
Normally, we speak of salvation in terms of "getting in." That is, "What must I do to be saved?" is a question of "getting in." The appropriate response to this question is "believe in Christ" or something of the sort. "Getting in" speaks about conversion and is always by faith. This is how we normally read Paul.
The problem comes when we try to apply this idea of conversion or "getting in" to the Jews of Jesus day. If we make the one-to-one correlation then we are left with a "legalistic" religion that seeks to earn its salvation by its good works.
E.P. Sanders' argued against this view of Judaism. He argued that the Jews believed and taught that conversion was by means of God's election, which included grace. Thus, they too were saved by grace, through faith. Obedience to the commandments that were given to the Jewish people were not a means of "getting in," but were the means of identifying who was and was not a part of God's people.
Thus, when we come to Matthew, I am suggesting that we read it in light of the Jewish understanding of obedience and works. That is, works were not the means of getting into the community, they were the means of identifying you as a part of the right community.
Normally, we speak of salvation in terms of "getting in." That is, "What must I do to be saved?" is a question of "getting in." The appropriate response to this question is "believe in Christ" or something of the sort. "Getting in" speaks about conversion and is always by faith. This is how we normally read Paul.
The problem comes when we try to apply this idea of conversion or "getting in" to the Jews of Jesus day. If we make the one-to-one correlation then we are left with a "legalistic" religion that seeks to earn its salvation by its good works.
E.P. Sanders' argued against this view of Judaism. He argued that the Jews believed and taught that conversion was by means of God's election, which included grace. Thus, they too were saved by grace, through faith. Obedience to the commandments that were given to the Jewish people were not a means of "getting in," but were the means of identifying who was and was not a part of God's people.
Thus, when we come to Matthew, I am suggesting that we read it in light of the Jewish understanding of obedience and works. That is, works were not the means of getting into the community, they were the means of identifying you as a part of the right community.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)