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.
Let's consider more the contrast to the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees.
ReplyDeleteIn 5:20, Jesus makes that sweeping categorical statement, then immediately goes into the things that are very relevant to any discussion about not only the Law (5:17ff), but the Law in light of the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, experts in the Law.
So what of the first saying, 5:21-22, previous to his conclusion about it in 5:23ff?
What is normally considered a more punishable offense, to murder? or to be angry with your brother?! or to put your brother down?! or to say to someone "you fool"?! There is a (supposed, in common wisdom) decrease in punishability of such offenses, from murder, to angriness toward a brother, to putting down a brother's talent, to just using a common put-down of someone, with no specifics, in the heat of an event, say. A definite trend from more severe, to less severe, in the common wisdom. This is reversed by the Lord's explicit increase of the punishment, from court, to supreme court, to hell!
What is the effect of the diminuendo which is met by the Lord's crescendo? That the estimates of decrease in punishability are totally wrong! In what way? To use even one common pejorative word: that is severe enough, by its accompanying guilt, to incur the Gehenna of fire, normally translated hell. The smallest thing counts.
Since the smallest thing counts, the conclusion is valid. What then is the logic of this conclusion (5:23-26)?
Who in the world is there, who doesn't have someone, some brother in the larger sense, brother in the community, who doesn't in at least one instance have something against us? Well, since the smallest thing counts, can we restrict the statement of what we are to do, to something like "if we have time?"
No! Whatever obligations those under the Law had to keep, they had to agree that their obligations to bring sacrifices to the Temple were at or near the top. Therefore Jesus chooses that obligation, for which "I don't have time" is not available, to nix the prioritization downwards of being reconciled to our brother. If you have time for a sacrifice, guess what's more important! Leave it there and "be reconciled to your brother, and then come and present your offering" (5:24). This nixes the prioritization argument.
The smallest thing counts. Continuing soon. I hope to discuss Mt 5:29-30 in light of these things that come before.
Sometimes we simplify too much.
ReplyDeleteI’m old enough to remember the Cold War, even when it was in its zenith regarding the prospect of actual atomic warfare, in the 50’s and 60’s.
During school days, there was a drill to practice, which would prepare us to do something that would help us in the event of a nuclear strike near us. If it occurred near us, negative consequences could be less if people followed what we learned in the drill.
Was the drill lesson trying to teach us that unless we actually do this, we will die in a nuclear strike? No. It was helping us learn what would be the best to do in case of a nuclear strike near us.
Consider Mt 5:29-30. Sometimes we simplify too much. We often think of this passage as a direct warning, that unless we actually do what he says here regarding “stumbling,” we will be thrown into Gehenna. Famous people in the history of the church have thought this. Others have dismissed the saying with the idea of hyperbole, saying that Jesus is just using a dramatic picture to show that it’s wrong to not deal with sin.
Both of those interpretations are too simple. One is too simple and too severe. This has caused Christians doing themselves bodily harm. The other is too simple and too lenient. It leads people to think Jesus just meant “I’m serious about sin.”
It is really more like the philosophy behind the school drill. Consider two possibilities for the future: one is hugely more horrendous than the other. So practice what is consistent with the less horrendous outcome, so that the more horrendous outcome will not occur.