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.
If my obedience and works identify me as part of the right community, what does my disobedience and sin identify me as? It does no good to say that I don't have disobedience or that I don't have sin.
ReplyDeleteI know Paul's answer (Gal 2:17). The Johannine answer (Jn 8:34) is similar. James' answer is similar (Jm 2:10).
I think Matthew's answer veers away from the question of counting sin or works, as if that provided identification. A single sin is like an urgent action-item: get reconciled (5:24), tear out the cause (5:29-30), take the plank out (7:4). If, whenever, you've sinned at all, do those things.
In the same way, it is a single act of giving (6:3) that is an action-item, so much so that we should do it and forget about it! Certainly not count it!
Not being accountants of our obedience and works is also reflected in the Lord's Prayer. We've already forgiven others' debts before we started praying (6:12)! Musta been a no-brainer!
Therefore the twin questions of what my obedience and works identify me as, and what me disobedience and sin identify me as, destiny-wise -- that whole attempt is unsupported in the text we've studied so far.
When we get to sheep and goats, I want to have a discussion about whether it is an account, or an event, that the Lord speaks about.
Larry,
ReplyDeleteYes, there is obviously sin in our lives in the community, but this does not automatically identify one as being outside the community. This is because, there is also the command for forgiveness and reconciliation. This is the same as is was in the OT. Israel was commanded to obey the commands. If they screw up (which they did) they were to return with a repentant heart. This represented that they were obeying the law. The idea that Israel had to obey the law without every screwing up is a misnomer. Where they got in trouble was when they failed to come back to God with a repentant heart.
I have tried to show that Matthew is very similar to Judaism, and I think this is one more place where he is very similar. They idea of performing all these laws as Jesus commands without every screwing up is unfounded (we will talk about Matt 5:48 in class). It is unfounded because Jesus also commands reconciliation and forgiveness among the members of the community and between the members and God. Thus, this idea of forgiveness is an ongoing event.
So yes, doing what Jesus commands does identify you as a part of the community and a part of the true people of God. This includes being obedient in reconciliation and forgiveness (which implies that one has sinned in some way). It is when one does not return to the community and to God with a repentant heart that he/she is identified as outside the community. And if their is no return with repentance then it is assumed that they are also not following the rest of Jesus' teachings.
Anyone who sins is subsequently obligated to repent of it. However, if personally, we could only be forgiven the sins we personally repented of, then the community should be called "the vastly unforgiven."
ReplyDeleteThat is one problem. Another is this. If you look at all the forgiveness words in Matthew (6:12,14-15, 9:2,5-6, 12:31-32, 18:27,32,35, 26:28), absolutely none of them make a person's forgiveness by God dependent upon repentance from the sin. The attempt of an individual to secure God's forgiveness by undertaking any amount of doing better than previous failures in that area, or by being sorry for it, or by making up for it, is just not there in Matthew's words on forgiveness. The "I'm doing better now" strategy does not take out what has gone before.
Sin is too deep a thing to be forgiven by the subsequent virtues of those who have committed it. Check the verses out yourselves!
In a parent/child relationship, the parent hopefully teaches that when we sin, we must repent, learn to do good and better, abhor our sin, have a sorrow about it, a changed attitude toward it and toward righteousness ... and the same is true between God and ourselves. However, none of those things ever paid for one sin: the parent often pays far more in terms of sorrow than the child does, even a repentant child. Sin against God is far too deep a thing to be fixed by subsequent virtues of His children. Otherwise Christ's death was needless (Mt 20:28).
Judaism, and mankind in general, was not doing just fine about their sins, and needed to be saved from them (Mt 1:21). In that verse, Jesus was called "Jesus" for that reason.
This is despite the provisions of the sacrifices. One reason that the sacrificial system of the Old Covenant was not sufficient was that it had no sacrifice for defiant sins (Nm 15:30). Sabbath breaking was punished by death. Adultery (Lv 20:10), idolatry (Dt 13:5), defiance of parents (Dt 21:18-21), and many other things were just not erasable through the sacrificial system.
In another post, we should talk about Matthew's words regarding repenting (Mt 3:2,8,11; 4:17; 11:20-21; 12:41). The idol of "us doing better now" is hard to smash, and is widely worshiped.
What then is the energetic religion in Matthew in which it "looks like" people are doing well and it "looks like" people are repenting of their sins too?
It is interesting that you said this––"If you look at all the forgiveness words in Matthew (6:12,14-15, 9:2,5-6, 12:31-32, 18:27,32,35, 26:28), absolutely none of them make a person's forgiveness by God dependent upon repentance from the sin"––and included Matthew 6:14–15 (as well as ch. 18). This passage is exceptionally clear that if we hope to have God's forgiveness then we must forgive others first. In class next week I will present other Christian literature that reiterates what Jesus is saying. Also, in class next week I will deal with this topic more thoroughly and hopefully answer the questions that I just raised in everyone's mind.
ReplyDeleteI was very disappointed that I was not able to make it through everything in class, because the statements I made at the beginning are developed throughout the Sermon.
Concerning your statement: "This is despite the provisions of the sacrifices. One reason that the sacrificial system of the Old Covenant was not sufficient was that it had no sacrifice for defiant sins (Nm 15:30). Sabbath breaking was punished by death. Adultery (Lv 20:10), idolatry (Dt 13:5), defiance of parents (Dt 21:18-21), and many other things were just not erasable through the sacrificial system."
The Day of Atonement sacrifice was sufficient for the sins you stated. However, it was an annual sacrifice. That is what is so incredible about Jesus' sacrifice, as it symbolized the Day of Atonement sacrifice, we can obtain it more than annually, and it covers all of our sins.
If the blood of bulls and goats on the day of Atonement would have taken away all Israel's sins before God (cf. Heb 10:4), they would have never gone into exile for them in Jeremiah's time.
ReplyDeleteIsaiah would not have told them that God says "I had had enough of burnt offerings of rams and the fat of fed cattle; / And I take no pleasure in the blood of bulls, lambs or goats." (1:11), and "bring your worthless offerings no longer ... I cannot endure iniquity and the solemn assembly" (1:13).
The reason the Day of Atonement wasn't taking away their sins was that it was part of the covenant which they "broke" (Jer 31:32). For example, as an illustration of the idea (which remember, is not proof!), if a son returns home at the end of a semester of college, the family may well say "don't keep saying 'I should have called more often,' we are not holding it against you ... consider all forgiven!' But if the son, going back, steals the family heirlooms and forges the title to the parents' cars, there is no contradiction in saying to him "you are certainly not forgiven." If he says "you always forgive me every semester, no matter what," he is in for a disappointment.
But I have more constructive things to say about our teacher's observations on Mt 6:14-15. Indeed, neither these nor the other verses in Matthew on forgiveness, make forgiveness of a sin dependent upon repenting from that sin. But notice what these verses say the disciples' forgiveness is dependent on: forgiving others, of their various sins -- against us!
In a surprise of huge proportions for the sense of community that I think our class is zeroing in on, Matthew explicitly states a forgiveness dependent not on repenting of our sin, but on forgiving others their sins against us!
It is here that some of N.T. Wright's ideas on "return from exile" dovetailing with the forgiveness of sins of a community come into the forefront. There is such a thing as a community repentance -- think of Nineveh, and "the cities in which most of His miracles were done" (Mt 11:20) that did not repent, Capernaum and Baithsaida and Chorazin!
It is here that some of the modern scholar's beefs about the excessively "introspective conscience of the West" can find a place to make their point. There is some forgiveness from God that is dependent on "horizontal," as our teacher calls it, relationships of forgiveness. The community is not a bunch of individuals tube-tied to God, like the individual tubes in the movie "The Matrix" were tied to something.
The community as a whole can be blessed, or alternatively, unforgiven temporally, based on its community forgiveness. Wright is correct about history not being insignificant, as if we are only here to be hot-wired to heaven. The course of the age does matter, and God being glorified in it does matter.
Again, even this discussion of "forgiveness" as stated in the Model Prayer in Matthew: "Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors..." And Jesus' statement in Matthew 14: For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will forgive you of your trespasses." The point is clear: every person needs forgiveness. Everyone is a debtor in some way. Peter asked how many times should we forgive and Jesus said "seventy times 7." This is impossible for a person to do in the natural because of our inherent sin nature. Paul, as he preached the revelation of grace, taught that we are to forgive BECAUSE we have been forgiven." This is different because Jesus teaching point to the perfect standard of holiness that He knew was impossible for man to keep and uphold. The Pharisees were examples of trying to DO things that in outward appearance stressed perfection. No way! Without the Spirit of God (God the Holy Spirit) within us (which was a mystery until revealed to Paul--that the Spirit of God could indwell men)it is impossible to be forgiving, loving, or consistently have the right motives for what we do. It is the heart of man out which the issues of life flow and the heart can be exceedingly wicked. Does not Israel's history in the Bible reveal their transgression of God's election of them as His intended "kingdom of priests?"
ReplyDeleteBrenda,
ReplyDeleteWhat do you do with Matt 6:15, which is the negative of v. 14? Also, the point is not that people need forgiveness. This may be true but it is not the point of this passage. The point is that forgiveness from the father is contingent on our forgiveness of each other. You will find this theme throughout Matthew and even in Mark, Luke, and throughout our Christian heritage.
I don't think Paul's "forgive because you" and Matthew's "forgive in order to" stand in tension with one another. Paul is simply motivating others to forgive by using Christ as an example. He is saying nothing concerning the contingency of forgiveness. In other words, I don't think Paul would disagree or find tension with Jesus' statement. He is just exhorting by a different means.