| The Defendant |
Article Index for The |
Website Links For Law |
Information AboutThe Defendant |
| CATEGORIES ABOUT EXPOUNDING OF THE LAW | |
| judeo-christian topics | |
| christian theology | |
| doctrines and teachings of jesus | |
| christian law | |
| old testament topics | |
| gospel episodes | |
|
The Expounding of the Law (), sometimes called the "antithesis" (see below), is a less well known but highly structured ("you have heard ... but I tell you") part of the Sermon On The Mount , following both the famed Beatitudes and the metaphors of Salt And Light . It is essentially a deconstruction and reinterpretation of Mosaic Law (compare with Midrash ), rather than a literal Antithesis , as it is made clear that it was not "to destroy [the Law or the Prophets ], but to fulfil" ( KJV ) and the teachings themselves are not literal antitheses to the law. ''Salt and light'' was a common nickname for the Mosaic Law, and hence the metaphors of salt and light form a sort-of introduction to the expounding. Despite being less commonly known, the expounding is at the core of the argument about the relationship between the views attributed to Jesus (or the Gospel ), and those of Moses (or the Mosaic Law), and hence how the relationship between the New Testament and Old Testament should be interpreted, including whether either the extreme of Antinomianism or that of Legalism has any validity. This issue would have been a central one to the Jewish Christians , a group that the Gospel Of Matthew is widely believed to have been directed at, or written by, as the Jewish Christians would have accused other Early Christian groups like the Pauline Christians , followers of Simon Magus , Gnostics , Marcionites , Montanists , and Manichaeists , of abandoning Jewish doctrine, as for example in Acts ' record of the Council Of Jerusalem or . ADHERENCE TO THE LAW See Also: Old Testament#Christian view of the Law "I am not come to destroy [the Law or the Prophets ], but to fulfil" ( KJV ) lies at the heart of how different Christian groups view the Mosaic law as there are a wide number of interpretations of what is meant by ''fulfil'' (or the modern spelling ''fulfill''). The word ''fulfil'' (in Greek '''': Strong's G4137 , Liddell & Scott ) is interpreted as meaning any of the following: ''establish'', ''confirm'', ''validate'', ''complete'', ''actualise'', ''properly explain'', ''accomplish'', or ''obey''. Some argue that Jesus rejects some of the accepted tenets of recounts that they continued to worship in Herod's Temple . (For example, see ; ; ; ; ; ). According to used the analogy of a race saying that Jesus had added extra distance for the Christians to run, but the beginning remained the same; Theophylact Of Bulgaria used the image of an artist colouring in an outline, and Thomas Aquinas saw it as how a tree still contains the seed. This view became the accepted Roman Catholic position, but was challenged in the Protestant Reformation , with leading Protestants such as Martin Luther , John Calvin , and Huldrych Zwingli rejecting the idea Jesus had added to the Law, and instead arguing that Jesus only illustrated the true Law that had always existed, but that the Law had been badly understood by the Pharisee s and other Jewish leaders. The Anabaptists took the opposite view and felt the Jesus had greatly reformed the Law, and rejected anything that the Bible doesn't mention him as having confirmed. states that not one "jot or tittle" will pass from the law until "all had been fulfilled", until "heaven and earth pass away". ''Jot'' is the King James Version 's translation of '' Iota '', the smallest letter in the Greek Alphabet , as the parallel letter Yodh (י) is the smallest in the Aramaic Alphabet . '' Tittle '', the KJV translation of ''κερεία'' (a word which literally means ''horn''), is a small mark of some sort, generally considered by scholars to refer to minor projections (''horns'') that differentiate certain letters, such as hooks in Aramaic - ב versus כ for example. Hence the phrase refers to even the tiniest minutiae being unaltered, and it is this meaning that ''not one iota'', a common English phrase deriving from the statement, has taken. Some view the statement as Eschatological , regarding that ''until heaven and earth pass away'' means that Mosaic law would be superseded in the End Times , though most view it simply as an Idiom for the inconceivable. Likewise ''until all had been fulfilled'' is somewhat debated, with some viewing it as a reference to end times, others as a reference to such a time as all of Mosaic law is completely adhered to, and others still that it means that the law would only last until a messiah arrives, i.e. that the time had arrived with Jesus' existence and hence the law is superseded already, though many view this as stretching things a bit, since it is unlikely that Jesus would state ''until'' if it had already occurred. It is widely believed that Jesus has not yet fulfilled all Messianic Prophecy but that he will in his Second Coming . condemns those who preach ''the commandments'' but do not uphold them, i.e. people that today we would refer to as '' Hypocrites ''. Some interpret ''commandments'' as referring to the Sermon on the Mount itself, though others think that the text is obviously referring to the Mosaic Law , Noahide Laws , or to the Ethical Decalogue . Some scholars have read this verse as an attack by Matthew on Paul Of Tarsus , who is generally regarded to have placed less importance on Mosaic law, though others claim there is little evidence that the author of Matthew had read Paul's works, even though they were written some 40 years prior and were widely circulating when Matthew came to be written. subtly condemns the ''. Matthew generally condemns the manner in which the Pharisees adhere to the law (), portraying it as excessively Legalistic , and here is no exception. This begins a pattern, repeated later in the Sermon on the Mount, in the Discourse On Ostentation , where outward and public adherence to religious behaviour are condemned as being hollow, in favour of private and internal adherence. ANTITHESIS OF THE LAW See Also: Law and Gospel This section of the sermon is sometimes called the ", John Murray ). Others mean something like "opposed to the false glosses of the Law" ( Adam Clarke , John Gill ). Still others mean "directly contradicting the Law" (possibly Marcion Of Sinope ). The second of the four basic tenets of Dispensationalism posits "A radical distinction between the Law and Grace; that is, they are mutually exclusive ideas." SPECIALISED FOCUSES As well as a more general discussion about adherence to the law, the expounding individually covers the following aspects in greater detail:
Each of these specialised sections begins with a scriptural quotation that indicates how the law officially regards each of these issues, and then goes on to either extend the law's commandment to its most radical extent, or to make a radical assertion opposing it. Though sometimes not as radical, Jewish sentiment in the period was much more in keeping with the expounding than the law itself, partly due to the influence of Hellenism , and so although parts of the expounding are quite radical in respect to the law itself, it should be understood that in many cases the expounding simply describes popular sentiment of the time. Murder The first Expounding is on the subject of Murder . Beginning by quoting The Commandment ''thou shalt not kill'', Matthew describes Jesus as going on to condemn the anger which lead to it as being just as bad. This view is not particularly new to Jesus, appearing in the Old Testament at places such as Ecclesiastes and Ecclesiasticus , as well as in the Slavonic Enoch , Pesahim , and Nedraim . Jesus is also described as condemning people who insult each other, specifically identifying the insult of calling someone a ''Raca''. Scholars seem divided on how grievous an insult it was, for example Hill feels it was very grievous while France thinks it minor. What ''Raca'' means is unknown though there have been frequent attempts to explain it, particularly in the context of ''fool'', the next insult to be mentioned. Despite condemning the use of the term ''fool'', according to Matthew, Jesus himself used it to deride the Pharisees (). The most common view is that ''Raca'' is a reference to the Aramaic word ''reka'' (see also Aramaic Of Jesus ), which literally means ''empty one'', probably referring to ''empty headed'', or ''foolish''. The word translated as ''fool'' is ''moros'' which has a similar meaning to the Aramaic ''reka'', but it can also be used to mean ''godless'', and so was a much stronger term. Some scholars have argued that ''raca'' can mean Effeminate and ''moros'' referring to an homosexual aggressor, and so Jesus could here be seen to be condemning Homophobia , although like much of modern western culture, homophobic insults are likely to have often been used generally rather than only to specifically attack homosexuals. Those that are angry with their brother are then said in Matthew to be subject to judgement, sent to the ''council'', generally seen as a reference to the Sanhedrin , for using the insult of ''Raca'', and sent to '' Gehenna '' for using the insult of ''moros''. Gehenna the rubbish tip south of Jerusalem which was permanently aflame, and had in the past been the place of cremation for Human Sacrifice . Despite the vivid unpleasantness of this, traditionally scholars have read this as only a metaphorical reference to Damnation to Hell , though other scholars see the literal reading - being thrown into the rubbish tip south of Jerusalem - as the accurate one. Early manuscripts of Matthew are divided between some that state it is anger ''without cause'' that is being condemned, and those that state that all anger is condemned, with most modern scholars feeling that ''without cause'' was a cop-out added by a later scribe. The expounding then goes on to state that even if one is in the middle of making the Korban Sacrifice , whenever you realise there is a dispute with one's brother, it is better to immediately stop what one is doing and try to resolve the dispute. Although this theme, of asserting that worship devoid of moral life is useless, occurs throughout the Old Testament, several scholars see Matthew here as attacking the overly ritualised Pharisees , with those scholars, for example Schweizer, thinking that the Pharisees believed sacrifice should not be interrupted. That Matthew here mentions the korban, which came to a halt in 70AD when the Temple was destroyed, is taken by a few scholars, like Albright and Mann, as evidence that Matthew was written before that date, though there is no reason to assume that this is the case, since, for example, a 20th century writer can quite easily describe a quotation by Plato that has become outdated without having to be writing in Plato's time. The expounding finally culminates with what could easily be seen as very practical advice to reconcile with enemies quickly, before the enemy causes the issue to be brought before a judge, since being placed into jail will require you to buy yourself out of jail, not even leaving you with a ''penny''. This piece of advice also appears in a portion of Luke, likely indicating that it originates in Q, though the words that are usually translated as ''penny'' differ between Luke and Matthew, with Matthew referring to a Quadrans and Luke to a Mite , which was worth half a quadrans. Luke gives the text a much more Eschatalogical context, implying it refers to the Last Judgement , and so most Christians interpret Matthew the same way, some using it to argue for the existence of Purgatory . Fundamentalists, however, have a tendency to be uncomfortable with the Soteriology that this implies - that good behaviour is sufficient to avoid punishment - and so those such as Albright claim that some material is likely to be missing from this part of Matthew. Adultery The second expounding is on the subject of in Lust is equal to the act of adultery itself. This is often interpreted as Jesus expanding on the requirements of Mosaic Law , but not rejecting it, and similar ideas were anciently expressed in T. Issachar and Tractate Kalla . The word translated as ''woman'' is the Greek word ''gyne'' which more precisely refers to a Wife , rather than just any woman, hence most scholars feel that what is being condemned is lusting after another's wife, not the attraction of a man to a woman in general, such as his own wife. At the time, adultery was regarded as a form of theft, and applied only to a man ''stealing'' another's wife; married men sleeping with unmarried woman did not constitute adultery. According to Schweizer, since it is ''looking'' in lust that is condemned, this neither applies to a man looking at a woman without lust (and hence complete segregation of the sexes is not necessary), nor to a man having lust without looking at a woman. The discussion in Matthew continues with two now well known phrases that are also to a degree present in Mark:
Rather than ''if...offend thee'', the Greek text is literally ''if...causes you to stumble'', which while a common metaphor for sin, also acts as a joke since plucking out one's eye will result in one stumbling about. No major Christian denomination has ever taken these commands literally, although it has to be said that Origen castrated himself in order to avoid sexual temptation. That almost everyone views them as deliberate Hyperbole has led some commentators to see parts of the other antitheses in the Sermon on the Mount as also being hyperbole. The link between the right hand and the discussion of adultery is somewhat unclear, although in Jewish writings of the time it was common to a triple structure of ''XYZ eye ABC XYZ hand ABC XYZ foot ABC'', which is seen in the use of these phrases at Mark, and the later use of the phrases towards the end of Matthew. That the hand appears hear but not the foot is felt by Hill to be a deliberate reference to theft, which at the time adultery was seen as being a form of. An alternate view, more prevalant in recent years, is that the mention of a hand linked to lust is a reference to , as a metaphor for separation from a sinful spouse. Jesus is portrayed in Matthew as making these statements because he considers it better that one cut oneself off from sin so as not to condemn the remainder of oneself to '' Gehenna ''. There is much debate as to quite in what way ''Gehenna'' is being referred to - whether Jesus was meant to be talking about a physical valley of fire, an afterlife of Damnation , or whether the reference is Eschatalogical . That the text refers to a ''whole body'' being thrown to Gehenna is regarded by some as implying that everyone, even the wicked, would have a full bodily resurrection in the end times, which is counter to the standard Protestant understanding of only the worthy being resurrected. Divorce The third expounding, sometimes considered a continuation of the prior one about Adultery , is on Divorce , and is comparatively short. It begins with a reference to Deuteronomy 24:1, requiring a man who dismisses his wife for "some indecency" he finds in her to give her a formal written divorce certificate. However, the Antithesis describes Jesus as condemning anyone who, except in the event of ''porneia'' (more on this word later), divorces his wife and thus "makes her an adulteress", adding: "whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery." ''Porneia'' () {Link without Title} , the , who allowed divorce under a wide range of circumstances, even as minor as a wife burning dinner, while the minority opinion followed Shammai , who argued that only adultery could be grounds for divorce. Some scholars believe Jesus was endorsing Shammai's view. Though Rabbinic Judaism abandoned Shammai's view, Protestant and Eastern Orthodox Churches have traditionally read ''porneia'' as adultery. Some claim that, under the liberal divorce policy of Hillel, men had been casually divorcing their wives on losing interest in them, thus deeply injuring them, and that Jesus was here defending the rights of downtrodden wives, a claim others reject on the grounds that elaborate Prenuptial Agreement s were negotiated prior to every marriage, invariably including steep financial penalties, known as Ketubah , that a divorcing husband had to pay his wife, guaranteeing her financial security. In the same verse, the specific term for "adultery", ''moicheia'' () is used, in its verbal form (), immediately after the term ''porneia''. Accordingly, some scholars conclude that ''porneia'' refers to something other than adultery, such as concubinage. They point to the quaintness, to say the least, of the interpretation, "He who dismisses his wife, except for adultery, makes her commit adultery," i.e. the divorced wife then commits adultery unless she has already committed adultery. And, in view of the fact that Greek has no distinct word for "wife" — the word ("woman") is used for "wife", as "mujer" is used in Spanish — they see as much more satisfactory the interpretation according to which the verse, rendered literally, reads: "Every one who sends away his woman — except in the case of concubinage — makes her commit adultery." In line with this view, some scholars read ''porneia'' as referring specifically to marriages that, while permissible under pagan religions, were illegal under Jewish and Christian law, such as those between blood relations, or ''mixed marriages'' with those of different religion, while others have proposed that the phrase about ''porneia'' is in fact a later addition to the text, particularly since it is not present in the parallel passages of Mark and Luke. Both Mark 10:11-12 ("Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery") and Luke 16:18 ("Every one who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery") present Jesus as making no exception to his condemnation of divorce with a view to remarriage. And in (. Some believe that Jesus is using the same kind of formula he used to condemn the Scribes and Pharisees elsewhere (Mark 7:6-13; Matt. 15:14, 23:15ff), an argument that takes the form: "You claim you are doing a lawful thing, but by doing it you break the law or cause others to." This interpretation seems to support the idea that Jesus is condemning divorce absolutely. Others have proposed that the term ''porneia'' here relates to ''spiritual fornication'', i.e. participating in the polytheistic religion of the Middle East, since ''porneia'' was in the Old Testament (LXX) used of such participation (e.g. Ex 34:15-16, Lv 17:7, Ezk 16:26, 29, etc.). Another view is that the exception clause is a comment indicating that adultery automatically led to divorce under the law of the time, a law Jesus may perhaps have disagreed with. Similarly, some have argued that the other Synoptic Gospel s lacked the ''porneia'' exception as something totally obvious to their readers. In Jesus' time, capital punishment was not actually imposed for adultery, but was technically prescribed by Jewish law (cf. John 8:5), and so Martin Luther argued that, since in the eyes of God an adulterer was dead, the spouse was free to remarry. The view that adultery was a valid reason for divorce became the majority Protestant position. Some Protestants even took broader views, with Zwingli and Bullinger both reading ''porneia'' to refer to all manner of marital immorality such as Spousal Abuse , and abandonment. Nowadays, while the ''porneia'' clause in Matthew has significance for individual Protestants, many Protestant ''Churches'' simply leave questions of divorce and remarriage to civil law, without taking any doctrinal stand on the question. {Link without Title} From an early stage, the Roman Catholic Church clearly excluded divorce. Saint Augustine Of Hippo stated in ''Of the Good of Marriage'' (§7): " compact of marriage is not done away by divorce intervening; so that they continue wedded persons one to another, even after separation; and commit adultery with those with whom they shall be joined, even after their own divorce, either the woman with a man, or the man with a woman."[http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf103.v.ii.viii.html There were disputes about what constitutes a valid and indissoluble marriage, with some claiming that what constitutes marriage is the contract entered into by free and knowing consent, and others saying that carnal union ("two becoming one flesh", cf. Matthew 19:5) is what is essential. By medieval times it was accepted that marriage, though constituted by consent alone, becomes indissoluble only when completed or consummated with the second element, so that only death can dissolve a valid, consummated, sacramental marriage. If a presumed marriage is proved to have been invalid from the start, the Church issues an Annulment or declaration of nullity at the request of at least one of the parties. {Link without Title} It also grants petitions for dissolution of a marriage shown not to have been consummated and, in certain circumstances, of a non-sacramental marriage. Oaths The third/fourth expounding is about Oath s. While Gundry feels that this follows the discussion of divorce since Deuteronomy discusses these things one after another, though in reverse order, other scholars feel that it is simply a natural progression, as one of the major legal issues of the day was over marriage vows. The antithesis opens with a quote from the scholars made a distinction between the two concepts. Schweizer feels that the wording implies that Jesus is only discussing oaths associated with vows, and that he never speaks against the oaths of innocence or truthfulness that were not linked with vows. While the text literally condemns ''perjury'', it can also mean ''break an oath'', and some individuals translate it much less restrictively as ''do not make vows rashly''. After having made the quote, Matthew presents Jesus as extracting from it the rule ''never swear'' and then moves directly to examples, quoted from the Old Testament:
Very few Christians interpret this expounding to literally mean that all oaths are prohibited, since in other parts of the Bible oaths are looked upon more favourably. Paul for example is described in 2 Corinthians and Galatians as swearing oaths. Avoiding the literal meaning, most Christian thinkers have concluded that by ''never swear'', Jesus is using Hyperbole to emphasise his point or failing to mention exceptions to this rule that would have been implicit to his audience. Thus most Christian churches believe that only false and vain oaths are prohibited, and John Calvin argued that only oaths counter to God are wrong. Several important Christian groups do not however accept such re-interpretations, preferring to uphold what the text actually says; most notably the Quakers and Mennonites firmly reject all oaths, a stance that has led to their persecution by governments that insist on oath taking. According to Matthew, Jesus then instructs people to only respond with ''yes, yes; no, no''. The exact meaning of this is much disputed, and while one reading is that you should simply always answer with yes or no, as is clearly the view of the , however, states that a double ''yes'' or a double ''no'' were themselves forms of oath, and so by this understanding Jesus is not banning all oaths, but outlining an example of an oath that is permissible. Jesus is described as going on to say that whatever is more than this response constitutes something of the ''evil one'', which in other parts of the New Testament are frequently used to refer to the Devil , and Schweizer believes that the implication is merely that swearing was evil, many Christians do not see a theological difference. Punishment The penultimate expounding partly paralleled in Luke's Sermon on the Plain, is on the subject of Punishment . It begins with a quote of the Lex Talionis - ''an Eye For An Eye '' - which is found in three of the law codes in the Pentuateuch (in the Deuteronomic Code , Holiness Code , and Covenant Code ). Although this principle of Retributive Punishment dates back at least to the Code Of Hammurabi , by the first century AD it had been superseded by a system of Fine s, and so several scholars here consider that it is the whole principle of retribution which Jesus is here meant to be discussing, rather than just the lex talionis. Having made the quotation, Matthew goes on to describe Jesus as saying that one should instead Turn The Other Cheek , and superficially appears to state that one should not resist evil at all, even going so far as to give someone your cloak as well when they sue you for your coat, and when you are compelled to travel one mile one should go so far as to travel two. Though this appears to quite clearly advocate a radical degree of Pacifism , many Christians reject this interpretation. According to France, the Greek words translated as ''don't resist'' have a far more restricted meaning, and should instead be translated as ''do not resist by legal means'', as this is how Schweizer believes the words are used in Deuteronomy and Isaiah (even though they are different, Hebrew, words in Deuteronomy and Isaiah). Striking on the right Cheek refers to a back-handed slap to the face, which throughout the Middle East, both in the first century and today, is one of the highest forms of contempt. According to France the gesture is a grave insult, not a physical attack, and so, again according to France, this would distance the instruction from espousing non-violence. To give someone your ''cloak'' was quite a radical thing to do, since at the time, it referred to a Blanket that was used to keep warm in the night. Due to the often cold nights in the region, a cloak was hence necessary for survival to the extent that Jewish Law regarded it as Distrainable . The ''coat'' on the other hand was merely the basic piece of clothing worn on the upper body. Although most people interpret the instruction from Jesus to give the ''cloak'' up to be enforcement of pacifism, France disagrees, and instead sees it as referring to renunciation of property and material possessions. In Luke the situation is somewhat reversed, where highway robbers demand the outer cloak and Jesus is described as insisting that one give up ones shirt as well. Ultimately, the instruction in Luke and Matthew may originate in the tale of Diogenes , a Greek philosopher who is said to have given robbers his shirt as well when they only demanded his cloak. The requirement to ''go the extra mile'' specifically refers to the Roman practice of requisitioning individuals to act as a guide or porter, a practice which the Zealot s loathed. Thomas Aquinas used this requirement to argue that it is reasonable to follow laws that are unjust (though he also argued that unconscionable laws mustn't be obeyed). After making this requirement, Jesus is described as insisting that one should give to ''anyone who asks you'' and not to turn away those who would ''borrow'' from you. Most major Christian groups do not advocate the unrestricted level of charity that literal readings would imply, with Luther arguing that the verse is restricted only to those who need assistance, and Calvin stating that generosity is important, but one should never be profligate. Some have interpreted that not turning away those who would ''borrow'' is condemnation of Usury , particularly since this interpretation is more strongly supported by a similar instruction in the Gospel Of Thomas , suggesting that it originates in the Q Document . Love The final expounding is on the subject of 137, and also in some of the rules of the Qumran community. After having made the quotation, the expounding then goes on to contradict it by instructing people to ''love thine enemy''. Although many Christians view this as an introduction not present in prior religions, this is not the case, and although the exact wording does not appear, there are many examples in prior Jewish texts, in Stoic ism, Buddhism , and Taoism . Early church thinkers saw this as one of Jesus' most important teachings, but the history of the early church shows that very few Church Father s actually lived up to the literal ideal it espouses. By the Middle Ages, the verse had become seen as problematic in regard to war, and so it was re-interpreted so as to only apply to relations between individuals rather than those between nations, countries, faiths, or ideologies. Several later thinkers rejected this view as a blatant attempt to re-write things that one disagreed with rather than accept that it contradicts ones own stance at face value, and Leo Tolstoy specifically read this verse as a rejection of militant Nationalism . This does not however mean that those later thinkers approved of the sentiment of the verse, and Nietzsche rejected the command entirely, arguing that love of one's enemies is weakness and dishonesty. ''Love'' here has a much more restricted sense than the normal English term. Greek considered there to be four quite different forms of love, having a word for each, all of which we now translate as ''love'':
''Agape'', the word translated as ''love'' in the instruction ''love thine enemy'', is referred to some 140 times in the New Testament, and so its meaning is the focus of some debate. That it appears elsewhere in Greek use tends not to influence the arguments. Barclay translates it as ''continued benevolence'', Tertullian viewed it as referring to ''charity'', and ancient philosophers used it in a sense of ''universal'', all encompassing love, like a ''lust for life'', and like Philanthropy . This kind of ''love'' had a high priority in early Christianity, and the ritual of the Love Feast was viewed as one of the most important. ''Enemies'' is also a broad term, and it applies to all manner of foes and adversaries, and so several commentators have sought to restrict it only to non-Christians, to make it have the the sense that one should ''love'' converting non-Christians to Christianity, though this advocation is not supported as its meaning by scholars. After having made the commandment to ''love thine enemy'', the expounding launches into a metaphor of the weather, describing how God treats both friend and enemy the same. Although in wetter and more northern societies, rain is often viewed as unpleasant, in Mediterranean society it was seen as positive, and so here stating that God rains upon friend and enemy alike would have been interpreted as a positive equality not a negative one. The prominent Rabbi Joshua Ben Nehemiah had made similar note of rain's equal treatment of the good and the wicked, and saw it as a sign of God's benevolence, and likewise Seneca , a Greek philosopher of the time, also has a very similar discussion of how nature aids both the good and the wicked, and so the metaphor espoused in Matthew was nothing new, though regarded as important. Fundamentalists are often uncomfortable with the commandment to ''love thine enemy'', and so have attempted to reinterpret the weather metaphor as only applying on a physical not spiritual level. The expounding adds a further allegorical reference to a malign group of people that ought to still be treated well, which in Mark is identified as tax collectors (sometimes translated as ''publicans''), though Luke makes no identification. The tax collecters referred to were Jews employed by the Romans who went around collecting taxes on their behalf, sometimes even extortioning further funds, and consequently were seen by other Jews as traitors, and criminals, much like Debt Collectors and some Bailiffs are today. These hence were viewed as the lowest of the low, and being no better than them was considered a terrible insult. Nevertheless, some ancient manuscripts have ''heathen'' or '' Gentile '' instead of ''tax collector'', and rely on Xenophobia and religious Bigot ry to make the same point, hence attacking these same prejudices. The basic argument of the allegory is that even these supposedly malignant individuals love their friends and family, and so if one only loves those who are close to you, you can be no better than them, hence one should love enemies so as not to be dragged down to their level. This expounding, and the whole collection of expoundings, ends at this point with a simple instruction: :'' Be Perfect, Just As God Is Perfect '' This is known as the ''imitatio Dei'' - the ''imitation of God'' - and also appears in Luke's Sermon On The Plain . It originates in the Holiness Code 's fundamental command to ''be holy because God is holy'', although it is quite plausible that it entered Luke and Matthew by first going via the Q Document . Even though many outside observers would assume that it was completely obvious, there is some debate in Christian circles about what exactly this verse means, since many view being as perfect as God something of a complete impossibility. Some Christians believe that this is deliberate on Jesus' part, that the purpose is not what it seems at first but instead a goal is being set that cannot be reached in order to teach people humility, though others interpret it for what it appears to be - that the pursuit of perfection is important, even if the attainment of it impossible. Like many Protestants, Fowler has proposed that it is merely a limited form of perfection being sought - that Abraham and Noah are referred to as perfect due to their obedience to God, and hence that this ''imitatio Dei'' is an instruction to be completely obedient to God. Conversely, other Protestants, such as Barclay, consider that since Greek philosophers used ''telios'' - the word here translated as ''perfect'' - to refer to things that fulfilled their function, that the ''imitatio Dei'' is an instruction to love (''agape''), as the preceding discussion implies this is mankind's function. SEE ALSO
REFERENCES
|
|
|