Читать книгу Matty and Matt - Sel Caradus - Страница 11

That night, Melanie lay awake for some time. She realized that she had used the reference to Perrin’s book and her little exposition about the Kingdom of God partly to show Al that she was in charge. Perrin’s book, which she had only skimmed, reminded her that she could easily get into deep water. She felt like someone overhearing a conversation which had been going on for hours and trying to participate. Except that in this case the conversation had been going on for generations. Aunt Matty’s choice to include such a book in the package was not helpful. She wondered if Matty had read it. There were no signs of her characteristic underlinings. Worse yet, there was no escaping from further discussions of the Kingdom of Heaven. She had a count of more than fifty references in the remainder of the Gospel. And she had realized, too late, that she had cut off the discussion of the calling of the first disciples and the summary of the powerful actions of Jesus at the end of the chapter.

Eventually she drifted off to sleep, glad that the morrow would present her with legal matters on which she felt she was on firm ground.

Throughout the week, she read the text for the next meeting with some care. Keeping a respectful distance from any expert opinion, she could see that what was commonly called “The Sermon on the Mount” was not like any sermon she had ever heard. Admittedly her experience in such matters was limited but she could see that there were at least seven separate units and she also discovered, on her own, that bits of the “Sermon” were scattered through the other Gospels in a disconnected fashion. It gave her some solace to discover later that she was making the right judgement: that “The Sermon on the Mount” was in fact a collection of the sayings of Jesus that must have been given at different times and to different audiences. This would explain why Jesus could be talking about the permanence of the Law (of Moses) at one time and, at another, giving instructions which seemed to allow for contradiction to the Law, such as the prohibition of oath taking.

She also had a feeling that the Sermon on the Mount was awkwardly placed: at the end of Chapter 4 of Matthew is the summary of the healing ministry, then three chapters devoted to the Sermon, and finally in Chapter 8, three specific examples of healings. It was as though Matthew had this collection of sayings and was uncertain where to put it.

But when Tuesday came along again, as it did on a regular basis, she felt more comfortable with herself and had decided how she would handle the next session. Webster had been in touch and asked for a little time for his precious Parallels, this time to give Luke’s version of the Beatitudes. He had gone to the trouble of preparing the text to be included in her PowerPoint presentation. Melanie was somewhat concerned, feeling that Matthew’s Gospel was more than enough without distracting their thoughts by comparisons. But, out of her regard for Webster, she had agreed and determined that she would make it clear that this wasn’t to be a regular occurrence. Really, Webster could be a bit of a nuisance!

After the preliminaries, she urged them to put to one side conventional thinking about the “Sermon”; for example, the idea that Jesus was somehow following Moses “up the mountain” and coming down with a new Law. “It’s really not a sermon at all. It’s a kind of anthology of the sayings of Jesus, delivered at different times and to different situations. Maybe the writer of Matthew’s Gospel contrived a context for the whole collection rather than have them unattached to any historical setting.” There was some muted grumbling that she was rather imposing her ideas ahead of time. “All right,” she conceded, “let’s take a look.”

And there on the screen they could consider the first section:

Seeing the multitude of people, Jesus went up the hill. There he seated himself, and when his disciples came to him, he proceeded to teach them, and said:

“Blessed are the poor in spirit, for to them belongs the Kingdom of Heaven.

Blessed are the mourners, for they shall be comforted.

Blessed are the meek, for they shall obtain possession of the earth.

Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be completely satisfied.

Blessed are the compassionate, for they shall receive compassion.

Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.

Blessed are the peacemakers, for it is they who will be recognized as sons of God.

Blessed are those who have borne persecution in the cause of righteousness, for to them belongs the Kingdom of Heaven.

Blessed are you when they have insulted and persecuted you, and have said every cruel thing about you falsely for my sake.

Be joyful and triumphant, because your reward is great in heaven; for so were the Prophets before you persecuted.”

Nine parallel statements of blessing (“The Beatitudes”); there was general agreement that the last two suggested a context of violent opposition, more appropriate to later times, even into the experience of the early church.

Webster was anxious to have his say. He pointed out that the hypothesis that the “Sermon” was an anthology could be argued from the occurrence of several of its verses appearing in other Gospels, in a completely different context. “There are many examples,” he said. “Here’s one: the teaching in Chapter 7 about prayer appears, word for word, in Luke’s Gospel after the parable of the Friend at Midnight (Luke 11).” Much to Melanie’s relief, he continued with the concession: “It would be too much to go through all such examples but rather than take my word for it, check them out.” Several in the group, including Al, had followed his urging and now possessed copies of the Parallels, checked out Matthew 7 as he spoke and agreed with his findings.

But he was eager to show something else: the parallel section of Luke’s Gospel which now, thanks to PowerPoint, appeared on the screen:

Then fixing his eyes upon his disciples, Jesus said to them,

“Blessed are you poor, because the Kingdom of God is yours.

Blessed are you who hunger now, because your hunger shall be satisfied. Blessed are you who now weep aloud, because you shall laugh.

Blessed are you when men shall hate you and exclude you from their society and insult you, and spurn your very names as evil things, for the Son of Man’s sake.

Be glad at such a time, and dance for joy; for your reward is great in Heaven; for that is just the way their forefathers behaved to the Prophets!”

“I am convinced that Luke’s version is closer to the original. Matthew tried to widen the application of the teaching.” He pointed out that “blessed are you poor” made sense as addressed to those who came out to hear him, while “blessed are the poor” seemed much more difficult, suggesting that poverty was somehow beneficial. It would be natural to try to escape this difficulty by making the change from “the poor” to “the poor in spirit.”

But by now, Al was barely concealing his impatience. “What you have said is interesting but is way ahead of where I am. I need to know what the very first verse means; what does ‘blessed’ mean and who are the ‘poor’ and then this ‘Kingdom of God,’ we haven’t got far in understanding that!”

Help was on its way! Several expressed opinions about the meaning of “blessed” and a consensus emerged that it was along the lines of being favored, or even honored, by God. Andrew, who was keen on the translation called the New English Bible, chimed in that the paraphrase, “Blessed are those who know they have a need for God” was the reading given there.

As for the “poor,” Martha claimed that it meant those completely without resources, those dependant on the charity of others. “It’s hard for us to envision third world poverty,” she said. “Try to imagine living on one or two dollars a day. Franz Fanon wrote a book, ‘The Wretched of the Earth’ and its title has stuck in my mind. Maybe, such people are praised because they are more likely to become dependant on the generosity of God,” she suggested.

As for the “Kingdom of God,” Melanie reminded them of some of the options she had laid out during the previous week’s discussion and urged them to be patient. “Perhaps,” she said, “the purpose of the Gospel is to lead the reader gradually into an understanding of the concept, even to know what it means to participate in something only gradually understood.” She urged them to look at the other verses and see how exactly alien to modern culture they were. Blessedness of the sorrowful and the meek falls uncomfortably on modern ears. She recalled Mark Twain’s dismissal of the Beatitudes as “immense sarcasms.”

She realized yet again how difficult it was to do any kind of justice to the whole chapter in the two hours available and regretfully clicked onto the next section:

“You are the salt of the earth; but if salt has become tasteless, in what way can it regain its saltiness? It is no longer good for anything but to be thrown away and trodden on by the passers by.

You are the light of the world; a town cannot be hid if built on a hilltop.

Nor is a lamp lighted to be put under a bushel, but on the lamp-stand; and then it gives light to all in the house.

Just so let your light shine before all men, in order that they may see your holy lives and may give glory to your Father who is in Heaven.”

It was a relief to encounter something a bit more straightforward. She could get away with a reminder of the value of salt in the ancient world. Andrew made the helpful comment: “I am surprised that the statements are so definite. ‘You are the salt’ and ‘You are the light’ could be seen as a bit of wishful thinking.” He paused. “Or perhaps Jesus saw potential in unlikely people.” Stephen suggested that it might have been addressed to the disciples. “You can’t get more ‘unlikely’ than that”. Al apologized that they had passed over the section in Chapter 4 about the calling of the disciples. “Evidently they were an unpromising bunch,” he said.

Pushing ahead, Melanie displayed the next section:

“Do not for a moment suppose that I have come to abrogate the Law or the Prophets: I have not come to abrogate them but to give them their completion.

Solemnly I tell you that until Heaven and earth pass away, not one iota or smallest detail will pass away from the Law until all has taken place.

Whoever therefore breaks one of these least commandments and teaches others to break them, will be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven; but whoever practices them and teaches them, he will be acknowledged as great in the Kingdom of Heaven.

For I assure you that unless your righteousness greatly surpasses that of the Scribes and the Pharisees, you will certainly not find entrance into the Kingdom of Heaven.”

It was easy to understand the idea of Jesus giving the Law its completion but there was much debate about the apparent insistence on keeping the Law in every detail. Stephen knew that there were six hundred and thirteen commandments of the Law. Melanie was afraid that he might want to recite them all. But he contented himself with the question: “Does this mean that modern day followers of Jesus should follow them all, including keeping the seventh day rather than the first? Should we all become Seventh Day Adventists? And what about the Kosher food regulations?” Martha wondered if this was part of the Sermon on the Mount comes from a very early period when Jesus thought of himself as nothing more than a reformer of Judaism. “Later in the Gospel,” she said, “Jesus brings a child forward as a model of the Kingdom. You know the bit where he says ‘unless you repent and become as this little child, you will never enter the Kingdom.’ The child is the least likely person to be meticulous in the keeping of the Law and its commandments.”

Again it was necessary to move along, with a reminder from Melanie that their discussions were meant to open doors on various possibilities and that reading during the week would make a big difference. “I sound like my Grade 9 English teacher,” she lamented.

So now it was time to look at the section which dealt with “anger management”:

“You have heard that it was said to the ancients, ‘Thou shalt not commit murder’ and whoever commits murder will be answerable to the magistrate.

But I say to you that every one who becomes angry with his brother shall be answerable to the magistrate; that whoever says to his brother ‘Raca,’ shall be answerable to the Sanhedrin; and that whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be liable to the Gehenna of fire.

If therefore when you are offering your gift upon the altar, you remember that your brother has a grievance against you, leave your gift there before the altar, and go and make friends with your brother first, and then return and proceed to offer your gift.

Come to terms without delay with your opponent while you are yet with him on the way to the court; for fear he should obtain judgement from the magistrate against you, and the magistrate should give you in custody to the officer and you be thrown into prison. I solemnly tell you that you will certainly not be released till you have paid the very last penny.”

There was much discussion. Did the text imply that the thought or the word of violence was as bad as the act itself? Surely, there was no way to avoid the thought and resisting it was the essence of virtue? As Andrew said, “It sets the bar too high!”

Someone had discovered that “Raca” meant something like “blockhead” and commented that it was an Aramaic word. This gave rise to discussion about the language which Jesus spoke and the reference to scholarly opinion that it was Aramaic at home and probably Greek in the marketplace. Webster (again!): “Did you know that ‘Gehenna’ refers to the Valley of Hinnon where the city of Jerusalem disposed of its rubbish. Evidently, it was a scary place where fires burned constantly. Among other things, bodies of dead criminals ended up in the valley of Hinnon. Jerusalem must have been a smelly, smoky city!”

Melanie was interested in the role of the law courts, as though the teachings of Jesus might be enforceable by law. They agreed that it was all a bit mysterious.

Al asked about gifts at the altar. “Should the church reject a gift from someone if they know that there is an unresolved conflict? I wonder if any church practices such a policy?” They all agreed that it was unlikely!

Some similar comments were made about the next section:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Thou shalt not commit adultery.’

But I tell you that whoever looks at a woman and cherishes lustful thoughts has already in his heart become guilty with regard to her. If therefore your eye, even the right eye, is a snare to you, tear it out and away with it; it is better for you that one member should be destroyed rather than that your whole body should be thrown into Gehenna. And if your right hand is a snare to you, cut it off and away with it; it is better for you that one member should be destroyed rather than that your whole body should go into Gehenna.

It was also said, ‘If any man puts away his wife, let him give her a written notice of divorce.’ But I tell you that every man who puts away his wife except on the ground of unfaithfulness causes her to commit adultery, and whoever marries her when so divorced commits adultery.”

It was clear that the prohibition of the “lustful thought” went far beyond anything in the Law of Moses and the proposed remedies were judged to be extreme. Melanie remarked that she had heard the occasional comment, “I don’t go to church but I try to live by the Sermon on the Mount” and she now wondered if the speaker of such an opinion had even read the text. Stephen, who had grown up Lutheran, recalled, “In our Catechism class, we were taught Luther’s view that the Sermon was designed to propose an impossible demand which would lead us to throw ourselves on God’s mercy.” Some commented that “impossible” might be the right word but it might lead to despair or even to indifference.

Martha reminded the group of the long history of struggle within the church on the question of divorce and that the phrase “except on the ground of unfaithfulness” doesn’t appear in the parallel passages in Mark and Luke. She spoke sharply. “The possibility of a woman needing to find relief in divorce seems not to be addressed, either by Moses or by Jesus. I wonder how much of this text we are looking at is church teaching from the first century and how much truly goes back to Jesus. He was in very many ways sympathetic to the situation of women. It sounds more like the church!” She also wanted the group to be aware of the long section in Matthew 19 about divorce and wondered if it would be helpful to include it in the present discussion. Melanie had not considered this but realized how complicated the discussions would become if later parts were included. “Maybe when we come to Matthew 19, we can refer to this part of the Sermon on the Mount. Martha, could you remind us when we get there.” But Martha wasn’t quite finished. “Do you remember that I suggested that ‘Matthew’ might be a woman? You might think that this passage supports that idea. But I’m not sure that it does. Mark and Luke include it so it seems to be part of the common tradition.” Stephen couldn’t resist. “Maybe they were all women,” he suggested. Al admitted that the whole thing left him confused. “How does the man’s action, ‘putting away his wife’, cause her to commit adultery?” No one could think of an answer so Melanie moved them along to the next section:

“Again, you have heard that it was said to the ancients, ‘Thou shalt not swear falsely, but shalt perform thy vows to the Lord.’ But I tell you not to swear at all; neither by Heaven, for it is God’s throne; nor by the earth, for it is the footstool under his feet; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the City of the Great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. But let your language be, ‘Yes, yes,’ or ‘No, no.’ Anything in excess of this comes from the Evil One.”

“Here’s my problem,” she said. “In Deuteronomy 6.13, the law is: Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, and serve Him, and shalt swear by His Name. Having forbidden his hearers to change one jot or tittle of the law, Jesus does exactly that. I like Martha’s suggestion about different stages.”

Some one said. “Martha, tell us again.” So she repeated her idea that the early Jesus might have seen himself as a reformer of Judaism and only later, felt free to make changes, even to the Law.

Again with an eye on the clock, Melanie moved relentlessly onward:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, tooth for tooth.’

But I tell you not to resist a wicked man, but if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other to him as well.

If any one wishes to go to law with you and to deprive you of your under garment, let him take your outer one also.

And whoever shall compel you to convey his goods one mile, go with him two.

To him who asks, give: from him who would borrow, turn not away.

You have heard that it was said, ‘Thou shalt love thy neighbour and hate thine enemy.’ But I command you all, love your enemies, and pray for your persecutors; that so you may become true sons of your Father in Heaven; for he causes his sun to rise on the wicked as well as the good, and sends rain upon those who do right and those who do wrong. For if you love only those who love you, what reward have you earned? Do not even the tax-gatherers do that? And if you salute only your near relatives, what praise is due to you? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?

You, however, are to be complete in goodness, as your Heavenly Father is complete.”

Again it was recognized that the requirements of the Law were being altered and a code of behavior proposed which most Christians over the centuries had chosen to ignore. Al reminded them of the Christian communities who had practiced pacifism. “At one time I was active in the Peace Movements in Australia, especially Anzac Ploughshares. They were very keen on this passage.” The whole question of non-violent protest, Tolstoy, Gandhi and Martin Luther King, and “just war theology” became the focus for a vigorous debate which engaged almost everyone and led to a tongue-in-cheek comment from Webster. “Melanie, it would be the perfect topic when you make your choice for next year.” Eventually, Melanie was able to lead them back to the text and the question of whether the teaching of Jesus about violence was intended to provide more than a personal guide for his disciples.

The evening ended with Stephen explaining, “I have heard an argument that Jesus was proposing an ‘interim ethic’ for the short time remaining before the Kingdom of God would be made visible.” But it was too late since the debate on pacifism had filled everyone’s minds and questions of the sort that he was advancing would have to wait until another day.

As she left, she thought of Martha’s reference to Chapter 19. It seemed infinitely remote and she wondered if she would have the stamina for this whole lengthy business. She dredged up a memory of the saying that no one, putting hands to the plough and looking back, is fit for the Kingdom of Heaven. “It’s not the looking back that’s my problem,” she murmured.