Matthew 5
Divorce vv.31 & 32 – Part 2

Remember that it was a man’s world. The liberal view of Hillel, the convenience divorce of Greece and Rome, and the syntheses of these cultural norms all led to a man-sided approach. Shamai, although accused of legalism, sided with the woman. He did not want to see women with no rights, especially when it came to the protection and nurture she deserved as a mother and homemaker. Her rights must be recognized and defended. Moses and Jesus agreed.  A woman was not a “throw-away”.

Indeed, the whole point of Moses providing a “certificate of divorce” to the woman (Dt. 24:1) was to protect her from the former husband returning and forcing her back into marriage. The divorce certificate was her defence against being treated like property. It meant she had the legal right to say “no”.

She had other rights as well. In Exodus 22:10 Moses delineates the basic rights she had as either concubine or wife. The man was required to provide there with “food… clothing… marital rights.” If these were not provided she had the right to divorce him, although, as history proved, it would be a difficult road.

Matthew 5
Divorce vv.31 & 32 – Part 1

Here in the twenty-first century we live in an era of disposable relationships. Nearly one in two marriages ends in divorce. We accept it, even though it is often painful. And, increasingly, young couples are choosing cohabitation without the legal trappings of marriage. It’s a way of avoiding red tape when the inevitable breakup occurs. The breakup will occur. or, so we believe. Very few expect to marry for life.

So it’s a bit of jolt to red Jesus’ prohibition of divorce. It seems harsh. But let’s look at the context.

Marriage, as a social contract, was under siege in Jesus’ day. In many ways this reflected a clash of cultures, Jewish, Roman, and Greek. And in the Jewish context there was the added conflict of the perennial liberal/conservative divide. The liberal school under the leadership of Rabbi Hillel, sided with the Greco/Roman view that marriage could be dissolved easily, and for any reason. The conservative school, under Rabbi Shamai, was counter-culture. It contended that there was only one cause justifying divorce — adultery.

Matthew 5
Adultery and Lust vv. 27-30

To be clear, the Old Testament injunction against adultery is about more than sex. Mainly it’s about property. As grating as we may find patriarchy today, the fact is that the Old Testament Israelite culture was totally patriarchal. The man was king. His wife/wives, his children, his entire household were, in their entirety, his property. He could divorce his wife at will. He could even sell his children, just as he might sell an ox. His dwelling compound was his own little fortress. Any break in by a thief was not just an intrusion but an assault against the owner’s sovereignty, Thus, any man who seduced, rated, and/or flirted with another man’s wife, was engaging in an act of war against that man. He was a thief, a brigand, a careless wrecker of another man’s peace. He was worthy of death by stoning.

Som even the “look” at another man’s wife was suspect. Adultery doesn’t happen spontaneously. It’s a process — the look, the casual contact, the “confidential” comment, the flattery, the “innocent” meeting for coffee — adultery is built incrementally. But it all starts with “the look”.

In the Greek “the look” can suggest a “lusting after”, that is, a conscious intent to have sex — a deliberate cultivation of the woman. The process will end in bed. But then, that end will be but the beginning of the disintegration of the woman’s marriage, the upsetting of her husband’s peace, the fracturing of a family. In Jesus’ view adultery was a relational tumor, a cancer the would quickly metastasize, destroying lives forever.

To emphasize his point Jesus uses both euphemism and hyperbole. The offending “eye” should be plucked out and the “right hand” (read “private parts” — by some. Google “Origen and Matthew 19:12”) should be cut off. Now, Jesus didn’t want to have a bunch of dismembered disciples following him about, but he exaggerated for the sake of emphasis. Abuse someone else’s marriage at your peril!

Matthew 5
Murder and Anger vv. 21-26 (Part 2)

Israel’s means of atonement (“at-one-ment”) was blood sacrifice. As the penitent brought his lamb to the altar he would press his hands down on the lamb’s head conferring his guilt to the helpless animal. He would make a statement of confession, something like, “I confess my wrongdoing, let this act be for my covering.” Then the animal was slain, the blood poured out on the altar, and the priest declared abolition.

Jesus says, before you are reconciled to God you must be reconciled to your “brother” or “sister”. The anger must be dealt with. Deal with it by confessing to the object of your anger, and then confess it to God. The Lord can then forgive. The cumulative effect of unconfessed anger resulting in murder, will be avoided. One cannot love God and hate neighbour. It is out of synch with heaven’s heartbeat.

What is more, Jesus says, if you deal with your anger in God’s way, you will avoid not only murder but also the possibility of a costly lawsuit. Be practical as well as spiritual.

Matthew 5
New vs. Old vv. 21-48 

So, not that Jesus had put pharisaic righteousness into perspective, he proceeded to describe the “new wine” proceeding from both Old Testament Law and Oral Law. He starts with murder and anger.

Murder and Anger vv. 21-26 (Part 1)

You will notice as you read from 5:21 through to the end of the chapter, that each paragraph begins with, “You have heard that it was said…” This, of course, was how the illiterate and unlearned had been taught the law. Both the Old Testament Law and the scribal (Oral) Law were read and/or spoken to the people. Their knowledge was based on hearing. Jesus gives them an “earful” of what lies behind what they have heard.

Of course you should not murder, says Jesus, but that horrific outcome is rooted in something that precedes it: anger. Both epithets, “Raca!” and “You fool!” expose a low view of neighbour. In modern parlance it is utter disdain that spews “Empty head! Blockhead! Numbskull! You stupid! Apostate fool! Outcast! Scoundrel! Foreigner!” These accusations are bathed in contempt and “justify” murder in the view of the murderer. This low life is expendable! The world is better without them! They deserve to die! This outrage fuels the knife. Indeed the thrust of the weapon requires the impetus that anger provides.

Those who heard these words, like us who read them, pause. We’re all guilty of anger. It may not have overcome us yet, but the potential is there to lash out at someone. So Jesus calls for pre-emptive action.

Matthew 5
The New Law vv. 17-20 (Part 2)

Jesus proclaimed the “springtime” of God’s dealings with Israel after a four hundred year drought of hearing from the Lord. His “green leaf” message had full regard fro the ancient stock and vine of the Law and the Prophets. Indeed, as he put it, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them” (v.17). His words were to bring photosynthetic new life to the great principles of old Sinai. Indeed, he presents a “New Sinai”, in bursting color. But he does not do so at the expense or eradication of the old, “For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished” (v.18).

In Jesus’ time the “Law” was understood by most Israelites as the “oral” or “scribal” law, the expansion/reduction of the mosaic law into thousands of rules and regulations. The oral had great impact because that was how a largely illiterate culture was taught and retained God’s commands. As such it was rife with man-made legalisms that burdened, rather than released, the spirit of man. This was the law that Jesus, and later the apostle Paul, took umbrage with. This was the Petri dish which incubated repression rather than liberation. It was the fungus growing on the stately stock of the Ten Commandments.

Jesus saw manmade constructions as a “relaxing…liberalizing… watering-down… setting aside” (various translations of v.19) of the pure gold of God’s law. Rabbi Hillel, the liberal, was as guilty of the “fungification of the Law” as much as Rabbi Shamai, the conservative. Both liberal and conservative schools were codifying, thereby legislating, something that was living and breathing with the pulse of God’s love for the world. Jesus fulfills the law by excising the legal and personifying the heart of God. As the apostle John said, “God is love”. And love is always alive, dynamic, not static. Jesus changed a negative into a positive. The old “Thou shalt not” became “Blessed are they that…” Law morphed into love. St. Paul put it this way, “Love is the fulfilling of the Law” (Ro. 13:10).

Matthew 5
The New Law vv. 17-20 (Part 1)

Later in his writing about Jesus, Matthew (9:17) recalls Jesus saying, “Neither do people pour new wine into old wineskins. If they do, the skins will burst; the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined. No, they pour new wine into new wineskins, and both are preserved.” Radical leaders often use this saying as a rationale for destroying all vestiges of a former era. They see their scorched-earth privy as the only way to effecting change. And, many of these revolutionaries have seen their actions as divinely ordained.

Jesus would vilify such superficial and destructive zeal as much as he criticized the intransigence of the established old order of pharisaic righteousness. Both radical and reactionary are guilty of blindness. The issue ultimately is not old versus new. Rather it is the new growing out of the old. New branches from old roots producing new fruit.

New wine never comes from new vines. I quote an article entitled, “When it come to grape vines, old is gold (The Globe and Mail, April 03, 2012):
Old vines yield more concentrated fruit, resulting in richer wines with more sumptuous balance. [Age] can mean 30 years. In Australia, California, and Spain, the cutoff is more like 50 or 60… a few California producers, with vineyards planted 80-100 years ago, have adopted the designation ‘ancient vines’…the oldest dating back more than 150 years.

Every spring we see the principle of new growing from old born out in the budding of trees and plants that have been dormant throughout winter. It’s always a wonder. Miraculous even. In every way those youthfully green new leaves are the “fulfillment” of the old root system which has not only stood the test of time but feeds it in the present. And, ironically, it’s these new leaves that enable the photosynthesis giving ongoing life to the old roots. You can’t have one without the other.

Matthew 5
Salt and Light vv. 13-16 – Part 2

Looking over to his right, seeing the town of Safat on the mountainside, he says his followers will be as conspicuous in the world as a city built on a hill. Their light will shine. Their influence will permeate like salt. They will become critical players on the world stage. Really?

Yes, really. History has proven Jesus’ words true. And, apart from a bit of Constatine here and there, Jesus’ followers have not impacted the world through money or power. Rather, their influence has been that of distinctiveness, not conformity. They have been champions of counter-culture, the ultimate expression being the eschatological “Kingdom of Heaven”. Unwordly vision begets unworldly action. And, God is glorified.

But, Jesus warns them to stay salty and well lit. No room for shrinking violets. And, no doubt he foresaw imprisonment and cruel death for many of them. This old world has a way of pushing back.

So, before shifting to Jesus’ words about “fulfilling the law”, a short summary of the preceding words:
1. We are blessed (beatitudes vv.1-12)
2. We serve (salt and light vv. 13-16a)
3. God is glorified (v.16b)

Matthew 5
Salt and Light vv. 13-16 – Part 1

You don’t have to be a scientist. All you do is “Google” the question. “Can salt lose its saltiness?” The answer is clear. “Sodium chloride is readily water-soluble, so if this crude salt were exposed to condensation or rain water, the sodium chloride could be dissolved and removed, and the salt could in effect lose its saltiness.” (askscientist.co.uk). I start with this because there has been debate by Bible commentators over the years as to the permanence of saltiness. Some say salt  is salt and will always be salty, others say it can deteriorate. Jesus is vindicated on this count by the scientist. Salt can decay.

Salty salt, of course, both preserves and provides flavour. And, just as a little bit of light will dispel darkness, a little bit of salt will prevent food from rotting. Both are indispensable to sustainable life on earth.

Jesus looks his little band of blue-collar followers in the eye and says, “You are going to save the world from rottenness and darkness. And, you’re going to make life on earth worth living.” Preserve, enlighten, and flavour the world? Yes. THat’s what his disciples will do.

Matthew 5
A Summary Comment

Many years ago I had the honour of interviewing John R. W. Stott for a television show. I brought my copy of his classic, “The Message of The Sermon on the Mount” to the studio. He graciously singed it. As we waited for the crew to make the final lighting adjustments, we talked about the “sermon”. I’ll never forget his summary of the beatitudes. I can’t quote him directly, but this is what I remember of what he said:

The first four beatitudes are about our attitude towards God: We are poor in spirit, our bankrupt souls are dependent on him; we mourn the corruption of our fallen nature, but in meekness offer moldable hearts to the work of the Holy Spirit; and in all of this we find ourselves constantly hungry and thirsty for Jesus.
The last four beatitudes are about our attitude towards our neighbour: we refuse to judge; we have no secret agenda which will exalt ourselves and diminish the other guy; we will make peace, not war; and we’ll suffer hardship to tell our world that the Kingdom of Heaven awaits.

Stott made it clear that these were “preaching points”. Which they are. But they’re worth remembering.

Matthew 5
Persecuted because of Righteousness vv.10-12

Rather than do a word study on “righteousness” (which he could have done), Jesus qualifies its meaning as that which is done “on my account” or “because of me” (v. 11b). He is looking ahead and anticipates the push-back the disciples will suffer as they “go into all the world and preach the gospel.” In fact history tells us most of them died martyrs deaths “because of [him].”

They became martyrs not just because of their radical rabbi, but also because of the worldview that he taught and lived. Jesus was all about “the Kingdom of Heaven”. This worldview brought with it unheard of culture, a values “transplant”, a collateral uprooting of Jewishness, offensive to both Pharisees and Sadducees. It demanded resistance by the established order. It needed to be squashed. So start by squashing the founder and his followers. Jesus knew that the first to be eliminated would be he.

Jesus links persecution “because of me” with “reward in heaven”. Make that “great” reward. There are at least two nuances here: 1. Suffering for Jesus does not necessarily bring material gain or comfort. Most, if not all, of those who have died because of their witness for Christ in history did so penniless. This “earth” does not reward saints. “Heaven” does. 2. Reward rejects a mercenary attitude on the one hand, and the obligation of compensating meritorious service (“not by world of righteousness that we have done, but according to his mercy…he saved us…” Ti. 3:5) on the other hand. The ultimate reward is, and will be, entry into the Father’s presence. Any other reward is eclipsed by that ultimate prospect. And, in space and time, God’s love is the best reward for anything done in Christ’s name.