February 13, 2011

Linda Murphy

Epiphany 6 
    Matthew 5:21-37

As Clay explained in his sermon last week due to the lunar calendar this year our season of Epiphany is considerably longer than usual, therefore today we have listened to our third instalment of the Sermon on the Mount. The seventeen verses we have just listened to are examples of Jesus’ ethical teachings as interpreted by the Matthean community. These are “case studies” of a new way of living within a community, and while the first century Palestinian context is hardly our own, we can contextualise these four case studies into our own world, our church, work and family relationships.

The Matthean theologian Warren Carter suggests that Jesus uses the Hebrew Scriptures as a point of departure to demand more from his disciples. In most cases he extends the Mosaic Laws by interpreting its ethical and societal implications for human living. These teachings offer us new ways to examine the many internal dynamics as well as external behaviours of our own lives: anger, derision, slander, false generosity, arrogance, lust, temptation, alienation, divorce and religious speech.

A more radical ethic than the Mosaic Law is being offered.

Jesus was very clear that he was not teaching a new set of Laws, as stated in 5:17, but was approaching the already existing Mosaic Laws with a new ethical ideal, that of God’s indiscriminate love. The Ten Commandments, including oaths, anger and revenge are not part of life in Jesus’ kingdom of God. These verses are outrageous hyperbole, an advertising campaign; an extreme way of introducing a new interpretation on an old concept; a new interpretation of the Mosaic Law.

The concept of holding anger against another has been placed along side the prohibition of murder. It seems obvious to all of us here today that killing someone is socially, culturally and judicially unacceptable. In the honour-shame society of first century Palestine the act of revenge for a slight or unkind word was not uncommon. While we know it is not acceptable to kill someone because they have sworn at us or crossed us in some way nevertheless many of us hold anger in our hearts against another at sometime. This illustration or case study offers reconciliation instead of retribution through the court system or just a healing of a hard word or action as an alternative.

Each day we read in the paper and hear on the news that some politician has angered another. Just this week we have the current debate within the Maori Party, the unrest in Egypt and other areas of the Middle East, and the British Prime Minister David Cameron’s speech against multiculturalism. Words can be as malicious as murder. Abuse both physical and mental within our society has its roots in anger, and most of this abuse occurs within households and family groups. The cause of most wars, often referred to as ‘just wars’, began with a comment that turned to anger then fighting and innocents die. Words can kill and as the TV ad says “It’s not ok”.

The teaching continues with an expansion on the Mosaic Laws’ understanding of adultery and recommends the removal of the perpetrators ‘right eye’.

Most of us chose not to take this literally however I have been with groups over the recent years who do read the Bible literally and genuinely felt that would be the right thing to do!

Clearly they don’t go to the cinema. How can you not look favourably on Johnny Depp or Colin Firth?

The Bible, being written in a male dominated world, makes life very difficult especially for heterosexual women if they choose to be a literalist. These verses or ‘case studies” were never meant to be taken literally. Jesus was offering a new teaching that includes a practice of self-discipline, both in not committing the kind of lust that leads to dishonouring or hurting others, and in voluntarily dishonouring of oneself in the community.

This new case study reinforces the first message about the danger of incautious words that could lead to death. Self control is an essential attribute for our life in the community.

The next teaching is a little problematic for me because according to the Rabbi Hillel and his School, a man could give his wife a certificate of divorce if she burnt the dinner.

Now in the Murphy family mythology I am guilty of always burning the potatoes and then mashing them. I will admit to doing it once but according to the men in my life I have done it often.

Fortunately Peter chose not to follow Rabbi Hillel’s dictum and we are about to celebrate our thirty seventh wedding anniversary. However these verses have also allowed women to be abused within marriage with impunity over the centuries. In Matthew’s community women had no rights; they were only just above slaves in social status. Jesus was offering something quite radical. Over the centuries the church has chosen to read these teachings in various ways, frequently to the detriment of individual women who deserved a more compassionate and loving alternative. After all it is not that long ago divorced people could not take communion in the Anglican Church.

The fourth teaching or case study concerns oaths or integrity of our words. Taking oaths, as opposed to saying an oath, is not so common in our post modern society. The message contained in these verses is unchanged. We need straight forward, sincere and trustworthy speech, which builds honest and trusting relationships.

To read these verses literally is to ignore what the teachings were really saying. These new ethical teachings address a number of important issues: murder and anger, adultery and male lust, divorce, male mistreatment of women and integrity of word and action. The new way of approaching life is living a way of life marked by compassionate concern for others, a sexuality that is not exploitative and a constant preparedness to be reconciled with those that we have offended. It also requires an avoidance of temptation, integrity of speech, a non-judgemental and an unselfish concern for others.

These teachings in their original context were an invitation to participate in an alternative socio-economic, religious and political reality that would be vastly different to that being experienced under Pax Romana. The theme is still relevant to our own context, in the 21st Century, in caring about the poor, the outsider and the oppressed.

When groups of believers of Jesus’ new teachings gathered together two millennia ago they listened to what evolved into the gospel. During the liturgy, the congregation would share the ‘kiss of peace’. This holy kiss is referred to a number of times in Paul’s Letters. The source of this greeting is probably from the Hebrew greeting ‘shalom’.

Today when the deacon as in the early church calls us to offer each other the sign of peace let us remember why we have, for two thousand years, included this as part of our Liturgy.

It is an opportunity to reconcile and heal with each other and express our unity with and in Christ.