"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint, dill, and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. It is these you ought to have practiced without neglecting the others.  Matthew 23:23 (NRSV) 

God's judgment will also rain on both the good and the evil. 

I can, but it will bounce.  Have you read the legislating morality thread?

I don’t know if I’m helping you much, Sahid, but I will try again.

Instead of looking strictly at what the verse says, lets look at why.  Here is what I see when looking deeper into the verse. The Jews were abusing civil laws by interpreting them as moral law, i.e. eye for an eye.  Civil laws, such as the eye for an eye, were meant to be used to help settle disputes from a neutral arbitrator.  Jesus was trying to show that grace and love were needed to fulfill moral law and vengeance belonged to God alone.  In addition, Jesus’s followers were expecting Jesus to lead a revolt marked with violence.  He was attempting to put an end to this type of mindset with a shocking message of love and grace by attempting to open their eyes and guide them back to center.   It’s important to note “Jesus was centered and balanced, filled with both grace and truth, he qualifies the sermon at the start by saying he does not come to abolish Moses’ laws.

I think the following verse bears repeating.   Note, once again we find Jesus qualifying his words by stating not to neglect other aspects of the law.  

Matthew 23:23 (NRSV) 

    "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint, dill, and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. It is these you ought to have practiced without neglecting the others.  

To get a better handle on the scope of what Jesus was preaching about I think we should take into consideration the three differing types of law.

(1) The ceremonial law related specifically to Israel’s worship (see Leviticus 1:2-3, for example). Its primary purpose was to point forward to Jesus Christ; these laws, therefore, were no longer necessary after Jesus’ death and resurrection. While we are no longer bound by ceremonial laws, the principles behind them—to worship and love a holy God—still apply. Jesus was often accused by the Pharisees of violating ceremonial law.

(2) The civil law applied to daily living in Israel (see Deut. 24:10-11, for example). Because modern society and culture are so radically different from that time and setting, all of these guidelines cannot be followed specifically. But the principles behind the commands are timeless and should guide our conduct. Jesus demonstrated these principles by example.

(3) The moral law (such as the Ten Commandments) is the direct command of God, and it requires strict obedience (see Exodus 20:13, for example). The moral law reveals the nature and will of God, and it still applies today. Jesus obeyed the moral law completely.

  Like I said early, I think the civil laws Moses set up were ment to try and keep order, but, ended up being perverted by people using them as moral law. In other words, people were taking civil law into their own hands. An eye for an eye mentality isn’t very loving when used as a moral law, it turns into vengeance. But an eye for and eye as civil law is just and maintains order.  I think Jesus was trying to show them how they had perverted the original intent of the law and that moral law should be filled with love and grace towards one another and not vengeance.   Unfortunately, this imbalance of love and law (or grace and truth) has been taken to the extremes by differing churches for the past 2000 years with immense perversity on both sides.  I’m afraid that many folks today are still victims of such extreme doctrines falling on either side of the spectrum.

I hope that helps some,

Mark

P.S. Don’t give Tom any money.  I never would have giving him the 500.00 bucks that I did if I had known he was using it to fund his illegal slave trade activities.

Post Edited (sparknheart) : 8/24/2005 3:09:45 PM (GMT-5)

Stop right there!  I understand you are trying to "say the opposite", that’s my point.  By saying the opposite you are not much better off then those that neglected mercy, justice, love and grace.  We can not give gifts in the name of love at the expense of others, if we do so, it neglects truth and acts out a perversity of grace. The delicate balance of grace and truth is the issue here.  God hates sin and evil, he is grieved by the destructive harm it brings to his children.  It should be intuitive that we stay within the guardrails of truth when we love.   Can you grapple the idea of a perversity of grace, that it does happen, that such a thing even exist, a form of dysfunctional love if you will? 

Let our hearts burn within us, filled with the grace and truth of Christ,

Mark

Post Edited (sparknheart) : 8/25/2005 11:06:28 PM (GMT-5)

The opposite of "give up on love and focus on practice" is to remain loving and focus on that.  Are you opposed to my refusal to give up on love?  Moderation is good in some contexts, but moderation in morality itself?

Post Edited (Sahid) : 8/26/2005 1:45:09 AM (GMT-5)

Zach, let me respond briefly to your post.  First, the intro and summary of the sermon are sufficient to indicate, to me, that Christ is not trying to contradict the Torah or the prophets.  Furthermore, I think if Christ wanted to make clear that he was arguing against the Torah, rather than interpretations of it, he would have said, "It is written, but I say..." 

Granted, he advocates going beyond the letter when love will be better served that way.  For example, if your spouse commits a few indiscretions, love would be better served by forgiving rather than divorcing.  But, if your spouse becomes a ravenous fornicator, I'm not sure Christ's argument would condemn a separation (although I wouldn't necessarily recommend an immediate remarriage).  For THEN, you are not causing your spouse to commit fornication by the separation in any sense.

You expressed disagreements with me about how Christ was arguing with respect to the Torah, but did not give examples.  Could you provide some examples for those cases?

Zach:  I mean, seriously; a man intending to murder telling me his plans and asking for a gun?  On the other hand we can make fairly consistent guesses.

Jeff:  I think a reasonable measure of a legitimate guess is this:  If the language that expresses an intent to kill is JUST as clear as the language that expresses an "asking," it should be taken at face value if you take the other language at face value.  In other words, if I don't believe words that seemingly indicate an intent to kill, why would I believe the words that seemingly indicate an "asking?"  The same epistemology should be applied, IMO.

Zach:  But still we, I thought, acknowledge, that allowing or facilitating sin is not itself sin. 

Jeff:  Indeed, as long as you are not KNOWINGLY facilitating sin.  That's the distinction I make.  Again, this is grounded in the "as thyself" and "fellowship" ideas.  It would be nice if there was something in the law or prophets that unequivocally suggests that we are to knowingly facilitate moral evil.  I would be less inclined to lean the way I do.

Zach:  Jesus knows full well how his surrender will "lead" to Peter's denial, but that doesn't stop him.  His ministry "leads" to the most evil murder conceivable, but he still does it.

Jeff:  But in both cases, Jesus does what he does for benevolent reasons INDEPENDENT of the unintended consequences--it is NOT his INTENT in doing those things that evil result.  I'm saying that there is no command to GIVE for the mere sake of GIVING.  I'm saying that the reasons for giving are to do GOOD to one's neighbor.  That being the case, my knowledge of the asker's intent becomes relevant.  If I HAVE no knowledge of evil intent on the part of the "asker," I should give for the normal reasons why any benevolent person would give to another.

Zach:  Wait a second.  That's what I said, in different words.  He is telling us to loan (without expecting to get anything back) to ALL people.  Regardless of who is being contrasted, that's my point.  Luke's version has "But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked."

Jeff:  I see the phrase "do good to them" and the word "kind" as part and parcel of what is meant in the phrase "as thyself."   In other words, GIVE to ALL for the benevolent reasons that the law requires and you would have done to you.  Not give to ALL independent of a benevolent intent; independent of whether giving results in "good to them."  E.g., a young child will ask for things all the time that the parents know should not be given.  Because the parent KNOWS giving a kid scissors, e.g., will not be for the child's GOOD.  How can I claim I have a GOOD intent when I'm giving, all the while KNOWING with a legitimate degree of certainty (same degree of certainty that a request has actually been made) that the giving is making it more probable that evil will occur?  That seems to contradict the meaning of intent to me.

Zach:   God gives breath to murderers, knowing better how they will use it.  To hold your belief consistently, you need to comdemn God.

Jeff:  God doesn't give because the murderer asks, though.  God gives rain and breath not in some literal sense of He actually CREATES at the request of some one every time.  The rain comes by laws of it's own or God answers prayers for Elijah, etc.  The atmosphere has been there since creation.  The point of the passage is that God DOES act benevolently towards evil people.  NOT that God gives oxygen SO THAT murderers can murder.  Your contention seems to imply that a parent should allow their young child to have a poisonous snake upon request on the grounds that God created poisonous snakes.  In other words, your view seems to prove too much, to me. 

Zach:  So God gives the people the means to do their evil (like me giving a gun to the man), but he does not share in the evil.  What a concept.

Jeff:  But since he regretted it, it is obvious that He didn't choose Saul with utter disregard for consequences.  But those consequences were NOT foreknown.  That's the distinction I have been making all along. 

Anyway, I gotta stop for a bit.  Catch 'ya later.

Post Edited (jefscott) : 8/28/2005 9:45:56 PM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (Dragon Chaser) : 8/28/2005 11:07:29 PM (GMT-5)

Paul, or someone writing in his name, frequently encouraged Christians to avoid unseemly appearances.  In cities where female religious leadership made people think of prostitution, Paul tells women to back off.  If eating meat is associated with idolatry among a group, don't eat meat around that group.

I am advocating a certain position, specifically in regard to the Sermon on the Mount.  But I get the feeling that you guys associate my position with something (or somethings) that I too disagree with.  It's as though I'm saying it's ok to eat meat, and the response is, "But idolatry is a sin!"  So, I'll try to be precise.

Jeff:  I think if Christ wanted to make clear that he was arguing against the Torah, rather than interpretations of it, he would have said, "It is written, but I say..." 

Zach:  Fine.  Whether or not Jesus contradicts the Torah is not my point.  I think he does (and this can be done while also fulfilling it and not causing it to "disappear"), but even if I'm wrong it doesn't bear on my argument here.  Try Mark 7:19 or Matt 5:38-42.  Jesus directly contradicts Torah.  Torah says some foods are unclean, and take eye for an eye.  Jesus directly says no.  You asked for examples and said that I didn't give one, but I did.  The very paragraph where the title for this thread come from.  I mentioned it in my last post.  Jesus doesn't have to say, "It is written."  It is well known to anyone aquainted with the Old Testament that it is written.  Ex 21:24, Lev 24:20, Deut 19:21.  Do I really have to show that eye for an eye is an OT concept?

Jeff: I think a reasonable measure of a legitimate guess is this:  If the language that expresses an intent to kill is JUST as clear as the language that expresses an "asking," it should be taken at face value if you take the other language at face value.  In other words, if I don't believe words that seemingly indicate an intent to kill, why would I believe the words that seemingly indicate an "asking?"  The same epistemology should be applied, IMO.

Zach:  You've taken my words out of context.  You left out this: "more we contrive a situation in which this knowledge is possible, the less realistic that situation becomes.  I mean, seriously..."  The man asking for a gun is a perfect illustration of your point.  It's also almost entirely unrealistic.  The better the illustration, the more of a fantasy it becomes.

"But still we, I thought, acknowledge, that allowing or facilitating sin is not itself sin."

Jeff:  Indeed, as long as you are not KNOWINGLY facilitating sin.

Zach:  No.  Such a distinction has no bearing.  An unknowing facilitation would result in unknown sin, just like any other unknown sin.  Knowledge of a sin might make it somehow worse (Luke 12:47-48), but unknown sin is still sin.

Jeff:  It would be nice if there was something in the law or prophets that unequivocally suggests that we are to knowingly facilitate moral evil.  I would be less inclined to lean the way I do.

Zach:  I've offered Jesus own words.  "Give to the one who asks you."  There are certain biblically based exceptions.  The exception that you are arguing for, however, has no biblical basis.  It is based on opinion and inclination.  Now, if you want to build your own quadrilateral with arational whim as a pillar, then we can agree to disagree, but as long as we are building on the Bible, I can't help but say no.  The burden of proof should be on the one who seeks to add to the word.

Jeff:  But in both cases, Jesus does what he does for benevolent reasons INDEPENDENT of the unintended consequences--it is NOT his INTENT in doing those things that evil result. 

Zach:  How can you think after all this time that this matters?  I do not advocate giving to the wicked because I intend an evil result.  That's offensive.  This is exactly what I was talking about at the beginning.  I never advocated anything like this, but somehow intending evil is associated with giving to the wicked.  So here it is in writing:  I do not advocate that we should ever intend evil.  The intent in giving to the wicked is to be like our heavenly Father.  That's is what I've said from the beginning.  If no one can distinguish between these two, then I might as well stop talking so as not to accidentally teach idolatry when I eat meat.

Jeff:  I'm saying that there is no command to GIVE for the mere sake of GIVING.

Zach:  Me too.

Jeff:  I'm saying that the reasons for giving are to do GOOD to one's neighbor.

Zach:  Jesus had different reasons.   Matt 5:45.

Jeff:  In other words, GIVE to ALL for the benevolent reasons that the law requires and you would have done to you.

Zach:  No, Jesus makes it clear what his reason is.  Luke 6:35.

Jeff: The point of the passage is that God DOES act benevolently towards evil people.  NOT that God gives oxygen SO THAT murderers can murder.

Zach:  Then we agree.

Jeff:  Your contention seems to imply that a parent should allow their young child to have a poisonous snake upon request on the grounds that God created poisonous snakes.

Zach:  Assuming that "young children" are to be treated as morally responsible people, yes.  However, I don't assume that.  But even if I did, so what?  Do you have anything more than opinion or inclination to back up the claim that such an action is wrong? 

Jeff:  But since he regretted it, it is obvious that He didn't choose Saul with utter disregard for consequences.

Zach:  True.  It a good thing I didn't say otherwise.  God did regard the consequences, but the consequences aren't why he chose.  He chose to give Saul (knowing the consequences would be bad, 1Sam 8:9), because the people asked.  "They have rejected me as their king.  As they have done from the day I brought them up out of Egypt until this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are doing to you.  Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly..."  It wasn't as though God thought some good would come from it.

Dragon Chaser, if you think Kamikaze pilots are laying down their lives, you must have a very different understanding of "laying down" than Jesus did.  Jesus didn't kamikaze or suicide bomb.  He surrendered.  He gave.  I do not advocate kamikaze, and nothing I've written implies that.

If you have a problem with demanding perfection, then you've got a problem with Jesus.  He said it.  I'm only repeating.  However, he also defines it.  Perfection is giving even to the wicked.  Perfection is loving one's enemies.

Post Edited (Sahid) : 8/29/2005 3:00:51 AM (GMT-5)

Ok, I understand you don’t understand the possibility that you could be drifting outside the guardrails of truth, or maybe you’re not running on the tracks of grace.  Maybe I’ve made an assumption when you said you were not taking the verse as some new law.  In either case, truth without grace becomes self-righteous legalism, grace without truth becomes cheap and an unprotected illusion.    What I’m trying to establish is that this imbalance happens in some context to everyone with Jesus being the only exception.    Loving within the guardrails of truth is an ongoing daily challenge for all of us. By not recognizing the harmony needed between grace and truth becomes a red flag in itself.  

 It doesn't make much sense to prove I am wrong by claiming I am wrong.

 I’m not trying to prove you’re wrong, I’m attempting to have you look at the verse (and beyond) with a fuller perspective, one that includes both love AND truth, realizing they can’t be separated at the expense of each other, that they bleed over into each other. 

What have I said that is not truthful?  

 I’m not questioning your truthfulness, quite the contrary Sahid.  But, people can drift into darkness truly believing they are in the light. Many people do wrong all the while on the surface they think its right. Intentionally giving a bat to an evil person to club your neighbor is not right; in your heart of hearts I think you know it would be wrong. 

The opposite of "give up on love and focus on practice" is to remain loving and focus on that.  I agree we should focus on love, but let’s try adjusting our focus by sheding light on love and exposing it when it goes bad. 

 Are you opposed to my refusal to give up on love?  NEVER!  I believe love is at the core of what life is all about, it’s just not a free for all or an unbridled love orgy.  

 Moderation is good in some contexts, but moderation in morality itself?  I don’t think the word “moderation” is a very good fit for what I’m trying to express here.  I’m saying all out love to the max, but love should not come at the expense of truth or vice versa. 

 Do you remember when you said the following back on the “Ends & Means” thread?  Can you see a comparison here?

I know I'm preaching to the choir, but it just lights a fire in me. I just want to stop people, look them in the eye, and tell them, "You are ugly, weak, stupid, and bad. But Jesus will make you beautiful, strong, wise, and awesome."  http://www.opentheismboard.org/default.aspx?f=11&p=3&m=16022

That’s an example of truth lacking grace.   Can you think of any examples of grace lacking truth?

Thanks,

Mark

Post Edited (sparknheart) : 8/29/2005 1:45:42 PM (GMT-5)