There are those who consider it unpatriotic or even treasonous to point
out imperfections in anything American. In fact, one state legislature in the
last few days has presented a bill to make it illegal to teach any
model of American history (or, I assume, the history of that state) that is
critical of any historic action taken by any representation of American policy.
One would assume, given the extreme partisanism of American politics today,
that emphasis would be given, and bias expressed in favor of the specific
policies of the party that originated the legislation.
Others seem to make a life out of criticizing and finding fault with
virtually anything done by the “other party”; and it’s about as broad as it is
wide when it comes to which party is more critical of the other.
The stance one takes in the resulting cacophony generally depends upon what
will accrue the greatest benefit to the individual and/or to the party that
provides his or her political, economic, cultural and, yes, religious identity.
[It’s interesting, and somewhat appalling to note that church mission/purpose
statements more and more reflect the platform and values of one political party
or another, even when draped with biblical sound bytes.]
Now, this really isn't a blog about American partisanism. I’ve pretty
much exhausted that subject in previous blogs. Nevertheless, it seems a given
with which most Americans can identify. I take time here to reassert my bias
because it wasn't all that different when Jesus of Nazareth taught and
ministered. Today in America we have Democrats, Republicans (including the Tea
Party branch), Libertarians, Independents and even a sprinkling of Socialists.
In first century Israel you had Sadducees and Pharisees, with rabbis, priests
and scribes identifying with one or the other.
And, like the protagonists in American politics the priests and scribes
of Jesus’ day were absolutely certain of the absolute truth and validity of
their specific position, and often arrogantly obnoxious in their promotion
thereof. And so, when Jesus said, “You
have heard it said to the people long ago, ‘Do not murder, and anyone who
murders will be subject to judgment.’ But I tell you that anyone who is angry
with his brother will be subject to judgment (Matt 5:21-22), his statement was
received with all the grace and cordiality an avowed Socialist might expect at
an American Tea Party caucus.
But in that statement lies the heart of Jesus’ approach to reading
Scripture.
In his book, Disarming Scripture,
Derek Flood submits that none of the common approaches to Scripture, viz, the
Conservative/Fundamentalist approach, the Atheist approach or the
Liberal/Progressive (Cherry-Picking) approach has effectively reconciled contradictory images of God presented in various parts of the Bible, specifically, the contradiction between images of God (mostly Old
Testament) as a warrior who commands atrocities, including genocide, in his
name, versus images of God (mostly New Testament, although the
prophetic writings of Hebrew Scriptures contain some of this) as nurturing and
merciful—Jesus called God, “Father”.
Which is it? Is God fickle, or even schizophrenic? Or is there something
in our reading and understanding that needs to be addressed?
In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus addresses those contradictions and reconciles
them using the familiar formula, “You have heard… but I tell you…” And, it is
crucial to note that Jesus prefaces these confrontations by declaring, “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” (Matt 5:17). The question comes to mind: “Why
would Jesus preface his teachings with this disclaimer?” when it appears that
he proceeds precisely to overturn the law!
In the original language of the New Testament, the word translated “fulfill”
can mean either to meet all the requirements of the law, or it also can mean “perfecting or completing something.” [1] In
the full context of these sayings, “it becomes abundantly clear that he is
referring to this latter sense of perfecting the law, lovingly bringing it into
its fully intended purpose.”[2]
Jesus’ “fulfilling” of the law is rooted in forgiveness and enemy love,
which is in direct opposition to the way of violent retaliation and payback
justice (“eye for eye”) characteristic
of much of the law of Moses. There is virtually no disagreement among biblical
scholars that the “eye for eye” law was itself a movement to limit a previous system of unlimited retaliation: “one-for-one”
in place of the 7-fold retaliation of Cain (Gen 4:15) and then the 77-fold
vengeance of Lamech (Gen 4:24).
Jesus' reinterpretation of the law, then, is consistent with the movement
established much earlier in Scripture. Thus, he fulfills its purpose.
The pattern continues through the issues of divorce, civil lawsuits, and
even hatred of one’s enemy: “You have heard… hate your enemy; but I say… love
your enemy.” Jesus takes the “eye-for-eye” understanding of limited retribution
to the next level, and applies it virtually to all relationships, proposing not
to retaliate at all; instead proposing a superior way which seeks to restore
enemies, rather than to destroy them.[3]
This is how Jesus read Scripture and understood faithfulness to Scripture:
lovingly bringing it into its fully intended purpose. It proposes that the
Scriptures, as written, are not necessarily complete and final, but that they
point us in the direction of ultimate fulfillment.
No, it’s not militarily or politically proficient. It wasn't for Jesus,
either. It got him crucified. So, how serious are we—REALLY—about following
Jesus?
That’s how I see it through the flawed glass that is my world view.
Together in the Walk,
Jim
No comments:
Post a Comment