Matthew reports these familiar words from Jesus’ Sermon on the
Mount: "Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for
righteousness...” (Matthew 5:6 NRSV)
It is crucial that we understand “righteousness”. In the
original language, that same word in other contexts is translated, “Justice.”
Too often, “righteousness” is understood as devoutness, virtue,
piousness—qualities of personal devotion. And too often, “justice” is
understood as retribution or punishment.
Qualities of personal devotion are important to any life of
faith, and there are biblical words that represent those qualities. Further,
retribution has valid application in civil law, and there are biblical words
that represent that. But when Jesus said, "Blessed are those
who hunger and thirst for righteousness…” he didn’t use
any of those words. And the word he used[i]
doesn’t refer directly or necessarily to those qualities.
The word Jesus used relates to
relational, rather than personal, contexts—qualities revealed in the ways we
relate to people and social structures.
I’m not sure how the English understanding of the word got separated from a
concept of justice and tied so tightly to personal devotion; but, its
fundamental meaning is simply “what is right”, whether it is translated “justice”
or “righteousness.”
A crucial dilemma today is the disconnect between human need
and some ideologies, both political and religious. Some things simply are more
important than any philosophy or dogma: things that simply are “right.” And
when the neglect of those things is justified in favor of any system or
philosophy, such neglect becomes unrighteousness—things like Jesus outlines
clearly in Matthew 25: “…for
I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to
drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36I was naked and you gave me
clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited
me.”
Many find ways to back out of those things, justifying their
neglect with political or religious ideology. I often concur with the ideologies[ii];
but some things simply are more important than political ideology!
The gospels portray Jesus and the Pharisees at odds over many
issues, not the least of which fits the concerns of this discussion: “Moses said,
‘Respect your father and mother,’ and, ‘Anyone denouncing father or mother
should be killed.’ But you weasel out of that by saying that it’s perfectly
acceptable to say to father or mother, ‘Gift! What I owed you I’ve given as a
gift to God,’ thus relieving yourselves of obligation to father or mother. You
scratch out God’s Word and scrawl a whim in its place.” (Mark 7:10-13 The Message)
Even though the Pharisees used religious,
rather than political, terminology, the principle remains, viz., they were giving
precedence to an ideology over persons and relationships. And Jesus said they
thereby were voiding God’s Word.
When ideology trumps people and people’s
needs, then neither justice nor righteousness is enacted!
The effort to absolutize any ideology,
philosophy, creed or theology is counterproductive to the gospel—in every way!
“You’re
hopeless, you religion scholars and Pharisees! Frauds! You keep meticulous
account books, tithing on every nickel and dime you get, but on the meat of
God’s Law, things like fairness and compassion and commitment—the absolute
basics![iii]—you carelessly take
it or leave it. Careful bookkeeping is commendable, but the basics are
required. Do you have any idea how silly you look, writing a life story that’s
wrong from start to finish, nitpicking over commas and semicolons?” (Matthew 23:23-24
The Message)
Jesus, in keeping with the message
of the later Hebrew prophets, reserved his harshest criticism for those who mistreated
the poor and justified their neglect by cherry picking specific portions of
their law, misapplying those portions and then absolutizing them. “For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the
scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:20 NRSV).
Bottom line: whether your ideology
is Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Socialist or religious, there are some
things more important that your ideology or mine. And to use any ideology to
justify neglect of those “weightier matters,” is indefensible from a Christian
perspective.
That’s the way I see it through the Flawed
Glass that is my world view.
Together in the Walk
Jim
[i] Δικαιοσυνην (dik-ah-yos-oo'-nay)
Strong’s Concordance defines the word thus: (usually if not always in a Jewish
atmosphere), justice, justness, righteousness, righteousness of which God is
the source or author, but practically: a divine righteousness.
[ii]
For example, I believe most of us want smaller government; but, we also want
just enough government to enact and enforce the values and policies we advocate. I believe most of us prefer
that private charities, churches, non-profits and individual philanthropists,
rather than government, take care of the poor. The sad truth is that the
government got involved in the first place because those entities abdicated their
roles in the helping ministries. Until that sad condition is corrected, who
will take care of the poor? Moreover, some of those non-government entities are
as corrupt as any government, and their high overhead (including 6- and
7-figure incomes for CEOs) demonstrates extremely poor stewardship. Among those
that are not corrupt, most have limited resources. The overwhelming majority of
churches in America have fewer than 200 members, and struggle to pay salaries
and utilities, while maintaining their facility; therefore, their participation
in ministries of compassion is limited. In other words, available
non-government resources probably are inadequate to take care of all
human needs. Some would justify neglect of the poor by way of accusations of
fraud and laziness and irresponsibility. Those are valid concerns, but
represent a significant minority of human need situations. Finally, there is validity
to the argument that charity breeds dependence. There is a great need for an effective
strategy for eliminating poverty. Even with such a strategy in place, it
probably would take a generation or longer to accomplish the task. “Cold Turkey”
is not a part of any effective strategy.
[iii]
KJV, RSV, NRSV et al render the
phrase, “weightier matters of the law”.
