The problem with dismissing the Sermon on the Mount and the ethical teachings of Jesus, is that we end up filling the void with some other ethic. Jesus’ teachings have routinely been dismissed as simply “high ideals” or “hard sayings” by many theologians, writers and scholars. Actually, this idea has been offered many times throughout the centuries as an explanation for why we can’t possibly adopt the ethics of Jesus as laid out in the Sermon on the Mount. Even though this is the case, the gospel of Matthew really stands alone in both its scope and presentation of the ethical teachings of Jesus.īut much of what Jesus admonishes in the Sermon on the Mount seems so unattainable, so difficult indeed that many just assume that Jesus is simply pointing out that we can’t possibly live up to the standards that he sets forth.
Recently, as a result of more rigorous scrutiny of the biblical texts, most scholars understand Mark to be the earliest gospel and partly the inspiration for the book of Matthew. Although Matthew was par excellence of the “Synoptic Gospels”, which consisted of Matthew, Mark and Luke, it was John that was most widely read and used by the church for more than a thousand years. Now, what about those that simply skip over the Sermon on the Mount, the section of scripture where this verse is contained? It’s a difficult issue to tie up in just a few pages, but the problem can be outlined by looking at a few key areas of thinking regarding our scripture in question, and the Sermon on the Mount.įor much of the earlier history of the Church, the gospel of Matthew was considered the gospel par excellence. Of course, there are some that very simplistically use this scripture as a prooftext for violence to say something like “see, Jesus says ‘an eye for an eye…’” But reading a few more lines one quickly realizes that Jesus is refuting this kind of thinking.
It’s not just that this particular scripture is misunderstood in the sense that people think Jesus is endorsing violence, the misunderstanding is really deeper in that many people simply dismiss this particular scripture and the cluster of scriptures that it’s found in altogether. (Jeremiah 31:33-34).I was reading a news article the other day about another country in which a criminal case was to be settled according to the maxim “eye for an eye.” I started thinking about the scripture in Matthew 5:38 where Jesus says “You have heard it said an “eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth…” The more I thought about this scripture, and the phrase “eye for an eye,” the more I realized that this scripture is misunderstood for a variety of reasons. He will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more. In this new era, writes Jeremiah, the Old Testament prophet, God will put His law in their minds and write it on their hearts. God made a new covenant with the people after the Old Testament times. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” The difference in teachings shows a transition from the Old Testament era to the New Testament era, where love reigns over rules and laws. “You have heard that it was said, “Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.” But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. Instead of paying an eye for eye, Jesus asked us to love our enemies. The same phrase appears again in the New Testament, but with a new focus. God set the laws and revealed to Moses, the prophet, “But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.” This punishment was first introduced in the Book of Exodus in the Old Testament. If one took the life of another person, the killer should be punished by giving up their life. The literal meaning is clear on the surface, that a person should be punished exactly like the crime they committed. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.”(Matthew 5:38) origin and application
“Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.” But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person.
0 kommentar(er)
