Tuesday, January 16, 2007 AD
This morning's gospel reading (from the St James's Daily Devotional Guide) was a familiar one, but my mind got snagged on the last sentence in a new way:
As so often with the sermon on the mount, it all seems so reasonable until you actually concentrate on what Jesus is saying, at which point you are tempted to say, "Whoa! Steady on there, a minute!". I mean, it's one thing to say, "Don't go around making extravagant oaths; just stick to a simple 'yes' or 'no', and stand by your word". That's the sort of thing that Great Moral Teachers™ say all the time. Makes perfect sense. But to go on and say that those additional oaths that people use every day are satanic? Wow. That's a bit strong, don't you think?
So I was trying to think through why Jesus might have used such strong language to describe these oaths. It occurred to me that one clue to this can be found in another incident in the gospels, in Luke 12:13,14:
Now, of course God is concerned about the minutiae of existence, with not a sparrow falling to the ground without his noticing it. The gospel itself is about God's self-giving, self-emptying love in entering into our world rather than standing aloof from it. But there is all the difference in the world between receiving as a gift God's loving, self-giving concern for every aspect of our lives, and snatching it for ourselves like a spoiled child who (in WH Vanstone's words) "[takes] as a right that which should be received as a gift".
Jesus' exposure of the true motive behind our oaths - the desire to put God at our disposal and in our power, to lay hold of his concern for us as a right rather than receiving it as a gift - helps us to see why it "comes from the evil one".
‘Again, you have heard that it was said to those of ancient times, “You shall not swear falsely, but carry out the vows you have made to the Lord.” But I say to you, Do not swear at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. Let your word be “Yes, Yes” or “No, No”; anything more than this comes from the evil one.I'm so familiar with the first half of that last sentence - "Let your word by 'Yes, Yes' or 'No, No'" - that I've tended to let my eyes glide effortlessly over the second half: "anything more than this comes from the evil one".
- Matthew 5:33-37
As so often with the sermon on the mount, it all seems so reasonable until you actually concentrate on what Jesus is saying, at which point you are tempted to say, "Whoa! Steady on there, a minute!". I mean, it's one thing to say, "Don't go around making extravagant oaths; just stick to a simple 'yes' or 'no', and stand by your word". That's the sort of thing that Great Moral Teachers™ say all the time. Makes perfect sense. But to go on and say that those additional oaths that people use every day are satanic? Wow. That's a bit strong, don't you think?
So I was trying to think through why Jesus might have used such strong language to describe these oaths. It occurred to me that one clue to this can be found in another incident in the gospels, in Luke 12:13,14:
Someone in the crowd said to him, ‘Teacher, tell my brother to divide the family inheritance with me.’ But he said to him, ‘Friend, who set me to be a judge or arbitrator over you?’When we swear by God's name - and all oaths, as such, are sworn by God's name, whether expressly or by implication, as Jesus makes clear in verses 34 and 35 - we are asking God to be "judge or arbitrator" in our own private affairs; to take sides in our own interests. By implication, we are bringing God down to our level, even putting him at our disposal, turning him into a means for attaining our own ends.
Now, of course God is concerned about the minutiae of existence, with not a sparrow falling to the ground without his noticing it. The gospel itself is about God's self-giving, self-emptying love in entering into our world rather than standing aloof from it. But there is all the difference in the world between receiving as a gift God's loving, self-giving concern for every aspect of our lives, and snatching it for ourselves like a spoiled child who (in WH Vanstone's words) "[takes] as a right that which should be received as a gift".
Jesus' exposure of the true motive behind our oaths - the desire to put God at our disposal and in our power, to lay hold of his concern for us as a right rather than receiving it as a gift - helps us to see why it "comes from the evil one".
Labels: biblical ethics, biblical interpretation, sermon on the mount
