Impacto social

Matthew 7:1-6 is prone to esoteric interpretations because of verse 6. It is a part of the Sermon on the Mount which focusses on the Gospel, i.e., the kingdom of God proclaimed by Jesus which shows that “Jesus is Lord, son of God, King and Messiah”. Some interpreters emphasise the ethical implications of this pericope for the Christian community. However, the teaching

59 _{According to Lange (1978:248), “The virgins are not merely companions of the bride, but representatives of}

the bride, the Church… The Church, in her aggregate and ideal unity, is the bride; the members of the Church, as individually called, are guests; in their separation from the world, and expectation of the Lord’s coming, they are His virgins.”

51

and practices of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount are routinely ignored or misinterpreted in the preaching and teaching ministry of the churches, and in Christian scholarship on Christian ethics, even though Christian ethics focuses on Jesus and his teaching, since he is the author of the kingdom of God (Stassen & Gushee 2003:11-13).

To interpret the given text more fully, we should consider some features of the inherent performative biblical language in Scriptures since the revelation of God’s will, and the statements of Jesus, are closely linked to the divine force and authority of God. It becomes true (a reality) as a feasible covenant between God and believers, enabling them to do God’s will and further God’s kingdom in their present lives. In other words, within the hermeneutical task, who the speaker is in the passage is more important than what is communicated (content) in the text, because the speaker’s specific position and status indicate the speaker’s particular intention, which in turn lends meaning to the text. The meaning gets the hearer/reader to do something, to respond appropriately as they recognise the communicative intent of the text. In this sense, finding whom the speaker is (identity), why the speaker made the statement, and what the speaker’s purpose is through the inherent performative biblical language, is a good starting point for discovering a more textured meaning of the text and interpreting it more fully.60

Many scholars argue that the aim of Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount is to teach his followers how to live the fullest lives possible in this world. Moreover, it is contended that it is about discipleship and the disciple’s attitudes to one another from the perspective of what we could classify as Christian social ethics, seeking ethical perfection (Hagner 1997:45, 53; Stassen & Gushee 2003:11; Lioy 2004:197). Many scholars also agree that this passage (vv.1-5 in some cases including v.6) points to the disciples’ kingdom life and how they are to relate to others in

60 _{Vanhoozer (1997:139) argues that, “Hermeneutics is inextricably linked to Christology.” This means that the}

presence of the kingdom refers to God’s self, and it is clearly linked to God’s intent which shows God’s redemptive work through the Jesus, the Messiah; that is, it demonstrates why God reveals God’s self to God’s people and the purpose of the kingdom of God. In relation to the kingdom, the Gospel has to do with the great divine work of salvation in Jesus Christ (Ridderbos 1962:354; Hunsberger 2015:62-63) and, Jesus is the saviour who makes God’s sovereignty and the kingdom of God a reality (Brunner 1962: 365-366; Snyder 1991:147-149).

52

the confessing community61 with love and forgiveness, and by not judging others (France 1985:142-143; Hagner 1993:167-170; Arnold 2002:500-51; Luz, Crouch & Koester 2007:349- 353; Osborne & Arnold 2010:255-259).62 What is relatively uncontested is that the Sermon on the Mount, is concerned with the believer’s moral life. However, that is not all that it is concerned with, and it cannot be said that this is the whole purpose of Jesus’ Sermon. Rather, Jesus’ aim is to proclaim the kingdom of God (the Gospel) by declaring himself as Messiah, or implying by his deeds and sayings that he is the Messiah, the son of God and Lord; he does this by using religious language, and messianic words (cf. Boring & Craddock 2004:25, Matera 2013:12).63

The use of messianic language shows Jesus’ identity, authority and status in the performative statements, and it can do something to the hearer/reader through the illocutionary messianic force. Hence, within this hermeneutic framework, an aim of Jesus’ sermon is to declare the kingdom of God by identifying himself as the Messiah, the son of God, which in turn relates the Christian ethical content to the confessing community. The narrative does not engage the moral dimension from the beginning but first focusses on the kingdom itself. This view is crucial to interpreting Matthew 7:1-6, which will be considered in terms of the inherent performative biblical language in the Greek text, and Jesus’ intention by revealing himself as the Messiah, the son of God, and the Lord. Additionally, the structure of the proposition (locution) level demonstrates the illocutionary force in the text as well as literary features such as oral/aural phenomena in exploring the dynamics of the linguistic activity and their effects. These will be considered as follows:64

61 _{Luz, Crouch and Koester (2007:349) argue that the term “brother” shows clearly that the text is speaking about}

the community.

62 _{Generally, most scholars (Hagner 1993:170-172; Luz, Crouch & Koester 2007:354-356; Osborne & Arnold}

2010:257-260) regard verse 6 as a puzzle or a restraint in sharing the Gospel.

63 _{This is not to say that the Sermon on the Mount has an ethical component, but that it should be more focused}

on the character of biblical language, that is, the words of Jesus.

53

A1 Μὴ κρίνετε, Do not judge,

ἵνα μὴ κριθῆτε·

so that you may not be judged.

B

ἐν ᾧ γὰρ κρίματι κρίνετε κριθήσεσθε,

For with the judgment you make you will be judged, καὶ ἐν ᾧ μέτρῳ μετρεῖτε μετρηθήσεται ὑμῖν.

and the measure you give will be the measure you get.

C1 τί δὲ βλέπειςτὸ κάρφος τὸ ἐν τῷ ὀφθαλμῷ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ σου, Why do you see the speck in your brother’s eye,

τὴν δὲ ἐν τῷ σῷ ὀφθαλμῷ δοκὸν οὐ κατανοεῖς; but do not notice the log in your own eye?

C2 ἢ πῶςἐρεῖς τῷ ἀδελφῷ σου· ἄφες ἐκβάλω τὸ κάρφος ἐκ τοῦ ὀφθαλμοῦ σου, Or how can you say to your brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,

καὶ ἰδοὺ ἡ δοκὸς ἐν τῷ ὀφθαλμῷ σοῦ; and behold, the log in your own eye?

B2 ὑποκριτά, ἔκβαλε πρῶτον ἐκ τοῦ ὀφθαλμοῦ σοῦ τὴν δοκόν, You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye,

καὶ τότε διαβλέψεις ἐκβαλεῖν τὸ κάρφος ἐκ τοῦ ὀφθαλμοῦ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ σου. and then, you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.

A2 Μὴ δῶτε τὸ ἅγιον τοῖς κυσὶν μηδὲ βάλητε τοὺς μαργαρίτας ὑμῶν ἔμπροσθεν τῶν

χοίρων,

Do not give what is holy to the dogs; and do not throw your pearls before the swine,

54

otherwise, they will trample them under foot and turn and maul you.

The passage is composed of two parts – the first part (vv.1-5) is Jesus’ teaching and preaching, while the second part (v. 6) is a short parable. The contents of the teachings are “do not judge” and “do not see the speck”, and in the parable, we have “do not throw what is holy” and “do not throw the pearls”. It is possible to establish a correspondence between judging and the holy thing, and between beholding the speck and the pearls, respectively. In other words, “do not judge” and “do not see the speck”, “the holy things” and “the pearls” may have relevance to each other in a synonymous way. In this case, it can be shown that the one who judges others and observes other people’s failings (the speck) is the hypocrite mentioned in verse 5.65 Thus, it can be assumed that the hypocrite refers to the hearers in verse 6, and Jesus reveals himself to them as the Messiah, the son of God, and Lord by using messianic words that would be familiar in their religious language. Theologically speaking, the term “judgement”66 counts as God’s divine Word which is closely linked to the Messiah, who is the judge in Isaiah 42:4,67 and the Word of God, is Jesus who comes at the end of the age. Jesus becomes the Word of God (Goble 1986:8), and accomplishes the intentions of the Word of God simply by uttering these statements. Similar sentiments are echoed especially in John 5:2268, 9:3969 and 12:47- 5070 where Jesus is described as the Messiah, the son of God and judge, respectively.

65 _{Here, the subject “You” is in the vocative.}

66 _{According to France (1985:142), in this text, “Judge often carries the connotation ‘condemn’, and it is in that}

sense that it is used here…This passage, however, is concerned with the fault-finding, condemnatory attitude which is too often combined with a blindness to one’s own failings. But the passive, as often in Matthew, probably conceals God himself as the agent. Just as he will forgive those who forgive (6:14-14), he will condemn those who condemn…It occurs commonly in Jewish literature to indicate divine retribution” (e.g. Mishnah Sotah 1:7). Similarly, Osborne and Arnold (2010:258) argue that this text “is a divine passive; God will judge the judgmental person. As throughout the Sermon, there is an inaugurated thrust. You will be under divine judgment not, but especially at the final judgment.”

67 _{“He will not grow faint or be crushed until he has established justice in the earth; and the coastlands wait for}

his teaching.”

68 _{“The Father judges no one but has given all judgment to the son.”} 69 _{“I came into this world for judgment.”}

70 _{“I do not judge anyone who hears my words and does not keep them, for I came not to judge the world, but to}

save the world. The one who rejects me and does not receive my word has a judge; on the last day the word that I have spoken will serve as judge, for I have not spoken on my own, but the Father who sent me has himself given me a commandment about what to say and what to speak. And I know that his commandment is eternal life. What I speak, therefore, I speak just as the Father has told me.”

55

The structure of this biblical text on the propositional level distinctly demonstrates coherent “textual unity”.71 The above verses in the Greek text highlight the phonetic elements such as the oral/aural phenomena (in bold, in colour, and underlined), the specific pragmatic factor (repeated key words or phrases) and the contrast of words or phrases (e.g. “do not judge/do not see the speck”; “do not throw what is holy/do not throw the pearls”; “the speck/the log”; “in your brother’s eye/in your own eye”; “take the log out of your own eye/take the speck out of your brother’s eye”; “holy/dogs”; “pearls/swine”). These refer to the inherent performative language in the text which shows that the language is doing something (it is active, powerful) according to Jesus’ particular intention. Moreover, the nature of the linguistic force could make the hearer react to the performative aspects of the biblical word of warning (illocutionary force) to do something through the intended effect produced by Jesus’ sayings. Thus, we must seriously ask the question: Is the illocutionary force of this biblical text, and its propositional elements, really intended to ensure a Christian moral life in the believing community? Is this truly a message of warning to the hypocrites in the Christian community or to the hypocrites, that is, the Pharisees orthe Scribes who were Jesus’ enemies?

Language can bring the world of reality into what has been spoken, as in Jesus’ statement, “Do not give what is holy to the dogs; and do not throw your pearls before the swine, otherwise, they will trample them under foot and turn and maul you”72 _{(v.6). This short parable can be} regarded as true, having an independent reality as a divine word through Jesus’ authoritative performative action in the world which contains “world-to-words” fit (Searle 1976:10-16; 1979:10-20). Jesus’ parables create a world of reality around a simple story. His utterance, like a video, entails a performative act in speech which is to transform the world by the future course of Jesus’ action. Furthermore, the event in the parable world is paralleled with the judgment (v.1-5). Jesus actually presented himself as Messiah and Judge through the symbolic term

ῥήξωσιν (maul) in verse 6, as in when the judge convicted “the sinner” rather than the real

sinner.

71 _{France (1985:143) points out that verse 6 does not stands alone, “but comes appropriately here in that it}

qualifies the apparently absolute prohibition of ‘judgment’ in v.1.”

56

Accordingly, the divine word of the performative aspect of the language of warning (ῥήξωσιν) can be seen as the cognitive propositional content in the text and its illocutionary act in relation to the notion of judgement on the Last Day. It is eschatological, having power to do something to the hearer according to the language force and intention. The word of warning about the judgement on the Last Day has implications for the kingdom of God; it leads to ethical action in the present life. In verse 6, Jesus executes his purpose, he warns the hearers of judgment through the parable that exposes the log in their eye. He tries to convince them that dogs and swine will maul them because ῥήξωσιν is a messianic phrase (it has meaning within the religious language of the day) which is synonymous with the meaning of “new wine will burst (ῥήξει) the old wineskins”73 (Mk 2:22). It clearly demonstrates Jesus’ divine authority and identity as Messiah, the son of God and the Lord. It explicates the Gospel itself, and points to the kingdom of God. This parable is closely linked to the statement in Mark 2:18-22 which warned those hearers who had a fixed attitude towards tradition (Torah, Law) but ignored the spirit and meaning of the law unlike the pure in heart. Therefore, the hearers are the Pharisees and hypocrites – the adversaries of Jesus (cf. Loader 2002:32).74

At the time of Jesus, many Jews believed that God would reward those who strictly obeyed the law. Thus, they determined in detail what the law of God required and carefully followed the regulations they set out (Schnackenburg 1965:158-159). For them, the moral life was an attempt to please God through strict obedience to the law. However, Jesus denounced this view, went beyond it and refined it through a new teaching that says true obedience to God is an inward piety not an outward compliance to the law, since outward compliance to the law is not

73 _{See Mark 2:18-22, on the issue of fasting.}

74 _{Edwards (2002:86, 91-92) argues that the passage of Mark 2:18-22 shows a conflict between Jesus and the}

religious leaders, particularly the Scribes and Pharisees. “The second depicts used wineskins filled with new wine that ferments and expands, bursting the old and brittle skins (see Job 32:19). Both wine and wineskins come to ruin…The new patch and new wine are incompatible with the old cloth and wineskins; and if the attempt is made to combine them, the new substances will destroy the old. Both parables are about the relation of Jesus, of Christianity indeed, to traditional Judaism. The parables illustrate the radical posture and presumption of Jesus. Jesus is the new patch and the new wine…He honors Torah by sending the healed paralytic to make the offering required by Moses, but he is not bound by Torah; he breaks it when it impedes his ministry (2:24; 3:1-6), and he subordinates it to himself (Matt 5:17; Rom 10:4).”

57

genuine obedience to God. God’s will for believers is to focus on establishing a good one-on- one relationships with God that would show that, “God is my father”.75

On the contrary, simple obedience to laws cannot produce this kind of relationship between God and the people. If Jewish religious leaders such as the Pharisees and the Scribes were satisfied with only their outward acts,76 Jesus concentrated on the unseen human acts, that is, the inward parts of human beings such as the state of the heart and one’s motivation, attitude and character which help to build up strong relationships between God and the believers. Thus, Jesus was at odds with the Pharisees and the Scribes who found many reasons to attack him. He declared: “This people honours me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me; in vain

do they worship me, teaching human precepts as doctrines” (Mk 7:6-7). In short, for Jesus, the

moral life should depend on our response to God’s demonstration of love towards us rather than our attempt to earn God’s divine grace through strict obedience to the law, and this response reflects on God’s reign, the Gospel and the kingdom of God.

In Jesus’ engagements with the Pharisees and the Scribes, he did not seek to explain the truth of his position through logic, but “he focused on the appeal that moral truth makes to the heart. To this end he repeatedly used stories and parables, rather than logical syllogisms and elaborate intellectual proofs” (Grenz 1997:110). Returning to the parable, in v.6 if the subjects who threw pearls were hypocrites, that is, the Pharisees or the Scribes, their attack was actually directed at Jesus, the Son of God, the ultimate judge who would judge them who judged him, seeing that the Pharisees tried to judge him because he did not follow the Jewish tradition. A pearl is a hard object produced within the soft tissue of the living shell of a sea creature such as a clam or an oyster. It is often used as a metaphor for something valuable.77 Although physically pearls are formed in the body of the clam, the comparison to the Pharisees implies that the pearls embodied the hypocrisy and self-deception in the depth of their hearts and deeds. Under

75 _{See Matthew 6:9-13.}

76 _{What was worse, Jewish religious leaders could willingly disobey the law even though outwardly they appeared}

to be living according to it (e.g. Corban, in Mark 7:11).

58

the Jewish religious tradition,78 they strictly obeyed the regulations that had been set forth and they devised what they considered important and precious to them. In this sense, the pearls can be associated with what is holy79 just as the Pharisees considered fidelity to the intricacies of the law important i.e., holy. However, it seems that the Pharisees and the Scribes had likened Jesus to pigs (swine)80. In Jewish food laws, pigs are unclean animals (Arnold 2002:50) and it was a popular insult to be compared to them (Luz, Crouch & Koester 2007:355). They saw Jesus in that light because he focused on the inward dimension of human existence rather than the outward conduct in Jewish tradition (which they valued). Accordingly, Jesus probably used the symbol of the pig himself as an illocutionary force, not only to warn them strongly, but also to persuade them about the true Gospel, the kingdom of God, his messianic authority, and moral truth. Verse 6 of the passage can be interpreted as:

Do not give your pretence and hypocrisy to me.

And do not throw your pretence and hypocrisy before me. Otherwise, I will trample them under foot and turn and maul you.

Consequently, Matthew 7:1-6 does not merely talk about the disciples’ attitude to treat one another with love and forgiveness by not judging others. Rather, it pays attention to the ‘true’ Gospel, the kingdom of God proclaimed by Jesus, which is about the God who really requires