Part 4
Non-Tract: http://www.ffrf.org/nontracts/jesus.php
This next section begins with another "quote" that begins in the middle of a sentence and is removed completely from its context. This does make it appear that Jesus is advising people to become "eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake". But, that is only because we are not given the proper antecedent to the pronoun "it" in the last part of Matthew 19:12. The author of the non-tract apparently believes that "it" refers to making oneself into a eunuch. Actually, though, "it" is "this saying" from v. 11, which in turn refers to the statement on divorce in v. 9. The first part of v. 12 was deliberately meant to shock the listeners and strongly counter the disciples' statement in v. 10. Jesus is saying that a man who does not marry metaphorically castrates himself. He is not advising people to become eunuchs for any reason. Jesus is trying to tell these people to get married and stay married. We may note that this is a strong statement in defense of "family values" as discussed in that section.
Now we encounter a list of sixteen verses in no particular order, which seems odd given that nine of them are from Matthew 5. We are apparently intended to consider each verse in isolation from all of the other verses, a very poor interpretive practice. It is also remarkable that we aren't given the actual text of any of the verses. By now, we have learned that we can't trust the non-tract to accurately summarize the meaning of a verse or passage. To make it easier to follow along, we will examine the verses in their presented order. Even though that isn't the best way to derive meaning from a verse, it is still fairly easy to determine that the verses don't mean what the non-tract says they mean.
Jesus is not advocating self-mutilation in Matthew 5:29-30. The context is sexual (see v. 28), but the statements here are clearly figurative, as we see in the actual verses that the eye and the hand are somewhat personified. It is not a case, as the non-tract tells us, that you have done something wrong with your eye or your hand, but that the eye or hand has done something to "offend" on its own. In modern versions, the eye or hand itself is presented as the cause of the sin. This is simply an example of Jesus using hyperbolic language, well understood by his listeners, to make the point that sexual sins are serious and that we may need to make drastic changes to our life to avoid temptation in that area.
The non-tract only attempts to interpret the very last part of Matthew 5:32, rather than address the whole of what Jesus says about divorce here (v. 31 and 32). The main point of the passage is a condemnation of the common practice of the time to divorce a woman "for every cause" (as in Matthew 19:3), simply by presenting her with a bill of divorcement. One rabbi taught that a sufficient cause for divorce was that the husband found a better-looking woman. This passage, and the divorce law itself concerning the "writing" mentioned in v. 31, were intended to protect women from abandonment except for the most serious offense against the marriage covenant. A woman without a husband was at the bottom of the economic heap. Without a divorce decree, the husband was obligated to support the wife, and she could not remarry without one. People were twisting the law to their own purpose instead of God's. Jesus made it clear that this was morally unacceptable. Not only should people not get divorced, but no one should take advantage of an improper divorce, or interfere with a reconciliation, by marrying the wronged woman.
In context, and in any other translation than the King James, it is apparent that Matthew 6:34 does not mean that we shouldn't make any plans for the future, but rather that we shouldn't worry about it. It is only less apparent in this version because we in the 21st Century are less familiar with 17th Century idiom. "To take thought" meant "to be anxious" or "to worry", not simply "to think". The major point of the passage (which really starts in v. 24) is to depend and trust in God. Planning and looking ahead with hope are not at issue here.
In a similar vein, Matthew 6:19-20 is not talking about savings plans. As indicated by v. 21, the point here is to show that the temporary and insecure things of earth shouldn't be first in our hearts. Our priority should be the eternal and incorruptible things of heaven. Even the "treasure" language here most likely figurative and intended to summarize the section starting in v. 1. Giving to charity, praying, and fasting should not be done to impress others on earth, but done out of devotion to God.
The above thoughts are echoed somewhat in Mark 10:21-25, though, again, we've been dropped into the middle of a passage, which really starts in v. 17. Actually, the thematic connection starts in v. 13 and continues through v. 45. This is all about how we are to approach the coming kingdom. We are to have childlike faith, being fully dependent on God and fully devoted to serving others. We need to be careful with wealth because those with wealth tend to depend on their own resources rather than God's. But, we don't have to eschew money altogether because "with God, all things are possible" (v. 27).
We must first note that the actual text of Luke 12:33 does not state that we must sell "everything", only that we sell. We may also take note of the fact that the given interpretation runs counter to the earlier assertion that Jesus did nothing to alleviate poverty. We may further note that the non-tract's version is nonsensical. If we sold "everything", we'd be poor! We may finally note that this statement comes in the middle of Luke's version of the passages we've just seen in Matthew and Mark, and carries a similar meaning. In light of the context, we can see that this verse is continuing the message that our possessions should not possess us. We should be willing to part with our possessions in order to meet the needs of others. But, we don't have to impoverish ourselves in the process.
John 6:27 makes it a clean sweep of the Gospels, all four of which make the same point about "storing up our treasures in heaven". Again, the non-tract has summarized only part of the verse and ignored the context that shows these verses are about priorities, putting the things of God first in our lives, rather than commanding us to totally ignore all earthly considerations.
As we see from the context, a husband's sexual urges for his wife are not covered by Matthew 5:28, nor are an unmarried person's urges for anyone else. This is only talking about a husband lusting after a woman who is not his wife. Most interpret the phrase, "lust after", not as simple sexual urges, as the non-tract would have us believe. To be sexually attracted to another person would be classified as temptation. Howevever, giving free rein to fantasies or thinking "If only I weren't married" is crossing the line into adultery whether or not we ever physically act on these thoughts.
The next three verses all have something in common outside of biblical or theological considerations. All three are similar in that I find it difficult to believe that anyone familiar with the English language of any century could honestly interpret the verses in the given manner. The previous misinterpretations were mostly due to ignoring the context of the verses, but even a completely flat reading of the next three texts doesn't seem to justify these particular twists.
There is nothing in Matthew 5:11 to suggest that one is to seek out persecution. When it happens (and it will happen) we're to recognize it and persevere through it, counting it as a sign of God's confidence in our faith.
Similarly, Matthew 5:13-16 says nothing about being "better" than anyone else and clearly states that all the glory for our good deeds be ascribed to God, not ourselves. Jesus makes it clear within the same speech, in Matthew 6:1 that those who are acting religiously just to impress others will not receive the rewards they expect.
The interpretation of Luke 19:23-26 really caught my attention. It seems incredible that these verses could be taken out of a parable and turned into a piece of warped financial policy. Once again, the citation does not include the entire parable, which actually runs from v. 12 to v. 27. And, strangely, it isn't being treated here as a parable. This is doubly odd because we've already seen v. 27 quoted in the "Peace and Compassion" section with the qualification that it's from a parable. Even if we committed the irrational act of taking this verse literally, one cannot fail to miss the blatant difference between the biblical text and this "summary", that the servants weren't dealing with their own money. Clearly, none of the servants can be described as "those who have no savings", nor as "wealthy investors", as the only money involved is the master's. The servants were ordered to put the master's money to work while the master was gone and the third servant is being berated because he didn't even try. This is clearly not a case of taking someone else's money away from them. This is much more like a brokerage firm firing an employee that didn't follow orders and made bad investment decisions.
We will deal with the last five verses together because they all direct us to one overriding message, stated in Matthew 5:44: "Love your enemies". The Matthew verses cited (39 - 42) are, again, part of a larger rhetorical chain starting in v. 38 and running at least to the end of the chapter. The rapid-fire succession of these statements emphasizes their hyperbolic nature. Taking them as literal and extreme commandments would indeed be foolish, but for an exaggeration to be true, it must exaggerate a truth. These verses teach that we can and should respond to our enemies, but not with our enemies' weapons. If someone has taken something, answer with forbearance where possible. If someone has done violence, "retaliate" with peaceful defiance. At every offence or burden, we should demonstrate that the worst this world can offer cannot be truly hurtful, that God's honor cannot be diminished, and our own place in His kingdom cannot be threatened.
Technically speaking, my response to both of the final questions in this section would be "No". I unreservedly think it unwise to act in the manner described by the non-tract. However, I have no qualms about teaching my children what the cited verses really mean and encouraging them to model their lives after those lessons. I want them to be peaceable and compassionate. I want them to be more concerned about other people's needs and feelings than their own desires and rights. I want them to value the things of God more than personal possessions. I want them to learn that they can trust God to take care of them even when problems occur. If my children can take these truths to heart and live by these moral precepts, they will make friends out of enemies, not only for themselves, but for God.