Chapters 9 – 13 contain Bonhoeffer’s discussion of the section from the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5:21-48. According to William Barclay, “This section of the teaching of Jesus is one of the most important in the whole New Testament.”
In this passage Jesus put before Christian disciples a startling standard of behavior.
Barclay:
“Jesus said that in God’s sight it was not only the person who committed murder who was guilty; the person who was angry with another person was also guilty and liable to judgment. It was not only the person who committed adultery who was guilty; anyone who seriously entertained unclean desire was also guilty.”
“It may be that we have never struck another person, but can we say that we never wished to strike someone? It may be that we have never committed adultery, but can we say that we have never experienced the desire for the forbidden thing? It was Jesus’ teaching that thoughts are just as important as deeds, and that it is not enough not to commit a sin; the only thing that is enough is not to wish to commit it. It was Jesus’ teaching that we are not judged only by our deeds, but are judged even more by the desires which never emerged into deeds. By the world’s standards, people are considered good if they never do a forbidden thing. The world is not concerned to judge people’s thoughts. By Jesus’ standards, we can only aspire to goodness when we never even desire to do a forbidden thing. Jesus is intensely concerned with our thoughts.”
Does this seem to contradict the whole idea of discipleship according to Bonhoeffer? According to Bonhoeffer, a mere intellectual acknowledgement of faith (thoughts) is not enough and we will be judged by actions. Yet in this passage, Jesus seems to say that we will be judged by our thoughts. So, which is it? Either, or, or both?
Last week we discussed the first section of this passage where Jesus declared anger as equal to murder. That was the first example of the new standard which Jesus places on Christian disciples. Let’s move on to the second new standard:
Chapter 10 – Woman
Mat 5:27-32 ESV "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.' (28) But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart. (29) If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. (30) And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell. (31) "It was also said, 'Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.' (32) But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
Bonhoeffer:
“Adherence to Jesus allows no free reign to desire unless it be accompanied by love.”
What would you think if you saw a new ad on TV – a surgeon who claimed to have developed a procedure that would cure you from all impure thoughts? Doesn’t sound possible, does it? We would likely label that surgeon as a quack and demand a State Board investigation. But isn’t that what Jesus prescribes? A surgical cure to lust?
The wording used is quite interesting. The phrase “causes you to sin” (other translations “causeth thee to stumble”, “offend thee”, “proves a stumbling block”) is translated from the Greek word “skandalizo” which is a form of the word “skandalethron” which literally means ‘the bait stick in a trap’. Think about that for a moment. If you are at all familiar with traps of any kind, you know that there is always a trigger or trip and the trip is always baited. Even fish traps, which are basically cages with no moving parts, must be baited. Even a fish hook is a type of trap and must be baited. What happens to any type of trap that is not baited? An un-baited trap may catch its intended prey, but if it does it is pure luck.
What is the purpose of bait? To lure the prey to the trap. It causes the prey to stumble into the waiting trap.
So are we to think that Jesus meant that we are to literally remove our eyes or limbs?
Do our eyes lure us into lust? Or is it the object seen by our eyes?
What is it that we are to surgically remove in order to protect us from sin?
Barclay:
“What they mean is that anything which helps to seduce us to sin is to be ruthlessly rooted out of life. If there is a habit which can be seduction to evil, if there is an association which can be the cause of wrongdoing, if there is a pleasure which could turn out to be our ruin, then that thing must be surgically excised from our life.”
So what do we do? Do we identify the causes of our lustful thoughts and just refuse to think about them?
What happens when we attempt to stop ourselves from thinking certain thoughts? The more we say, “Don’t think about it” the more we do in fact think about it.
Does that indicate that a vow of chastity is in fact a very dangerous thing?
So what do we do? How do we go about surgically removing our stumbling blocks?
We fill our mind with Jesus.
Bonhoeffer:
“Jesus does not impose intolerable restrictions on his disciples, he does not forbid them to look at anything, but bids them look on him. If they do that he knows that their gaze will always be pure, even when they look upon a woman. So far from imposing on them an intolerable yoke of legalism, he succors them with the grace of the gospel.”
But we must remember that no sacrifice is too great if it removes whatever keeps us away from Jesus. We must deal with our temptations as drastically and radically as necessary, and cut off or pluck out whatever bait may be leading us into a trap.
Chapter 11 – Truthfulness
Mat 5:33-37 ESV "Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn.' (34) But I say to you, Do not take an oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, (35) or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. (36) And do not take an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. (37) Let what you say be simply 'Yes' or 'No'; anything more than this comes from evil.
Does it seem that Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount was just giving the disciples and the crowds a review of what they already knew?
Surely they all knew that the law forbade murder, adultery, and lying?
Can we make oaths, or are they forbidden?
What about in court?
What if we hold an office that requires an oath?
What about the “Pledge of Allegiance”?
What do oaths prove?
Bonhoeffer:
“The very existence of oaths is a proof that there are such things as lies. If lying were unknown, there would be no need for oaths.”
What does Jesus do, according to Bonhoeffer, by forbidding oaths altogether?
Bonhoeffer:
“Jesus destroys the lie... ..the lie must be seized by Jesus in the very place to which it flees, in the oath. Therefore the oath must go, since it is a protection for the lie.”
Do oaths make lying easier?
If oaths are eliminated, does this mean that we are no longer answerable to God for our lack of truthfulness?
Bonhoeffer:
“This is not to say that the disciples are no longer answerable to the omniscient God for every word they utter, it means that every word they utter is spoken in his presence, and not only those words which are accompanied by an oath. Hence they are forbidden to swear at all. Since they always speak the whole truth and nothing but the truth, there is no need for an oath, which would only throw doubt on the veracity of all their other statements. This is why the oath is ‘of the evil one’.”
Bonhoeffer:
“For the Christian no earthly obligation is absolutely binding.”
Does this mean that we should not “pledge our allegiance” to earthly nations?
I think that if a Christian aligns himself with a political entity, an oath or pledge is not necessary. His “yes is a yes”.
Chapter 12 – Revenge
Mat 5:38-42 ESV "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' (39) But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. (40) And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. (41) And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. (42) Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.
Barclay:
“Few passages of the New Testament have more of the essence of the Christian ethic in them than this one. Here is the characteristic ethic of the Christian life, and the conduct which should distinguish the Christian from others.”
Are there different “degrees” of Old Testament laws? In other words, are there some that are binding on Christians and others that only applied to the Jewish people of Old Testament times?
Are the Ten Commandments more important than the other Old Testament laws?
Is the law of “eye for eye” also known as the law of “tit for tat” binding on Christians?
Exo 21:23-25 ESV But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, (24) eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, (25) burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
Lev 24:19-20 ESV If anyone injures his neighbor, as he has done it shall be done to him, (20) fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; whatever injury he has given a person shall be given to him.
Deu 19:21 ESV Your eye shall not pity. It shall be life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.
Are we to accept these as laws that we must follow?
Bonhoeffer:
“Jesus will not countenance the modern practice of putting the Decalogue (Ten Commandments) on a higher level than the rest of the Old Testament law. For him the law of the Old Testament is a unity, and he insists to his disciples that it must be fulfilled.”
So what do we make of this? Do we place “tit for tat” on the level with “thou shall not murder” or “thou shall not commit adultery”?
The world probably places “tit for tat” on a higher level, but what are Christians to make of it?
What happens when Jesus turns “tit for tat” into total “active”, nonviolent, non-resistance?
Bonhoeffer:
“This saying of Christ removes the Church from the sphere of politics and law… the church … is different: it has abandoned political and national status, and therefore… must patiently endure aggression.”
Has the Church in America “abandoned political and national status”?
What happens when a Christian disciple meets with injustice?
Bonhoeffer:
“At this point it becomes evident that when a Christian meets with injustice, he no longer clings to his rights and defends them at all costs.”
“The only way to overcome evil is to let it run itself to a standstill because it does not find the resistance it is looking for. Resistance merely creates further evil and adds fuel to the flames. But when evil meets no opposition and encounters no obstacle but only patient endurance, its sting is drawn, and at last it meets an opponent which is more than its match…..Then evil cannot find its mark, it can breed no further evil, and is left barren.”
How do these statements reconcile with the fact that Bonhoeffer was part of a “resistance” in Nazi Germany?
Bonhoeffer:
“There is no deed on earth so outrageous as to justify a different attitude. The worse the evil, the readier must the Christian be to suffer; he must let the evil person fall into Jesus’ hands.”
Is the call to active non-violent non-resistance only binding on persons? Are we freed from this obligation of discipleship when we see a “duty”?
Such as:
True or False:
A Christian husband and father has a “duty” to protect his wife and children, even with violence if necessary.
A government employee or official who is also a Christian has a “duty” to defend those he is charged to protect, even with violence if necessary.
If my home is invaded, I have a “duty” to defend my life and property.
Bonhoeffer:
“…this distinction between person and office is wholly alien to the teachings of Jesus…..the precept of non-violence applies equally to private life and official duty….when it comes to practice, this distinction raises insoluble difficulties. Am I ever acting only as a private person or only in an official capacity? If I am attacked am I not at once the father of my children, the pastor of my flock, and e.g. a government official? Am I no bound for that very reason to defend myself against every attack, for reason of responsibility to my office? And am I not also always an individual, face to face with Jesus, even in the performance of my official duties? Am I not therefore obliged to resist every attack just because of my responsibility for my office? Is it right to forget that the follower of Jesus is always utterly alone, always the individual, who in the last resort can only decide and act for himself? Don’t we act most responsibly on behalf of those entrusted to our care if we act in this aloneness?”
“How then can the precept of Jesus be justified in the light of experience? It is obvious that weakness and defencelessness only invite aggression. Is then the demand of Jesus nothing but an impracticable ideal? Does he refuse to face up to realities –or shall we say, to the sin of the world? There may of course be a legitimate place for such an ideal in the inner life of the Christian community, but in the outside world such an ideal appears to wear the blinkers of perfectionism, and to take no account of sin. Living as we do in a world of sin and evil, we can have no truck with anything as impracticable as that.”
“Jesus, however, tells us that it is just because we live in the world, and just because the world is evil, that the precept of non-resistance must be put into practice.”
Chapter 13 – The Enemy – The “Extraordinary”
Mat 5:43-48 ESV "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' (44) But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, (45) so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. (46) For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? (47) And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? (48) You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
What one word, according to Bonhoeffer, sums up the whole message of the Sermon on the Mount?
What one word, according to John Wesley, sums up his doctrine of “Christian Perfection”?
Love.
Bonhoeffer:
“Here, for the first time in the Sermon on the Mount, we meet the word which sums up the whole of its message, the word “love”. Love is defined in uncompromising terms as the love of our enemies. Had Jesus only told us to love our brethren, we might have misunderstood what he meant by love, but now he leaves us in no doubt whatever as to his meaning.”
Wesley:
“What is then the perfection of which man is capable while he dwells in a corruptible body? It is the complying with that kind command, "My son, give me thy heart." It is the "loving the Lord his God with all his heart, and with all his soul, and with all his mind." This is the sum of Christian perfection: It is all comprised in that one word, Love. The first branch of it is the love of God: And as he that loves God loves his brother also, it is inseparably connected with the second: "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself:" Thou shalt love every man as thy own soul, as Christ loved us. "On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets:" These contain the whole of Christian perfection.” (Sermon 76, On Perfection)
Barclay:
“To the ordinary person, this passage describes essential Christianity in action, and even the person who never darkens the door of the church knows that Jesus said this, and very often condemns the professing Christian for falling short of its demands.”
What does Jesus mean by “loving our enemies”?
Is this love a passive emotive response toward our enemies?
How do we get rid of our enemies, according to popular notions?
Bonhoeffer:
“From now on there can be no more wars of faith. The only way to overcome our enemy is by loving.”
“To the natural man, the very notion of loving his enemies is an intolerable offence, and quite beyond his capacity: it cuts right across his ideas of good and evil. More important still, to man under the law, the idea of loving his enemies is clean contrary to the law of God.”
Who are our enemies?
Bonhoeffer:
“By our enemies Jesus means those who are quite intractable and utterly unresponsive to our love, who forgive us nothing when we forgive them all, who requite our love with hatred and our service with derision.”
“Christian love draws no distinction between one enemy and another, except that the more bitter our enemy’s hatred, the greater his need of love. Be his enemy political or religious, he has nothing to expect from a follower of Jesus but unqualified love. In such love there is no inner discord between private person and official capacity. In both we are disciples of Christ, or we are not Christians at all. Am I asked how this love is to behave? Jesus gives the answer: bless, do good, and pray for your enemies without reserve and without respect of persons.”
What does it really mean to be a Christian?
What separates, more than any other quality, Christians from the rest of the world.
Christians are “peculiar” in that they love their enemies.
Bonhoeffer:
“When we love those who love us, our brethren, our nation, our friends, yes, and even our own congregation, we are no better than the heathen and the publicans. Such love is ordinary and natural, and not distinctively Christian. We can love our kith and kin, our fellow countrymen and our friends, whether we are Christians or not, and there is no need for Jesus to teach us that.”
How does the extraordinary quality of the Christian life work out?
The extraordinary life is described in the beatitudes and is done by the followers of Jesus.
And then there are the Christians who justify their actions with thoughts that if we truly love our enemies we show them by dropping bombs on them.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment