Someone had discovered that “Raca” meant something like “blockhead” and commented that it was an Aramaic word. This gave rise to discussion about the language which Jesus spoke and the reference to scholarly opinion that it was Aramaic at home and probably Greek in the marketplace. Webster (again!): “Did you know that ‘Gehenna’ refers to the Valley of Hinnon where the city of Jerusalem disposed of its rubbish. Evidently, it was a scary place where fires burned constantly. Among other things, bodies of dead criminals ended up in the valley of Hinnon. Jerusalem must have been a smelly, smoky city!”
Melanie was interested in the role of the law courts, as though the teachings of Jesus might be enforceable by law. They agreed that it was all a bit mysterious.
Al asked about gifts at the altar. “Should the church reject a gift from someone if they know that there is an unresolved conflict? I wonder if any church practices such a policy?” They all agreed that it was unlikely!
Some similar comments were made about the next section:
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Thou shalt not commit adultery.’
But I tell you that whoever looks at a woman and cherishes lustful thoughts has already in his heart become guilty with regard to her. If therefore your eye, even the right eye, is a snare to you, tear it out and away with it; it is better for you that one member should be destroyed rather than that your whole body should be thrown into Gehenna. And if your right hand is a snare to you, cut it off and away with it; it is better for you that one member should be destroyed rather than that your whole body should go into Gehenna.
It was also said, ‘If any man puts away his wife, let him give her a written notice of divorce.’ But I tell you that every man who puts away his wife except on the ground of unfaithfulness causes her to commit adultery, and whoever marries her when so divorced commits adultery.”
It was clear that the prohibition of the “lustful thought” went far beyond anything in the Law of Moses and the proposed remedies were judged to be extreme. Melanie remarked that she had heard the occasional comment, “I don’t go to church but I try to live by the Sermon on the Mount” and she now wondered if the speaker of such an opinion had even read the text. Stephen, who had grown up Lutheran, recalled, “In our Catechism class, we were taught Luther’s view that the Sermon was designed to propose an impossible demand which would lead us to throw ourselves on God’s mercy.” Some commented that “impossible” might be the right word but it might lead to despair or even to indifference.
Martha reminded the group of the long history of struggle within the church on the question of divorce and that the phrase “except on the ground of unfaithfulness” doesn’t appear in the parallel passages in Mark and Luke. She spoke sharply. “The possibility of a woman needing to find relief in divorce seems not to be addressed, either by Moses or by Jesus. I wonder how much of this text we are looking at is church teaching from the first century and how much truly goes back to Jesus. He was in very many ways sympathetic to the situation of women. It sounds more like the church!” She also wanted the group to be aware of the long section in Matthew 19 about divorce and wondered if it would be helpful to include it in the present discussion. Melanie had not considered this but realized how complicated the discussions would become if later parts were included. “Maybe when we come to Matthew 19, we can refer to this part of the Sermon on the Mount. Martha, could you remind us when we get there.” But Martha wasn’t quite finished. “Do you remember that I suggested that ‘Matthew’ might be a woman? You might think that this passage supports that idea. But I’m not sure that it does. Mark and Luke include it so it seems to be part of the common tradition.” Stephen couldn’t resist. “Maybe they were all women,” he suggested. Al admitted that the whole thing left him confused. “How does the man’s action, ‘putting away his wife’, cause her to commit adultery?” No one could think of an answer so Melanie moved them along to the next section:
“Again, you have heard that it was said to the ancients, ‘Thou shalt not swear falsely, but shalt perform thy vows to the Lord.’ But I tell you not to swear at all; neither by Heaven, for it is God’s throne; nor by the earth, for it is the footstool under his feet; nor 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. But let your language be, ‘Yes, yes,’ or ‘No, no.’ Anything in excess of this comes from the Evil One.”
“Here’s my problem,” she said. “In Deuteronomy 6.13, the law is: Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, and serve Him, and shalt swear by His Name. Having forbidden his hearers to change one jot or tittle of the law, Jesus does exactly that. I like Martha’s suggestion about different stages.”
Some one said. “Martha, tell us again.” So she repeated her idea that the early Jesus might have seen himself as a reformer of Judaism and only later, felt free to make changes, even to the Law.
Again with an eye on the clock, Melanie moved relentlessly onward:
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, tooth for tooth.’
But I tell you not to resist a wicked man, but if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other to him as well.
If any one wishes to go to law with you and to deprive you of your under garment, let him take your outer one also.
And whoever shall compel you to convey his goods one mile, go with him two.
To him who asks, give: from him who would borrow, turn not away.
You have heard that it was said, ‘Thou shalt love thy neighbour and hate thine enemy.’ But I command you all, love your enemies, and pray for your persecutors; that so you may become true sons of your Father in Heaven; for he causes his sun to rise on the wicked as well as the good, and sends rain upon those who do right and those who do wrong. For if you love only those who love you, what reward have you earned? Do not even the tax-gatherers do that? And if you salute only your near relatives, what praise is due to you? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?
You, however, are to be complete in goodness, as your Heavenly Father is complete.”
Again it was recognized that the requirements of the Law were being altered and a code of behavior proposed which most Christians over the centuries had chosen to ignore. Al reminded them of the Christian communities who had practiced pacifism. “At one time I was active in the Peace Movements in Australia, especially Anzac Ploughshares. They were very keen on this passage.” The whole question of non-violent protest, Tolstoy, Gandhi and Martin Luther King, and “just war theology” became the focus for a vigorous debate which engaged almost everyone and led to a tongue-in-cheek comment from Webster. “Melanie, it would be the perfect topic when you make your choice for next year.” Eventually, Melanie was able to lead them back to the text and the question of whether the teaching of Jesus about violence was intended to provide more than a personal guide for his disciples.
The evening ended with Stephen explaining, “I have heard an argument that Jesus was proposing an ‘interim ethic’ for the short time remaining before the Kingdom of God would be made visible.” But it was too late since the debate on pacifism had filled everyone’s minds and questions of the sort that he was advancing would have to wait until another day.
As she left, she thought of Martha’s reference to Chapter 19. It seemed infinitely remote and she wondered if she would have the stamina for this whole lengthy business. She dredged up a memory of the saying that no one, putting hands to the plough and looking back, is fit for the Kingdom of Heaven. “It’s not the looking back that’s my problem,” she murmured.
Chapter 6
Thursday 9.30 am. Dull skies and a lengthy meeting with the Bishop and the Chancellor. About a severance package for an errant priest who would take early retirement, but at a price. At least, thought Melanie, not