CORRECTING SCRIPTURE WITH SCRIPTURE Matthew 18:21-35
Rev. Paul Wrightman 3/6/22
DO THE LAST TWO VERSES OF OUR SCRIPTURE TEXT
MAKE YOU VERY UNEASY, PERHAPS EVEN SOMEWHAT ALARMED?
HOW DO WE GET FROM JESUS’ EXHORTATION
OF UNLIMITED FORGIVENESS AT THE BEGINNING
TO THE THREAT OF ENDLESS TORTURE
IF WE DO NOT FORGIVE AT THE END?
UNLIKE SOME, I’M UNWILLING TO THEORIZE
THAT AT TIMES JESUS IS INCONSISTENT,
OR THAT HE HAD SOME KIND OF MULTIPLE-PERSONALITY-DISORDER.
BUT HOW DO WE MAKE SENSE OF THE DISSONANCE WE EXPERIENCE
WHEN ENCOUNTERING THIS TEXT, AND A FEW OTHERS
LIKE IT IN SCRIPTURE?
LARGELY, THE ISSUE BOILS DOWN TO ONE OF
RIGHT WAYS AND WRONG WAYS OF READING THE BIBLE.
AND LET ME TELL YOU FROM PERSONAL EXPERIENCE
THAT THIS IS NOT MERELY A MATTER OF ACADEMIC INTEREST.
I’VE SHARED THIS STORY BEFORE, AND PROBABLY WILL DO SO AGAIN,
BUT THE ISSUES IT RAISES ARE BECOMING INCREASINGLY IMPORTANT
TO BRING UP IN OUR FRACTURED RELIGION,
OUR FRACTURED COUNTRY, AND OUR FRACTURED WORLD.
IN SPITE OF MY BEST INTENTIONS TO REFUSE TO ARGUE ABOUT
RELIGION OR POLITICS, EVERY TIME MY FUNDAMENTALIST SISTER
FROM TEXAS AND I GET TOGETHER
WE ALWAYS WIND UP ARGUING BOTH –
TO THE POINT WHERE WE HAVE TO STOP SPEAKING
TO EACH OTHER FOR SEVERAL HOURS JUST TO COOL DOWN.
SHE CAN’T BELIEVE HOW RADICAL I’VE BECOME,
DARING TO QUESTION A NUMBER OF THINGS THAT
ARE PRINTED IN RED IN HER BIBLE –
THE COLOR RED SUPPOSEDLY INDICATING
ALL THE STATEMENTS THAT WE HAVE FROM JESUS HIMSELF.
I CAN’T BELIEVE THAT IN A HEATED ARGUMENT
ON OUR WAY BACK FROM YOSEMITE SEVERAL YEARS AGO,
SHE ACTUALLY QUOTED VERSE 34 TO ME
AS BIBLICAL JUSTIFICATION FOR TORTURE.
AFTER ALL, THIS ENTIRE TEXT, FROM VERSE 22 ON
IS IN BRIGHT RED LETTERS, THE RED CLAIMING
THAT JESUS SAID IT,
AND IF CONDONING TORTURE IS GOOD ENOUGH FOR JESUS,
THEN IT SHOULD CERTAINLY BE GOOD ENOUGH
FOR HIS FOLLOWERS.
ACTUALLY, MILLIONS OF CHRISTIANS THINK THIS WAY.
TRYING TO REASON WITH HER THAT THIS IS NOT THE WAY
THE HISTORIC CHRISTIAN CHURCH APPROACHED THE SCRIPTURES,
OR HOW SIMILAR HER APPROACH TO THE BIBLE
IS TO THE APPROACH TO THE KORAN
OF THE ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALISTS SHE SO DESPISES –
OF COURSE GETS ME NOWHERE.
WHEN IT COMES TO THE BIBLE,
SCHOLARSHIP IS NOTHING BUT “FAKE NEWS.”
SO WE SPENT THE LAST HALF OF OUR DRIVE
BACK FROM YOSEMITE IN HEATED SILENCE.
THE POINT I’M TRYING TO MAKE IS THAT THE WAY WE APPROACH
THE BIBLE CAN HAVE MAJOR CONSEQUENCES
IN THE WAY WE TREAT OTHERS – OR ALLOW OTHERS TO BE TREATED.
IT SEEMS TO ME THAT SINCE WE HAVE ALL SORTS OF EXAMPLES
IN SCRIPTURE OF PEOPLE QUESTIONING GOD
AND BEING PRAISED BY GOD FOR THIS VERY QUESTIONING,
IT FOLLOWS THAT WE ARE ALSO ALLOWED – EVEN ENCOURAGED –
TO ASK QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE TEXT.
SPECIFICALLY WITH REGARD TO TODAY’S TEXT,
I WANT TO ARGUE THAT MATTHEW, NOT JESUS,
WAS THE AUTHOR OF VERSES 34 AND 35.
CAN I MAKE A CONVINCING CASE FOR THIS?
I’D LIKE TO GIVE IT A TRY.
IN JESUS’ WORLD, THERE WERE TWO VERY DIFFERENT APPROACHES
TO AUTHORSHIP GOING ON AT THE SAME TIME.
THESE TWO APPROACHES WERE SEEN AS COMPLIMENTARY
IN JESUS’ DAY, BUT ARE SEEN AS CONTRADICTORY IN OUR DAY.
FIRST, THERE WAS AN EXCEEDINGLY EXACTING ORAL TRADITION
AT WORK, THE INTENT OF WHICH WAS TO PRESERVE INTACT
THE ORIGINAL WORDS OF A BELOVED PROPHET OR TEACHER.
CONTEMPORARY STUDIES HAVE SHOWN THAT ORAL CULTURES –
CULTURES DEPENDENT ON THE SPOKEN WORD
AND ON THE SENSE OF HEARING –
UNLIKE OUR CULTURE WHICH IS PRIMARILY VISUAL –
ARE ABLE TO KEEP A COMPLEX SENTENCE OR STORY
INTACT UP TO AND BEYOND THE THOUSANDTH RETELLING.
IF YOU’VE EVER PLAYED THE “TELEPHONE GAME,”
YOU KNOW THAT IN OUR CULTURE THE SIMPLEST SENTENCE
IS MANGELED BEYOND RECOGNITION BY THE TENTH RETELLING.
THE EXTRAORDINARY ACCURACY OF THE ORAL TRADITION
IN JESUS’ DAY IS OF ENORMOUS CONSEQUENCE:
IT TELLS US THAT, INDEED, MOST OF THE TEACHINGS AND STORIES
ATTRIBUTED TO JESUS ARE ACTUALLY HIS,
AND IN A SENSE WARRANT BEING PRINTED IN RED LETTERS.
UNFORTUNATELY FOR US, HOWEVER,
THE MATTER IS NOT QUITE SO SIMPLE.
THIS BRINGS US TO OUR SECOND CRUCIAL POINT.
AT THE SAME TIME THAT WE FIND AN EXACTING ORAL TRADITION
AT WORK IN THE ANCIENT WORLD, WE ALSO FIND
A CONCEPT OF AUTHORSHIP AT WORK WHICH IS REPUGNANT
TO MODERN SENSIBILITIES.
THE ANCIENT CONCEPT OF AUTHORSHIP ALLOWED A DISCIPLE
OF A REVERED PROPHET OR TEACHER TO ADD
HIS OR HER OWN WORDS TO THAT OF THE MASTER
WITHOUT HAVING TO ACKNOWLEDGE
ANY DISTINCTION IN AUTHORSHIP WHATSOEVER.
THUS, WE HAVE A SMALL NUMBER OF INSTANCES
WHERE MATTHEW, MARK, LUKE, AND JOHN
HAVE ADDED THEIR OWN WORDS TO THOSE OF JESUS.
THEY DIDN’T MAKE A DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE WORDS OF JESUS
AND THEIR OWN BECAUSE IN THEIR TIME AND PLACE
AUTHORSHIP INCLUDED BOTH THE ORIGINAL WORK
AND EDITORIAL ADDITIONS TO THAT ORIGINAL WORK.
THEY SINCERELY BELIEVED THEY WERE WRITING
“IN THE SPIRIT” OF JESUS, AND THAT DISTINGUISHING
BETWEEN HIS WORDS AND THEIR OWN WAS SIMPLY A NON-ISSUE.
THIS, OF COURSE, LEAVES US WITH PROBLEMS,
PROBLEMS LIKE TODAY’S TEXT,
WHICH I CONSIDER TO BE THE MOST EGREGIOUS EXAMPLE
OF A DISCIPLES’ CONTRADICTORY STATEMENT TO THAT OF JESUS.
PARENTHETICALLY, I WANT TO SAY THAT MOST MAINLINE
SCRIPTURE SCHOLARS BELIEVE ABOUT 90% OF THE STATEMENTS
CREDITED TO JESUS IN THE BIBLE ARE ACTUALLY HIS.
I’D ESTIMATE THAT OF THE 10% OF VERSES MISTAKENLY
ATTRIBUTED TO JESUS, ABOUT 9% CONCERN MATTERS
OF NO GREAT IMPORTANCE.
THAT LEAVES US WITH ABOUT 1% OF THE CONTENT
ASSIGNED TO JESUS BEING SERIOUSLY WRONG,
LIKE JESUS’ CONDONING OF TORTURE IN TODAY’S TEXT.
SO, FOR THE MOST PART, WE DON’T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT
JESUS BEING MISREPRESENTED IN THE GOSPELS.
THERE ARE JUST A FEW CASES – TODAY’S TEXT BEING
A MAJOR EXAMPLE – WHERE WE NEED TO FOLLOW
THE EXAMPLE OF OUR JEWISH BROTHERS AND SISTERS
AND TAKE THE ATTITUDE THAT “THE CONTRADICTION
IN THE TEXT IS THERE TO BE QUESTIONED.”
SO OUR MAJOR QUESTION, AS FOLLOWERS OF JESUS, BECOMES:
HOW CAN WE DISTINGUISH BETWEEN THE TEACHINGS AND STORIES
OF JESUS HIMSELF, AND THE STUFF THAT WAS ADDED
BY HIS FOLLOWERS?
ARE THERE ANY GENERAL PRINCIPLES THAT CAN HELP US
TO DISCERN WHAT ACTUALLY COMES FROM JESUS
AND WHAT MAY BE THE WELL-INTENTIONED
BUT SOMETIMES NEVERTHELESS MISGUIDED ADDITIONS
OF HIS EDITORS?
I THINK THERE ARE.
AND I THINK WE CAN FIND SEVERAL OF THESE GENERAL
INTERPRETATIVE PRINCIPLES IN AND AROUND TODAY’S
SCRIPTURE TEXT.
FIRST, ANY STATEMENT OR STORY ATTRIBUTED TO JESUS
WHICH IS SHOCKINGLY DIFFERENT FROM THE CONVENTIONAL
WISDOM OF THE DAY CAN BE ASSUMED TO BE HIS.
WE HAVE A POWERFUL EXAMPLE OF THIS
IN THE FIRST TWO VERSES OF TODAY’S TEXT.
PETER COMES UP TO JESUS, FULL OF HIMSELF AS USUAL,
LOOKING TO SCORE A POINT.
PETER KNOWS THAT THE PHARISEES TEACH
THAT ONE SHOULD FORGIVE UP TO THREE TIMES.
SO IN SUGGESTING “AS MANY AS SEVEN TIMES,”
HE FEELS THAT HE IS BESTING EVEN THE PHARISEES
AND WILL BE GIVEN A PAT ON THE BACK BY JESUS.
BUT JESUS ISN’T IMPRESSED IN THE SLIGHTEST AND RESPONDS,
“NOT SEVEN TIMES, BUT, I TELL YOU, SEVENTY-TIMES SEVEN,”
MEANING, OF COURSE, UNLIMITED FORGIVENESS.
NOW THIS TEACHING IS SO OFF-THE-WALL-OUTRAGEOUS
THAT IT HAD TO COME FROM JESUS.
BESIDES, IT IS OF EXACTLY THE SAME STRIPE AS OTHER
OFF-THE-WALL OUTRAGEOUS SAYINGS OF JESUS, SUCH AS,
“LOVE YOUR ENEMIES,” AND “BE COMPASSIONATE
AS YOUR HEAVENLY FATHER IS COMPASSIONATE;”
AND THE OFF-THE-WALL IMPLICATIONS OF MANY
OF JESUS’ PARABLES, SUCH AS THE GOOD SAMARITAN,
WHERE OUR NEIGHBOR TURNS OUT TO BE ANYONE IN NEED,
OR THE LOST SHEEP, WHERE GOD IS PORTRAYED
AS CHASING SFTER SOMEONE WHO IS LOST
UNTIL GOD FINDS HIM OR HER.
IN SHORT, THE GOSPELS ARE FULL OF TEACHINGS AND STORIES
ATTRIBUTED TO JESUS THAT COULD NOT HAVE COME
FROM ANYONE EXCEPT HIM.
THESE GIVE US THE “ STANDARD” WE NEED TO JUDGE AS WANTING
“SUSPICIOUS” TEACHINGS ATTRIBUTED TO JESUS,
SUCH AS HIS CONDONING OF TORTURE AT THE END
OF TODAY’S PARABLE.
A SECOND GENERAL INTERPRETIVE PRINCIPLE WITH WHICH WE NEED
TO BECOME FAMILIAR IS THAT OF NON-CONTRADICTION.
JESUS DOES NOT CONTRADICT HIMSELF.
SCHOLARS AGREE THAT HE IS ONE OF THE FEW INDIVIDUALS
IN WORLD HISTORY WHOSE ORIGINAL MESSAGE
IS SEAMLESS, OF A WHOLE, AND RELENTLESSLY CONSISTENT.
IN LIGHT OF THIS PRINCIPLE OF NON-CONTRADICTION,
VERSES 34 AND 35, WHICH CONTRADICT JESUS’ TEACHING
OF UNCONDITIONAL FORGIVENESS AND UNCONDITIONAL LOVE,
COULD NOT HAVE COME FROM JESUS,
BUT MUST HAVE BEEN ADDED BY SOMEONE ELSE, NAMELY MATTHEW.
BUT WHY WOULD MATTHEW DO SUCH A THING?
I SUSPECT THAT JESUS’ ORIGINAL TEACHING OF FORGIVING
SOMEONE “SEVENTY-TIMES-SEVEN” WAS JUST TOO MUCH
FOR MATTHEW TO HANDLE, AND THAT HE FELT THAT HE HAD
BETTER TAKE THINGS DOWN A FEW NOTCHES.
SOMETIMES I TRY TO PUT MYSELF IN THE POSITION
OF ONE OF THE EDITORS OF THE GOSPELS,
AND FIND IT SOBERING TO REALIZE THAT IF I’M HONEST,
I PROBABLY WOULD HAVE DONE WAY MORE “EDITING” DOWN
THAN THEY DID!
IN ADDITION TO JESUS’ ORIGINAL TEACHINGS BEING SO RADICAL
THAT HIS EDITORS HAD TO TAKE A HOSE TO THE FIRE,
THERE IS A TRADITION IN THE EARLY CHURCH
THAT MATTHEW BECAME A PERSON OF POWER AND AUTHORITY –
IN A WORD, A BISHOP.
IT IS WELL-KNOWN THAT BISHOPS SOMETIMES USE
SCARE TACTICS TO KEEP THEIR FLOCK IN LINE.
THIS IS WHAT I SUGGEST MATTHEW WAS DOING IN ADDING
VERSES 34 AND 35 TO JESUS’ ORIGINAL STORY.
TO ESTABLISH A PRECEDENT FOR MATTHEW’S OCCASIONALLY
APPENDING HIMSELF TO THE TEXT, I WOULD LIKE TO POSIT
ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF MATTHEW’S AUTHORSHIP
HIDDEN IN THE RED LETTER WORDS OF JESUS.
INTERESTINGLY, THIS OCCURS JUST BEFORE TODAY’S TEXT,
IN THE FAMOUS SECTION OF MATTHEW’S GOSPEL
DEALING WITH DISCIPLINE IN THE CHURCH.
HOW CAN WE MAKE A CASE THAT THESE ARE MATTHEW’S WORDS
AND NOT THE WORDS OF JESUS HIMSELF?
FIRST, THE CONCEPT OF “CHURCH” WAS NOT CONTEMPORARY
WITH JESUS, BUT CAME INTO BEING ABOUT FORTY YEARS
AFTER HIS DEATH – PRECISELY THE TIME WHEN MATTHEW
WAS WRITING HIS GOSPEL.
SECOND, WHEN MATTHEW ADVISES HIS CONGREGATION
TO SHUN UNRULY INDIVIDUALS AS IF THEY WERE
“GENTILES OR TAX COLLECTORS,”
HE REALLY HAS SHUNNING IN MIND.
THIS TOTALLY CONTRADICTS JESUS’ OWN ATTITUDE TOWARD
GENTILES AND TAX COLLECTORS, WHICH WAS TO MAKE A POINT
OF HANGING OUT WITH THEM!
ONE LAST POINT IN MY ATTEMPT TO MAKE A CASE
THAT JESUS’ OWN WORDS END WITH VERSE 33:
JESUS OFTEN LIKED TO KEEP HIS PARABLES OPEN-ENDED,
OR TO END THEM WITH AN IMPLIED OR REAL QUESTION.
WE FIND SUCH AN OPEN-ENDED QUESTION IN VERSE 33:
“SHOULD YOU NOT HAVE HAD MERCY ON YOUR FELLOW SLAVE
AS I HAD MERCY ON YOU?”
LET’S LOOK AT ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF AN OPEN-ENDED QUESTION,
THIS ONE FROM A BOOK WHICH JESUS LIKES TO REFER TO,
THE BOOK OF JONAH.
JONAH ENDS WITH GOD SAYING TO THE DISGRUNTLED PROPHET:
“AND SHOULD I NOT PITY NINEVEH, THAT GREAT CITY,
IN WHICH THERE ARE MORE THAN A HUNDRED AND TWENTY
THOUSAND PERSONS WHO DO NOT KNOW THEIR RIGHT HAND
FROM THEIR LEFT, AND ALSO MUCH CATTLE?”
TO ME, THESE WORDS NICELY ECHO WHAT I BELIEVE
TO BE THE ORIGINAL ENDING TO TODAY’S PARABLE:
“SHOULD YOU NOT HAVE HAD MERCY ON YOUR FELLOW SLAVE,
AS I HAD MERCY ON YOU?”
SO MUCH SO, THAT I BELIEVE JESUS HAD THE ENDING OF JONAH
IN MIND AS HE CONCLUDED THIS PARABLE OF HIS.
AND SO I REST MY CASE.
BUT WHY GO TO SO MUCH TROUBLE TO MAKE THIS CASE –
ULTIMATELY A CASE FOR GOD’S UNCONDITIONAL FORGIVENESS –
TO BEGIN WITH?
WHY SADDLE US WITH SO MUCH BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION
IN A SERMON?
HERE ARE THREE REASONS:
FIRST, AS A COMMUNITY OF FAITH THAT PROCLAIMS GOD’S LOVE
FOR ALL PEOPLE, ONE OF OUR TEN CORE VALUES,
WE HAVE, I BELIEVE, A SACRED RESPONSIBILITY TO BECOME
MORE KNOWLEDGABLE AND MORE SOPHISTICATED
IN OUR APPROACH TO THE BIBLE.
JUST AS OTHERS CAN QUOTE CHAPTER AND VERSE,
WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE A STRONG CASE
FOR WHY WE ARE AS OPEN AND ACCEPTING AS WE ARE.
IN MANY WAYS, WE ARE PREACHING A MESSAGE
OF LOVE AND FORGIVENESS THAT CUTS AGAINST THE GRAIN
NOT ONLY OF OUR CULTURE, BUT THAT ALSO OFFENDS
MANY CHURCH PEOPLE.
FRED CRADDOCK, PROFESSOR OF PREACHING
AND DISCIPLES OF CHRIST MINISTER, REPORTS:
“I PREACHED IN BLUE RIDGE, THE LITTLE TOWN
NEAR WHERE I LIVE AND WHERE I GET MY MAIL.
I PREACHED ON THE ELCTIONARY TEXT FOR THAT SUNDAY,
WHICH WAS THE PRODIGAL SON.
A MAN AFTER THE SERVICE SAID, ‘I REALLY DIDN’T CARE
FOR THAT MUCH, FRANKLY.’
I SAID, ‘WHY?’
HE SAID, ‘WELL, I GUESS IT’S NOT YOUR SERMON,
I JUST DON’T LIKE THAT STORY.’
I SAID, ‘WHAT IS IT YOU DON’T LIKE ABOUT IT?’
HE SAID, ‘IT’S NOT MORALLY RESPONSIBLE.’
I SAID, ‘WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THAT?’
‘FORGIVING THAT BOY.’
I SAID, ‘WELL, WHAT WOULD YOU HAVE DONE?’
HE SAID, ‘I THINK WHEN HE CAME HOME
HE SHOULD’VE BEEN ARRESTED.’
THIS FELLOW WAS SERIOUS.
I THOUGHT HE WAS GOING TO TELL ME A JOKE.
BUT HE WAS REALLY SERIOUS.
HE BELONGED TO THIS UNOFFICIAL ORGANIZATION NATIONWIDE,
NEVER HAS ANY MEETINGS AND DOESN’T HAVE A NAME,
BUT IT’S A VERY STRONG NETWORK THAT I CALL
‘QUALITY CONTROL PEOPLE.’
THEY’RE THE MORAL POLICE.
MANDATORY SENTENCES AND NO PAROLE, MIND YOU,
AND EXECUTIONS.
I SAID, ‘WHAT WOULD YOU HAVE GIVEN THE PRODIGAL?’
HE SAID, ‘SIX YEARS.’” (End Quote)
GOD’S UNCONDITIONAL FORGIVENESS AND LOVE,
BASED ON THE ACTIONS AND TEACHINGS OF JESUS,
IS THE OUTRAGEOUS MESSAGE THAT WE HAVE COMMITTED
OURSELVES TO COMMUNICATE HERE AT COMMUNITY CHURCH.
A SECOND REASON FOR OUR ADVOCATING
SOUND BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP AS A CHURCH,
SCHOLARSHIP THAT BELIEVES IN SUCH THINGS
AS THE PRINCIPLE OF NON-CONTRADICTION,
IS THAT AN ALARMINGLY LARGE NUMBER OF AMERICANS
HAVE TAKEN TO BELIEVING THAT EVERY ASSERTION OF TRUTH
IS JUST AN “OPINION,” AND THAT ONE OPINION IS AS GOOD
AS ANY OTHER.
NO MATTER THAT A LOT OF THESE OPINIONS
ARE INHERENTLY CONTRADICTORY – IF ONE OPINION
IS AS GOOD AS ANY OTHER ANYTHING GOES.
AND IF “ANYTHING GOES” IT IS JUST A MATTER OF TIME
BEFORE OUR CULTURE AND OUR COUNTRY SELF-DESTRUCT.
WE NEED CHURCHES, SUCH AS COMMUNITY CHURCH,
THAT DO NOT INDULGE IN SUCH CONTRADICTORY ASSERTIONS
AS “AN EYE FOR AN EYE, A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH”
IS EQUAL TO JESUS TEACHING “LOVE YOUR ENEMY”
SIMPLY BECAUSE BOTH CAN BE FOUND IN THE BIBLE.
AFFIRMING SUCH NONSENSICAL STATEMENTS IS TANTAMOUNT
TO MAKING THE BIBLE THE STANDARD OF OUR FAITH, NOT GOD.
THIRD, AND FINALLY, BY INSISTING ON BETTER
BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP AND INTERPRETATION
WE ARE ABLE TO REACH THEOLOGICAL CONCLUSIONS
THAT ARE TRUER TO GOD’S CHARACTER.
I BELIEVE THAT EACH OF US ON OUR OWN UNIQUE
JOURNEY OF FAITH EVENTUALLY NEEDS TO REACH
THE SAME CONCLUSION CONCERNING OURSELVES AND OTHERS
AS DID THE OBSCURE SAINT, ISAAC OF NINEVEH, WHO WROTE:
“AMONG ALL GOD’S ACTIONS THERE IS NONE
WHICH IS NOT ENTIRELY A MATTER OF MERCY, LOVE,
AND COMPASSION.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE BEGINNING AND END
OF GOD’S DEALINGS WITH US.”
THIS QUOTATION BEARS REPEATING.
AMEN AND AMEN.