Sixth Sunday Ordinary Time
Sirach 15:15–20
1 Corinthians 2:6–10
Matthew 5:17–37
Today’s gospel reading presents so many questions! Let’s start with the first three verses:
“Do not think that I came to destroy the Law and the Prophets. I came not to destroy but to fulfill. For, amen, I tell you, until heaven and earth shall pass away, not a single iota or single serif must vanish from the Law, until all things come to pass. Whoever breaks one of the least of the commandments and teaches people to do likewise shall be called least in the Kingdom of the heavens; but whoever performs and teaches it, this one shall be called great in the Kingdom of the heavens.”
But Jesus himself repeatedly broke the Law. Here are a few notable examples:
- He touched a leper to heal him (Mt 8:1–4, par. Mk and Lk).
- He rejected all Jewish dietary laws by saying “not what goes into the mouth defiles a man, but what comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man” (Mt 15:11, par. Lk).
- He heals on the Sabbath (Mt 12:9–14, par. Mk and Lk).
Moreover, by affirming the eternal validity of Torah, Jesus contradicts St. Paul (cf. Gal 2:15–16; Rom 3:21–31). And finally, as NJBC points out, “no major Christian church requires observance of all 613 precepts of the Old Testament law,” but only the moral commandments, such as the Decalogue and the duty to love God and neighbor.[i]
The passage I quoted above is found only in Matthew. When such a unique gospel passage is at odds with the clear witness of the rest of the New Testament (including the gospels themselves) and when it contradicts universal Christian practice, I believe we are justified in questioning the authenticity of the words attributed here to Jesus.
The Rabbis of Jamnia
We know that St. Matthew and his community were members of the Jewish-Christian party and the early Church suffered conflict between this group and “the Hellenists” (see Acts 6:1–6; 9:29–31). Matthew’s community was locked in a still more bitter family feud with the rabbis of Jamnia, who had recently placed them outside of Judaism “through a ban called the birkat hamminim.”[ii] For the Matthean community, Jesus really was the final fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets. Not only was there no ultimate conflict between Judaism and Christianity, but also to be a faithful Jew, you needed to follow Jesus.
There are some battles worth fighting. To me, this is one of them. It is a tragedy that in the end, Matthew’s community lost this battle; the separation of the two religions has meant centuries of conflict between Judaism and Christianity and the persecution of Jews at the hands of Christians. The NJBC also suggests that the death of true Jewish-Christianity led to the creation of Islam, and thus centuries of another form of religious strife.[iii]
In any event, we can understand that Jesus’s fidelity to the Law was a hot-button issue for Matthew and his community. Together with the fact that no other gospel writer has Jesus saying these words, and considering their incompatibility with St. Paul’s and Jesus’s own behavior, I think we can conclude these words tell us more about St. Matthew than about Jesus.
It is worth pausing a moment to ponder, and maybe to weep, over these words. Think what it means that Matthew may have put words into Jesus’s mouth he never said! Taking such liberties with the Savior of the world is mind-boggling to me. I cannot conceive of doing such a thing. It seems sacrilegious. But Matthew saw fidelity to Jesus differently and experienced the inspiration of the Holy Spirit differently.
I make my peace with Matthew in this way: he and his community did everything they could to bridge the growing gap between early Christianity and Judaism. In the end they failed. But I salute them for trying. In fact, I am grateful. It shows this tragic division that has caused so much human suffering did not “just happen.” Many devout and loving believers moved heaven and earth to prevent it. Must we perhaps conclude, with broken hearts and confused minds, that it was God’s will? Would that not be strange?
In any case, this is one more example suggesting that when the Bible appears to contradict itself, it is pointing to a deeper truth and more profound mystery than mere literal quibbling can begin to fathom.
It is also worth pointing out that Matthew did not suppress the many examples when Jesus does appear to violate the Law. He must have been tempted to do so. The Matthean “lost cause” of devotion to the Law reminds us that Christian diversity and disagreement was present from the very beginning. It can strengthen us today to accept as natural the continuing doctrinal differences within the larger body of Christ. What unites us is our love of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.
And now for something (almost) completely different. If we read this passage with the ancient Christians, we can transcend the problems that arise from interpreting Matthew’s words perhaps too literally. Listen to Hilary of Poitiers:
“With a beautiful introduction Christ moves beyond the work of the law. He does not intend to abolish it but to enhance it by fulfilling it. He declares that his apostles will not be able to enter heaven unless their righteousness exceeds that of the Pharisees. Therefore he bypasses what is laid down in the law, not for the sake of abolishing it, but for the sake of fulfilling it.”[iv] (ACCS, 1a, 97, emphasis added)
The Law’s moral purpose is to guide us so we will fulfill God’s will on earth. The Pharisees sincerely and devoutly attempted to follow the Law, but Jesus clearly saw what they were doing as missing the mark. While it is true that Jesus at times violates some of the concrete behaviors required by the rules of the Law, in this passage we see how by internalizing its requirements, Jesus actually deepens and radicalizes the Law.
Radical Interiorizing
Maybe the best example of Jesus’s “radicalizing by interiorizing” approach is found in verses 27–28. Jesus here equates lust, or wanting to commit adultery, with actually doing it. We can find a good deal of practical wisdom in this statement because deeds begin with desires. It is usually easier to stop our minds early on from wanting to do something we know is wrong, whether it is adultery or any other evil. Once we allow ourselves to “get used” to the action in our minds, it will be harder to stop it.
Beyond this bit of practical psychological advice, I think Jesus is making a deeper point. The act of adultery is an injustice to the marriage and the married partners. The desire to do it is an injustice to ourselves. Moreover, by not following through on the act but instead allowing ourselves to continue to dwell on the desire, in some ways we can fall into a deeper pit. It is possible to become so obsessed with evil desires—lust, greed, or whatever—that we can lose the “self,” our souls, in the process, even if we do not do it.
These verses can easily be misinterpreted in a destructive way, however. As the NJBC points out, Jesus is only talking here about adultery.[v] He is not condemning all thinking about sexual matters, as might be involved in the study of medicine or “simple velleities”—that is, mild wishes. Because I believe Jesus was fully human, I believe Jesus must have at some point felt sexual desire or temptation. As Hebrews 4:15 says, “For we have not a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sinning.”
It’s not the first look that is the problem—it’s the second. What I imagine happened was that Jesus saw an attractive woman, felt the attraction, and turned away. That is what he is telling us to do here.
A second, more problematic example of the radical interiorization of the Law is found in verses 21–23. After noting that the Law commands us not to kill, Matthew’s Jesus in verse 22 says, “But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says, ‘You fool’ [raka] shall be liable to the hell of fire.”
The main problem with this passage is that Jesus himself appears to violate it. In Matthew 23:13–36 (par. Lk) Jesus actually calls the scribes and the Pharisees “blind fools” (Mōroì kai tuphloí, which means “foolish and blind”). The word raka that Jesus uses in 4:22 is from Aramaic and literally means “empty” or empty-headed, and although he uses different Greek words when insulting the Pharisees, I don’t believe this makes a huge difference. He also insults the Pharisees with other words, repeatedly calling them “hypocrites.”
Now, Mark and Luke also have Jesus criticizing the Pharisees and other Jewish religious leaders, but with far milder language. Has Jesus changed his mind about insulting others, or has Matthew changed Jesus? I think it more likely that Matthew has changed Jesus and put these harsh words into his mouth. Chapter 23 is another example of the bitter family feud within Judaism we discussed earlier. By showing Jesus violating his own strictures against insulting others, Matthew has turned him into a hypocrite: the very insult this Jesus throws at the Pharisees!
This shocking inconsistency reveals how deep the split between Matthew’s community and the Jamnia rabbis had become. Matthew is evidently so absorbed in the fight with Jamnia that he is blind to the contradiction between the Jesus of chapter 5 and the Jesus of chapter 23.
Yet let’s also recognize Matthew’s intellectual integrity. If he wanted to preserve the attack of chapter 23 and remove the contradiction, he could have excised Jesus’s teaching in chapter 5.
Even though there are no parallels to Matthew’s chapter 5, Jesus’s teaching here is far more consistent with the Jesus we know from the other gospels than is the enraged and insulting Jesus of chapter 23. If we have to choose between the two, and I think we do, I think it far more likely the teaching of chapter 5 is authentic and the words of chapter 23 reveal more about Matthew’s battle with Jamnia than about Jesus.
Even though I think it is authentic, I have a problem with Jesus’s teaching in 5:21–22. Is it right to condemn all expressions of anger? Jesus got angry at times, according to the gospels, without calling anyone a fool. Can I not sometimes express love through anger? I was once bicycling in Rock Creek Park when a car passed me on a narrow two-lane road. Another biker was coming in the opposite direction and was forced off the road by the passing car, which almost hit him. I was never in danger, but I yelled angrily at the passing motorist, “You could have killed that guy!” Before continuing my ride I made sure the biker was all right; he was, and I sensed he was grateful for my outburst. Was I wrong to be angry?
Still, I have to confess that most of the times when I get angry, it is not out of love—unless it is self-love. So Jesus is right to call us on this; it is the kind of deep-rooted challenge that makes me love him. Each time I get angry or even annoyed is an opportunity to ask myself: why. I recommend this spiritual exercise to everyone.
Finally, what are we to make of verses 29-30? Is self-mutilation the best way to deal with sinful desires? It is clear to me we are not read this passage literally. I understand it as another example of Jesus’ approach to the Law: radical interiorization. If we have a truly sinful inclination or habit, we need to get the very bottom of it and uproot it from our heart. We have to understand it as something other than who we really are, something that could even destroy us. This is not easy. It will hurt, just as cutting off your hand would hurt. Jesus’ language underscores how seriously he takes sin, and how seriously we should take it.
It is time, after all, to prepare for Lent.
[i] NJBC, 641.
[ii] Ibid., 631.
[iii] Ibid., 641.
[iv] ACCS, 1a, 97. Emphasis added.
[v] NJBC, 642.
