Here, as so often, Matthew's Gospel gets it wrong; and in a harmful way.
Here - salvation is depicted as if it required strict adherence to a very specific and very difficult way of life - or else... Hell.
Yet the reality is that Jesus provided the chance and hope of salvation to everyone who wants it; including ordinary everyday "sinners" - seemingly all kinds of very imperfect, and even notorious, people. Jesus did Not demand that his followers adhered to a difficult and specific path through mortal life.
This underlines for me how - sooner or later - Christianity needs to come to us directly, not via intermediaries.
Including that Christianity cannot be got from The Bible. It's is false and dangerous nonsense to suppose that we just-plain-get meaning from reading or studying The Bible.
In reading the Bible we really must be able to evaluate and reject the kind of false and dangerous mistake of the "strait is the gate" kind.
Everyone who reads the Bible (nowadays, in this era, with modern minds and modes of consciousness) does so on the basis of prior assumptions concerning how the Bible ought to be read and understood: this is a matter of fact, evident to anyone who does not share these assumptions.
These assumptions frame, control, dictate the meanings we get from The Bible.
Here are some of the common prior assumptions: all of which I reject:
1. Regarding the Bible as a single unified book which is all equally true and without 'error' - when error is defined as the falsehood of explicit statements;
2. Regarding the truth of the Bible as something that resides at a sentence by sentence ('verse') level or even a word-by-word level;
3. Regarding the truth of all sentences/ verses as requiring knowledge of the whole Bible;
4. That all the New Testament is equally valid;
5. That all the Gospels are equally valid and tell a single absolutely coherent story (coherent at either/ both the level of the whole, and part-by-part).
Instead; we need to approach reading The Bible with an explicit awareness of our own prior assumptions.
And - once we have identified and acknowledged them - we need to evaluate these assumptions, to check that we really believe them - and that we believe them enough to stake our lives, our souls, upon them.
And if not; then we need to discover other assumptions: ones that we really are sure about.
4 comments:
This strikes me as an unfortunate strawman.
I've *never* understood Matthew with your framing. I see no "strict adherence to a very specific and very difficult way of life" in the simple words of Christ. I don't know where you got that from.
I keep reading and see that Jesus doesn't care about objectively good deeds (like prophesying, performing miracles, and *successfully* exorcising demons) but only in who you serve (i.e. faith). Your "fruit"—the life you live—is found in who your master is.
You say "It's is false and dangerous nonsense to suppose that we just-plain-get meaning from reading or studying The Bible" and "Christianity needs to come to us directly, not via intermediaries" which, if I followed your advice, would mean I should discard your analysis and just trust my own judgment on this matter.
@Derek - I've heard this passage interpreted in the way I describe lots of times.
Of course, when people have decided that the Bible is inerrant, then in practice they must and do explain away apparent/ surface contradictions by inferring a different deep or nuanced meaning that is harmonious.
This common practice does not, however, really convince; and is indeed a kind of dishonesty.
We really should not be bothered about discarding verses, or even large sections, of the Bible as wrong (or even, in principle - although it's hard to imagine in practice, the whole thing) - once we are clear about what Jesus is offering and asking. Indeed I think this is necessary.
IMO the proper perspective is that the Gospel of Matthew is Basically Wrong about Jesus - with some good/valid bits here and there. i.e. The opposite of the Fourth Gospel.
@Bruce — Many times? Consider John Chrysostom's "Homily 23 on Matthew" from c.400AD.
He said the narrow road to be easy, light, and accessible (per Matt 11:30). You and I both agree that choosing eternal life is extremely simple. It's how you metaphysically justify God allowing pre-incarnate man to choosing mortality. But, just because it is simple doesn't mean it is easy.
Chrysostom understood that the rough part was in the *initial* choices to follow the narrow path. Choosing the wide path is much easier. Moreover, he ties choosing the wide path into the verses that follow (which discuss false prophets and counterfeit fruit). False teachings are what makes the wide path so attractive, so it is important to recognize which teachings are true and which are false.
You discern that the false prophets you've been exposed to have been telling you lies: you knew that interpretation of Matthew 7 was wrong. The irony is that Jesus was warning about this very thing in this very scripture. But instead of heeding his warning and championing it, you've chosen instead to reject the Gospel of Matthew—"the Gospel of Matthew is Basically Wrong about Jesus"—which effectively invalidates any possibility of discerning the correct teaching. You just *assume* there isn't one!
If one follows your five-point advice, they will not be equipped to find the narrow path (or wolves in sheep's clothing, or thornbushes producing grapes).
@Derek - "effectively invalidates any possibility of discerning the correct teaching. You just *assume* there isn't one!"
Getting a bit wild with the non sequiturs and misrepresentations here!
You don't agree, clearly - and I would not have expected for a moment that you would; but I'm not being inconsistent.
Let's leave it at that.
Post a Comment