Saturday, November 03, 2007

Honor your parents and love your enemies

Matthew 5:38-48

An Eye for an Eye

38"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' 39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

Love for Enemies

43"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' 44But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Matthew 15:1-6

Clean and Unclean

1Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, 2"Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don't wash their hands before they eat!"

3Jesus replied, "And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? 4For God said, 'Honor your father and mother' and 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.' 5But you say that if a man says to his father or mother, 'Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is a gift devoted to God,' 6he is not to 'honor his father' with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition.

*****************************

Many Christians interpret the Sermon on the Mount the same way the Amish do. Mind you, I notice that most of them don’t live the same way the Amish do. Somehow they manage to combine Amish theology with a middleclass lifestyle. But I’ll pass on that for now.

There are two fundamental flaws in this approach to the text:

1.It misconstrues the nature of human communication. The fact that a speaker doesn’t introduce a lot of caveats into everything he says doesn’t mean that he expects you to take everything he says without qualification.

Speakers generally say less than they mean. Because they usually become to the same culture as their audience, they share an unspoken level of common understanding. So they take certain things for granted.

The Sermon on the Mount does not exhaust Jesus’ teaching on social ethics. Moreover, he was addressing a Jewish audience. An audience steeped in OT law and rabbinical tradition. That’s an operating assumption which he brings to this discourse. His audience is expected to understand these OT allusions and rabbinical allusions. He doesn’t need to explain everything to them. He can leave many things unstated. Their cultural preunderstanding is the springboard for his correctives.

BTW, Jason has also made some judicious observations about the nature of human communication in the combox:

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/11/moral-equivalence.html

2.Let’s compare the first Matthean text with the second Matthean text. In the first, he is talking about our duty to our enemies—and in the second, our duty to our parents.

Notice, in the second text, that he introduces the theme of higher obligations. It was a Jewish duty to support the religious establishment. But it was also a Jewish duty to support your parents. And your duty to your parents was a higher duty. In case of conflict, the higher duty suspends the lower. Caring for your parents takes precedence over subsidizing the religious establishment.

Here’s another example:

Matthew 10:34-37

34"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn
" 'a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law –
36a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.'
37"Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

************************************

Here our obligation to God is higher than our obligation to our own family, and—in case of conflict—the higher duty overrides the lower.

Notice, too, that in this text, our family members are our enemies. Yet loving God takes precedence over loving our enemies in this particular situation.

In Scripture, our social obligations are stratified. Our obligation to God is our only unconditional obligation. All other duties are conditional duties—with degrees of obligation.

The duty to love our enemies is a prima facie duty, but not an absolute duty. Suppose a man were to break into your parents’ home and take them hostage. And suppose you have a chance to shoot him. What should you do?

Should you love your enemy? But if, in this situation, you love your enemy, you thereby dishonor your parents.

You have an obligation both to love your enemy and to honor your parents. But not all duties are coequal. And not all duties can be discharged simultaneously.

In this situation, loving your mother and father takes precedence over loving your enemy. In this situation, you can’t do the loving thing for your parents and your enemy alike.

And that’s because your enemy won’t let you. He has created a situation in which you must choose. And the moral imperative is clear.

To some extent, differing circumstances differentiate our duties. All other things being equal, you should love your enemy; but all things considered, there are situations in which loving your enemy takes a backseat to loving someone else by protecting the victim from the assailant.

18 comments:

  1. What is your definition of love? And in most circumstances can't one love one's enemies and honr their parents? Or even better love God and love their enemies? it is not very often that i find someone breaking into my paretns house trying to kill them. But often i find myself in situations where others are either saying wrong things about God or not acting in a Christ like manner. What is the Christian thing to do in that situation? One can love their neighbor and their enemies and still love God with their whole being. Right?

    ReplyDelete
  2. In terms of Scriptural injunctions, it has more to do with merciful behavior rather than affection.

    And I'm not talking about "most circumstances." That's not the nub of the dispute.

    The point at issue is not those situations in which various duties are compatible, but those situations in which they are incompatible—which is not all that infrequent in a fallen world.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Keep in mind, too, that I've deliberately using extreme examples to make a point. Most Christian will recognize that filial duty trumps our duty towards our enemies if, say, a serial killer is about to murder our parents unless we intervene with lethal force.

    And, of course, that's analogous to counterterrorism. Remember that this is a debate over what Christian response is appropriate in the face of militant Islam.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "In terms of Scriptural injunctions, it has more to do with merciful behavior rather than affection."

    Okay but can we really seperate the two? And is affection not a part of it at all? But the main reason why I asked you to define "love" is because maybe the Christian definition of "Love" makes it possible for one to not have to make a choice between loving one's enemies and loving God or honoring parents.

    "And I'm not talking about "most circumstances." That's not the nub of the dispute."

    Okay but my point is that at best maybe you are speaking about .1% of experiences a Christian might really face in life.

    'The point at issue is not those situations in which various duties are compatible, but those situations in which they are incompatible—which is not all that infrequent in a fallen world."

    Name some of these situations.

    ReplyDelete
  5. blackhaw said...

    “Okay but can we really seperate the two?”

    Obviously so. I can be merciful to someone I personally dislike or despise. Indeed, that’s part of what makes it merciful. It’s easy to love the lovable (emotionally speaking). And it’s easy to be nice to those we like.

    “And is affection not a part of it at all?”

    Not necessarily, for reasons I’ve just given.

    “But the main reason why I asked you to define ‘love’ is because maybe the Christian definition of ‘Love’ makes it possible for one to not have to make a choice between loving one's enemies and loving God or honoring parents.”

    How is that relevant to the examples I’ve given? No one denies that it’s sometimes possible to do both. That’s not the issue.

    “Okay but my point is that at best maybe you are speaking about .1% of experiences a Christian might really face in life.”

    To the contrary, in a world full of criminality, we must often choose whether to be merciful to the victim or the victimizer. We can’t be equally merciful to both. To be merciful to the victimizer is to be merciless (as well as unjust) to the victim.

    “Name some of these situations.”

    I did that is this very post. Try again.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "Notice, too, that in this text, our family members are our enemies. Yet loving God takes precedence over loving our enemies in this particular situation."

    Does the text you cite say not to love them? It says "Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me"--you still love them, but less than God. How does this release a man from loving your enemies? It doesn't. You're pulling the old Phariseeic trick of giving corban and getting to break whatever commandment you want.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple" (Lk 14:26).

    ReplyDelete
  8. "Obviously so. I can be merciful to someone I personally dislike or despise. Indeed, that’s part of what makes it merciful. It’s easy to love the lovable (emotionally speaking). And it’s easy to be nice to those we like."

    But the point is that isn't begrudingly loving someone is not as pure of love as one who has affection for another? I think so. So the two are not really seperated.

    "How is that relevant to the examples I’ve given? No one denies that it’s sometimes possible to do both. That’s not the issue."

    It is relevant because it might be a false choice. Does one rally have to choose to not love someone in order to love another. For instance in the verse you quoted about hating your mother and father is scripture trying to argue that one should not love their parents at all in order to love God? I think not. It is stating that God comes first. It is not arguing that we do not love our neighbor in order to love God. If so then how can one understand the two greatest commandments?

    "To the contrary, in a world full of criminality, we must often choose whether to be merciful to the victim or the victimizer. We can’t be equally merciful to both. To be merciful to the victimizer is to be merciless (as well as unjust) to the victim."

    This illustrates my point. you are using your definition of love to prove your point but you have never really made explicit your definition of love. Why is the amount of mercy given to a person= to the amount of love for that person? Why do you hold to that defintion of love?

    "I did that is this very post. Try again."

    You gave one situation. And I am confident that no one reading your post has ever been in a situation close to what you described. I want many more if it occurs as often as you claim.

    ReplyDelete
  9. blackhaw said...

    “But the point is that isn't begrudingly loving someone is not as pure of love as one who has affection for another? I think so. So the two are not really seperated.”

    They’re inseparable if you define the love/hate language of scripture in emotive terms. But that’s not generally how the words are used in scripture. These are Semitic idioms.

    In the process, you’re also subverting the Biblical concept of mercy, which is not about being merciful to those we love (in the psychological sense of the term).

    You are beginning with some atextual, acontextual concept of love which you then superimpose on the text. You keep psychologizing these Biblical expressions.

    But as I. H. Marshall explains in his exegesis of Lk 14:26, it’s about “renunciation” rather than “psychological hate.” And as Green explains in his exegesis, “in this context, ‘hate’ is not primarily an affective quality but a disavowal of primary allegiance to one’s kin.”

    In both the Matthean and Lucan versions, a Jewish family is forcing a Christian convert to choose between filial or familial allegiance and dominical allegiance. So, where you have a conflict of duties, loyalty to Christ enjoys priority over loyalty to one’s own flesh-and-blood. In this situation, it’s one or the other. If you were a Jewish follower of Christ, you would be disowned by your family and ostracized by your community. Banished from your clan and excommunicated from covenant community. Those were the stark alternatives.

    Was that always the case? No. But that was not uncommon. It’s the cost of discipleship under those social conditions. That’s why Jesus speaks to this scenario.

    To interpret the usage in emotive terms would make no sense in context. For one thing, it’s not as if our love for our family members is like the volume control on a TV remote which you can raise or lower by pushing a button.

    The passage is not concerned with how you *feel* about Jesus or how you “feel” about your family. That’s not the choice. Rather, it has reference to the field of action. What will you *do* in that situation?

    “It is relevant because it might be a false choice. Does one rally have to choose to not love someone in order to love another. For instance in the verse you quoted about hating your mother and father is scripture trying to argue that one should not love their parents at all in order to love God? I think not. It is stating that God comes first. It is not arguing that we do not love our neighbor in order to love God. If so then how can one understand the two greatest commandments?”

    i) You aren’t using these words according to Scriptural usage.

    ii) And there’s more at stake than “God comes first.” I’m citing a Scriptural case in which a disciple of Christ is confronted with a choice between two *exclusive* options—where one rules out the other. Not both/and, but either/or.

    “This illustrates my point. you are using your definition of love to prove your point but you have never really made explicit your definition of love. Why is the amount of mercy given to a person= to the amount of love for that person? Why do you hold to that defintion of love?”

    I’d remind you that the burden of proof is a two-way street. It’s incumbent on you to justify your own definition, rather than assuming what you need to prove.

    “You gave one situation. And I am confident that no one reading your post has ever been in a situation close to what you described. I want many more if it occurs as often as you claim.”

    It’s a pity that your experience is so provincial. You really need to get out more. Tblog has an international audience. I know that from the site meter. This includes countries where Christians are persecuted for their faith.

    And you are also disregarding the original context of this thread, which was about what methods and techniques are licit in counterterrorism. Christian soldiers or Christian CIA agents , &c., are most definitely faced with this situation on a regular basis. So are policemen.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Steve wrote, "Was that always the case? No. But that was not uncommon. It’s the cost of discipleship under those social conditions. That’s why Jesus speaks to this scenario."

    Do you also consider it a cost of eternal life under those social situations? Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Spectator said:

    "Do you also consider it a cost of eternal life under those social situations? Thanks."

    It has that potential, although a mere loss of nerve is not, of itself, damnatory. After all, except for John, the other apostles deserted Christ on Good Friday in an act of cowardice. Yet they were saved.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Thanks for the reply, but I'm not sure I follow. In what way does a Jewish family forcing a Christian convert to choose between filial or familial allegiance and dominical allegiance have the *potential* of being a cost of obtaining eternal life? Thanks again.

    ReplyDelete
  13. There are situations in which you have to choose between breaking your family ties and following Jesus—where your family demands that you uphold the family tradition, over against the demands of the Gospel; but my point is that you could make the wrong choice, yet change your mind at a later date. To be saved, you must die a Christian. But you could mistakenly cave into family pressures at one point, then think better of your priorities at a future point.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "And there’s more at stake than 'God comes first.' I’m citing a Scriptural case in which a disciple of Christ is confronted with a choice between two *exclusive* options—where one rules out the other. Not both/and, but either/or."

    I would argue that there is no such thing as "two *exclusive* options" as described - and you are right that there's more at stake than "God comes first." Consider our attitude of love toward the enemy. Our attitude should inform our action, but where our action is constrained, our attitude will be frustrated.

    Is it loving toward an enemy to allow him to commit evil? Perhaps that where our love comes from God it is more loving to be God's instrument of justice in this matter. If it leaves the enemy dead, then out of love we should mourn. If we have prevented an evil to be completed then we have acted lovingly. If it would save one lick of flame on the enemy's soul then we have prevented him from experiencing it. We cannot say we love an enemy by excusing his evil where such betrays God who sacrificed of Himself for us in love.

    On the other hand, if it is his soul at stake and one's parents are prepared for eternity with our Lord, their desire should be for the salvation of the enemy even at their own temporal peril. As such, is it loyal to extend their earthly lives for a time and lose the enemy or allow their martyrdom in the event that the Holy Spirit will yet quicken the enemy?

    The answer is not so easy. Important is not what we do in this situation, but where the desires of our heart lie. Do we truly love the enemy? Do we truly desire to honor our parents? Do we seek to be obedient in a moment of uncertainty? You can make any decision in the moment with the correct motivation and glorify God. You can make the same decision in the moment with the wrong motivation and be found guilty by God. I suggest that these are the only true "two *exclusive* options."

    ReplyDelete
  15. Hi Jim,

    I agree with some of what you say. However, it’s weakened by your assumption that in the Scriptural texts at issue, love is an attitude.

    Many people read that into the text because they derive their connotation of “love” from the popular culture. We learn language by osmosis.

    But as I’ve already explained, “love” and “hate” are not “attitudes” in the Scriptural usage at issue. Mt 6:24 is a good example. As Davies & Allison explain, “’Love’ and ‘hate’ refer not so much to emotions as to faithful labour: to love=to serve (cf. Jer 8.2).”

    And the form of Mt 6:24 is antithetical: it confronts the reader with a choice between two options (one or the other) rather than a comparative ranking (loving more or less).

    We have the same type of antithetical construction in the other Matthean and Lucan passages I cited about filial allegiance and dominical allegiance.

    Christians who claim to honor the authority of Scripture need to get serious about their exegesis of Scripture, and not default to popular connotations of an English word. This is not something we can skip over or ignore.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Steve,
    I apologize if I was unclear, but I didn't mean to equate "attitude" with "emotion" implicitly or otherwise. Agape/ao involves a denial of oneself rather than a hormonal indulgence.

    In this case I meant to indicate by "attitude" that one who loves carries himself after a certain manner irregardless of emotion. A decision made according to the principles of godly love is made with the proper "attitude" although the resulting action is dubious. It is limited or governed by the finite knowledge, intelligence and extraneous inclinations of the one making the decision. God surely knows our limitations in these areas, but looks rather on whether we are motivated selfishly or by the Holy Spirit in selfless love.

    Where a fallen world generates paradoxical situations, a proper attitude or intention toward God denies the power of a paradox to entrap such a child of God once again in sin. The power of the paradox of sin is in the action. The power of righteousness is in the motivation of the Holy Spirit.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Steve, Thanks for the reply. Don’t you think that this idea of the reception of eternal life being conditioned upon a change of allegiance (i.e., breaking family ties, etc. to become a disciple) or a promise/commitment I make (I will become Your disciple in order that You will give me eternal life) is a bit removed from Calvin’s famous quote on the nature of saving faith?:

    [Quote]
    Briefly, he alone is truly a believer who, convinced by a firm conviction that God is a kindly and well-disposed Father toward him, promises himself all things on the basis of his generosity; who relying upon the promises of divine benevolence toward him, lays hold on an undoubted expectation of salvation. [End Quote]
    Institutes 3.2.16

    ReplyDelete
  18. spectator said:

    "Steve, Thanks for the reply. Don’t you think that this idea of the reception of eternal life being conditioned upon a change of allegiance (i.e., breaking family ties, etc. to become a disciple) or a promise/commitment I make (I will become Your disciple in order that You will give me eternal life) is a bit removed from Calvin’s famous quote on the nature of saving faith?"

    It depends on how the condition is fulfilled. If it were fulfilled synergistically, a la Catholicism, then it would compromise the gracious character of salvation.

    However, Reformed theology has always held that there is a subjective dimension to salvation. God regenerates and God sanctifies. These are necessary conditions of salvation.

    Moreover, Reformed theology has always held that sanctification, unlike regeneration, has a cooperative aspect—although not in the synergistic sense.

    Sanctification is ultimately a result of God's invincible grace. So is the grace to persevere in the faith, including cases where we are forced to choose between familial allegiance and fidelity to God. In the life of the elect, the outcome remains certain—because God ensures the outcome. But he employs various means to achieve his appointed end.

    Saving grace is both objective and subjective, and God is sovereign over each dimension.

    ReplyDelete