Friday, 16 December 2011

Question Time - A pointless statement from Jesus in Matthews Gospel?

This weeks question comes from Ogunitracy who asked the following question -

Jesus said "Blessed are the pure in heart for they will see God"

I think I follow the logic. God is pure, so to see Him, you should be pure. Only problem is, no one is pure, remember? We're all sinners according to Romans 3. So, wasn't Jesus' statement kind of a waste of time? What pure in heart?

Beatitudes and Memory

The scripture in question is found in Matthew 5:8 in what is known as the 'Beatitudes' which are sayings that describe the attitudes of a true disciple and follower of Jesus. The structure of the way Jesus teaches these beatitudes to his listeners is intentional and purposefully designed to make them easy to memorize [1]. The historical context of those he was teaching were those in an oral culture, in such a culture certain mnemonic devices would be used to aid the hearers to remember what they had heard. Hence Jesus' use of a rhythmic structure and repetition 'Blessed are the....' allows easy memorization but also highlights the importance of what he has to say. Relying on such devices was an important part of an oral culture since many were unable to read and write or such luxuries were not available to the majority of people, so dependency on memory and ways to remember important matters were highly important. Such literary devices as Jesus displays allowed many Jews to remember large quantities of information accurately through an array of literary devices, this allowed some Jews able to recite the whole Torah orally from memory. 

Matthew 5:8 and Interpretation

The real thrust of the question if I understand it correctly is that Jesus' statement regarding the pure in heart is essentially a nonsense statement if he's telling us that only those who are morally pure will see God. The questioners right if Jesus is telling us that only those who are morally pure or perfect will see God then none of us will and the saying makes no sense.  Having a pure heart means more than just being morally pure, when we understand the gospel and understand Gods grace it should be clear that such an interpretation is mistaken, I don't recommend ever interpreting any scripture in isolation out of its larger context. 

Understanding the larger context of a narrative informs us how to interpret the smaller parts, such an understanding here means that interpreting the word 'pure' as moral perfection isn't warranted, and such a suggestion to both Jesus initial listeners and to us today places a demand that everyone knows they can't meet. 

The Beatitudes are descriptive statements that describe what Jesus followers are or will be doing which at-least tells us that its not impossible to achieve, which moral perfection is, hence the need for a perfect saviour to stand in our place and represent us before God [Hebrews 8:1-2]. Jesus was telling his listeners something that described what was actually possible to live out, the beatitudes are not a list of impossible character traits, they detail the ways in which Christians should and do live.

When Jesus uses the term 'pure in heart' his listeners would have understood him to be alluding to Psalm 73 where the pure in heart are described as being the 'those in Israel whose hearts were ''clean'' or undefiled, those who recognised that God alone was their help and reward' [2]. Having a pure heart means living under Gods rule, living a life that is pleasing to God and having a heart that is devoted to God.

A pure heart describes a desire and not a state, that is a clear distinction that must be recognised otherwise it leads to a religious idea of condemnation where one can never be good enough, when in fact in light of Gods grace to us through Jesus there is no condemnation [Romans 8:1].

Peter in his letter describes what I think is the best biblical description of what it means to have a pure heart, 'You won't spend the rest of your lives chasing your own desires, but you will be anxious to do the will of God.' [1 Peter 4:3].


What does Jesus mean by being blessed?

The problem of translating foreign words into English can present difficulties when trying to fully comprehend what was meant to be understood. What in English Bibles is translated as just 'blessed' corresponds to the Greek Makarios and Hebrew asher which simultaneously mean 'blessed', 'happy' and 'fortunate' all at the same time [3].

In Conclusion, the syllogism posed in the question is mistaken because although God is pure and morally perfect, its equivocating to suggest that 'pure' in the context means moral perfection and ascribes such a demand to Christians. A pure heart is one in which the believer has undiluted, undivided loyalty to God, a life that is difficult enough without requiring the impossible. This passage understood in the light of the rest of scripture presents us with a challenge but not an impossible one, Romans chapter 3 demonstrates to us that we are all sinners in Gods sight and need someone to save us. God has done just that by living, dying and resurrecting in history for us and when we accept his forgiveness and gift we now 'want' to live and think about the pure things that God wants us to.

And now, dear brothers and sisters, one final thing. Fix your thoughts on what is true, and honourable, and right, and pure, and lovely, and admirable. Think about things that are excellent and worthy of praise. [Philippians 4:8]

Hope that helps a little.

[1] Matthew, R.T France, 1985.
[2] The IVP BIble Background Commentary: New Testament, Keener.
[3] Jewish New Testament Commentary, Stern.

A redeemed mind is a terrible thing to waste.

4 comments:

ogunitracy said...

I think it helps but I'm not sure yet. I'll think about it a little. Thanks a lot.

Dan Rodger said...

Hope it helped a little, I recommend buying a good commentary, they are always worthwhile investments.

Anonymous said...

But were you actually present to witness and hear Jesus speak these words?

Did you ever meet Jesus or Matthew up close and personal in a living-breathing-feeling human form? And thus have extended conversations with them about their ubderstanding of Reality altogether?

Did you ever meet any of the church fathers who created the Bible and what is now called the "official" version of Christianity?

Did you ask them why out of the many then available Christian writings they chose the ones they did, why they edited them, and why they even invented stories or "reports" about the life of jesus that obviously did not (could not have) happened?

Do you even know what your body is and how it appeared in this time and place? Because to do so you would have to take into account how the entire cosmic process, beginning with day one, somehow coalesced into creating the body that you now identify as you. And also simultaneously how/why the entire cosmos and this Earth world appears to be in its now arising form now, now, and now.

Which is to say that you cant even account for your own appearance here (and the appearance of the world altogether), and yet you presume to know so much about Jesus and Matthew nearly 2000 years ago.

Dan Rodger said...

But were you actually present to witness and hear Jesus speak these words?

No.

Did you ever meet Jesus or Matthew up close and personal in a living-breathing-feeling human form? And thus have extended conversations with them about their understanding of Reality altogether?

Nope, but I do have access to some ancient Hellenistic biographies of people who either did or recorded the experiences of those who had.

Did you ever meet any of the church fathers who created the Bible and what is now called the "official" version of Christianity?

Again no, but as a student of History I know that we don't have to meet or speak to people to know about the past.

Have you ever spoken to someone who experienced the Holocaust, the first World War, the American War of Independence? I guess they didn't happen then. I think you need to get reading more than the Da Vinci Code from the sounds of your questions.

Did you ask them why out of the many then available Christian writings they chose the ones they did, why they edited them, and why they even invented stories or "reports" about the life of jesus that obviously did not (could not have) happened?

Are you being serious? Sadly I imagine you are, look I'm going to be honest these are not clever questions, they are historically and factually false. Look if you think Christians picked, chose and hid books at the Council of Nicea then you only need to look online for an account of what was discussed there. See here - http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2804.htm It had absolutely nothing to do with the things you seem to think it did. You should also remember that for 250+ years after Jesus rose Christians and their leaders had been viciously persecuted under the Roman empire.

If you think that the Bishops were about to suddenly compromise on what they had been suffering for all their lives then you really need to brush up on your readings in History and human behaviour.

Many of the Bishops at the Council of Nicea were still nursing wounds they had suffered at the hands of Diocletian.

Which is to say that you cant even account for your own appearance here (and the appearance of the world altogether), and yet you presume to know so much about Jesus and Matthew nearly 2000 years ago.

Well what we do know at the moment is that the universe began at the big-bang, I.E. it began to exist at a time in the past and therefore required a cause. I think its reasonable to posit that God created the universe, God is immaterial, timeless and powerful etc.

Look at the end of the day, we know more about Jesus than any other ancient figure. So if I'm going to claim to know alot about any ancient figure it ought to be Jesus.

Thanks for stopping by. Dan