Fourth Sunday after Pentecost – Year A – Byron Tindall
My goodness: there are some pretty harsh words in the Gospel lesson this morning from the Gospel According to St. Matthew.
The lesson this week picks up where the optional portion from last week left off.
The first portion of today’s lesson doesn’t cause me any problem. But the further we get into this portion of Matthew’s gospel, the more troubling it becomes at first reading.
No, the student doesn’t have to become smarter or better than the teacher. Occasionally, a student will surpass the master or teacher, but that isn’t necessary for success.
It’s obvious to me that we are not to keep what we’ve learned about the Kingdom of God to ourselves, but rather we’re to spread the Good News by what we say and through the way we live wherever we find ourselves.
I have no argument with God knowing about everything that happens.
Then suddenly the questions start flowing when we reach the second half of today’s lesson.
Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.”
Wait a minute. Is this the same person we call “The Prince of Peace?” Is this the same Jesus who preached in the sermon on the mount, found recorded in Matthew 5 and 6 and said, among other things, “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God”? Is this the same preacher who told his listeners to turn the other cheek when someone strikes them on one cheek? Does this sound like the individual who said to give someone your coat as well when asked to donate the cloak?
I could go on with this contradictory comparison, but I think this is enough. We have to admit that these are very harsh words coming from the one who seemed always to favor non-violence.
For the next few minutes, I’m going to present a possible explanation for the harshness of the words we heard read a few minutes ago. This explanation works for me.
It’s very easy to take portions of scripture at simple face value, ignoring what was happening at the time that particular passage was written.
The best educated guess by the experts is that the Gospel According to Matthew was written by an unknown author in the mid 80s.
The Romans destroyed the temple in Jerusalem in about the year 70. By this time, the Followers of the Way, as the first Christians were known, had been expelled from the temple as it was no longer in existence. The followers were no longer considered a sect of Judaism. Too many gentiles had become followers for the Jewish elite to even consider letting them be a minute part of the Hebrew religion.
About four years before the destruction of the temple, the Romans began a very serious persecution of the Jews and the Followers of the Way. The religions of the Hebrews and of The Followers were monotheistic. Neither allowed the worship of any other gods. Remember, the Romans worshiped and followed many gods, and they accepted the emperor as a divine being. This refusal to worship the Roman gods is what was instrumental in causing the persecution.
At this time, Rome didn’t treat very kindly the Jewish zealots or the followers. The Hebrews and The Followers were exiled into the furthest parts of the Roman Empire.
In the culture of that era, children were required to respect and obey their parents. Women were expected to honor and follow the lead of their mothers-in-law. These were hard and fast mores.
There are those who say that Jesus said what is recorded in Matthew’s gospel as a prediction as to what was to come some 35 or so years after his death and resurrection.
And then there are those who hold to the theory that the author of Matthew put the words in the mouth of Jesus to explain what was happening in the decades following the destruction of the temple.
Still others feel that some later editor added more information to Matthew’s account of what was going on in the lives of the Hebrews and of the Followers of the Way at that time.
Was there a bounty paid by the Roman government to anyone who turned in a zealous Jew or a Follower of the Way? Is that possibly why family members would turn on each other? I don’t have any answers to those questions.
It wasn’t the “in” thing to be a Follower of the Way or a Jew for that matter. In fact, it was downright dangerous.
I don’t know who is correct about the source of the statements attributed to Jesus in this morning’s gospel lesson.
What I think is important is that this is one more chapter in the life of the church, and it’s a very special early chapter in our life about how we, as a church, came to be. And, thanks be to God, we who live in this country do not have to be worried about persecution and being turned in for being a Christian. But if one of us were on trial for being a Christian, would there be enough evidence for a conviction?