Confusion

 Perhaps great literature, The Sermon on the Mount included, takes on a different meaning to each reader. If it actually occurred as Matthew reported, The Sermon leaves room for interpretation. A modern liberal person might interpret it as mandating that righteousness requires that we minister to those who are poor in spirit or in mourning while simultaneously emulating the peacemakers. That is hardly an interpretation “devoutly wished” by modern fundamentalists.

On the other hand, another reader might say that is a higher order model of the perfect Christian life, one not to be reached but to be aspired to in our earthly journey. It has been said that a person must fail to reach the teachings of The Sermon in a capitalistic society. Even some of the scribes and Pharisees so beloved by many of the fundamentalists of today teach that by ignoring the Beatitudes we can gain both prosperity on Earth and a seat in Heaven.

That’s the difficulty with famous writings containing higher-order thoughts. They can at one time support both social justice and social injustice. No less a beloved (by some) figure as Robert E. Lee could, in one mind, profess both an abiding religion and a belief that his African-American brothers and sisters were lesser breeds of the same species and their subjugation warranted wholesale murder of his fellow Americans.

He read the same Bible as Martin Luther King Jr. What passages prompted such cognitive confusion?

One passage, as we’ve observed before, has merited a great deal of attention throughout modern history. That one is: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (5-1:17-19 RSV)

Writers and thinkers divide their opinions along four major lines as they pertain to this pronouncement by the Galilean.

1. He meant exactly what he said.

2. He was just joking

3. He was adding onto “The Law,” taking away nothing but adding much.

4. He was changing things but didn’t want everyone to figure that out right away.

The decision rests far above the ability of our meager minds to make. Taking them in order, though, we might observe the following.

Option One can create some awfully confused and troubled people.

Option Two seems to be the favorite of the conservative political party and its fundamentalist base.

Option Three may have influenced the Pauline movement more than any other.

Option Four implies a delicious subtlety most fitting my personal view of the Galilean.

Please feel free to choose your own.