Our Logic vs The Lord's Logic... Pt. 2

But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong. (I Corinthians 1:27)

The Illogical Sermon On The Mount

Love your enemies; pray for those who persecute you; if you are slapped on the right cheek, offer them the left; if you are forced to go with someone one mile, go with them two miles; if anyone wants to sue you for your shirt, hand over your coat as well; do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you. These teachings go so much against our natures that they must originate from the mind of God.  They may sound sweet and holy, but in our hearts of hearts, in our man-based-logic they make no sense.

Let us list the things Jesus commanded His people to do in Matthew 5-6 and see how they compare with the logic of man:
1. You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ 22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.

The best interpretation of this passage is the most straightforward one.  When we understand that each believer is a brother to Christ, and that Jesus said in Matthew 25:40, ‘...Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me, it must be concluded that an personal insult to another professing

christian is also an attack on Jesus.  It is a sin for one believer to personally attack another one.  It is a sin to be repented of.  A professing christian who continually does this should very seriously examine his profession of christianity.  It is true that Jesus called people fools (Luke 12:20), but Jesus is God and had an insight into the hearts of those he was addressing.  We do not have such abilities.  Also, those who Christ called fools were not believers.

2.  if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother or sister has something against you, 24 leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to them; then come and offer your gift.

Lawsuits between christians should not exist.  We are advised by Christ to reconcile ourselves to our brothers and sisters in Christ before even praying.

3.  Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to court. Do it while you are still together on the way, or your adversary may hand you over to the judge, and the judge may hand you over to the officer, and you may be thrown into prison.

Even when dealing with a disagreement with a non-believer, christians are advised to settle the matter quickly before it goes to the courts.

4.  I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

The law of man punishes an action not a

thought.  So it was with the Law of Moses, actions were punished.  But Jesus who gave this law to Moses understood the true intent of it.  It cuts deep into the secret sinful parts of the human heart.  Just a feeling of lust in the heart is to God the equivalent of doing the actual act of adultery.  Since all men have at one time or the other had lustful thoughts toward women, there is no hope for any apart from the saving death of Christ on the cross.

5.  You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.  39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.

Some in the past, have seen this verse as a form of passive resistance towards an oppressor. The well documented explanation in a Google search can be summarized by this wikiwand article. Here is a summary of the explanation:

At the time of Jesus, says Wink, striking with the back of the hand a person, who was deemed to be of a lower socioeconomic class, was used as a means to assert authority and dominance. If the persecuted person "turned the other cheek," the discipliner was faced with a dilemma: The left hand was used for unclean purposes, so a back-hand strike on the opposite cheek would not be performed. An alternative would be a slap with the open hand as a challenge or to punch the person, but this was seen as a statement of equality. Thus, by turning the other cheek, the persecuted was demanding equality.

This idea has little support in the historical context of Jesus's time.  John Granger Cook wrote in 2014 a rebuttal of this view is summarized:

There seems to be no evidence in Greco-Roman (pagan) texts that a backhanded (or left-handed) slap was especially blameworthy. That evidence is confined to certain Jewish texts, in particular to rabbinic texts. The consequences for the interpretation of Mt. 5.39 are clear. ‘If anyone slaps you on the right cheek’ is a saying best understood by a Jewish audience, some of whom would have probably been aware that such a strike was a gross insult. A Gentile Christian audience, on the other hand, would not have been aware of the extreme humiliation involved in being slapped on the right cheek...

This view can be further confirmed by the context of Jesus's words that he is not asserting some kind of resistance, but the opposite submission to authority.  He says in earlier in the same verse, "...do not resist an evil person." (Matthew 5:38) . Again, this interpretation of Jesus's words is an attempt to take the profound reasoning of God and make it palatable for man's logic.

6.  If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well.

Some have tried to make this statement look silly, by stating that Jesus could not have meant this, since it would have left the individual naked, which was prohibited in the Bible.  They forget that:

The terms most used for clothes in general were, in the Old Testament, cadhin, simlah, salmah, and in the New Testament himation (Matthew 21:7; 24:18; 26:65; Luke 8:27) and enduma (Matthew 22:11; compare Matthew 7:15), plural, though the oldest and most widely distributed article of human apparel was probably the "loin-cloth" (Hebrew 'ezor), entirely different from "girdle" (Greek zone). Biblical references for clothes are nearly all to the costume of the males, owing doubtless to the fact that the garments ordinarily used indoors were worn alike by men and women.

This article of clothing was worn beneath the cloak and tunic mentioned here.  The essential message is to give your enemy more than he has asked for.  This logic goes against human logic which always tries to bargain to give less than is asked.

7.  If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles.

This is explained as part of the efficient transportation of the mail throughout the Roman empire.  Jesus was telling his followers to go beyond the law:

Cyrus the Great, the king of Persia, invented the postal system to carry letters and documents from one place to another. To make his system work, any courier could force anyone to carry the mail for one mile, but only one mile. The Romans adopted this system for their military to keep their soldiers from getting worn out from carrying heavy backpacks, which weighed about 66 pounds. Roman soldiers could compel any Jew to carry his backpack for one mile. Roman roads had mile markers similar to the mile markers we have today on Interstate highways, so it was easy to know where each mile started and ended. If someone refused to do it, he would be flogged.

8.  Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

Lazarus

By the time Jesus uttered those words, the society in Judah had become hard towards the poor.  Although the Old Testament was very specific in how the poor and widow were to be treated (Psalms 41:1; 72:12 ff; Proverbs 17:5; 22:9; 28:3,17; Isaiah 58:7; Jeremiah 22:16; Ezekiel 18:17; Daniel 4:27; Zechariah 7:10, etc.; compare Job 29:12,16; 30:25; 31:19; Ps 112:9), already in the book of Exodus Israel is warned as to how the

poor should be treated, If thou afflict them at all, and they cry at all unto me, I will surely hear their cry; and my wrath shall wax hot,” or "take care lest there be an unworthy thought in your heart and you say, ‘The seventh year, the year of release is near,’ and your eye look grudgingly on your poor brother, and you give him nothing, and he cry to the LORD against you, and you be guilty of sin." (Deuteronomy 15:9), or Job 31:16, If I have withheld anything that the poor desired,  or have caused the eyes of the widow to fail.  In the promised land God desired that there be NO poor, Deuteronomy 15:4, But there will be no poor among you; for the LORD will bless you in the land that the LORD your God is giving you for an inheritance to possess—.

There was a method that was used to defraud not only people you owed money to but even your own obligation to support your parents in their old age.  In Mark 7:9-13 Jesus stated:

“You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition! 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’  11 But you say, ‘If a man tells his father or his mother, “Whatever you would have gained from me is Corban”’ (that is, given to God)4— 12 then you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother, 13 thus making void the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And many such things you do.”

 Korban was a gift offered to the treasury of the temple.  Once given, it was supposed to be sacred to the Lord.  But by the time of Jesus the traditions of the Pharisees had circumvented this problem as the Jewish historian Josephus explains:

“T. W. Manson’s description of the practice is particularly trenchant: ‘A man goes through the formality of vowing something to God, not that he may give it to God, but in order to prevent some other person from having it.’ This was not the end of the matter, however. Once property had been offered to God, priests discouraged anyone from withdrawing it from Corban in order to return it to human use. According to Josephus, priests required fifty shekels from a man, and thirty from a woman, to cancel Corban (Ant. 4.73). The practice of Corban resulted in egregious casuistry by annulling a moral commandment of the Torah [law] (honor of parents) by a ritual practice of the oral tradition (Corban). A concrete and unambiguous moral good, ‘Honor your father an mother,’ is not simply thereby nullified but actually reversed by forbidding a child to do ‘anything for his father or mother.’”

Origen

In an excellent and rather complete discussion of this passage and what the Pharisaical traditions were, Origen an early church father speaking of Korban states:

He learned from his Jewish informant that there existed a method of spiteful revenge on debtors who possessed the means to repay their loans but refused to do so: the creditors would declare that the money owed was korban-a gift to the poor. The money was now owed to God, and while the creditor would not be repaid, he had the satisfaction of knowing that the debtor had not escaped scot free. This system, Origen argued, was transferred by the Pharisees to the realm of support owed parents by their children. A child could shirk his obligation to support his parents by declaring that the money was now korban. As in the case of the creditor above, the child could not keep the money himself; no savings to him resulted, since the money had to go to the Temple. The child's only benefit was spite. Why would the Pharisees enact such a law? Origen explained that the Pharisees did so because they desired to increase revenues, which they hoped to control. The Pharisees took these steps because of their love of money, as we learn from Luke 16: 14.

9.  You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven.
We cite a contemporary article by the reformed Jews, which makes an interesting contrast to the words of Jesus:

The Torah tells us to be fair, just, and giving, even to our enemy. It does not tell us to love our enemy, nor does it tell us to hate him or her. The Torah recognizes reality. Loving our friend and neighbor is easy. Loving our enemy is probably impossible, and that is why our Torah does not command such a thing. While recognizing the reality of human nature, our tradition also emphasizes our ability to do battle with the power of the yetzer hara, “evil inclination.” Yes, you may hate your enemy, but do not allow that hatred to consume you, to destroy you, and to lead you to forfeit your opportunity to remain in a covenant with God.

Interestingly enough, In Leviticus 19:18 God tells the people of Israel to love their neighbor as they love themselves.  So if the neighbor happens to be an enemy, you must love him.  How about in Proverbs 25:21, where is states to feed your enemy if he is hungry and water if he is thirsty?  Is this consistent with hating him?  Is there a passage in the Bible where it says to hate your enemy?

10.  Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.

These words get at the heart of what human logic craves - recognition from other men.  But there are only two choices.  Either get praise from men, or get praise from God.  Jesus received a lot of public attention from men, but he was not craving it.  Likewise, godly men will at time receive attention from men, but that is not why they do anything.

11.  ...when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. 3 But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4 so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

Joachin Jeremias

In Joachim Jeremias' book Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus: An Investigation into Economic and Social Conditions During the New Testament Period it states:

Nakdimon b. Gorion practised an individual kind of charity, for it is said that on his way to the school he had woollen blankets spread out in his path so that the poor could collect them up behind him (b. Ket. 66b-67a Bar.).

This shows that there was a practice of bringing attention of alms-giving by some.

Alfred Edersheim

Edersheim in his Life and Times of Jesus The Messiah states:

In the Court of the Women there were thirteen trumpet-shaped chests for pecuniary contributions, called trumpets.'

Probably the best explanation for the allusion Jesus made is that given by Bible-History:

It is probably in ironical allusion to the form and name of these treasure-chests that the Lord, making use of the word 'trumpet,' describes the conduct of those who, in their almsgiving, sought glory from men as 'sounding a trumpet' before them (Matthew 6:2)--that is, carrying before them, as it were, in full display one of these trumpet-shaped alms-boxes (literally called in the Talmud, 'trumpets'), and, as it were, sounding it.
The allusion is all the more pointed, when we bear in mind that each of these trumpets had a mark to tell its special object. It seems strange that this interpretation should not have occurred to any of the commentators, who have always found the allusion such a crux interpretum. An article in the Bible Educator has since substantially adopted this view, adding that trumpets were blown when the alms were collected. But for the latter statement there is no historical authority whatever, and it would contravene the religious spirit of the times.

12.  When you fast, do not look somber as the hypocrites do, for they disfigure their faces to show others they are fasting. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full.

The Greek word for hypocrite is also used as our word actor.  It is only natural to the human ego that when something is done in the way of a sacrifice, it wants praise.  Jesus speaks against this.  If men want praise from other men or some sort of recognition, then that is all the reward they will receive.

John Gill

John Gill, a Baptist minister who was well-studied in Jewish writings, states that:

...not by covering them out of sight, by putting a veil over them, as some have thought; but they neglected to wash their faces, and make them clean, as at other times; and not only so, but put ashes upon their heads, and other methods they used: they discoloured their faces, or "made" them "black", as the Arabic version reads it; that they might look as if they became so through fasting: and such persons were in great esteem, and thought to be very religious. It is said in commendation of R. Joshua ben Chanamah, that all his days, "his face was black", through fastings; and this is said to be the reason of Ashur's name, in ( 1 Chronicles 4:5 ) because "his face was black" with fasting: yea, they looked upon such a disfiguring of the face to be meritorious, and what would be rewarded hereafter.

``Whoever "makes his face black", on account of the law in this world, God will make his brightness to shine in the world to come.''

13. if you forgive other people when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. 15 But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.

Although the example that will be shown is one in the arena of politics, it does show how vicious curses sent against someone in the ancient world could be. The quotes from a vassal treaty between the king of Assyria and one of his subordinate puppet states.  If the vassal (servant king) broke or try to undo the treaty in any way, here is what would happen to him and his nation:

May Venus, the brightest among the stars, let your wives lie in the embrace of your enemy before your very eyes, may your sons not have authority over your house, may a foreign enemy divide your possessions; may Gula, the great physician, put illness and weariness into your hearts, an unhealing sore in your body, so that you bathe in your own blood as if in water.

Pazuzu King of Wind Demons (Assyria)

Finally in summary the treaty goes on:

May the great gods of heaven and earth, who inhabit the world, all those are named in this tablet, strike you down, look with disfavor upon you, curse you angrily with a baleful curse, on earth, may they uproot you from the living, below, may they deprive your spirit of water, (libations), may they chaw you away from both shade and sunlight so that you cannot take refuge in a hidden corner, may food and drink forsake you, and hunger, want, famine, and pestilence never leave you, may dogs and pigs drag around in the squares of Ashur the ...of your young women, the ...of your young men before your very eyes, may the earth not receive your body for burial, may the bellies of dogs and pigs be your burial place, your days should be someber, your years dark, may they decree for you an unrelieved darkness, your lives should end in sighs and sleeplessness, may a flood, an irresistible deluge, rise from the bowels of the earth, and devastate you, may all that is good be abhorrent to you, all that is evil be bestowed upon you, let tar and pitch be your food, donkey urine your drink, naptha your ointment, river rushes your covers, and evil spirits, demons and lurkers select your houses (as their abode).

The Death of Jesus

What pagan god in the ancient near East would allow himself to be spit upon and humiliated to the point of death by men?  Yes there are some cases where gods are stripped of their powers by other gods and for a short period of time, but not by men.  Jesus remained silent

while false charges were made against him, refusing to defend himself.  By man's logic this would have never happened.  It makes no sense on one level, for God himself to the blame for the sins of others.  It makes no sense for him to come to this earth as a poor son of a carpenter with few possessions.  In man's logic and even

in the expectation of the Jews of His day, Jesus would have come as a noble king and had others serve him.  But he instead came to serve and not to be served.

The Resurrection of Jesus Christ

People do not come back to life.  Death of loved one is the sad ending that many have experienced.  But in Jesus' case his death was a devastation to his disciples who had forsaken all to follow him.  It was the end of their world.  Human logic dictated that this was the end of Jesus.  All the promises he made depended on his being alive to carry them out. 

The Romans were done with him and rid of him.  The jewish leaders were also assured by the rules of the world they knew of that he was out of their lives forever.  But in God's logic, this was all part of a plan.  A plan which the unenlightened mind of man could never bring itself to believe. 

Paul The Persecutor

Human logic would not have picked an orthodox enemy of Christianity like Paul of Tarsus to be its greatest adherent.  He had previously arrested, and had christians killed with an official mandate from the Jewish government in Jerusalem.  Paul was present at the illegal murder of Stephen in Acts 7.  Members of the political leaders - the Sanhedrin were there and were involved the murder.  After this event, Paul took it upon himself to "destroy" the Church of God (Acts 8:3) going house to house and dragging men and women to prison.  In Acts 22:4-5 Paul himself states, 

I persecuted the followers of this Way to their death, arresting both men and women and throwing them into prison, as also the high priest and all the Council can testify. I even obtained letters from them to their brothers in Damascus, and went there to bring these people as prisoners to Jerusalem to be punished.

Would this be the man that human logic would pick to be Christianity's greatest human leader?  A man that described himself as the chief of sinners (I Timothy 1:15)??  Would this be the person we would pick as a model of the church?  Why not have picked someone who had never persecuted the church?  Why not pick someone who had always been faithful to the word the moment he heard it?  This might be our choice but it was not God's.

Not all the things that God did which go against human logic have been shown.  Joseph's rise to power in Egypt has not been mentioned, wherein God used the jealous anger of his brothers to save Israel in the a future time of famine.  Why this roundabout method of putting Joseph in power?  Why once in Egypt did the Lord put Joseph through the false accusations of Potiphar's wife? Why did he keep him in prison for so long?

Peter crucified upside down

The kind of disciples he picked, Peter an ignorant fisherman for example, who later betrayed Jesus after bragging he would never abandon him.  The same man who played the hypocrite with Paul when he ate with the gentiles but left them and sat with the Jews when certain Jews arrived who disagreed with Paul insisting that gentile christians had to subject themselves to Jewish law, such as circumcision and ritual bathing. (Galatians 2:13) . But in the end it was precisely this man who God would use in a great way.

Brothers and sisters, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. (I Corinthians 1:26)

This religion of the poor and downtrodden was the one God used to bring the truth to the millions in darkness.  Within less than one hundred years there would be christians in all parts of the Roman Empire, even in the palace of the Emperor himself.

click to enlarge

God uses his logic so as to glorify himself and show that man had nothing to do with the great events that happened.  

But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. God chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things--and the things that are not--to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him.  (I Corinthians 1:27-29)