Seeing God (part 5)

Continuing the quest for knowledge, and specifically to ascertain the defining characteristics of those that are “pure in heart,” who are also those that will “see God,” it is now time to forward in the sermon to the sixth chapter.  It is there that one encounters the second and only other use of “heart” in the course of this dissertation from the mountain.  This usage will prove to be quite beneficial in the quest.  It will not only impart knowledge, but also, along with so much else being said here, inform the ethical, practical, and performative mandate in association with the Christian’s charge to be the place where heaven and earth come together---the Creator God’s will being done on earth as in heaven. 

Interestingly enough, the “Lord’s Prayer,” from which these words of the covenant God’s will, earth, and heaven are lifted, constitute a portion of the preface to the second presentation of the heart.  It is worth mentioning that just as Jesus’ sermon began with a mention of the kingdom of heaven (5:3), so too does Jesus’ prayer include a mention of the kingdom of heaven within its opening statements, as Jesus says “Our Father in heaven, may Your name be honored, may Your kingdom come, may your will be done on earth as it is in heaven” (Matthew 6:9b-10). 

From there, it is not necessary to travel a great number of verses before hearing the context for Jesus’ mention of the heart.  Beginning in the nineteenth verse of this same chapter Jesus says “Do not accumulate for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal.  But accumulate for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and thieves do not break in and steal” (6:19-20). 

Given Jesus’ clear understanding that it is His God’s desire that His will be performed on earth as in heaven, and given the context of the kingdom of heaven come to earth that is everywhere present in Matthew’s narrative as well as being the foundational structure for this particular sermon, Jesus is not drawing a hard and fast dichotomy between the earthly realm and the heavenly realm.  Indeed, as it His intention to establish the Creator God’s kingdom on earth, the seeming dichotomy between earth (usually conceived of as the physical realm that is occupied by man) and heaven (usually conceived of as the aspired-to final destination of Christians) actually disappears. 

It is paramount to hear Jesus speaking from within His own culture and its conceptions, rather than from the position of a religious culture that is overly and improperly defined by Greek (primarily Platonic) and Enlightenment-driven thoughts of the separation of the physical from the spiritual.  Given the Jewish hope that the covenant God would establish His reign through His Messiah, restoring His creation as an attendant feature of the establishment of His kingdom, one would correctly hear Jesus speaking of earth and heaven in terms of past and future.  Treasures on earth would be linked to the old world and the old way of doing things prior to the coming of the Creator God’s kingdom that is heralded by the presence of Jesus, whereas treasures in heaven are linked to the new way of doing things, in association with the recognition of the God of Israel’s rule having come to earth.

It is following this talk of treasure, and its earthly (pre-kingdom of God) usage versus its heavenly (kingdom having come) usage, that Jesus speaks of the heart.  He says “For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also” (6:21).  Yes, the disposition of one’s treasure reveals the disposition of the heart.  Clearly then, purity of heart is linked to the accumulation and disposition of treasure in ways that are commensurate with the establishment and extension of the kingdom of heaven.  

Seeing God (part 4)

Now it can certainly be said that the one that engages in adultery, whether through the actual and physical action or through the desire of which Jesus here speaks, would not be spoken of as being pure in heart.  To that one would add that this does not really take an observer any further down the path towards seeing the Creator God, which is said to be the lot of those that are pure in heart.  Again, Jesus is making some programmatic statements, which would imply that He has a program in mind.  Likewise, Matthew presents Jesus programmatically, so it behooves the reader to allow the sermon to build on its statements internally, while also looking for the way in which the sermon works itself out in application to the entirety of the narrative that is on offer in the whole of Matthew. 

Before moving on to the next “heart” statement, let it be noted that there are many uses of “heart” throughout Matthew’s Gospel, and all of them escape the lips of Jesus.  However, it is reasonable to presume that the explanation of what it means to be “pure in heart” is to be found within the sermon, as Jesus goes on to define His own terms within this bracketed context.  Here, one must also consider the possibility that Matthew has taken teachings of Jesus that were offered up in various times and places, and grouped them all together into this one “sermon,” especially if he was desirous of highlighting Jesus as a Moses-like figure, thus fulfilling the Deuteronomic insistence that another prophet would arise like Moses. 

A reinforcement of such a notion, though one could also consider that Jesus spoke what is heard from Him in Matthew on numerous occasions, including this one, comes from the fact that Luke has Jesus saying much the same thing (though quite a bit less than Matthew) on a plain, rather than from a mountain.  Along with that, if looking to the Gospel of Mark and again considering that Jesus can indeed say these things on more than one occasion (which is quite the reasonable and probable proposition), then one sees a fair number of Jesus’ pronouncements, mountain-related in Matthew, scattered throughout Mark’s narrative.  So if it is the case that Matthew has purposely grouped together these words of instruction from Jesus, remembering that they, regardless of the format in which they are presented, present Jesus’ conception of the life of the citizens of the Creator God’s kingdom, then it is all the more important to allow for an internal consistency, with terms defined by the sermon itself.  This is what is being attempted in regards to the term “pure in heart.” 

Now, having mentioned Deuteronomy in the context of Matthew’s desire to present Jesus as a lawgiver Who is like Moses but, in fact, superior to Moses (“you have heard that it was said… but I say”), it is worth going there to review what it was that was reported to have been spoken by Moses.  Now whether or not Moses actually said these things, and there is little reason to dispute this (though some do), such would not change the fact that Israel understood itself and defined itself according to its historical narrative (which included Deuteronomy), and especially that of the exodus and its attendant events (Sinai, the giving of the law, the wilderness wandering, entrance into the promised land, etc…). 

Upon arrival there one finds “The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you---from your fellow Israelites; you must listen to him” (18:15).  This is then confirmed by the voice of the Lord, Who says “I will raise up a prophet like you for them from among their fellow Israelites.  I will put My words in his mouth and he will speak to them whatever I command” (18:18).  In between the two insistences that such will take place, which Matthew must simply have in mind as he constructs his theologically-tinged biography of Jesus, Moses says “This accords with what happened at Horeb in the day of the assembly” (18:16a).  So when Moses speaks about the prophet like himself, he actually connects it to what took place on a mountain.  It is then unsurprising to hear Jesus speaking from a mountain, which makes the Moses-related point even more forcefully.

No One Knows The Hour (part 4)

For the sake of rounding out the Biblical picture, it’s worth noting what Mark presents in association with the fig tree and the mountain.  Mark reports Jesus as saying “Whenever you stand praying, if you have anything against anyone, forgive him, so that you Father in heaven will also forgive your sins” (11:25).  In contrast, and though clearly utilizing the Markan narrative to provide the basis for his own, Luke omits any mention of the fig tree or mountain, moving directly to Jesus return to the Temple courts and the challenge to Jesus’ authority that comes from the temple authorities. 

Though this study will not spill a great deal of ink with conjecture on why Matthew and Mark include the story of the withered fig tree whereas Luke does not, one could surmise that the appearances of the fig tree in the Matthean and Markan narratives, with both (Matthew most likely relying on Mark) connecting the withered fig tree with the mountain to be removed, could possibly have some bearing on the conclusions to be drawn.  Perhaps its appearance and correspondence to the mountain that is in view (the Temple mount, so it is both literal and metaphorical) is somehow linked to Jesus’ insistence that no man knows the day or the hour, which, as has been pointed out, is to be found in Matthew and Mark, but not in Luke.  Certainly, the fig tree did not expect to wither on that day and at that moment---it clearly did not know the hour.  

In addition, it is necessary to acknowledge and report the divergence in the Gospel stories surrounding Jesus’ triumphal entry.  An honest observer does not simply ignore these things and pretend that they are not there, though it is also quite possible to insist that differences in detail do not derail from the overall message of the accounts nor do the differences really present much cause for concern, primarily because the authors (and that world in general) did not operate with the strict, modern, western notions in regards to “doing history”.  Fluidity in reports were acceptable, as long as the major details remained intact, especially when any glaring problems could and would be corrected by the oral/aural community, which was often a far better guardian of stories in that day than was the written word.  

That said, Matthew’s account has already been detailed here quite well.  Owing to the fact that Mark is believed to be foundational for Matthew and Luke’s account, it must be said that it is Matthew’s account that is divergent, rather than Mark’s.  The divergences are accounted for by each author having slightly different goals for the telling of the Jesus story as received by their target audiences in the growing Jesus community that they want to achieve through the delivery of their accounts.  So even though each has the goal of setting forth the story of Jesus, each comes at it from a slightly different angle, which is perfectly understandable.  Honestly, it needs to be said that if each told the story in the same way, the world would have no need for multiple Gospels, and Christendom and the world at large would lack the rich and manifold witness to Jesus provided by these evangelists---not to mention their diverse perspectives and portrayals of Jesus that serve to provide a more complete sense and picture of the one that so many call Lord.

What are those divergences?  For Mark, Jesus does head to the Temple upon the occasion of His triumphal entry into Jerusalem.  However, Mark does not record Him immediately engaging with the buyers, sellers, and money changers, nor making His Jeremiah-esque stand.  In Mark’s telling, this takes place on the following day, which is also the day that Jesus speaks to the fig tree while on His way to Jerusalem.  However, in Mark’s presentation of that detail, and even though the fig tree may indeed have immediately withered, the disciples do not comment on this withering until the following day, which is when Jesus offers up His commentary concerning the fig tree, the mountain, and the need to offer forgiveness.