All ancient books recognized as scripture by the different religions share something in common. They are all shaped by an ancient, pre-modern worldview. This causes some difficulty in reading and interpreting as we try to bridge horizons between then and now.
It is all the more difficult when these ancient texts give us moral guidelines that are repugnant to us. I do not think that humanity has evolved in the last 3,000 years in terms of essential changes to the human psyche and its associated behaviors. We are just as violent and aggressive now. We are just as kind and loving now. But, in that time human thinking and expectations have evolved. There is an accumulated wisdom. Much of the wisdom derives from the ancient texts and has stood the test of time. We still rely on this wisdom. I am thinking of issues like, “Do not kill.” Though an ancient idea, it remains very much part of that which we ought not to do. The ancient wisdom has been supplemented and given newer explanations in ideas such as the dignity of the human person, the right to personal autonomy and other human rights. We generally find it easy to reject elements of the ancient traditions that we have outgrown (and for good reasons). We have rejected the imperative to stone adulterers to death or to cut off a hand for stealing a loaf of bread or to consider a woman unclean for an extended period after childbirth.
Yet, religious folk still have a hard time rejecting something ostensibly from the mouth of the “founder” of a religion, be it Moses, the Buddha, Jesus, Muhammad or the Guru Nanak. For good reasons, we treat the sayings of these people with extra respect. I think that was the motivation behind the publishers who include the sayings of Jesus in red in some Bibles. The words in red are the extra special words among all the other special words.
Among these sayings of Jesus is a well-known passage about sorting out difficulties in a community. When a sister or brother sins against you, you are to talk to them to sort it out. If there is no response take a few others to try to fix it. If there is still no joy take it to the whole community. If the offender still remains unmoved, treat them like a Gentile or tax collector. This has often been taken to mean to shun them, to have no further dealing with them. Of course, a more interesting interpretation of this is to treat people as Jesus treated Gentiles and tax collectors. He loved them, had food with them and became friends with them.
Jesus then tells a story about a couple of debtors and ends with this:
“His Lord handed him over to be tortured until he would pay his entire debt. So my heavenly Father will also do to every one of you, if you do not forgive your brother or sister from your heart.”
After such an instructive and wise set of teachings about forgiving offences, and a practical method of dealing with disputes we find ourselves enmeshed again in worldview that we find intolerable. Forgive under the threat of torture! Torture is about power over, about coercion, about inflicting pain and suffering to achieve some end. We also know now that psychologically very little good is ever produced through torture. Any confessions made or information received is often bogus. Under extreme pain human beings will say whatever the torturer wants to escape the suffering.
It is for good reasons that the United Nations under the guidance of Eleanor Roosevelt included this statement in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
“Article 5.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
Whenever a government official tries to tell you that what they are doing is not this, but something different, there is prima facie evidence to suggest that this is exactly what they are doing!
Returning to the words of Jesus that tell us that God the Father-Mother is prepared to torture people (an this is a large element in the traditional church doctrine about eternal hell fire) what are we to make of it?
There are four options:
a) This is the teaching of Jesus and we must accept it. God endorses torture.
b) This is the teaching of Jesus and it does not mean what it seems to say.
c) This is a redaction of the early church. It is editorial comment and does not come from the mouth of Jesus. It is fine to reject it.
d) Even if this is the teaching of Jesus, it reflects Jesus as a person of his own day. It is part of first century culture. We are free to reject it.
In part, the option you choose will depend on other things, like how you treat the scriptures, and how ancient texts affect contemporary moral issues among others. If you think every word of the Bible is inspired by God and must be accepted as true, this text will provide problems. It will leave you believing something repugnant or else wriggling to find a more palatable interpretation of the kind, “It doesn’t mean what it seems to say, it means something else entirely . . .” People have made entire careers out of explaining away what the Bible plainly seems to say.
For me, there is nothing redeeming in the idea of torture. I reject torture as demeaning to human relationships and an unworthy idea to project onto God who is love. That Jesus was a child of his day seems incontrovertible. That Jesus embraced ideas we now find repugnant—often on the basis of the other things Jesus said—seems also clear. Did the early church editors add to the words of Jesus? I’m sure they did, but sifting through the sayings and deciding which is which is, as we now say, “above my pay grade.” I leave that to other specialized Biblical scholars.
+Ab. Andy
It is all the more difficult when these ancient texts give us moral guidelines that are repugnant to us. I do not think that humanity has evolved in the last 3,000 years in terms of essential changes to the human psyche and its associated behaviors. We are just as violent and aggressive now. We are just as kind and loving now. But, in that time human thinking and expectations have evolved. There is an accumulated wisdom. Much of the wisdom derives from the ancient texts and has stood the test of time. We still rely on this wisdom. I am thinking of issues like, “Do not kill.” Though an ancient idea, it remains very much part of that which we ought not to do. The ancient wisdom has been supplemented and given newer explanations in ideas such as the dignity of the human person, the right to personal autonomy and other human rights. We generally find it easy to reject elements of the ancient traditions that we have outgrown (and for good reasons). We have rejected the imperative to stone adulterers to death or to cut off a hand for stealing a loaf of bread or to consider a woman unclean for an extended period after childbirth.
Yet, religious folk still have a hard time rejecting something ostensibly from the mouth of the “founder” of a religion, be it Moses, the Buddha, Jesus, Muhammad or the Guru Nanak. For good reasons, we treat the sayings of these people with extra respect. I think that was the motivation behind the publishers who include the sayings of Jesus in red in some Bibles. The words in red are the extra special words among all the other special words.
Among these sayings of Jesus is a well-known passage about sorting out difficulties in a community. When a sister or brother sins against you, you are to talk to them to sort it out. If there is no response take a few others to try to fix it. If there is still no joy take it to the whole community. If the offender still remains unmoved, treat them like a Gentile or tax collector. This has often been taken to mean to shun them, to have no further dealing with them. Of course, a more interesting interpretation of this is to treat people as Jesus treated Gentiles and tax collectors. He loved them, had food with them and became friends with them.
Jesus then tells a story about a couple of debtors and ends with this:
“His Lord handed him over to be tortured until he would pay his entire debt. So my heavenly Father will also do to every one of you, if you do not forgive your brother or sister from your heart.”
After such an instructive and wise set of teachings about forgiving offences, and a practical method of dealing with disputes we find ourselves enmeshed again in worldview that we find intolerable. Forgive under the threat of torture! Torture is about power over, about coercion, about inflicting pain and suffering to achieve some end. We also know now that psychologically very little good is ever produced through torture. Any confessions made or information received is often bogus. Under extreme pain human beings will say whatever the torturer wants to escape the suffering.
It is for good reasons that the United Nations under the guidance of Eleanor Roosevelt included this statement in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
“Article 5.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
Whenever a government official tries to tell you that what they are doing is not this, but something different, there is prima facie evidence to suggest that this is exactly what they are doing!
Returning to the words of Jesus that tell us that God the Father-Mother is prepared to torture people (an this is a large element in the traditional church doctrine about eternal hell fire) what are we to make of it?
There are four options:
a) This is the teaching of Jesus and we must accept it. God endorses torture.
b) This is the teaching of Jesus and it does not mean what it seems to say.
c) This is a redaction of the early church. It is editorial comment and does not come from the mouth of Jesus. It is fine to reject it.
d) Even if this is the teaching of Jesus, it reflects Jesus as a person of his own day. It is part of first century culture. We are free to reject it.
In part, the option you choose will depend on other things, like how you treat the scriptures, and how ancient texts affect contemporary moral issues among others. If you think every word of the Bible is inspired by God and must be accepted as true, this text will provide problems. It will leave you believing something repugnant or else wriggling to find a more palatable interpretation of the kind, “It doesn’t mean what it seems to say, it means something else entirely . . .” People have made entire careers out of explaining away what the Bible plainly seems to say.
For me, there is nothing redeeming in the idea of torture. I reject torture as demeaning to human relationships and an unworthy idea to project onto God who is love. That Jesus was a child of his day seems incontrovertible. That Jesus embraced ideas we now find repugnant—often on the basis of the other things Jesus said—seems also clear. Did the early church editors add to the words of Jesus? I’m sure they did, but sifting through the sayings and deciding which is which is, as we now say, “above my pay grade.” I leave that to other specialized Biblical scholars.
+Ab. Andy