Do we or don’t we? Do Matt 5:16 and 6:1 contradict each other?
“…Let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven.”
“Be careful not to do your 'acts of righteousness' before men, to be seen by them.”
At first glance you can see how a skeptic might see those two instructions as contradictory: Do your good works in front of people. Don’t do your good works in front of people.
But is that really the way to read them? There are a few different things to be said about this “contradiction.”
First, words matter. Calling this a contradiction assumes that “good deeds” and “acts of righteousness” are the same thing. That is not obvious, especially if you read the kinds of things that follow each instruction – they are two rather different lists.
Second, meaning matters. Even if those two phrases mean the same thing, they are not self-contained thoughts. Merely comparing the two sentences should be enough to make the message clear: Your goal is supposed to be bringing glory to God, not you.
Third, message matters. These sentences are not self-contained. Each begins a new, but related, idea in this sermon:
We are to shine a light in this world so that people will see God through us. Our righteousness needs to be more than just the external observance of the Law. We don’t just shun murder but also hate. We must avoid adultery and also lust and divorce. As people of the truth we don’t just keep our oaths but make every word as reliable as an oath. And we must love those who hate us and even those who abuse us.
But religious observance done for the sake of human praise will gain you only human praise. Instead keep your piety private, and the Father, “who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.”
So don’t concern yourself with accumulating earthly treasures, which will pass away. Instead, strive for the rewards of God.
Taken in context, are these two verses contradictory? We wish they were.
-------
Related:
Never Read a Bible Verse
10 comments:
At first glance you can see how a skeptic might see those two instructions as contradictory.
The example you quote above might be a similar case of two apparantly contradictory statements in English as a result of an imprecise translation from the original Greek.
To a skeptic what this shows the importance of understanding the Bible as a living, human-authored work of literature.
"To a skeptic what this shows the importance of understanding the Bible as a living, human-authored work of literature."
Why is that important?
I am a skeptic who believes that the Bible is immensely important to Western history:
I do not believe that it is the word of god. I doubt it's moral guidance. I doubt it's historical accuracy ... but nevertheless it is important.
It is a work of human-authored literature which has shaped so many lives and cultures. We owe it to ourselves to understand where this book came from, how previous generations understood and were influenced by it and how it came to be in it's current form.
My skepticism compels me to go question both the naive apologetics of some Christians and also the naive dismissal of most atheists.
Does that answer your question?
Given your second comment, this doesn't make sense to me:
"To a skeptic what this shows the importance of understanding the Bible as a living, human-authored work of literature."
If there is no contradiction, then this does not serve as evidence that the Bible is a "human-authored work of literature."
"If there is no contradiction, then this does not serve as evidence that the Bible is a "human-authored work of literature."
I never said it was "evidence" of being human-authored only that it could be understood in that context.
Actually I do believe that the Bible is a book written by people and not by some sort of divine agency. How do you believe the bible was written?
I think there's very good evidence that people write books. It's pretty safe to presume that in the absence of extraordinary evidence the Bible is an artifact of humanity... just like every other book we know about.
I believe that the NIV was a book written by people based on older texts which were also written by people.
I believe much the same thing about the Book of Mormon, L. Ron. Hubbard's Operating Thetan documents which form the sacred texts of Scientology and JZ Knight's Ramtha revelations which were purportedly authored by the spirit of a long-dead Atlantan warlord.
All of these books claim some form of supernatural or divine origin, yet none of the followers of these books are able to deliver the exceptional evidence required to prove such an exceptional claim.
On a slightly unrelated note: I'm guessing that you are reading the NIV, a book which many theologians consider to be one of the least precise Bible translations. I'm sure you are aware that Christians from the "KJV Only" movement have raised concerns that the NIV distorts the original meanings of the scriptures to serve a protestant evangelical purpose.
Do you believe that it is possible to translate ancient documents into a modern language without changing the meaning of the texts?
"Actually I do believe that the Bible is a book written by people and not by some sort of divine agency. How do you believe the bible was written?"
Generally "human authored" is used in opposition to "divinely inspired."
I use many translations, though I generally use the NIV for casual use. All translations have their moments good and bad, but pretty much the only people impressed by the arguments of KJOnly people are KJOnly people.
"Do you believe that it is possible to translate ancient documents into a modern language without changing the meaning of the texts?"
It is difficult in translating many things, not just ancient writings, to convey the author's meaning exactly in another language. That's one reason why multiple translations are useful.
Generally "human authored" is used in opposition to "divinely inspired."
What I mean is that I believe they are works of human imagination or possibly naive attempts at writing history. I know that people are able to write all kinds of things so I've no personal reason to believe that the books are "divinely inspired" - whatever that means.
I use many translations, though I generally use the NIV for casual use. All translations have their moments good and bad, but pretty much the only people impressed by the arguments of KJOnly people are KJOnly people.
You have a point. the KJV Only types are truly the inheritors of the puritan tradition of the KJV's original translators. The Puritans were the theo-cons of the 17th Century. The NIV's authors by comparison were the culture-warriors of the 1970s and betray their own obsessions from time to time.
It is difficult in translating many things, not just ancient writings, to convey the author's meaning exactly in another language. That's one reason why multiple translations are useful.
I agree - it's often difficult to translate from two contemporary languages even though we share a great deal of culture with Japanese or Arabic speakers meaning often gets lost in translation. I totally agree.
How much harder must it be to deal with an ancient language?
Listening to Robert Price's podcast the other day he highlighted an interesting example of how rendering ancient texts written over thousands of years can completely change the meaning of the text:
http://recordings.talkshoe.com/TC-60712/TS-196566.mp3
I think the problem with translations that Price highlights is that when you translate something into contemporary (or 17th century) English you obliterate a great deal of context.
A good friend of mine who is a Catholic priest often bemoans this fact: He complains that Evangelical preachers who mostly have not bothered to study Greek, Latin and Aramaic have come to an excessively naive understanding of scripture. Having attended a few of my local churches I can sympathize with this.
Is this Dr. James Dobson?
No, it's a guy who thought fake-Steve Jobs was funny and decided to be fake-James Dobson.
I'm not sure where the humor is....but I know Dobson well enough to know he believes the Bible is the Word of God.
Post a Comment