I'm excited for the next post. I do agree that if we go into it with the intention of trying to figure out how we aren't obligated by what Jesus says, we are missing the point. However, the passage of plucking out the eye and cutting off your hand does suggest that a straightforward reading is not the intended reading and I don't think appealing to the rhetorical device of hyperbole would be considered a dodge. Also, I think we have good reason to read the strong black and white language of the Sermon within the context of the more specific criticisms of the Pharisees in Matthew 23. For example, I think one could justifiably read the oaths teaching in the Sermon in light of Matthew 23:16-22 and arrive at something like Article 39 (whether that is the best reading is another question; I'm merely positing it as not an unreasonable conclusion if we pair the Sermon with Matthew 23).
I think there's space for understanding Jesus to be using rhetorical devices including hyperbole, without that being a dodge.
The oaths issue is a really good litmus test for dodging. Because Jesus specifically targets and excludes oaths! McKnight has some great points on this. e.g. Luther says this applies to private citizens, not to legal matters. But oaths in Jesus' context (and ours, usually) primarily are about legal and public matters! That's exactly what he's critiquing. And yet, God and Paul both make oaths (not to put the two of them on a level!), which has to at least complicate a 'flat' reading of this. Yet it can't overturn this teaching either - Jesus isn't simply say, "hey, be honest". I do think Article 39 is a dodge, because it leaves in tact a legal system the has levels of obligation, distances God, and trades on degrees of honesty. Jesus doesn't appear to outlaw "vain and rash swearing", but participation in the system of oaths.
"Because Jesus specifically targets and excludes oaths" - That begs the question since we are arguing about what exactly Jesus is doing in his teaching on oaths in the Sermon. I'll see if in your future post you can convince me, but for now I still think Jesus is speaking hyperbolically because he has a specific problem in mind (e.g., Matthew 23:16-22). Since the point of the sermon is the heart behind obedience to the Law (IMO), Jesus doesn't address the species of oath taking he is critical of, but speaks about the genus (and so, all oath taking period). ISTMT this approach is a great way of getting at the heart issue because one can't say, "Well, I'm not doing THAT kind of oath taking, I'm doing THIS kind of oath taking." Jesus hyperbole forces us to examine our heart without, IMO, necessarily prohibiting oaths outright.
Well, I have already written the next post, so I can't confidently say that it will address your point particularly. I do think Matthew 5:21-48 is Jesus exegeting Torah primarily by pointing us to heart-obedience beyond the externalities of the OT laws.
But broadly, while recognising that Jesus can use hyperbole, it seems problematic to me to immediately qualify what Jesus says without taking it at face value. e.g. Morris on 5:34: "He is not forbidding the taking of an oath in a law court or the like." Really? That sounds exactly like what he is forbidding. Yes, there is a certain type of abuse of oaths going on in Jesus' context which he is critiquing, but that's not the way this passage tackles the issue. And it seems slippery to try to make that step *before* wrestling with the blanket ban Jesus appears to be offering here.
I agree that we shouldn't distinguish before dissecting our own heart. That's why I think Jesus speaks in these black and white hyperbolic statements. But I think we'd miss the point of what Jesus is doing if we then turn that into a new kind of law, because it's not about that. It's about correcting your heart before you even get to the regulations of the Law.
I'm excited for the next post. I do agree that if we go into it with the intention of trying to figure out how we aren't obligated by what Jesus says, we are missing the point. However, the passage of plucking out the eye and cutting off your hand does suggest that a straightforward reading is not the intended reading and I don't think appealing to the rhetorical device of hyperbole would be considered a dodge. Also, I think we have good reason to read the strong black and white language of the Sermon within the context of the more specific criticisms of the Pharisees in Matthew 23. For example, I think one could justifiably read the oaths teaching in the Sermon in light of Matthew 23:16-22 and arrive at something like Article 39 (whether that is the best reading is another question; I'm merely positing it as not an unreasonable conclusion if we pair the Sermon with Matthew 23).
I think there's space for understanding Jesus to be using rhetorical devices including hyperbole, without that being a dodge.
The oaths issue is a really good litmus test for dodging. Because Jesus specifically targets and excludes oaths! McKnight has some great points on this. e.g. Luther says this applies to private citizens, not to legal matters. But oaths in Jesus' context (and ours, usually) primarily are about legal and public matters! That's exactly what he's critiquing. And yet, God and Paul both make oaths (not to put the two of them on a level!), which has to at least complicate a 'flat' reading of this. Yet it can't overturn this teaching either - Jesus isn't simply say, "hey, be honest". I do think Article 39 is a dodge, because it leaves in tact a legal system the has levels of obligation, distances God, and trades on degrees of honesty. Jesus doesn't appear to outlaw "vain and rash swearing", but participation in the system of oaths.
"Because Jesus specifically targets and excludes oaths" - That begs the question since we are arguing about what exactly Jesus is doing in his teaching on oaths in the Sermon. I'll see if in your future post you can convince me, but for now I still think Jesus is speaking hyperbolically because he has a specific problem in mind (e.g., Matthew 23:16-22). Since the point of the sermon is the heart behind obedience to the Law (IMO), Jesus doesn't address the species of oath taking he is critical of, but speaks about the genus (and so, all oath taking period). ISTMT this approach is a great way of getting at the heart issue because one can't say, "Well, I'm not doing THAT kind of oath taking, I'm doing THIS kind of oath taking." Jesus hyperbole forces us to examine our heart without, IMO, necessarily prohibiting oaths outright.
Well, I have already written the next post, so I can't confidently say that it will address your point particularly. I do think Matthew 5:21-48 is Jesus exegeting Torah primarily by pointing us to heart-obedience beyond the externalities of the OT laws.
But broadly, while recognising that Jesus can use hyperbole, it seems problematic to me to immediately qualify what Jesus says without taking it at face value. e.g. Morris on 5:34: "He is not forbidding the taking of an oath in a law court or the like." Really? That sounds exactly like what he is forbidding. Yes, there is a certain type of abuse of oaths going on in Jesus' context which he is critiquing, but that's not the way this passage tackles the issue. And it seems slippery to try to make that step *before* wrestling with the blanket ban Jesus appears to be offering here.
I agree that we shouldn't distinguish before dissecting our own heart. That's why I think Jesus speaks in these black and white hyperbolic statements. But I think we'd miss the point of what Jesus is doing if we then turn that into a new kind of law, because it's not about that. It's about correcting your heart before you even get to the regulations of the Law.