Cut off your own hand: Lust & the Feminism of Jesus ~ Matthew 5:27-30

 

Jesus begins this section of his sermon the way he begins many of the sections by quoting Scripture and affirming its importance and authority in our lives. He quotes Exodus 20:14 one of the ten commandments but then goes on to expound what he considers the passage to actually point us toward. And in that seemingly simple move, we’ve seen a lot go wrong in the history of the church about women and men, about sex, about temptation, etc. There’s a viral video from 5 years ago in which a man is filming himself while he follows a recipe to make fried chicken. The first thing he reads is that he is supposed to wash the chicken and proceeds to wash all of the pieces with a large amount of dishwashing soap, letting them soak for good measure. He’s brought up short when a woman watching the video says, “Lord, let me pray . . . who told you to wash the chicken with dish soap?” As we seek to take Jesus seriously, let’s be sure to figure out what are we being asked not to do, listen to our sisters, and not eat soapy chicken. So what is Jesus telling men not to do?

There is a sense that “leering” is a good translation for “looks . . . lustfully.” But to be honest, there isn’t a Greek word in the New Testament that exactly corresponds to the English word “lust.” The word in Greek ἐπιθυμέω appears in the New Testament in a variety of positive and negative ways: Matthew 13:7; Luke 22;15; Acts 20:33; Luke 15:16. We perhaps get a little closer to Jesus’ meaning by seeing the word translated in the Greek version of the Old Testament, called the Septuagint. There it is used to translate the word: “covet” which implies to possess what is not yours. It implies objectification, theft, and violence and not merely sexual desire. Jesus is not saying that everyone who has a sexual impulse or thought is an adulterer. This is no puritanical rebuke of every thought of sex. He was stating, however, very strongly that there is no difference between the act of adultery and the willingness to commit it. If you cultivate a covetous desire of power over women, Jesus is saying, it will bear poisonous fruit.

And friends, while Jesus is speaking about adultery specifically, it is not difficult to expand this discussion into broader cultures of male sexual exploitation of women, pornography, and the objectification of women by men.  

But something else happens when we listen to Jesus well and place him in context. We begin to move toward a Biblical feminist position which challenges the sinfulness of male dominance that blames women for sexual temptation and abuse.  

Cut off your own hand not hers.

The history of male patriarchy and misogyny places the dangers of sexual desire explicitly on women. But that is NOT what Jesus accepts or counsels. The traditional view of expecting women to wear head coverings and dress modestly, in order to curtail male desire is not what Jesus promotes. Rather, he places the responsibility and policing of lustful thoughts squarely on men and men’s bodies and NOT women’s. You are to “cut off your (own) hand” and “gouge out your own eye.” So Jesus does not side with the all-too-common chauvinistic and misogynistic approach to adultery which existed in the ancient world that excused men and blamed women. In the ancient world, adultery was excusable for the husband but not the wife. Aulus Gellius, a second-century Roman writer states: “If you should take your wife in adultery, you may with impunity put her to death without a trial; but if you should commit adultery or indecency, she must not presume to lay a finger on your, nor does the law allow it.” Friends, less you think we’re so different. Think about this. Think about how many words we have to label and blame women for sexually inappropriate behavior. Think them – don’t say them. Now, how many do we have for men? The answer is none. You see, we still want to cut off their hands  - even if only with words.

By the end of the second century, this Roman understanding influenced Christianity itself. The Testament of Reuben, a Christan text, will seek to diagnose male lusts as a female creation in which they “contrive in their hearts against men, then by decking themselves out they lead men’s minds astray, by a look they implant their poison, and finally in the act itself they take them captive.” Jesus’ teaching, however, prevents a blame-her-looks or but-she-enticed-me approach. The problem for Jesus is male power which seeks to claim women’s bodies as objects. You don’t get to perform surgery on others

But this can be explored a bit more even with seemingly well-intentioned, male notions of controlling lusts which hurt women. Is Jesus promoting the Billy Graham rule?

The Billy Graham Rule refers to a rule that Billy Graham made famous when he decided he did not want to invite suspicion into his ministry or his fidelity to his wife, and so he refused to ever be alone with a woman who was not his wife. The rule is a common ethic that many well-intentioned male pastors and church leaders put into practice as a means of accountability in their relationships. In more recent years, it has seen a resurgence even among Christian politicians.

Now, on the surface this sounds right. We want to be above suspicion, and everyone should be wary of temptation! But is this an instance of washing chicken with dish soap or cutting off woman’s hands? I think it is. Here’s why:

·       The rule puts a cap on women’s (and men's) development in their ministries or careers.

If men and women cannot meet together one-on-one, women miss out on mentoring opportunities to grow in their work or ministry. And in the church, even within egalitarian denominations, representation of women in leadership is still in the minority, leaving men as the only reasonable option for many women to receive mentorship. Jesus’ own ministry and the New Testament reveal that women and men are capable and designed to do kingdom work together.

·       It makes opposite sex friendships almost impossible and extremely suspect

·       It unnecessarily sexualizes and demonizes women.

It implies that women are untrustworthy seductresses looking for any opportunity to sleep with men or for any opportunity to make false allegations against men in an attempt to ruin their marriages or ministries. In fact, when men say, “we need the Billy Graham rule to make sure no sex happens,” they’re actually implicitly assuming that women want to have sex with them.

Okay – so we’ve seen ways of handling male temptation that don’t work. What is there for men to do?

Struggle with the gravity and freedom of Jesus’ remarks.

On the one hand, the figurative element of amputation is serious and simply claiming that it isn’t literal doesn’t take the sting away. And friends, the gravity is more than many of us realize for it’s not just men who face "Gehenna" (often translated as "hell" but referring to an actual location - a garbage dump outside of Jerusalem) in such lustfulness but women too, all over the world, who find themselves in Gehenna” currently. We must realize that pornography, lewd and misogynistic jokes, unequal visions of power, create a hell for many women and men in the present. We must invest the topic with the significant concern that male desire, when mixed with power that objectifies women, creates an enslaving reality of sex trafficking that kills people souls.

And yet, we must also recognize that Jesus’ choice of figurative language stressing the absolute seriousness of sexual objectification offers a certain freedom in response. He does not articulate a step-by-step plan or process for dealing with it.

I would like to make one suggestion, however, to my brothers in the room that Jesus’ words seem to suggest.

Embrace powerlessness. [The same point is made in the beginning of the 12-step program for Alcoholics Anonymous with Step One: We admitted we were powerless over alcohol - that our lives had become unmanageable]

It’s interesting to ask “Why amputate the “right hand” and gouge the “right eye”? In the Bible, the right hand and right eye refer to power and value – dominance.

1 Samuel 11:2: “But Nahash the Ammonite replied, ‘I will make a treaty with you only on the condition that I gouge out the right eye of every one of you and so bring disgrace on all Israel.’” In Zechariah 11:17: “Woe to the worthless shepherd, who deserts the flock! May the sword strike his arm and his right eye! May his arm be completely withered, his right eye totally blinded.” So the right hand and right eye are emblematic for power and dominance and their removal therefore, disempowerment and weakness. What might it mean to address Jesus’ words in terms of male disempowerment and weakness?

1.     We need to challenge any structure which makes women “less than” men and objectifies them. We must all become Jesus feminist and like Jesus learn to divest ourselves of power. 

2.     We need to recognize that weak responses like confession, prayer, non-judging love are the way of Jesus. We must courageously and creatively rely upon one another and Jesus.

 We want to deal with this not out of some prudish vision of sexuality but from a deeply Biblical one of justice, equality, and love as evinced by the original design of creation which reveals women and men as equals with the same job to do (Genesis 1: 26-28).

So where does that leave us?

It is estimated that one in three girls and one six boys will be sexually assaulted by the age of eighteen. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, a rape or attempted rape occurs every 5 minutes in the United States. Currently, the church is being blessed by a new generation of millenials who are calling us more to justice and love on this issue. I'd like to end this sermon by a worship song that aims to name and transform the amputating-Gehenna-bound sin of sexual abuse. You can listen by clicking HERE.

Delightfully surprised, broken, faithful and blessed: the Beatitudes ~ Matthew 5:3-12 (Snapshots of the Sermon on the Mount series)

 

 “Blessed are the poor in spirit,
    for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
⁴ Blessed are those who mourn,
    for they will be comforted.
⁵ Blessed are the meek,
    for they will inherit the earth.
⁶ Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
    for they will be filled.
⁷ Blessed are the merciful,
    for they will be shown mercy.
⁸ Blessed are the pure in heart,
    for they will see God.
⁹ Blessed are the peacemakers,
    for they will be called children of God.
¹⁰ Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,
    for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

¹¹ “Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. ¹² Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you. ~ Matthew 5:3-12

I’d like to begin this sermon with an anti-story, a non-Beatitude look at the world, a corrosive spirituality that nevertheless appears to tarnish many of us within the church. This story happened on the Evening News. A reporter was covering a local chapter of Scientology that had recently begun a literacy program in the local prison. In what was intended as a “gotcha moment” the nodding and affable reporter suddenly squinted his eyes, leaned forward, and in his best Tom Brokaw voice asked, “But isn’t all this work merely trying to proselytize in the prison to make converts for Scientology?” Without skipping a beat the Scientologist appeared surprised and said, “O my gosh! Why, no. Why would we want prisoners in Scientology?”

And before we start judging – because, yes, I feel you judging – there is something quintessentially true about that surprising question. Why?, indeed! How could anyone create a successful church, an attractive movement, from the likes of prisoners? And as we ask that question in walks Jesus. And as he speaks, the preacher Lucy Lind Hogan asks, “When did the nodding stop?”

Was it in hearing that God chooses the destitute, the depressed, the desperate?

Was it in hearing about hungering for justice or showing mercy or making peace in order to receive reward?

Was it in learning that you had to wait, that your good might end in nothing more than pain and persecution in this life?

When did the nodding stop?

Happiness and success find themselves on the chopping block. Instant gratification finds itself running for the door. And “blessing” becomes something that we now quietly think twice about. But as we listen carefully and desperately listen – certain blessings awaken and emerge:

Blessed are the ones who recognize they are “fragile and frail.”

The place of blessing, Jesus says, the place of God’s choosing, is found in our humanity. Jesus starts his sermon not by ascending some heroic heights but by straight up acknowledging the reality of our human frailty. This is not “stiff upper lip spirituality” or “how to win friends and influence people religion.” One of my own many repeated theological pillars comes from Reinhold Neihbuhr that helps explain Jesus’ point: the originating sin of Adam and Eve was their refusal to be human. They ate of the fruit because they were unable to remain “fragile and frail” but wanted to be gods. I truly believe that so much of the pain of this world comes not from our humanity, as if sinful and human were somehow synonymous, but from our inability to be downhearted, downtrodden, and desperate. It happens when we use spirituality to try and play God, control others, or manipulate our circumstances. So the beatitudes begin by honoring our struggle, by helping us name our lives, by allowing us to weep and recognize that we all are prisoners in need of proselytizing. That we need to proselytized by Jesus to acknowledge our need.

How different a real spiritual life looks like if I can mourn. How different a Jesus-centered spiritual life looks like if I can be poor, desperate, vulnerable, and depressed. How different a true spiritual life looks like if I can be teachable and humble rather than know-it-all or be a success. It means that I can lead with need. We can shout from our homes, our pews, our workplaces: “I feel the need . . . the need for need.”

That means that Jesus is saying that I can be undone and find myself in God’s blessing. I sense that best summation of the first three beatitudes and the beginning of Jesus’ sermon comes this week from Rachael Anderson who shared in our Centering Prayer group: “The spiritual life is in the undoing, not in the trying.”

             ?               are the . . .

We should probably take a moment and talk about this incredibly hard word to translate – “Blessed.” Many translators have offered possibilities: “How blest”, “How happy”, “Fortunate”, “Blissful”, “Congratulations.” And each choice powerfully frames what the beatitudes are – psychological states, ethical rewards, divine gifts/promises, etc. It seems that one’s interpretation rises or falls with that one word. And there is a tension here between two dominant poles of thinking/interpreting what the Beatitudes are trying to do: ethical and eschatological. The Beatitudes as ethical commands point us to actions that human beings must do, in the present, as God’s moral agents. This is an important pole and certainly frames significant elements like “Blessed are the merciful . . . Blessed are the peacemakers . . .” These are clearly moral actions that Jesus wants his disciples to engage faithfully in the world - now. However, ethics and moral action can’t entirely frame what the Beatitudes are doing. Other interpreters who challenge a simple ethical read have pointed out that the Beatitudes are primarily eschatological, which is a fancy but very important word referring to “last things” and God’s promise and ability to bring about our redemption, sanctification and a new creation. An eschatological focus thus places the emphasis upon God as the main actor who brings about his, often surprising, purposes through broken people. This helps makes sense then of “Blessed are the poor in Spirit . . . Blessed are those who mourn” which don’t seem so much like actions that we are invited to perform but down and out people who otherwise you wouldn’t expect to be blessed who are drawn in by God’s action. Of course, eschatological interpreters would also point that within the Beatitudes we have the oft repeated “will” in the future tense that suggests that the impact and reward of actions, like peacemaking, are in the future and not the present and result from God’s recognition and reward rather than present, positive change.  So whatever word we use must capture both of these polls along with a sense of gift, reward, agency, promise, presence, recognition, future, choosing, surprise, even a God who is seen and unseen. I almost want to use the word: “awakened” or the phrase “Divinely surprised.” The point is that this is not wisdom literature: a simple declaration of “do this . . . get this.” So where does that leave us? Well, I tend to think that both ethical and eschatological are important but would place the accent on eschatological, on the divine work of God to bring about God’s own purposes in the end through broken, messed up people. However, eschatological certainly overlaps with ethical. God always gives broken people things to do that are hardly insignificant like mercy and peacemaking. God will not like us entering into the next life claiming that we sat idly by while people suffered under unmerciful and violent conditions. So we need to carefully thread the needle which neither has us imagining that we can retranslate “Blessed” to “Deserved” believing that our actions determine everything; nor can we retranslate “Blessed” to “Do-nothing” believing that we can sit idly without acting out those future traits of God’s kingdom that we are citizens of now, in the present. This very tension is expressed by the first and last Beatitude (5:3 & 5:10) which use the present tense to sandwich around the other 6 ones which speak of the future.

How are we to live?

Acknowledge fragility in yourself and others as a place for blessing. How do you do that? You must learn to cultivate an appropriate vulnerability. Learn to recognize your own frailty. You won’t be able to properly live out the sermon on the mount if you start with the grandeur of saintly success. You don’t have to pretend to yourself, others, or God that you have it all together. In fact, what marks us as a community is that we are called to be a fiercely realistic people capable of naming all our flaws and faults as fertile ground for kingdom fruit. So we must practice confession, forgiveness, non-judgment, teachability, and other inherently “poor places” as spaces rich for blessing. We must walk through this world saying of everyone, “frail and fragile” and recognize our own fragility as a place of blessing.

With great hope, don’t let your fragility or brokenness keep you from following Jesus because God is at work. As we seek to live the Beatitudes we must do so as a broken people who have placed our trust in a God who will enable us together to be justice hungry, merciful peacemakers, reward kingdom efforts and make right all that is wrong with the world in the end. The Beatitudes are therefore a spirituality that allow us to acknowledge our need while at the same time, alongside that need, engaging our world in ways that have the blessing of God upon them. This means that we can always celebrate even haphazard acts of kingdom living, like mercy giving and peace-making, recognizing that what is asked of us is not so much effectiveness but faithfulness. So one of the ways to summarize the Beatitudes is by saying, “Blessed are the faithful rather than effective.” We need not engage elements of justice with the burden of getting them exactly right or even by measurements of success. We do them, and are persecuted for them, Jesus says, “because of me” (5:11). God chooses, intiates, works, ensures, and determines the end. Work with that!

So be vulnerable, delightfully surprised, and join God. The kingdom is yours! If you'd like to finish with an excellent song of praise about God's Kingdom listen to THIS