In some discussions earlier this year, Steve Hays was criticized for seeing the brothers mentioned in Matthew 25:40 as Christians rather than people in general. He was called a "cretin", accused of having a "lack of moral compass", said to be engaging in "eisegesis", etc.
As Steve has noted before, Craig Blomberg refers to Steve's view as one that was the majority position in previous generations, but has become a minority view lately (Matthew [Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman Press, 1992], p. 378). I recently read Jerome's commentary on Matthew, written in the late fourth century, and here's what he had to say on this subject:
"As for the words that follow: 'When you did it to one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did it to me,' it does not seem to me that he said this generally of the poor, but of those who are poor in spirit. For it was to them that he reached out his hand and said: 'My brothers and my mother are those who do the will of my Father.'" (Thomas Scheck, trans., St. Jerome: Commentary On Matthew [Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University Of America Press, 2008], p. 290)
Amen!
ReplyDeleteRom 16:13 Greet Rufus, chosen in the Lord; also his mother, who has been a mother to me as well.
There's come copycat Jesus!
Of course, the context that comes before that is important as well:
ReplyDelete"It were indeed free to us to understand that it is Christ in every poor man whom we feed when he is hungry, or give drink to when he is thirsty, and so of other things." ( http://www.ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/catena1.txt )
Really, the perverse attempt at "humor" and lack of ability to understand why people were offended by those sick jokes was more the issue than the exegetical question.
Sam Urfer,
ReplyDeleteYou ended your quote of Jerome in the middle of a sentence and replaced a comma with a period. Why did you do that? Read what Jerome goes on to say.
Yes, I'm aware of that. I didn't copy the rest of the sentence, because it was in your original post. The period was likely a mental mistake on my part after copying. No nefarious motive, I assure you. Just pointing out that even if Jerome does cite the main meaning of the passage as being Christians, he only does so after saying that it is also applicable to all the poor and downtrodden.
ReplyDeleteNone of which is anything resembling a justification for crude sexual attempts at "satire".
Sam Urfer,
ReplyDeleteThe passage you cited is different than the one I cited from Jerome, and you haven't even justified your interpretation of the passage you cited. You also haven't justified your initial accusation that people who hold Steve's view of the passage are "cretinous", etc.
I wasn't addressing "crude sexual attempts at 'satire'".
Actually, yeah, it is the same quote. In full:
ReplyDeleteJerome: It were indeed free to us to understand that it is Christ in every poor man whom we feed when he is hungry, or give drink to when he is thirsty, and so of other things; but when He says, "In that ye have done it to one of the least of these my brethren," He seems to me not to speak of the poor generally, but of the poor in spirit, those to whom He pointed and said, "Whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother." [Matt 12:50]
The main difference is that your quote breaks off the first part of the thought before the semi-colon (not a comma). That context is important to the point being made. Now, I will admit that Jerome agrees with Steve on the primary meaning, but he does allow that the understanding that the poor in general are indicated is an acceptable reading as well, which Steve wouldn't allow because it sounded too much like pinko-commie leftists or something (I doubt Jerome was a small government Republican). That was the objectionable part, aside from his twisted diatribes about nuns which said waaaay more about himself than any Catholics, which rightly offended decent readers of all stripes.
ReplyDeleteSam Urfer,
ReplyDeleteDo you know where the passage attributed to Jerome that you quoted comes from? My citation comes from Jerome's commentary on Matthew. What Jerome says there isn't the same as what he says in the passage you've cited. They're not the same passage. Do you even know that your passage is a quotation rather than a paraphrase, for example? Do you own, or have you read, Jerome's commentary on Matthew? If so, then why would you quote a different source instead? If not, then how would you supposedly know that the two passages are the same?
Even the passage you've cited doesn't say what you've claimed it says. The phrase "It were indeed free to us to understand" seems to be referring to what would be true if the "but" qualifier didn't follow. Apparently, that's why he uses the term "were" rather than "is". Your assumption that Jerome is giving two different interpretations of the passage has to be argued, not just assumed.
If Jerome did give your interpretation as a secondary one, with Steve's view as the primary interpretation, then why should we believe that it's "cretinous" to hold Steve's view as a sole interpretation, but acceptable to hold it as a primary interpretation along with another, secondary interpretation? You have yet to justify your claim that Steve's view, which has been accepted by many Christians through the centuries and many New Testament scholars today, is "cretinous" and the other things you called it. Why is that interpretation of Matthew 25 unacceptable?
You write:
"Now, I will admit that Jerome agrees with Steve on the primary meaning, but he does allow that the understanding that the poor in general are indicated is an acceptable reading as well, which Steve wouldn't allow because it sounded too much like pinko-commie leftists or something (I doubt Jerome was a small government Republican)."
Steve never suggested the motivation you're attributing to him. He cited New Testament scholars explaining contextual reasons for interpreting the passage as Steve does, and Jerome cited the same sort of contextual evidence. Why do you keep ignoring and misrepresenting the evidence and arguments you've been given?