The Sermon on the Mount from a Different Angle

[Anonymous]

In the thread on prophecy and seership, HiJolly mentioned our need to find balance and not gravitate to the extremes. He mentioned the stereotypes associated with gender characteristics, and I thought of something I have considered for a long time but never really articulated in a public forum – which you might understand when you read what I am going to explain and ask. 😯

I absolutely LOVE the Sermon on the Mount. It is my second favorite passage in all our recorded scripture – right behind the Intercessory Prayer. However, we often forget that it was delivered to . . . his disciples – NOT to the multitude who had gathered because of his fame. In fact, the first verses of Matthew 5 are crystal clear as to his audience:

Quote:

1 And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him:

2 And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying,

Here is my point – my two points, really.

1) This great sermon was delivered as a higher level discourse to his most dedicated followers – including those who eventually would form the new faith of Christianity. Its standards absolutely are not easy, and its directives absolutely are not natural.

Sometimes we hold the general population of the Church to these standards, while Jesus himself took great care not to do so of the general population of his followers.

2) This great sermon was delivered mostly to the MEN who would form the leadership of his movement, even though there is no reason to believe that the listeners were ALL men. I personally believe there were women present.

QUESTION:

Quote:

Did the gender composition of the listening group have an impact on the content of the sermon?

Generally speaking, the list of attributes included in the Beatitudes are considered to be feminine throughout history. So,

1) How might the Sermon on the Mount have been different if the primary audience had been women?

2) How can we take the general message of repentance (change and growth and the acquisition of godly characteristics) and use it to achieve the proper balance we need to become “perfect” (complete, whole, fully developed)?

3) Must every individual acquire all the characteristics listed – or can a spouse/companion/community share that endeavor and, between two (or more), create one united, “perfect” whole?

[Anonymous]

Beautiful!

Thanks for these thoughts!

HiJolly

[Anonymous]

Hmmm, a lot of thought packed into one post and quite a challenge to work through. So to start with I am going to work on this for a moment:

Quote:

3) Must every individual acquire all the characteristics listed – or can a spouse/companion/community share that endeavor and, between two (or more), create one united, “perfect” whole?

I think that the answer is No, every individual does not have to have all these characteristics BUT if you are striving to be like Christ, striving to make Him your touchstone for behavior (“How would Christ have handled this situation I am in?) then you will certainly move towards all of these characteristics.

On the larger level I think these are much like the gifts of the spirit, Moroni 10 covers this nicely but I want to concentrate on:

Quote:

(Moro. 10:17)

17 And all these gifts come by the Spirit of Christ; and they come unto every man severally, according as he will.

So here we see the Spirti of Christ , arguably the “light of Christ” which is given to everyone who is born on the earth, provides gifts to everyone BUT the fun part is the last phrase: “according as he will”. We have an interpretation problem here with fairly serious alternatives. If the “he” in the phrase is Christ, then the gifts come as Christ determines and we have them in us just as we have the capacities outlined in the Beatitudes and the key is to go ahead and put them to use. However since the “he” IS NOT capitalized and the sense of the quote certainly allows it, I think the “he” is each person and if so then we have a much more active option. “According as he will” means to me that we gain the gifts, gain the characteristics of the Beatitudes by choice, by going about the process of changing ourselves if necessary so that for example :

Quote:

(Matt. 5:6)

6 Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.

if we decide to seek for this “filling” we must first start by working with the scriptures to understand what righteousness really is and then we must monitor our behavior on a continual basis to insure we use that knowledge gained from prayer and reading and listening as a tool to decide on literally every action we take.

On a closing lighter note, let me give you an example. I have a big old tom cat who years ago decided that I should not be alone when I am working at the computer, who knows what trouble I might get into. So he took to simply hoping up on the desk and laying down on whatever papers were there, he simply would not go away whether I got to the desk at 5 in the morning or 11 at night, he was there, my companion. So now there is a folded up towel beside the keyboard. The point of all this is that he, his name is Professor, is clawing at my hand as I type. What is the most righteous action for me to take:

[Anonymous]

Cool thread, Ray! Way deep…

Old-Timer wrote:

1) How might the Sermon on the Mount have been different if the primary audience had been women?

That’s a tough one. I definitely get that these teachings were very “effeminate” in the context of the time. I see Jerusalem at the time of Christ being very much like Iraq right now: lots of divisive factions in Judaism while being occupied by an foreign force, the Romans.

So, I imagine masculine bravado was the rule, while Christ’s teachings were the opposite of that. Not sure if this had to do with the gender make-up of his audience. In my mind, I think that Christ taught rather gender neutral all the time, so this sermon wouldn’t have changed with a change in the audiences demographic.

Old-Timer wrote:

2) How can we take the general message of repentance (change and growth and the acquisition of godly characteristics) and use it to achieve the proper balance we need to become “perfect” (complete, whole, fully developed)?

Well, the term “God-like” or “Christ-like”, usually denotes someone who has achieved true detachment and the ability to love unconditionally. Meaning, on the one hand, the individual is not moved by external forces, eg, image-conscious, have to report, have to account to someone and, secondly, loves without exception, completely and fully, accepting absolutely all the faults and “demons” that come with the other they are loving.

Quick side thought: I loathe the phrase, “Hate the sin, love the sinner”. It just feels so loaded, judgmental, self-righteous, and un-loving. If you have to convince yourself to “love” someone DESPITE “something”, you aren’t really demonstrating Christ-like love, in my not-so-humble, ironically rhetoric, opinion.

Old-Timer wrote:

3) Must every individual acquire all the characteristics listed – or can a spouse/companion/community share that endeavor and, between two (or more), create one united, “perfect” whole?

I’m not sure if this is where you’re going with this question: the need for both genders to create the perfect “whole”? Or, the idea of communal perfection for eternal progression and creation in the next life?

It’s a fascinating concept, fun to think about. I know for me, the unique challenges to the individual are, by far, the most important. At the end of the day, each of us individually is responsible only for oneself. The thought processes that take us to “perfecting the saints”, whether that be our spouse, our immediate family, our ward family, the church family, or whatever, is ultimately leading one to a path of dependency, wherein one is consistently blaming oneself for the “imperfections” of the other, whatever that other may be.

The individual is not responsible for anyone else. And the whole is not responsible for the individual. I understand the importance of community, communal living, etc. but these ideals are only wrought when the intentions of each individual participant in the group has the correct intentions and lives the ideal of those intentions.

I know that wasn’t your insinuation, Ray. It’s just hard, while here in mortality, to “expect” these ideals from anyone. Not because they can’t do it, on the contrary, what’s beautiful is that they can; but rather that one is only hurting oneself when “expectations” get set.

Having said that, I think there is a unique opportunity towards a type of “perfection”, “wholeness”, with another individual human, when you’ve found that person with whom you literally share everything, wherein you’re completely exposed and vulnerable and that exposure and vulnerability is not taken advantage of, but rather, reciprocated in kind. That is the “holy communion”, in my mind.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

swimordie said…Quick side thought: I loathe the phrase, “Hate the sin, love the sinner”. It just feels so loaded, judgmental, self-righteous, and un-loving. If you have to convince yourself to “love” someone DESPITE “something”, you aren’t really demonstrating Christ-like love, in my not-so-humble, ironically rhetoric, opinion.

I thought the phrase, “Hate the sin, love the sinner” referred to God. God basically told us to love everybody and to forgive everybody. He said to let the wheat and the tares grow together, and since I am a hybred of both but mostly sinner, I try to be just a little understanding of those who believe and live differently than I.

[Author]

Posts