|
|
3 Nephi 14 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
3 Nephi 14:1 1 And now it came to pass that when Jesus had spoken these words he turned again to the multitude, and did open his mouth unto them again, saying: Verily, verily, I say unto you, Judge not, that ye be not judged. 3 Nephi 14:2 2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged; and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged. With what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. The first is a declaration. It is succinct and abrupt, and no doubt intended to be slightly shocking to the audience. It serves as a rhetorical device to present a statement that would be puzzling or otherwise startling to the audience, a capacity it has retained even in its written form, given how often it is analyzed or explained. The problem, of course, is that we do assume that we should judge, and yet here is a bold statement that we should not. The resolution of the startling prohibition comes in the paired explanations that follow. There are two statements that both follow the same structural arrangement. In the first phrase we are the actor performing the action. In the second clause, that same action is performed upon us. The actions are expressly made equivalent, and causally linked. Therefore, as we judge, we are judged. As we measure, we are measured. To comprehend precisely how the absolute prohibition of “judge not, that ye be not judged” is to be understood, we must understand the causal example. We are warned not to judge because the way we judge will form the way we are judged. The horizontal and earthly context in which we judge becomes the model for the vertical and heavenly way that we are judged. Understanding that the ultimate “danger” of our earthly judging is the nature of our eternal judgment helps us understand that while the statement is startlingly inclusive; “judge not,” it is not intended to preclude all judgment, but rather to ameliorate necessary judgment. No matter what we do in life, we cannot avoid judgment from God. Our lives will come before the bar of God to be judged. That must happen. God will not, cannot, avoid judging us. Similarly, we cannot avoid, and should not avoid, certain judgments in this life. The problem is not the fact of judging, but the manner of judging. This relationship between manner and act is replicated in the second explanation of the saying. Taking the perhaps controversial term “judge” out of the equation, the context is made clearer when we speak of measuring another. The judgment and the measurement are linked as equivalent. We are to be cautious in the way we criticize others, in the way we scrutinize others, in the way we consider other people. The reason is that our actions will determine the way God criticizes, scrutinizes, and considers us. This saying is the conceptual companion to the Beatitude from earlier in this Sermon: 3 Nephi 12:7 7 And blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy. When we are merciful, we do not judge harshly. The act of being merciful is actual an act of judgment, but it is one that is tempered with the Godly trait of mercy. As we learn this attribute of Godhood, God can use our progress toward that way of being as a measure of who we have become, and therefore mercy may be applied to us. The second of these sayings, “with what measure ye mete…” is also known from rabbinic literature. (John Lightfoot. A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmiud and Hebraica. Hendrickson Publishers, 1989, 2:157) It is possible that the saying was fairly well known in Israel, and that when it was attached to the statement on judging it made the context and meaning of that statement immediately clearer for Jesus’ audience. Vocabulary: The word mete is an archaic verb
indicating to measure. Textual: The Matthean text for verse one has simply “Judge not, that ye be not judged.” The second verse has no changes. The additional text in the first verse is the pair of the inserted text in 3 Nephi 13:25. There the insertion moves the focus away from the multitude and toward the apostles only: “And now it came to pass that when Jesus had spoken these words he looked upon the twelve whom he had chosen, and said unto them: Remember the words which I have spoken. For behold, ye are they whom I have chosen to minister unto this people.” The sayings about not taking though for food or clothing are then addressed to the twelve. At the end of that set we return to focus on the multitude with the inserted text for verse one here. The current Book of Mormon chapter break at this point did not exist in the 1830 edition. The chapter was broken earlier, just before the change in focus of 3 Nephi 13:25. This shift in focus back to the assembled saints was a continuation of that chapter. The recutting of the chapters came to more closely follow the chapter and verse of the Matthew text. When Joseph Smith worked on his translation of the Bible, he had a slightly different reading of these verses. First, he kept the focus on the disciples. He did not need to replicate the refocusing of the Book of Mormon because he had used a different solution to Matthew 6:25. In that verse the context was still missionary work, but the missionary work was expanded to all disciples, not just the twelve. In the JST there is a difference in the text, however. The “judge not” phrase is modified to “judge not unrighteously,” which certainly captures the spirit of the verse. JST Matthew 7:1-3 1 Now these are the words which Jesus taught his disciples that they should say unto the people. 2 Judge not unrighteously, that ye be not judged; but judge righteous judgment. 3 For with what judgment ye shall judge, ye shall be judged; and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? 3 Nephi 14:4 4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother: Let me pull the mote out of thine eye—and behold, a beam is in thine own eye? 3 Nephi 14:5 5 Thou hypocrite, first cast the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast the mote out of thy brother's eye.
In this case we have the contrast between our ability to see other’s faults, but be blinded to our own. The contrast is exaggerated by reference to the mote and beam. A mote is a speck of something. The essential information is that it is small. Thus when we see a “speck” in someone’s “eye” we are seeing some small fault in them. Of course it does not matter what that fault is. The point is that it is small, and we see it and judge them by it. The beam, on the other hand, is exactly what it appears to be. It is large. It is obvious. Of course it is impossible, but the point isn’t the possible, but rather the contrast with our ability to see minute problems in other people while being blinded to huge problems in our own actions. These things are in the “eye” because the eye is the thing that actively sees. In the ancient world information was not passively received by the eye, but rather the eye actively “saw” the world. Recall that the eye is the light/lamp of the body (Matthew 6:22; 3 Nephi 13:22), and that this imagery suggests light emanating from the eye. Thus we see small problems in other people even though our sight is cloudy because of the very large problems we have. As Jesus addresses those of us who see so clearly that to which we are blinded in ourselves, he uses the term hypocrite. The modern meaning of that term is absolutely applicable in this case, but it still had the contemporary meaning of an actor. Therefore, the ancient hypocrite was acting in a way superior to another person, when he had no reason to so act. The notion of the actor highlighted the problem of social interaction that was caused by this type of behavior. Old World Context: This teaching was an important way to improve horizontal relationships in a world where there was so much potential conflict. In Israel, the opportunities for criticism were numerous. In the political arena one might not be sufficiently indignant with the Romans. One might be too radical in their indignation, and propose violent revolution. In the religious arena, one might not perform the purity laws well, as the Pharisees dictated they should be done. One might believe that the Pharisees went too far. One might follow the rabbi Shammai, or one might follow Hillel. There were multitudes of ways that differences existed, and those differences could create internal contention. Jesus was teaching the people that while differences could and did exist, we could be merciful in our treatment of others and their differences. In Israel it was not only a heavenly survival strategy, but a pragmatic earthly one. Book of Mormon Context: The Nephites in Bountiful had undergone a tremendous calamity, and in the aftermath of that calamity had probably become more united as a people. The effect of such dramatic conditions on a group of people is that they tend to be more tolerant of differences in favor of the ability to provide greater communal healing. The sad and most recent example of this is the upsurge in patriotism following the tragedy of September 11, 2002. As with the tremendous destruction endured by the Nephites, that tremendous social destruction served to galvanize and unite the will of a large country. Nevertheless, in spite of the probable current tolerance among the Nephites, they had previously endured religious persecution not many years prior, and the lesson would be an important reminder of the dangers that come from unrighteous judgment and intolerance. Textual: There are no changes from the Matthean text.
6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.
There is a structural parallel to the formation of the judging statement. There is a single statement supported by two examples. However, the order of examples and statement differ from the judgment saying. In this case, we have two descriptions of an action of giving something to an animal. This is stressed as undesirable in that both actions could result in the animal ignoring what was given and acting like an animal and turning on us. What is being given, and why the caution against the animal turning on us? Two things are given: “that which is holy,” and pearls. Pearls we understand. “That which is holy” is a reference to the food offered to God on altars. In both cases something that has value is being given to an animal. The two types of offerings to animals escalate from plausible but wrong to completely ridiculous. The movement is intentional. In the first case, we have food being given to a dog. This happens all of the time. There is nothing unusual about giving meat to a dog. The problem is that this isn’t just any meat, but meat that has been consecrated to God. This example, therefore, is plausible in that it is meat given to a dog, and we certainly might think that a dog would want the meat. However, it is not just any meat, but holy meat, and therefore should not be given to a dog, as it is consecrated to God. In the second example, we have pearls being given to swine. This example is intended to be completely ridiculous. First we have pearls which are valuable to us, but of no worth at all to an animal. Secondly, the particular animal selected is unclean swine. Giving anything of value to the unclean swine would immediately make that thing unclean, and therefore unworthy of a righteous man (although it could be made clean again – but that is not the issue in this example). Thus the movement of the example is from plausible but wrong to obviously ridiculous. The clear admonition is that these things of value should not be given to animals. Obviously, however, the saying has nothing to do with giving things to animals. Rather, it has to do with sharing things of value with other people who may or may not act towards them as the animals are acting in this example. What these people had to give was neither meat from the altars (to which they had no access) nor pearls (to which they probably had even less access). What they did have was the gospel that was both sacred, and comparable to a pearl (note the parable of the pearl of great price in Matthew 13:45-46). They had a gospel to give, but were to be cautious about to whom it was given. This was pragmatic information, for clearly there were those “dogs” and “swine” who should have been their brothers, who should have accepted the gift, but instead turned on the early Christians and persecuted them. Saul (later Paul) was one of these who early rejected not only the gift of the gospel, but actively turned on and “trampled” the early Christians prior to his own miraculous conversion. Thus this saying is a pragmatic one directed as the way in which the listeners should share the gospel that they had learned and accepted. Book of Mormon Context: The gathered saints in Bountiful were no longer in a situation where they had to be cautious about sharing the gospel with anyone in the community. The dramatic appearance of the expected Atoning Messiah had rather altered the religious landscape for any who saw the Messiah and heard him. Nevertheless, as with other sayings, these words would have resonated with past experience. Perhaps they served as a caution against sharing the gospel too widely, into other communities that had not had the Nephite religious background, and particularly who had not been witness to the arrival of the Lord. In the New World the vocabulary of the saying would have had to have changed, even if the meaning were precisely the same. There is no evidence of any pearl trade in Mesoamerica, and certainly no swine. There were dogs and offerings on the altar to God, so that part of the saying would be relevant, but the pearls/swine saying would have had to have been modified to fit a more culturally appropriate example. Textual: There are no changes from the Matthean text.
7 Ask, and it shall be given unto you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you. 3 Nephi 14:8 8 For every one that asketh, receiveth; and he that seeketh, findeth; and to him that knocketh, it shall be opened.
In the social setting of the saying, the expectation is that a door that is knocked will be answered. We seek a friend in their home, announce our intent to see them by knocking, and the door that keeps us out is opened and we are invited in. This is social custom and common occurrence. This common event becomes symbolic when it is applied to the vertical relationship with God rather than the common horizontal relationship with other people. The point of the example is to show that God stands in relationship to us as would any friend or relative. While God might be in his “house,” he is nevertheless willing to receive us if only we do that which we would do to seek any friend or relative. We come to where God is, and we knock on the door. The promise is that God will open. He will not be inhospitable and ignore the knocking. Of course we approach God in prayer, and our prayers are the petition of knocking on God’s symbolic door. This is the promise that they will be received, and that God will invite us in. Remember that when Jesus taught the people to pray they were to address God as Father, and therefore as kin. Of course one’s kin will open the door. It is only to be expected. Book of Mormon Context: As with the example of the pearls and swine, the meaning of this saying would have had to be altered to fit the appropriate cultural contexts. We do not know the customary mode of the ancient Nephites for announcing themselves to those in the interior of a house, but it is rather certain that they did not knock, as there were no doors. Doors were typically fabric hung on the doorway, not wooden obstructions. Thus the knocking on the door image could not have been relevant, though obviously the imagery of God as kin graciously receiving us would have been quite appropriate. Textual: There are no changes from the Matthean text.
9 Or what man is there of you, who, if his son ask bread, will give him a stone? 3 Nephi 14:10 10 Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent? 3 Nephi 14:11 11 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father who is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?
Old World Context: There are two pairings here, stone/bread and fish/serpent. The connection between the pairings is similarity of shape (Robert Guelich. A Foundation for Understanding the Sermon on the Mount. Word Publishing, Dallas. 1982, p. 358). The common loaf of bread was round and raised, and somewhat similar in shape to a smooth stone. The fish was probably a common eel-like fish that could resemble a serpent. Both bread and fish were the staples of the Galilean diet, and therefore quite appropriate in prayer (remember the “give us this day our daily bread” of the Matthean Lord’s Prayer). The examples are given to be unthinkable. No father would misunderstand what his son wanted when asking for food, and give him instead something that appeared as food but was not. The phrase “if ye
then, being evil,” refers to our position before God. Since the comparison will
be to God, we certainly cannot be equated with God, and therefore the
conceptual distance is emphasized by noting that we are evil to God’s good. This is not to
suggest that we are actually evil, but only that we contrast with God’s goodness. Since we mere mortals understand how to give appropriately when our
sons ask of us, God our Father will so much more understand and desire to
receive and answer our prayers with what we need. Textual: There are no changes from the Matthean text.
12 Therefore, all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them, for this is the law and the prophets.
“The content of this saying has parallels in a broad spectrum of ancient literature in the Greek, Roman, Jewish, and Oriental world. One of the most commonly cited parallels comes from the Talmud where Hillel, who lived just before Jesus, answered a query about the law’s content with “What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow-creature. That is the whole Law; all else is explanation. Numerous other parallels exist in late Jewish literature. Although some have attribute the positive formulation to Jesus and the negative to common sense and therefore distinguished between the basic thrust of the two formulations, the positive expression also appears… Furthermore, the early church preserve the saying in its negative form in Didache 1:2 and acts 15:20, 28. In other words, it would be difficult to demonstrate that the content of the Golden Rule in itself was unique to Jesus or the early church.” (Robert Guelich. A Foundation for Understanding the Sermon on the Mount. Word Publishing, Dallas. 1982, p. 360-361). This saying continues the emphasis on the horizontal relationships, and is perhaps best paired with first five verses that similarly deal with interpersonal relationships. A difference, however, is that there is not an essential antithetical relationship between the clauses. This further suggests that this is a common saying that is inserted in the Sermon rather than one that follows the format of the other sayings in the Sermon. Textual: There are no changes from the Matthean text.
13 Enter ye in at the strait gate; for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, which leadeth to destruction, and many there be who go in thereat; 3 Nephi 14:14 14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
This saying returns to the form of antithetical parallels that has been a structural undercurrent through most of the sayings in the Sermon. It begins with a statement of the positive commandment; that we should enter at the “strait gate.” Then come the antithetical parallel phrases: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, which leadeth to destruction, and many there be who go in thereat; Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. The imagery here is one of traveling. In this case, traveling along a road. Unlike the seeking one did to go to a kinsman’s house to knock on the door, this is a longer journey. It will take more time. There are two ways to go, one that is wide and one that is narrow. The contrast may be the one between public and private ways. The broad public way was sixteen cubits across, but a private way was only four cubits. Broad or narrow, a way is still a way. A road is still a road. Once on the road, there is no implication that the road is any easier or harder. The difference is in the quantity of people that are one the road. In the narrow road there are naturally fewer people because it cannot hold as many, but rather than a limitation of capacity, the statement is that few find it. Thus it would appear that the contrast is between the private and public. For the saints who are able to find the private road, they will be in the minority in their communities. The majority of the world will not find the private way. Book of Mormon context: This saying would have very little relevance to Mesoamericans. There were very few formal roads, called sacbe that linked different sites. The rest of the trails were precisely that, and since there were no pack animals, the roads were what practice has made them. Additionally, there were no gates or obstructions to roads. The entire imagery would have been foreign to a Mesoamerican audience. In addition, the conception of a limited number of saints in a larger community of unbelievers might have been the description of Nephite lands in the previous twenty to forty years, but it certainly was not the description prior to that, and clearly was not the description in Bountiful at this time. It also would not describe the future experience of the New World saints, who actually would be in the majority. Of all of the messages contained in the Sermon on the Mount, this one would have the least applicability and comprehensibility to the Mesoamerican Nephites. Textual: There are no changes from the Matthean text.
15 Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. 3 Nephi 14:16 16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? 3 Nephi 14:17 17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. 3 Nephi 14:18 18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. 3 Nephi 14:19 19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. 3 Nephi 14:20 20 Wherefore, by their fruits ye shall know them.
The first hundred
years after the death of Christ saw an explosion of Christianity, but it also
saw tremendous pressures on Christian communities, and situations that differed
greatly from the earliest Christian communities. The Didache is a church manual
from perhaps 110 AD, and it describes a community of believers who accepted
itinerant teachers, preachers, apostles, and prophets as they came through.
Among these were also the good and the bad, and that document contains many of
its own hints on how to tell the true from the false. The ultimate proof of the true nature of a
person is expressed in a botanical metaphor. The relationship between plant and
fruit is used to show that the visible result is a witness to the invisible
essence. Thus it is impossible to gather “grapes of thorns, or figs of
thistles.” We can only receive fruit from the plant where the essence of the plant is to produce such a fruit. In this case, we can have
good fruit only from a good plant. There are, of course, plants that ought to
be good that still do not produce good fruit. We do not expect figs grapes of
thorns, but we do expect grapes of a grape vine. Nevertheless, there may be
some grape vines that still do not produce good fruit. The entire
olive allegory in Jacob depends upon the fact that some fruit is not good, regardless of the type of tree. The imagery therefore, insists that
the visible results are the best indicator of the invisible intent. Book
of Mormon Context: As with
the sayings on the roads, this saying would have been of limited usefulness in
the Nephite community. Although there had been some experiences with false
prophets in the Nephite history, such as Nehor and Korihor, this was not the
typical experience. Particularly for the next two hundred years there would be
not similar situation to Old World. Just as the Nephites were dominant rather
than a minority as the Christians of the Old World were, the Nephites also were
able to control the gospel rather than suffer through the types of widespread
apostasy that were part of the Old World situation. These sayings might have
had some relevance when the Nephite decline began after two hundred years, but
they certainly lacked the immediacy of the Old World context. Textual: There are no changes from the Matthean text.
21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father who is in heaven. 3 Nephi 14:22 22 Many will say to me in that day: Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name, and in thy name have cast out devils, and in thy name done many wonderful works? 3 Nephi 14:23 23 And then will I profess unto them: I never knew you; depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
The people who wrote the Nag Hammadi texts were certainly believers, and certainly faithful. Their faith was simply in a different flavor of Christianity. Certain for the mainstream church, the Gnostic movement would have represented a type of church that would have prophets who proclaim to have done works in the name of Christ. Jesus warns his community that not only would false prophets arise, but that they would be difficult to detect because they would proclaim the name of Christ. Of course there was a difference in the authority of one to work in Christ’s name, and simply claiming the name was insufficient. Book of Mormon Context: As with the section on the false prophets, this saying would have had little relevance to the Mesoamerican Nephites. Textual: There are no changes from the Matthean text.
24 Therefore, whoso heareth these sayings of mine and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, who built his house upon a rock— 3 Nephi 14:25 25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not, for it was founded upon a rock. 3 Nephi 14:26 26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine and doeth them not shall be likened unto a foolish man, who built his house upon the sand— 3 Nephi 14:27 27 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell, and great was the fall of it. The final admonition to the community of believers is intended to be a summation of all that had gone before. The beginning of the Sermon was the Beatitudes which indicate that the community were blessed from God, even if their worldly circumstances were not optimum. The next section is the Antitheses, or the “they said…. I say” section. In this section Jesus lays out the way in which horizontal relationships differ form the Law of Moses to the Law of the Gospel. The next section deals with the vertical relationships with God, and the nature of the changes required by the Law of the Gospel in the way in which we perform our devotions to God. The final section deals with the pragmatics of living the gospel. Jesus tells the people the types of concerns they should, and should not have. He tells them about their ability to approach God their Father in prayer, and he gives them a foretaste of the way their community would fit into the greater world. The concluding statement tells the community to build on the foundation of these teachings. The gospel has been laid out before them, and the way of the gospel explained. Now they must live it. The imagery is of building. Jesus was a carpenter, and doubtless knew something of building. There were probably others in the audience who had similar skills, and there would have been even more that were at least familiar with the principle. Jesus notes the structural stability of a building built upon rock as opposed to one built on sand. The implication is that the principles of the gospel are the bedrock, and that they would provide the firm foundation for their faith and action. Book of Mormon context: This imagery has already been used in the Book of Mormon, and certainly the Mesoamerican Nephites were familiar with both building and the need for solid foundations. Similar language is found in 2 Nephi 28:28 and Helaman 5:12. Textual: There are no changes to the Matthean text in the verses that are included, but there are two verses that have been removed from the Matthean text. Matthew 7:28-9 28 And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine: 29 For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes. These verses conclude the Sermon in the Matthean text, and they also conclude the experience. In the 3 Nephi redaction there is an end of the chapter, indicating a termination of the sermon, but there is no termination of the experience. Jesus remains with the people after giving whatever version of the Sermon he gave to the Nephites at this time. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Brant Gardner. Copyright 2002 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
