Transcript

The Ethics of Jesus – Part 1: Introduction - YouTube

(00:07) Good evening. Welcome to our history, theology, philosophy lecture series. I'm John Hamer streaming to you live from Toronto Centerplace um where we'll have a formal presentation followed by a interactive Q&A. Leandro is here following your comments and questions on the uh chats and so he'll compile those at the end. So do chime in.

(00:41) There are plenty of lectures at this point and the one we're doing tonight builds on several others. If you want to go back and see any of them, you can always find them the most easily in our web page centerplace.ca/lect. CA/ lectures. We're of course very pleased when uh you're able to support us and allow us to prioritize the work of putting out new content which we do as frequently as we can. You can uh do that in super chats here on YouTube.

(01:15) We also of course if you like and and uh share the video that helps us and you can always make a donation at our website centerplace.ca. CA. Our topic this evening is the beginning of a series we are going to attempt as we are exploring the ethics of Jesus. And this as we kind of anticipated before I started preparing for this one uh is a pretty vast topic.

(01:57) And so this is part one where we do sort of an introduction and overview. So when we think about um just the word ethics and also the word morals, morality, um I think we sometimes use these popularly as synonyms interchangeably. Although again, I think that there's sort of a lot of nuance in tone and meaning about where you will use these.

(02:24) And so, for example, when I hear the word morals, I sometimes kind of think of those as um a principles that a person, you know, has inherited culturally. Um that's maybe a way that I personally sort of hear it in bias for the word. And so for ethics I also sort of hear that as you know principles for for behavior but in this case ethics are more of a system or more rationally considered or at least that's the nuance the popular usage uh the nuance I hear another contrast in definitions in popular use describes morals maybe as personal

(03:08) internal or subjective principles about right and wrong. Um, and so, for example, you might feel like you have a personal moral compass that causes you to be um, generous or sympathetic or something like that. Even if that's against maybe your overt interest or you do something that um, is maybe you understand as being personally morally correct, but it may not um, from a utilitarian standpoint have a great benefit for you.

(03:43) Whereas maybe ethics is kind of a right or wrong uh system of right or wrong that's codified by let's say a group or profession like for example an ethical code that doctors follow or lawyers or indeed anybody uh in the business world. Um and so that may be you know again kind of a a difference in what are sometimes the synonyms about right and wrong but used separately here.

(04:15) Both of these words morality and ethics in English have roots from classical antiquity. Words in classical antiquity that can be translated as character. And so morals comes from the Latin root word mos and the plural of that is mores. We even have the the word your mores in English that has just that Latin word has come directly into English as well.

(04:40) So mores meaning customs or manner and then there's a extended word we from the same Latin root moralitas which is understanding your character your manner your proper behavior. So morality uh likewise ethics this comes from a Greek word ethos meaning character or personal disposition and then that gives us an adjective ethicos and that's where we get the ethics part again from Greek both of them having a similar but different meaning one from each of the two classical languages and so what we're going to do today is look at this from a philosophical standpoint and so

(05:22) there is a little bit of a scen a synonym here in philosophy. So ethics as a branch of philosophy, one of the philosophy's major branches is also known as moral philosophy. And so it's the study of moral phenomenon and um and almost all of these words again moral here has this idea of you know right and wrong. What is it deciding between right and wrong? And it investigates normative questions.

(05:48) And normative also has that same kind of uh meaning about that about what people then ought to do. In other words, what behavior is right? What behavior is wrong? How do we know? And so this is divided into some major branches. So applied ethics, you know, is about concrete examples.

(06:12) So when we're looking at you know various activities um is this or that an ethical thing to do in a very specific case um in your own context. Whereas normative ethics uh would take um those concrete examples or actually look underneath them to a more general principle um that all of those are stemming from or drawing from and hopefully then within those principles from that developing a a coherent ethical system or maybe there is a underlying coherence that you know gives rise to principles that then allows for applied ethical answers to various questions. That would be the most coherent way. Um sometimes though a

(07:00) person's system maybe goes from the other direction. They have a bunch of different um ethical rules or examples that are applied from which maybe they derive general principles. The principles don't always cohhere and so then there are ethical contradictions and that's something that you can also find when we study this.

(07:21) And then finally metaeththics which explores under assumptions that underly a whole system including you know whether or not you know there can be something as right and wrong and how do we know that uh these kind of meta questions and so today as we are looking at the ethics of Jesus we'll look at some of particular applied examples we'll try to draw from those out some of the um bigger themes that exist in Jesus system and uh from those kind of kind of paint this picture to see is there a coherent ethical system. Um we'll delve

(08:03) more into that in the future lecture and again metaeththics we'll we'll wait to one of the future two lectures in the series. So let's start with some applied ethics as an example. So some of Jesus's teachings really apply to particular conditions in his context. So for example, Jesus has a very specific teaching on divorce uh which is born out of the social fabric, the context that he is living in, the historical Jesus is living in at the beginning of the first century in Galilee. a um diverse but um you know Judeian mixed uh

(08:47) place under Roman rule. Uh and so in Mark chapter 10, we read some people who were there testing Jesus asked him, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?" And Jesus answered them, "What did Moses command you?" And they said, "Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her.

(09:17) " And so as always when we are um reading gospel accounts the uh the people see the uh the Torah the first five books of the Hebrew Bible um they just take it as uh as wrote that these were actually authored by Moses something that we've seen when we've done who wrote those books is not actually the case but that's what they mean here um within Mosaic law those first five books of the Bible uh this practice exists.

(09:45) Jesus then says to them, "Because of your hardness of heart, he wrote this commandment for you. But from the beginning of creation, we read, God made them male and female. For this reason, a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." So they are no longer two, but one flesh.

(10:10) And Jesus then says, "Therefore, what God has joined together, let no one separate." Then in the house of the disciples, I'm sorry. Then when they after that was with the with the whole crowd and often in uh in Mark's gospel, Jesus has a public teaching and then he goes back and in private explains some more of what he's talking about to his inner group.

(10:33) And so when that is occurring, when they're in a house, the disciples uh are asking him about the matter. And Jesus says to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery." So, it's a pretty um strong anti- divorce teaching overall.

(10:59) So the questioners here, they're asking if Jesus they're asking Jesus about an action, whether that action is lawful as opposed to whether or not it is right. And in part this is because um within the last couple centuries within Judeian culture uh since the uh Hasminan period there has become a much greater emphasis on the uh the writings the um the five books attributed to Moses the law and the other uh biblical writings the prophets as it's called.

(11:38) So those have started to become very central to Judeian identity where they had not previously been as core. We've had a whole lecture on when did the Torah become authoritative. And so they're very concerned with that because that is all being defined in the present. That's the immediate context that Jesus and his contemporaries are living in.

(11:59) And so they um ask that and they back up their question uh in terms of the contemporary practice as it's derived from Mosaic law. So that allows something to be lawful. Um Jesus though is wanting to go beyond just simple adherence to law. And so he suggests that the contemporary practice in his society that allows men to very easily divorce their wives is a lesser law written for hard-hearted people.

(12:28) In other words, he doesn't deny that's in there. But he's suggesting that um even though it is, we're we're not we're not to say that something that just because it's lawful means that it's right. And then Jesus quotes a different passage from scripture.

(12:47) or so a different writing of Moses as it was thought then to teach the opposite principle. And so he um goes to that creation story in Genesis where uh male and female humans are created in God's image and they're joined together and he suggests that that um is a a higher principle than the contemporary practice.

(13:12) And so um on the one hand I think Jesus then by um quoting a competing scripture who that is giving a principle that's different from the explicit legalistic um precept laid down in the law portion. Um in some ways Jesus is doing that same thing that the later medieval philosopher Abalard uh would show is that you can actually if you want to prove something just by quoting the Bible you can find a whole bunch of verses that say the one thing. You know, in other words, seek yes in Latin.

(13:40) Uh or and then you can also find a whole bunch of authorities and verses of scripture that say the opposite. So, seek known. So, this is the problem always in using scripture as a sole source of authority because you can find passages that say what you want. And Jesus is doing this very thing uh in this passage in Matthew. And so um the idea here is that this is a very applied ethical thing.

(14:06) Is it right? Is it is it good to divorce? And the answer that Jesus is giving in this application is no. Um so in addition to those kind of applied examples um some of those cohhere in a way and are part of a theme that may then illustrate a broader principle. And that's where we're getting to developing the normative ethics.

(14:38) And so an example of this is Jesus's uh teaching to go the extra mile. And so we read in Matthew 5, if anybody forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile. And so on the one hand, this example, you know, relates to again his very specific context. So Judeian peasants who were living under Roman dominion. Um there is a uh a part part of the governance is civilians could be requisitioned by the government government or by the military which is more or less the same thing to provide a certain amount of conscript labor.

(15:15) And so the the soldiers are you know a legion or whatever is marching through. Um you're a peasant along the way. you have a a mule in a cart, you have to go a mile with them away from wherever you started in order to help them transport all of their uh all of their goods and bivwack and so forth.

(15:35) And so Jesus is saying in this um you know very specific kind of context um a a what is amounting to another principle. So rather than be um very negative uh and you know openly rebel against this um oppressive foreign dominion. He's suggesting that's not how the form resistance you're resistant to this uh authority should should be taken.

(16:10) And so instead of you know having some provoking an an outright revolt or violently responding or running away go the extra mile. That's not this is not where and to prove um it'll ultimately be proving a nonviolent resistance. So that's to say there is a very applied specific rule there. But in it's in the course of teaching a general principle that helps us to derive kind of a theme of Jesus ethics and ultimately an ethical system.

(16:38) And so the theme here is maybe the principle of non-retaliation. And so that going the extra mile is taken alongside additional teachings. For example, those that are grouped together in this portion of Matthew's gospel.

(16:56) And so, like I say, it's suggestive of a broader overall ethical principle, the principle of non- retaliation. And so Jesus says, quoting Leviticus, you've heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. But I say to you, do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, give your coat as well.

(17:19) And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile. Give to the one who asks of you. And do not refuse anyone who wants to borrow from you. So um all of it is a um definitely a a a bunch of teachings of non-retaliation.

(17:44) some of which if you know taken very literally can lead to you know it's not about so if we literally don't resist an evildoer you can also um support evil by uh by being like a full-on collaborator here instead of having a um you know an a active non-violent resistance where you are not having retaliation but are nevertheless um refusing to be part of of this system or let's say um just continuously giving into an abuser or actually helping abuse to flourish.

(18:20) So from those um little examples, we want to tonight um distill the ethics of Jesus attempting to find, you know, pull out some of these themes like this so that um so that we can have our basis for a bigger discussion of the ethics of Jesus.

(18:47) And whenever we do this um I believe very strongly that we have to say what do we mean by Jesus because um many Christians there there are many different um answers to that question and many Christians just temp tempted to lump these all together or to just see these all as exactly the same thing. But I think um there are very distinct three very distinct Jesuses especially which are the Jesus Christ of scripture and this Jesus Christ is a composite of the four individual portraits by the canonical evangelists. There's the Jesus Christ of theology.

(19:26) uh we talk a lot about the theological Jesus when we've done u lectures on the trinity and aranism and other christoologgical uh ideas and so the theological Christ is the second person of God made manifest in the world holy uh fully human fully divine the divine word of God the logos uh made visible in creation that understanding and then we also then have the historical Jesus of Nazareth who was a figure in history, the leader of a movement, uh, a guy born in Roman Galilee, Judean heritage who lived, you know, somewhere approximately in the range of 4 BC to say 33 AD. And

(20:08) so that historical Jesus, you know, was known to people in his actual lifetime and people could experience him then and listen to him at that time. But then when all of those people who had known him um after he was executed after then they all died it became impossible for anybody to access the historical Jesus directly.

(20:33) So what you have is oral traditions about Jesus. you have the emerging um theologies about Christ and eventually you have the writings that become canonized about Jesus. Early Christians including those four canonical evangelists though were not writing with a historical agenda. So the author of Mark is not a trained historian whose goal here is to um go to uh Palestine, go to Judea and Galilee and um interview anybody who was still left alive who might have known Jesus and ask him all the different things and then try to um try to say what is the most likely

(21:18) scenario based on all of the inherited traditions of who Jesus was and how he actually acted. um the author of Mark tries to do no such thing. Instead um they are writing with a theological agenda uh as we'll see. And so therefore in order to access the historical Jesus, this is something that has happened in modern times since the development of the modern academic discipline of history.

(21:53) As historians have done that thing um that that the early evangelists did not do and weren't weren't interested in doing uh where we take all of our inherited sources and especially tools like literary criticism. Um and we are therefore very blessed that we have the separate accounts that compete and contradict each other so that we are able to um identify the biases in all the authors so that we can tease out um the likelier and less likely uh components uh echoes that get us back to who that historical figure is. But all of which every version of that as we've seen when we've done our lectures on the

(22:29) historical Jesus is nevertheless an academic construct that we're experiencing. So it's quite a different thing what Christians are doing in terms of theology. So as I say theologically Christ is understood by Christians to be Jesus but also very much more. So as the divine logos as the word of God, Christ is also God.

(22:59) Christ is co-eternal with the source with the heavenly father the invisible uh source who is also God. And then Christ as God's glory as God's word as God made manifest in creation represents God that is visible that we can sense in creation fully human and fully divine in ways that include then people acting as Christ's body in the world and becoming Christ's body through um spiritual rituals like communion.

(23:36) in and then also um people understand that they are seeing Christ in the faces of everyone in the world. So again anywhere where God is visibly manifest in creation is understood to be Christ. So that's Jesus but so much more theologically.

(24:02) And of course the Jesus Christ of scripture are part of religious practice in Christian churches. um as opposed to um just being a history book or something like that. And the biblical cannon which was created by the church call pulled four of these ancient books together uh in order to uh and these books narrate the acts and teachings of Jesus but they're each written by an author who has their own distinct theological purpose.

(24:34) And then in general those portraits which again are contradictory to each other are taken together. They tend to be harmonized in practice and thus paint a portrait of Jesus that's told and retold by Christians in religious uh settings as core sacred narratives. And what I would say is that in telling these as stories, these act more as as myth in a very positive sense of the word myth.

(25:08) That is an identity formation story that is telling Christians who they are as opposed to like I say something that's a simple history report. And so when we're looking at um what do we mean by Jesus, we have to keep these separate Jesuses in mind. So, like I say, often when people are just reading the Bible, they pick it up. Um, people, Christians sometimes think that they are effectively reading a biography or a history of things as they're happening. They think that, okay, I'm encountering the historical Jesus as I read this.

(25:42) But in fact, what they're encountering are the gospels. And this idea that it's simply the historical read uh Jesus is a misconception of what those gospels actually are and specifically um what they are not. And so they are not accounts written by the named eyewitness disciples Mark, Matthew, Luke and John or their immediate contemporaries.

(26:07) um instead they are later sources um that are anonymous and so they're part of a much larger group of early Christian writings. Most of um the early gospels were not included in the Bible even though some of them like the Gospel of Thomas seem to preserve um a very early and perhaps just as authentic a tradition as some of the canonical gospels and there are more still that we only have little fragments of.

(26:45) Um although we call them Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John, the names associated to them were all attached by tradition in the second century. None of them identify themselves by saying I, Luke, am now writing this or um when Jesus came and called me, Matthew, a tax collector. There's none of those. Uh we never get to that kind of uh first person in identification.

(27:09) And so indeed they're all written by Christians with their own theology of Christ as a background and they are writing them for religious not historical purposes. So um there was some of uh the teachings of Jesus and traditions about him uh that survived and so some of those no doubt clearly make it into the tradition. So the idea that um Jesus is executed by crucifixion and so forth.

(27:40) This is um a tradition that survives and is included in them. Um the earliest of the narrative gospels, Mark was written around the year 70, some 40 years after Jesus' death, the historical Jesus's death. Uh it's also written in Greek as opposed to Jesus's language. And the other three gospels are written closer to the end of the first century.

(28:07) Some of the stories like I say are preserving trans traditions that derive ultimately from the historical Jesus. And this is also especially true I think of some of the teachings or many of the teachings. So because though early Christians had the conviction uh that was the core testimony of Paul the first Christian whose writings survived that Jesus lived, Jesus died and was raised again according to scriptures and the scriptures that they understood at the time since they had not written the New Testament yet.

(28:39) um they mean to say the historical I'm sorry the Hebrew Bible. And so they're saying he lived according to the Hebrew Bible. And so as they read the Hebrew Bible, they read it typologically to describe Jesus. That is stories that um you and I might read and don't think that has anything uh overtly or explicitly at all to do with Jesus.

(29:12) uh like the story of um Moses being put on a basket to uh save his life as a baby and having Pharaoh executing all of the um uh all of the male children in the Hebrews during the Exodus story or killing a percentage of them because he's afraid of overpopulation. Um uh this typologically is read by early Christians to prefigure Jesus.

(29:39) one of all kinds of stories that do um and indeed when the author of Matthew is writing his own nativity story and lacks any details of how the historical Jesus may have been born and so on is able to craft that entire Christmas story with details like the detail from the Exodus. And so he creates a story of of King Herod the Great massacring children uh in Bethlehem because not because he's making up um fiction or not because it's uh it's attempting to be a fraud or anything like that, but it's because the author of the Gospel of Matthew uh has as a faith conviction that Jesus lived according to scripture. And so

(30:23) when you look at the scriptures, you will find and you don't know what Jesus actually did, but you see details in scripture, you know that's what Jesus must have done. And so again, it's a theological conviction that is creating the theological portrait in the gospels rather than uh in a lot of cases historical details that survived and are included.

(30:51) And so therefore when we think of these three Jesuses, the Jesus of scripture, theology, and the historical Jesus, we then ask, well, what's the relationship between all of these? So there was a historical Jesus. He was executed and sometime after his execution uh some of the disciples that he had had in life, women and men began having visions of the risen Christ.

(31:22) So for example, they understood that despite this horrible calamity that had happened, this unexpected calamity um that their leader had been executed, they nevertheless less feel that he is vindicated because they have seen him uh risen up uh being risen up with God and now seated at the right hand of the father.

(31:48) and this understanding this vindication um they also understand that to mean and that proves to us to our satisfaction that he was the Messiah that he was the Christ. So that in turn causes a movement to spread and grow and the movement becomes known as Christian based on this idea that Jesus then is the Christ, the risen Christ and it's those Christians who develop a high christologology and indeed the im the idea of a Christ of theology and this develops very rapidly.

(32:27) Um, we already see within 10 years or so after the historical Jesus's death, uh, Paul, the first Christian whose writings survive, has a pretty high christologology already. But as I mentioned, uh, in terms of filling in the details and even understanding that idea that Christ of theology, that isn't derived out of nothing. It is something that has already been established within second temple Jewish thought.

(32:51) We've seen that in in thinkers like Pho of Alex al Alexandria who's a Jewish non-Christian uh philosopher in Alexandria that uh the Septuagent Bible the Greek version of the Hebrew Bible is already a source for this idea of a of God's glory manifest in the world God's uh word or logos as a second hypothesis of of God uh the invisible source And this is now developed um by early Christians.

(33:24) This is developed before any of the canonical gospels then are written. And so again when anonymous evangelists start writing they are already Christians. They are already working from uh the basis of the Christ of theology and not in any case from a personal relationship any one of them would have had with the historical Jesus since they are not eyewitnesses.

(33:50) And once again they are working with the Septuagent Bible to fill in all of the details which is actually uh a more significant uh source than of where the details are coming from. And that is the portrait that gives us the Jesus Christ of scripture, which is a long road then from the historical Jesus. That doesn't mean that there's no historical Jesus or that no memory and no teachings are preserved, but it does mean that it's gone a long way to get there. And so when we're trying to reconstruct the ethics of Jesus, what I'm attempting to

(34:26) do then is focus on if to the extent that we can the historical Jesus. Um this is inevitably going to be distorted because the lens of the gospels is, you know, is where we have to look through to kind of get back to the historical Jesus. But we're going to look es I'm going to look especially at uh the more narrative stories and sayings especially from the synoptic gospels rather than um the clearly theological Christ that also is presented and pictured in the gospels because of you know they're all written again a by Christians after they already

(35:07) have this idea and so therefore we're not going to look at um to find the ethics we're not going to look at sayings that we see in the gospel of John where Jesus is asserting his own divinity as when he's saying uh I am the light of the world and all of the other I am sayings that are um echoing the saying of God when God names himself in the Exodus story to Moses at the burning bush.

(35:42) And so as we begin uh you know as we go through this first lecture on the ethics of Jesus, I want to kind of try to look at some of what I think are the major themes that come through these teachings. Beginning at the base level with the golden rule which is one of the main principles that is found you know across all kinds of ethical systems that are developed around this time and the few centuries also before this in antiquity.

(36:11) We'll look at the theme of rejecting inherited tradition which is also a very common thing in this classical antiquity as um as religious reformers as uh philosophers are saying to the traditional practices why are we doing this? This is something that, you know, we've always done.

(36:42) And yet it doesn't inherently seem to be a good thing to do compared to um things that seem more naturally obvious to me uh are good and evil. So, I'm seeing all these people suffer. I think that's bad. I would like to help them. I maybe think that's good. That seems to be that way. I don't understand why um it's so much more important in our inherited tradition for me to um perform some ritual like an animal sacrifice or some other you know very complicated um essentially pagan superstitions that you have to do to propitiate gods when you have some act.

(37:18) So that also is something that we see in Jesus. um a central teaching of Jesus is focused on love and also that is part of the basis for his uh motivations for his ethical system. What Jesus teaches challenges both hierarchies, worldly hierarchies and also materialism, wealth and property.

(37:49) He has a um a very central message of inclusivity. So inviting in marginalized people and also um being an activist for justice for their on their behalf. And there is also a system again of nonviolence as we were talking about and at its heart uh forgiveness. So a an op way to operate and live with neighbor and enemy. So let's start with this sort of base level that so many uh ethical systems, philosophies and religions have the golden rule.

(38:28) Um this is something that across cultures thinking thinkers in antiquity are are looking at as they move past rituals that they've inherited from prehistory. So sacrifice is designed for things like cosmic maintenance. you're doing it so the sun is going to come back up again so that uh the you'll be able to have uh annual harvest and so forth.

(38:52) Um one of the basic insights like I say it's common to almost all of these is uh the golden rule which has negative and positive ways of phrasing it but it's essentially treat others as one would like others to treat you know you um and so for example uh we made this poster about uh how different um different world religions and also humanism and atheism and so forth.

(39:26) How people um have that principle as cohering all across everything from uh humanism and Judaism to Zoroastrianism, Hinduism, Wikah, Dowoism and so forth. Um so if you take one of those for example, Confucianism formulated in China around the fifth century BC, we read that Zong, a disciple of Confucious, asked Confucious, "Is there any one word that could guide a person throughout life?" The master replied, "How about shu?" So this is a word that we translate as reciprocity.

(40:07) And so then he goes on to further define that never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself. So that's a formulation here across Eurasia the other side um of the continent here uh from the golden rule that Jesus is also formulating centuries later. So similarly um avoid do quote avoid doing what you would blame others for doing is attributed to Thales who is one of the legendary seven sages at the um who is identified at the beginning of classical Greek thought precursor to the preoccratic um philosophers or beginning the prescratic philosophers. Um so in Jesus version like I said of

(40:52) this uh general principle uh we read in Luke 6:31 do to others as you would have them do to you and also the version in Matthew in everything do to others as you would have them do to you for this is the law and the prophets and of course law and the prophets that's the contemporary euphemism in Jesus's day in the gospels for saying the Bible or the Old Testament, the Hebrew Bible.

(41:23) And so he's more or less saying here that this golden rule is effectively how if you distill the Hebrew Bible down to one thing, we can get it to the principle here of reciprocity of uh doing unto others as you would have them do to you. In making that claim, Jesus is actually echoed by a contemporary Judean rabbi Hillel the Elder who not, you know, was had overlap in anyway in terms of the dates sometime or might have in sometime in that range.

(41:58) Um, Hil is only recorded centuries later in the Babylonian Talmud. But what's recorded is that he taught what is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. This is the whole Torah. This is the whole five books of Moses, the law. The rest is an explanation. Go and learn.

(42:19) So, it's kind of the same almost the same exact idea of what uh the teach the formulation is in Matthew. So, it's an ethical teaching. It's not unique to Jesus, but the formulation in Matthew suggests that the idea was regarded as very important and foundational uh ethically. So from that I want to now look at this theme of rejecting inherited tradition and I think that this is um one of the important ideas that ethical thinkers that reformers share and so the ancient Greek case moral thought originally derives from inherited myths so epics like Homer's Iliot an odyssey, heided's poems on the works and the days, the theogy, how uh

(43:10) the gods behave and how they interact with people and what it all means. However, as these poems date from a time kind of a prehistoric time, they're part of the coming out of an oral tradition when natural forces appeared especially capriccious. The actions of the gods in the myths also tend to be capriccious.

(43:33) they tend to do things that um later thinkers consider immoral. And so uh kind of famously when when Socrates student Plato um writes his republic about writing about how to have an ideal society he includes um all sorts of censorship of these kind of foundational works Homer and Heesid because he feels that they're providing uh precedent or examples by by claiming that Zeus is doing all these things that seem seem unethical like cheating on his wife or um having kind of favoritism. Everyone's being compromised. They're doing um

(44:20) things out of spite and and other kinds of things that are not uh not to be modeled because they're now being understood as unethical by these newer ethical thinkers. Um nobody in this utopia is going to be able to read that.

(44:38) instead um they if they're going to read anything about the gods they would be as Plato would understand them to be which is behaving as paragonss of ethics and so that is growing out of this uh reforming ideals um that especially uh for example Plato's teacher Socrates got growing as Socrates would go around making himself um kind of a nuisance in Athens asking people uncomfortable questions like um what's the meaning of life? What do what is uh you know what's what you know what is what is the source of good? Um does might make right these kind of things. Uh and then and ending up usually always when he has this long

(45:24) dialogue with people um they find that all of their inherited biases and things um are ethically compromised. they find a contradiction in their in their logic. And so um this is the deconstruction of inherited morality. Um they also then rec people like Plato and and Socrates and Aristotle then also reconstruct an ethics.

(45:50) But in some cases uh their contemporaries like the sophists also just continued the deconstruction perhaps getting to um a a condition is akin to uh certainly skepticism but relativism. So um although central to the priestly understanding in the second temple Judaism um already uh you know for centuries by Jesus time there was a long prophetic tradition that questioned rituals like animal sacrifice.

(46:22) So that is exactly what the Sadducees who are in charge of the temple think is the very most important thing. But people in the Hebrew prophetic tradition call that into question a lot. Uh and certainly that's also true in parts of the Hebrew wisdom tradition. And so in promoting let's say a early ethical system, the prophet Isaiah at the first chapter of his book says, "Hear the word of the Lord.

(46:54) What to me is the multitude of your sacrifices. Bringing offerings is futile. Incense is an abomination to me. So, you know, that's a big assault directly on the high priests, the priests that are in charge of the temple who are continually performing sacrifices, making offerings, uh using a lot of incense because as you are killing all these animals, you're creating this horrific stench and so forth. Um this is uh an abomination to me.

(47:24) um says the prophetic tradition here, Isaiah. Instead, what God says to Isaiah a few verses later is this is what you should do. Instead, cease to do evil, learn to do good, seek justice, rescue the oppressed, plead for the widow, etc., etc. So, while the priests might actually argue, well, what are you talking about? Do do what is good? Offering animal sacrifice is doing what is good. That's what the tradition that we've inherited. That's written in the law that we priests wrote.

(47:57) Nevertheless, Isaiah says, "No, no, no. That's all vanity. What good constitutes is something else entirely." And so that includes things like advocating for widows and the oppressed and so forth. And Jesus is very much in this tradition. And so Jesus rejection of inherited conventions is even more radical.

(48:26) So Jesus definitely does ad advocate for uh the widows and the oppressed, the captives and so forth. But he also sees seemingly the family structure itself as um something that's holding people back from having ethical behavior. you're so um couched in these traditions that prescribe your roles, prescribe your roles that you can't uh you can't get out of them. And so we read again in Mark uh a story that Jesus's mother unnamed here, but Mary, you know, who is she's called in the other gospels.

(49:01) Jesus's mother and his brothers came and standing outside, they sent to him and called to him. A crowd who was sitting around him said to him, "Your mother and your brothers are outside asking for you." And Jesus replied, "Who are my mother and my brothers?" And looking around at those who sat around him, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers. Whoever does the will of God is my brother and sister and mother.

(49:26) " So um the women and men who are part of Jesus's uh movement are forming an intentional sacred community that has replaced even the family itself uh the natural family that Jesus was born into. So like I say familial obligation was the beginning and the end of much of traditional life in antiquity.

(49:56) So you are obliged to um and one of the whole core goals of of of Romanas is piety which actually doesn't refer to piety as much to God as piety felial piety piety to your father especially but all of your your family and so uh in the Roman epic the anid the the motto of the hero Anias who is emblematic of the Roman people eventually descendants go on to become the Romans, found Roman, be the Romans.

(50:28) Um, Anias's motto always iss an Anias. I'm always worried about um uh the the family. He escapes Troy having his old father on his uh over his shoulders and holding his uh son's hand as they run away. His wife is following behind and she doesn't make it. That's not as important. is interested in felial piety.

(50:57) So this um this sense that you know we maybe have a little hangovers of you can think of controlling moms in um let's say some Asian societies or other societies um that that isn't as common in North America. Um it would have been a lot more than that in antiquity. So um Jesus here then though is cutting through that and those kind of responsibilities and saying um I'm privileging the intentional community that we're founding uh the kingdom uh of God on earth here.

(51:35) So Jesus also says in Luke chapter 14, "Whoever comes to me and does not hate father and mother uh wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and even life itself, this worldly life itself cannot be my disciple." So the kind of life that Jesus is calling disciples to live out rejects this bedrock inherited convention of antiquity.

(52:01) Um uh goes Jesus says in Luke nine, "Follow me to someone he meets along the road." That person then says, "Okay, sure, Lord, but first let me go bury my father." And Jesus said to him, "Let the dead bury their own dead, but as for you, go and proclaim the kingdom of God." Another person he met said, "I will follow you, Lord, but let me first say farewell to those at my home.

(52:28) " And Jesus said to him,"No one who puts a hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God." So this is some very very radical stuff. So and call you know burying your father is pretty much the most important inherited feel familial convention in antiquity. And so uh Jesus just telling the guy, "Nope, you have to let the dead bury your own.

(52:52) This we're going to go forward with this." Um that's probably just about as radical sounding a teaching as um contemporary cynic philosophers like the who were um doing kind of public spectacles in order to uh in order to shake people out of inherited convention. um as they tried to get people to live an good life, but essentially an essential good life that is also going to be simple and free of all of these uh distractions.

(53:31) So, uh a rejection of inherited tradition. Let's look at the ethical motivation and a focus on love. So just as Jesus in Matthew cites the golden rule as a distillation of the Hebrew Bible, he says something very similar about the theme of love which he singles out as the two greatest commandments in the Hebrew Bible in the Gospel of Matthew.

(53:59) And so when the Pharisees we read heard that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the different um factions have been coming together to argue with Jesus, debate him. The Pharisees gathered together and one of them, an expert in the law, asked Jesus a question in order to test him. Teacher, he said, which commandment in the law is the greatest? Jesus said to him, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.

(54:26) This is the greatest and the first commandment." But then he says, "A second is like it. You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." And so that same thing about you know the all the law and the prophets that say the the Hebrew Bible in other words um this is very similar to that hal uh the elder quotation about the golden rule.

(54:55) Uh but in this case it is uh two two commandments quoting from the Hebrew Bible about um love and the one love of God is a very um prominent important uh commandment normally seen as a very prominent important one. Love your neighbor as yourself less so but now is elevated in this uh combining. So um once again this shows that Jesus is operating in the context of his day which is privileging commandments out of the Hebrew Bible.

(55:29) Um however you know this focus on love extends even further than loving God and loving neighbor. Um because even though Jesus like all of his contemporaries that he's talking to in uh the second temple Judeian religion are are drawing upon the Hebrew Bible. Um Jesus actually does not hesitate to call on his followers to transcend biblical strictctures which he does with his additional focus on love in Matthew chapter 5 when he says you've heard it said you shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.

(56:05) But I say to you love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you so that you may be children of your father in heaven. For he makes the sun rise on the evil and on the good, and he sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous. For if you love only those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers and sisters, what more are you doing than others? Don't even the Gentiles do the same? So, everyone um is expressing love within their own kin groups and to their friends and so forth. But um um Jesus is

(56:44) saying love not only neighbors but even enemies. And so as he is frequently doing elsewhere, Jesus here is appealing to listeners better natures. So why are we doing this? To be as children of your father in heaven. That is to say by living and doing good rather than him just telling them to do it by appealing to authority by quoting the biblical command and so forth. And so he's saying, "No, do do better than what the Bible says.

(57:16) " Um, the scripture also implicitly reminds the listener that the earthly rewards here are not the objective or the motivation. Um, everybody is getting earthly rewards for uh being nice to their friends and things like that. But since God we read sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous since um it's God is providing sun to the just and the unjust alike.

(57:48) Earthly rewards do not provide motivation for living a righteous life for loving your enemies. Um you're not necessarily uh you know you're not necessarily going to get uh you know special blessings in your worldly life. You know in other words we become richer or something like that.

(58:06) the prosperity gospel is not operative here where um if you do righteous you'll get you'll get rich or something like that. And so although though many Christians still believe in a prosperity gospel incorrectly and they also have sometimes been motivated to earn a reward not in this life but in an afterlife in heaven or they might be motivated out of fear of punishment hellfire in an afterlife.

(58:32) um this teaching shouldn't be the motivation uh as Jesus explains in the parable of the sheep and the goats. So the setting here is the cosmic day of judgment and people are separated into two groups. The sheep who are going to receive an eternal reward and the goats who are experiencing afterlife punishment.

(58:56) Um, and so from the judgment throne, the king in this parable says to the sheep, "Come you who are blessed by my father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food. I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink. I was a stranger and you welcomed me.

(59:15) I was naked and you gave me clothing. I was sick and you took care of me. I was in prison and you visited me." So all sorts of um ways to do good. Uh the goats in this story, in this parable are condemned in a list for not doing those very same things to the king. But after um we hear that both groups are confused.

(59:41) Both groups object because neither of them has any memory of doing that whole list of things for the king or not doing that whole list of things for the king. So the king explains, "Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did it to me." And so we can see in this story then the sheep and the goats have not been acting with the hope of etern earning an eternal reward or out of fear of punishment.

(1:00:13) They were absolutely ignorant um of that they were actually, you know, doing this thing and they're doing it unto the king who of the judgment here. They have some other motivation that has been causing them to do that. And so the idea is not simply to love neighbors and enemy enemies for some compromised mercenary motivations like earning a reward or out of fear of punishment but instead to be motivated by love itself.

(1:00:39) So you are loving others for love's own sake. Other words because one loves love and loves to love. And that is how you align with love in this system. So love and ethical motivation is a theme. Another theme of Jesus is challenging hierarchies and also materialism. So all kinds of worldliness hierarchy was at absolutely the heart of the lived experience in antiquity.

(1:01:12) Um and we still have all sorts of hierarchies inherited in this present day but it was a lot more fixed even back then than it is still today. Some thinkers like Aristotle um nevertheless being um even though they are reformers Aristotle nevertheless concluded that hierarchy was the essential structure of the cosmic order.

(1:01:38) So um this kind of um religious revolutionary philosophical thought doesn't always overturn everything. In some cases it finds a philosophical justification for things. Um so for in Aristotle's case for a hierarchy where slaves are supposed to be slaved, women are supposed to be less than than men, men are supposed to be more than women and all sorts of other um fixed ideas that he justifies because of his view that hierarchy is part of the cosmic order or natural order.

(1:02:09) So Jesus by contrast presents a very opposite perspective. And so in Matthew 20, he goes so far as to say that in the heavenly kingdom, the last will be first and the first will be last. So the normal worldly hierarchy will be absolutely overturned or is absolutely overturned in the ideal sense that he promotes. And this is also to be true among Jesus's own followers.

(1:02:35) And so he explains later in that chapter, look, you know, the rulers of the Gentiles lorded over them. Their great ones are tyrants over them. It will not be so among you. But whoever wishes to be great among you must be a ser be your servant. And whoever wishes to be first among you must be your slave, just as the son of man, just as Jesus came not to be served, but to serve.

(1:03:05) And so um the motivation here is not to be served. You do not want to be and and at the high top of the hierarchy is the person who is the uh slave who is serving others. Uh radical uh overturning of hierarchy. Jesus also regularly condemns worldly elites. for example, people who make a show of religiosity while he then understands that their material advantage is actually built on exploitation of the disadvantaged.

(1:03:36) So it doesn't matter that you're going out and making all of these um fancy donations or or paying for a big uh religious festival and so on if you're gathering that wealth by exploiting your fellow people. And so we read Jesus saying in Luke 20, "Beware of the scribes who like to walk around in long robes and who love respectful greetings in the marketplaces.

(1:04:03) They love the best seats in the synagogues and places of honor at banquetss. They devour widows houses and for the sake of appearance they say long prayers. They will receive the greater condemnation. So um they're getting this wealth by exploiting the poor maybe as being land over land owners devouring widows houses and that is allowing them to have this pretense of being hyper religious but they're not uh but that's not being good.

(1:04:37) Uh in the next verses in Luke, Jesus contrasts the behavior of these folks, the these wealthy, seemingly religious folks with the behavior of a faithful, impoverished widow. So Jesus looked up and saw rich people putting their gifts into the temple treasury. He also saw a poor widow put in two small copper coins. He said, "Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put in more than all of them.

(1:05:05) For all of them have contributed out of their abundance, but she out of her poverty has put in all she had to live on." So I do want to say that in this uh example although um I prefer to read this as an overall ethical principle. In other words uh that that when you are part of an exploitive system and you're extremely wealthy and you're just throwing in things for gesture to buy uh a PR advantage as opposed to somebody who is really giving it their all. um that we shouldn't be Christians should not um especially

(1:05:43) whatever preachers and pe televangelists who are um taking pe money away from people on fixed incomes in order to buy new jets. This should not be a a misused as an applied ethics rather than just as this principle here. Unfortunately, it is misused.

(1:06:03) But anyway, the story then um of a rich man who already keeps all the commandments and asks Jesus what more he can do um leads to kind of a general teaching about wealth that Jesus gives in Mark 10. So Jesus looking at this rich man loved him. But he said, "You lack one thing. Go and sell what you own. Give the money to the poor and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come follow me.

(1:06:29) " So when the man heard this, he was shocked and he went away grieving, for he had many possessions. Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, "How hard it will be for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God." And the disciples were perplexed at his words. But Jesus said to them again, "Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom God.

(1:06:48) It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God." So this is a pretty radical teaching against wealth and excessive material possessions um and speaks to the uh intentional poverty that Jesus's uh movement was about. And it's been difficult for Christians, especially very rich Christians throughout history, to to wrap their heads around and try to try to get past this or explain this kind of teaching away. But um Jesus's system challenges, like I say, uh worldliness, materialism,

(1:07:28) hierarchy as um as the opposite of what should be how life should be lived. Jesus is also continually promoting inclusivity in the congregation in the community that he's constructing and justice for the marginalized the people who are on his edges of his society. So Mosaic law for example commanded priests to avoid anything that caused ritual impurity.

(1:07:58) And this behavioral code was just beginning to be expanded in the century before Jesus day and Jesus day and so forth. It ultimately gets applied to all adherence in rabbitic Judaism from which modern Judaism derives. And so the idea is in other words these things that were only essential for priests to do originally when the the law code the Mosaic code is written by the priests u now become extended and become incumbent upon everyone but it's still being debated in Jesus day um and Jesus is of a position that is opposing um especially literal focus on these he

(1:08:45) often wants you to transcend those. And so in Jesus's ministry, especially with the idea of inclusion of outcast and marginalized, ritually impure groups, um he actively engages with them despite ritual purity prohibitions. And some of the key groups that we have uh in the gospels as examples is interacting with lepers, people who um uh have a disease that forces them out away from society, prostitutes, sex workers who are seen as uh sinful by the religious code.

(1:09:25) Um usually a marginalized group in any society. Uh tax collectors, we'll see why. And then also Samaritans. And so that first group, lepros, lepers, people with leprosy with skin condition, um they were forced to live on the margin of society for fear of contagion. Um and so the stories of Jesus healing lepers is a uh symbolic story of an end to their ostracism from society.

(1:09:57) So although like I say the example of healing lepers and also there's other examples where Jesus um cast demons out of people who are possessed of demons. These involve literary supernatural activity. Um it's nevertheless showing this point of of a healing that is bringing somebody who's been ostracized from society into the society.

(1:10:22) Um Jesus' association with sex workers doesn't require any of this kind of supernatural examples. Um and you can see why it would actually be u something that he would be very criticized about in his society. And indeed he is criticized in the gospel accounts even. So we read in Luke 7, one of the Pharisees asked Jesus to eat with him.

(1:10:46) And when he went into the Pharisees house, Jesus reclined to dine. And a woman in the city who was a sinner, that is a sex worker, having learned that he was eating in the Pharisees house, brought an alabaster jar of ointment. She stood behind him at his feet weeping, and began to bathe his feet with her tears, and to dry them with her hair, kissing his feet, and anointing them with the ointment.

(1:11:12) Now when the Pharisee who had invited him saw it, he said to himself, "If this man were a prophet, he would have known who and what kind of woman this is who's touching him. He would know that she's a sinner." And the fact that he doesn't apparently see that, that's showing to the Pharisee, "This guy is no prophet." However, as the story continues, the Pharisees prove wrong.

(1:11:34) Jesus knows exactly who the woman is, and he knows her profession. he nevertheless is associating with her um even though she should be ostracized according to um law and tradition. So at the conclusion of the story, Jesus applauds the woman for tr show showing him true hospitality and he condemns the Pharisee for being a bad host.

(1:12:01) Um and so again this is a an association with people um who would been at the margin of the society. Among those ostracized from Jesus contemporary society are tax collectors that is Judeans who are collaborating with the Roman government. So on the one hand as collaborators they may be seen as traders um and that's one of the reasons why they're not liked.

(1:12:25) They also necessarily ate meals with Gentiles, with non-Jews, people who are not uh keeping kosher, which makes them ritually unclean. And so that's another reason that they're ostracized. And so we read in Matthew 9, nevertheless, Jesus um hangs out with them. So as Jesus was walking along, he saw a man called Matthew sitting at the tax collection station and he said to him, "Follow me.

(1:12:51) " And Matthew got up and followed him. And he and Jesus sat at dinner in the house. Many uh tax collectors and sinners came and were sitting with Jesus and his disciples. And when the Pharisees saw this, they said to the disciples, "Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners? And when Jesus heard this, he said, "Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick are the ones that need a physician. Go and learn what this means.

(1:13:24) I desire mercy not sacrifice for I have not come to call the righteous but sinners. So, so again this is from part of this tradition. We don't Jesus is not interested in in the rituals and the law. He's rather interested in in mercy and he is in interested in in um uh healing divisions in the society that are excluding marginalized people like prostitutes, sex workers, uh tax collectors, collaborators, people who aren't keeping kosher and so forth.

(1:13:55) So contemporaries therefore criticized Jesus decision to sell share meals with members of these groups that society ostracized. But he made including the marginalized his focus. Inclusion extends also to the ethnic enemies of the Judeans, the Samaritans, which is the actual purpose of the parable of the Samaritan in Luke 10.

(1:14:24) So we sometimes call it the good Samaritan because it was unexpected by any Judeian anyway that you're going to have a story where it ends up that the Samaritan is actually the good person since Samaritans were understood to be every kind of terrible um in terms of the ethnic biases.

(1:14:44) So, a listener in Luke 10 asks Jesus, "Who is my neighbor?" And in response, Jesus tells a story of a man led left for dead on the roadside by robbers. And that man does not receive help from a passing Judeian priest or a Levite. In other words, people who are expected to um to follow purity laws and so can't have to avoid coming into contact with a dead body if this guy actually were dead.

(1:15:09) But a Samaritan while traveling came upon him and when he saw uh this hurt man, this person who'd been robbed and left for dead, the Samaritan was moved with compassion. So the parable's point um contrary to popular um interpretation is not that we should all be helping. It's good to help people. That's true. Um but people already understand that.

(1:15:34) Instead, what Jesus is seeking to do in telling the story where it's the Samaritan who's the good neighbor is to challenge the ethnic prejudices of his immediate listeners. And so, um, this would be the same as, you know, taking whoever your ethnic enemy is, if you're a racist or opposed to, you know, anti-gay or whatever it is, and putting it into those uh terms for the person who has that uh bias.

(1:16:04) So the same example of Jesus including Samaritans is exemplified uh by the story in the gospel of John of Jesus visiting with and personally speaking with a Samaritan woman at the well of Jacob, a woman who is also um engaged in uh in a in a cohabitation or a relationship with a man who's not her husband.

(1:16:34) And so who therefore also you know would be something that uh Jesus contemporaries would look down upon him speaking to any Samaritan woman at all but particularly this Samaritan woman and uh once again he trans transgresses those boundaries includes her uh she comes to a testimony that he's a messiah and she immediately um becomes an apostle on her own and starts converting other Samaritans. to uh becoming Christians.

(1:17:03) And the reason why I mentioned this one is because uh although many of the um many of the stories and sayings found only in John maybe don't go back to the historical Jesus, one of the things we can say is that the uh the community that produced the gospel of John clearly included a lot of Samaritans.

(1:17:24) And so the example that the early Christians have achieved by the time the gospel is written anyway is living out this this precept of including your enemies including your former enemies into your sacred community. So inclusivity justice for the marginalized activism. finally want to look at um a general policy of forgiveness and nonviolent uh resistance.

(1:17:58) So among the practical ethics given in the prayer that Jesus provides as a model in Matthew 6, what we call the Lord's prayer is the phrase forgive us our debts as we also have forgiven our debtors. So um this is a practical application for people in rural society who can frequently get into debt spirals.

(1:18:26) The idea is among um the the poor people who are you know they're generally speaking not rich people who are the people that are following Jesus if the poor people are forgiving each other debts that that will cause instead of a debt spiral an abundance spiral. This precept leads to a practical consideration though which is voiced by Peter in Matthew 18.

(1:18:50) Peter came and said to Jesus, "Lord, if my brother or my sister sins against me, you know how often should I forgive?" He says, "As many as seven times." And Jesus said to him, "Not just seven times, but I tell you 77 times." And so perhaps reflecting that most people would be content to follow, you know, a three strikes you're out policy.

(1:19:12) I think Peter here u may be thinking he's already going the extra mile to propose a seven strikes in your out policy. But Jesus counters with a num with a number, you know, 77 here that that that his teaching about forgiveness is not really about counting wrongs.

(1:19:34) that there is something that changes when you are um not living based in on focusing on grievance. So as we read in Jesus rejection, we read earlier at the beginning of this uh lecture in Jesus rejection of the Mosaic command of an eye for an eye, Jesus advocates against retaliation and proposes instead active nonviolent resistance. And this includes the precept, pray for those who persecute you, which is part of that whole um grouping of uh non-violent responses.

(1:20:09) Um and he also then models that behavior, praying for people who are persecuting him when we get to the uh the crucifixion story and he just does that as he himself is being executed. So um these are some of the themes that stood out to me and that I wanted to kind of draw upon as we are kind of developing or distilling uh the ethics of Jesus and we put that into some of the context of contemporary Jesus's contemporaries both Judeans in the second temple period and also some of the contemporary Greek philosophical context. So in our next

(1:20:53) two lectures of the series, I want to next kind of see how do these themes fit together as an ethical system. Is it built in a direction that um you know started with principles and coheres and then we get to these uh precepts applied precepts or is there a bunch of applied precepts and when we start to try to define these down are there ethical contradictions? So we'll explore that and then in another lecture I want to look at some of these metaethical questions where when we start to say okay when it's saying do

(1:21:29) good what is the basis of that how can we understand uh whether there is anything as objective good and so forth um what is Jesus's understanding of those kind of things what is the context of that and so I hope that this uh introductory lecture on laying out some of the themes of the ethics of Jesus, what ethics are, what we're looking for, um, distilling the historical Jesus from the theological Jesus. That's been hopefully helpful to lay groundwork.

(1:22:03) And maybe in the comments and questions as we um, go forward, um, there are some themes that I missed or uh, components of Jesus's system that you think are more important than some of the ones that I drew out. And so I'm gonna get a drink of water and Leandro is going to start compiling your questions and giving those to me.

(1:22:32) Um JM, I want to thank you for your support. Fire Ever Living, thank you for your support. Magi Mike, appreciate your support. Magic Mike says that the parable of the king in judgment at the sheeps and goats was very wise.

(1:22:53) The sheeps the goats had never even heard of Jesus yet there were no obligations put on the people. Goodness for goodness sake. So yes, I think that's that's my interpretation of it as well. Um that's one of my there's things that I don't like about that uh that parable. It's a very methan parable which is often so many of the Matthew only parables are on the theme of judgment.

(1:23:18) Um but I what I really like about this one is uh the part of it about about motivation. Um David Anderson, thank you for your support. Ron Wagner says um didn't some of the writers of the gospel also take uh from the Q sayings and other writings? Yes. So um I wasn't as meticulous in this um as going through and saying exactly what source there are.

(1:23:48) But several of these um several of these sayings especially where I was quoting a saying that was in Matthew and then I quoted the Luke version. So, for example, um the Lord's prayer, give us, you know, forgive us our debts as we forgive uh our debtors, that's going to come from the Q source since um it's shared in both uh Matthew and Luke.

(1:24:12) Um Mercuria says, "Notice how none of the alternate uh formations are worded in the positive." This is talking about the golden rule. They're all do not do what you want others to do to you. Whereas Jesus says it in the affirmative, do what you want to them. So yeah, so there's um like you say, those are the two different two of the three different formulations of the golden rule.

(1:24:38) So one of them is uh you know, don't do what you don't want done to you. Do unto others what you do want done to you. And and then there's also um you the more aspirational one do uh to others what what they would want to have done for them that kind of a thing. And so like you say um Jesus's formulation of it is the positive form.

(1:25:02) Uh land grab four says is the gospel of Thomas of any help to understand the ethics of the historical Jesus like the synoptics or is it more like John? I think it's more like the synoptics because it's part um of that same tradition uh the oral tradition of Jesus sayings. Many of the sayings that are in Thomas are part of that that same sayings that we can see in Mark and also the Mthan material, the Lucan material and especially the Q material.

(1:25:34) And in a lot of cases, um, just strikingly, the Thomas sayings are are are shorter and quirkier. And so, um, seem to therefore betray kind of an authentic tradition that is nevertheless original from or, you know, from a different uh, different path process than than Q itself. So yes, they are helpful. Winston Barez says, "Did Jesus use the book of Tobit uh among others in teaching the Hebrew ethical worldview?" So the book of Tobat um you know would have been was a popular book at the time. I don't think that we have anything in the New

(1:26:15) Testament of Jesus quoting the book of Tobat. doesn't quote it but um but there nevertheless so the tobbit is kind of a um kind of a fun you know romance book and it includes um you know magic happening healing happening it has demons and it has angels and things like that and so um and so there is a there is some popular um I don't know popular romance to it as opposed to um it's I think that the the things that you're more likely to have Jesus um drawing upon for uh the Hebrew ethical worldview are on the one hand his takes on the law and maybe how to

(1:26:59) transcend and live better than the law. But then there's also um there's also wisdom literature that he is drawing upon from the Hebrew wisdom tradition like uh the book of Sierak where Siraak is um providing kind of a old-fashioned uh credential wisdom that is more like things like you know you know be careful who you loan money to. Uh if you if you give a bunch of bad loans you're you're going to regret it.

(1:27:30) I'm not I'm not quoting actual sierak but this is an idea is that you know this these ideas about commonplace wisdom that Jesus is kind of turning on his on its end. So he is in that dialogue in that tradition between kind of the more proverbs like wisdom tradition and the more overturning the revolutionary kind of the tradition which is things like Ecclesiastes and Job.

(1:27:54) Um, Zorak 1997 says, "Is there any known precedent to the gospel accounts of a wise lorded leader who associates uh with prostitutes like Jesus does in the biblical accounts. Think of um there's any kind of other biblical figures who are doing that." So, the civics. Yeah. Yeah.

(1:28:25) So this is I mean I'm not sure if there's an I don't know if there's an equivalent in the in the biblical tradition but certainly um um this is something that's happening in um in other contemporary religious reforms where people are saying um we we shouldn't we should uh break down hierarchy. So it's like I mentioned Aristotle believes in hierarchy.

(1:28:50) Um people like the cynics don't think that these they think these hierarchies are very artificial. So there's the famous um uh interaction between Dioynes. It's a mythic interaction. So but it's a great story. Dioynes and Alexandria and I'm sorry and Alexander. So Alexander um comes and meets Dioynes because he's such a a famous and well- reggarded philosopher.

(1:29:13) And Alexander um despite being a great king and wanting to um you know have all of this renown he nevertheless also wants to promote wisdom. And so uh he comes Dioynes is laying out on the sun like he does in this very natural thing. He's given up all property and so forth. Uh uh uh I am not telling the story right.

(1:29:34) Alexander comes and he casts a shadow over him because he's standing obstructing the sun from him. He says what you know I'll give you what can I give you? I want to give you any kind of a a royal favor and dish and he says you know get out of my get out of my my light here. So uh he he is no respector of of persons and so that would be a case like so the cynics and others then are are also tearing down hierarchy um and established traditions and so forth. So um so that would be an example.

(1:30:06) Uh I guess I would have to you look I haven't done a whole history of you know the attitudes towards you know prostitutes in particular but we would I guess we would look at that across ancient other ancient sources. Uh fire living says um what were the contemporary sources or philosophical traditions that might have influenced Jesus? So, so there is a living um Hebrew wisdom tradition that we've done a whole bunch of lectures on where we talk about the wisdom tradition in particular, but also um um books

(1:30:40) within it, you know. So beginning all the way back with books like Proverbs, but then um later books that that you know say that some of some of these ideas that we have in Proverbs that if you just always obey God, you're righteous, you do all of these wise things, you'll always it's always going to work out for you in the end.

(1:31:00) Um it may well be that uh you know a penny saved is a penny earned and you know doing this and that'll keep you healthy, wealthy, and wise and you know an apple a day keeps the doctor away. you could um once you once you get through kind of proverbs like that, you could do everything that's right and still get cancer.

(1:31:20) And and so that is um something that writers of books like Job argue. Um so Job's friends quote him a bunch of stuff that is effectively like Proverbs and Job says, "No, I didn't do anything wrong and I'm still uh facing all of this suffering." And so there is a rich wisdom tradition going back and forth in that kind of dialogue.

(1:31:45) And so Jesus is is definitely um building on a lot of that. And some scholars have identified like I say a almost almost direct, you know, interplay between writers like Sirak um that Jesus is potentially turning some of those thoughts on its head. So in dialogue with that and again like um uh I was suggesting you know in these contemporaries uh or earlier traditions uh in in Greece of philosophers like the cynics like Dioynes who are um tearing down tradition family structure and so forth um who are living lives in voluntary poverty you know the suggestions that

(1:32:29) that kind of um tradition of philosophy which could be occurring in the very helanized um cities uh like directly next to um Jesus's Judeian hometown of Nazareth. So cities like uh Sephorus Sephora and so forth might have had you know their local uh cynic philosopher who's doing those kind of things.

(1:32:58) We don't have a direct connection but there are contemporary traditions that are occurring that um you know he doesn't have to go he doesn't have to go to uh India secretly mythically as a as a baby and meet the Buddha or something like that uh which doesn't work time frame wise and didn't happen um but um nevertheless there could be immediate in his immediately contemporary environment which is a Roman helanized uh mixed province Galilee, you know, where these contemporary ideas could be cross-pollinating. Um, Brida Visser Stump says, "I recently

(1:33:38) read Dominion by Tom Holland, who proposes early Christians radically challenged pagan and Roman norms to foundational ethics that we take for granted now." Curious what John's thoughts are. Uh I think Tom Holland is um a great uh great popular art historian and I haven't read that book.

(1:34:03) Um Tom Holland always says uh dare I say sacerel. That's one of his catchphrases. Um, and I like that he is um, in some ways a reaction to uh, a century ago the sort of positivist um, historians that were always trying to read um, Christianity and religion out of history. And so um so I think in general I I I tend to like his takes like this where where he is um not trying to strip away uh the religion from all of this.

(1:34:40) And so in looking at these ethics um like I say I I I call Socrates and Plato and Aristotle religious reformers um because they are still functioning within um you know this this kind of thought even if they are opponents of traditional practices. um what the what the inher priests that have inherited um municipal uh traditions and temples and things like that are doing in the same way um Jesus is arguing with the Sadducees and so forth.

(1:35:16) So yeah, I'm looking forward to I should read that book by Tom Holland, but I'm generally sympathetic with most of his takes. And then Hotet says, "How important was the story of Abraham and Isaac by the time of the writing of the Gospels?" um I read it wasn't very central when Genesis was composed but uh elevated at a later date. So yeah, so that's um that's the case.

(1:35:40) So one of the things that um you we had this lecture that I mentioned and people can go back and look up when did the Torah become authoritative. And so u a lot of the stories that exist in Genesis um are not prominent or even in some cases existing in the um the earliest uh he prophetic writers of the Hebrew Bible. And so and so there clearly aren't important um at the earliest stages.

(1:36:09) But then once the um the sources of the Torah get uh get written uh once the Torah is compiled and then in the Hasmonian period in the Makabe period once that starts to become a central component of Judean identity that is a couple hundred years before Jesus these start to become important then by Jesus's time they're very important and so whereas um these early prophetic writers Isaiah earliest days, you know, the original today and so forth are not talking about Adam and Eve. Adam is somehow has now become incredibly important in the New Testament times

(1:36:47) because um of the prominence this book has started to take and that's also true for like the uh the Abraham Isaac story although Abraham does have a lot of is known earlier. Uh Walden Emerson says, "Is hating mother and father about hating sin in them?" So Walden, I don't read it that way.

(1:37:18) Um what I'm what I'm saying it what I think that this means is it's part of this um uh part of this these radical teachings against um throwing off uh historic familial obligation. So these kind of inherited rules that are completely constraining your life that are the same as you know the the need to go and offer a sacrifice at certain times even though it doesn't isn't doesn't do anything.

(1:37:44) All of the other um continual rituals that you have to do that uh that that earlier forms of religion are all about. Uh and so you have so many forms of um of when you're connected into this system including the familial system um you are have so many forms of obligation that you're not able to um devote yourself to a pure spiritual life.

(1:38:14) And so it's not about literally hating your individual mother. It's about um it's about disconnecting yourself from the worldly society that includes um familial structures that subsume the individual into family and clan. That's my reading. Uh Brian Helminger says a discussion on the ethics of Jesus tends to focus heavily on behaviors that is to say works is faith in God.

(1:38:49) Faith in Jesus as the lamb of God is that core to Jesus ethics. Um so faith in Jesus as the lamb of God is a um is dates in my view to very early Christian uh theology and not to the historical Jesus. So as we were privileging in this um series trying to derive kind of uh the historical Jesus's ethics as mediated through the Jesus of scripture where I'm deliberately kind of pulling out or not emphasizing things that are clearly have their origins in the early Christian community and therefore don't date back to the historical Jesus. And so I'm not saying that these are not important in

(1:39:41) Christianity as a religion. This conception of Jesus as the lamb of God, Jesus as uh the second person of the trinity, the pre-existent logos that is how we understand and see and experience God in creation. Like the source would otherwise be invisible and unconnected to us. um that's critically important to uh Christianity's theological understanding, but I don't think it's part of the historical Jesus's ethics.

(1:40:14) Uh Gary Mai says, "In the US, right-wing Christians are very loud and get tons of media coverage. How can progressive Christians influence conservative Christians to act more in line with the ethics of Jesus as seen in Matthew 25?" in other words, in renouncing things like violence, oppressing others, and all those sorts of things.

(1:40:38) Um, so I think that one of the first things that progressive Christians can do is try to um try to make their own content more. So, one of the things that um I've been committed to doing for all of these years since we've started these lectures is to um put out uh lots of videos and lots of content as much as we can so that um we have alternate voices.

(1:41:05) um we're not necessarily I don't necessarily find that um that talking for example to people who have a a very fixed idea and having debates and going on a on a Yelli show and yelling back and forth has a lot of benefit. Um, I think instead if we're able to very earnestly put out our own takes, our own interesting content, um, model that behavior as well as we can, I think that that provides, um, you know, something for that like many people who are questioning or many people who are just assume that this

(1:41:41) interpretation that is so loud is relates somehow to the Jesus of scripture, which it really doesn't, much less the historical Jesus um that they can actually see, wait a second, this now that I read this, this does make more sense and I appreciate the way that this is being formulated. And so um I guess that's my take and that's what I'm doing and that's how I'm working on it.

(1:42:09) Um there are other um there are other people who are who's who is focused I think is doing apologetic debating and you can see how how their tactics or their strategy works better or or less than mine. But that's that's how I would do it. So, um, last week I I teased that next week would be a lecture from Leandro. I had got the calendar date wrong.

(1:42:32) I had this this one more lecture between now and then. But next week really is Leandro and he's going to talk about when we read the book of Joshua and we read the book of Judges, we find, wait a second, these are kind of telling the same story, but they are contradicting each other. So in this framework, he's asking, "How did the walls of Jericho tumble down?" And so he's looking at these two different perspectives embedded within the Bible as we look at uh the formation of early Israelite identity. People want to sing and people want to sing that song.

(1:43:11) We'll see if he does. All right. Well, very good. Thank you all so much. Um, hopefully you've enjoyed this and there will be a couple more in this series.