Bible Question - Matthew 6:1 vs Matthew 5:16

[Slash1972]

I’m not sure if I got the verses right, but I think so. In the first one, the bible quote is “Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven.” and the second one is “Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.”

I’m having trouble reconciling the two different verses. Anyone have any thoughts on this or have I missed something?

[Velocity]

My understanding is that this is referring to situations with two different motives.

In the first situation, you have someone deliberately doing “good deeds” for the sake of getting the praise of people.

In the second situation, you have someone who is doing good things for the sake of good, and for the sake of God being honored, in other words, not being done with self-glory being the motive.

[Trinopus]

Agreed with Velocity. The latter advice is to do right, so that people shall see it, and be (one dares to hope) inspired to do right themselves. The former advice is not to be a show-off, making a big noise about giving charity, and boasting about how sanctimonious you are.

The Bible is big on personal motives. It isn’t enough not to commit adultery: you can’t even think about it in your heart!

[Revenant_Threshold]

It’s problematic.

Reading just from those lines, you can make a very easy reading that it’s just a matter of the key phrase being “in order to be seen” - like the others have said, it’s about doing something for the purpose of looking good, and not for the sake of actually being good. But it isn’t as simple as that;

[QUOTE=Matthew 6:1-8 NIV]
6 “Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.

2 “So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. 3 But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4 so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.
Prayer

5 “And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. 6 But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. 7 And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. 8 Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.
[/QUOTE]
There actually is suggesting that this kind of good behaviour SHOULD be entirely secret, or as secret as possible. After the part I’ve quoted you get the Lord’s Prayer, and then after that there’s another section on fasting which, again, suggests that care should be taken to ensure that no-one even knows you’re doing it.

I think what’s most illuminating about this question (sorry for the pun), is that in each section the same terms are used at one point;

[QUOTE=Matthew 6:22-24 NIV]

22 “The eye is the lamp of the body. If your eyes are healthy your whole body will be full of light. 23 But if your eyes are unhealthy, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light within you is darkness, how great is that darkness!

24 “No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Matthew 5:14-16 NIV]
14 “You are the light of the world. A town built on a hill cannot be hidden. 15 Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. 16 In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven.
[/QUOTE]
It isn’t easily interpreted to me, sadly. But I would make a loose guess that the idea here is that if you do good deeds, people will be able to tell simply because of how that will affect you. So you shouldn’t do your good deeds in public - you should take steps, in fact, to keep them as secret as possible. Because what’s going to speak for you isn’t those deeds, but how that goodness emanates from you.

[John_Mace]

I read those as saying: Don’t show off, but do be a good example. Or, let the good deed be seen, not the person doing the good deed. It’s kind of a zen thing, but then JC was a total zen master at times.

[Skammer]

Yes, notice the emphasis on the motive of the do-gooder:

“Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them”
“Let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven.”

I had a priest once who was asked “Which is it? Should I perform good deeds in secret, to deflect praise for myself? Or should I do them in public, to glorify God?” His anwer: “Whichever makes you most uncomfortable.”

[Thudlow_Boink]

@John_Mace

I read those as saying: Don’t show off, but do be a good example. Or, let the good deed be seen, not the person doing the good deed. It’s kind of a zen thing, but then JC was a total zen master at times.

Good summary.

To me, either verse by itself makes good sense. It’s only when you try to reconcile them that there’s an apparent conflict. But I’m reminded of the quote: “The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth.”

[RivkahChaya]

It’s long been a part of rabbinic thought that there are levels of charitable giving, and the lowest level is where the giver knows to whom he is giving, and the receiver knows from whom the charity comes (the receiver may therefore feel indebted). At the highest level, the giver does not know to whom he is giving, and the receiver does not know who has given it. For example, you might give to a public coffer where someone in need could ask for money from a third party, who did not contribute to the coffer, but just disburses from it.

So, if you give to charity, but do it quietly so that no one sees you drop coins in a public coffer, and you tell no one, you don’t get any glory for it, but the fact that there is money present in the coffer is evidence that someone is giving, and may encourage others to do likewise.

Another historical point that may play into this, if it’s true, is that supposedly the Pharisees, who were already beginning to use offerings of prayer as a substitute for Temple sacrifices, because there was an illegitimate priest (a Roman appointee, rather than a hereditary cohen) in the Temple, were combing the Torah for rules to apply to prayer, and were praying often quite visibly, because they were taking Torah rules literally. For example, it says in one place so utter a certain phrase “When you walk on your way,” so they would say it before beginning any journey, even a very short walk. It was unavoidable that the prayers of the Pharisees were obvious, and they were not meant to show off, nor show up anyone; they were just trying to follow rules, but they were rules not everybody saw the point of, and so to many people, they looked like a “Holier than thou” dig at the rest of the Jews. The bit in Matthew about not practicing righteousness before men may have been a dig at the Pharisees.

Don’t forget that Matthew is an “improvement” upon Mark. There are a few contradictions in Matthew, because he preserved a portion of Mark-- the presumption of scholars is that it was popular and well-known-- but that he did not necessarily agree with, and at the same time, introduced other material at odds with Mark, that came from a different source, which was the source Matthew actually preferred. I’ve read four or five books on the composition of the gospels-- I can’t remember exactly who suggested this, but it was probably either Randal Helms or John Dominic Crossan, two writers who write well for the lay reader on the gospels and their history. Bart Ehrman is another writer who is a little more polemic, but someone else I have read, so maybe this idea came from him-- point is, I’m not making it up-- I read it somewhere, I just can’t remember where off-hand.

[Revenant_Threshold]

@Thudlow_Boink

Good summary.

To me, either verse by itself makes good sense. It’s only when you try to reconcile them that there’s an apparent conflict. But I’m reminded of the quote: “The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth.”

That seems fairly useless in this context. I’m told a profound truth about God is that he’s good. Perhaps the opposite of that, that he is evil, is another profound truth.

[Trinopus]

The opposite of every profound truth is not another profound truth. Often it isn’t a truth at all.

But, for instance, God says “Judgement is mine,” but also commanded the Jews to put one another to death for breaking the law. These contradict one another, but are still “profound truths” in a religious sense.

That’s the joy of religion: you really can have it any way you want…and often both ways together.

God is love…but fear God’s anger. Those who believe will be saved…except that God determined before the world was created who would be saved. Faith vs. works. etc.

In any case, we don’t need to do any gymnastics to reconcile the quotes in the OP. They go together just fine, on the basis of intent.

(Under California law, any object is a “weapon” if it can be shown that the wielder intended to use it as one.)

[Revenant_Threshold]

@Trinopus

The opposite of every profound truth is not another profound truth. Often it isn’t a truth at all.

But, for instance, God says “Judgement is mine,” but also commanded the Jews to put one another to death for breaking the law. These contradict one another, but are still “profound truths” in a religious sense.

Perhaps what I need to understand this is a definition of “profound truths”.

That’s the joy of religion: you really can have it any way you want…and often both ways together.

God is love…but fear God’s anger. Those who believe will be saved…except that God determined before the world was created who would be saved. Faith vs. works. etc.

I’m curious as to who wants God’s anger. Apart, I guess, from some people focused on others. Could I opt in on all the good stuff and drop the bad? I’ll take the eternal life stuff, as long as it works out the way I want, but I’m going to pass on the prayer and belief parts.

In any case, we don’t need to do any gymnastics to reconcile the quotes in the OP. They go together just fine, on the basis of intent.

(Under California law, any object is a “weapon” if it can be shown that the wielder intended to use it as one.)

They don’t go together fine on the basis of intent, given the context I’ve cited which shows that intent isn’t enough; you have to actively take steps to keep your good works secret, and quite literally not be an example for others for what you do. If you’re a fine and noble person who does good deeds for the sake of good deeds alone and not for the praise or others - you still need to keep that shit secret. There’s no intent out mentioned.

[Trinopus]

@Revenant_Threshold

Perhaps what I need to understand this is a definition of “profound truths”.

It’s a zen thing. (Half joking, half serious: this isn’t Aristotelian Logic any longer. It’s into the mystic wing of Christianity.

I’m curious as to who wants God’s anger. Apart, I guess, from some people focused on others. Could I opt in on all the good stuff and drop the bad? I’ll take the eternal life stuff, as long as it works out the way I want, but I’m going to pass on the prayer and belief parts.

Sure! Absolutely. You can even call it Christianity, and nobody really can say it isn’t. There are Christian denominations that believe weirder stuff.

They don’t go together fine on the basis of intent, given the context I’ve cited which shows that intent isn’t enough; you have to actively take steps to keep your good works secret . . .

I don’t agree with this interpretation. It says that God knows what you do in secret, so you can give alms secretly, and God will still reward you. But the actual text, as quoted, only says you should not make a big loud deal about the good you do, but do it quietly. It doesn’t actually say “secretly.”

You’re supposed to do good openly, in order to inspire others, and to make God’s name holy…but not to make your own name holy.

[Revenant_Threshold]

@Trinopus

It’s a zen thing. (Half joking, half serious: this isn’t Aristotelian Logic any longer. It’s into the mystic wing of Christianity.

I’m always wary when people start into the realms of non-logic; in my experience they tend to mean they don’t want logic to apply here and here but they’d quite like it to still work out here and here.

But hey, I’m up for a mystic definition of “profound truths”.

Sure! Absolutely. You can even call it Christianity, and nobody really can say it isn’t. There are Christian denominations that believe weirder stuff.

Great! So when do I get what I want?

I don’t agree with this interpretation. It says that God knows what you do in secret, so you can give alms secretly, and God will still reward you. But the actual text, as quoted, only says you should not make a big loud deal about the good you do, but do it quietly. It doesn’t actually say “secretly.”

Yes, it absolutely does.
[QUOTE=Matthew 6:3-4 NIV]
3 But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4 so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Matthew 6:6 NIV]
6 But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Matthew 6:16-18 NIV]
16 “When you fast, do not look somber as the hypocrites do, for they disfigure their faces to show others they are fasting. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. 17 But when you fast, put oil on your head and wash your face, 18 so that it will not be obvious to others that you are fasting, but only to your Father, who is unseen; and your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.
[/QUOTE]
You’re supposed to keep that stuff locked up. People aren’t to know what you’re doing. So secret should you be that you, yourself, should not know what you are doing, were that possible. You are told to* actively deceive* other people.

[BigT]

@Revenant_Threshold

I’m always wary when people start into the realms of non-logic; in my experience they tend to mean they don’t want logic to apply here and here but they’d quite like it to still work out here and here.

Then why are you commenting on a religious thing? Religion is a mix of logic and other stuff. By logic, faith is wrong, since it means believing something you have no evidence for. You inherently have to say “logic doesn’t apply in these situations” to discuss religion.

This interpretation is the explanation from nearly 2000 years of Christian study of the Bible. Motives are indeed the point. If not, then no Christian would do anything publicly at all, since living our lives means doing good 24/7. When your interpretation gets a nonsensical result, then it’s wrong.

That entire passage was about the hypocrisy of the Pharisees, who would make a big deal out of every good deed they did. Jesus is speaking in contrasts. He is exaggerating to make a point, as he often does. Even the Biblical literalists realize this.

He didn’t want people to literally cut off their body parts so they wouldn’t go to Hell, either. He was pointing out the absurdity of saying that a body part causes you to sin. He doesn’t literally think people can actually be perfect. He doesn’t literally think you have to sell everything to make it to heaven. Or disown your family. He doesn’t literally mean you can move mountains with your mind.

And, BTW, Matthew’s sayings of Jesus actually predate Mark, and were written in Aramaic. He used Mark to fill in the story. He didn’t change things to fit his own ideas.

None of these sayings are from Mark. Jesus preached both of these things. And we’ve gone 2000 years without people seeing it as contradictory. No, they compliment one another.

[RivkahChaya]

@BigT

And, BTW, Matthew’s sayings of Jesus actually predate Mark, and were written in Aramaic. He used Mark to fill in the story. He didn’t change things to fit his own ideas.

None of these sayings are from Mark. Jesus preached both of these things. And we’ve gone 2000 years without people seeing it as contradictory. No, they compliment one another.

No, Mark came before Matthew. It’s pretty obvious. It’s also obvious that they both wrote in Greek, and used the Septuagint as their source for Jewish scripture, because they occasionally misquote it in places where there is an error in the Septuagint.

[Revenant_Threshold]

@BigT

Then why are you commenting on a religious thing? Religion is a mix of logic and other stuff. By logic, faith is wrong, since it means believing something you have no evidence for. You inherently have to say “logic doesn’t apply in these situations” to discuss religion.

To the contrary, my experiences with religious people is that logic is relied upon considerably; without “X is X”, you can’t define very much of anything. I agree with you that faith and logic are, depending on how people define faith, fairly oppositional. And yet, I have many times seen believers talk about how such-and-such a thing is outside or beyond logic, only to then rely on cause and effect, or an argument created from supportive points, or simply define something as one thing and therefore not its opposite.

This interpretation is the explanation from nearly 2000 years of Christian study of the Bible. Motives are indeed the point. If not, then no Christian would do anything publicly at all, since living our lives means doing good 24/7. When your interpretation gets a nonsensical result, then it’s wrong.

That entire passage was about the hypocrisy of the Pharisees, who would make a big deal out of every good deed they did. Jesus is speaking in contrasts. He is exaggerating to make a point, as he often does. Even the Biblical literalists realize this.

What’s nonsensical about my interpretation? I provided a loose guess at a rational (within the bounds of the subject) interpretation upthread. The only nonsense result would be one that conflicts; and I reject that result, as you do.

You talk about Jesus exaggerating. Ok. Based on what? That he “often does” isn’t a particularly useful point on its own.* How* often? With what frequency does he exaggerate in comparison to telling it straight? Does he leave any particular typical signs when he’s exaggerating rather than speaking plainly? How can we identify this behaviour here as following that mode? Jesus talks about not letting one of our hands know what the other is doing; that’s a clear impossibility. Why can’t that be the exaggeration to make the point, while the other parts are accurate?

I’m happy to believe you that motives are the point. I’ve quoted from the Bible to back up my interpretations, though. Could I ask you to do the same? I’m guessing your Biblical knowledge is greater than mine. Really, you should assume that even if you’re thinking of an obvious, readily-memorable cite, unless it’s one of the REALLY well-known parts, I don’t know it. And even then, I probably don’t know the literal text!

He didn’t want people to literally cut off their body parts so they wouldn’t go to Hell, either. He was pointing out the absurdity of saying that a body part causes you to sin. He doesn’t literally think people can actually be perfect. He doesn’t literally think you have to sell everything to make it to heaven. Or disown your family. He doesn’t literally mean you can move mountains with your mind.

Context for these would be appreciated, is what I’m saying. And the clues present in these examples, also present here, that lead you to believe he’s exaggerating.

And we’ve gone 2000 years without people seeing it as contradictory. No, they compliment one another.

On what basis are you vouching for the thoughts of 2000 years worth of human thoughts on this matter?

[Trinopus]

@Revenant_Threshold

. . . Great! So when do I get what I want? . . .

Some time after the end of the world.

Yes, it absolutely does. . . .

Good enough. I note that you had to bring in quotes other than those from the OP. The quotes in the OP do not support what you said, but these new quotes do.

In that case, all I got is: the Bible contradicts itself. Gosh, who knew?

[Revenant_Threshold]

@Trinopus

Some time after the end of the world.

If I can have it any way I want, I’d like to know about it now, please. Also some ice cream, instantly appearing before my computer. I’m not picky as to flavour. [Edit: Where is my ice cream. ]

Good enough. I note that you had to bring in quotes other than those from the OP. The quotes in the OP do not support what you said, but these new quotes do.

I brought those quotes in myself, earlier. Post #4. You’ll notice I referred to the text I cited, rather than the OP. One of my quotes was new; but I did refer to it, with a summation of the relevance, in that post, too. So I’m not sure what you’re noting, other than that I referred to context and quotes that I’d already provided.

In that case, all I got is: the Bible contradicts itself. Gosh, who knew?

Not you and I, I guess, given that I had no idea of this particular contradiction until I looked it up, and you had an interpretation based on a faulty understanding of the text. But hey, learning.

Speaking of, I wasn’t joking about hearing a mystic definition of “profound truths”. I’m curious.