D'autres articles de cet numéro | En anglais | En français

Man an creation: Vatican II, Mathew and Pau
Piet Van Boxel

 

In this contribution to the theme of our session, "The Future of Man", we shall deal with the Christian view of the world. Because the term "world" covers so many aspects or ways of looking at the space man lives in, we must start with a clear definition of this term. In this presentation "world" will not be taken as an entity in itself nor as a step in the development of the cosmos. Neither is it understood here as the scene of history, nor as the space and material of culture. The term "world" is here meant simply as the total reality man lives with in daily life; a reality which is normally called "nature".

We shall deal with this reality from the Christian point of view, which does not mean that in the Christian perspective nature is something completely different from what it is in other perspectives e.g. philosophical or ideological. By the Christian view is meant an essential presupposition which must be called basic for Christianity though certainly not in an exclusive way. This presupposition is that the world is a created reality. We shall therefore consider the relationship between man and this created reality.

To see the world as creation specifies man's relationship with it. He finds himself in a world which is not dependent upon him for its existence. This means that created reality is not meant to be simply at man's disposal, since he has no original power over nature. In other words: if man plays a primary role in his relation with the world, this role has been given to him.

These preliminary remarks are based on what one could call the key text of man's relationship with the world from the Christian point of view:

God created man in his own image; in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. And God blessed them, and God said to them, 'Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth'.'

THE JEWISH ATTITUDE

Before dealing in concreto with the Christian attitude towards nature, I shall first indicate briefly the Jewish point of view as it can be deduced from the Jewish exegesis of Genesis 1:27-28. This will elucidate the Christian point of view, which should be considered to have its source of inspiration in the Jewish attitude.

In Jewish thought man is the center of creation, and to him as ruler the whole of creation is given. This does not however mean that man can rule the earth as if it were his own possession, to be dealt with and used without limitation or restriction. Man's relationship with creation is not one of possessor and possessed. There is a balanced order, and his role in the world is to keep this balance which has been established by God. Man is master over creation as long as he behaves as a human being made in the image of God, hence, according to moral standards. If he does not behave in such a way, the order of creation will be disturbed and turned upside down. This is what Jewish exegesis tells us:

And have dominion over the fish of the sea. R. Hanna said: If he merits it, [God says,] uredu (have dominion); while if he does not merit, [God says,] yerdu (let them descend). R. Jacob of Kefar Hanan said: Of him who is in our image and likeness [I say] uredu (and have dominion); but of him who is not in our image and likeness [I say] yerdu (let them descend) 2

If man does not behave in this way he will lose his pre-eminence in creation and descend until he is lower even that the brute creation, which will then rule over him: "Rami b. Hama said: A wild beast has no dominion over man unless he appears to it as a brute, for it is written, 'Men are overruled when they appear as beasts'." 3

Obviously the Jewish exegesis of Genesis 1:27-28 seeks to limit man's dominating role in the world. It sees man's dominion as part of a balance, a harmony in creation, and it depends on human moral behavior whether this harmony is kept or lost.

THE ATTITUDE OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

As we deal with the relation between man and created reality we must be aware of the fact that it is almost impossible to give an exhaustive presentation of the Christian view on this relationship. In the past as in the present there is such variety in Christian attitudes towards creation that it is best to renounce all attempts at finding any generally accepted characteristics of the Christian view. I prefer therefore to present the Christian view in one limited situation. In this situation we shall try to find some basic assumptions which have led to the present outlook.

We shall deal with the attitude towards creation of the official Roman Catholic Church as formulated in the documents of the Second Vatican Council. Because of the customary distinction made by the Church between internal and external topics, there is only one document which can be considered relevant to this question: Gaudium et Spes. It is in this Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World that the attitude of the Church ad extra is explicitly discussed.'

To interpret this document correctly we must first establish its main intention. This intention is expressed in the introductory paragraph: "The joys and the hopes, the griefs and the anxieties of the men of this age, especially those who are poor or in any way afflicted, these too are the joys and hopes, the griefs and anxieties of the followers of Christ." 5 From these opening words it is clear that the main concern of the Church is human society, with emphasis on her solidarity with the poor and the oppressed. Such being the intention of the document it must be read from this point of view and judgment of its value should chiely depend on the way in which the Church envisages society.

It is nevertheless legitimate to analyze Gaudium et Spes with regard to the Church's attitude towards nature, because this document represents all she wanted to say ad extra. Now the first remark to be made is that the Council in reflecting on the relationship between the Church and the world did not deal explicitly with this topic. It was obviously not considered to be an aspect of the world to which any relationship should be formulated.

A second reason for analyzing Gaudium et Spes withregard to our subject is the fact that it refers three times to Genesis 1:26-28, the text dealing explicitly with the relationship between man and creation. From the actual use of Genesis 1:26-28 we can draw some conclusions with regard to the official attitude of the Church towards created reality.

The first time the Genesis text is used occurs right at the beginning of part one of the Constitution. Dealing with the dignity of the human person, the Council describes man as "created to the image of God" and "as master of all earthly creatures that he might subdue (regeret) them and use them (eisque uteretur) to God's glory"! Obviously the biblical text is meant to serve as foundation for the general conviction, shared by the Council, that "all things on earth should be related to man as their center and crown"? The central position of man and his actual subjugation of all earthly creatures is due to his intellectual power, which, however, according to the Council, must be understood in relationship to divine Wisdom: "By his intellect he surpasses the material universe, for he shares in the light of the divine mind".8 And it is through his intellect that he "has won superlative victories, especially in his probing of the material world and in subjecting (subiiciendo) it to himself".9

This subjugation of created reality is the leitmotiv of the whole document. The Council notes that man in his technical progress "has extended his mastery over nearly the whole of nature and continues to do so".1° This procedure, the Council says, is in accordance with God's will, which has called man "to subject to himself the earth and all that it contains, and govern the world with justice and holiness; a mandate to relate himself and the totality of things to him who was to be acknowledged as the Lord and Creator of all"." Therefore human power is not in opposition to God's power. Man is supposed to be master of creation not only through his technical progress but also through the development of culture, which among other things means the "effort to bring the world itself under his control by his knowledge and labor".'2 This cultural development in view of a more human society is also based on the Genesis text:

For when by the work of his hands or with the aid of technology, man develops the earth so that it can bear fruit and become a dwelling worthy of the whole human family, and when he consciously takes part in the life of social groups, he carries out the design of God. Manifested at the beginning of time, the divine plan is that man should subdue the earth, bring creation to perfection, and develop himself.'3

When the Council finally comes to speak of the socio-economic life its starting-pont is again "man's increasing domination over nature" 14 in order to promote the welfare of society. This welfare of society includes the right of everyone to have a share of earthly goods, for

God intended the earth and all that it contains for the use of every human being and people ... Whatever the forms of ownership may be, as adapted to the legitimate institutions of people according to diverse and changeable circumstances, attention must always be paid to the universal purpose for which created goods are meant. In using them, therefore, a man should regard his lawful possession not merely as his own but also as a common property in the sense that they should accrue to the benefit of not only himself but of others. 15

From the quotations given here it becomes clear that man and society are at the heart of the Council. The whole of creation must serve a more human society and must therefore be subjugated and dominated. All this is based on God's mandate to man in Genesis 1: 26-28.

Without questioning the value of Gaudium et Spes in its concern for a better society and in its solidarity with the poor, we cannot help noticing a somewhat possessive attitude towards creation. Certainly this constitution attaches a positive value to created reality," even in the view of the Kingdom of God, but only to the extent that earthly progress can contribute to the better — final messianic — ordering of human society." The significance of creation consists only in its being developed so as to be used and dominated by man. Thus created reality has no value in itself. Being only an object to be possessed it cannot be a partner of man in a balanced order." The vocabulary used by the Church with regard to nature is "use-dominion-subjugation-possession".

Today there is in society a growing realization of the need to keep the balance between man and creation. This is due to the shocking experience of the fact that man has made unlimited use of earthly things and has thus disturbed the harmony of the world. Because of man's possessive attitude towards creation, the ecological problem has become one of the main concerns of society. If we will not change this attitude the world will become a place in which it is impossible to live. The Council has not contributed to emphasizing the responsibility for keeping the balance between man and nature. In spite of its praiseworthy plea for the dignity of man and for a human and viable society, Gaudium et Spes respresents the common attitude towards creation, and it is unintentionally contributing to the spoliation of nature.

THE CONTEXT OF GENESIS 1:27-28

Is there any explanation for the fact that this positive and progressive document of Vatican II does not offer any theology of created reality as such, and sees it only in the context of its usefulness to human society? Is there any explanation for the actual exegesis of Genesis 1: 27-28 so different from the Jewish exegesis of this text outlined above? The answer to this question is, I think, to be found in the part played by the Hebrew Bible. The use and the interpretation of Genesis 1:2728 in Gaudium et Spes as well as in the Jewish exegesis are explained by their relationship with the Hebrew tradition.

It is clear that the Jewish exegesis of the Genesis text is not a haphazard interpretation but an almost necessary consequence or illustration of the Jewish tradition as laid down in the Torah. The Jewish interpretation is in accordance with the halakhic tradition and not with the "original" meaning of the text itself. For the "original" meaning of the verb radah is as it has been understood in Gaudium et Spes: "to rule, to subjugate". This is the meaning normally attributed to it in the Hebrew Bible." The most interesting example is Ezekiel 34:4. There the prophet is said by God to accuse the leaders of Israel of having exploited the people instead of caring for them. The accusation is expressed allegorically by comparing the relationship between leaders and people with that of shepherds and sheep. In this allegory the leaders are accused of having behaved as shepherds should not behave: "with force and harshness you have ruled them". This final accusation is the conclusion of all that has been said before: they have been feeding themselves, they have not fed the sheep or strengthened or healed, or sought and brought them back. In this allegory there is a clear understanding of the relationship between man and nature as something more than that of possessor and possession. The obviously possessive meaning of the verb radah, corresponding to its common meaning, serves the description of disharmony in nature, which disharmony is then applied to the behavior of the leaders of Israel.

Such a situation of disharmony is in clear opposition to the way in which Israel was expected to behave towards nature. The written as well as the oral Torah provide a number of halakhot which deal explicitly with what man's attitude to nature should be if balance and harmony between man and creation are to be kept. It is beyond the scope of our topic to develop this theme further. However, some examples of halakhah should be given here to shed light on the Christian interpretation and use of the Genesis text. In Leviticus 19:19 it is said: "You shall not let your cattle breed with a different kind; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed; nor shall there come upon you a garment of cloth made of two kinds of stuff." And in Deuteronomy 22:9-11 we read: "You shall not sow your vineyard with two kinds of seed . . . You shall not plough with an ox and an ass together, you shall not wear a mingled stuff, wool and linen together." From these two passages six types of forbidden mixing of species are deduced: mixing of seeds, grafting of different species of trees and vegetables, mixing of seed in a vineyard, hybridization of domestic and wild animals, ploughing or driving with domestic or non-domestic animals of different species, and mixing of wool and linen. This prohibition is worked out in many halakhot in the mishnaic tractate Kilayim. The reasons given in Judaism for the prohibition of mixing species are various, but in the explanations we see a basic concern for the preservation of the established order 20 and for the purity of creation, to which also belongs the concern of not putting too great a burden upon the earth.2' Judaism stresses man's human approach to nature. Rab Judah said in the name of Rab: "A man is forbidden to eat before he gives food to his beast, since it says, 'And I will give grass in the fields for thy cattle, and then thou shalt eat and be satisfied'." 22 That man and creation should be treated on the same level 23 is based on the primeval tradition of Israel as we read in Exodus 23:11: "But the seventh year you shall let it [the land] rest and lie fallow, that the poor of your people may eat; and what they leave the wild beast may eat.".24 Although no concrete program can be deduced from this text for society and nature, it shows a deep concern for the balance of creation. Man and his (poor) neighbor as well as the beasts share the food in the year that the land has its Sabbath.

To this view of created reality the Jewish exegesis of Genesis 1:27-28 corresponds, and this attitude is read into the text. Therefore the rabbis needed that subtle game with the verbs "to dominate" and "to descend" indicating the two possibilities for man, which depend on his behavior towards nature.

When we turn to the use of the Genesis text in Gaudium et Spes, a possible explanation of the possessive tone could be that the Church is not bound to this Jewish view of nature. A first confirmation of this supposition is the fact that in the whole of Gaudium et Spes we do not find any quotation concerning human behavior from the Hebrew Bible. Not only as far as nature is involved, but also with regard to society, man's concrete behavior is exclusively based on the New Testament. The Hebrew Bible is obviously not used as a standard for the Christian way of life, and this in spite of the permanent value ascribed to it in the dogmatic constitution of Vatican II Dei V erbum. 25

A second observation confirms this impression more strongly. Gaudium et Spes speaking of objective normsof morality refers to the conscience of man in which man himself detects a law that holds him to obedience.

Conscience is the most secret core and sanctuary' of man. There he is alone with God, whose voice echoes in his depths. In a wonderful manner conscience reveals that law which is fulfilled by love of God and neighbor. In fidelity to conscience, Christians are joined with the rest of men in the search for truth, and for the genuine solution to the numerous problems which arise in the life of individuals and from social relationships. 26

It is of the utmost significance that the Council when indicating the basis of moral conduct does not mention the Torah. This means that the Torah has no determining value with regard to concrete human behavior. It also means that Genesis 1:26-28 can be interpreted by the Church in its original meaning of domination. If the Church had kept to the Jewish tradition, the Torah would have saved her from the current interpretation of the Genesis text, and it is possible that she would be more aware of the importance of that harmony in creation for which man is responsible.

THE TORAH AND THE NEW TESTAMENT

Basing moral conduct upon "the Law which is fulfilled by love of God and neighbor", the Council refers to the New Testament. Two texts are indicated as the biblical foundation of this law of love which holds man to obedience: Matthew 22:37-40 and Galatians 5:1427 These texts will be analyzed here with regard to their attitude to the Torah. From this analysis we can then draw some concluisons on the Christian attitude towards nature within the New Testament.

GALATIANS 5:14

In Galatians 5:14 we read: "For the whole Law is fulfilled in one word: `You shall love your neighbour as yourself'." This quotation from Leviticus 19:18 may not be read apart from the preceding verses 1 to 12. There Paul contrasts the Torah with Christ, and offers an uncompromising alternative to the recipients of the letter. Righteousness, Paul says, will not be received through the Law but through faith in Jesus Christ (v. 4 ff). Circumcision, which means that one is bound to keep the whole Law (v. 3), has completely lost its meaning (v. 6). This typical Pauline antithesis 28 leaves no space for the Torah as a way of life. After this doctrinal exposition in 5:13-15, the paranetical part of the letter is introduced.29 We should not, however, make too sharp a division between 5:1-12 and 5:13-15, for by repeating the words "freedom" and "slavery" 5:13 forms an inclusion with 5:1, introducing at the same time Paul's admonition to the Galatians: freedom should not be used as an opportunity for indulging the flesh. With this admonition Paul indicates the possibility or the fact of unlicensed behavior on the part of the Galatians," and this can only be understood in connection with the abolition of the Torah. Paul's main concern here is to make clear that the abolition of the Torah does not mean abolition of morality 31 which, however, is no longer based on the Torah but on mutual love." When Paul now in verse 14 quotes Leviticus 19:18, his intention cannot be merely to to stress the main commandment of the Torah. The entire Torah is abolished and the quotation from Leviticus 19:18 has no other aim than to illustrate and support Paul's own norm of moral conduct: love one another.

This conclusion about the significance and the function of the Torah in Paul's letter to the Galatians is confirmed by the use he generally makes of Scripture. For Paul, Scripture confirms the gospel which he preaches, and it is used by him only in function of this gospel. God, Jesus Christ, the Christian community and even Israel are all elucidated by the Hebrew Bible, which in fact exists only for this purpose." The role of Scripture is to be instructive for Christians: "Whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, that by steadfastness and by the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.' For Paul, the gospel of God is promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy Scriptures." This means that the holy Scriptures, that is, the Hebrew Bible, serve the gospel in so far as they are bearers of the promise which is fulfilled in Christ. Scripture is in its essence prophetic and therefore loses its message when the prophecy is fulfilled." This general attitude towards the Torah and its use in Galatians 5:14 obviously form the background of the objective norm of morality in Gaudium et Spes, which excludes the Torah as a standard for human behavior.

MATTHEW 22:37-40

Turning to the other reference in Gaudium et Spes regarding the Law, Matthew 22:37-40, we notice a remarkable difference not only with regard to the quotation, which is here preceeded by Deuteronomy 6:5, but also — and this is our main interest — with regard to the significance of quoting a biblical text." Instead of being illustrations or fulfilments which surpass the rest of the Torah, the biblical commandments of love are in Matthew the basis of Scripture: "On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets" (Mt 22:40). This seems to be the meaning of the verb "to depend". Although no exact parallel to Matthew's text is found in rabbinic literature, Jewish traditionconfirms this meaning." The reduction of the commandments to a few fundamental precepts is found in Judaism as is proved by the famous saying of Hillel: "What is hateful to you, do not to thy neighbor. This is the whole law; the rest is commentary." 39 This kind of reduction is known as kelal, "the general or basic command from which all the other commands could be deduced"." Such a reduction serves either as a source from which other commandments can be deduced by means of hermeneutical rules or as a basic principle which directs the practical interpretation of all the other commandments.

The reduction of the Torah to one basic principle is formulated in the Talmud: "Bar Kappara expounded: `What short text is there upon which all the essential principles of the Torah depend? In all thy ways acknowledge Him and He will direct thy paths'. Raba remarked: 'Even for a matter of transgression'." 4°a Using the principle of the Torah's dependence on one general rule, this saying is a clear parallel to Matthew 22:40. Although later than Matthew 22:40, it proves that the Matthean reduction of the Torah fits into the Jewish tradition: "No simple, orthodox Rabbinic Jew of, say, the third century, if he had read or been told the Gospel story (without names!), would have protested, or thought that he was told anything very novel or very extravagant." 41

But for Judaism the reduction of the Torah did not mean the abbrogation of all the other commandments. They all remained valid and were to be obeyed." The same attitude is found in Matthew, where we do not find any clear indication of the abolition of the Law. On the contrary, Jesus' message is in basic accordance with the Torah, and Jesus has not come to abolish the Law or the prophets, but to fulfil them.43 Interesting examples could be given of the special interest Matthew takes in stressing the validity of the Torah," to which also belongs the rabbinic tradition. Here I refer only to Matthew 23:2 f. where Jesus' critical attitude towards the Pharisees does not include a rejection of the oral Law: "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat; so practise and observe whatever they tell you." This however does not mean that the Matthean Jesus is always in complete accordance with the oral Law; tension and disagreement also belong to Matthew's presentation of Jesus' attitude towards the Law." But although there is a certain opposition between Jesus' interpretation and that of the rabbis, in Matthew's gospel Jesus keeps to the whole of the Law and the prophets.46

THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH AND THE TORAH

From the above the difference between Paul and Matthew is clear," but Gaudium et Spes does not seem to be aware of it. Actually the Council has opted for Paul's attitude towards the Torah, an option which is certainly not imperative.

One could ask which of the two attitudes towards the Torah is to be considered closer to the original teaching of Jesus and his esteem for the Torah. Although this question is of basic importance for Christology, we do not need to deal with it here in detail. For our topic it is sufficient to notice that both attitudes existed in the early Church, and we can conclude that the Torah did play a part in primitive Christianity. It may however be assumed that the Matthean esteem for the Torah represents a tradition closer to the historical Jesus than Paul's devaluation of it." The primitive Church, which was entirely Jewish, did not feel a substantial tension between the Torah and the role of Jesus.

The earliest Christians did not understand Jesus to have demanded the abandonment of the Law; on the contrary, the admission into the Church of Gentiles who did not observe the Law provoked prolonged controversy which centred particularly in the activity of Paul. And it is of the utmost significance that the Apostle to the Gentiles was not able apparently to appeal to any specific word or act of Jesus during His ministry which would justify His championing of Gentile Christians. 49

Despite Paul's annulment of the Torah its significance remained .50

That the primitive Church still kept to the Law does not mean that its attitude towards the Torah should be considered simply a continuation of the Jewish practice. Since the primitive Christian community believed that with Jesus the messianic age had come, it may well have understood the teaching of Jesus as a deeper and final interpretation of the Torah,° which even included some changes in halakhot. In the meantime primitive Christianity may have been convinced that it should keep to the Torah perfectly, since final interpretation and perfect fulfilment of the Torah belonged to the messianic age. Jewish sources reveal

the profound conviction that obedience to the Torah would be a dominating mark of the Messianic Age and . . . the expectation that the Torah in its existing form would persist into the Messianic Age, when its obscurities would be made plain, and when there would be certain natural adaptations and changes and, according to some, the inclusion of the Gentiles among those who accepted the yoke of the Torah . 52

If the Church had kept to the Matthean interpretation of the teaching of Jesus, one can imagine the repercussions such a view would have had within the messianic perspective on christian behavior with regard to the world.

MAN'S RESPONSIBILITY TOWARDS NATURE IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

When we now turn to the New Testament to consider man's relationship with created reality, we see that only very few texts speak explicitly of his responsibility towards nature. From this, however, we may not draw the conclusion that the attitude to nature was of little importance to the primitive Church. Only if the New Testament writings were taken as a self-contained unity covering the totality of Christian doctrine could such a conclusion be drawn. It is not however the quantity of texts concerning man's relationship with created reality which is essential to our subject, but the way in which the Hebrew Bible is dealt with in the New Testament.

The emphasis on the Torah as the enduring basis for human behavior makes the Hebrew Bible — for the Matthean Church — an essential element of Christian doctrine and morality. Here the Jewish tradition is presupposed; and this tradition includes man's attitude towards nature! That this attitude is hardly mentioned in Matthew means nothing less than that the presupposition of the Jewish approach towards created reality is self-evident.

We cannot presuppose the Hebrew Bible as part of Paul's theology. Because Scripture was regarded by him as a prophecy which was fulfilled in Christ and the Christian community, the Hebrew Bible no longer had any role in Christian doctrine and morality. Since Paul does not deal explicitly either with man's responsibility towards nature or with the Jewish approach to it, we can conclude that the relationship between man and creation does not play a part in Pauline theology.

We shall now illustrate this conclusion drawn from the different role played by the Torah in the gospel of Matthew and in Pauline literature by two examples.

MATTHEW 12 : 11

"What man of you, if he has one sheep and it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will not lay hold of it and lift it out?" This verse is part of a discussion between Jesus and the Pharisees concerning the breaking of the Sabbath. The whole discussion deals with the plucking of grain by the disciples (12:1-8) and the healing of a man by Jesus (12:9-14), both on a Sabbath. Comparing the discussion with its parallels in Mark 2:23-3: 6 and Luke 6:1-11, we notice a remarkable difference in the arguments Jesus uses to defend his and the disciples' behavior on the Sabbath. With regard to the plucking of grain Mark and Luke refer only to the story of David who ate the bread of the Presence. This action of David serves as the argument to legitimate the action of the disciples. Matthew however adds to this argument a second one, which is not (like the story of David) taken from the aggadah, but from the halakhah: "Have you not read in the Law how on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath, and are guiltless?"(12:5).53 Obviously this second argument is meant to legitimate the disciples' behavior on the Sabbath according to the official method of establishing halakhah. Human behavior may not be based on an aggadic passage of the Bible, but either directly or indirectly on scriptural halakhah.54 Matthew cannot have had any other reason for this addition than to present Jesus and his disciples as behaving on the Sabbath in accordance with the Law.63 Certainly the authority of Jesus plays a basic part in the discussion, since he considers himself to be more than the temple.36 But despite all his authority Jesus takes the Torah as starting point for the legitimation of his disciples' behavior. Thus the Torah and its halakhah is considered by Matthew as the basis for all other authoritative interpretations and it may by no means be regarded as antiquated. 57

In the second instance also, Matthew differs from Mark and Luke, again with regard to Jesus' justification of action on the Sabbath. It is obvious that the divergencies in the Matthean version must be explained on the same lines. Having stated that in the first scene the behavior of the disciples was strongly emphasized as being in accordance with the halakhah, we can expect the same procedure in the second scene. Starting from an established halakhah Jesus justifies his action, which justification is part of a general conclusion based on this established halakhah. Such an interpretation of Matthew 12:11 — that he who lifts his sheep out of the pit into which it has fallen does not break the Shabbat — has nevertheless to face the traditional opposition which considers this kind of behavior not according and even opposed to the established halakhah. Actually we find in the Talmud the following regulation:

Rab Judah said in Rab's name: if an animal falls into a dyke, one brings pillows and bedding and places [them] under it, and if it ascends it ascends. An objection is raised: If an animal falls into a dyke, provisions are made for it where it lies so that it should not perish. Thus, only provisions, but no pillows and bedding? There is no difficulty: here it means where provisions are possible; there where provisions are impossible. If provisions are possible, well and good; but if not, one brings pillows and bedding and places them under it. 58

Jesus' attitude in Matthew 12:11 certainly goes further than the halakhah here quoted. On the other hand we see in the discussion of the Talmud two trends, of which one must be considered more severe — only allowing the animal to be fed, whereas the other — also allowing the possibility of its deliverance — is more lenient 59 It is likely that the halakhah in Matthew 12:11 represents a third trend which is more lenient than the two of the Talmud. An indication for this we find in the halakhah with regard to the Sabbath as it is established in Qumran. In the Damascus Document 11:13f the following halakhah is fixed: "Nobody may assist an animal given birth on the Sabbath. If it falls into a pit or a dyke, he may not lift it out on the Sabbath." The explicit prohibition of lifting an animal out of a pit in Qumran seems clearly to oppose the lenient halakhah as presented in Matthew. Thus we see a variety of opinions, which indicates a scale of more and less severe, even lenient halakhah in Qumran, the Talmud and the New Testament. Having a clear indication that Matthew 12:11 can be considered an accepted halakhah, the two divergencies in the Matthean discussion on the Sabbath have the common aim of presenting Jesus in complete accordance with the written and oral Torah.60

This means for our subject that the Matthean Church considered this Jewish attitude towards nature part of Christian theology, and that Jesus' authoritative and messianic interpretation of the Torah was based on it. This attitude was so self-evident that it is not mentioned elsewhere in Matthew's gospel.

1 CORINTHIANS 9:9

Paul's use of the Hebrew Bible in general and the conclusion with regard to man's relationship with nature can also be illustrated by an example. Speaking of the apostle's right to refrain from working for a living, Paul refers to the Torah. Not only human authority but Scripture also proves that the apostle has the right to material benefits from the apostolate: "For it is written in the Law of Moses, 'You shall not muzzle an ox when it is treading out the grain'." Paul's exegesis of this text from Deuteronomy 25:4 is enlightening for his interpretation of Scripture: "Is it for oxen that God is concerned? Does he not speak entirely for our sake? It was written for our sake . . ." 61 It is clear that Paul here uses Deuteronomy 25:4 in a symbolic way. His application of the text excludes in its formulation the original meaning: "Is it for oxen that God is concerned?" The answer is: certainly not! "Does he not speak entirely (pantos) for our sake?" Yes, for our sake!

The immediate consequence of this entirely symbolic use is that the halakhah of Deuteronomy 25:4 with regard to animals is lost. This consequence has troubled the exegesis of 1 Corinthians 9:9. But before giving some examples we should first look at the use made of this text in the primitive Church, which shows the influence of Paul's exegesis of Deuteronomy 25:4 on the understanding of the Hebrew Bible by the Church of the first centuries.

In his Contra Marcionem Tertullian defends the identity of the God of the Hebrew Bible and of the New Testament: the God of the Old Testament is as just and loving as the God of the New Testament. He also stresses Jesus as the fulfilment of the Old Testament messianic prophecies. In order to prove this fulfilment in Christ, Tertullian indicates two special forms of prophecy in the Hebrew Bible. The first is that by which things future are sometimes set down as if they had already taken place, of which Tertullian gives the example of Isaiah 50:6: "I gave my back to the scourging and my cheeks to the smiting, I turned not my face away from spitting." 62 The second form of prophetic diction is figurative by means of enigmas, allegories and parables. Tertullian gives various examples of this,63 and to justify this prophetic interpretation of Scripture he refers to Paul: "Why need I say more of this practice? Even the heretics' own apostle interprets as concerning not oxen but ourselves that law which grants an unmuzzled mouth to the oxen that treads out corn . . 64 The use of 1 Corinthians 9:9 by Tertullian in order to prove the prophetic character of the Old Testament is symptomatic for the Christian interpretation of the Hebrew Bible.

However, this symbolic use of the Hebrew Bible and especially Paul's interpretation of Deuteronomy 25:4 have caused problems even for Christianity; a survey of the history of exegesis on 1 Corinthians 9:9 shows this. In the commentaries throughout the centuries there is the uneasy feeling that God is said to be unconcerned about oxen. So in the Glossa ordinaria it is explicitly said that God does care for the ox." Calvin also thinks it necessary to point this out." A contemporary of his, Juan de Valdes, comments as follows on Paul's question: "Peradventure doth God care for oxen? I do not think that St. Paul means that God does not care for oxen, as his creatures, of all which He takes general and particular care, giving them, as we have seen in the Psalms, their meat in due season." 67 To the present day this resistance against Paul's treatment of the oxen has remained.68

Throughout the history of exegesis there have been two ways in which it has tried to solve the tension between Paul's use of this Old Testament text and the general feeling that God cares for the animals. The first solution makes a distinction between God as creator and God as lawgiver.° As creator God is certainly concerned for his creation. But this care does not go so far that it is expressed in the Law God gave to his people only for the sake of the people! 7° Such a solution, although recognizing the value of nature in itself, does not appeal to man's responsibility with regard to creation, which is certainly the intention of Deuteronomy 25:4. It only safeguards the biblical characteristic of God: that he himself is concerned about his creation. Moreover, this solution does not find any support either in Paul's use of the Hebrew Bible or in the biblical tradition. For Paul the problem of an eventual contradiction did not exist, since for him Scripture had only one purpose, to serve the New Testament, and is applied in this perspective solely to what the apostle of Christ could justly claim. To the biblical tradition the distinction between creation and Law is completely foreign. It suffices to refer to such a text as Psalm 19. The first section of this psalm deals with the established order of creation. The second section deals with the Law of the Lord (vv. 7 ff) which is perfect and right. The last part points to the servant of God who is supposed to keep the Law (v. 11 ff). The conclusion to be drawn from this arrangement is that there is a self-evident and indissoluble link between creation and its established order on the one hand and the keeping of the Law on the other. Man's moral behavior cannot be detached from the established order in creation, an idea also present, as we have seen, in the Jewish interpretation of Genesis 1:27-28." Thus the distinction between God as creator and God as lawgiver is not an exact interpretation of 1 Corinthians 9:9; it is the effort to reconcile a characteristic of God with Pauline theology. The solution does not do justice either to Paul's argument or to the biblical tradition.

The second solution is based on the well known kal va-homer conclusion. This hermeneutical key enabled the rabbis to formulate new halakhic decisions based on a biblical law. If there was no halakhah that could be applied to a specific situation or a new question, a halakhic decision could be made by keeping to already established halakhah dealing with a comparable situation or question." Applied to 1 Corinthians 9:9 this means: if one ought not to muzzle the threshing ox, one certainly ought not to muzzle an apostle, that is, he deserves even more to be supported than does an ox.73 This solution safeguards not only God's concern for his creation, but also maxi's responsibility with regard to created reality. However, Paul certainly did not use the kal va-homer conclusion in 1 Corinthians 9:9. Such an interpretation clearly contradicts the vocabulary of the text. Moreover when Paul uses the kal va-homer principle, he has an expression for it which clearly indicates this rabbinic way of reasoning.74

Certainly he could have used the rabbinic kal va-homer: what applies to an ox, certainly ( = a fortiori) applies to man! In this way Deuteronomy 25:4 is actually used in the Jewish tradition. The most illustrative passage is in Bava Mezia, where it is established that man may eat from the crop after having finished the harvest and before he has completed the work of threshing:

We now know that man [may eat when employed upon] what is attached to the soil, and an ox of what is detached: whence do we know that man may eat of what is detached? If follows a minori, from an ox: if an ox, which does not eat of what is attached, may nevertheless eat of what is detached; then a man, who may eat of what is attached, may surely eat of what is detached! As for an ox, [it may be argued] that [sc the privilege mentioned] is because you are forbidden to muzzle him; can you assume the same of man, whom you are not forbidden to muzzle? (But then let the muzzling of man be interdicted, a fortiori, from an ox: if you must not muzzle an ox, whose life you are not bidden to preserve, then man, whose life you are bidden to preserve, you must surely not muzzle him!) 75

Actually Paul did not use this Jewish argument to illustrate the right of the apostle. In spite of the efforts of Christian exegesis to save Paul from the accusation of overlooking human responsibility towards nature," we must conclude that he in fact does not show a real concern to stress this responsibility, and that his use of Deuteronomy 25:4 is completely symbolic.77

The main difference between Matthew 12:11 and 1 Corinthians 9:9 is the use of the kal va-homer. In Matthew the basic and enduring significance of the Torah is formulated in this way. Certainly, this kal va-homer was used in the Matthean Church to express its own identity, establishing by this method norms of conduct in the perspective of the messianic Kingdom. But these norms of conduct were modelled according to the tradition of Israel.

CONCLUSION

In the gospel of Matthew the Torah plays a decisive role in the teaching of Jesus, which is basically linked with the Torah. Therefore one may presuppose the spirit of the Torah in all its concreteness when reading the gospel of Matthew. This esteem was lived in the primitive Church and may even be considered closer to the original teaching of Jesus than the attitude of Paul. However, the Matthean theology does not seem to have played a part in the Council document Gaudium et Spes. On the contrary it was put on a par with the Pauline theology, in which the Torah had no function but to be the prophetic witness of Jesus Christ. This is shown by the combined reference to Matthew 22: 37- 40 and Galatians 5:14 as biblical foundation for the law of love.

When Christians want to reflect on their attitude towards created reality and must face the actual ecological problems, they can find guiding inspiration in the teaching of the primitive Church. This inspirationhowever is entirely Jewish, and the guidance of the New Testament expressed in simple concrete terms is based on a presupposed Jewish halakhah. The Christian answer to the question of how man should behave with regard to the world should be the Jewish answer as formulated in its written and oral tradition.

---

1. Gen 1:27-28.
2. Gen. R. VIII. 12. Quoted from H. Freedman and M. Simon, eds., Midrash Rabbah, London: Soncino, 1939 (third impression 1961).
3. Ps 49:13; see Sanh. 38b. Quotations from the Babylonian Talmud taken from the translation edited by I. Epstein, London: Soncino, 1935-1952.
4. See H. Vorgrimmler, ed., Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II, Vol. V: Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, New York 1969, pp. 7-12.
5. Gaudium et Spes No. 1. Quotations from the Constitution (hereafter abbreviated as GS) taken from W.M. Abbot, ed., The Documents of Vatican II, London/Dublin 1966; here p. 199f.
6. GS 12, p. 210.
7. Ibid., loc. cit.
8. Ibid. 15, p. 212.
9. Ibid., loc. cit., p. 213.
10. Ibid. 33, p. 231.
11. Ibid. 34, p. 232.
12. Ibid. 53, p. 259.
13. Ibid. 57, p. 262.
14. Ibid. 63, p. 271.
15. Ibid. 69, p. 278.
16. Cf. R.M. Brown in W.M. Abbot, op. cit., p. 310.
17. See GS 39, p. 237.
18. Only once, when dealing with the sin-disrupted relationship of man with God, does the Constitution mention the (lost) harmony between man and created things; see GS 13, p. 211.
19. See e.g. Lev 25:43, 46, 53; Num 24:19; Is 14:6, 41:2; Ps 72:8, 110:2; its tone is sometimes very hostile.
20. See Maimonides, Guide for the Perplexed, 3, 49.
21. See Philo, De specialibus legibus, 4:211; Kilayim ch. 1.
22. Deut 11:15; see Ber. 40a.
23. See also Shabb. 16, 2.
24. Cf. Lev. 25:7.
25. GS 14ff, p. 122.
26. Ibid. 16, p. 213f.
27. Ibid., loc. cit., p. 214, note 38.
28. Cf. Rom 3:20-26; 4:13-15.
29. Cf. J. Eckert, Die urchristliche Verkiindigung im Streit zwischen Paulus and seinem Gegner nach dem Galaterbrief, Regensburg 1971, p. 132. See also 0. Merk, "Der Beginn der Paraniise im Galaterbrief", ZNW 60 (1969), pp. 83-104.
30. Cf. A. Oepke, Der Brief des Paulus and die Galater, Berlin 19602, p. 128; J. Becker, Der Brief an die Galater, Gottingen 1976, p. 68.
31. See J. Eckert, op. cit., p. 133.
32. This love had been mentioned already, also in antithesis with the Law (v. 6).
33. Taking only the formula kathOs gegraptai — Paul's most frequent way of referring to the Hebrew Bible —we see his teaching with regard to God confirmed in Rom 3:4, 2 Cor 9:9; with regard to Christ in Rom 15:3; with regard to the christians in Rom 1:17, 4,17, 15,9ff; with regard to Israel in Rom 2:24, 9:33, 11:8. The formula is furthermore used in Rom 3:10, 8:36, 9:13, 10:15, 15:21 and 1 Cor 2:9.
34. Rom 15:4; see also Rom 4:23.
35. Rom 1:2.
36. See also Gal 3:8; cf. 0. Michel, Der Brief an die Romer, Gottingen 1955 (10th impression), p. 30.
37. For the development of the text see A.J. Hultgren, "The Double Commandment of Love in Mt 22:34-40. Its Sources and Composition", Catholic Biblical Quarterly 36 (1974), pp. 373-378.
38. The verb "to depend" can be explained as originating either in the hellenistic world or in Jewish tradition, see K. Berger, Die Gesetzauslegung Jesu, Neukirchen 1972, pp. 227-232. Jewish background is more likely because of the topic Matthew is dealing with, which is not hellenistic (philosophical) but Jewish (halakhic).
39. Shabb. 31a.
40. C.G. Montefiore, Rabbinic Literature and Gospel Teachings, New York 1970 (reprint), p. 320. 4O Ber. 63a.
41. C.G. Montefiore, op. cit., p. 322.
42. C.G. Montefiore, op. cit., pp. 316-319.
43. Cf. W.D. Davies, The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount, Cambridge 1966 (2nd impression), pp. 99-103.
44. See G. Barth, Das Gesetzverstiindnis des Evangelisten Matthiius: überlieferung and Auslegung im Matthausevangelium, ed. by G. Bornkamm, G. Barth and H.J. Held, Neukirchen 1960, pp. 54-154.
45. See e.g. Mt 5:21 and 5:43.
46. Cf. G. Barth, op. cit., p. 79.
47. The emphasis on the Torah in the gospel of Matthew is even considered a polemic against its Pauline interpretation; see G. Barth, op. cit., pp. 159-154.
48. Cf. K. Berger, op. cit., pp. 587-590.
49. W.D. Davies, Christian Origins and Judaism, London 1962, p. 53.
50. See also Js 2:8-11. From some New Testament texts it seems that Paul himself kept the Law, see Acts16:3, 21:21-26, 23:6; 1 Cor 7:18. He could have done so because of the sensitivity of Jews and Jewish-Christian communities, cf. W.D. Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism, London 1970 (3rd impression), p. 73f.
51. Mt 7:28f can be understood in this way.
52. W.D. Davies, Sermon on the Mount, p. 183f. For the Jewish view on the Torah in the messianic age see further W.D. Davies, op. cit., pp. 109-187; E.E. Urbach, The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs, Jerusalem 1975, pp. 297-314.
53. Num 28:9f.
54. See D. Daube, The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism, New York 1973 (reprint), p. 68f.
55. See D. Daube, op. cit., p. 70f.
56. Cf. R. Banks, Jesus and the Law in the Synoptic Tradition, Cambridge 1975, p. 116f.
57. For Mt 12:1-8 see further G. Barth, op. cit., pp. 75-78.
58. Shabb. 128b.
59. See H.L. Strack and P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud and Midrasch, Munchen 1926 (reprinted 1974), Vol. I, p. 629.
60. Cf. E. Lohse, "Jesu Worte fiber den Sabbat: Judentum — Urchristentum-Kirche". Fs. J. Jeremias, ed. by W. Eltester (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift f. N. T. Wiss. 26), Berlin 1964 (2nd impression), pp. 79-89; here p. 88. Opposed to this view: G. Strecker, Der Weg der Gerechtigkeit (Forsch. zur Rel. u. Lit. des A. u. N. T. 82), Gottingen 1962, p. 19. The same tradition is found in Lk 14:5; cf. also Lk 13:15.
61. 1 Cor 9:9s.
62. Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem, ed. and transl. by E. Evans, Oxford 1972, Vol. I, p. 179.
63. Joel 3:18; Ex 3:8, 17; Deut 26:9, 15; Is 41:19 and 43:20; texts to be understood metaphorically.
64. E. Evans, op. cit., p. 181; cf. Adversus Marcionem V, 16.7 and V, 7.10f.
65. Migne, Patrologia Latina CXIV, 533.
66. Joannis Calvini opera quae supersunt omnia, ed. by G. Baum, E. Cunitz and E. Reuss, XLIX, Brunsvigiae 1892, p. 441.
67. Juan de Valdes, Commentary upon St. Paul's first Epistle to the Church at Corinth, transl. by J.T. Betts, London 1883, p. 156.
68. Cf. A. Maier, Commentar fiber den ersten Brief Pauli an die Korinther, Freiburg im Breisgau 1857, p. 193; F. Godet, Commentaire sur la premiere ipitre aux Corinthiens II, Paris 1885, p. 37; R. Comely, Cornmentarius in S. Pauli apostoli epistolas. II prior epistula ad Corinthios, Parisiis 1909, p. 246f; F.W. Grosheide, Commentary on the first Epistle to the Corinthians, London 1954 (2nd impression), p. 205.
69. Glossa ordinaria, loc. cit.: "curae quidem cunt; verum non ita, ut de eis legem instituat"; Calvin, loc. cit.; A. Maier, loc. cit.; A.P. Stanley, The Epistles of St. Paul to the Corinthians, London 1865 (3rd impression), p. 142; F. Godet, loc. cit.; R. Comely, loc. cit.
70. This idea is found already in Philo: "The law does not prescribe for unreasoning creatures, but for those who have mind and reason", Spec. 1:260 (Loeb Classical Library, Vol. VII, p. 251). Philo's interpretation applies here to the regulations for the sacrifices (Lev 6) and one should not take it as a general rule. Philo's interpretation of law is not entirely metaphorical, see De V irt. 140 where the humane treatment of animals is actually presumed in any inter-human relation.
71. The same link between creation and the keeping of the Torah is found in Ps 24. I owe these observations to prof. A. Segre.
72. See W. Bacher, Die exegetische Terminologie der jiidischen Traditionsliteratur I, Leipzig 1905, pp. 172-174.
73. So Thomas Aquinas. See further Cornelis a Lapide, Commentaria in omnes Sancti Pauli epistolas I, Augustae Taurinorum 1909, p. 444f; J. Niglutsch, Breviscommentarius in S. Pauli Apostoli Epistolas ad Galatas et primam ad Corinthios, Tridenti 1899, p. 125; E.B. Allo, Saint Paul. Premiere epitre aux Corinthiens, Paris 1935, p. 217.
74. See Rom 5:9,10,15,17; 1 Cor 9:12; 2 Cor 3:8.
75. B.M. 88b. Other metaphorical uses of Deut 25:4 are to be found in Gitt. 62a, Sanh. 65b and Makk. 23a. This does not however imply that the original meaning of Deut 25:4 is lost in the Talmud, cf. Terumoth IX,3.
76. In Pauline and deutero-Pauline literature a cosmic reconciliation and harmony are depending on Christ, see A. Vogtle, Das Neue Testament and die Zukunft des Kosmos, Dusseldorf 1970, espec. pp. 213ff. For the influence of the distinction between God as Creator and God as Lawgiver in 1 Cor 9:9, on the idea of creation in Rom 8:19, see W. Grundmann, "Die Ubermacht der Gnade", NT 2 (1957), pp. 50-72, espec. p. 60.
77. See H. Conzelmann, Der erste Brief an die Korinther, Gottingen 1969, p. 183.