First Oral Examination

Theology 151
1.)
What is the relationship between freedom and
commitment? Can one be free and uncommitted at the
same time?
A.) Definition of Freedom and Commitment:
1.) Freedom: is the capacity of the human person to achieve his
final, irrevocable and eternal self
a. Karl Rahner: Freedom is the capacity of the subject . . .
to achieve his final and irrevocable self . . . it is the
event of something eternal
i. In freedom, we are performing the eternity which
we ourselves are and are becoming
ii. Human freedom is not some phantom commodity
that enjoys a life apart from particulars. Freedom
must be exercised in order to be (Haughey, 31)
b. God is the ground and goal of our freedom, since Gods
love is the only form of love that is able to embrace
ourselves in totality: Gods love can unite mankind
c. Freedom includes, but is more than freedom of choice
d. Haughey: Life shall be found when a person is willing to
particularize his choices in life our choices define who
we are as a person and gives us a sense of identity
i. Selfhood is grounded in our ability to particularize
our choices
2.) Commitment: A personal and formal choice made by an
individual, which symbolizes and represents a deeper direction
that one has chosen to take in ones life
a. A commitment cannot be consummated if there is no
promise: promise is an act which seals the deal
i. The promise is a particular kind of choice: the
unique feature about promise, is that it describes
something we intend to do in the future
ii. The one making a promise is not understood to be
making a prediction about himself, but rather, he
is asserting his firm intention
iii. Every promise, bind the one who makes it to some
future action: by giving his word, he is assuming
an obligation
iv. Promises are seen as a way for people to
determine themselves, and to create a new
relationship between another person and the
community that the individual is part of
b. Hannah Arendt and her book The Human Condition:
i. The making and keeping of promises are an
expression of one of the most ancient needs of
man

ii. The Judeo-Christian religion grew out of the

covenant promise God made to Abraham
iii. Roman Empire built a legal system based on the
inviolability of agreements and treaties
iv. Human beings enter into promises in order to
ensure their own survival and to make society a
more hospitable place to live
v. Promise is what holds society together and staves
off barbarity
c. Three main points about promises in relation to
commitment:
i. As promises, our commitments project us into the
future
ii. They also create a communion between ourselves
and those to whom we have given our word
iii. Our promises and commitments free us from
being wholly locked into the present
B.) The Relationship between Freedom and Commitment:
a.) Common Misconceptions about the Understanding of
Freedom and Commitment:
The contemporary understanding of freedom, rests on a
conclusion that there is no relationship between freedom
and commitment, because it is believed that freedom and
commitment are incompatible to one another
The contemporary notion is that freedom is the inverse
proportion of commitment
o The less committed you are, the more free you are
o Freedom means having more options
o Whereas commitment stifles your ability to choose,
since you are sealed to only one option
Although, it is important to understand that the
contemporary understanding of the incompatibility
between freedom and commitment does not exist at all
b.) The True Relationship between Freedom and Commitment:
The real relationship between freedom and commitment
rests on the understanding that a free person is able to
make a formal choice for itself
1.) Freedom is for Commitment: A person who has made
permanent, irreversible commitments, is going to experience
greater freedom than those who deliberately refrain from
doing so
2.) Commitment creates an avenue for the person to
exercise its freedom: it is important to remember that no
ones freedom exists apart from a particular context; our
freedom takes place in an increasingly complex and dense set
of circumstances, in which we are all subjected to

C.) One cannot be free and be uncommitted at the same time:

1.)
Making formal choices in life and entering into a
commitment shapes a persons identity
a. When a person is uncommitted, this results to having no
identity at all
b. When a person is undetermined, other people will
determine for him or her, which shall result to
incompleteness
c. The person also loses its subjectivity when they are not
able to commit
d. Our choices in life shape our identity as free individuals
e. Being always in a state of indecision, a person shall not
grow and will remain static
2.)
Freedom is actually exercised when we make
choices (choices that are considered to be permanent)
3.)
Without a commitment, the relationship relies
completely on spontaneity, mutual interest, and the
convenience of circumstances
a. A companionship or a friendship in which there is a
commitment can withstand distances and long periods
of absence
b. A commitment begins to be shaped as a spontaneous
relationship becomes more fully chosen and more
consciously cultivated
4.)
George Gilder in his book Naked Nomads:
withholding oneself from committing oneself has not
proven beneficial
a. Depression, addiction, disease, disability, psychiatric
treatment, loneliness, insomnia, institutionalization,
poverty, discrimination, unemployment and nightmares
are the result of not having a solid formal choice in ones
life
b. Gilder findings suggests that non-commitment is
destructive of the individual, that meandering is a
refusal of life
c. Matthew 7:13-14 entering by the narrow gate: which
is the symbolism for entering into commitment
i. Life will be found when a person is willing to
particularize his choices in life
ii. He chooses to enter the kingdom of persons and
does so through particular people
5.)
Failure to make decisions is turning away from
ones role as Gods co-creator

a. The failure to commit, results to Gods creation being

unfinished or incomplete
2.) Discuss the dynamics of primordial commitment. What is
the goal of primordial commitment?
A.) Definition of Primordial Commitment:

Primordial Commitment: the mysterious basic direction of

our lives, which manifests a rather consistent personal
identity, and establishes a horizon within which we
realize ourselves through our individual acts of freedom
o Our conscious primary and secondary commitments
are symbolic of this deeper direction one has chosen
to take in ones life
o The more we become aware of this subterranean and
pre-thematic intentionality, the more we are free and
true to ourselves and choose the authentic direction
of our life
A persons primordial commitment can flow in only one of
two directions:
o Self-donation which leads to salvation
o Self-absorption which leads to damnation
Though more tendential than volitional, primordial
commitment naturally evolve (horizontal freedom), or can
be radically changed (vertical freedom), that causes a
complete horizon shift that creates new commitments and
affect previous ones
According to Rollo May, primordial commitment is our
intentions underlying all of our intentions, even before we
act it out: this gives us a sense of direction (provides
guidance) conscious commitments are grounded by
primordial commitments
Primordial commitment encompasses much of our own; it
involves more than our conscious commitment
The very core of the primordial commitment is the self (I)
It is the unconscious and pre-thematic aspect of the
person: it refers to the persons dynamism and is largely a
mystery

B.) The Dynamics of Primordial Commitment:

Primordial commitments is considered to be a mystery,
since it is the persons deepest desires: it is only
triggered by the unconscious
The persons conscious commitments are grounded by
its primordial commitments: it makes it more explicit
and is materialized by it

Rollo May: the intentionality of our being underlies all of

our intentions
o It is prior and undergirds all of our decisions
o Ones intentionality is the direction one is going in;
it is ones response to the structure of ones world
o It determines the experiences we have, and to
some extent, gives them the meaning we tend to
impose upon them
Haugheys observation about commitment as a mystery
in relation to primordial commitment: the person who is
attempting to resolve question about commitment for
himself should not focus exclusively on the level of
conscious choice but should seek to understand the
dynamism and flow that underlie his behaviour patterns
The primordial commitment faces one horizon: this
horizon gives one a field of vision which opens out to a
number of possibilities and closes out the others
o The horizon that one is facing into is the source of
the potential objects of ones conscious formal
commitments (both primary and secondary)
o Each of these conscious commitments contracts
the horizon and deepens it
o The range of perceptions come in various ways:
some are close and some are far
o The horizon can be disharmonized in two main
ways:
Sin
by
excess:
brittle
or
fanatic
(overcommitting)
Sin by defect
This results to the person being burdened by
shallowness
The shift in the horizon is possible: it deals with the
question as to whether or not one was right in yielding
towards a new horizon
o We call this a horizon shift because ones previous
perspective is transcended: this means that the
whole way one perceived reality, the principles
and judgements one took to deal with the reality
one found oneself in, has changed
o A horizon shift is more radical than the natural
evolution of a persons horizon
o The breakthrough from the old to the new can
come at the level of ones emotions, ones mind or
ones values
o It can be religious, affective, or intellectual; it can
be a combination of all of these, but with one of
them predominant

Horizons are important determinants of commitment

because they create new forms of direction
Sometimes the freedom one feels about his choice of
the new horizon seems minimal, and it is caused by
various factors
Every individual has to actively participate in shaping
their own horizon (not passive)
Accepting a particular horizon means that a certain
decision has been made
Distinction between vertical and horizontal freedom by
Joseph de Finance (Belgian Philosopher):
o Vertical Freedom: when the person chooses to
make the new horizon his own
Creating a new horizon requires the person
to withdraw his previous commitments, in
order to select new symbols to express
oneself
o Horizontal Freedom: Making choices within the
given options
o Many changes of commitment come about
because of a prior exercise of vertical freedom
Three different ways in which breakthroughs to new
horizons occur in peoples lives:
o Primarily in the area of meaning that the new
horizon comes about
o Another horizon shift could be primarily one of
value: the new value would have been either
ignored in the previous horizon or given
considerably less attention
o A third way for horizons to change comes from
what appears to be a religious experience, a
conversion (metanoia)
The danger of overcommitment is grounded on the
persons selfishness: it is the result of investing more of
the self in the object of ones commitment than the
object can or should deliver
o Unfreedom is a result of overcommitment
Overcommitment occurs when people pursue a
commitment so exclusively that their lives become
brittle and their horizons narrow
Overcommitment places the person in isolation and
leads to the persons foreclosure
o Example: entering into marriage for practical
reasons
o Overcommitment = careerism
Reasons for overcommitment:
o Interpersonal commitments due to deficiency
needs

o Lack of faith in God

Overcommitment leads to no growth as well

C.) The Goal of the Primordial Commitment:

Primordial commitment seeks to answer this question:
ano ang hangad ng puso mo? it seeks to discover the
deepest desire of the person (vocation)
It seeks to examine oneself in terms of whether or not
our actions are directed towards God and salvation
It also aims for the person to have a sense of indwelling:
a radical shift from being to being in love, and from
I am to we are
In indwelling, the person no longer faces into his or her
new horizon as a solitary, but, to some degree, feels,
think, plans, and acts from within the new existential
reality of being in love
In indwelling, we start off as solitary people; but when
we indwell, it is a result of falling in love
The most common indwelling is the union between a
man and a woman (marriage)
Indwelling can be intramundane or between God and
human beings as well
o It can also take place at great depth between two
persons who do not relate to one another in a
sexual way
o Example: Gregory of Nazianzen and his friendship
with Saint Basil
How does indwelling relate to commitment?
o Indwelling completes the being and is its raison
detre it does not operate in a fully conscious
manner, but it does operate and materialize due
to this desire for love
o It could be a potential union, between a man and
a woman (marital form); this also does not exclude
Gods relationship with human beings or our
commitment to God: the spousal image can be a
symbolism for the covenant between God and
man as well
o Other uses of the word commitment are
analogous to the paradigm of indwelling
o The relationship must be formally and fully chosen
and pass beyond the spontaneous attraction for
each other
o The ideal condition for the living-out of an
interpersonal commitment is for it to take place
within the existential reality of indwelling
The experience of being-in-love need not be
disruptive of ones prior commitments it

can even prove to be a source of

rejuvenation for them
Example: An individual may be in love
with someone other than his or her
spouse and, at the same time, find
that this indwelling is the instrument
through which the spousal relationship
is renewed
Indwelling is a dynamic reality that cannot remain long
in the intimistic stage that involves only two parties; it
must flower into, and become part of, a larger
communion
3.) Is conscience a tyrannical social construction or the
subjectivistic self set against a ruthless world? What is
conscience, then?
A.) According to Gaudium et spes, conscience is the secret core
and sanctuary of a man. There he is alone with God, whose
voice echoes in his depths.
a. Conscience as core and sanctuary:
i. According to Bretzke, Sanctuary can mean:
1. A holy, sacred place, the most privileged
place where one meets God (coram Deo)
2. Inviolable refuge: the medieval right to seek
refuge in the church and be immune from
arrest, since God is the last Judge of every
person (1 Cor. 4:3-5)
b. The subjective pole: (Joseph Fuchs, S.J) conscience
concerns not simply the realization of one deed or
another, but also, the same time and very profoundly,
the realization of ones very self
c. The Objective pole: In the depths of his conscience,
man detects a law which he does not impose upon
himself, but which holds him to obedience
i. This means that there is a transcendental law that
is not imposed upon him, but rather, he is obliged
to follow
ii. Gods presence in every mans conscience:
unwritten law inscribed in every persons heart
iii. Example: Antigone obeyed the gods and let her
brother have a proper burial
d. Gods presence in the depths of conscience means that
the human person can ground oneself only in the
transcendent God, the intimior intimo meo
i. Merrrigan: conscience is best understood as
both the consciousness that one exists in
relationship to God as a responsible subject,

ii.

iii.

iv.

v.
vi.

vii.

or self, and the summons to act in accord

with this consciousness
Merrigan: More realized that the transcendental is
in the discovery of selfhood, that God is indeed
intimior intimo meo such that the journey toward
selfhood will be religious, or it will be futile
1. It is through conscience that the person
establishes the self (you are your real self if
you follow your conscience)
Merrigan: The God disclosed in conscience is the
God whose presence is always mediated, whose
voice is never heard directly but only as it is
echoed in the chasms of our hearts and minds
Bolt: It may be that a clear sense of the self can
only crystalize round something transcendental
1. Only through conscience that you shall have
a true understanding of yourself
Conscience is a subjective reality, which is
grounded on an internal forum with oneself and
with God
Thomas More: I would . . . for mine own self
follow mine own conscience, for which myself
must make answer unto God, and . . . leave every
other man to his own conscience
Newman: There are two and two only absolute
and luminously self-evident beings, myself and my
Creator . . . if I am asked why I believe in God, I
answer that it is because I believe in myself, for I
feel impossible to believe in my own existence
(and of that I am quite sure) without believing also
in the existence of Him, who lives as a Personal,
All-seeing, All-judging Being in my conscience

B.) The primacy and inviolability of a human persons conscience.

Each is bound to follow his conscience faithfully in all his
activity so that he may come to God, who is his last end.
Therefore he must not be forced to act contrary to his
conscience
a. Lewis: The primacy of conscience has never been
understood in a radically subjectivistic sense, as though
conscience were a law unto itself independently
determining moral good and evil or a purely arbitrary
judgement tailoring the morality of ones actions to
ones personal wishes. In arriving at a judgment of
conscience one must search for objective truth
b. Lewis: Objective truth thus has a certain primacy, but it
is upon human conscience that these obligations fall and
exert their binding force

c. St. Thomas Aquinas: a correct conscience bind

absolutely and intrinsically . . . whoever believes that
something is a command (of conscience) and decides to
violate it wills to break the law of God, and, therefore,
sins
d. Fuchs: What makes us morally good is not the actual
right act performed in itself, but primarily the sincere
effort and commitment to do what we honestly believe
to be the right thing
e. Conscience as the proximate norm of morality:
conscience is the proximate and formal measure of
morality because an action is moral or immoral, not only
the nature of the act itself, but in the intention identified
by conscience
C.)A correct conscience must be obeyed above all else under
God in order for the human person to realize ones authentic
self through concrete actions that conform to the objective
divine moral order
a. True self = being in communion with your conscience
which is grounded in Gods teachings and deeds
b. There is such a thing as an irreducible self
D.)The Four Points on Conscience:
a. Conscience as the inner subjective core of the
person
i. Always present in every human self-realization
ii. Realization of ones very self
iii. It is a mode of being a way to protect oneself as
a moral being
iv. John Crosby, Conscience and Super Ego
1. Conscience inner sanctuary of our
personhood
2. Violation of the self if one compromises their
conscience
3. Being true to conscience respect for
people
b. John Henry Newman: conscience is nearer to me
than any other means of knowledge
i. Because I have conscience, therefore I exist
ii. Gods existence is more intimately connected
with the nature of the human mind than anything
else
iii. Gods presence is embodied and experienced
through conscience (our experience with God is
not direct it is an echo)
iv. Only two absolute and luminously self-evident
beings: myself and God

c. Conscience as a core and sanctuary: conscience is

the most secret core and sanctuary
d. Conscience as the proximate norm of morality
i. While divine law, through universal and material,
is pre-morality; the goodness or badness of an
act in the abstract is goodness or badness only
potentially
ii. Conscience is the proximate and formal measure
of morality because an action is moral or immoral,
not only the nature of the act itself, but in the
intention identified by conscience
E.) Stages of Conscience Formation (Louis Monden, S.J.):
a. Instinctive: decides on the basis of fear of breaking
taboos or desire for affection (external)
i. Doing the good due to the fear of punishment
ii. Super ego: instinctive level
b. Moral: chooses the good that leads to self-realization
i. Internalized; the law becomes the path to selfrealization
c. Christian-Religious: living out the moral good as a
yielding to indwelling with God who is intimior intimo
meo which leads to a higher and deeper self-realization,
a real divinization of man
i. Inter-personal relationships
ii. Indwelling with God: conscience in the religious
level would be a dialogue with God
iii. The law is no longer an obligation, but
vocation, a yielding in love to God
1. Obligation: the person is pushed
2. Vocation: you are inspired and driven
(indwelling with God)
d. Conscience: a living relationship with God (indwelling
with God)
i. Not just following a command, but entering into a
relationship (relational)
4.) What is the meaning of the primacy of conscience? Does
it mean that conscience is superior even to the Church and
its moral teachings?

The primacy of conscience:

o St. Thomas: a correct conscience binds absolutely and
intrinsically . . . whoever believes that something is a
command (of conscience) and decides to violate it wills
to break the law of God and therefore sins
o Benedict XVI: For Newman, conscience represents the
inner complement and limit of the Church principle.
Over the pope as the binding claim of ecclesiastical

authority there still stands ones own conscience, which

must be obeyed before all else, if necessary even
against the requirement of the ecclesiastical authority
o The primacy of conscience is considered to be of
importance and it should be respected (inviolable
sanctuary)
Each is bound to follow his conscience faithfully
in all his activity so that he may come to God, who
is his last end. Therefore, he must not be forced to
act contrary to his conscience
Lusvardi: Conscience must be respected because
it touches upon all that gives man dignity, his
deeply personal relationship with God. It is in
virtue of their ability freely to obey the divine law
to relate justly to God that human beings
possess their exalted dignity. Thus conscience has
an interior and personal dimension, which gives
rise to civil rights
Even if conscience is considered to be of utmost priority, it is
valid to say that conscience and the teachings of the Church
work hand in hand in order for a persons conscience to be
correctly shaped
o The Church is, by the will of Christ, the teacher of the
truth: it is her duty to give utterance to, and
authoritatively teach, that truth which is Christ Himself,
and also to declare and confirm by her authority those
principles of the moral order which have their origins in
human nature itself
o Anthony Fisher, O.P.: Freedom from conscience is never
freedom from the truth, but always and only freedom in
the truth
A well-informed conscience will seek to be both
more objective about morality and truer to the
Christian tradition than any morality based on
sincerity or balancing acts can deliver
o Christians have a great help for the formation of
conscience in the Church and her Magisterium:
The Church puts herself always and only at the
service of conscience, in order to help it avoid the
doctrines being proposed by human deceit and to
attain the truth

5.) What does it mean to identify Jesus as the ultimate norm

of moral life?

It is important to remember that to regard Jesus as the norm

of the moral life is to enter the way of discipleship, to
faithfully and creatively live under the reign of God as he did
(imitation Christi or to copy Christ)

o Discipleship is a matter of answering the invitation of

Jesus to take an adventure to live under the reign of God
as he did
o To regard Jesus as the norm of the moral life is to enter
the way of discipleship: living as a disciple necessarily
entails forming a Christian imagination and converting
our loyalty to God in Christ into a way of life
o The way of discipleship is the way of the imitation of
Christ
But to imitate is not to mimic Jesus: mimicry
forgets the strategies and responses of Jesus were
based on the developmental influences of his life

To be a disciple is, like Christ, to be caught up in Gods love,

which enables the person to let go of all forms of self-made
securities (renunciation), especially power that promotes
superiority/inferiority as the paradigm of human relationships,
in order to find true security in God and Gods love. The love
of God strives for inclusion and not exclusion
o The call to be a disciple is the call to radical
dispossession: we become disciples by following the way
of renunciation
o Mark 10:17-27 The story of the rich man: Go, sell
what you have, and give to the poor and you will have
treasure in heaven; then come, follow me
o Not until we surrender to the gracious offer of divine
love will we be able to experience the fullness of life
under the reign of God (the only rival to God is money)
o To be a disciple then, demands letting go of whatever
occupies our hearts so that we may have room for
divine love
o Jesus called for his disciples to have a radical break from
what the world says gives us power over ourselves and
over others
o The call to discipleship is to leave everything and to
follow Jesus
It includes giving up family and its affection (Mt
10:37), property (Mk 10:21), ambition (Mk 10:43),
and even life itself (Mk 10:45)

In sum, the disciple is to let go of all forms of self-made

securities in order to be secure in divine love
o Stanley Hauerwas: points out that the more we possess
the more violent we have to become to protect what we
have
o The non-violence of Jesus is rooted in the freedom of his
being dispossessed and filled with divine love

o Wealth: the offensive abundance of the few; creating

separation and dominance

Jesus told them, in short, that they must become like children
if they wished to share in the reign of God
o The child holds the lowest possible status in
relationships based on the superiority/inferiority
structure
o The childs worth and security are constituted not by its
status or achievements, but simply by the generous love
of the parents
o Children does not care about achievements and
success: the love that their parents give is already
sufficient enough for them to feel complete

Jesus constantly challenged any use of power that promoted

superiority/inferiority as the paradigm of human relationships
o His miracles are signs of liberating power
Mark 9:38-40 and Luke 9:49-50 the conflict
between Jesus and his disciples who return to him
after meeting a man casting out demons in Jesus
name
The disciples want to use their power to
control the good and to make themselves
superior to another who is not one of their
company
Arrogant power creates exclusion
Luke 13:10-17 scene of healing the bent-over
woman
Jesus calls to a woman who has been bent
over by an evil spirit for eighteen years
The power which liberates by making the
weak strong is too challenging to the
community
Arrogant power of superiority wants to
control the good by keeping some weak
while other remain strong that is why
Jesus wants us to radically dispossess,
because He wants to have a society wherein
everyone is equal
o His parables are judgements about reversals in power
relationships: the first become last; the last, first
o The great reversals of structures of power which Jesus
reveals is especially evident in the famous conflict
between Jesus and Peter in the foot-washing scene in
the gospel of John (13:6-10)

Peter accepting his feet washed by Jesus

accepting the radical reversal of the very
structures of domination

o When Jesus deliberately reverses social positions by

becoming a servant, He witnesses to a new order of
human relationships in the community whereby the
desire to dominate and establish superiority has no
place
Jesus and his disciples: avoiding all techniques
which would secure positions of superiority in their
social structure
They were not allowed to use religious dress
Not allowed to take reserved seats in
religious assemblies
They were not to use titles such as rabbi,
father, or master
Not to dominate in the name of service
Jesus tells Peter to forgive seventy times seven
time (Mt 18:21-35) reversal of the image of
power and superiority
The reign of God ushers in a new way of life
whereby power is not for cruel exclusion, but
for hospitable inclusion
6.) Discuss the ethical demands of the Sermon on the
Mount. Why is it said that the Sermon on the Mount turns
the justice of the world upside down?
A.) General points about the Sermon on the Mount:
The Sermon on the Mount is not a law in terms of form,
spirit and dynamism
The Sermon is a call to faith (vocation), to Indwell with
God through Christ in the power of the Spirit who gives the
believer the capacity and power to live the demands of the
Sermon
The Sermon is valid for all Christians and for all times, not
just a counsel which one is free to follow or not: everyone is
invited to follow the sermon
o It is not only inviting the elite members of the
Church, but it is also inviting the whole Christian
community (and non-Christians as well)
The Sermon is seen as an opportunity to experience Jesus
by following His deeds and His teachings
o This can only be done if the person undergoes the
process of conversion: experiencing God in
miraculous ways
o It gives us an idea as to how totality should be like

o It is not a set of laws, but it paves a certain direction

on how to live life fruitfully
It asks us to listen to Jesus words and to accept them
wholeheartedly

B.) Ethical Demands of the Sermon on the Mount:

The Beatitudes: it reciprocates the common notion of what
it means to be blessed
o The Beatitudes are considered to be a proclamation:
Matthew shows his awareness that only Gods
promise of grace and mercy, which evokes right
conduct on the part of man, can stand at the
beginning
o Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the
kingdom of heaven (Matthew 5:3) refers to the
marginalized, the weak, the abandoned; they are
blessed because the only thing that they have is
Gods divine love which is the foundation of their
dignity as human beings
o (Matthew 5:12) Rejoice and be glad, for your reward
will be great in heaven. Thus they persecuted the
prophets who were before you for the
marginalized and the true believers of God, their
justice shall be claimed at the end of time; it may not
be the justice that they shall seek here in earth, but it
is the real justice that shall come from the kingdom
of God
Teaching about the Law: in this section, Jesus is saying that
the Sermon is not a replacement of the law, but rather, He
emphasizes that the Sermon fulfils the law
o Jesus wants His followers to have fidelity towards the
commandments (Matthew 5:19)
Teaching about Anger: in this part, Jesus tells His followers
to be conscious about their anger, most specifically
towards their brothers (or neighbours)
o (Matthew 5:21) You shall not kill; and whoever
kills will be liable to judgement
It has to be kept in mind that killing is grounded
in anger being angry at someone is also like
killing the person
o (Matthew 5:22) . . . whoever says to his brother,
Raqa (blockhead), will be answerable to the
Sanhedrin . . . and whoever says You fool, will be
liable to fiery Gehenna

This passage connotes that anger (even with

the use of derogatory words) can make a
person liable and commit a great sin
o (Matthew 5:24) Leave your gift there at the altar,
go first and be reconciled with your brother, and then
come and offer your gift
Jesus is telling His followers to first reconcile
and make peace with their neighbours before
offering sacrifices to God
o (Matthew 5:25) Jesus tells His followers to settle
their differences aside before entering into court
Jesus wants people to forgive rather than let
the law settle their arguments

o Jesus also talks about adultery and divorce (Matthew

5:27-31)
He is saying that husbands should not abandon
their wives and let divorce be the solution,
because their wives will also end up
committing adultery
o Jesus also talks about oaths (Matthew 5:33), and tells
His followers not to take false oaths, and have a solid
disposition when it comes to making decisions (a
solid yes and a solid no
o Teaching about Retaliation (Matthew 5: 38-42)
Jesus reciprocates the whole notion of
retaliation: instead of throwing a stone to your
enemy when they throw one to you, you throw
them bread
Jesus tells His followers to not let anger
dominate their thoughts and actions
o Love of Enemies (Matthew 5:43-48)
Jesus tells His disciples to love their enemies
and their neighbours this is turning the
justice of the world upside down, because
even if a persons neighbour did something
wrong to them, the person should still love the
individual who committed a sin against them
C.) Sermon on the Mount in turning the justice of the world
upside down:
The Sermon is not a law in the sense of one is morally
obliged to follow it using ones own resources. It turns the
justice of the world upside down: it tells us not to insist on

our own rights but on unlimited concern for the good of

others
The beatitudes turn the so-called justice of the world
upside down
o The antithesis (Mt 5:21-48) They tell us not to
insist on our own rights and refer us to unlimited
concern for the good of others
o It is telling us to think of our enemies first, before our
own good and self-interest
o Think of the other there is no boundary in terms of
how we see rights (it also includes enemies)
o They do not allow us to close ourselves for others
while hiding behind the law
o The saying my rights end when another persons
rights starts is not valid at all there are no
boundaries

7.) Is the Sermon on the Mount practicable?

Yes, the Sermon on the Mount practicable: the only way in

which the Sermon on the Mount can be practiced is in the
trust and obedience of faith
Trust: Father in the center, and experiences the whole life as a
gift
Summons to way of life: grounded in joy

There is a common misconception that the Sermon on the

Mount cannot be practiced or even applied in real life,
because it is too ideal (it is too much of a task the
expectation is high)
o One has sensed the tension between Jesus demands
and those of the world and has found a way out, but
only via a capitulation
o We ordinary human beings cannot, and, therefore, have
not to live up to these demands

A practicable way will be found only if one realizes that the

Sermon on the Mount is part of a greater reality
o It tells us that Jesus has come to set people free, to lift
them out of their sin, their weakness, their despair, in
order to open a new future for them

The Sermon should always be preceded by the proclamation

of the gospel

o It was preceded by conversion, by a being overwhelmed

by the good news that God has turned definitively to
man in unrestricted forgiveness and love

The Sermon on the Mount is not an abstract doctrine: it is not

a theory but a message

Jesus is the authority of the Sermon on the Mount

o Without him it would only be a merely utopian
philosophy
o With Jesus, the Sermon becomes a message of promise
and a demand from God who speaks in and through
Jesus

The Sermon tries to deliver this message to Jesus followers:

You are saved by Jesus, and therefore things can start
changing, you can adopt new priorities in your life
o The Sermon calls us to join Jesus on the Mountain
o It contains signs and examples of what is implied in the
breakthrough of the Kingdom of God
o The Sermon on the Mount does not give a total picture,
but is a picture which is clear enough to suggest what
the totality is supposed to be like

The Sermon on the Mount is not a collection of

commandments or laws
o It is rather the expression of the (hidden) dynamism of
the kingdom of God which progresses to the same
extent as the demands of Jesus are accepted and
obeyed with more love

The central question: do we really give priority to seeking the

kingdom of God in all decisions of our life?
o Goal: the realization of Gods reign on earth

We cannot practice the Sermon on the Mount on our own: we

have to practice is it as a community
o The Sermon is not addressed to an individual, but to a
community
o It is addressed to a group of people who are ready to
listen to Jesus words and to accept them
o Central question: as a group can we time and again try
to commit ourselves to the priorities of the kingdom?
Can we do it, and do we want it?

8.) Discuss sin as primarily a religious reality by means of a

specific biblical passage or narrative

A.) General Points on Sin:

The loss of the sense of sin: the rise of the secular spirit
with its moral relativism, sending to irrelevance religious
faith and reducing sin to a psychological or social disorder
o The secular, therapeutic perspective tends to look on
persons more as victims of unconscious or sociocultural influences than as agents of free actions
Sin marks the failure to be fully responsible of ones actions
o It is important to remember that we are never alone
in every action that we make t God is actin in all
our actions upon you. So respond to all actions upon
you as to respond to his action
o Sin is the result of the individual breaking his or her
fidelity towards the covenant between him or her and
God
Sin is rooted in the violation of relationships
o In the Old Testament, hattah is the most common
term it means to miss a mark or to offend it
points to a purposeful action oriented toward an
existing relationship
o Pesa means rebellion a deliberate action
violating a relationship in a community
o The New Testament: Hamartia a deliberate
action rooted in the heart and missing the intended
mark
In a Biblical perspective, Israel broke the personal bond of
love of which the law was an external expression
o Sin is breaking or weakening the God-given bond of
love which gave Israel its worth, solidarity and
entrustment
Sin is against people and, in and through people,
against God
o Sin is an offense against God, not in the sense of
harming God, but in the sense of failing to respect
what God loves
o It is a violation of the covenant by introducing
disorder and strife into the interdependence of
covenantal relationships
Human solidarity is one piece of our relationship
with God. To betray a social commitment demanded
by justice is to betray God and to perpetuate social
sin
B.) Sin is fundamentally a religious reality:
Three common analogous uses of sin:

o Original sin: a theological code word for the human

condition of living in a world where we are influenced
by more evil than that which we do ourselves
o Material sin: transgressions of the law or acts of
wrongdoing such as killing
o Social sin: the consequences of individual choices
which form oppressive social structures such as
sexism
Transcendent dimension: saying a selfish no to the
invitation to live with God in love; which in turn results in
o Our sin is our way of rebelling not only against
God but also against the living images of God
(His children (our neighbours))
Immanent dimension: saying no to others
o Sin is always a type of self-absorption
Sin as selfishness is first a matter of the heart,
before it ever becomes manifest in external actions
Arrogance of power is grounded in the emptiness of
a person, and the failure to believe that Gods divine
love is sufficient enough
Sin is a spirit of selfishness rooted in our hearts and wills
which wages war against Gods plan of fulfilment
Since is a rejection, either partial or total, of ones role as a
child of God and a member of his people, a rejection of the
spirit of sonship, love and life
Sin starts from the heart of the person, which leads to
sinful actions
Sin refuses to believe that we are lovable apart from our
virtue
Instead of grounding our worth in divine love, sin
attempts to establish worth on the basis of
surrogate loves
o We create an idol (instead of just hanging on to Gods
divine love for us)
o Creating surrogate loves is the sin of idolatry
When we so fill up our lives with these self-created loves,
we have no room for divine love
o The rich, the filled, the happy and the praised have
no room in their lives for such divine love
o The rich gets their security and worth from their own
achievements and earthly possessions, and are
unable to surrender to divine love
We hang on to these surrogate loves out of fear that
if we let go, we will lose our worth and no longer be
valued or valuable
o Yet surrendering is the only way to allow God to
secure us in divine love

Those who establish their worth and security on

their own achievements are ultimately not free
o They are trapped in the self-absorbing fear: this fear
and its unfreedom drive them to strive for qualities
and achievements with which to exalt themselves to
oppress others (leads to dehumanization)
Not until we open ourselves up to the source of our
worth in God will we overcome our sin of idolatry
and be open to the wide values of Gods creation
and Gods people
Sin is a religious reality that tries to break the bond
between Gods followers and Him. One example which
brings about this, is the story of the Garden of Eden
God entrusted the earth to the care of Adam and Eve and
entrusted them to each other
Entrustment: to allow ones life to be in the hands of
another person
Humanity is empowered with the capacity to influence
creation and one another by being entrusted with gifts:
human beings as co-creators
The serpent enters to sow seeds of distrust: the serpent
suggests that God cannot be trusted, and so tempts the
creatures with power (the knowledge of good and evil)
Adam and Eve chose to believe the snake: they miss
the mark of their proper role in the covenant
relationship
o Their fall is the result of their abuse of power by
seeking self-serving ends
The moment Adam and Eve refuse to believe that
God can be trusted and abuse their role in the
covenant, they refuse to trust each other, and so
imprison themselves within their own defences
o This is symbolized by Adams and Eves hiding in the
bushes to protect themselves from God
o To stand naked before another means to leave
oneself vulnerable to the other
o Adam and Eve has fallen to a point of betrayal due to
the abuse of power
The story of the Garden of Eden shows that sin is
the power-play of infidelity: Adam and Eve failed to
show fidelity towards their covenant with God
o Sin abuses the power we entrust to each other,
because sin cannot let go of the fear and suspicion
which keeps us from knowing the other as a gift
In sin we are unable to live in the freedom of being
entrusted by God with personal worth and with the
gifts of one another

o Sin abuses the power we give to one another when

we entrust another with something of value to
ourselves: a personal secret, our health, our property,
our bodies