Introduction
“Love your enemies,” and “turn the other cheek” may be considered two of the most radical verses of the New Testament. Subject to a variety of popular interpretations and applications, the text of Matthew 5:38-48 (and its parallel text in Luke 6:27-36) have provided part of the scriptural basis for Christian nonviolent resistance. I too, have used these texts in studying the practice of Christian nonviolence and motivating my work with other Christians accompanying people living in conflict areas.
This paper will attempt to unpack the significance of these teachings around retaliation to better understand the correct way they should be interpreted and applied in modern Christian discipleship. In order to do so, the historical-critical method will be used with special attention to text criticism, historical criticism, form criticism, and social criticism. These methods take us back to the text and serve as a hermeneutic as we apply the text to the modern day. I will use biblical commentaries and bible footnotes along with commentary by an additional scholar to unpack the text.
Literary Contextualization and Genre Classification
Mt 5:38-48 is part of the Sermon of the Mount found in Mt 5-7. The Gospel of Matthew was written in approximately 80-90 AD by a church leader familiar with Judaism. The audience to which the author was writing was Jewish-Christian and open to receiving Gentile converts. Matthew is considered a “handbook” to church leaders for teaching, preaching, and mission “inserted into the story of a living person, Jesus Christ.”[1]
Matthew’s Gospel focuses heavily on Jesus’ teachings and the Sermon on the Mount constitutes the first of seven “Great Discourses” in Matthew. This Sermon is the “formal proclamation of the charter of the kingdom to the disciples and the public.”[2] Through this discourse, the author portrays Jesus demonstrating to his disciples that the Kingdom of God is the fulfillment of Jewish laws and prophesies.
This first section of the Sermon on the Mount is concerned with how the members of the Kingdom should live. Just before the passage being treated here, Jesus offers several other fulfillment passages, and begins the segment saying, “I have come not to abolish [the law or the prophets] but to fulfill” (Mt 5:17 NAB). Jesus offers a series of teachings that begin “you have heard it said… but I say to you” which build upon Jewish law, taking it to a deeper level. These laws include prohibitions of inappropriate anger, lust, divorce, and swearing, along with applications of those teachings. Following Mt 5:38-48 in Mt 6, Jesus offers further teaching on the proper way to pray, including giving the disciples what is known as the Lord’s Prayer.
Historical Contextualization
The fulfillment of the law and covenant is the central theme of Matthew’s Gospel. This fulfillment means that the hopes of God’s people are both realized and perfected.[3] Matthew’s audience is suspected to have been a community displaced by the rabbis at Jamnia, and so were separate from Judaism but still familiar with the scriptures, the law, and the prophets.[4] They would have been concerned with how following Jesus’ teachings fit into their Jewish heritage and practice. The fulfillment texts of Mt 5 offer a continuation of the law but a progression in how it was to be lived out.[5]
Indeed, a progression can be traced in the development of the law of retaliation throughout history and the scriptures. In Gn 4:15 Yahweh is portrayed commanding unlimited revenge if Cain were to be killed. Later, the development of the talion, legislating equal revenge (eye for eye), is given in texts like Ex 21:24, Lv 24:20, and Dt 19:21, as well as extrabiblical sources like the Code of Hammurabi and Roman law code. The etymology of talion is the Latin talis, which means “the same.”
Tb 4:15 offers what has been called the “Silver Rule:” “Do to no one what you yourself dislike” (NAB). Later the positive form of this law is stated through the “Golden Rule,” found in Mt 7:12. However, in Mt 5:38, Jesus offers an even higher way to practice this idea in commanding his disciples to love their enemies.[6] During Jesus’ lifetime, rabbis felt that the talion was often too harsh and had begun reducing the penalty to a fine rather than equal retaliation; however, analogous restitution was still the prevailing legal practice.[7]
Having explored the historical context for the law of retaliation, let us examine the context for another pivotal theme of this passage, hating your enemy. Lev 19:17,18 demonstrates that the command to “love your neighbor” legislated how to treat one’s own kin. While there is no similar command in scripture to “hate your enemy,” there are a number of Old Testament passages that state that God hates evildoers and that God’s people should do the same (cf. Dt 23:3-7). However, these statements decreed religious rejection of those who do not follow God’s law, rather than individual hostility.[8] In Mt 5:43, Jesus attacks this false interpretation of the Old Testament command, and then, offers a fulfillment of the law through a deeper practice of it.
The situation of Jesus’ followers living under Roman occupation also provides important context for these verses. In 5:41, Jesus offers the proper response when being pressed into service. The word translated compel, in Greek angareuein refers to a rule which allowed Roman soldiers to press anyone they passed into service and carry their equipment, which increased hatred toward the occupying forces.[9] Tax collectors, while Jewish countrymen, were employed by the occupying forces and known for taking large portions for themselves. They had a reputation for low morals and collaboration with the occupation. Highlighting these popularly hated figures provides context for the groundbreaking (or better said, kingdom inbreaking) action Jesus asks of his followers.
Exegesis of the Passage
The text of Mt 5:38-48 is proclaimed on the Seventh Sunday of Ordinary Time during Cycle A. The version of the text found in the lectionary varies from the NJB, with a couple significant differences that will be addressed. The lectionary, proclaiming a small piece of a larger work, offers context by beginning, “Jesus said to his disciples.” Throughout the text there are a number of other small grammatical differences, particularly around the use of articles and prepositions that do not significantly change the text’s meaning.
The NJB translates “one who is evil” as “the wicked” and offers the transition “on the contrary” where the lectionary does not in verse 39. It translates “strike” as “hit” and “turn the other [cheek]” as “offer him the other.” NJB commands, “let him have,” instead of “hand over” your cloak. It translates the angareia as “requires you to go” as opposed to “presses you into service” for one mile. NJB commands not to turn “away” from the needy rather than turning “your back.” In verse 45, the Father “causes” the sun to rise as opposed to “makes,” and then “sends down” rain instead of “causes.” The same weather is experienced by “the upright and the wicked” in the NJB and “the bad and the good” in the lectionary. In the NJB, a “reward” not “recompense” is sought. Listeners are admonished not to “save your greetings” as opposed to “greet your brothers only,” and their actions are questioned, “Are you doing anything exceptional?” versus “What is unusual about that?” The NJB translates those that offer this bare-minimum love as “Gentiles” and the lectionary calls them “pagans.” It is worth noting that the lectionary and the NJB serve different purposes (liturgical proclamation versus study accompanied by notes) and it is fitting that words are chosen in translation that best serve the purposes for which the text will be used. In any case, these variances do not considerably change the text’s meaning.
The last verse of this passage has often troubled readers, translated in the lectionary as a command to “be perfect, just as your heavenly Father is perfect.” Divine perfection seems impossible to obtain, but the NJB offers a translation closer to the original meaning of the text, “set no bounds to your love just as your heavenly Father sets no bounds to his.” The Greek word translated here is teleios, which calls for purity of heart, not absolute moral perfection based on the Greek ideal that might be read back into the text today. The corresponding word often used in the LXX is tamim, used in Dt 18:13 and translated as blameless and in Lv 19:2 translated as holy.[10] The word means complete, loyal, with integrity.[11] We aren’t to be morally perfect as an inanimate statue but rather living in a world of complexities, and seeking like Godlikeness through offering inclusiveness, forgiveness, and understanding. The realm for such practice is that of our enemies–believing they are God’s beloved and treating them as such.
What does Jesus actually demand of his disciples when confronted with evil? To offer indifference or nonresistance? While rejecting absolutely participation in physical violence, in Mt 5:38-48 Jesus presents a “third way” between fight and flight during confrontation.[12] When Jesus commands, “offer no resistance” the word used is antistenai. This word was often used as a military term to connote counteractive aggression, a response to hostilities initiated by someone else. Eph 6:13 uses the same word when talking about the “armor of God,” and in the LXX antistenai is used for armed resistance 44 of 71 times. [13] What Jesus forbids in this passage is violent resistance.
Alternatively, Jesus offers possibilities of psychological and moral resistance, which have their roots in earlier scriptures. Prv 25:21-22 offers, “If your enemy be hungry, give him food to eat…for live coals you will heap on his head,” of which Paul reminds believers in Rom 12:17-21 and instructs them to “conquer evil with good” (NAB). 1 Thes 5:15 and 1 Pt 3:9 offer similar instructions to the early church.[14] Still, several commentaries caution against interpreting Mt 5:38-48 as merely a nonviolent strategy for winning against an enemy. There is something more at work here.
Wink interprets Jesus’ call to turn the other cheek, hand over one’s clothing, and carry the soldier’s pack an extra mile, as creative, powerful responses to injustice that expose an oppressor’s violence, create a moral dilemma for him or her, and compel the oppressor to see the humanity of those whom he or she is violating.[15] The oppressor is provided with an opportunity toward conversion, an opportunity to participate in God’s all-encompassing love.
To more deeply understand the command to turn one’s cheek, we must be aware that slapping someone on the right cheek was a way to insult him, and was the way a master would hit a slave. By turning the cheek, a victim would express that the first slap did not do the trick. The oppressor would not be able offer a backhanded slap again with the same hand. In order to hit him properly, he would have to punch him, the way equals would fight. In this scenario, the victim still possesses the power to shame, and through this creative form of resistance, he confronts the oppressor with his humanity.[16]
In order to comprehend the command to offer an outer garment, we look the legal tradition of Ex 22:26-27 which prohibits a creditor from taking an outer garment as pledge for more than a day in payment of debt. The way around the law was to demand the inner garment.[17] To give someone both garments in court would leave the victim naked! Nakedness was taboo in Judaism and shame fell more on the viewer or cause of the nakedness than on the naked person (cf. Gn 9:20-26).[18] By doing something so shocking, the victim could “unmask the creditor not as a legitimate moneylender but party to the reduction of an entire social class to…destitution.” The experience would offer the creditor a chance to see the oppression his practices cause and repent.
In carrying the pack a second mile, a victim takes back his power of choice under the oppressive law of angareia.[19] The soldier is caught off guard and deprived of the predictability of the victim’s response. He is forced into making a decision he has never had to make before. An expression of unexpected generosity confronts the solider and encourages him to follow a new path.
If these creative practices in the face of injustice are not just strategies to prevail morally over an enemy, why are Jesus’ disciples called to practice them? The final verses of the passage offer the answer. Members of the Kingdom of God cannot strive merely for normal standards of conduct; the word translated “unusual” in 47 is perisseuo, which is a cognate of the word translated “surpass” in Mt 5:20.[20] To enter the Kingdom, Jesus’ followers must surpass the typically expected behaviors of the time and offer nondiscriminating love. All people are recipients of God’s love, whether one classifies them as neighbor or enemy. The disciples are called to live in God’s likeness and image, reflecting this love.
Summary and Application
In Mt 5:38-48, Jesus instructs his disciples to respond creatively to confrontation with evil in a way that truly loves the evildoer. Jesus rejects physical violence and offers a nonviolent resistant response that is a fulfillment of the law and the covenant.
Love can be tough. While love can indeed make us vulnerable, offering ourselves and our lives to others, love can also mean holding oppressors accountable for their actions so they too have an opportunity to be liberated from their evil works. For example, trauma counselors offer that the best thing a battered wife can do is have her husband arrested, to expose him and free him from his battering.[21] Through offering a positive action that actually serves the oppressor’s ultimate interest in providing him or her the opportunity to examine his or her motivation and actions and respond in a new way, Jesus’ followers have a way to embrace their oppressors. Truly loving one’s enemies also means not giving up hope they one day will be converted to this process. These creative responses to enemies become part of the inbreaking of the reign of God, not something that comes from on high but from among people as God’s instruments, “as leaven slowly causing dough to rise.”[22]
Some commentaries caution that large-scale application of these teachings of Jesus would lead to anarchy and chaos. A quick glance at the headlines of the New York Times or a stroll through many Washington DC neighborhoods makes it painfully obvious that our world’s crises do not stem from taking these teachings too far or applying them too literally but that we have been afraid to put them into practice at all! Wink says, “These sayings are in fact so radical, unprecedented, and so threatening that it has taken all these centuries just to begin to grasp their implications.”[23] Turning the other cheek may have seemed radical in Jesus’ time, and it may appear no less radical today. This progression in human morality is slow to be put into practice.
However, these strategies have been successfully applied on a large scale through the organized nonviolent resistance in which opportunities are developed for the oppressed to creatively resist oppression together using nontraditional forms of power. The tactics have been successfully employed by Mohandas Gandhi’s followers in India in overthrowing British colonialism, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s followers in bringing about Civil Rights for African-Americans in the U.S., along with lesser-known examples like the March 1 Movements in Korea and the People Power Revolution in the Philippines. In 2011 too already we have seen these values practiced in Tahrir Square, to rid Egyptians of an autocratic leader.
In a world filled with violence and hatred, we daily have opportunities as Jesus’ followers to practice the teachings of Mt 5:38-48, individually and organized collectively. When we choose love over hate, and creativity, vulnerability, and accountability over violence, we live out the fulfillment of God’s laws and thereby become instruments in the inbreaking of the Kingdom of God which Jesus preached and inaugurated.
Bibliography
Boring, M. Eugene. “The Gospel of Matthew: Introduction, Commentary, and Reflections.” In The New Interpreter's Bible, edited by Leander Keck et al. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1994.
Lectionary for Mass for Use in the Dioceses of the United States of America: Second Typical Edition. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1998.
Leske, Adrian. “Matthew.” In The International Bible Commentary: A Catholic and Ecumenical Commentary for the Twenty-First Century, edited by W.R. Farmer et al. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1998.
The New American Bible. [NAB] The Catholic Study Bible. New York: Oxford University, 1990.
The New Jerusalem Bible. [NJB] Garden City: Doubleday, 1985.
Viviano, Benedict T., O.P. “The Gospel According to Matthew.” In The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, edited by Raymond E. Brown, S.S., Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J., and Roland E. Murphy, O. Carm. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1990.
Wink, Walter. Engaging the Powers: Discernment and Resistance in a World of Domination. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992.
[1] The New Jerusalem Bible. [NJB] (Garden City: Doubleday, 1985), 1606.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Benedict T. Viviano, O.P., “The Gospel According to Matthew,” in The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, ed. Raymond E. Brown, S.S., Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J., and Roland E. Murphy, O. Carm. (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1990), 630.
[5] NJB, 1606.
[6] Viviano, 643.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Eugene M. Boring, “The Gospel of Matthew: Introduction, Commentary, and Reflections,” in The New Interpreter's Bible, ed, Leander Keck et al. (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1994), 195.
[9] Adrian Leske, “Matthew,” in The International Bible Commentary: A Catholic and Ecumenical Commentary for the Twenty-First Century, ed. W.R. Farmer et al. (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1998), 1276.
[10] Boring, 195.
[11] Walter Wink, Engaging the Powers: Discernment and Resistance in a World of Domination. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992), 267.
[12] Ibid., 175.
[13] Ibid., 185.
[14] Ibid., 186.
[15] Ibid., 127.
[16] Ibid., 176.
[17] Leske, 1275.
[18] Wink, 179.
[19] Ibid., 182.
[20] The New American Bible. [NAB] The Catholic Study Bible (New York: Oxford University, 1990), 15.
[21] Wink, 186.
[22] Wink, 182.
[23] Ibid., 184.
No comments:
Post a Comment