Note: You can view this teaching on our YouTube Channel. This week’s lectionary text (which I have switched to Matthew’s version of Jesus’ sermon) provides an excellent opportunity to remember some important issues whenever we read the Bible.  First, it was not written by Americans living in 2022.  We are 2,000 years and a world away from their context.  Second, it was not written in English.  The Old Testament was written in Hebrew.  Jesus spoke Aramaic (a version of Hebrew), and never wrote any of his teaching down to be passed on.  His followers recorded their best recollection of his life and teachings in what we call the Gospels.  These biographies were written in Greek, as was the rest of the New Testament.  Aramaic doesn’t always translate well into Greek.  Greek doesn’t always translate well into English.  Third, when we read anything from our American perspective, we read from a position of great power given our nation’s military and economic strength.  Ancient Israel had not ruled their own homeland for centuries when Jesus lived.  The lived and dreamed not from a place of power, but oppression and despair.  Fourth, because of all of the above, while a casual reading of biblical text is always welcome, academics are especially helpful in helping us understand the ancient world and ancient language and context.  The particular passage we will investigate today is a great case in point, as we could casually read what Jesus taught and completely miss the critical undertone of what he was instructing.

     Jesus did not live primarily to die one day so that we could be forgiven.  This is an unchecked heresy of Evangelicalism and Christian Fundamentalism.

     Jesus did not come to initiate a “nice” campaign.  The Jewish leaders and the Roman Empire didn’t orchestrate capital punishment for people guilty of being too nice.  Crucifixion was reserved primarily for those guilty of insurrection.

     Jesus was on a world-changing mission that required great courage on his part, and on all who dared to follow.  The invitation still stands.  Today, let’s get under the hood a bit and see what he was teaching and what it meant.

     Remember the context. Jesus was terribly poor, hailing from a region of Israel known for its poverty in culture and power.  Under Roman occupation, Jesus and his Jewish contemporaries had little hope for a brighter future.  Jesus knew the emotional toll that comes with lack of food, lack of housing, lack of employment, lack of respect – his life in so many ways was lacking.

Something happened later in his life that completely changed his perspective, however, and he emerged as the leader of a movement that appeared to be empowered by God.  His mission? To help usher in the Kingdom of God increasingly into all the world.  The primary value and goal of the movement was shalom – a Jewish notion of deep peace that represents wellbeing, harmony and wholeness among individuals, in community, and even between varying cultures and their governments, and between humanity and creation itself.  The Way of the Kingdom of God was different than the ways of the world – the only way Jesus sought to usher more shalom into the world was with shalom.  He invited his contemporaries to get in on the project.

     Most of the people he knew were in a similar lot.  Poor, oppressed, weary, hopeless, mourning, etc.  Because he saw with Kingdom eyes, he didn’t see them the way the world did, as losers or stupid, but as blessed, especially loved by God because the powerful did not.  What we call the beatitudes were expressions of love and hope to hurting people who felt powerless.

     Jesus’ “campaign speech”, the Sermon on the Mount, laid out some basic principles of the Way of God which, when read casually, are inspiring and thought provoking even today, with some helpful, challenging ideas to consider. What we often struggle to see, however, is that the sermon was laden with calls to be politically savvy with the goal of resisting the Roman Empire (and the corrupt Jewish leadership) in order to bring about change.  

     Every time Jesus talked about the Kingdom of God – and he did a lot – he was offering a contrast and inherent challenge to the Roman Empire and usually the Jewish leadership in Jerusalem.  The phrase shows up 122 times in the Synoptic Gospels, of which 92 were directly attributed to Jesus. John’s Gospel used different language for it – salvation and eternal life, for instance – which were its dominant themes.  In addition, any time the phrase “good news” was used, and any time Jesus was referred to by others as “Son of God”, the Roman Empire and its emperor were directly challenged.  Rome’s Good News was a peace that came by military force: everybody toe the line or face the brutal consequences.

     Such tyranny created a hatred toward Rome from the Jewish people, and every now and then some Jewish groups would rise up to try and regain some ground, only to be trounced and often crucified.  Naturally, as a people who had been occupied against their will by force, they wanted to return the favor.  Defeating Rome with military force – turbo-charged by the Spirit of God like what they remembered of the Exodus – was their dream and prayer.  It is very important to sit with this reality. 

     Jesus was very aware that he was oppressed. And his primary audience?  Oppressed.  If you have experienced oppression, Jesus’ words are going to resonate with you more than those (like me) who have not.  By the way, white men have been studying and teaching Jesus for most of Christianity’s existence.  Could it be some things were missed because they were generally seeing the world through the eyes of the oppressor and not the oppressed? Of course!  Oppressors generally never see all the ways they oppress, and likely minimize or rationalize or trivialize aspects of the oppression they force on those with less power than themselves. Oh, and oppressors hate being called out.  You can almost always count on some serious retaliation when accountability comes.  I mention this because Jesus is not speaking from a white, American, middle class (or wealthier) perspective.  More likely, he speaks from the perspective of those who feel overlooked, underrepresented, used and abused.  That’s who he was.  This is not the perspective of most scholars who have influenced Christianity since its inception.  Take a minute and let that really sink in.  For most of you reading this, Jesus did not look like you – he looked like those who have much less than you.

     Jesus was nonviolent and taught nonviolence.  As you will soon see, Jesus was extremely savvy in the way he taught his followers to encourage change.  While so many wanted to try and pull off a military coup to regain their land, Jesus taught against it, saying plainly that if one lives by the sword, they will die by the sword.  The only way you get shalom is with shalom…

I learned a lot from Ronald J. Sider’s book, If Jesus is Lord, where he addressed a handful of texts within the “stump speech” that, at first glance, seem really wimpy (which couldn’t be further from the truth).  If you have time and are up for a more academic read, check out his thoughts from a portion of his chapter on the Sermon on the Mount “below” my post. Let’s focus on this part of his speech this week:

 

Matthew 5:38-48 (NLT)

38 “You have heard the law that says the punishment must match the injury: ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39 But I say, do not resist an evil person! If someone slaps you on the right cheek, offer the other cheek also.40 If you are sued in court and your shirt is taken from you, give your coat, too. 41 If a soldier demands that you carry his gear for a mile, carry it two miles. 42 Give to those who ask, and don’t turn away from those who want to borrow.

43 “You have heard the law that says, ‘Love your neighbor’ and hate your enemy. 44 But I say, love your enemies! Pray for those who persecute you!45 In that way, you will be acting as true children of your Father in heaven. For he gives his sunlight to both the evil and the good, and he sends rain on the just and the unjust alike. 46 If you love only those who love you, what reward is there for that? Even corrupt tax collectors do that much. 47 If you are kind only to your friends, how are you different from anyone else? Even pagans do that. 48 But you are to be perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect. 

     The “eye for an eye” text was a nod to the standard rule of law in the Ancient Near East across many cultural lines that existed for many centuries, showing up in the Old Testament and in other cultures’ legal codes.  The law was meant to work two ways. First, it provided some sort of justice for those who had been harmed by another (if you killed my cow, you owe me a cow).  Yet it was also there to prevent over-reaching retribution (I’m really mad that you killed my cow, so I’m going to take your cow and kill your donkey).  The prevailing attitude among Jewish people in Jesus’ day was that since they had been treated violently by the Roman Empire, it was their legal right to resort to violence in return.  Whenever they did, they were immediately crushed.  The worst of it was long after Jesus died – a four-year’ish standoff when some Jews revolted and took Jerusalem back.  They held out for quite a while, but Rome could afford to be patient.  When the food ran out for those inside the walled city and some of the Jews inside were freed, they were slaughtered in plain sight for those on Jerusalem’s walls to witness.  Eventually the city was leveled, and the Jews inside killed.  The Temple was demolished and was never restored.  Violence begets violence, and when you’re outmatched, lasting peace-as-the-absence-of-conflict will not be yours for long. When have you resorted to violence?  How did that work out for you?

     Jesus’ instruction to people who felt wronged was to resist nonviolently.  The Greek word from which “resist” comes is specifically in reference to violent resistance.  Jesus is saying that a violent approach – an eye for an eye – will not work and is not the Way. Shalom begets shalom.  In his next few statements, he gives examples of how to pull off non-violent resistance.

     When Jesus said to offer the left cheek after being struck on the right, he is talking about something very specific.  At that time, one of the most insulting, demeaning public acts you could do was to give someone a back-handed slap across the face (not a fisted punch).  In fact, if you slapped an equal in this way publicly, the penalty you would face would be double the fine if you punched the person in the nose because it was so dehumanizing.  Such a degrading act was reserved for wives or slaves who were considered “less than.”  Jesus is speaking to a lot of “less thans” who had been utterly humiliated by people with greater power.  The thought among scholars is that offering the left cheek was a statement of strength, almost demanding the offender to throw a punch instead of another slap, and thereby treating the oppressed person as an equal.  It was a not-so-subtle way of standing up for one’s dignity without resorting to violence (which would likely result in defeat).

     Nonviolent protests in the street regarding police brutality, or women’s rights to equality, etc., are examples of speaking truth to power.  John Lewis was beat up and left for dead by police officers when he marched across the bridge in Selma.  By not acting with violence, they were shining a light on the brutality they were protesting.  The systems of the world want to keep such actors silent.  A nonviolent protest is one way to shine a light on what the system would prefer to keep in the dark.  Such publicly uncomfortable acts are statements that more shalom is needed.  How have you used your voice or presence to make it known that more shalom is needed?

     When Jesus offered an example of being sued in court for one’s shirt, it is another case of highlighting degrading, dehumanizing treatment.  The shirt being referenced would be the only shirt a person owns and would likely resemble a long night shirt you can find today for pajamas.  It was forbidden to take someone’s outer coat because that would serve as their blanket for sleeping.  To offer one’s coat means to become completely naked in court, which in that culture would seem incredibly embarrassing for everyone present and shine a bright light on the person who was suing for the shirt in the first place.  Perhaps, legally, the plaintiff had a right to sue for the shirt.  But should he?  No, if the shirt is all the person has left, to take it is to treat the person as “less than”.  The defendant is already humiliated.  Going full commando draws attention to the inhumanity in a nonviolent, yet inescapably noticed way that would make everybody share in the discomfort.

     Sometimes such publicly discomforting acts are exactly what is needed to wake people up. Did you know that black WWII vets did not receive the GI Bill that white vets did, and also were not “eligible” to receive low interest mortgages with low down payments like white vets were, and were only allowed to purchase homes in less desirable locations (read this article)?   What do you suppose might be the long-term impact of such policies?  How much education was refused – and therefore advancement in careers and income?  How much generational wealth was prohibited – the impact of which lasts, well, generations?  How many people are ignorant about just these two critical pieces of our history that have impacted the shaping of an entire race of people in our country?  

     When Jesus instructed people to go the extra mile, it likely went over like a lead balloon.  At that time, Roman soldiers could demand local people carry their gear for one mile.  Surely many in Jesus’ audience had been humiliated in this way.  What they really wanted to do was refuse to play along, but that would only result in more (likely violent) oppression.  The Roman military enforced this law and did not permit soldiers to force people to carry their gear beyond one mile.  At the end of the mile, for a Jewish person to willingly keep carrying the gear would make the soldier extremely uncomfortable. If his commanding officer found out the Jewish person went a second mile, the soldier would be in trouble.  Can you imagine the scene?  Upon taking a step toward a second mile, the powerful soldier is now insisting on carrying his own gear!  This simple nonviolent act leveled the playing field, and again shined a light on the lack of dignity Jewish people were experiencing at the hand of their oppressors.  This is a far cry from our common understanding of just being nice.

     I am imagining a person who is being treated more like a servant than a fellow human being.  Perhaps one way to shine a light is to draw attention to the indignity by going over the top with the “service” in such an exaggerated way that the one served begins to see how awful their behavior has been.  Maybe it’s represented by hospitality workers laying it on incredibly thick for guests so that complaints about the often-inhumane culture get brought to the management (and above) by the guests.  What do you imagine?  What have you done?  In each case, the point is to declare, “more shalom needed here!”

     When Jesus instructed his listeners to give to those who ask, he is telling them to drop the “eye for an eye”, quid pro quo thinking even in terms of economics.  The key idea is to be generous as Kingdom of God people.  Some people won’t give anything to others because they are sure the people are going to spend it in ways the donor would not approve.  In Jesus’ context, the overwhelming majority of people are extremely poor.  The people asking need to eat and are hoping to avoid getting into a common debtors agreement just to get some bread.  If you have some extra to share, share. When have you chosen to give with no strings attached to someone who needed help?

     When Jesus taught his audience to love their enemies, you could likely hear a pin drop, followed by a handful of people vomiting.  This idea was not common.  The normal line of thinking was that you should love the people on your “team”, and it was perfectly okay to treat those not on your “team” with great contempt.  To love as Jesus instructs is not to dismiss harmful behavior or deny justice.  His words are not meant to go give an axe murder a big hug while the axe is still swinging.  What he is saying is that our attitudes and behavior should not be dictated by the prevailing culture around us, but rather by the Kingdom of God which calls us to a different way, a way of shalom.

     Jesus’ stump speech at times brought incredible comfort to his listeners and also empowered them to see their lives and their potential differently. He was telling oppressed people that they could make a difference.  At minimum, they could live in a way that was dignified even when the world around them treated them as less than.  In community, these Jesus followers could experience an equality and equity that was unparalleled, which would provide immense support and be a conduit of shalom’s eternal love.  To follow his instructions, however, was to seek discomfort, because the nonviolent actions required courage.  Systems like staying the way they are, large and small.  To mess with it is to invite instability.  To follow Jesus is to measure our current reality against shalom, and, when necessary, shine a light on it, bringing disorder where there was once flawed order, all with the goal of ushering in shalom-shaped reorder.

     Where is there a lack of shalom in your world?  How are you going to be shalom, with shalom, in order to usher in shalom?

If Jesus is Lord, Ronald J. Sider (66-72):

     A careful study of the verb used in this text shows clearly that Jesus is not recommending passivity. Anthistēmi is a variant of the word antistēnai (used in v. 39) and anthistēmi appears in the Greek Old Testament primarily as a military term. In forty-four of seventy-one uses in the Greek Old Testament, the word refers to armed resistance in military encounters (e.g., Lev. 26:37; Deut. 7:24; 25:18; Josh. 7:13; 23:9; Judg. 2:14).32 Josephus, the first-century Jewish historian, uses the word fifteen of seventeen times to refer to violent struggle. The Greek lexicon by Liddell and Scott defines the word to mean “set against especially in battle.”33Ephesians 6:13 uses the word antistēnai to refer to the spiritual battle against Satan when Christians are armed with the full armor of God. “In short, antistēnai means more in Matt. 5:39a than simply to ‘stand against’ or ‘resist.’ It means to resist violently, to revolt or rebel, to engage in an insurrection.”34

     N. T. Wright summarizes the meaning of the word this way: “The word ‘resist’ is antistēnai, almost a technical term for revolutionary resistance of a specifically military variety. Taken in this sense, the command draws out the implication of a good deal of the sermon so far. The way forward for Israel is not the way of violent resistance. . . but the different, oblique way of creative non-violent resistance... Jesus’ people were not to become part of the resistance movement.”35 In his new translation, N. T. Wright translates verse 39 this way: “Don’t use violence to resist evil.”36

     After prohibiting a violent response to evil, the text describes a proper response in four concrete situations. In each case, the commanded response is neither violent nor passive. Jesus calls his disciples not to turn aside passively or hit back but rather to confront the evil nonviolently.37 “By doing more than what the oppressor requires, the disciples bear witness to another reality (the kingdom of God).”38

     Walter Wink has proposed an interpretation of verses 39b–41 that, if correct, greatly strengthens the claim that in these statements Jesus is suggesting a vigorously activist (although certainly nonviolent) response to evil and injustice.39 Some scholars agree with Wink.40 Others do not. But his argument merits careful evaluation.

     Turn the other cheek. The text says, “If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also” (5:39b). Hays notes that there is widespread acceptance by commentators that someone could strike a person on the right cheek only with the back of the hand and that such an action would be the kind of insult that a superior would deliver to an inferior.41 (To test this theory, face someone and notice how much easier it is to slap that person’s right cheek with the back of your right hand than it is to hit the right cheek with your right fist.) We know from documents of the time that a backhanded blow to the right cheek was a huge insult, “the severest public affront to a person’s dignity.”42 Ancient documents also show that the fine for striking an equal with the (insulting) back of the hand was double that for a blow by one’s fist.43 But no penalty followed for striking slaves that way. A backhanded slap was for inferiors, like slaves and wives.44

     If that is the proper context for understanding the saying, then Jesus’s advice to turn the other (left) cheek conveys a surprising suggestion. Normally, an inferior would simply accept the insult (or on occasion fight back). But by turning the left cheek to the person insulting one, one almost forces the attacker to use his fist if he wants to strike again. (It is much harder to hit the left cheek with a backslap than with a fist.) The effect, Wink believes, is that the inferior person astonishes the superior by a dramatic act that asserts the inferior’s dignity, not by striking back but by forcing the attacker either to stop or use his fist and thus treat the inferior as an equal. Thus, Jesus is urging a nonviolent but nonetheless activist response to evil. One cannot assert with certainty that this is Jesus’s intended meaning.45 But that conclusion is certainly plausible.

     Sued for one’s coat. “If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt [inner garment], hand over your coat [outer garment] as well” (Matt. 5:40).46 The setting refers to a typical first-century context where debt was widespread among the poor. Jesus tells many parables about people in debt. Rome’s client king in Galilee, Herod Antipas, taxed the people heavily to pay tribute to Rome. Many poor people fell into debt.47

     In Jesus’s example, the person taken to court for an unpaid debt is obviously very poor, owning nothing of worth to repay the debt except clothes. Such an impoverished person has no hope of winning against the richer person and so loses the inner garment as payment on the debt. Probably the reason the text says the person is being sued to give up the inner garment is because the Old Testament specifically forbade taking the outer garment as collateral for more than the daytime, because the poor person needed an outer garment to use as a blanket while sleeping.48

     But why would Jesus tell this kind of poor person who has just lost an inner garment to give the person who is owed money the outer garment as well? Since many poor people had only one outer garment, that would mean stripping naked in court. And nakedness was a terrible disgrace in Palestinian Jewish society.49

     Wink’s explanation is certainly plausible. The disgrace for nakedness fell not only on the naked person but also on those viewing the naked person.50 By stripping naked, the debtor exposes the cruelty not only of the creditor but also of the oppressive system the creditor represents. “The entire system by which debtors are oppressed has been publicly unmasked.”51 Rather than recommending a passive response to injustice, Jesus urges a dramatic nonviolent protest.

     The second mile. “If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles” (Matt. 5:41). The context for this saying is clearly Roman imperialism. The word translated “mile” is a Roman word, not a Jewish word.52 And the word translated “forces you” is the verbal form of the technical term (angareia) widely known in Roman law to refer to the legal right of Roman soldiers to compel subject people to carry their packs for one mile.53 Matthew 27:32 uses precisely this word to describe the way Simon of Cyrene is compelled to carry Jesus’s cross. There is also a large literature that demonstrates both that Roman soldiers often abused this right and that colonized people hated this burdensome obligation.

     Earlier, in chapter 1, we saw how angry, violent rebellion against Roman rule and its collaborators kept erupting among the Jews in the century around the time of Jesus. These violent revolutionaries certainly urged fellow Jews to refuse to carry the baggage of oppressive Roman soldiers.54 What Jesus recommends “is the precise opposite of what the zealots advocated doing in their revolutionary sedition against the Romans.”55 The words used and the context demonstrate that Jesus is clearly rejecting a widespread, popular attitude toward the oppressive Roman imperialists.

     But is he recommending passivity? Is he urging fellow Jews to affirm Roman oppression? Again, Wink’s interpretation is intriguing and plausible. The soldier knows the colonized person has a legal obligation to carry his pack one mile. He also knows the law forbids the Roman soldier forcing the person to carry it more than one mile. And he knows his commander may punish him severely for breaking this law. So when they reach the end of the first mile, the soldier asks for his pack back. “Imagine then the soldier’s surprise when, at the next mile marker, he reluctantly reaches to assume his pack and the civilian says, ‘Oh no, let me carry it another mile.’” Now the soldier is in trouble. He may be disciplined by his superior. So he begs to be given back his pack. “Imagine the situation of a Roman infantryman pleading with a Jew to give back his pack! The humor of this scene may have escaped us, but it would scarcely have been lost on Jesus’ hearers, who must have been regaled at the prospect of thus discomfiting their oppressors.”56

     With this action, the oppressed Jew seizes the initiative and asserts personal dignity—all in a nonviolent way fully compatible with loving the oppressor without endorsing the oppression.

     Economic sharing. “Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you” (Matt. 5:42). It is important to note that Jesus does not say give whatever a person asks. Rather, he teaches his followers to respond in love to those in economic need. On occasion, a loving concern for the best interests of the other may prompt rejection of some of the specifics of the request. Jesus is not urging some idealistic, impractical, utopian behavior that ignores practical reality.57 But here and elsewhere he does call his disciples to doable, albeit costly, economic sharing that reflects the fact that the messianic kingdom has already begun. In that new kingdom, Jesus’s followers abandon every rigid eye for an eye, even in the economic realm.

     “Love Your Enemies.” There is no dispute about the source of the traditional summons to “love your neighbor,” which Jesus mentions in verse 43. It is a verbatim quote from the Greek translation of Leviticus 19:18. In his scholarly analysis of pre-Christian Jewish thinking on love for neighbor, John Piper has shown that the neighbor whom one was obligated to love was normally understood to be a fellow Israelite.58 A different attitude toward gentiles was expected.

     But who are those who call people to “hate your enemy”? Who does Jesus have in mind? We know that the Manual of Discipline of Jesus’s contemporaries the Essenes (known to us from the Dead Sea Scrolls) explicitly says, “Love all the sons of light . . ., and . . . hate all the sons of darkness.”59 And for some of the Jewish revolutionaries of Jesus’s day, “the slaying of the godless enemy out of zeal for God’s cause was a fundamental commandment, true to the rabbinic maxim: ‘Whoever spills the blood of the godless is like one who offers sacrifice.’”60

     But might Jesus also be thinking of Old Testament passages? There is certainly no Old Testament text that explicitly commands hatred of enemies. In fact, there are Old Testament passages that urge kindness toward enemies. If you find your enemy’s lost donkey, return it (Exod. 23:4–5). If your enemy is hungry, feed him (Prov. 25:21).61

     But a number of scholars argue that there is material in the Old Testament that does teach hatred of God’s enemies and hatred of the enemies of the people of God.62 Speaking of those who hate God, the psalmist says, “I have nothing but hatred for them; I count them my enemies” (Ps. 139:21–22). And Psalm 137 says of Babylon, an enemy nation that conquered Judah, “Happy is the one who repays you according to what you have done to us. Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks” (137:8b–9). Thus Guelich concludes, “Matthew 5:43 in one sense stands in continuity with the teaching of the Old Testament. . . . The premise of 5:43 sets forth the common understanding of the Law in the Old Testament.”63 It is impossible for modern readers to be certain whether Jesus is thinking of his contemporaries or Old Testament texts. Perhaps he is thinking of both. But in any case, his command represents a radical challenge to virtually every person and culture. It urges the very opposite of the reciprocity principle embedded in the norm of an eye for an eye.

     But who are the enemies Jesus summons his disciples to love? It is interesting that in Matthew 5:43 (“love your neighbor and hate your enemy”) the words for “neighbor” and “enemy” are singular. But verse 44 uses the plural: “Love your enemies.” Every class of enemy seems to be included.64

     Richard Horsley has argued that the word for “enemies” (echthroi) used by Jesus refers not to foreign or military enemies but to personal enemies, because of local squabbles in small Palestinian villages. Therefore, this summons to love one’s enemies has nothing to do with the question of whether Jesus opposes killing violent enemies.65

     Duke New Testament scholar Richard Hays, however, argues convincingly that Horsley is wrong. There is nothing in Matthew’s text that suggests the kind of precise social situation in small villages that Horsley imagines. Furthermore, the lexicographical evidence does not support Horsley. “The term echthroi is generic. It is often used in biblical Greek of national or military enemies.”66 For example, in Deuteronomy 20:1 (LXX), the text says, “When you go to war against your enemies [echthroi] and see horses and chariots and an army greater than yours, do not be afraid of them.” (It is also interesting that this verse follows immediately after Deuteronomy 19:21, which commands an eye for an eye—the principle that Jesus specifically rejects.) After a major review of recent scholarly literature on the topic, Heinz-Wolfgang Kuhn concludes that the enemies Jesus calls his disciples to love include everyone. “The directive is without boundaries. The religious, the political, and the personal are all meant. Every enemy is meant.”67

     Martin Hengel, one of the leading scholars on the nationalist, revolutionary Jewish movements of Jesus’s time, thinks that Jesus’s command to love one’s enemies “was formulated with direct reference to the theocratic and nationalistic liberation movement in which hatred toward an enemy was regarded as a good work.”68 There is no way to prove that decisively. But the fact that, in the immediately preceding section, Jesus has urged his followers to carry the packs of Roman soldiers not just the legally mandated one mile but also a second mile demonstrates that Jesus is thinking about the situation the violent Jewish revolutionaries hated. If in verse 41 Jesus is talking about how to respond to Roman imperialists, it is very likely that his command to love enemies includes the people the revolutionaries seek to kill.

     Jesus’s stated reason for loving one’s enemies is important. His disciples should act that way so “that you may be children of your Father in heaven” (Matt. 5:45). Since God sends the sun and rain on both good and evil people, Jesus’s disciples must act in love toward everyone, both friends and enemies. As one of the beatitudes says, the peacemakers are “called children of God” (5:9).

     The final verse of this section (“Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect”; Matt. 5:48) could be understood to demand an impossible ideal that drives us to repentance rather than calls us to discipleship. But the word translated “perfect” (teleios) is used by Paul and often translated “mature” (e.g., 1 Cor. 2:6; Phil. 3:15). In 1 Corinthians 14:20, Paul uses this word to urge Christians to stop being children and instead think like “adults” (teleioi).69 “Jesus is not frustrating his hearers with an unachievable ideal but challenging them to grow in obedience to God’s will.”70

     But we dare not minimize Jesus’s costly summons. His words echo the Old Testament call to “be holy because I, the LORD your God, am holy” (Lev. 19:2). “The community of Jesus’ disciples is to reflect the holiness of God in scrupulous obedience to the will of God as disclosed through the teaching of Jesus, who has taken the place of Moses as the definitive interpreter of the Law.”71 The messianic kingdom has begun, and it is now possible and imperative for Jesus’s disciples to demonstrate (imperfectly but powerfully) the character of God. And that, according to Jesus, includes loving one’s enemies.

     The same teaching about loving enemies appears in the Gospel of Luke. There too, as in Matthew, it is a major part of Jesus’s first ethical teaching.72

     It is hard to exaggerate either the originality or the importance of Jesus’s direct command to love our enemies. It contradicts the practice of every society known to historians. No precise parallel to Jesus’s words has been found. New Testament scholars point out that the saying appears in both the earliest sayings tradition of Jesus’s words (scholars call it Q) and then Luke (6:27, 35) as well as Matthew. This leads Hengel to say that “this Magna Charta of agape” is what is “actually revolutionary in the message of Jesus.”73 John Howard Yoder notes that there is no other ethical issue about which the New Testament says Jesus’s disciples are like the heavenly Father when they act a certain way.74

     Also striking is the fact that Matthew 5:38–48 is probably the most frequently cited biblical text when one collects all the statements about killing from the early Christian writers before the time of Constantine. Ten writers in at least twenty-eight different places cite or refer to this passage and note that Christians love their enemies and turn the other cheek. In nine instances, they link this passage from Jesus with a statement that Christians are peaceable, ignorant of war, or opposed to attacking others. Sometimes they explicitly link Jesus’s saying to a rejection of killing and war.75 In every single instance where pre-Constantinian Christian writers mention the topic of killing, they say that Christians do not do that, whether in abortion, capital punishment, or war.76 And Jesus’s statement about loving enemies is one of the reasons cited.

     Note: Sider’s book is a winner. If you choose to read it, be prepared to get uncomfortable (and likely defensive).  Let it stretch you to think about things you may not have thought about before.

If Jesus is Lord Footnotes…

32. Wink, “Neither Passivity nor Violence,” 114.

33. Liddell and Scott, Greek-English Lexicon; quoted in Wink, Jesus and Nonviolence, 107.

34. Wink, “Neither Passivity nor Violence,” 115. The related word stasis is used in Mark 15:7 to refer to Barabbas’s violent insurrection and in Acts 19:40 to rioting. See also the use of variations of the basic word to refer to violent revolt  (Acts 5:37) and attacks on Christians by Jews (Acts 16:22; 17:5).

35. N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 291. Wright (291nn179–80) cites and agrees with Walter Wink’s basic analysis of antistēnai. Guelich has argued for a more narrow understanding of verse 39a, saying the text only condemns opposing an evil person in court (Sermon on the Mount, 220). But Richard Hays points out that although antistēnai can refer to a legal setting, this word is “not a technical term for legal opposition” and it does not normally have this sense in the rest of the New Testament. Furthermore, the narrow meaning does not make much sense of either 5:39b or 5:41, 42 (Hays, Moral Vision, 325–26). Bruner (Matthew, 1:248–49) also rejects Guelich’s view.

36. N. T. Wright, Kingdom New Testament, 9. So too Glen Stassen and David Gushee, who translate the verse: “Do not retaliate or resist violently or revengefully, by evil means” (Kingdom Ethics, 138). There is another ambiguity in verse 39a. The NIV translates, “Do not resist an evil person.” But the Greek word translated “person” is in the dative, and therefore it could equally be a masculine or a neuter. In the latter case, the word refers to evil generally, not an evil person.

37. Bruner, Matthew, 1:251.

38. Hays, Moral Vision, 326.

39. Wink, Engaging the Powers, 175–84; Wink, Powers That Be, 98–111.

40. E.g., Stassen and Gushee, Kingdom Ethics, 139; Fahey, War and the Christian Conscience, 35–38; Kraybill, Upside-Down Kingdom, 182; Neufeld, Killing Enmity, 23–25.

41. Hays, Moral Vision, 326. Hays himself is not fully convinced.

42. Keener, Gospel of Matthew, 197.

43. Gundry, Matthew, 95.

44. Wink, Engaging the Powers, 176.

45. Bruner disagrees with Wink’s argument about the slap on the right cheek but agrees that Jesus is calling the person to confront the evil, not run away or hit back. See Bruner, Matthew, 1:251.

46. The words for “shirt” and “coat” are chitōn and himation, respectively, which Liddell and Scott say mean the inner garment worn next to the skin (chitōn) and the outer garment (himation). Liddell and Scott, Greek-English Lexicon, 829, 1993.

47. Wink, Engaging the Powers, 178.

48. See Exod. 22:25–27; Deut. 24:10–13, 17. The word for “garment” in the LXX is himation. Luke 6:29b has the debtor being sued for the outer garment. Matthew’s version corresponds better with Old Testament law. Gundry, Matthew, 95.

49. Keener, Gospel of Matthew, 198.     

50. Gen. 9:20–27.

51. Wink, Engaging the Powers, 179. Stassen and Gushee agree with Wink; see Kingdom Ethics, 154.

52. France, Gospel of Matthew, 222.

53. See the massive literature cited in Wink, Engaging the Powers, 371–72nn17–19. There is no extant Roman law limiting the right to one mile, but scholars have generally believed that was the law (371n17).

54. Rome’s client king, Herod Antipas, ruled Galilee in Jesus’s day, so it is possible Matt. 5:41 refers to Herod’s soldiers. See Wink, Engaging the Powers, 373n28.

55. Schweizer, Matthew, 130. So too Bruner, Matthew, 1:255.

56. Wink, Engaging the Powers, 182.

57. Stassen and Gushee, Kingdom Ethics, 132–37, make the point that Jesus’s ethical demands in the Sermon on the Mount are realistic and doable.

58. Piper, “Love Your Enemies,” 30–32. See also, Schweizer, Matthew, 132.

59. Quoted in Schweizer, Matthew, 132. See also Josephus, JW 2.139.

60. Quoted in Hengel, Victory over Violence, 75.

61. See also 1 Sam. 24:5–7, 18; Job 31:29; Prov. 24:17.

62. So Bruner, Matthew, 1:268; Gundry, Matthew, 96–97; Guelich, Sermon on the Mount, 227; Keener, Gospel of Matthew, 203. Old Testament texts certainly command punishment of enemies (e.g., Deut. 25:17–19).

63. Guelich, Sermon on the Mount, 226–27.

64. So France, Gospel of Matthew, 225.

65. Horsley, “Ethics and Exegesis.” See also Horsley, Jesus and the Spiral of Violence, esp. 261–73.

66. Hays, Moral Vision, 328.

67. Quoted in Klassen, “‘Love Your Enemies,’” 11. So too Schrage, Ethics of the New Testament, 76.

68. Hengel, Christ and Power, 19.

69. See France, Gospel of Matthew, 228–29; Bruner, Matthew, 1:276.

70. Blomberg, Matthew, 115; so too Yoder, War of the Lamb, 146–47.

71. Hays, Moral Vision, 329.

72. Luke 6:27–36. There are some differences from Matthew in the Lukan version, but the call to love enemies and thus be children of God is central to both.

73. Hengel, Was Jesus a Revolutionist?, 26–27.

74. Yoder, War of the Lamb, 79.

75. Sider, Early Church on Killing, 171–72.

76. Sider, Early Church on Killing, 163–95, esp. 190–95.