Retaliation in the Sermon on the Mount

You are here: Home

Resources

Essays

Upcoming Events

May

2012

Retaliation in the Sermon on the Mount

Sermon on the Mount

“Only when the church renounces the way of violence will people see what the Gospel means, because then they will see the way of Jesus reenacted in the church.”[1]

"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' ³⁹ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. ⁴⁰ And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. ⁴¹ If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. ⁴² Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

- Matthew 5:38-42

Gandhi once quipped, “The only people on earth who do not see Christ and His teachings as nonviolent are Christians.”[2] Indeed, the church has often been baffled by Jesus teaching in Matthew 5:38-42, interpreters formulating various ways to explain away its apparent literal force.[3] However, a careful investigation of the passage reveals that Jesus did not present an impossible ideal or “counsel of perfection”[4] but rather a way of deliverance from the vicious cycle of retaliation and revenge. This essay will first briefly note some background information which clarifies the meaning of our passage, second, offer a detailed analysis of the text, and third, conclude by discussing some key theological, ethical and contemporary discipleship implications raised by the passage.

Background.

[5]

Preceding the SM Matthew has articulated a high-Christology which demonstrates the speaker of the Sermon is the very Son of God.[6] The SM opens with the BBs, revealing that the Sermon’s imperatives are preceded by God’s grace.[7] Our imperatival pericope must be read within this context lest it become mere high ideals; implied is that the Jesus who demands such high standards will also empower the ‘kingdom community’ to live them out.[8]

Our pericope falls in the Sermon’s ‘antitheses,’ where Jesus “contrasts the people’s misunderstanding of the law with the true direction... the law points, according to his own authority as the law’s ‘fulfiller’.”[9] Though there are rabbinic parallels, Jesus is not merely debating halakic details but, as Messiah, is making an authoritative announcement of where the OT was pointing all along[10]; here Jesus is fulfilling Torah. Stassen has identified a triadic structure within each antithesis, revealing they should be understood as ‘transforming initiatives.’ Each opens with the affirmation of ‘traditional righteousness,’ then identifies a vicious cycle of action and reaction, and climaxes by offering a realistic way of deliverance.[11] Together the antitheses offer illustrations of the ‘higher righteousness’ of 5:20.[12]

Detailed Analysis of the Text

Verse 38

Though this fifth antithesis does not contain the full introductory formula found in v21, the same point is made: Jesus is drawing attention to an OT teaching.[13] What ‘was said’ is “a quotation of the core element common to the three OT texts (Ex. 21:24; Lv. 24:20; Dt. 19:21) in which the principle of proportionate justice is applied to cases of physical harm.”[14] By Jesus day these texts had become the basis for a general principle of proportional retaliation meaning Jesus is likely speaking about a general principle of retribution.[15]

Verse 39

The opening phrase serves to demonstrate Jesus’ authority, implying “the claim to a distinct capacity to speak the demand of God into the present situation.”[16] Though 39a is commonly rendered “do not resist an evil person,”[17] verses 39b-42 suggest that this is inaccurate as they portray active, not passive, responses to a variety of situations; in fact, Jesus himself often resisted evil.[18] Though the adjective ponhrw[19] can grammatically be understood as a noun (“evil person”),[20] it can also be read adverbially (“evilly”).[21] Given that the persons suggested in v42 are unlikely ‘evil,’ that Jesus often confronted evil though never by means of revengeful violence,[22] and that in the LXX, Josephus and Philo, a)ntisth=nai speaks of “armed resistance in military encounters”,[23] context favors understanding 39a as saying “do not retaliate by evil means.”[24] As there are no imperatives in this statement, it should be understood as the diagnosis of the vicious cycle of revengeful retaliation and not an ideal of not resisting evil.

The pericope’s first imperative is found in 39b. Against a common reading, Jesus’ is not advocating passive acceptance of abuse or oppression.[25] Rather, he provides an example of how one can actively resist while not resorting to ‘evil means.’ A slap on the right cheek would be backhanded,[26] a severe insult in Jesus’ day.[27] To turn the other cheek was to refuse to retaliate violently or perhaps demand financial recompense[28] but rather challenge the aggressor by demonstrating superior moral strength.[29]

Verse 40

In this second example, more closely located in the law court than the above, the aggressor desires to sue the disciple to take their ‘tunic’.[30] Though forfeiting this would be bad enough, Jesus instructs his disciples to voluntarily surrender their ‘coat’[31] as well. As a result, the disciple would be left before the court naked, “revealing the greed of the suitor in all its nakedness… thus confronting the injustice nonviolently and pressing for justice.”[32] Though it appears the plaintiff has a legitimate case, it is clear that, while not technically violating Torah, it violates its spirit.[33]

Verse 41

Though we have no specific knowledge regarding mandatory public service in Roman-occupied Palestine, the practice is well documented.[34] Jews would have found impressment incredibly irksome and resentful.[35] a)ggareu/sei is a rare term which suggests the Roman solder’s right to force a member of the population to serve them, in this case, to act as a porter.[36] Presumably, one mile[37] was a recognized limit for such impressments.[38] Thus, by instructing his disciples to go two miles,[39] Jesus requires “generous and ungrudging compliance.”[40] It is difficult to identify precisely how such an action constitutes a transforming initiative, though perhaps it had “the power to turn an exaction into genuine public service”.[41] Whatever is in mind, the disciple has taken a nonviolent initiative, doing someone out of their own power and choice.[42] Additionally, implicit is a challenge to the zealots who desires to take up arms against the Romans.[43]

Verse 42

Likely these last examples correspond to the second, though to a degree the roles are reversed.[44] Now the protagonist is the poor person who is asking for help; Jesus’ illustrations reveal how we are to respond to others in a range of situations, both when we are the oppressed or downtrodden and when we are in the position of wealth or power. In 42a Jesus’ call for openhandedness and generosity is in line with the Jewish tradition of almsgiving and likely alludes to generously responding to beggars and the destitute.[45] Likewise, 42b concerns lending to those who have fallen on hard times.[46] This still required generosity as, “since the coming of hard times was the reason for the borrowing… there could be no guarantee that such loans would ever be repaid.”[47] As with the above examples, in both cases the disciple is to respond appropriately to the initiative of another.[48]

Implications of passage.[49]

There are a number of theological, ethical and contemporary discipleship implications of our passage. First, it is essential we recognize verses 39b-42 as being verbal icons. The meaning is not established by examining what the text literally says and then narrowly applying it[50]; pressing the illustrations likely obscures the point Jesus is making. For example, “if someone strikes a disciple in the nose (rather than on the cheek)… is a disciple free to hit back?”[51] Rather, the passage offers a series of illustrations which together illuminate the nature of kingdom living, establishing a pattern which can be extended to various situations. For our passage to speak to us today we must seek ways to creatively apply the principle of subversive non-retaliation and not merely explore the limits of Jesus’ examples.[52] Later this essay will consider specific ways in which this principle may be applied today.

Second, it is important to recognize that Jesus is not calling disciples to be ‘door mats’ but to actively resist through non-violent means. “Jesus does not say, Do not strike back, or Give the garment asked for, or Go a mile willingly. He rather says, Turn the other cheek, Give an additional garment, Go an extra mile.”[53] These activities do not constitute straightforward compliance but demonstrate how the oppressed can recover the initiative and demonstrate their own dignity as human-beings.[54] Moreover, it must be remembered that the ultimate goal of our initiative is deliverance from the cycle of retaliation[55]; we do not resist nonviolently merely to retain our dignity, but in hopes of fostering reconciliation. Our challenge today is not to remain passive when confronted, but to identify ways we can “overcome evil with good” (Romans 12:21).

Third, as disciples we must consider how Jesus applied his own teaching. Though some seek to portray Jesus as a “pride fighter with a tattoo down His leg, a sword in His hand and the commitment to make someone bleed”,[56] Jesus took the ultimate transformative initiative by dying on the cross.[57] The Christus Victor motif of the NT, which reveals that Jesus ultimately overcame the powers of evil with love, discloses that everything “Jesus was about centered on manifesting the outrageously loving reign of God over and against the destructive reign of the powers.”[58] Furthermore, when read against the apocalyptic background of Jesus’ day, our passage reveals that by refusing to “retaliate by evil means” disciples can participate in Jesus’ victory over the powers of darkness.[59] Though proactive nonviolence does not guarantee oppressors will cease oppressing, disciples must trust God’s ultimate Lordship, believing that what Jesus has commanded us to do is best no matter how hopeless it may appear. “It is the power of the cross, not the power of the sword, that holds the hope of the world, for the power of the cross is also the power of the resurrection. Even if it looks like evil gains the upper hand as we return evil with kindness rather than retaliate with violence, we are to know by faith that this apparent loss is only apparent.”[60]

All this renders questions of “Do we have to take this passage literally?” redundant: the Jesus who proclaimed it also embodied it, demonstrating its validity.[61] Moreover, the fact of the cross “makes the law of retaliation inoperative, since all claims that men have against each other have been satisfied”.[62] By recognizing that all sin against us has been addressed on the cross, we have no need to retaliate. Therefore, this exemplary, participatory and already-accomplished Christology suggests that we ought “adopt the same nonviolent, self-sacrificial stance towards enemies that Jesus had.”[63]

Fourth, “Nothing is deadlier to the spirit of Jesus’ teaching on nonviolence than regarding it legalistically.”[64] Again, Jesus does not call for passivity or cowardice. Therefore, in situations such as where a woman is being beaten by her husband, Jesus’ teaching does not suggest she should simply endure the beatings, but rather should find a means to challenge him, exposing his behavior and enabling him to see the consequences of his actions while forcing him to recognize her humanity.[65] In some cases a family intervention may be helpful, while in others “the most loving thing… might be to have her husband arrested.”[66] It is important that we avoid simplistic applications which result in passivity rather than active, nonviolent response.

Fifth, we must remember that Jesus was speaking to the community of disciples. To live as individual disciples who consistently respond to situations in accordance to our passage is virtually impossible, but this is precisely the point. The Sermon “presupposes the existence of a community constituted by the practice of nonviolence and… is unintelligible [when] divorced from such a community.”[67] It is not as individuals, but as a community, that we embrace an ethic of nonviolence[68]; one’s ability to remain steadfast to kingdom principles is not found in their individual resolve, but in the support of the community who can encourage and challenge individuals to continue like this and who can together formulate creative expressions of nonviolent action. Jesus’ teaching can only be lived out from the framework of an ecclesiology of mutual dependence.

Additionally, this kingdom community will together develop ‘kingdom character.’ Jesus has not presented us with a list of ‘pacifist laws’ which we are to obey no matter how unnatural and even immoral they may appear to us. Rather, “his teachings are a description of what life in God’s domain looks like”.[69] As disciples we are to cultivate this life whereby responding nonviolently and answering evil with love becomes natural; Jesus does not call us to act differently to others, but to be different.[70] Thus, for example, with the difficult question of how to respond when one’s family comes under attack, the disciple will not “automatically default to self-protective violence” but, because he genuinely loves his enemy, “he would have the desire to look for, and the wisdom to see, any nonviolent alternative to stopping his family’s attacker”.[71] Moreover, by cultivating a daily walk with God, the disciple would be able to discern the Spirit’s leading in the moment, being prompted to do or say something which may disarm the situation.[72]

Sixth, this passage can inform how disciples relate to proponents of other religions, namely Muslims. When dramatic events such as September 11^th occur, Christians have a choice: either we can retaliate against local Muslims (which will likely feed the cycle of animosity and retaliation), or we can actively participate in the reign of God by taking a transformative initiative, proactively seeking ways to extend ourselves to the Muslim community.[73] Likewise, when discussing with Muslims, if they raise arguments in an attempts to make Christianity look illogical, disciples ought resist the temptation to “win” the argument or to criticize Islam.[74] Rather, we can “turn the cheek” by actively demonstrating concern for the person’s family.[75]

Seventh, it must be considered how this passage can inform our practice of giving. The hyperbolic nature of v42 must not dampen its force: Jesus requires that kingdom people live openhandedly.[76] This ought challenge believers living in the affluent West. Though we may feel poor when compared to some in our society, the vast majority of us are wealthy by global and historical standards.[77] This essay contends that believers ought deliberately live ‘below our means’ so that we can both donate towards alleviating poverty and furthering global missions, but also so we can assist fellow believers when they fall upon hard times.[78] However, this verse should not be taken at face value. Giving to everyone who asks can cause more problems than it solves; disciples are to be generous, not irresponsible.[79] For example, giving money to beggars in the majority world often perpetuates a cycle of injustice.[80] In these cases, giving to trusted ministries or giving food rather than money may be the truly generous thing to do.

Eighth, this passage will speak to different readers depending on their particular context.[81] For someone who is oppressed, the first three examples challenge the person to find ways to nonviolently challenge and expose the oppression. However, for someone who is in a position of power, these examples can force them to recognize the value of all people and thus challenge them to treat others with respect and dignity; disciples with power are not to initiate conflict.[82] Likewise, while challenging the wealthy to be generous, the last two examples may give permission for those in poverty to ask for financial help from others; struggling people can seek aid from the Christian community. Thus, v42 can be read not only as a call to generosity, but as call for interdependence within the church.

[1] Richard B. Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1996), 343.

[2] Quoted in Walter Wink, “Beyond Just War and Pacifism: Jesus' Nonviolent Way,” Review & Expositor 89 (March 1, 1992): 198.

[3] See Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament, 320.

[4] That is, a teaching which applies only to a certain class of believers. Ibid.

[5] Due to space restraints, this essay will not discuss background issues related to the passage’s authorship, dating, recipients, sources, etc. It should be noted that the implied readers appear to be outside the circle of power, victims of hostility from those who wield power. Ibid., 325.

[6] David P. Scaer, The Sermon on the Mount: the Church's First Statement of the Gospel (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2000), 52f, 59, 66f, 75. Cf. Stanley Hauerwas, Matthew (Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2006), 60. For a brilliant discussion of our passage’s context within Matthew’s gospel, see Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament, 320-323.

[7] That is, the BBs are indicatives predicated on God’s grace. See Dale C. Allison, The Sermon on the Mount: Inspiring the Moral Imagination (New York: Crossroad Publishing, 1999), 42, 44; Hauerwas, Matthew, 59-61; Glen H. Stassen, Living the Sermon on the Mount (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2006), 3-5, 8, 15, 18, 24, 39-43; Donald A. Hagner, Word Biblical Commentary: Matthew 1-13 (Dallas: Word Books, 1993), 96; Jonathan Slack, “Exegetical Essay of Matthew 5:1-12” (Unpublished: Laidlaw College assignment, 2010). Moreover, the fact that God’s grace precedes the commands of the Sermon is evident in that it is preceded and followed by accounts of gracious healing. Allison, Sermon on the Mount, 28; Mary E. Hinkle, “The Lord's Prayer: Empowerment for Living the Sermon on the Mount,” Word & World 22 (2002): 10.

[8] See Stassen, Living the Sermon, 38-43, 63; Hauerwas, Matthew, 61; Allison, Sermon on the Mount, 28f; Hinkle, “The Lord's Prayer,” 10-17; Charles H. Talbert, Reading the Sermon on the Mount: Character Formation and Decision Making in Matthew 5-7 (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006), 65; Stanley Hauerwas, “Living the Proclaimed Reign of God,” Interpretation 47 (1993): 154. Cf. Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament, 323.

[9] Bob Robinson, “The Sermon of the Mount Today: 147.615 Coursebook” (Unpublished: Laidlaw College, Christchurch, 2010), 51 (emphasis mine). It should be noted that that following antithesis, related to loving enemies, addresses similar themes to our passage.

[10] Ibid., 40-42, 51f. Some largely reduce Jesus’ sayings to relate to rabbinic debates about correct interpretation of Torah. See, for example, David Bivin, New Light on the Difficult Words of Jesus: Insights from His Jewish Context (Holland, MI: En-Gedi Resource Center, 2005), 93f. Yet, Matthew’s high Christology, and the fact of the Cross and Resurrection, do not allow one to read the Sermon as merely rabbinic debate.

[11] Stassen, Living the Sermon, 63-65; Glen H. Stassen and David P. Gushee, Kingdom Ethics: Following Jesus in Contemporary Context (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2003), 132-137. Cf. David L. Turner, Matthew (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), 175; John Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew: a Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 255; Ben Witherington, Matthew (Macon: Smyth & Helwys Publishing, 2006), 136; Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament, 321f; Walter Wink, Engaging the Powers (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992), 176f. Importantly, this structure places the emphasis on the third element of each antithesis, making the focus the deliverance from a vicious cycle rather than an alleged idealistic prohibition. Stassen and Gushee, Kingdom Ethics, 133. However, this structure is commonly missed. See, for example, R. T. France, The Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 194f.

[12] Talbert, Reading the Sermon, 64-68; Nolland, Matthew, 228; Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament, 321. “In 5:21-48, the Matthean Jesus shows that he is not abolishing the Scriptures but rather properly interpreting them and indicates what the greater righteousness looks like.” Talbert, Reading the Sermon, 65f.

[13] Therefore, the omission of toi=$ a)rxai/oi$ is insignificant. Moreover, clearly implied is that God was the original speaker of what Jesus’ audience had heard. France, The Gospel of Matthew, 195; Nolland, Matthew, 255. Stassen notes that Jesus is not negating, but affirming, OT teaching. Stassen, Living the Sermon, 65.

[14] Nolland, Matthew, 255. Cf. France, The Gospel of Matthew, 219; Turner, Matthew, 174.

[15] France, The Gospel of Matthew, 219; Nolland, Matthew, 256-258. It appears this statement had “by abstraction come to stand for a principle of aggressive protection of one’s own interests.” Nolland, Matthew, 257f. Therefore, the OT texts now functioned beyond their original legal framework.

[16] Ibid., 230. Cf. Turner, Matthew, 165f; Witherington, Matthew, 136; Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament, 324f. Put differently, Jesus is saying that the law points towards his own teaching. Robinson, “Coursebook,” 52. Jesus authority is identified by the emphatic placement of e)gw and the juxtaposition of his own words with the words of God suggested in v38. Nolland, Matthew, 229f.

[17] See, for example, the TNIV, NLT, ESV, NASU, Complete Jewish Bible, Wuest’s NT, NKJV. This rendering would appear to imply that the person is passively responding.

[18] Stassen and Gushee, Kingdom Ethics, 137f. Therefore, if Jesus stated not to resist evil while resisting evil himself, he contradicted his teaching by his actions.

[19] It should be noted that ponhro/$ has a wide semantic range, encompassing meanings including evil, hurtful, sick, worthless, difficult and painful. See J. H. Thayer, Thayer's Greek Lexicon, Electronic Database, PC Study Bible version 5 (Biblesoft Inc. 2006.), n.p.

[20] See Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 294f.

[21] Stassen and Gushee, Kingdom Ethics, 138. It would be difficult to understand ponhrw here as abstract (“evil”) or as the devil (“the Evil One”). Robinson, “Coursebook,” 68; France, The Gospel of Matthew, 220; Hagner, Matthew 1-13, 130f.

[22] Stassen and Gushee, Kingdom Ethics, 137f.

[23] Wink, “Beyond Just War and Pacifism: Jesus' Nonviolent Way,” 199. See also Gregory A. Boyd, “Christus Victor View,” in The Nature of the Atonement: Four Views, ed. James Beilby and Paul R. Eddy (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2006), 41; Wink, Engaging the Powers, 184f. Thus, though the word denotes “resist” or “retaliate,” it connotes “’counteractive aggression,’ a response to hostilities initiated by someone else.” Wink, “Beyond Just War and Pacifism: Jesus' Nonviolent Way,” 199. In Jesus’ context, ‘resistance’ would have been understood as lethal violence against Roman oppressors. Though important, this is not mentioned in Horst Balz and Gerhard Schneider, eds., Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 1, English Translation. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 99.

[24] Such a view is reflected in Paul, most notably in Romans 12:17-21. Stassen and Gushee, Kingdom Ethics, 138. Thus the adjective takes on almost an adverbial role in the sentence, describing the nature of the retaliation. See Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 293. Additionally, for convincing arguments against limiting 39a to courtroom settings see Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament, 325f.

[25] Stassen and Gushee, Kingdom Ethics, 138f.

[26] In Jesus’ culture, one could only slap right hand; the left hand was considered unclean. Stassen and Gushee, Kingdom Ethics, 139; Robinson, “Coursebook,” 68f. Wink, however, has tried arguing that Jesus is envisioning an insulting slap from the unclean left hand. See Robinson, “Coursebook,” 68f. In either case, the point appears to be that the slap was a grave insult.

[27] The “insult involved might be as important or more than the hurt itself.” Nolland, Matthew, 258. See also France, The Gospel of Matthew, 220; Hagner, Matthew 1-13, 131; Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of Matthew: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 197f; Carl G. Vaught, The Sermon on the Mount: A Theological Investigation, Revised ed. (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2001), 100; Michael J. Wilkins, Matthew: From Biblical Text to Contemporary Life (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004), 249f. Wilkins notes that this likely related to oppression from Roman military personal. For useful comments about the honor/shame culture of the day, see Keener, Socio-Rhetorical, 198; David A. deSilva, An Introduction to the New Testament: Contexts, Methods and Ministry Formation (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 125-130. Cf. Wink, Engaging the Powers, 176f.

[28] France, The Gospel of Matthew, 220f. Cf. Robinson, “Coursebook,” 69; Witherington, Matthew, 136; Scaer, Sermon on the Mount, 127. However, see Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament, 325f. Though France’s point is probably valid, he holds that in this pericope Jesus is forbidding resistance of any kind. This essay demonstrates that Jesus is not merely demanding his disciples “accept the insult without responding” but that the teaching is about non-violent active response. France, The Gospel of Matthew, 220.

[29] Nolland, Matthew, 258. Put differently, to “turn the other cheek was to surprise the insulter, saying, nonviolently, ‘you are treating me as an unequal, but I need to be treated as an equal.’” Stassen and Gushee, Kingdom Ethics, 139. Cf. Vaught, Theological Investigation, 101; Wink, Engaging the Powers, 175-177. This does not, however, guarantee that one will not be hit again, but nonetheless challenges the aggressor. Hauerwas, Matthew, 71f; Vaught, Theological Investigation, 101; Wink, Engaging the Powers, 176f.

[30] xitw=na/ speaks of a long garment worn under the cloak next to the skin, without which one would be naked apart from a loincloth. It was worn in some form by everyone. See Thayer, Thayer's Greek Lexicon, n.p.; France, The Gospel of Matthew, 221; Robinson, “Coursebook,” 65; Nolland, Matthew, 258. Importantly, the defendant is clearly extremely poor, as “there is nothing but the clothing in which he or she stands to sue for in compensation for the unpaid debt.” Nolland, Matthew, 259. Cf. Keener, Socio-Rhetorical, 198.

[31] A i(ma/tion was a larger, heavier, more valuable outer garment, which was an inalienable possession under Torah (Exo 22:26f; Deut 24:12f). France, The Gospel of Matthew, 221; Robinson, “Coursebook,” 69; Witherington, Matthew, 136; Horst Balz and Gerhard Schneider, eds., Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 2, English Translation. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 187.

[32] Stassen and Gushee, Kingdom Ethics, 154. See also Nolland, Matthew, 259; Vaught, Theological Investigation, 101. Thus, though the plaintiff’s demands are exceeded, they are unmasked for what they are. France fails to note the subversive nature of this action. France, The Gospel of Matthew, 221. Importantly, it appears Jesus’ example here is hyperbolic, an extreme (and even humorous) illustration which would “challenge his hearers” forcing “them to think about what they valued.” Keener, Socio-Rhetorical, 195. Cf. 199. See also Allison, Sermon on the Mount, 97.

[33] Nolland, Matthew, 259.

[34] Ibid. Cf. Keener, Socio-Rhetorical, 199.

[35] Romans were sometimes known to abuse this privilege. Ibid.

[36] France, The Gospel of Matthew, 221f; Keener, Socio-Rhetorical, 199f; Balz and Schneider, Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, 1:12.

[37] This was slightly less than today’s mile. Witherington, Matthew, 137.

[38] France, The Gospel of Matthew, 222; Nolland, Matthew, 259.

[39] Some Western MSSs say “two more miles.” Robinson, “Coursebook,” 69.

[40] Nolland, Matthew, 260. Cf. Keener, Socio-Rhetorical, 200.

[41] Nolland, Matthew, 260. Cf. Keener, Socio-Rhetorical, 200. Nolland may be right in suggesting that, by responding this way, the disciple may be able to turn the nature of the transaction from one in which both parties felt worse about the other after the encounter to one in which positive human interaction may become possible. Nolland, Matthew, 260. See also Stassen, Living the Sermon, 93f.

[42] Ibid., 93.

[43] France, The Gospel of Matthew, 222; Robinson, “Coursebook,” 69.

[44] Nolland, Matthew, 260; Stassen, Living the Sermon, 94. Cf. Wilkins, Matthew, 250f. This is true despite the fact that the fifth example breaks the pattern of opening with alternating ‘whoever’ clauses and clauses which begin with a dative participle. Nolland, Matthew, 260.

[45] Robinson, “Coursebook,” 69; Nolland, Matthew, 260; France, The Gospel of Matthew, 222; Keener, Socio-Rhetorical, 201; Wilkins, Matthew, 251. Cf. Deut 15:7-8. However, Jesus’ wording does not negate that the request could come from a neighbor rather than a beggar. France, The Gospel of Matthew, 222. Talbert notes that, thought this point appears to have little to do with non-retaliation, it is possible that Jesus may have been saying that, even when another has failed to lend to you, you are still to lend to them when they ask. Talbert, Reading the Sermon, 90. Though this may be valid, Jesus is more likely simply challenging his disciples to be deliberately generous. Again, it appears Jesus’ example is hyperbolic: one could not give to everyone who asks for long before become destitute themselves. Jesus’ illustration challenges us towards ‘unnatural’ behavior, forcing us to grapple with his point “that in the kingdom of heaven self-interest does not rule”. France, The Gospel of Matthew, 222. If Jesus “merely counseled, ‘Live simply,’ without confronting his disciples with forceful images, they might define simplicity in terms of their desires… [His] forceful rhetoric demands that his disciples contemplate his intention.” Keener, Socio-Rhetorical, 202.

[46] The difference between loans and almsgiving was that the former had the goal of getting someone back on their feet, while the latter assumed continued dependence. Nolland, Matthew, 260.

[47] Ibid., 260f.

[48] Given that the only other NT passage which uses the verb ‎danei/zw is Luke 6:34-35 which makes the point that one should lend without expecting repayment, and that the following antithesis relates to loving enemies, this verse possibly teaches that one is to be generous even towards enemies and to loan without expecting repayment. Hagner, Matthew 1-13, 131; Wilkins, Matthew, 251; Witherington, Matthew, 137.

[49] Due to space restraints, this section will also function as a synthesis of the above exegesis. Also, it will be unable to discuss the eschatological implications of our passage. For such a discussion see Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament, 338f; Hauerwas, “Living the Proclaimed Reign of God,” 154; Witherington, Matthew, 135.

[50] Talbert, Reading the Sermon, 91; Turner, Matthew, 175; Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament, 326; Allison, Sermon on the Mount, 97.

[51] Keener, Socio-Rhetorical, 197. Moreover, “the examples offered by Jesus would have been pertinent only in the first century and then hardly everywhere.” Scaer, Sermon on the Mount, 128.

[52] Keener, Socio-Rhetorical, 197; Scaer, Sermon on the Mount, 127f. Talbert refers to the illustrations as “verbal icons” through which one sees the divine will, enabling the person to see their own situation in a new way and to consider new possibilities of action. Talbert, Reading the Sermon, 91.

[53] Allison, Sermon on the Mount, 97.

[54] Allison, Sermon on the Mount, 97; Stassen, Living the Sermon, 91-95; Stassen and Gushee, Kingdom Ethics, 132-137; Turner, Matthew, 175; Wink, Engaging the Powers, 176f, 184-187. As Wink states, “Jesus… abhors both passivity and violence.” Wink, Engaging the Powers, 189 (emphasis mine).

[55] Stassen, Living the Sermon, 94; Nolland, Matthew, 261. Cf. Gregory A. Boyd, The Myth of a Christian Religion (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009), 94f; Wink, Engaging the Powers, 192.

[56] Stated by Mark Driscoll regarding the Jesus revealed in Revelation during an interview with Relevant Magazine. Unknown Author, “7 Big Questions,” n.p. Relevant Magazine. Cited 4^th October, 2010. Online: http://web.archive.org/web/20071013102203/http://relevantmagazine.com/god_article.php?id=7418

[57] It is likely deliberate that the verb for “strike” in 39b is repeated in Matthew 26:67; “Jesus, though provoked yet more sorely, refused to meet aggression with aggression”. Nolland, Matthew, 258.

[58] Boyd, “Christus Victor View,” 42. “When we understand that the powers are destructive systemic forces, and when we view Jesus’ life in the light of Calvary, it becomes apparent that every aspect of his life was an act of warfare.” Ibid., 39. The central call for disciples is to imitate this life.

[59] Boyd, “Christus Victor View,” 38-42; Gregory A. Boyd, God At War (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1997), 222-224. Therefore, by responding with nonviolent transformative initiatives we not only challenge people and attempt to bring reconciliation, but we also oppose the forces which fuel the cycle of revengeful retaliation.

[60] Gregory A. Boyd, The Myth of a Christian Nation: How the Quest for Political Power Is Destroying the Church (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), 176. Cf. Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament, 332f, 337f; Allison, Sermon on the Mount, 98f.

[61] Hauerwas, “Living the Proclaimed Reign of God,” 154; Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament, 344.

[62] Scaer, Sermon on the Mount, 128.

[63] Boyd, The Myth of a Christian Religion, 95. Cf. Gregory A. Boyd, “Revelation and the Violent ‘Prize Fighter’ Jesus,” n.p. Cited 4^th October, 2010. Online: http://www.gregboyd.org/blog/revelation-and-the-violent-prize-fighting-jesus/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+gregboyd+%28Greg+Boyd+and+Christus+Victor+Ministries%29. For and excellent discussion on the NT’s teaching on nonviolence see Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament, 317-336. From “Matthew to Revelation we find a consistent witness against violence and a calling to the community to follow the example of Jesus in accepting suffering rather than inflicting it.” Ibid., 332 (emphasis original).

[64] Wink, Engaging the Powers, 189.

[65] Ibid.

[66] Ibid.

[67] Hauerwas, “Living the Proclaimed Reign of God,” 153. Cf. Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament, 337.

[68] Hauerwas, “Living the Proclaimed Reign of God,” 158; Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament, 321, 326, 337, 343f; Wink, Engaging the Powers, 191f.

[69] Boyd, Myth of a Christian Nation, 164. Cf. Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament, 326.

[70] Boyd, Myth of a Christian Nation, 164f.

[71] Ibid., 165. For a different perspective, see Talbert, Reading the Sermon, 91-93.

[72] Boyd, Myth of a Christian Nation, 165. Due to space restraints this essay will not discuss the parallel though larger-scale issues of Just War, Pacifism and ‘Just Peacemaking.’ See Stassen and Gushee, Kingdom Ethics, 155-174.

[73] Conversely, to respond to Muslims in general on the basis on what a minority group have done by doing something overtly anti-Muslim (for example, burning a Koran), can hardly be considered a transforming initiative. Such actions, rather than promoting reconciliation and displaying the reign of God, will only increase animosity between Muslims and Christians. See Andrew Cameron, “The Limits of Freedom: Why Koran Burning is Unbiblical,” n.p. Social Issues Executive. Cited 4^th October, 2010. Online: http://www.sie.org.au/briefings/the_limits_of_freedom/

[74] See Colin Chapman, Cross and Crescent, 2nd ed. (Downers Grove: IVP Books, 2007), 197f.

[75] That is, rather than responding in kind or passively doing nothing, we should seek to express love despite the fact that they may be trying to criticize our faith.

[76] France, The Gospel of Matthew, 222; Keener, Socio-Rhetorical, 202.

[77] Boyd, The Myth of a Christian Religion, 130; Ronald J. Sider, Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger: Moving from Affluence to Generosity (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2005), 1-5.

[78] Cf. Sider, Rich Christians, 102-105, 185f.

[79] See Allison, Sermon on the Mount, 97f.

[80] See, for example, Unknown Author, “Should I Give Money to People on the Street who Ask for it?” n.p. Cited 5^th October, 2010. Online: http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/question-should-i-give-money-to-people-on-the-street-who-ask-for-it; Unknown Author, “Should You Give to Beggars?” n.p. Cited 5^th October, 2010. Online: http://christianpf.com/dont-give-to-the-poor/; Unknown Author, “Why I Never Give to the Beggars and Why Neither Should You”, n.p. Cited 5^th October, 2010. Online: http://www.travelingmark.com/travel-advice/giving-beggars-why-not/; Colin Radford, “Begging Principles: the Big Issue,” Journal of Applied Philosophy 18, no. 3 (November 2001): 287-289.

[81] See Christopher J.H. Wright, “Interpreting the Bible Among the World Religions,” Themelios 25.3 (June 2000): 48-51. Cf. William W. Klein, Craig L. Blomberd, and Robert L. Hubbard, Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, Second edition. (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2003), 73-75, 192f.

[82] If taken as verbal icons as described above, the passage should be read as pointing all believers towards peace, thus calling those in positions of power to not exploit but rather care for the vulnerable.