Meditation May 24 2020
Matthew 5:28ff
38“You have
heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ h 39But I tell
you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn
to them the other cheek also. 40And if
anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41If anyone
forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42Give to the
one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from
you.
We find this law first given in Exodus 21. It has popularly become known as lex talionis, the law of the claw, justice by the rule of beasts. There is little doubt the religious leaders turned it into that; i.e. a law of retaliation or revenge. However as given, it was intended as a law to regulate the decisions of judges so that their judgments were neither more severe than required by the crime nor so lax as to be a joke. Either would be a travesty against justice. This seems abundantly clear in the reading of the law.
Nonetheless, the scribes, the Jewish lawyers, those who drew up legal documents, true to nature, took the letter of the law ignoring most of what is said in the law as given. An eye for an eye, was meant to put restraints on unfettered “justice” which is and was nothing less than an exercise of vengeance guided by no more than the passions of the offended. By advocating the letter of the law, the Scribes made it into a rule governing private, personal retaliation that had no more restraints on the limits of the penalty than whatever vindication satisfied the temper of the offended. Thus, did they take the statute God seems to have intended only as a guideline for judges with regard to the penalties they should impose for violent offenses and turn it rather into a sanction for whatever law-of-the-beasts retaliation the offended thought necessary to assuage his temper. Any fair reading of Exodus 21 will persuade the reader that the law there given and lex talionis as popularly embraced are only most remotely akin.
It is that misunderstanding of the law Jesus is correcting. When he says “you have heard it said…” he is referring not to the law as given - to suppose he was contradicting or correcting a law of God is inane – but to the law as they had heard it; i.e. that which we have described.
Two things are to be said regarding this before we press on. Personal retaliation seems never to have been sanctioned by God. Even before justice systems more or less as we know them were in place, retaliation belonged to the avenger of blood who acted when there had been murder or manslaughter, acted on the behalf of others; not on his own behalf. The over-arching injunction in the OT regarding seeking justice was that they should not say “I will pay you back for this wrong…or “I will do to them as they have done to me; I will pay them back for what they did.:…but that they should “wait for the LORD, and he will avenge you.” (Proverbs 20:22; 24:29)
Jesus is not introducing some radical new idea apart from the law of the OT, the law that came from God, but it is a radical new teaching contrary to they law as “You have heard it said….” It is not the law of justice, as given through Moses, with which Jesus finds fault but the gloss the Scribes and Pharisees had put on it. What had been given as a guide to the magistrate, the Scribes and Pharisees prescribed for private, personal vengeance.
Against this Jesus says speaking to private persons, those gathered on the mountain with him; not the magistrates, “I tell you, do not resist an evil person.” This is the same injunction we find in the Proverbs quoted above. If someone slaps you on the right cheek, give them the left cheek also. He is giving a practical application of that which he has taught in the beatitudes about being meek and a peacemaker. It seems evident to me that putting this into the context of the whole of the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus is not offering a new code of laws to be kept to the letter. That is the very thing he is teaching against. Rather he is teaching principles to be followed under the law. Jesus is not, as some think, teaching some ideal, untttainable meekness. Only fallen man is so foolish as to suppose the cow may jump over the moon. When Jesus says turn the other cheek, if sued for you car, give then your truck also; if pressed to go a mile, go two miles, he is teaching that those who are blessed, those who are meek and peacemakers are not to seek their own redress but to control, subjugate the natural desires to retaliate for himself but to leave redress for those whom God has put into position for that purpose. Jesus, though slapped by the servant of the high priest did not resist or retaliate though he did protest, Paul vehemently rebuked similar treatment. (Acts 23:2ff) The principle is that we are by all means to suffer wrong without personal retaliation except where that principle is superseded by law; e.g. the sixth commandment which enjoins upon us the preservation of life.
The same understanding is to be applied to giving to those who ask of you what is lawful to ask of you. Compelling someone to go a mile is of Persian origin. They did not have telephones, telegraphs etc. They did have something of a Pony Express. The rulers had persons, usually riders, stationed between towns and outposts who would relay new from one place to another to keep the rulers informed, usually of any dangers or threats but of any news deemed important for them to know. These messengers were authorized to stop any passerby, if needed, and press them into service carrying a message. If you had walked a mile from a town and were passing a relay station, the official messenger may press you into service to go back the mile you had just traveled to carry a message. Jesus says, if they press you to go a mile; be willing to go two miles. Obviously, this is meant as a principle; not a law to be followed to the letter. What would be the point of travelling a mile past the point where the message was to be delivered? So also, of that which follows. Friends, family, even strangers are free to ask for a gift or loan. To such as ask of us, Jesus says, “do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.”
Again, this is an abiding principle; not a rule to be followed to the letter. We are not to give or loan with no concern for that which such a loan will be spent to gain. If an addict asks of you a gift or a loan to get food, you buy him food but you don’t give him money with which he can feed his addiction. Such a gift would not be a fulfillment of the law but a violation for is would procure that by which he was destroying life. As concerns human civil intercourse, the law is this: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” As you should engage in no activity that would bring harm to yourself so you should refrain from any activity that would aid, abet or encourage another in bringing harm upon themselves. That is on the negative side of the commandment. On the positive side, if needed to assist another to maintain life by providing the means thereto, “do not turn away….” I could probably work on this one a bit more.
We find this law first given in Exodus 21. It has popularly become known as lex talionis, the law of the claw, justice by the rule of beasts. There is little doubt the religious leaders turned it into that; i.e. a law of retaliation or revenge. However as given, it was intended as a law to regulate the decisions of judges so that their judgments were neither more severe than required by the crime nor so lax as to be a joke. Either would be a travesty against justice. This seems abundantly clear in the reading of the law.
Nonetheless, the scribes, the Jewish lawyers, those who drew up legal documents, true to nature, took the letter of the law ignoring most of what is said in the law as given. An eye for an eye, was meant to put restraints on unfettered “justice” which is and was nothing less than an exercise of vengeance guided by no more than the passions of the offended. By advocating the letter of the law, the Scribes made it into a rule governing private, personal retaliation that had no more restraints on the limits of the penalty than whatever vindication satisfied the temper of the offended. Thus, did they take the statute God seems to have intended only as a guideline for judges with regard to the penalties they should impose for violent offenses and turn it rather into a sanction for whatever law-of-the-beasts retaliation the offended thought necessary to assuage his temper. Any fair reading of Exodus 21 will persuade the reader that the law there given and lex talionis as popularly embraced are only most remotely akin.
It is that misunderstanding of the law Jesus is correcting. When he says “you have heard it said…” he is referring not to the law as given - to suppose he was contradicting or correcting a law of God is inane – but to the law as they had heard it; i.e. that which we have described.
Two things are to be said regarding this before we press on. Personal retaliation seems never to have been sanctioned by God. Even before justice systems more or less as we know them were in place, retaliation belonged to the avenger of blood who acted when there had been murder or manslaughter, acted on the behalf of others; not on his own behalf. The over-arching injunction in the OT regarding seeking justice was that they should not say “I will pay you back for this wrong…or “I will do to them as they have done to me; I will pay them back for what they did.:…but that they should “wait for the LORD, and he will avenge you.” (Proverbs 20:22; 24:29)
Jesus is not introducing some radical new idea apart from the law of the OT, the law that came from God, but it is a radical new teaching contrary to they law as “You have heard it said….” It is not the law of justice, as given through Moses, with which Jesus finds fault but the gloss the Scribes and Pharisees had put on it. What had been given as a guide to the magistrate, the Scribes and Pharisees prescribed for private, personal vengeance.
Against this Jesus says speaking to private persons, those gathered on the mountain with him; not the magistrates, “I tell you, do not resist an evil person.” This is the same injunction we find in the Proverbs quoted above. If someone slaps you on the right cheek, give them the left cheek also. He is giving a practical application of that which he has taught in the beatitudes about being meek and a peacemaker. It seems evident to me that putting this into the context of the whole of the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus is not offering a new code of laws to be kept to the letter. That is the very thing he is teaching against. Rather he is teaching principles to be followed under the law. Jesus is not, as some think, teaching some ideal, untttainable meekness. Only fallen man is so foolish as to suppose the cow may jump over the moon. When Jesus says turn the other cheek, if sued for you car, give then your truck also; if pressed to go a mile, go two miles, he is teaching that those who are blessed, those who are meek and peacemakers are not to seek their own redress but to control, subjugate the natural desires to retaliate for himself but to leave redress for those whom God has put into position for that purpose. Jesus, though slapped by the servant of the high priest did not resist or retaliate though he did protest, Paul vehemently rebuked similar treatment. (Acts 23:2ff) The principle is that we are by all means to suffer wrong without personal retaliation except where that principle is superseded by law; e.g. the sixth commandment which enjoins upon us the preservation of life.
The same understanding is to be applied to giving to those who ask of you what is lawful to ask of you. Compelling someone to go a mile is of Persian origin. They did not have telephones, telegraphs etc. They did have something of a Pony Express. The rulers had persons, usually riders, stationed between towns and outposts who would relay new from one place to another to keep the rulers informed, usually of any dangers or threats but of any news deemed important for them to know. These messengers were authorized to stop any passerby, if needed, and press them into service carrying a message. If you had walked a mile from a town and were passing a relay station, the official messenger may press you into service to go back the mile you had just traveled to carry a message. Jesus says, if they press you to go a mile; be willing to go two miles. Obviously, this is meant as a principle; not a law to be followed to the letter. What would be the point of travelling a mile past the point where the message was to be delivered? So also, of that which follows. Friends, family, even strangers are free to ask for a gift or loan. To such as ask of us, Jesus says, “do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.”
Again, this is an abiding principle; not a rule to be followed to the letter. We are not to give or loan with no concern for that which such a loan will be spent to gain. If an addict asks of you a gift or a loan to get food, you buy him food but you don’t give him money with which he can feed his addiction. Such a gift would not be a fulfillment of the law but a violation for is would procure that by which he was destroying life. As concerns human civil intercourse, the law is this: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” As you should engage in no activity that would bring harm to yourself so you should refrain from any activity that would aid, abet or encourage another in bringing harm upon themselves. That is on the negative side of the commandment. On the positive side, if needed to assist another to maintain life by providing the means thereto, “do not turn away….” I could probably work on this one a bit more.
No comments:
Post a Comment