Category Archives: Sermon On The Mount

Matthew 5:38–48

You have heard that it used to be said ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth’, but I tell you, don’t resist the man who wants to harm you. If a man hits your right cheek, turn the other one to him as well.

If a man wants to sue you for your coat, let him have it and your overcoat as well. If anybody forces you to go a mile with him, do more—go two miles with him. Give to the man who asks anything from you, and don’t turn away from the man who wants to borrow.”

You have heard that it used to be said, ‘You shall love your neighbour’, and ‘hate your enemy’, but I tell you, Love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Heavenly Father. For he makes the sun rise upon evil men as well as good, and he sends his rain upon honest and dishonest men alike.

For if you love only those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even tax-collectors do that! And if you exchange greetings only with your own circle, are you doing anything exceptional? Even the pagans do that much. No, you are to be perfect, like your Heavenly Father.

Matthew 5:38–48,
J. B. Phillips, “The New Testament in Modern English”
1962 edition by HarperCollins

What about the second mile?

Bloch's Sermon on the MountIn discussing the issues of violence and non-violence, pacifism and non-pacifism, something comes up at times that I think needs to be re-examined. I’ve heard it said that Jesus’ comments about non-resistance to evildoers only applied to religious persecution.

In mulling this over and weighing it out, a thought kept coming to mind: what about the second mile? You know the teaching:

If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.

It’s in the context of Jesus’ reframing the concept of vengeance (“eye for eye, tooth for tooth”), two phrases after the command to turn the other cheek. And it’s definitely not about religious persecution. There’s no evidence that the concept of Roman soldiers forcing non-Romans to carry their gear was a religious oppression. It was more akin to the quartering that the British Empire practiced prior to the American Revolution.

Jesus’ answer is that such oppression is not to be resisted.

Now I know that there are other ways of teaching that the Sermon of the Mount doesn’t apply to us. We’ve looked at those in a series on this blog. If you’d like to restate those views, fine. I don’t expect to spend a lot of time replying to such comments.

For those that think that Matthew recorded Jesus’ teachings for the edification of Jesus’ church, I’d like to discuss this point: doesn’t the teaching about the second mile move the conversation away from the subject of religious persecution?

Making a Case For Non-Participation

I’m going to shift terms a bit. Since the term “pacifism” brings up many different images in people’s minds, I’m going to focus for now on non-participation, that is, Christians abstaining from military service. I’ll try and lay out some of the reasoning in today’s post, then work on the individual ideas over the next few days.

First, and foremost for me, is the subject of citizenship. That’s a major topic on this blog, one that some grow tired of. I don’t tire of speaking about it, because I see so much confusion around me on the topic. The saying: “The Bible says that we should be good citizens” rarely goes unchallenged. (I agree that the Bible says we should be good citizens of the Kingdom of Heaven, but that’s rarely what the person making such a statement is talking about). I believe that when discussing the idea of citizenship, the saying: “No man can serve two masters” fully applies. As a citizen of the Kingdom of Christ, I can’t afford to become entangled in the affairs of another kingdom.

The second topic that comes into play is that of the powers behind the nations of this world. We too often buy into a Western point of view, a sort of dualism that separates the physical and the spiritual. That’s not a biblical world view. Though God uses and limits the kingdoms of this world, they are under Satan’s rule. I’m fully aware of how that sounds to Western ears; I’m asking us to try and see things from a different world view, what I think is a more biblical world view. In the Bible we see a direct relation between spiritual powers and the nations of this world.

The third topic has to do with Jesus’ specific teachings which place limits on the use of force. Obviously this is included in the first point, for if we are members of Christ’s Kingdom, His teachings about how to live in that Kingdom apply to us. While He did not come to contradict the Law, He did come to redefine much of it. His words “You have heard it said… but I say…” were part of a re-envisioning the Law. Where vengeance was once part of the code, forgiveness has replaced it. Where there was once a defining of “neighbor” and “enemy,” Christ applies love across all lines. Where the limit was once the taking of life, now Christ even forbids anger and hatred. I’ll even include here what Paul says about leaving all revenge to God. (And the teaching of Revelation, as discussed last week)

A practical consideration has to do with the deceit and trickery that surrounds modern government and modern warfare. Somehow we seem to be so aware of this element when it comes to matters of domestic policy, yet are willfully blind to it in military matters. Attempts to peek behind the curtain are labeled “bashing America” or being unsupportive of our troops.

That should be enough to start the discussion. I’ll probably add more as the discussion goes. But those general areas should be enough to get us started.

Pragmatism

I’m wondering if we haven’t placed “what will work” above “what is right,” in many cases. Admittedly, I’m still thinking about turning the other cheek from last week’s discussion, though I think this intrusion on our belief system occurs in other places.

What it comes down to is this: people say, “That can’t be right because it just won’t work in the real world.” Be it turning the other cheek, be it lending without expecting anything in return, be it trusting in God for our financial security, be it trusting in God for our physical safety, all of it can be shown to “not work.”

Here are some things in the Bible that could be said not to work:

  • God’s promises to Abraham. Have you ever noticed that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob spent their lives living in tents? That their descendants ended up spending over 400 years in slavery? Those promises to Abraham were a nice theological device, but from a pragmatic standpoint, they didn’t work all that well.
  • The faithfulness of God’s prophets. What did being true to God get most of the prophets? Ridicule. Scorn, Rejection. Imprisonment. Death. Undeniably, faithfulness “doesn’t work.”
  • Jesus’ ministry. Jesus couldn’t keep a group of followers together for long. The few he had fought frequently among themselves and scattered when he needed them most. And he ended up dying on a cross. That certainly didn’t work well.
  • The Jesus Way.” For centuries, Jesus’ followers were beaten, imprisoned and killed. Centuries. Hundreds of years. Dozens of decades. Does anybody really believe that turning the other cheek, loving enemies, etc., has any practical place in a violent world? It doesn’t make sense.

Tell Gideon about the effectiveness of torches and pitchers as weapons. Talk to Joshua about trumpets as weapons and Jehoshaphat about using singers as the shock troops for your army. Talk to Peter about using prayer to get someone out of jail.

When we bow down before pragmatism instead of bowing down before God, we compromise our beliefs time and again.

The Sermon on the Mount

I’ll wrap up our current look at the Sermon on the Mount with some final thoughts. Back to the idea of dismissing the sermon, I think there are some reasons from within the sermon itself that make people feel justified in taking it with a grain of salt:

  • The reference to the altar in Matthew 5:23 and other references to the Law make some say that the sermon is merely for the Jews, that it merely applies to those who were under the Law of Moses. I disagree, obviously. I think that all of Jesus’ teachings have something to say to us about how we should live; as Paul said to the Romans: “For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through endurance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.” (Romans 15:4) Just as the Old Testament writings can prepare us for Christian living (2 Timothy 3:14-17), so Jesus’ teachings to those under the Law can still speak to us.
  • The use of hyperbole in Matthew 5:29-30 makes some feel that all of the sermon is symbolic. I do appreciate the use of figurative language and know that we have to recognize its presence in certain texts, but to try and make the teachings themselves into mere abstract philosophizing is a mistake.

I think Jr’s comment from early on is worth hearing: we can’t make the Sermon on the Mount into some new legal code that must be fulfilled to be saved. But as the largest block of teaching material that we have recorded from all that our Lord and Savior spoke, it’s definitely worth our paying attention to.