Tag Archives: Sermon on the Mount

Matthew 5:38–48

Leave a reply

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?

7 Replies

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?

The Case For Non-Participation: Jesus’ teachings

18 Replies

As we look at reasons for not participating in any nation’s military, it’s obvious that we need to look at what Jesus taught, as well as the rest of the New Testament. I read a piece by Patrick Mead where he claimed that the only way to support pacifism was to cut certain portions out of the New Testament. While I understand his feeling (I feel the same toward military involvement), such an attitude is counterproductive to biblical discussions. I won’t claim that those who choose to participate ignore Scripture. I disagree with them on how to interpret certain passages. And I think their interpretation is more reflective of our culture and society than it is of biblical teaching.

At some point, we have to take the Sermon on the Mount (and the Sermon on the Plain in Luke) seriously. The sayings are hard. As I’ve written about before, some want to explain them away through various creative strategies. But we can’t get away from the fact that Jesus taught that it’s better to let an evil man have his way than to retaliate. Turning the other cheek, letting people rob us and take advantage of us, loving enemies… none of these things are easy nor come naturally. Jesus was saying that what is natural isn’t right, that we have to overcome our human impulses and replace them with spiritual ones.

“Those who live by the sword die by the sword.” These words were spoken as a rebuke, not merely as a commentary on life. Jesus wasn’t just saying that his disciples weren’t to defend him at that moment. He was saying that there are those who live by the sword… and they aren’t us! We aren’t them. Jesus’ followers are not to live by the sword.

What about the New Testament passages that talk about Jesus coming to execute judgment on his enemies? Aren’t those violent passages? Of course they are. Which is why Paul reminds us that vengeance belongs to God. He will do it. Just as we aren’t to judge because there is only one judge, we aren’t to avenge because there is only one avenger. Passages that show God doing violence argue against our doing the same.

We live in a militarized society. That colors the way we read Scripture. It leads us to look for every exception and every loophole to allow us to follow the current of our culture. We need to recapture the countercultural spirit. We need to seek to be a holy people. Jesus called us to a higher standard. I think we need to stop trying to talk our way around that and merely seek to live it.

The Sermon on the Mount

30 Replies

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.

Is it only cowards that turn the other cheek?

8 Replies

Going back to the original post in this series on the Sermon on the Mount, it all started with a line in a Weird Al Yankovic which seemed to imply that turning the other cheek is stupid. I broadened that to include the whole sermon, but now I’d like to focus on the concept of turning the other cheek.

We’ve talked about whether this concept is stupid. A more common charge that I hear is that turning the other cheek is an act of cowardice. My hunch is that these people haven’t really imagined what it would require to take a blow and allow someone to deliver another one. I also think that people would call this cowardice because they’re much too afraid to actually try it themselves!

What would a coward do when struck by another? He might run away, if he thought he could get away. The most likely reaction is that he would fight back.

“Are you saying that everyone who fights is a coward?”

No, I’m not. I’m saying that neither fighting nor refusing to fight says anything about cowardice or bravery. Look at the animal world. Almost any animal will fight when cornered. Animals that would normally run will fight when forced to. It’s the same with humans. Many people fight more out of fear than out of valor. And some of the most courageous acts in history were done by people who refused to do violence to another human being.

Turning the other cheek forces the other person to look you in the eye to strike you again. If they gave you a backhanded blow, an insult in the ancient world, they would be forced to back it up with a dignified strike. They would be forced to deal with you as a person. It demonstrates a refusal to use violence nor to cave in to violence.

Turning the other cheek requires a level of courage that I don’t claim to have. I aspire to it, but I don’t claim to have arrived. If I were able to do it, it would only be by the power of God.

Those are some initial thoughts on this specific teaching. What are yours?