‘Cross my heart and hope to die if I tell a filthy lie.’ I wonder if you heard such things? I wonder if you’ve said such things? Have you heard someone preface their statement by ‘swear to God’? Or they might say casually ‘I swear I’m going to…’, or ‘I’ll swear to it on a stack of bibles’.
For some people, such words fall easily from their lips. They make vain and rash oaths frequently. They use oaths instead of adjectives. They punctuate their speech by ‘swear to God’ or ‘Oh my God’ or ‘Jesus Christ’ or ‘God Almighty’ or other examples of taking the divine name in vain.
Others of course are afraid of swearing and making such oaths. Hopefully that is most of you here. We would much rather say nothing, promise nothing, than promise and not keep it. And there is wisdom in such a course, because we don’t want to sin with our lips.
In his fourth ‘antithesis’ (vv 33-37), Jesus addresses oaths and truthful speech. Christians are committed to reality. Our words matter, and silence is not always an option (cf. Prov 10:19). You cannot really live life never making promises. Life involves making and keeping our promises. Our words matter. Jesus said that we will have to give an account for every careless word we have uttered.’
In the Old Testament, Israel were called to swear oaths. So Deuteronomy chapter 6 verse 13 says: "Fear the LORD your God, serve him only and take your oaths in his name" (NIV cf. Deut 10:20)
And indeed, there are many examples in the Old Testament where God’s people rightly and properly take oaths in God’s name. So Nehemiah, when he returned from exile, was dismayed with the intermarriage of Israelite men and women from the pagan cultures around them. So as an example of gentle pastoral counseling, Nehemiah pulls out their hair, and beats some of them, and calls down curses upon them. And in Nehemiah chapter 13 verse 25, he made them take an oath in God's name and said: "You are not to give your daughters in marriage to their sons, nor are you to take their daughters in marriage for your sons or for yourselves" (NIV). Nehemiah is proud of making these disobedient Israelite men take an oath in Yahweh’s name.
Likewise, Abraham, without the hair pulling and beatings, made his servant swear a solemn oath by Yahweh, not to get a pagan wife for Isaac (Gen 24:1-4). Jeremiah longs for a day when Israel will swear by Yahweh "in a truthful, just and righteous way" (Jer 4:1-2, 12:15-17 NIV). Isaiah looks forward to the day when "he who takes an oath in the land will swear by the God of truth" (Isaiah 65:16 NIV).
However, there are also many Scriptural examples of rash oath-taking (Lev 5:4; Jdgs 11:30-31; 1 Sam 14:24; 25:22; Mark 6:23; Acts 23:12). The experience of Peter that Matthew later narrates shows that there is repentance and forgiveness for these sins (Matt 26:74; John 21:15-19).
Moreover, God solemnly swears oaths at different points (Isa 45:23, 62:8; Amos 4:2-3; Luke 1:73, Acts 2:30; Heb 3:11, 18; 4:3; 6:13-17, 7:21), as does an elect angel (Rev 10:5-6). The commonly received teaching of keeping oaths made to God (Matt 5:33) is amply justified in the Torah (Lev 19:11-12; Num 30:2; Deut 23:21) and writings (Psalm 66:13-14; 76:11; Ecclesiastes 5:4-6),
So when we come to Jesus’ words in Matthew chapter 5, we must remember that Jesus didn’t come to abolish the law. He came to fulfill the law (5:17). It wasn’t wrong or sinful for God’s people to swear their oaths in the name of Yahweh. Look at chapter 5 verse 33 again: "Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, `Do not break your oath, but keep the oaths you have made to the Lord'” (NIV).
This is substantially a quote from Numbers chapter 30 verse 2: "When a man makes a vow to the LORD or takes an oath to obligate himself by a pledge, he must not break his word but must do everything he said" (NIV).
A good rule, we might say. That’s a good rule to keep. If someone makes a vow, he must keep it.
But then the lawyers come in. And lawyers are good at finding loopholes. And they have a good look at the law. And they say, "Look, Numbers 30 verse 2 says vows to the LORD. What if the person doesn’t make a vow to the LORD? What if it is a vow on something else? What if the person swears not on the name of the LORD but on a piece of temple furniture? Is he still bound?" The situation Jesus confronts is illustrated by Jesus’ criticisms of the religious leaders in Matthew chapter 23 verses 16 to 23:
16 "Woe to you, blind guides! You say, 'If anyone swears by the temple, it means nothing; but if anyone swears by the gold of the temple, he is bound by his oath.' 17 You blind fools! Which is greater: the gold, or the temple that makes the gold sacred? 18 You also say, 'If anyone swears by the altar, it means nothing; but if anyone swears by the gift on it, he is bound by his oath.' 19 You blind men! Which is greater: the gift, or the altar that makes the gift sacred? 20 Therefore, he who swears by the altar swears by it and by everything on it. 21 And he who swears by the temple swears by it and by the one who dwells in it. 22 And he who swears by heaven swears by God's throne and by the one who sits on it. (Matthew 23:16-23 NIV)
You cannot have weasel words with God. You can’t play stupid word games with the LORD. Stop the ‘Swear on the altar, swear on the temple’. You are just using it to mislead and trick people. Mean what you say, say what you mean, and keep your word. Tell the truth. Matthew chapter 5 verse 37: "Simply let your `Yes' be `Yes', and your `No', `No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one" (NIV).
Say what you mean and mean what you say. No, I can’t make it. No I can’t do it. Yes, I will do that. And then keep our word, even if it hurts. We don’t want our community or our families to say we can’t be trusted, do we? We don’t want to have ‘core’ promises and ‘non-core promises’. In part, that means realizing what promises we cannot make. And those things we do agree to, we need to keep.
So James, the Lord’s half brother, likewise urges a similar ethic. James chapter 5 verse 12: "Above all, my brothers, do not swear – not by heaven or by earth or by anything else. Let your "Yes" be yes, and your "No", no, or you will be condemned" (NIV).
Now, there is another issue we need to consider. What if we are required to make oaths by the secular government, courts or other authorities? Should the Christian and the atheist do the same thing, and make an affirmation, not an oath to God? After all, Jesus and James both say, ‘Do not swear’.
Now I have sworn oaths that were required of me to become an Anglican clergyman. For example, I swore that I will pay true and canonical obedience to the Archbishop of Sydney in all things lawful and honest. So help me God! And there are other promises and oaths I made, to be bound by the Ordinances of the Synod, to use the Authorised Prayer Book services and agree to the theology of the prayer book and the 39 articles, to not wear the chasuble but wear the surplice, unless I am given relief (which our AGM kindly did for me), to administer the bread and wine separately at communion. (http://www.sds.asn.au/site/101066.asp). All of these things required oaths, swearing and solemn declarations.
I think all these oaths are permissible. We are different to atheists, who cannot swear by anything greater than themselves. We believe in a God who is infinitely greater than us, who will hold us accountable for every thought, word and deed, for every careless and thoughtless word uttered.
And so it is right and proper, when required by lawful authority, to swear an oath before the God of the bible who is there, and who hears and listens and watches, and will bring us into judgment. And so we also pray, ‘So help me God’, so that we recognize that we are dependent on God to help us keep to our word. Because we need God’s help to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and not give way to fear.
The whole matter is admirably summed up in Article 39, at the back of our White Prayer Books (which, of course, I have solemnly promised that I believe to be true).
Article XXXIX Of a Christian Man’s Oath
As we confess that vain and rash swearing is forbidden Christian men by our Lord Jesus Christ, and James His Apostle; so we judge that Christian religion does not prohibit, but that a man may swear when the Magistrate requires, in a cause of faith or charity, so it be done, according to the prophet’s teaching, in justice, judgment and truth.
When required by lawful authority, we swear by the God we believe in. Otherwise, we do not make oaths, but be people of our word.
Now, in our broken world, we are confronted with evil and wickedness requiring justice. And justice often must be meted out with violence. So, when the Bali bombers, who killed 88 Australians, were executed by the firing squad in Indonesia, many families of the Aussie victims cheered. Yet, when two Australians who organized drug smuggling into Bali were facing the firing squad, we protested. We cheered that justice was meted out to onebut we grieve when justice is given to the ring leaders of the Bali nine, and we want mercy, not justice. We are a bit inconsistent, aren’t we?
Again, no one is sorry that Man Monis was shot and killed by the police when he held a siege the Lindt Cafe in the CBD and killed some people simply going about their day. We wish there could have been a different outcome, but when we recall that, according to the media reports, Monis had just executed Tori Johnson at point blank range in cold blood, we cannot but say that the shooting of Man Monis by the police was a regrettable necessity, and his death, as it turned out, was a just retribution for what he had just done.
Again, we rightly think that Western armies should fight ISIS and other terrorist Islamist groups. The principles of just war and the protection of the Kurds, Yazidis and Christians justifies the military intervention of various nation states, if they are focused on military targets, because we want mercy for the millions who are suffering from brutality.
When we send soldiers into war, we don’t want them to turn the other cheek. We want our army to resist evil. And so, are we sending men and women into warfare in seeming contradiction to Jesus’ words? Can no Christian be a soldier? Must the Christian depend on non-Christians to fight his battles for him or her? Should Christians only ever depend on unbelievers for their protection?
The fact is, our church has already made up its decision about this. Article 37 says:
It is lawful for Christian men, at the commandment of the Magistrate, to wear weapons, and serve in the wars.
That is, our Church is not strictly pacifist, as the Jehovah’s Witnesses are. We think that true followers of Christ can serve the police or military and wear weapons. One can be a righteous soldier, or a righteous policeman. There is such a thing as ‘Just War’.
It is appropriate and right that Christian people serve in the police and the military. Jesus and the Apostles served many soldiers with their ministry and miracles (eg Luke 7:1-10; Acts 10). And when soldiers came to John the Baptist, they were not directed to resign. Instead, they had to be fair and just as soldiers and to be content with their pay (Luke 3:14). In a fallen and sinful world, just war, and the use of deadly force by government, are at times a regrettable but solemn necessity. Those who exercise such a dreadful ministry on our behalf need our support and prayers.
But our question then, is, how can we do so on the basis of Jesus’ words in Matthew 5:40, to turn the other cheek, and not resist an evil person? How are we to understand them?
Again, with the Royal Commission revealing so much cover up by religious and other organisations about child sexual abuse, we must say that the biblical idea of forgiveness has been perverted by wrongdoers. Churches and other organizations have demanded silence and acquiescence of victims of sexual abuse under the guise of forgiveness and mercy. And so again, we rightly say the evil person, this time the sexual abuser, must be resisted. And we say it was a failure of justice and mercy when churches and other religious groups did not resist the evil person, and call in the police, and strip him of his position.
So we don’t come to Matthew chapter 5 verses 38 to 42 neutrally. We come with questions and qualifications. These things make it hard for us to read and understand and apply our Lord’s words. But Jesus is our King and God, and his words mean something. It is our job as his disciples to understand and apply them properly. So let me read verses 38 to 42 again:
38 "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 someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41 If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
Jesus’ fifth ‘antithesis’ provides the shape of discipleship when confronted with evil that requires a just response. Remember, Jesus is talking to his disciples, the twelve men and others who have followed him to learn from him. Jesus will make them fishers of men. And the crowd too, who can hear him, Jesus is inviting to become his disciples also. But they must realize the nature of the Kingdom he is inviting them to join.
So Jesus is not talking to children abused by supposed disciples. Nor is Jesus talking to soldiers or police, or those who bear the sword for the common good. He is talking to disciples who are to be fishers of men.
Moreover, Jesus has also used hyperbole in the sermon so far that is not to be taken literally. So we do not think that anyone should amputate their own hand or foot, or voluntarily blind themselves, to avoid sin. For even if we were to rid our body of those offending members, we would still have our brains, where all the sinful biases and attitudes reside. So we must allow that Jesus is using overstatement to make his point.
So let’s wrestle together with the text. Verse 38:
"You have heard that it was said, `Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' (NIV)
This is a quote from Exodus 21:24, Leviticus 24:20 and Deuteronomy 19:21. It articulates the principle of strict retribution, the lex talionis. What you have done to others is exactly what you deserve to have done to you. It is the flip side of the principle, "Do unto others as you would have them do to you" (Matt 7:12). If you’ve done unto others what you wouldn’t want them to do to you, well, you deserve that evil or wicked thing which you have done to be done to you. That is strict retribution (contrast Gen 4:15, 25). . Jesus nowhere repeals “eye for an eye” and strict retribution as a legal principle which defines what is just and limits retaliation, escalation, and disproportionate vengeance. Nor does Jesus say that this strict retribution is evil. It is not evil. It is strict retributive justice. If you want to work out what justice is, ‘Eye for eye, tooth for tooth’ is strict justice. The Bali bombers deserved to die for killing other humans. Man Monis deserved to lose his life for killing Tori Johnson. Martin Bryant deserves to die for killing all those people at Port Arthur. We cannot see that the death penalty is unjust in those cases. It seems a strict application of retribution.
It is harder to work out whether it is just to kill drug dealers. It is difficult to see whether they had the intent to kill the users of the drugs they were trafficking. Perhaps they were recklessly indifferent to the lives of the users down the track. And certainly, the idea of deterrence, while not strict retribution, is rightly used in the Old Testament to justify some punishments we would consider harsh. Deterrence is not always a bad thing.
But friends, we still need the law of retribution, because we need to work out what is just. Eye for an eye and tooth for tooth is just. And once we’ve worked out what is just, we are then called to go beyond justice, to mitigate justice. What Jesus is calling us to do is to go beyond strict justice to mercy.
Mercy triumphs over judgment, over strict justice. We as believers in Christ don’t receive strict justice for our sins. Strict justice would be hell for our sins. But the promise of God is salvation and heaven for all who believe. We receive mercy and forgiveness through the atoning work of Christ. We have experienced God not revoking what is just, but going beyond what is just in our case, and opting for mercy.
And so I am opposed to the death penalty in Australia. But I am not opposed to it on the basis of justice for crimes such as murder. I am opposed to it because we can do better than strict justice. We can move beyond justice to mercy.
We are a wealthy country. We can afford prisons. Our judiciary sometimes makes mistakes. Lindy Chamberlain was a well-known miscarriage of justice. If we had the death penalty, there would be no recourse for amending that wrong finding of guilt.
I also have a Christian reason for maintaining the abolition of the death penalty. We are also a country informed by the teaching of Jesus and the New Testament. It seems to me the commutation of the death penalty to life imprisonment is part of the modification of the strict retributive justice that Jesus Christ advocates.
I do not say that poorer countries need to do likewise and abolish the death penalty. It may be it would not serve protection of the community in certain cases. But I think a wealthy country like the US, another nation state whose judicial system has been informed by the New Testament and Jesus’ teaching, and which has a number of states which continue to have the death penalty, the United States could certainly commute the death penalty to life imprisonment and likewise build mercy into their system.
Article 37 of the 39 Articles puts the matter this way:
The Laws of the Realm may punish Christian men with death, for heinous and grievous offences.
The article doesn’t say the Laws MUST punish Christian men with death. The article says that the Laws MAY, and that for heinous and grievous offences. That is, where the offences warrant it, Christianity does not prohibit the death penalty. But that something is permitted doesn’t mean that thing is mandatory or required. Indeed, Laws informed by Christianity may also have built into them mercy, and the mitigation and commutation of strict justice to another significant but strictly less than retributive punishment, where prudence and wisdom suggest them.
We recognize this principle of commutation in the case of mental insanity. And an example of this is shown in the book, The Surgeon of Crowthorne. The book tells the story of Dr W C Minor, who after a dissolute life and the trauma of the US Civil war, went insane, and in that deluded state murdered a man on his way to work to support his six children and pregnant wife. Rightly, Minor was committed to an asylum in the village of Crowthorne, where he was given some comforts and his library. Minor became one of the most significant contributors to the Oxford English Dictionary. But importantly for our purposes, Minor provided for the widow of the man he had killed in his deluded state, as he was a man of independent wealth. As a result, the widow sought to visit him, an unusual request, but one that was granted. Indeed, she took up visiting him monthly and purchased books for Minor from various London bookshops. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Chester_Minor; http://www.berkshirerecordoffice.org.uk/albums/broadmoor/william-chester-minor/http://murderpedia.org/male.M/m/minor-william-chester.htm
In the case of the Surgeon of Crowthorne, we see an appropriate mitigation of just retribution. The man who killed is allowed to live, though strict retribution renders his life forfeit. He spent his remaining days seeking to make appropriate restitution, providing for the man’s family. This is good and appropriate, given his actions took the man’s life. And the widow, in a mark of true mercy and forgiveness, visits him, not just once, but regularly. And Minor’s ongoing life allowed him to serve the wider community, and the great work of his life is still with us today, the Oxford English Dictionary.
This is the general principle I think our passage teaches. Mercy triumphes over judgment. It is a call to go beyond strict retribution to mercy.
So let’s turn to the actual words of Matthew chapter 5 verse 39:
Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. (NIV)
Now, I have already foreshadowed that I do not believe this should be taken and issued as an instruction to soldiers or police. Nor do I think this justifies a person being allowed to commit sexual assault or rape or any other crime of personal violence.
And the reason I can say such things is that Jesus applied his own ethic to himself. Jesus himself gives us an example of what it looks like to turn the other cheek, in his court appearance before Annas. Jesus was struck in the face for an answer he gave the High Priest, but he didn’t retaliate. John chapter 18 verse 23 gives us Jesus’ response to being struck in the face:
"If I said something wrong," Jesus replied, "testify as to what is wrong. But if I spoke the truth, why did you strike me?" (NIV)
This is how Jesus applied his own rule. He didn’t literally turn the other cheek. At least, it is not recorded that Jesus literally turned his cheek and offered the other one to be beaten. And here is a probable reason. If it was evil to hit the Christ in the face the first time, would it be loving for Jesus to invite someone to sin again and continue that evil? No it would not. It is loving to not invite sin, but to minimize the sin of your enemy.
And this is why soldiers and police need to resist evil people, to restrain wickedness. They need to resist evil with proportionate and not excessive force. But they need to resist it. God has given it to the state, to government, to minimize sin and protect society.
But when Jesus was slapped for his true confession, he did not call on the angels to nuke the man, but he held the man to account with the question ‘Why did you strike me if I told the truth? He did not retaliate, he did not take revenge. For in that trial, he was acting in the place of us guilty private citizens, not as the wronged King and creator of the universe. So as our representative, he did not do the ‘slap for a slap’ of ‘eye for an eye’, but in the words of 1 Peter chapter 2 verse 23:
When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly. (1 Peter 2:23 NIV)
As Christians, we must learn from Christ. We must not resist the evil person with the evil person’s methods. But we can and must hold the person to account. ‘Why did you strike me?’ And we entrust ourselves to lawful authority. Jesus had already exhausted all of his legal avenues in his trial. The only avenue left to him was God, who remains the highest court, who judges justly.
When someone wrongs us in our society, the Christian response needs to be similar. We hold the person to account. And we entrust ourselves to lawful authority. With offences of violence and sexual assault, they are not only personal offences but crimes in which the state has an interest, to protect the community from dangerous persons. So turning the other cheek and not resisting an evil person for the victim of such crimes is to not personally take revenge, but to hold the person to account, ‘Why did you strike me?’ and apply to the lawful authority. It also may involve restraining and minimizing sin, performing a ‘citizens arrest’, if we have the strength to effect it without bringing great injury to the other person. There is a place for proportionate and merciful self-defence, which is not used as a cloak for revenge, enables the state to bring justice and mercy to the wrongdoer, and minimizes sin in our society.
A different situation are matters involving sharp business practices and being wronged or cheated of money or good, which is the context of the litigation between Christians in Corinth. In that circumstance, Paul suggests that it is better to be wronged or cheated than to pursue the legal remedy (1 Corinthians 6).
Either way, whether the way of righteousness involves using the judicial processes God has established in our society or not, we should overcome the evil person with goodness, rather than be overcome by the evil. As Paul says in Romans 12 verse 17 and following:
17 Do not repay anyone evil for evil. … 19 Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord. 20 On the contrary: "If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head." 21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. (NIV)
We overcome evil with good when we pray for our enemies, when we don’t pay back, when we are generous to our enemies, and when we call on the state for justice, not taking actions to avenge ourselves.
Recently, we have been provided an example of such turning the other cheek. I refer to the murder of 21 Coptic Christians in Libya by Islamic State terrorists. The brother of two of the Coptic Christians beheaded by Islamic State in Libya, Beshir Kamel, recently prayed this prayer for the men who murdered his brothers: "Dear God, please open their eyes to be saved and to quit their ignorance and the wrong teachings they were taught." He also said this: "Since the Roman era, Christians have been martyred and have learned to handle everything that comes our way. This only makes us stronger in our faith because the Bible told us to love our enemies and bless those who curse us." (http://www.christiantoday.com/article/brother.of.slain.coptic.christians.thanks.isis.for.including.their.words.of.faith.in.murder.video/48412.htm)
I don’t know what it is like to face what those 21 men faced. I hope and pray that I would not bring shame to the gospel and the name of Christ, if I am ever required to do what they did. In the meantime, we must pray for government, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives (1 Timothy 2:1-2). We must pray for Christian believers facing such horrible and awful tests of faith, that they and their families would stand firm in Christ and receive the comfort that comes from the hope of eternal life with him. We must pray for our enemy, that they might repent (Luke 6:27-28). And we must pray for the coming of Christ and his Kingdom (Matthew 6:10).
Indeed, we are not only to restrain ourselves from vengeance, but we are positively to do good to our enemy. We are called to be generous to our enemy.
Verses 40 to 42 calls on us to go the ‘extra mile’ with those who make demands, even oppressive demands, against us.
40 And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41 If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you. (NIV)
So does this mean we need to be completely reactive in our giving? If the Nigerian email comes in asking for money, do I have to give it? What about the phone marketers or street hawkers or professional money collectors? Do I have to pay them when they ask money from me? What if the money is going to go into drugs, alcohol, cigarettes, gambling or pokies?
Should I give such persons the money that others may have a far stronger claim upon simply because I’ve been asked? Must I give my children whatever they ask for? Must you go guarantor for your children’s loans, though Proverbs warns us never to strike our hands in pledge for a loan?
When Paul is directing the affairs of the church, he doesn’t direct that the church give financial support to every widow who asks for it, but only to the ones who are truly widows, over 60, who has been faithful to her husband, and is well known for good works (1 Timothy 5:9-11). To others, Paul says no. You won’t receive church money. So he counsels younger widows to marry.
Paul says, "If a man will not work, he shall not eat" (2 Thessalonians 3:10-12). The idle and busybody Christian is commanded to in the Lord Jesus Christ to settle down and earn the bread they eat.
But Jesus’ words in Matthew 5 clearly mean something. We are his followers and disciples. So how do we apply this? How do we give our shirt and coat also? How do we go the extra mile?
I think the key to this is seeking to do mercy, not justice. In other words, we are called to go beyond what justice demands that we give people. Each one must bear his own load, yes. But the law of Christ says we are called to carry each other’s load, and as much as we can, do good to all people, especially the household of faith. We are called to be merciful.
In my previous two churches, I lived in a rectory next door to the church building. We received many people at the door asking for help. Often it was money that was wanted. At one level, to give them money would be easier. It would get them off my back. But all the advice we received was never to give money out. There was a circuit of people who went around to each church asking for money. So if the request was for food, I would prefer to take the person down to the take away shop and buy them a hamburger, or take over a few bags of groceries.
Perhaps going the extra mile means we need to meet the person to work out why they got into that situation. It might be accommodation is the problem, because of separation or domestic violence or poverty. It may be that an injection of money will worsen the situation, especially if the person is lying or not being fully honest. What we need to do is go the extra mile, not want to get the person out of our hair, but help to deal with the real problem. If it is drugs or alcohol or gambling or shopaholism, we need to call it out. We need to deal with that. Then going the extra mile needs going with the person to a 12-step program or getting professional help. It may mean we do not acquiesce to the initial request. But it will mean doing the best and most important thing. We will go even further, because the person is precious, made in God’s image. And if that takes more time and fellowship and money, well, that’s OK. We look to God to provide what we don’t have.
The sixth ‘antithesis’ doubles down on the principle of radical generosity and exposes an incorrect inference from and addition to God’s command. The principle “love your neighbour as yourself” was originally given in the context of Israel as a single people and a community of brothers (Lev 19:9-19; cf. Matt 5:47). Somehow, contemporary teaching added to it a command, “and hate your enemy”—nowhere given in the torah (Matt 5:43). This limited God’s originally command by effectively narrowing the definition of ‘neighbour’ (cf. Luke 10:29) to exclude some members of the human family.
Verses 44-45: 44 But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. (NIV)
Jesus permits no exclusions from the neighbourhood principle: it encompasses all upon whom the rain falls and sun shines (Matt 5:45), including the national enemies (at that time) of the Jewish people such as the Samaritans (Luke 10:33, 36; John 4:1-42), as well as the personal enemies within the community that the command in its original context mentioned (Lev 19:17-18). Sonship of God always involves bearing the likeness of our heavenly Father, and he loves his enemies (Matt 5:45; cf. Act 14:17). That includes us: when God was contemplating our animosity and enmity toward him, he sent his son to die for us (Rom 5:10). We are called likewise to exercise such love.
Love is the unrelenting pursuit of the good of the other, whether they deserve it or not. If I give all I possess to the poor and my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing (1 Corinthians 13). Yes, generosity is called for. Self-sacrificial love is required. But we need to be aware that we need to go deeper than getting the person off my back, but go the extra mile.
So let’s pray for love from the heart, so that we keep our word, and that we go beyond strict justice to loving mercy. Let’s pray.