“YOU HAVE HEARD that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ 22But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.
23“Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, 24leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift.
25“Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to court. Do it while you are still with him on the way, or he may hand you over to the judge, and the judge may hand you over to the officer, and you may be thrown into prison. 26I tell you the truth, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny.
27“You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ 28But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.
31“It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’ 32But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.
33“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.’ 34But I tell you, Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; 35or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. 36And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. 37Simply let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.
38“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ 39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
43“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45that 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. 46If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
Original Meaning
THE NEXT SECTION of the SM is commonly called “the antitheses,” because six times we hear similar statements: “You have heard it said . . . but I say to you.” Jesus’ declaration is the antithesis of what has gone before. This has been mistakenly interpreted to mean that Jesus makes his teaching the antithesis of the Old Testament.1 But if we look closely, we will see that Jesus is contrasting his interpretation of the Old Testament with faulty interpretations and/or applications. In each antithesis, Jesus demonstrates how the Old Testament is to be properly interpreted and applied and, thus, how the Law and the Prophets are fulfilled (cf. 5:17). This elevates Jesus above all interpreters, making his pronouncements equivalent with Scripture itself. Such a self-claim is incredibly difficult for his followers to comprehend fully and becomes a grievous point of contention with his enemies in the religious establishment.
The historical level is important to keep before us. Jesus is speaking in a religious context in which the teachers of the law and the Pharisees held sway over the lives of the common people. The Pharisees had mapped out what they considered to be the proper course for attaining righteousness through their interpretation and application of the Old Testament. One facet of this regimen was a tendency to require legalistic, external obedience to the law without calling attention to an inner obedience from the heart. They were therefore “hypocrites” in their practice of the law (see comments on 6:1–18) and were leading the people into hypocritical practices.
Jesus here looks at several examples of how they do this and demonstrates how correct interpretation and application of the law must be based on proper intent and motive. He does not say, “Hear what the Old Testament says”; rather, he says, “You have heard it said.” Jesus is not negating the Old Testament but the people’s understanding and application of it. He confronts faulty interpretation by giving his authoritative pronouncement, showing the original intention of the law.2 By living with proper intent and motive, those in the kingdom of heaven will live a righteousness that surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees (cf. 5:20).
A pattern emerges in the antitheses. (1) Jesus introduces an Old Testament passage with the distinctive expression, “You have heard that it was said [to the people long ago].” The passive verb “was said” is an example of a “divine passive,” implying that God is the One who spoke the command to the Old Testament author, who in turn gave it to the people.
(2) Then Jesus either cites (e.g., 5:43) or alludes to a current popular interpretation or traditional practice of the Old Testament passage he has quoted. That current understanding is causing the people to apply the law in a faulty manner.
(3) Next Jesus gives an authoritative pronouncement that takes his audience to the intended meaning and application of the Old Testament passage. He does not abrogate the law but brings it to fulfillment. This does not always mean something completely unexpected or unknown. We can indeed find persons within the Old Testament and Judaism who understood the intention of the law the same way Jesus does and were moving in that direction.
Murder . . . Nurturing Relationships (5:21–26)
JESUS BEGINS WITH the sixth commandment of the Decalogue, “You shall not murder” (Ex. 20:13; Deut. 5:17). Although Hebrew possesses seven words for killing, the verb used in Exodus 20:13 makes “murder” (raṣaḥ) a more accurate rendering than “kill.” It denotes premeditation and deliberateness. This does not apply to killing animals (Gen. 9:3), defending one’s home (Ex. 22:2), accidental killings (Deut. 19:5), the execution of murderers by the state (Gen. 9:6), or involvement with one’s nation in certain types of war. It does apply, however, to self-murder (i.e., suicide), accessory to murder (2 Sam. 12:9), or those who have responsibility to punish known murderers but fail to do so (1 Kings 21:19).3 Penalty for murder was death; it was not reducible to any lesser sentence (Num. 35:31).
The expression “and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment” is not a direct statement of the Old Testament but is a common understanding based on a number of Old Testament passages that require judgment for murder. The fact that men and women have been created in the image of God (Gen. 1:26–27; 9:6) lies behind this prohibition. This penalty was already in force before the Sinaitic law in the decrees to Noah (Gen. 9:6).
Jesus’ declarative statement “But I tell you,” introduces three ways that a person’s life is removed besides the physical act of murder. In each case, punishment is due. (1) The first case is anger: “Anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment” (5:22). Jesus here gets at the source of murder, which is anger (cf. 1 John 3:15). Anger alone is a violation of the law and was the original intent of the murder prohibition in the Old Testament. When we are inappropriately angry with people, we attempt to take their identity and value as God’s creature away from them, the ultimate form of which is the physical act of murder. The righteousness expected of God’s subjects is not only in avoiding murder but in eliminating anger from our relationships.
The disciple who is angry with his “brother” (another name for Jesus’ disciples; cf. 12:46–50) is “subject to judgment” (5:22), which may refer to the ruling of local religious authorities, the local Sanhedrin found in larger cities, or God’s final judgment.
(2) The second case is calling another disciple “Raca,” a transliteration of an Aramaic term implying “empty-headed.” This term of contempt was a personal, public affront. Name-calling was highly insulting in Jewish culture because a person’s identity was stripped away and an offensive identity substituted. The significance attached to one’s real name is removed from the person. The national “Sanhedrin” was the official adjudicating body of the Jews (similar to a supreme court), which the Roman authorities allowed to handle Jewish cases unless they impinged on Roman rule.
(3) The third case is saying “you fool [more]” to a disciple (5:22). This likewise was highly insulting in Jewish culture, because moral connotations were attached to the term (cf., e.g., Prov. 10:23). More is most likely a case form of the Greek word moros (the origin of the English word “moron”), indicating a person who consistently acts like an idiot. To treat one’s brother with such contempt was to strip away his personal identity and wrongly make the person into something he or she was not.
The expression “fire of hell” is geenna, from which we get the English transliteration “Gehenna.” It is a transliteration of the Aramaic form of the Hebrew ge ben-hinnom (“valley of the son of Hinnom”), a valley west and southwest of Jerusalem. Here Ahaz and Manasseh sacrificed their sons to Molech,4 which caused Josiah to defile the place (2 Kings 23:10). Later the valley was used to burn refuse from Jerusalem, so the constant burning made the valley an appropriate reference to fires of punishment. Jewish apocalyptic writers began to call the Valley of Hinnom the entrance to hell, later hell itself (4 Ezra 7:36). By the time of Jesus the term was used to indicate the state of final punishment (cf. Matt. 18:9).
Jesus illustrates his declarative statement of the seriousness of anger and identity theft by focusing on the antidote, which is reconciliation with “your brother” (5:23–24) and “your adversary” (5:25–26). (1) In the first situation, the expected subject is reversed—the brother has something against you. Jesus is dealing with occasions when his disciples have offended another person, not when they have been offended. Reconciliation is the responsibility of the one who has wronged someone else, though a reciprocal attitude is understood (cf. 18:21–22; Mark 11:25). The expression “offering your gift at the altar” assumes a sacrifice being given in the temple at Jerusalem. To leave immediately indicates the importance of reconciliation, because Jesus’ audience was from Galilee and the effort to attend the temple sacrifice was significant.
(2) The second scene is on the way to court, where a litigant is taking a disciple, apparently over some dispute about money (5:26). This probably assumes a Gentile legal setting, since we have no record in Jewish law of imprisonment for debt. Before the legal process is put into action, Jesus’ disciples are to “settle matters quickly” (lit., “to make friends quickly”) with one’s adversary.5 More than simply discharging legal affairs, Jesus’ disciples are to seek a kind of reconciliation that creates friendships out of adversarial relationships.
Remaining imprisoned until a debt is repaid down to the last penny elicits a sense of impossibility (5:26; cf. 18:34), since the debtor had no chance to work to create funds. The “penny” (kodrantes) is the Roman bronze/copper coin quadrans, the smallest Roman coin.6 Jesus uses this scenario to return to the seriousness of the problem of anger. Unreconciled anger is the inner equivalency of murder, which is impossible to repay. To leave problems unreconciled is to allow the sin that has been created to continue to destroy relationships between people.
Fulfilling the law’s command “Do not murder” is not accomplished simply by avoiding legal homicide. Jesus reveals that the intent of the law is to nurture relationships. Jesus’ disciples must have a daily urgency about maintaining the healthy life of their relationships, both with other disciples and with nondisciples. Anything we do that strips away the personal distinctiveness of a brother or sister is sin, and it is our responsibility to become reconciled.
Adultery . . . Marital Oneness (5:27–30)
IN THE SECOND antithesis, Jesus quotes directly the seventh commandment of the Decalogue, concerning adultery (Ex. 20:14; Deut. 5:17), and alludes to the tenth, concerning covetousness (Ex. 20:17; Deut. 5:21). Adultery in the Old Testament involved sexual intercourse with mutual consent between a man, married or unmarried, and the wife of another man. The term and the penalty (death) applied equally to both the man and the woman (Lev. 20:10; cf. Deut. 22:22). A betrothed woman was counted in this context as a wife (Deut. 22:23–24).
Adultery was considered one of the most serious offenses because it broke the relationship that was a reflection of God and his people. Adultery was often used to describe the way in which the people of Israel went after gods other than Yahweh (cf. Ezek. 16:32; Hos. 4:13b). Joseph recognized that adultery not only would have been an offense to Potiphar but was especially a “sin against God” (Gen. 39:9). King David, after his adulterous affair with Bathsheba, confessed his sin to God by saying, “Against you, you only, have I sinned” (Ps. 51:4). The Old Testament strongly denounces all extramarital sexual relationships, condemning the male offender even more strongly than the female (cf. Hos. 4:14).
Jesus’ pronouncement reaffirms the Old Testament commitment to the unity of the marriage bond and takes it to its deepest intended meaning:7 “But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matt. 5:28). It is not enough only to maintain physical purity. The purity of marriage includes exclusive devotion to one another with every aspect of their lives, and this commitment excludes wanting another person or giving oneself in any way to another person.8 Looking lustfully at another woman breaks the bond of oneness that a man has with his wife.
The basis of this principle lies in the relationship between God and his people. Ezekiel graphically condemns the people of Israel for spiritual adultery not just when they actually worship pagan idols, but when Israel’s heart and eyes desired other gods. God laments, “How I have been grieved by their adulterous hearts, which have turned away from me, and by their eyes, which have lusted after their idols” (Ezek. 6:9). Oneness with a wife means that her husband gives himself to her, and her alone. When a man even looks with desire at another woman, he has rejected his wife and given himself to another. Lust originates in the heart (15:19), which is the core of a person’s identity and will. Adultery, therefore, is not only physical sexual intercourse but also mentally engaging in such an act of unfaithfulness.
Jesus illustrates the seriousness of lust destroying the marriage bond through two graphic examples: “If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away” (5:29), and “if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away” (5:30). Most people being right-handed, the right side often stood for the more powerful or important side. The eye is the medium through which the temptation first comes to stimulate the lust, and the hand represents the instrument by which the lust is physically committed. So Jesus uses hyperbole (deliberate exaggeration) for the sake of emphasizing the seriousness of single-hearted devotion—single-eyed and single-handed commitment to one’s spouse.9
Early in church history, people such as Origen of Alexandria wrongly took the sayings here and in 19:12 literally. Jesus is not advocating physical self-mutilation, but through dramatic figures of speech indicates the kind of rigorous self-discipline that committed disciples will display. A person who intends to carry out God’s ordinance should be willing to go to any lengths to maintain the unity of the bond of marriage. Sin is essentially an inner issue and condemns the person who rests complacently on his or her external acts of righteousness.10 Our actions indicate the state of our hearts, and one who destroys the marriage bond is worthy of eternal condemnation, because the sin reveals that he or she is not a disciple of Jesus. Life in the kingdom of heaven does not produce otherworldly persons, but disciples who live out human relations, including marriage, the way God originally designed.
Divorce . . . Marriage Sanctity Inviolate (5:31–32)
IN THE THIRD antithesis, Jesus carries forward the thinking about the sanctity of marriage by alluding to the Mosaic pronouncement on certificates of divorce (Deut. 24:1; see also comments on 19:3–12). Since divorce was a widespread phenomenon in the ancient world, God instituted a regulation through Moses that was designed to do three things: (1) protect the sanctity of marriage from “indecency” defiling the marital relationship; (2) protect the woman from a husband who might simply send her away without any cause; (3) document her status as a legitimately divorced woman so that she was not thought to be a harlot or a runaway adulteress.
By Jesus’ time, the essence of the sanctity of marriage was being lost among those interpreting and debating the Mosaic regulation, especially the meaning of “indecency” in Deuteronomy 24:1. The discussion assumed that divorce was necessary and legal. The more conservative school of Shammai allowed divorce only for reasons of unchastity. The more liberal school of Hillel stated that the Mosaic stipulation of “indecency” allowed a man to divorce his wife “even if she spoiled a dish for him” (m. Giṭ. 9:10). Later rabbis declared that divorce was required when adultery was committed (m. Soṭah 5:1; m. Yebam. 2:8), because adultery produced a state of impurity that, as a matter of legal fact, dissolved the marriage.11
Jesus goes back to the original intention both for God’s institution of marriage and for the Mosaic regulation. God intended marriage to be a permanent union of a man and woman into one (Gen. 2:24). God “hates” divorce, because it tears apart what should be considered a permanent union (cf. Mal. 2:16). Therefore, Jesus states categorically that divorce creates adultery, the despicable nature of which he has just declared (5:27–30), because an illicit divorce turns the woman into an adulteress when she remarries.
However, as did Moses, Jesus allows for an exception. Even though God sees marriage as permanent, sometimes the marriage bond has been violated to such a degree that a spouse has already torn apart the marriage union, namely, when a person has committed porneia, which the NIV appropriately renders “marital unfaithfulness.” Since “adultery” has already been specified by another word (moicheuo; 5:27–28), porneia must be something less specific than sexual infidelity but, following the Mosaic intention, more than something frivolous. Porneia includes any sinful activity that intentionally divides the marital relationship. Jesus states unequivocally the sacredness of the marital relationship but allows divorce to protect the nonoffending partner and to protect the institution of marriage from being a vulgar sham.
Oaths . . . Transparent Honesty (5:33–37)
THE FOURTH ANTITHESIS begins not with a quotation of one command but a summary of various “oath” passages.12 In the Old Testament, God often guaranteed the fulfillment of his promises with an oath (Gen. 9:9–17). In the same way, the Old Testament permitted a person to swear by the name of God to substantiate an important affirmation or promise. An oath or vow helped a person remain faithful to commitments. The law demanded that a person be true to any oath sworn (cf. Lev. 19:12; Num. 30:2), such as the vow to the Lord that was part of the Old Testament system of sacrificial offerings (Deut. 23:21). Although not required, oaths properly handled received approval from God. The rabbis developed a highly structured hierarchy of oaths, later comprising an entire tractate in the Mishnah, Šebuʿot (“Oaths”).
Some interpreters of Jesus’ day tended to make the Old Testament’s permission mean that only oaths that invoked the name of the Lord were binding. If a person wasn’t really serious about an oath, he would swear by “less sacred” things (e.g., “I swear by heaven,” “by earth,” “by Jerusalem,” etc.; cf. Matt. 23:16–22). Since the person didn’t invoke the literal name of God, the oath wasn’t considered binding. This increasing tendency to find loopholes in an oath led to their devaluation, causing some to warn against using any kind of oath. Josephus says of the Essenes, “Any word of theirs has more force than an oath; swearing they avoid, regarding it as worse than perjury, for they say that one who is not believed without an appeal to God stands condemned already.”13
Jesus goes to the heart of the law’s intent regarding oaths when he says that his disciples are not to swear “at all.” This does not mean “profanity” or “cursing” but invoking God’s name, or substitutes for it, to guarantee the truth of what one says. Jesus understands the duplicity of the human heart, for people sometimes invoked an oath in order to conceal an attempt to deceive. By contrast, Jesus’ disciples should be people of such integrity of character and truthfulness of heart that whatever they say is absolutely believable and dependable. A person of integrity is one who in daily conversation is so truthful, dependable, genuine, guileless, and reliable that his or her words are believed without an oath.
In other words, a simple “yes” or “no” should be enough for a trustworthy person (cf. 2 Cor. 1:15–24), a saying of Jesus that James passes on (James 5:12). It is true that Paul invoked an oath because the people did not know him well enough to be certain of his character yet, so we can see that oaths are not wholly disallowed in the New Testament (2 Cor. 1:18; Gal. 1:20). But Jesus’ point is that a disciple’s simple word should be considered as trustworthy as a signed document or contract. When he goes further to suggest that “anything beyond this is evil,” Jesus indicates that swearing by something in order to deceive can only have one source—the evil one, Satan (cf. Matt. 6:13; 13:19, 38).
Eye for an Eye . . . Servanthood (5:38–42)
IN THE FIFTH antithesis Jesus condemns the way that the law of retaliation (lex talionis) had been abused to promote personal revenge. Found in similar form in the Code of Hammurabi (# 196–200), the lex talionis is prominent in the Torah as God’s means of providing justice and of purging evil from among his people: “The rest of the people will hear of this and be afraid, and never again will such an evil thing be done among you. Show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot” (Deut. 19:20–21; cf. Ex. 21:23–25; Lev. 24:18–20). In some ancient societies punishment was handed out without regard for individual cases, and often the penalty far exceeded the crime. The law of retaliation was established as a check to inappropriate punishment. If a person harmed the eye of another person, the eye of the offender was to be given as equal punishment. Most commentators doubt that it was intended to be applied literally in every case, but it was a graphic metaphor to establish equivalence of loss in a given circumstance.14 The law was intended as an equalizer of justice.
The lex talionis was to be imposed by the civil authorities and civil courts to protect the public, punish offenders, and deter crime. It was not to be administered by individuals (cf. Deut. 19:15–21). In fact, the civil statute was intended to discourage private revenge (cf. Prov. 20:22; 24:29),15 because the person offended was too liable to be biased in retaliation. Where governing authorities were responsible to administer justice, God’s people were then liberated from the need to exact personal retribution and were able to pursue a higher ethical standard; they were able to love and serve one another. The Lord spoke to his people directly about this alternative: “Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD” (Lev. 19:18).
However, in the turbulent world of Jesus’ day, when Jews were under the rule of the Roman occupying forces, it was easy to lose sight of this higher purpose and begin to use the law of retaliation to justify personal revenge. The common person was at the mercy of the Romans everywhere—on the street, in the court, in the presence of the military occupying forces, and in the everyday world of financial need. Jewish leaders had little or no power to execute justice to protect their people. Those who were hurt wanted to strike back, especially when there was no apparent justice to protect them, so personal retaliation through violent resistance was a burning issue among the Jews. Even some of the Jewish leaders sought retaliation by gathering a following among the people to resist the Romans,16 which led to popular resistance movements throughout the land at the time of Jesus.17
Within this oppressive atmosphere, Jesus points to the motivation of the individual disciple who has been taken advantage of and wronged. “But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person” (5:39). It is not the disciple’s personal responsibility to “resist” (anthisemi)18 or set oneself against the offending person. On a personal level, the disciple’s first responsibility is to reverse the dynamic of the situation from taking to giving. The evil person has attempted to take, but Jesus’ disciples are to give to the offender by serving him or her. Jesus’ disciples are not to think first about retribution. Even when they are being abused, they must think of ways to advance the kingdom of heaven and its influence on this earth.
Jesus then uses four illustrations from the everyday life of his disciples under oppression to emphasize how they can serve those who offend them. Their ultimate goal is to seek “an opportunity for the enemy to be converted to the truth of God’s kingdom.”19 (1) The first scene appears to be in an arena where the disciple is insulted publicly: “If someone strikes you on the right cheek . . .” (5:39). It is not so much the hurt as the insult that is here in mind, because it was a symbolic way of affronting a person’s dignity and honor (cf. m. B. Qam. 8:6). Crude military personnel were known to demean subjugated people in this way. To turn the other cheek indicates that Jesus’ disciples are so secure in themselves that they do not need to retaliate with more evil the evil done to them (cf. Rom. 12:19–21; 1 Thess. 5:15). By turning the other cheek. they place themselves in a position of greater indignity and vulnerability, but this provides opportunity to serve the offender, as the next two scenes illustrate.
(2) The second scene shifts to a legal setting: “And if someone wants to sue you . . .” (5:40). A disciple is being taken to court in an attempt to sue for his tunic. The simple clothing of a person in the first century was a loincloth, covered by one or more body-length tunic(s), the outer cloak, a girdle acting as a belt, a head covering, and sandals.20 The “tunic” (chiton) was the basic garment, a long-sleeved inner robe similar to a nightshirt that a person wore next to the skin. Jesus instructs his disciples that if someone tries to sue for their tunic, they should let him have their “cloak” (himation) as well. The cloak was the outer robe (cf. 27:35),21 which was an indispensable piece of clothing. When it was given as a pledge, it had to be returned before sunset since it was used by the poor for a sleeping cover (Ex. 22:26–7; Deut. 24:12; Ezek. 18:7; Amos 2:8.). Jesus makes a startling demand of his disciples. They must reverse the dynamic. Instead of defending themselves or seeking retaliation, they must give to this person who is so unfairly attempting to take their most basic necessities.
(3) The third illustration draws a military scene: “if someone forces you to go one mile . . .” (5:41). In ancient practice, governmental or military personnel could requisition the help of local civilians for official business. Officers of the Persian royal postal system could force a civilian to carry official correspondence, and Roman military personnel could organize bands of unpaid laborers from the common people to construct roads, fortifications, and public buildings. They could requisition individuals on the spot to help an operation. The most familiar New Testament scene is that of Simon of Cyrene, forced by the Roman guards to carry Jesus’ cross (27:32; Mark 15:21). Jesus tells his disciples that when they are commandeered to go “one mile” (milion22), they should go two.
(4) The last illustration relates to uncomfortable people: “Give to the one who asks you . . . the one who wants to borrow from you” (5:42). This carries Jesus’ point one step further by referring to two kinds of uncomfortable people who might intrude into the everyday lives of his disciples. Not only are Jesus’ disciples to respond with positive treatment to those who ill-treat them, but they are also to give to those who beg and borrow. The word “ask” (aiteo) in this context indicates a poor person who begs for alms. The person who wants to “borrow” (danizo) may likewise have been poor, since the use of this same verb in Luke 6:34 indicates loaning to a person unable to repay. Giving alms to the poor was a central exercise of Jewish piety (see comments on 6:2–4). The Old Testament was likewise clear about the obligation that the people of Israel had to lend to the poor among them (Deut. 15:7–11).
Jesus, however, widens the obligation with powerful images of generosity. The one begging may not be poor legitimately or may not require charity, but give to him anyway. The one seeking a loan could be unscrupulous or even one’s enemy and may not intend to repay the loan, but don’t turn her away.23 The parallel in Luke’s Gospel explicitly indicates the disciples are to extend loans to one’s enemies (see Luke 6:35). With these sayings Jesus removes the obligation of judging the merit of the request for charity or the loan. His disciples are free to live generously without question. The Old Testament gives a low status to sluggards who fall into poverty from their own laziness (Prov. 6:1–11) and regards as wicked those who consistently seek loans and do not repay them (cf. Ps. 37:21). But to give freely to whomever seeks assistance, especially to those who may not really need charity and to those from whom there is little chance of repayment, is the height of generosity.
Jesus himself lived out this radical principle and became a vivid example for his followers (cf. 1 Peter 2:20–25). He loved so much that he gave himself for sinners (Rom. 5:8). The obligation of his disciples is not first to retaliate for the evil done to them or to protect themselves and their personal interests. Their primary obligation is to serve those around them, both those who seem to deserve it and even those who don’t. As with the other antitheses, this principle surely created uneasiness for those who initially heard it as well as those who later read it. Other passages of the New Testament seem to be at odds with the principle stated so starkly here.24 But however much one might, or perhaps even should, desire to harmonize the teaching of this antithesis, the intensity of a disciple’s obligation to serve others must not be minimized. This teaching prepares for the next antithesis, in which disciples are not to hate their enemies but are to love both neighbor and adversary.
Love and Hatred . . . Unconditional Commitment (5:43–47)
JESUS BEGINS THE last antithesis by quoting one of the central truths of the Old Testament: “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor’ ” (5:43). Love for one’s neighbor was one of God’s commands through Moses (Lev. 19:18). When answering the test of a legal expert about the greatest commandment in the law, Jesus replied with the command to love God and to love one’s neighbor as oneself (Matt. 22:36–40).
The next statement of the antithesis, “hate your enemies,” is not found explicitly in the Old Testament. In fact, Moses directed the people to assist an enemy in need (Ex. 23:4–5). But as much as love of neighbors was at the heart of Old Testament teaching, God’s hatred of evil was also a central theme in the Old Testament. The psalmist states, “You are not a God who takes pleasure in evil; with you the wicked cannot dwell” (Ps. 5:4; cf. 45:7; Deut. 7:2; 30:7). God hates evil. In fact, the psalmist takes it one step further in the next verse: “The arrogant cannot stand in your presence; you hate all who do wrong” (Ps. 4:5). In turn, those who desire to be righteous learn to adopt God’s hatred of evil, so that the psalmist could say in another place, “Do I not hate those who hate you, O LORD, and abhor those who rise up against you? I have nothing but hatred for them; I count them my enemies” (Ps. 139:21–22; cf. 26:4–5).
Later groups within Israel took this further by identifying “neighbor” exclusively with those within their Jewish community and the “evildoer” as Gentiles or those outside of their community and therefore God’s and their enemies. The starkest extreme is found at Qumran. The Rule of the Community gives instructions for seeking God and doing what is good and just, with the purpose “that they may love all that he has chosen and hate all that He has rejected; that they may abstain from all evil and hold fast to all good” (1QS 1.3–4). The instructions then go one step further, “that they may love all the sons of light, each according to his lot in God’s design, and hate all the sons of darkness, each according to his guilt in God’s vengeance” (1QS 1.9–11).25 Because God hates evil, those who embody evil are understood to be God’s enemies. It was natural to hate God’s enemies.
But Jesus takes the competing attitudes of love for neighbor and hate for enemy and brings them together in a way that undoubtedly stuns his audience but is actually what God intended from the beginning: “But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (5:44). God does hate evil, but his intent is to bring reconciliation. As such, the old saying is true, “God loves the sinner but hates the sin.” That is what drives Jesus’ saying about the requirement to love one’s enemies. It is a radical saying in that it goes contrary to what was occurring in many quarters in Israel, but it actually preserves the love God has for all humans. All of God’s creatures are his own, and he loves them and desires that all will come to repentance (cf. 2 Peter 3:9). Jesus’ disciples are to look at people in this world as God does and to love them enough to reach out to them with the message of reconciliation, even to “pray for those who persecute” them as Jesus’ disciples.
When Jesus states “that you may be sons of your Father in heaven” (5:45), he is not giving the means by which one becomes a child of God but indicates that love makes explicit the relationship between God the Father and Jesus’ disciples. The children of Israel were God’s sons by his calling, and that calling included the obligation to carry out his will. But anyone who responds to God’s will in the ministry of Jesus is a “son” or “daughter” of the heavenly Father (cf. 12:48–50). That family relationship includes the obligation to act like a son or daughter, which means loving as the Father loves.26
Jesus follows up with two examples of God’s common grace given to all people, both evil and good, to demonstrate why his disciples are to love both neighbor and enemy. (1) God’s sun rises on both evil people and good people, and rain falls on both. All of God’s creatures are worthy of his care in this life. Ultimately each will be accountable for his or her choice of evil or good, and God will someday judge those who choose to do evil. But in this life, his common grace extends to all. It prepares for the extension of the offer of the grace of salvation, because of his desire that the evil and the unrighteous, the tax collector and the pagan, will all respond to his summons to the kingdom and so become children of the heavenly Father.
(2) Jesus next draws on natural relationships and how God’s love goes beyond normal human ties. All groups take care of their own members. Tax collectors love their friends and colleagues, their wives and children, who love them in return, so there is no special recognition for Jesus’ disciples in loving one another (5:46). Gentiles (NIV “pagans”) “greet” or extend peace and blessing on their own associates and family members (5:47; cf. 10:12), so bringing other disciples into the intimacy of Jesus’ community is nothing out of the ordinary. All groups take care of their own and to some degree look on those outside their group as “enemies.”
But God does not see the same groupings that humans have created. He transcends human boundary markers and loves all persons, even those who have rejected him. That is the kind of love Jesus advocates, which is the basis for the worldwide neighborhood of God, in which Jesus’ disciples have no enemies but consider all of God’s creatures worthy of our love. There will be a special love of Jesus’ disciples for one another as members of the family who do the Father’s will (John 13:34–35; cf. Matt. 12:46–50), but love is to be extended to all whom God has created. This sixth antithesis takes his disciples to the pinnacle of understanding the way that Jesus fulfills the Old Testament and the way that their righteousness as subjects of the kingdom of heaven will surpass that of the teachers of the law and the Pharisees (cf. Matt. 5:20).
Conclusion: The Pursuit of Perfection (5:48)
“THEREFORE” INTRODUCES A powerful concluding charge: “Be perfect . . . as your heavenly Father is perfect” (5:48). It is a fitting conclusion to the sixth antithesis, because the perfect love of God toward his creatures is the example of the love Jesus’ disciples are to display toward their enemies and those who persecute them. God always acts perfectly toward his creatures in love, because he is love (1 John 4:16). In the same way, if Jesus’ disciples strive to have the Father’s love for all humans, they will always give to others what they need from God’s perspective.
At the same time, this statement serves as a fitting conclusion to all of the antitheses in 5:21–47. To love one’s enemies is to pursue a primary characteristic of God (5:45), but Jesus’ disciples are to emulate God in every area of life. In the antitheses, Jesus has used representative selections from the Old Testament to clarify its intent as God’s will for his people. The Old Testament is a reflection of God himself. Therefore, as the disciples pursue its intent and motive as Jesus has clarified it, they are in fact pursuing the perfection of God himself. Matthew’s use of the future tense here (lit., “you shall be perfect”) has an imperatival thrust, as the NIV indicates.
But we may also see something of a goal and a promise in the future indicative. A present imperative, “keep being perfect” or “be continually perfect,” would place an impossible demand on Jesus’ disciples. Instead, the future tense holds out an emphatic goal that is to shape the disciples’ entire life—they are to set nothing less than the perfection of God as the ultimate objective of their behavior, thoughts, and will. Furthermore, the future tense also implies a promise, because the Father is not only the divine goal but also the divine enabler. “Jesus puts his command in such a way that disciples may look for divine help as they press toward God’s goal for them.”27
Jesus’ disciples are to pursue the perfection that is God himself. The word “perfect” (teleios) is also used in the LXX in Deuteronomy 18:13: “You shall be perfect before your God.” The word used in the Hebrew text (tamim) denotes the idea of wholeness or completeness (Lev. 23:15, 30; Josh. 10:13), specifying the soundness of sacrificial animals (Ex. 12:5) or the complete commitment of a person to God, including ethical blamelessness (Gen. 6:9; 17:1; Deut. 18:13; 2 Sam. 22:24–27). The Greek term teleios carries the same connotations: the end, completion, or complete thing, that which is made whole or perfect. But it can also indicate a person who has attained spiritual maturity.28 But with the Father as the goal, Jesus is not saying, “Be mature as your heavenly Father is mature.” He is saying, “Be perfect, like your heavenly Father.” The disciples are to pursue the Father’s perfection as the goal of their lives.
So Jesus’ saying is a command, a promise, and a statement of hope. His disciples are engaged in the process of regeneration, now made objectively real in a revolutionary way with the arrival of the kingdom of heaven. The necessity of the new birth to enter the kingdom of heaven (cf. John 3:1–7) makes possible, and real, his disciples’ transformation into his image (Matt. 10:24–25; Rom. 8:29; 1 Cor. 3:18). Since Jesus is both the perfection of the image of God in humans as a full human being and the perfect image of the invisible God as the divine Son of God (Col. 1:15–20), he is the ultimate example for his disciples to follow as they hear the command, “Be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” That statement implies a realistically ideal goal that Jesus’ disciples are to pursue with restful dissatisfaction in this life until their final perfection in eternity.
Bridging Contexts
THE ARRIVAL OF the kingdom of heaven in Jesus’ life and ministry is accompanied by extraordinary power and a revolutionary change of life—not the power of a mighty army or of the revolution of an armed insurrection, but the power to fulfill the Law and Prophets with a revolutionary transformation that exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees. With six brief antitheses, Jesus elevates himself above any of the religious leaders of Israel’s past or present and declares the essence of God’s will for all humanity.29 The inauguration of kingdom life does not enable Jesus’ followers to obey merely the externals of God’s commands, but it takes them to the very core of the Old Testament’s intent and motive so that they can obey God’s will from the heart.30
A radicalization of the Old Testament in Jesus’ disciples. With Matthew’s purpose to lay out the words of Jesus so that his disciples will have a guideline for their continual growing obedience to God’s will,31 he has distilled in the five discourses the essence of discipleship. The Sermon on the Mount is the key directive to understanding the way that kingdom life will transform Jesus’ disciples. If there is any truth in our earlier suggestion that the Beatitudes function as a sort of “preamble” to the SM, which itself functions as the “constitution” of the kingdom of heaven, Jesus’ declarations about the Old Testament and the righteousness of the kingdom of heaven in 5:17–48 may be seen as the “bill of rights” for Jesus’ disciples.
The Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution was adopted as a way of assuring that the new government would not thwart the intent of the framers to bring liberty and justice to individual citizens.32 Similarly, in Jesus’ declarations he reassures his listeners and chastens his opponents, who perhaps believe that Jesus’ announcement of the arrival of the kingdom of heaven will abolish the Law and the Prophets. Rather than abolishing the Old Testament, Jesus radicalizes it in the lives of his disciples as their progressive transformation fulfills its intent, motive, and purpose. The antitheses provide crucial examples of how the Law and Prophets are fulfilled in Jesus’ disciples and provide key directives for disciples of all ages.
Jesus likely gave many authoritative interpretations that confronted faulty interpretations and applications of the Old Testament, but Matthew records only these six antitheses. A brief summary of each illustrates the direction Jesus takes discipleship in the kingdom of heaven.
• True disciples not only avoid murder but are transformed so that they do not strip away the personhood and identity of others through anger or defamation (5:21–23), and they continually produce reconciliation in offended relationships (5:23–26).
• True disciples not only shun physical acts of adultery but are so completely committed to God’s purpose for marriage that they have eyes and hands only for a spouse (5:27–28) and discipline every thought and action to be singly focused on the spouse (5:29–30).
• True disciples not only respect the purity of the marital relationship but have God’s values for the original design for marriage and are unreservedly committed to its permanence and sanctity (5:31–32).
• True disciples do not need to give oaths in order to confirm their trustworthiness, because their faithful lives repeatedly confirm the reliability of their words (5:33–37).
• True disciples are so secure in their transformed kingdom identity that when they are wronged, they do not merely adhere to legal retribution but use every opportunity to serve others, both good and evil people, so that the reality of God’s grace in their lives woos them to the kingdom of heaven (5:38–42).
• True disciples not only love what God loves and hate what God hates, but they have the renewed heart of God that enables them to love the world of sinners for whom Jesus will eventually give his life (5:43–48).
• Climactically, true disciples have experienced the powerfully life-changing presence of the kingdom of heaven in such a way that their progressive transformation into the image of Jesus, the Son of God, secures their progressive growth into the very perfection of God the Father (5:48).
Internal heart attitudes and external actions. The reality of kingdom life affects both internal heart attitudes and external actions, because they are in a systemic relationship with each other. Jesus does not endorse one over the other, for both internal and external attentiveness are necessary for wholistic discipleship. However, the internal attitudes of the heart are the proper foundation and source of external actions. The heart that is properly rooted in and built on Jesus will produce good fruit and withstand the storms of life (7:20, 25). Thus, our discipleship to Jesus often requires us to focus on the heart attitude (cf. 5:3–10), which will naturally overflow into a witness to the world (5:13–16) and produce a life of righteousness that fulfills God’s will for our lives (5:20–48). This does not eliminate the need to be deliberate in our actions, because doing things out of a sense of duty (5:24a) and even with an eye on reward (6:18) can play a role in redefining our inner motives and make our external obedience more consistent.
The virtues of the Beatitudes are a foundational internal component for true discipleship, enabling us to repent and hear Jesus’ invitation to enter the kingdom of heaven. But they are also foundational for the heart and life transformation that is exhibited in the antitheses. I don’t believe that Matthew makes an intentional parallel between the eight Beatitudes and the six antitheses, but there is remarkable connection of emphases in them. The virtues of the Beatitudes provide impetus for the obedience of the antitheses.
• The poor in spirit (5:3) do not think more highly of themselves than they should (cf. Rom. 12:3), so they will not be inappropriately angry with or defame another person (5:21–26).
• Those who mourn (5:4) over the sinfulness of this world will have an eternal perspective on relationships that will prevent them from lusting for a person other than their spouse (5:27–30).
• Those who are meek (5:5) do not impose their will on others, so they will understand God’s purposes for marriage and will not seek to divorce a spouse (5:31–32).
• Those who hunger and thirst for righteousness (5:6) do not need an oath to vouch for their honesty but will always speak the truth (5:33–37).
• The merciful (5:7) do not retaliate, because they have been shown mercy and will in turn give mercy to others (5:38–42).
• The pure in heart (5:8) will love both friend and foe, the entire world for whom Jesus gave his life (5:43–47).
• The peacemakers (5:9) are sons of God and sons of their Father in heaven as they love those who persecute them (5:44–45).
• Those who are persecuted because of righteousness (5:10) have entered the kingdom of heaven through the righteous gift of God and have received the promise and goal and enablement of continual growth in the righteous perfection of the Father (5:48).
Our obedience to Jesus’ teaching should overflow from a heart attitude that is rightly oriented toward God. We must not be satisfied simply with following the letter of the law, which takes us back to the error of the scribes and Pharisees, but we must seek the intent and motive of the law. The antitheses are tangible, real-world examples of the obedience expected of all disciples—an obedience that becomes qualitatively more righteous as we operate from the proper motive behind them. Jesus did not come to abolish the intention of God as expressed in the law but brings us back to it, expressed most fully in his reaffirmation of the Old Testament imperative to “love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind . . . and . . . [to] love your neighbor as yourself” (22:37).
Contemporary Significance
OF THE DOZENS of books on my shelf that are devoted to the study of the Sermon on the Mount, one has the most intriguing title of all: Did Jesus Use a Modem at the Sermon on the Mount? I must confess that I bought the book sight unseen over the Internet because of the title. When I received it, I discovered that the book really isn’t a study of the SM but is rather a collection of devotionals. The author is a full-time computer trainer, who wrote the book originally as a series of “Internet Devotionals” for his Sunday school class, using a clever computer analogy to illustrate Christian principles for job and home. He includes a catchy little poem to begin the book:
Did Jesus use a modem
At the Sermon on the Mount?
Did He ever try a broadcast fax,
To send His message out?
Did the disciples carry beepers,
As they went about their route?
Did Jesus use a modem
At the Sermon on the Mount?33
Did Jesus use a modem?! My word! How far removed are the activities and technology of our everyday world from those of the days of Jesus! We live very different lives than in the first century, with instantaneous digital communication, nonstop international travel, and an expanding global community. We might think that our hi-tech sophistication would make Jesus’ teaching completely irrelevant. But how prevalent in your world are murder, adultery, divorce, fraudulence, vengeance, and hatred? Every time I turn on the television or read the local newspaper, these issues are everyday occurrences. So although we are worlds apart technologically from those first-century audiences, we are just as needy.
I am stunned by the brilliance of Jesus’ teaching that transcends these centuries, because for all people that have ever lived, in every culture on the face of the earth, his solution to the problems of humanity are immediately germane. He didn’t produce provincial religious practices that became antiquated after his place and time, but went to the heart of universal human dilemmas and provided timeless, supracultural guidance. The discipleship he advocates in these antitheses, and throughout the SM—indeed, in all of his teaching—is the same as discipleship today. Full books have been written on each of these antitheses, another indication of the continuing importance, but a few general comments will indicate their relevance for our developing discipleship.
Treating people with dignity (5:21–26). The striking feature of the first antithesis is its emphasis on the dignity of the human being created in the image of God. Not only are we not to take the physical life of a human, but we are not to do anything that demeans a person’s dignity. C. S. Lewis referred to this as the “weight of glory” in one of his most profound sermons, calling for us to pattern our lives so that we promote our neighbor’s glory. “The load, or weight, or burden of my neighbor’s glory should be laid daily on my back, a load so heavy that only humility can carry it, and the backs of the proud will be broken.”34
Another important feature of the first antithesis is our responsibility to be ministers of reconciliation so that human relationships reflect the glory of God. Jesus’ illustration of hurrying to make reconciliation even if the disciple is offering a sacrifice accentuates the urgency of maintaining healthy relationships. Religious activity that attempts to appease our relationship with God is meaningless if it is not based on purity in our human relationships. We are not to come to worship with the knowledge that we have treated someone wrongly.
As ministers of reconciliation, however, there are limits to what we can accomplish. We cannot force another person to forgive us. Sometimes it takes time for another person to trust us after we have hurt them. The obligation still remains for us to pursue reconciliation, but it may not be according to our timetable. That is why we should be so careful with our words and actions. We can never take back a word uttered, and a hurt inflicted often leaves lasting scars.
Jesus’ sayings require us to think carefully about what he is not saying. It is possible to be angry and not to sin (Eph. 4:26). Throughout Scripture we see evidence of righteous indignation against sin, which is called anger. Jesus demonstrated this in the cleansing of the temple (21:12–17), and in his parables God displays anger and wrath (18:34; 22:7). In the invectives against the religious leadership during his final fateful week in Jerusalem, Jesus referred to the teachers of the law and Pharisees as “blind fools” (23:17), using a related term to what he prohibits in 5:22. But this was not flippant name-calling. They really were fools, because they were blindly allowing their religious practices to distort their lives with God.
Jesus’ teaching is sometimes used to advocate opposition to capital punishment. But the prohibition of the Old Testament that Jesus continues to uphold is against murder, not killing per se. Moreover, Jesus is addressing personal activity, not governmental responsibility. The judicial taking of life in punishment for crime is authorized in Exodus 21 and is the most likely intention of Paul’s statements in Romans 13:1–5. There are four areas where taking of life is sometimes justified according to these passages: capital punishment, maintaining law and order, self-defense, and a just war. We will discuss this more fully when we address the fifth antithesis.
Purity in marriage (5:27–30). The second antithesis balances the stringency of the seventh commandment of the Decalogue, “You shall not commit adultery” (Ex. 20:14), with the radicalism of the tenth commandment, “You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife” (20:17). It is one thing for a husband to say that he has never committed adultery, but it is another to say that he has never violated the marriage through flirting with another woman or through looking at pornography. The apostle Paul understood the difference, because he viewed himself as righteous until he grasped fully the significance of the command not to covet. Then he saw the depth of his own sinfulness (Rom. 7:7–13). The arrival of the kingdom of heaven in Jesus’ ministry enables his disciples to have the kind of marriage that God originally designed. Following on the point of the first antithesis, to give myself solely and only to my wife treats her with the dignity she deserves as a woman created in the image of God. Anything less demeans her.
It is no coincidence that in the listings of qualifications for leadership in the church, Paul emphasizes the health of leaders’ marriages, so that they can be examples for the church of the depth of commitment displayed in their lives (1 Tim. 3:2, 12; Titus 1:6). There is perhaps no more powerful testimony to the reality of the presence of the kingdom of heaven than leaders who have an unreserved commitment to their spouses, which means to pursue an unqualified purity in all relationships.
I remember starkly the first time I saw a pastor violate this high calling. I had been a Christian only a couple of years and was recently married. The music pastor and a woman in the ensemble carried on a flirtatious relationship. Other people seemed to think little of it, but it turned my stomach. It was offensive to both of their spouses and cheapened the standards of the ministry of that church. Eventually they ended up leaving their marriages and essentially abandoning the faith. It started out as “just a little flirting,” but it ended up defiling numbers of lives. Jesus calls us to be severely honest with ourselves and to commit ourselves to our spouses with the same single-mindedness of commitment we have to him.
Faithfulness in marriage (5:31–32). Respecting the purity of marriage also allows Jesus’ disciples to understand God’s original design for marriage and to be unreservedly committed to its permanence and sanctity. The point of the third antithesis is to take the marriage covenant so sacredly that it should never be broken except when the most extreme conditions make it impossible to remain married. God has designed a pattern for the ongoing health of the human race. As a man and woman enter into a marital relationship, they commit themselves to each other as one indivisible unit. To be unfaithful to the relationship is to be unfaithful to God, who brought the two together. To stay firmly committed to the relationship—in action, words, thoughts, emotions, and priorities—is to experience the fullness of relationship that God has designed humans to experience and to use for the maintenance of life in this world.
I recommend that pastors spend time with every couple before they get married, discussing what it means to commit themselves to each other “for better or for worse, for richer or for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death do you part.” Those words can run off the lips pretty easily, but in our culture where approximately half of all marriages end in divorce, couples must understand what they are getting into and what resources are available to enable them to maintain their commitment. Moreover, couples must go into marriage without divorce being an option. Yes, Jesus gave it as an exception when blatant sinfulness has already destroyed the marriage bond, but an exception is not the same as an easy option when the going gets tough.
We should also be careful not to read into Jesus’ statement what he did not imply. He did not declare the exception of porneia to require divorce. Reconciliation and forgiveness are always the goal of any disruptions in the community of faith (cf. 18:15–35), including the biological community of faith. If all attempts at reconciliation fail, then divorce is possible; but it is not the first step, and it is not mandatory. Jesus also did not state that remarriage in the case of a legitimate divorce is invalid. Further, he did not state that illegitimate divorce and even illegitimate remarriage are unpardonable sins. While there are always consequences for going contrary to Jesus’ intentions for us, we must be careful not to create oppressive burdens that cancel out God’s grace and restoration.35 We will touch on this more fully in chapter 19.
Keeping our word (5:33–37). In the fourth antithesis, Jesus stresses that his disciples do not need to utter oaths as additional confirmation of their trustworthiness since their faithful lives continually confirm the reliability of their word. Once again, this is a test of the heart. What we speak with our lips comes from our inner being. A dependable heart will utter dependable words. A person with an honest heart will speak honestly. If we add to our “yes” or “no” anything, such as “Yes, I swear!” does it mean that when we don’t add “I swear” we don’t mean it as much? A simple “yes” should always be as binding as with any oath.
Truthfulness is one of the basic necessities in the daily activities of life (Ex. 23:1–3; Lev. 19:16). When each person’s word is honest, we are liberated to trust each other freely. When a person’s word or handshake on a matter cannot be trusted, we must bring in all kinds of legal safeguards, which complicate daily life. Taken further, we have to bring additional safeguards into our daily lives to protect ourselves from malicious people who through false testimony would harm our reputation, destroy our character, or cheat us out of what is rightfully ours.
But Jesus is not suggesting that all oaths are wrong. He himself testified under oath in his trial before the Sanhedrin (26:63–64). In a court of law a person is operating under the jurisdiction of governing authorities who are trying to establish human norms. To submit to taking an oath is complying with those norms and, by extension, is submitting to God (Rom. 13:1–7; cf. Heb. 6:16–18). For example, in the earlier days of the U.S. judicial system when a person gave an oath in court, such as, “So help me God,” it provided a standard of judgment. If a person lied under that oath before God, that person was liable to God’s judgment.
Paul also made oaths when he invoked God as a witness to try to convince his readers that his word was true (2 Cor. 1:18; Gal. 1:20). His readers were not familiar enough with his character to have justifiable trust in his plain statements. We live in a world where lying is so commonplace that we don’t know whom to trust. When a person doesn’t know us well, they have no reason to trust us. If we invoke God as our witness, we are saying that we really are Christians. If we lie, it is a demonstration that we don’t know God.
Securely serving one another (5:38–42). The fifth antithesis is one of the best known, though often the most misunderstood. “Turning the other cheek” has become a proverbial saying that some have used to promote absolute pacifism, others to stereotype Christians as wimps, and still others to excuse their own cowardice. Once again we must emphasize that Jesus is not countering the Old Testament law of retribution. Justice is as much a theme of Jesus as it was in the Old Testament. Sin needs a check against the destructiveness it can do in the lives of people. Sin must be punished. Jesus does not deny justice in any way; as he goes to the cross, he will be the ultimate payment for the penalty of sin.
What Jesus counteracts in the fifth antithesis is the way that the law of retaliation was used to excuse personal retribution. That’s when it strikes home to me. I’ve been a fighter most of my life. I have mellowed quite a bit, but I still want to get back at people who hurt me. I want to go after a person who blatantly runs a red light. I want to stop the snowboarder who blasts down a hill without any regard for the safety of the older person on skis. And I don’t think that I’m completely wrong for this. It is right to want to see justice prevail. But it is wrong when my ego gets in the way—when I retaliate to prove that I am strong, that I am superior to the other person, that I am the almighty righteous cop for God. In large part this is because of my own insecurity. I’m still trying to prove something.
There may be times that God will use me to bring justice, but for the most part that is left to governing authorities, whether the police on the street or the ski patrol on the hill. Instead, what is left to me is to give service to others so that they see a better way in me. That’s fundamentally what Jesus is getting at. As disciples of Jesus, we should be so secure in our transformed kingdom identity that when we are wronged, we do not merely adhere to legal retribution, but we use every opportunity to serve others, both good and evil people, so that the reality of God’s grace in our life woos them into the kingdom of heaven.
This is right in line with Paul’s teaching. On the one hand, he tells the believers in the church at Rome not to repay evil for evil, to be at peace with all people, and not to take revenge (Rom 12:17–19). He is telling them not to advance personal retaliation. Why? Because, on the other hand, he emphasizes that God’s wrath is the avenger (12:19–20), and he has established governing authorities for the task of executing judgment on evildoers (13:1–7). The individual Christian’s responsibility is to do good to our enemies (12:20–21).
This does not rule out, however, Christians serving on the police force or in the military. But they must keep their personal identity clearly rooted in Christ while they serve as tools of God’s righteousness. This can be a difficult balance to maintain, for it requires Christian officers to make value judgments about what is right or wrong from God’s perspective, not necessarily the civil law, as one might have to do if living in a communist country. It requires Christian soldiers to make judgments about what is a just war.36 The apostles were ready to disobey the Jewish governing authorities when ordered to quit preaching the gospel, because, as Peter said, “We must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29).
I almost hesitate to mention this next point, because it is easy to rationalize personal vengeance, but we might want to balance the fifth antithesis with other biblical principles. For example, Paul avoided scourging by demanding his rights as a Roman citizen (Acts 22:22–29; 25:11–12). This indicates that there are times when one should avoid personal harm, and there are times that we ought not let people walk over us, unless that is God’s will for us at that time. In another example Paul declared the rule to the church, “If a man will not work, he shall not eat” (2 Thess. 3:10). There were people in the church who were religious busybodies and were expecting the church to provide for them. Paul, however, expects them to get a job and provide for themselves. Giving or loaning to such persons would be foolhardy.
The fifth antithesis emphasizes the goal of servanthood in Jesus’ disciples. This means not to think first about our own harm but about the other’s good. We are to give to the person what is needed for his or her good. Our ultimate example is Jesus himself:
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. He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed. (1 Peter 2:23–24)
Loving as God loves (5:43–47). The sixth antithesis continues the thought of the fifth, but it focuses on the driving energy that enables Jesus’ disciples to give. We are to love as God loves. In the same way that today we might hear the word “love” used to express a variety of kinds of definitions, ranging from infatuation to brotherhood and goodwill to sexual activity, the words for love in the ancient world expressed a variety of attitudes, emotions, and behaviors. The New Testament writers took those same terms, especially the verb agapao and the noun agape, and reinvested them with new meanings befitting Jesus’ teaching and example.
This radical reorientation is found in two verses that are probably known so well by Christians that they lose their impact and meaning. The first is John 3:16: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, so that everyone who believes in him should not perish, but have eternal life.” The key to understanding this kind of love is the word “gave.” God the Father gave his Son, and the Son freely gave his life so that we might live. As Jesus was prepared to go to the cross, the apostle John tells us, “Having loved his own who were in the world, he now showed them the full extent of his love” (13:1). The full extent of his love meant giving his life for us on the cross. That is the profound nature of Jesus’ love toward us, and it becomes the example of the sacrificial love that we can have for others, including our enemies.
The other verse comes from Romans 5:8: “But God demonstrates his own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” The impact is felt even more deeply as Paul goes on to say, “For if, when we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life!” (5:10). This kind of love is a motivating force that includes emotional attachment and personal feelings, but it goes beyond those to the action of giving oneself for the benefit of others. To love one’s enemies doesn’t mean that Jesus’ disciples must condone their behavior, but it does mean that we are so engaged in their lives that we are used by God to reconcile them to him and to bring them into alignment with God’s will for their lives. We are to love as God loves.
There are two important clues to the reason why we must love as God loves. (1) We have a new heart of love. Through the new birth, a change has been made in the spiritual heart of the believer by God’s love for us (cf. Acts 15:9; also Ezek. 36:26). This new heart impels us to love with God’s love. We love, not because we are so loving but because God first loved us and made a change in our hearts, which impels us to love (cf. 1 John 4:12–21).
(2) We have an endless supply of God’s love by which the new heart can continually pour forth love. It is God’s love that has brought us life, and it is his love in us that guarantees we will love others, even our enemies. God is love, and he is infinite, so he has an infinite supply of love. As we open our hearts to him, his love pours into our hearts and then overflows to those around us.
But what does it really mean to love someone? I define love as an unconditional commitment to an imperfect person in which I give myself to bring the relationship to God’s intended purpose. Whatever it is that God has designed for my various relationships, I give myself to them unconditionally. That varies from the love commitments that I have for my wife or children or students or next-door neighbors. It will look differently as I give myself to people I don’t like or who don’t like me. But what I am asking in each is, “What does God want for this relationship, and how can I best give myself to bring it about?” It’s with this kind of guidance that we can give ourselves wisely and maturely, even to our enemies.
There are dangerous, devious forces at work in our own day, ranging from ultra-rightwing patriot militias and ethnic supremacists to ultra-leftwing gay activists and political anarchists. After the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, D.C., on September 11, 2001, we all understand much more clearly the reality of evil persons who declare us to be their enemies, although we have never even met them. There are forces in this world that are blatantly opposed to biblical truth and seek to undermine Christ’s church and his values. Yet, do we love them? Not just at arm’s length. Not just theoretically. But do we attempt to get to their hearts and win them for Jesus, even when they reject our love? I can’t always say that I do. But I must, because their eternal destiny is at stake. That is the astonishing love that Jesus demonstrated, even at the cross, when he said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing” (Luke 23:34).
Do we love the way Jesus loved? Probably not as much as we think we do, because to love with his kind of love will mean our full obedience to God’s will for our lives, the continuing transformation of our personal, corporate, and family life, and our dedicated outreach to the world around us. Ultimately, that is what it means to truly love God with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength, and our neighbors as ourselves.37
Be perfect (5:48). Jesus concludes the antitheses with his climactic summons, “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (5:48). In its simplicity this may be one of the purest statements of spiritual formation in all of Scripture. But we may become uneasy before its magnitude. Some are uneasy because it may imply that we can attain a state of perfection in this life.38 Others, rejecting that possibility, might become equally uneasy about postulating a goal that is unattainable in this life, because it could sound like wishful thinking. Or we might be uneasy about implying there are measurable points of progress toward a goal because of the cancer of comparison that can be produced in those involved in the process. Or we might be uneasy about the whole concept of “Christlikeness.” Is this really an attainable goal?
But the uneasiness may dissipate by considering an important theological distinction—positional and experiential perfection. Although it awaits Paul’s full theological development, positional perfection is the “imputed righteousness” of Christ that is the basis of the Christian’s justification in a forensic or legal manner. Experiential righteousness is the “imparted righteousness” of Christ experienced by the Christian in the process of sanctification through the work of the Spirit. The latter is in view in 5:48, but it assumes and builds on the former. This implies an imperfect process that goes on throughout this life and accepts it as a goal that will be fully realized only in the future.39
Instead of being uneasy before Jesus’ magnificent summons, we can practice a balance of what I call “restful dissatisfaction.” I rest content with what Christ has done in my life and with the growth that has occurred, yet at the same time I balance that contentment with the desire to move on. At any one point in my life I want to be satisfied with what God has been doing in my life, yet I want to be dissatisfied to the degree that I press on to complete maturity. I accept my imperfection, yet I have the courage to press on to perfection. I rest in the indicative of what God has accomplished in Christ’s work of redemption and regeneration (Titus 3:4–7), I rest in the assurance that transformation is, at this very moment, being accomplished (2 Cor. 3:18), and I rest in the promise that ultimately we will be like him (1 John 3:2). But I am dissatisfied when I see immaturity or impurity in my heart, mind, and life; I am dissatisfied with the state of this world apart from Christ; I am dissatisfied with loving less than the way Jesus loves.
If we focus solely on our positional perfection, we can become complacent about our present growth. If we focus solely on our experiential imperfection, we can become distraught over our present state. We must rest in the positional perfection that Christ has brought through the cross, while being relatively dissatisfied with our experience in this life, pressing on toward greater growth in Christ. It is possible for each of us to live with unrealistic expectations of ourselves and what God wants from us. We can put ourselves on a performance standard where we expect certain behavior before we believe we are loved or accepted. Or we can fall into the trap of unrealistically comparing ourselves with the accomplishments of others in such a way that our uniqueness is lost. “Restful dissatisfaction” means that when we have given our best in our discipleship to Jesus, we are able to find contentment in our growth and accomplishment.
At the same time we must refuse to capitulate to our imperfections and press on toward further growth. Jesus’ disciples experience the powerfully life-changing presence of the kingdom of heaven in such a way that becoming more like the Son produces the very perfection of God the Father. That is what I hear in Jesus’ summons to be perfect as our heavenly Father is perfect.