Resistance, Reproof, and Love of Enemies in Matthew's Narrative Ethic
A Paper for the International Consultation of Historic Peace Churches
Bienenberg, Switzerland
June 24-29, 2001
Presented by
Daniel W. Ulrich
Assistant Professor of New Testament Studies
Bethany Theological Seminary
Richmond, Indiana USA
Resistance, Reproof, and Love of Enemies in Matthew's Narrative Ethic
There is, to put it mildly, some apparent tension between the report of Jesus' teaching in Matthew 5:38-48 and the characterization of Jesus elsewhere in the narrative.(1)
Matthew 5:39 has often been interpreted as a call for passive non-resistance in the face of evil,(2)
and Jesus' refusal to resist arrest and crucifixion is consistent with that interpretation (26:47-56);(3)
nevertheless, Jesus' response to his opponents on other occasions seems far from passive or non-resistant. Indeed, the conflict between Jesus and Israel's religious leaders is "acutely confrontational" on both sides throughout most of Matthew's story.(4)
Already in Galilee, Jesus calls the religious leaders "hypocrites" (5:20; 6:1-17), returns their accusations of blasphemy (12:30-32; cf. 9:3), and dismisses them as "blind guides" (15:14).(5)
The conflict escalates sharply as Jesus confronts the leaders in Jerusalem (21:1223:39). His first act on entering Jerusalem is to challenge the operation of the temple with a provocative demonstration (21:12-17). After a series of intense debates in which Jesus reduces his opponents to silence (22:46), he publicly rebukes them in terms as harsh as these:
23:29 How terrible for you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites,
because you continue building the tombs of the prophets
and decorating the graves of the righteous.
23:30 And you say, "If we had lived in the days of our ancestors,
we would not have shared in the blood of the prophets."
23:31So you testify against yourselves that you are the heirs
of those who murdered the prophets.
23:32 Now fill up the measure of your ancestors,
23:33 you snakes, you offspring of vipers!
How can you flee from being condemned to hell?(6)
William Klassen probably speaks for many readers when he asks, "Did Jesus himself love his enemies? Matthew 23 seems to suggest that he did not."(7)
This paper responds to Klassen's question with an attempt to clarify Jesus' attitude toward enemies as portrayed in the Gospel of Matthew.(8)
Matthew portrays Jesus as a model for his disciples (cf. 10:25), and he characterizes Israel's religious leaders as hypocrites on the grounds that they fail to follow their own teaching (23:4). Therefore, an irreconcilable discrepancy between Jesus' commands and his actions regarding enemies would represent a significant flaw in the narrative;(9)
nevertheless, my purpose in this paper is neither to defend Matthew's literary prowess, nor to resolve all the tensions in his complex characterization of Jesus. Rather, as a Christian within the believers church tradition, I study the Gospels seeking guidance and hope for the church. My strategy as a reader includes "consistency-building," which involves interpreting diverse aspects of the narrative in light of one another.(10)
I will argue here that Jesus' teaching and example are each consistent with the command to "reprove your neighbor" in Leviticus 19:17-18, a text that Matthew cites repeatedly (Matt. 5:44-45; 18:15; 19:19; 22:39). The conclusion of the paper asks how Christians might apply Matthew's narrative ethic(11)
faithfully in today's globalized world.
Reproof in the First Testament
Matthew assumes that readers are familiar with the Septuagint,(12)
including Leviticus 19:17-18, which may be translated as follows:
19:17You shall not hate your brother or sister(13)
in your mind.(14)
With a reproof you shall reprove(15)
your neighbor,
and you will not acquire sin(16)
because of that one.(17)
19:18And your hand(18)
shall not take revenge,
and you shall not rage against the members(19)
of your people.
And you shall love your neighbor as yourself.
I am Lord.
These verses appear in the context of the Holiness Code, which is grounded in the theological presuppositions that Israelites must be holy like their God (cf. Lev. 19:2) and that God will act to preserve Israel's holiness by "cutting off" anyone who violates God's commands (19:8; 20:3, 5). The exact nature of this penalty is debated, but it is clearly severe.(20)
Leviticus does not define holiness solely in terms of cultic purity since it includes a deep concern for social justice. Indeed, social justice is a unifying theme in Leviticus 19:11-18, the immediate context of our unit.(21)
The refrain, "I am Lord," in 19:16c and 18c sets off 19:17-18 as a discrete
unit with the following parallel structure:(22)
Verse 17 |
Verse 18 |
|
|
Prohibitions |
Do not hate your brother or sister in your mind. |
Do not take revenge Do not rage against the members of your people. |
|
Alternatives |
Reprove your neighbor. |
Love your neighbor as yourself. |
|
Motives |
You will not acquire sin. |
I am Lord. |
This parallelism suggests that several key terms are synonyms. "Members of your people," "your brother or sister," and "your neighbor" are equivalent terms for compatriots in Israel, whose mutual obligations are emphasized through the use of kinship metaphors. The scope of the command is thus limited to relationships within Israel.(23)
The prohibited actions of "hating," "avenging," and "raging" each presuppose a situation in which interpersonal conflict threatens to spiral out of control. Finally, "reproving" and "loving" are presented as synonyms, with the implication that reproof is an aspect of love.(24)
The verb translated "love" (agapan) points to actions rather than emotions. It means, "to act for the benefit of others whether they deserve it or not."(25)
Reproof is consistent with love when its purpose is to benefit others by informing them of their need for repentance and reconciliation.
The motive clause in 19:17 indicates that someone who reproves another can avoid acquiring sin on account of that person. The meaning of that promise is debated, and it may encompass more than one type of sin. One possibility is that the sin is related to the secret hatred, revenge, and raging mentioned in 19:17-18. In that case, the motive clause suggests that the act of reproving a neighbor may keep the conflict from escalating to the point that both parties are guilty. Another possibility is that the sin envisioned in 19:17 is precisely the failure to warn one's neighbor, who may incur God's wrath as a result. The sin of failing to warn others is emphasized in Ezekiel 3:16-21, where the prophet hears that he will be held accountable like a sentinel for warning the people about God's approaching judgment. If Ezekiel fulfills this crucial task, then he will no longer be responsible for the deaths of people who fail to heed the warning, and those who do heed it will live. Like Ezekiel, the Holiness Code presupposes that God will judge unjust people severely, and that prospect helps to explain why the failure to reprove a neighbor may be considered a sin.
The meaning of reproof becomes even clearer as one examines its usage elsewhere in the First Testament. Israel's wisdom tradition used the Hebrew root yakâch and its Greek equivalent elenchein to commend disciplinary words and actions, whether from people or from God. These texts concur that the purpose of reproof is to educate people whose actions are considered foolish or wrong.(26)
In Deuteronomic and other prophetic literature, elenchein is also a positive term, even though it frequently connotes divine judgment, including judgment against nations. Prophets were often frustrated by their audiences' failures to heed warnings of judgment, and many declared God's intention to discipline the people more severely.(27)
In the Septuagint as a whole, elenchein covers a broad semantic field, including "bring to light," "expose," "demonstrate," "convince," "convict," "punish," or "discipline."(28)
and it has that sense in Matthew 18:15, which is Matthew's second reference to Leviticus 19:17-18.(30)
Since Matthew 18:15-20 gives explicit instructions regarding reproof, a translation
and brief analysis are in order:(31)
18:15 And if your(32)
brother or sister sins,(33)
go and reprove him or her between the two of you(34)
alone.
If he or she listens(35)
to you,
you have gained(36)
your brother or sister.
18:16 But if he or she does not listen,
take one or two others along
so that "every matter will be confirmed by(37)
two or three witnesses."
18:17 If he or she ignores(38)
them,
speak to the church;
And if he or she ignores even the church,
let that one be like a gentile or a tax collector(39)
as far as you are concerned.
18:18 Truly, I say to you,
whatever you bind on earth will have been bound in heaven,
and whatever you release on earth will have been released in heaven.(40)
18:19 Again, I say to you that if two of you on earth agree concerning anything you ask,
it will be done for you by my Father in heaven.
18:20 For where two or three are gathered in my name,(41)
I am there in the midst of them.
These instructions are part of an extended discourse on humility as greatness in the reign of heaven.(42)
Like the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 18 includes a thesis statement (18:3-4; cf. 5:17-20) followed by a series of elaborations. The elaborations in 18:5-35 lift up various marks of greatness in God's eyes, including hospitality and care toward vulnerable people, self-discipline, and unlimited forgiveness. As one of these elaborations, Matthew 18:15-20 calls disciples to serve one another through caring reproof whenever one of them sins. The immediate context of Matthew 18:15-20 emphasizes both the severity of God's judgment (18:6-9) and God's concern for those who may be lost (18:10-14).(43)
Likewise, the repetition of adelphos ("brother or sister") in 18:15,
21, and 35, helps to link our text with the call for unlimited forgiveness that
concludes the discourse. In the context of Matthew's story, the terms adelphos
and ekklesia ("church") identify both the sinner and the visitor as
disciples of Jesus (cf. 12:46-50). The sin, however, may be against anyone,
since the original text probably did not include "against you."(44)
The kind of reproof that Matthew envisions for the church requires humility of everyone involved. The protagonist in 18:15-17 (marked by "you") must go first alone to someone who has sinned, thus forgoing an opportunity to gain honor by shaming the other person publicly.(45)
Instead, the protagonist in 18:15-20 becomes vulnerable, risking sharper conflict and possible retaliation in order to open the door for repentance and reconciliation. If the disciple being confronted accepts the invitation to repent, then he or she is also demonstrating the kind of greatness taught in Matthew 18. If a matter reaches the later stages described in 18:16-17, the congregation is called to demonstrate humility by openly acknowledging the sin of its members, by standing in solidarity with the victims of sin, by repeatedly calling for repentance, and by forgiving without limit those who do repent. This ministry among disciples is a corollary to the task of evangelizing people who are not yet disciples. Even the decision to treat someone as a gentile or a tax collector is not a punishment so much as an acknowledgment that the offender is no longer acting as a member of the community.(46)
Matthew's story shows Jesus reaching out to gentiles and tax collectors (e.g., 8:5-13; 9:9-13), so the final step in the disciplinary process does not require shunning. The door remains open for communication as well as reconciliation.(47)
Dennis Duling has noted that strict disciplinary codes were common in both Jewish and Greco-Roman voluntary associations during the first century. In comparison with such codes, what is most striking about Matthew 18:15-20 is that there is so little emphasis on punishment and so much on mercy for those who have sinned.(48)
Even so, Matthew does not neglect other values, such as the integrity of the congregation. After the commands in 18:15-17 there is a series of conditional promises, the purpose of which is to empower the disciples as they seek to discern and fulfill God's will together. First, the disciples are promised the authority "to bind" and "to release." These technical terms allude to the disciplinary and teaching authority that rabbis exercised within their synagogues.(49)
The promises of answered prayer and of Jesus' presence are equally relevant to the disciples' need for collective discipline, although they could also apply to other situations.
We have seen that Matthew 18:15-20 calls for reproof within the community of disciples, not as a punishment but as a way to win back someone who might otherwise be lost to God's reign. Matthew's understanding of reproof involves showing others the reality of their sin, so that they will have an opportunity to repent. The goal of reproof dictates the spirit with which it is to be carried out: humbly, patiently, and with an eagerness to forgive.
Matthew's Teaching Regarding Enemies
The preceding study of "reproof" may serve as background for understanding Matthew's narrative ethic regarding enemies. Certainly it is intriguing that Matthew's most explicit and problematic teaching regarding enemies (5:38-48) includes a direct quotation from Leviticus 19:17-18. Could Matthew's command to love enemies also entail reproving them? A translation and analysis of Matthew 5:38-48 will help to answer that question:
5:38 You heard that it was said,
"an eye in exchange for an eye" and "a tooth in exchange for a tooth,"
5:39 But I am telling you(50)
not to compete(51)
with the evil person.(52)
Instead, when someone slaps(53)
you on the right cheek,
turn to him the other also.
5:40 And to the one who wants to sue you and take your tunic,(54)
leave to him your cloak also.
5:41 And when someone compels(55)
you to go one mile,
go with him two.
5:42 Give to the person who asks you,
and do not turn away the person who wants to borrow from you.
5:43 You heard that it was said,
"You shall love your(56)
neighbor" and "you shall hate your enemy."
5:44 But I say to you,
love your enemies and pray continually(57)
for your persecutors,(58)
5:45 so that you may be heirs(59)
of your Father who is in the heavens,
because he causes the sun to rise on the evil and the good,
and he sends rain on the just and the unjust.
5:46 For if you love the people who love you, what reward will you have?
Do not even the tax collectors do the same?
5:47 And if you greet only your relatives,(60)
what remarkable thing are you doing?
Do not even the gentiles do the same?
5:48 Therefore, be complete(61)
as your heavenly Father is complete.
The literary context for these verses is an inaugural discourse (5:17:29) in which Jesus teaches about the greater righteousness that is required of those who will enter God's reign.(62)
The main audience in the story is the newly called disciples (5:1-2), although crowds also listen and are amazed at Jesus' authority (7:28-29).(63)
Matthew's generalizing rhetoric invites the audience of the story to join the audience in the story by applying Jesus' words to themselves.(64)
Matthew 5:21-48 teaches readers about the greater righteousness of God's reign through a series of six antitheses. In each of these, Jesus cites an older interpretation of Torah followed by his own more radical pronouncement. Usually the word from Jesus continues in an elaboration that contains illustrative commands, reasons for obeying, or both. The last two antitheses, comprising Matthew 5:38-48, follow a similar pattern as they bring the series to a climax:
| Fifth Antithesis | Sixth Antithesis |
| Tradition | 5:38 | 5:43 |
| Pronouncement | 5:39a | 5:44 |
| Elaboration | 5:39b-42 | 5:45-48 |
This parallel structure is not absolute, since the two elaborations differ in the kinds of material they include. In 5:40-42, four secondary commands illustrate the idea of not competing with an evil person, but no motive is given.(65)
In contrast, 5:45-48 features explicit motives, including the desire to imitate God and to surpass Gentiles and tax collectors in righteousness. It appears, then, that the last two antitheses are complementary and that the motives presented in 5:45-48 also apply to the preceding antithesis (5:38-43).(66)
Another difference between the elaborations is that all the references to people are singular in 5:39a-43 but plural in 5:44-48. One possible explanation is that 5:38-42 is concerned with interpersonal relationships and 5:44-48 with relationships between groups, but that distinction is not as clear-cut as it may seem. Jesus uses a plural "you" (humin) in 5:38-39a, which sets the agenda for the elaboration that follows. In other words, Jesus continues to address the disciples as a community, and they remain representatives of the community even when they relate individually with "an evil person."(67)
Although "evil person" is singular (ponero) in 5:39 and plural (ponerous) in 5:45, Matthew's use of the same adjective for the disciples' enemies reinforces the connection between the fifth and sixth antitheses.
A study of poneros, among other key words, will help to clarify the meaning of both antitheses. As an adjective, poneros can mean "unhealthy" or "worthless,"(68)
but Matthew often uses it in an ethical sense as the opposite of "righteous" or "good." Jesus repeatedly characterizes his contemporaries in Israel and especially the religious leaders as evil (9:4; 12:34, 39, 45; 16:4). When poneros functions as a noun, it can mean an evil thing, an evil person, or the Evil One (i.e., Satan); in Matthew 5:39, however, to ponero almost certainly refers to a human being.(69)
The actions named in Matthew 5:39b-41 define the "evil person" more specifically as one who dominates others through the use of unjust power. A social superior or a soldier is evil when he abuses and insults a disciple with a backhanded slap on the right cheek.(70)
A creditor is evil when he or she uses the courts to take even the shirt off a disciple's back. An imperial soldier is evil when he oppresses disciples by compelling them to lug baggage for the legal maximum of a thousand paces.(71)
Perhaps readers are also to imagine that the beggar in 5:42 is a pest and therefore "evil."(72)
It is more likely, however, that the command of generosity toward beggars and borrowers relates to the theme of 5:38-42 in a different way. In each of the previous examples, a disciple is being oppressed by a more powerful person; in the final one, the disciple has the upper hand and can decide whether to act like an oppressor. Through generous giving, the disciple can demonstrate that he or she is not like "the evil person," whose self-interested loans and subsequent lawsuits are so devastating for the poor.
The most difficult term in 5:38-42 is undoubtedly me antistenai, which has often been translated as "do not resist."(73)
We have already observed that this translation is difficult to reconcile with the characterization of Jesus elsewhere in the narrative. A broad prohibition against all forms of resistance could rule out even prophetic witness and reproof. Other possible translations suggest a more limited prohibition: "do not resist violently,"(74)
"do not oppose . . . in court,"(75)
or "do not retaliate."(76)
The translation, "do not resist violently," has much to commend it. Most uses of antistenai in the Septuagint and Josephus refer to military action, although that meaning is less common in the New Testament.(77)
Josephus also reports many examples of non-violent resistance by Jews against the Romans,(78)
so it is not an anachronism to suggest that Matthew could have supported a similar strategy. A prohibition of armed rebellion would be consistent with the later scene in which Jesus forbids his disciples from using a sword (26:52). On the other hand, antistenai has a broader range of meaning than "resist violently," and it is not clear that this text focuses narrowly on a prohibition of violence. If that were so, the final illustrative command (give to beggars and borrowers) would be out of place. In addition, the prohibition in 5:39a stands in contrast to the lex talionis, which was a judicial procedure, not a military one.(79)
The disciples could pursue legal vengeance without engaging in a military uprising.
Scholars who favor a judicial setting note that several passages in the Septuagint use antistenai to mean "accuse in court."(80)
The word has that meaning in Deuteronomy 19:16, which is significant because Matthew's citation of the lex talionis probably comes from Deuteronomy 19:15-21. Nevertheless, the judicial interpretation of antistenai also fails to account for all of the illustrative commands in Matthew 5:39b-42. The only illustration that clearly has a judicial setting is the lawsuit in 5:40.
"Do not retaliate" fits the context better than the other options discussed above. It is a logical antithesis to the lex talionis, and it is broad enough to fit the first three illustrative commands. Even so, my translation ("do not compete") may convey a nuance that is lost in "do not retaliate." The added thought is to insist that the disciples must be different from their oppressors. Essentially, antistenai envisions a military, athletic, or forensic contest in which opponents vie for supremacy in the same arena. The competitors are mirror images of one another. Refusing to compete with evil people means that one does not mirror their oppressive actions. "Eye-for-eye" retaliation is ruled out, but so is imitation of the "evil person" in other ways, such as in one's response to beggars and borrowers. By refusing to compete with the evil person, the disciples can both demonstrate the greater righteousness of God's reign and resist evil creatively.
Walter Wink has helped to show the creative, assertive nature of the actions commended in 5:39b-41.(81)
Far from counseling the disciples to become doormats, Jesus suggests ways in which oppressed disciples may seize the initiative, call attention to their oppression, and declare their worth as human beings. After a backhand slap on the right cheek, turning the left cheek may be a defiant gesture. It says, "You did not succeed in humiliating me. Try again, only this time you must hit me as an equal." Whether or not the oppressor accepted the invitation to strike again, he would be acknowledging the other person's refusal to be cowed.(82)
Giving away one's clothing can also be a form of resistance. Many people in first century Palestine lost their ancestral lands and everything else they owned because of high taxes and harsh lending practices. A debtor who can only pledge an undergarment as collateral for a loan is in a desperate situation; but, when taken to court, he or she can still seize the initiative and register a dramatic protest. By giving both garments and thus stripping naked, the debtor can expose the cruelty of the entire debt system.(83)
Likewise, the disciple who insists on carrying a soldier's pack for a second mile is seizing the initiative, doing the unexpected, and possibly discomfiting an oppressor.(84)
In effect, the disciple says, "You have treated me like a pack animal, but you are wrong. My offer of a second mile is a sign of the humanity and dignity of the people whom you habitually oppress."
If Wink's interpretation is correct, then turning the other cheek, giving both garments, and going a second mile are all examples of reproof, not capitulation. Their purpose is to bring sin and injustice to light so that oppressors may be called to repentance. This interpretation is congruent with Matthew's command not to compete with an evil person, since it would be hypocritical for a disciple to reprove the sins of others while doing the same things (cf. Matt. 7:1-5). The examples in Matthew 5:39b-42 are only illustrative,(85)
and Matthew would encourage readers to think of ways to resist oppressors without becoming like them. Regardless of the methods used, reproving evil people requires courage and may result in further suffering; yet it is far from passive. It is an active, assertive form of love.
The final antithesis (5:43-48) provides further evidence that Matthew encourages reproof as a form of resistance against enemies. Jesus' pronouncement in Matthew 5:44 does not contradict the command to love neighbors in Leviticus 19:17-18, nor does it suggest a change in the kind of love that the disciples should practice. Rather, the pronouncement expands the range of people who must be loved.(86)
We have seen that Leviticus 19:17-18 affirms reproof as an aspect of love and as an alternative to hatred. That insight is assumed, not lost, in Matthew's exegesis. Although Matthew does not explicitly quote the command to reprove one's neighbor, he shows attention to the context of the love command in Leviticus 19:18. Matthew's emphasis on the imitation of God is derived from Leviticus 19:2 (as shown by the allusion in Matthew 5:48). Readers who were not familiar with the context of the love command in Leviticus 19:17-18, would still have the benefit of the reference to reproof in Matthew 18:15. The effect of Matthew's references to Leviticus 19:17-18 is cumulative. After telling readers to love their enemies, he reminds them that love may entail reproof.
We have already seen that the prospect of divine judgment adds urgency to the calls for reproof in both Leviticus 19:17-18 and Matthew 18:15-17. Indeed, Matthew emphasizes repeatedly that God will punish unjust and merciless people (e.g., 5:21-30; 6:14-15; 10:28; 11:20-24; 13:36-43). There is tension between these warnings of divine judgment and the description of God's universal love in Matthew 5:45; nevertheless, the parable of the weeds helps to explain how Matthew holds these views together (13:24-30, 36-43). Matthew still expects a final judgment in which God's angels will separate the wheat from the weeds, but until then God gives rain and sun to all alike. The disciples' role is not to carry out God's judgment, since they themselves will be subject to it (cf. 7:1). Their mission is to imitate God's love.
According to Matthew's reinterpretation of Leviticus 19:17-18, the scope of the disciples' love must now include their echthrous ("enemies"). As an adjective, echthros means "hostile" or "hateful." When used as a noun (as in Matt. 5:43-44), it implies that the enemy is someone with those characteristics.(87)
Since Matthew also associates enemies with persecutors in 5:44 and 10:36, it is worthwhile to ask who persecutes the disciples in Matthew's story and why. Jesus predicts the persecution of the disciples on several occasions. By piecing these predictions together, readers learn a story about the mission of disciples in the difficult time between the resurrection and the Parousia. Jesus expects his disciples to go out as defenseless missionaries (10:10) to Israel first (10:6) and then to all nations (24:14; 26:13; 28:19). Their message will be a call for repentance in light of the coming reign of heaven (10:7), the same message proclaimed by John the Baptist (3:2) and Jesus (4:17). Those who heed the gospel will be baptized as a sign of repentance (28:19; cf. 3:7-8). In their mission, the disciples will follow in the footsteps not only of John and Jesus but also of Israel's earlier prophets, whose calls for repentance led to persecution (5:12; 23:29-36). John, the quintessential prophet in Matthew's story, is arrested and killed by Herod Antipas after reproving Herod about an idolatrous marriage (14:4). John's fate foreshadows Jesus' arrest and crucifixion (17:11-13).(88)
Jesus warns the disciples that their treatment will be no better (10:24-25). "Wolves" will hand the innocent disciples over to councils, administer floggings in "their synagogues," and drag the disciples before governors and kings (10:16-18); nevertheless, they should not be afraid, but view their court appearances as opportunities for divinely inspired testimony (10:19-20, 26-28).(89)
The disciples can expect persecution not only from Israel's religious leaders but also from family members (10:21-23), people in all nations (24:9), and even traitors within the church (24:9-12). They will need a long prayer-list in order to include all "those who persecute you" (5:44).
Thus, the mission of the disciples is the narrative context within which Matthew interprets Jesus' command to love enemies. That mission will include prophetic reproof; and, like the ministries of other prophets, it will evoke persecution. According to Matthew 5:43-48, the disciples are not to hate their persecutors but to love them in a way that includes prayer, greetings, and possibly more attempts at reproof. There is always a possibility that assertive love can still lead to repentance and reconciliation, but the disciples' efforts will be measured by their faithfulness not their success (cf. 10:39).(90)
I will focus on four traits of Jesus as portrayed by Matthew. They are reproof,
vulnerability, trust in God, and forgiveness.
First, Jesus repeatedly reproves the religious leaders in keeping with
their common scriptural heritage.(92)
He initiates this ministry of reproof by exposing and answering the
religious leaders' secret hostility (9:3-4). He then responds directly to a
criticism that they voice indirectly to his disciples (9:10-13). As Jesus' conflict
with the religious leaders intensifies, they confront each other directly over
matters as important as the interpretation of the Sabbath (12:1-14). Although
these debates reflect sharp disagreements, they also reveal some important common
ground. Both parties turn to the Jewish scriptures for ethical guidance; both
view reproof as a normal response to disagreement; and both apparently agree
that love of God and neighbor are the most important commandments (22:34-40).
These fundamental agreements may help to explain why Jesus reproves the religious
leaders more often than he does the Roman authorities, even though the latter
are also involved in persecuting him (cf. 27:13-14). A common ethical heritage
facilitates reproof.
If Jesus views the disciples' mission as a continuation of prophecy in
Israel (5:12; 10:40-42; 23:34-36), the same can be said of Jesus' own efforts
to reprove the religious leaders. Jesus makes this point in the parable of the
wicked tenants (Matt. 21:33-46), which is based on the parable of the vineyard
in Isaiah 5:1-7. In Matthew's version, the parable becomes an allegory featuring
God as the vineyard owner, the religious leaders as wicked tenants, Israel's prophets
as the owner's slaves, and Jesus as the owner's son. God repeatedly sends prophets
to reprove the religious leaders, but the latter respond only with persecution.
Although God hopes that the religious leaders will respect the Son, they kill
him instead and evoke God's wrath. Matthew understands that Jesus, as Son of God,
is greater than a prophet (cf. 16:13-18);(93)
nevertheless, Jesus has a prophetic mission in relation to the religious
leaders. That mission is to reprove them for failing so far to produce the fruits
of God's reign.
Jesus' most provocative actions and words are consistent with this understanding
of his mission. For example, the act of overturning tables is not a serious attempt
to disrupt the operation of the temple, but a prophetic sign warning that stones
will soon be overturned (21:12; cf. 23:38; 24:2).(94)
Jesus interprets this sign with quotations of Isaiah 56:7 and Jeremiah
7:11. The first quotation offers a vision of the temple as a place of prayer for
all people, a vision that begins to be realized in Matthew 21:14-17. The second
quotation charges that the temple operation is oppressing the poor, and it recalls
Jeremiah's protest at the temple in which he likewise predicts its destruction
(Jer. 7:13-15).(95)
Jeremiah's reproof is not without hope, since he suggests that God
may continue to dwell in the temple if the people only change their ways (Jer.
7:5-7). Jesus does not offer hope that Herod's temple will be spared, but his
call for repentance is just as clear as Jeremiah's.
Matthew 23:13-39 is also an example of prophetic reproof from Matthew's
perspective. The word "woe" (ouai), repeated seven times in this passage,
echoes the laments of many prophets, who mourned for Israel as if their oracles
of judgment had already been carried out.(96)
Such laments may suggest that divine judgment is inevitable, but their
function is still to call for repentance in the hope that God's anger may be averted
or that the people may find new life on the other side of God's judgment. Therefore,
more hopeful messages often appear together with "woes."(97)
Some scholars have interpreted Matthew 23:13-39 as an immediate enactment
of divine judgment by Jesus.(98) It is
more likely, however, that the speech warns of a future act of judgment, meaning
that the religious leaders still have the opportunity to repent.(99)
Jesus presupposes that opportunity when he predicts an
ongoing mission to the religious leaders in 23:34.
Although Israel's prophets provide a precedent for Matthew 23, the harsh
tone of that speech remains troubling. I would not personally recommend it as
a model of loving reproof, but Matthew would probably argue the tone is warranted,
since from his perspective the religious leaders are not only failing to enter
the reign of heaven but are also locking others out and leading them astray (23:13-15).(100)
Love does not preclude intense anger, and angry words can sometimes lead
to healing. Even words like "you offspring of vipers" can have the redemptive
purpose of shocking listeners into repentance. In Matthew 23:33, those words echo
John the Baptist's cry for repentance and insist that the cry still remains unheeded
(cf. 3:7-10; 21:25, 32).(101) Matthew's
Jesus sometimes reproves his followers as sternly as his enemies. "Get behind
me Satan!" (16:23) sounds as harsh as "You offspring of vipers!" but there is
no doubt that Jesus loves Peter. In addition, the lament in Matthew 23:37-39 shows
that angry words can be motivated by love. Although Matthew does not explicitly
describe Jesus as weeping (cf. Luke 19:41), readers can easily imagine tears as
Jesus cries out, "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that keeps on killing the prophets
and stoning those who are sent to it! How often have I wanted to bring your children
together as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were unwilling!"
(23:37). The hen still loves her chicks. Finally, Matthew 23:39 stands like a
beacon of hope at the end of such a bleak speech: "You will not see me again until
you say, 'Blessed is the one who is coming in the name of the Lord.'" In other
words, there is still a possibility that the people of Jerusalem will welcome
Jesus' final return.(102) Since Jesus and the religious leaders both engage in stern reproofs,
we may ask whether Matthew draws any distinction between the ways in which Jesus
and the religious leaders approach their conflict. The answer is "yes," and
the warning against secret hatred in Leviticus 19:17 helps to clarify the difference.
Matthew portrays the religious leaders as trying to trap Jesus with flattery
and trick questions (22:15-22), while secretly they are plotting to kill him
(12:14; 21:45-46; 26:3-5, 14-16). In other words, they hate Jesus "in the mind"
(cf. Lev. 19:17). Jesus, on the other hand, is portrayed as reproving the leaders
openly and sincerely (Matt. 26:55). Instead of debating the religious leaders
on their terms, Jesus finds creative ways to assert the truth as he understands
it (e.g., 9:2-8; 21:2322:45). His deft use of rhetoric is similar to the
creative, non-verbal reproofs recommended in Matthew 5:38-42.
Matthew's Jesus also differs from the religious leaders in that he refuses
to use weapons other than words. He travels unarmed and tells his disciples to
do the same (10:9). His demonstration in the temple is certainly provocative,
but it does not involve lethal violence (21:12-17). (103)
His only punitive miracle is directed against a tree (21:19). At his
arrest, he reproves the disciple who tries to defend him with a sword, declaring
that he could call on legions of angels if he chose. He chooses instead to be
arrested without a fight. The chief priests' crowd does not need their swords
and clubs (26:14-56).
Jesus' reproofs of violent people leave him vulnerable to persecution,
which reaches a climax at his crucifixion. Even so, Jesus' refusal to defend himself
physically makes sense when one considers the role of God in Matthew's story.
Matthew's God is intimately involved in all of creation (6:26, 30; 10:29-31),
not protecting innocent people from all harm (10:16-22), but blessing those who
suffer faithfully with the joy of living in God's reign (5:3-12; 16:24-26). Jesus'
decision to confront his enemies vulnerably is rooted in the trust that God will
not ultimately forsake him (cf. 27:46) but will raise him from the dead (16:21;
17:9; 17:22-23; 20:19; 26:32). God's fulfillment of that hope vindicates Jesus
over his enemies and allows him to continue his work through the community of
disciples.(104)
The presence of the risen Jesus as "God with us" empowers the disciples
to follow Jesus' teaching and example as they fulfill their mission in the face
of persecution (10:26-31; 18:20; 28:16-20).
In addition to modeling reproof and vulnerability, Matthew's Jesus also
models forgiveness of enemies. Matthew emphasizes the blood-guilt of people who
had a hand in Jesus' death, including Judas, the religious leaders, the Passover
crowds, and Pilate (27:3-10, 24-26); but Jesus gives his blood a new meaning in
Matthew 26:26-29 when he announces that it "is being poured out in the interest
of many people for the forgiveness of sins."(105)
The reference to "many" echoes Jesus' earlier declaration that his death
will be a "ransom for many people" (20:28), and both sayings allude to Isaiah
53:12, where God's servant bears the sins of the people as a whole, including
those who put him to death. Therefore, Jesus' blood can signify forgiveness instead
of guilt.(106)
The risen Jesus shows his forgiveness of the unfaithful disciples
when he calls them "brothers" (28:10), and he clearly expects them to do the
same for others without limits (6:14-15; 18:21-35).
This re-reading of Matthew's story has shown that the tension between
Jesus' teaching and example regarding enemies is not as great as it may have
appeared initially. Jesus' example of love for enemies includes both stern reproofs
and gracious offers of forgiveness. When Jesus reproves the religious leaders,
he is both fulfilling Leviticus 19:17-18 and continuing the tradition established
by Israel's prophets. Meanwhile, Jesus' teaching does not require passive non-resistance
in the face of evil. Matthew 5:38-48 allows and even encourages disciples to
resist evil people by reproving them. Likewise, Matthew 18:15-20 instructs disciples
to reprove one another in an effort to restore right relationships within God's
family.
Reproof in a Globalized World: Pitfalls and Possibilities
Can the church today gain guidance and hope from Matthew's ethic regarding
enemies? I believe so, but I want to begin with some notes of caution. Critical
reflection and conversation are essential as we seek to apply Matthean ethics
in contexts that are quite different from Matthew's story-world. The following
comments and questions are meant to stimulate further conversation.
Although the power of collective reproof has been evident on several occasions
in the twentieth century,(107)
this approach is not without pitfalls, as Matthew himself would readily admit.
First, people who speak forthrightly against oppression are still likely to
be persecuted, especially when they follow Jesus' example of vulnerability.
Matthew would probably respond to this concern by saying that persecution is
part of the cost of discipleship, a cost far exceeded by God's rewards. Unfortunately,
the cost of resisting evil prophetically is often borne disproportionately by
those who are oppressed, and that cost may be higher for those who resist without
resorting to lethal violence. As someone who has so far lived in relative safety,
I hesitate to suggest a course of action that will cause others to suffer. Even
so, I hear Matthew's challenge to take the risk of resisting evil collectively,
prophetically, and lovingly. Since "love" means acting for the benefit of others,
I do not believe that it is possible for human beings to love their enemies
while also planning to kill them.
If people who reprove others are in danger of being persecuted, the opposite
danger is equally troubling: Those who reprove may become the persecutors. Tragically,
that danger has been realized through centuries of Christian anti-Semitism,
fueled in part by a misuse of Matthew's rhetoric against the religious leaders.(108)
Although Matthew's original readers felt persecuted by the dominant branch
of Judaism in their time, the tables turned quickly as Christians got the upper
hand. Professing Christians have also persecuted other religious groups, including
other Christians, with great violence. Matthew's response to Christians who
persecute others would probably be to reprove them sternly. We have seen that
Matthew 23 points in that direction since it begins with a warning that the
disciples must not become like the Pharisees in the story. Even so, there is
not always a clear line between reproof and persecution or between violence
and non-violence. For those on the receiving end, an attempted reproof can feel
like hatred rather than love.
Words of reproof are especially easy to misunderstand in an age when communication
is increasingly rapid, global, and impersonal--quite different from the face-to-face
communication that Matthew presupposes. Matthew 18:15-20 is a reminder that
Christians need to find accountability and support by gathering prayerfully
to discern God's will together; nevertheless, globalization increases our desire
and need to communicate more broadly. We may have the technology needed to communicate
words and images over a distance, but technology does not always convey the
nuances of care, challenge, and forgiveness that are essential aspects of reproof.
With or without technology, our misunderstandings, which are often rooted in
cultural differences, can lead to escalating conflict rather than to repentance
and reconciliation. The church has always been diverse, and diversity can be
a strength; but our current disagreements are often more divisive than constructive.
How can we, who are so divided, communicate reproofs lovingly and clearly in
a diverse, globalized world? And how can we hear loving reproofs in the spirit
with which they are intended?
If silence were the answer, then comfortable Christians could simply relax
and hope that our suffering neighbors remain silent as well. Silence, however,
is rarely a faithful answer to injustice, and it does nothing to correct misunderstandings.
Reproofs may go awry, but at least they have some potential to bring about changes
for the better. When compared with the alternatives of silence or violence,
reproof may be the best option available. Comfortable Christians can begin by
heeding the reproofs of suffering sisters and brothers.
Indeed, a renewed emphasis on reproof as a form of love can challenge today's
churches to resist evil more prophetically. Although Matthew 18:15-20 focuses
on the case of a disciple who has sinned, it has important implications for
peacemaking on a larger scale. A full application of this teaching would include
reproving Christians for our participation in various kinds of oppression and
violence, whether or not the victims are also Christians. Furthermore, Matthew
18:15-20 makes it clear that reproof is a collective responsibility of the church.
The church is called to stand in solidarity with the victims of sin while lovingly
and courageously speaking truth to their oppressors.
When Christians decide to engage in reproof, a few precautions will help to
guard against the pitfalls discussed above. First, there may be less potential
for misunderstanding when reproofs are communicated face-to-face between people
who share a common language and culture. Wherever possible, local people who
have experienced oppression should take the lead in planning public demonstrations
or other collective acts of reproof. Of course, Christians from other cultures
may be called to stand in solidarity with people who are reproving injustice.
In some cases, the attention and support of Christians around the world can
help to limit persecution. Since internal divisions continue to hamper the church's
witness, there is an ongoing need for ministries of reconciliation within the
church. There is also a need for interfaith dialogues in which all participants
have an opportunity to explain their beliefs and ethical systems. Christians
need to know the narratives that serve as the basis for Christian ethics, but
we must not assume that people of other faiths share the same narratives or
ethical standards. Reproofs are most likely to be "heard" when they are grounded
in the hearer's own faith. If people from other faiths become disciples of Jesus,
then there is a basis for further instruction in discipleship, including the
practice of reproof. Finally, as the immediate context of Matthew 18:15-20 suggests,
those of us who would reprove others should begin by correcting ourselves. Humility,
compassion, and eagerness to forgive are all essential ingredients of loving
reproof according to Matthew. If we approach others in that spirit, we may find
that they listen and that they also have important messages for us.
Scholars who have observed this tension include: William Klassen, "'Love Your
Enemies': Some Reflections on the Current Status of Research," in The Love
of Enemy and Non-Retaliation in the New Testament, ed. Willard M. Swartley
(Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox, 1992), 13; Daniel Patte, "'Love Your
Enemies' 'Woe to You Scribes and Pharisees': The Need for a Semiotic Approach
in New Testament Studies," in Text and Logos: The Humanistic Interpretation
of the New Testament, ed. Theodore W. Jennings, Jr. (Atlanta: Scholars,
1990), 81; W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, Jr., A Critical and Exegetical
Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew (Edinburgh: T&T
Clark, 1988), 1:563-64; and others cited by Davies and Allison.
E.g., J. C. Fenton, Saint Matthew (London: Penguin Books, 1963), 92;
Georg Strecker, The Sermon on the Mount: An Exegetical Commentary, trans.
O. C. Dean, Jr. (Nashville: Abingdon, 1988), 82-83; John Piper, 'Love
Your Enemies': Jesus' Love Command in the Synoptic Gospels and the Early Christian
Paraenesis (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979), 91. For a careful
exegesis which affirms nonresistance but not passivity, see Dorothy Jean Weaver,
"Transforming Nonresistance: From Lex Talionis to 'Do Not Resist the
Evil One,'" in The Love of Enemy and Nonretaliation in the New Testament,
ed. Willard M. Swartley (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster/John Knox,
1992), 32-71.
Craig S. Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1999), 201.
Jack Dean Kingsbury, Matthew as Story, 2d ed. rev. and enl. (Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1988), 120. Like Kingsbury, I use "Matthew" as a convenient and traditional
name for the implied author of the anonymous Gospel of Matthew. For a discussion
of the term "implied author," see Wayne C. Booth, The Rhetoric of Fiction.
2nd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983), 70-71.
As Kingsbury, Matthew as Story, 115, acknowledges, Matthew's portrayal
of the religious leaders is polemical and should not be taken at face value
historically. Although Matthew names various groups of leaders, they are stereotyped
to the point that they function in the story as one evil character. Matthew's
polemic reflects sectarian conflicts that developed in the late first century
between his audience and the synagogues led by Pharisees. For a helpful study
of the social background of Matthew's audience, see J. Andrew Overman, Matthew's
Gospel and Formative Judaism: The Social World of the Matthean Community (Minneapolis:
Fortress, 1990).
All translations in this paper are the author's.
Klassen, "Research," 13.
This literary study does not attempt to reconstruct a pre-canonical form of
the Jesus tradition, nor to discuss the attitude of the historical Jesus toward
his opponents. I believe that the canonical narratives have more authority to
shape the lives of Christian communities than any scholar's estimate of "what
really happened." On the other hand, historical reconstruction is a legitimate
and helpful endeavor. For various opinions about the historical Jesus' attitude
toward enemies, see John Dominic Crossan, "Jesus and Pacifism," in No Famine
in the Land: Studies in Honor of John L. McKenzie, ed. James W. Flanagan
and Anita Weisbrod Robinson (Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1975), 195-208; Richard
A. Horsley, Jesus and the Spiral of Violence: Popular Jewish Resistance
in Roman Palestine (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987); idem., "Ethics
and Exegesis: 'Love Your Enemies' and the Doctrine of Nonviolence," in The
Love of Enemy and Nonretaliation in the New Testament, ed. Willard M. Swartley
(Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox, 1992), 72-101; Richard Horsley with
John S. Hanson, Bandits, Prophets, and Messiahs: Popular Movements in the
Time of Jesus (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988); Walter Wink, "Neither
Passivity nor Violence: Jesus' Third Way (Matt: 5:38-42 par.)," in The Love
of Enemy and Nonretaliation in the New Testament, ed. Willard M. Swartley
(Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox, 1992), 102-125.
Such a discrepancy would not be in keeping with Matthew's genre of a bios
(or ancient biography), in which collected narrative and speech materials typically
reinforce and interpret one another. The function of both types of material
is "the historical legitimation (or discrediting) or a social belief/value system
personified by the subject of the biography." See David Aune, The New Testament
in Its Literary Environment (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1987), quotation
from 35. Also see Richard A. Burridge, What Are the Gospels? A Comparison
with Graeco-Roman Biography (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992);
Philip L. Schuler, A Genre for the Gospels: The Biographical Character of
Matthew (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982); Sherrie Ann Tuck, "The Form and
Function of Sayings-Material in Hellenistic Biographies of Philosophers" (Ph.D.
diss., Harvard University, 1985).
Wolfgang Iser, The Act of Reading: A Theory of Aesthetic Response
(Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1978), 34, 67, 129, argues that
"consistency-building" is a habitual and necessary response by readers to any
work of literature and that competent readers fill gaps in the narrative using
the "extra-textual repertoire," meaning all the background information that
is assumed in the text.
Matthew has constructed a "narrative ethic" since his ethical instructions
are embedded in, and interpreted by, a narrative context. For a modern example
of narrative ethics, see Stanley Hauerwas, A Community of Character: Toward
a Constructive Christian Social Ethic (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre
Dame Press, 1981).
Davies and Allison, Matthew, 1:34-57, list more than 120 possible
allusions to the Hebrew Bible or the Septuagint. Matthew's translations of Hebrew
and Aramaic words (1:23; 27:33; 27:46) imply that he could not count on readers
to understand those languages.
Although adelphos ("brother") is masculine, Greek authors and translators
assumed that the masculine gender included the feminine.
The phrase te dianoia ("in the mind") often refers to internal speech,
thoughts, or attitudes, as opposed to words spoken openly. See, for example,
Gen. 17:17; 24:45.
The Greek phrase elegmo elenxeis ("with a reproof you shall reproof")
is a rather wooden translation of the Hebrew hôkech tôkiyach,
which combines the infinitive absolute with a finite form of the same verb.
In Hebrew, this construction adds emphasis to the verb (i.e., "you shall surely
reprove").
The future indicative can indicate either a promise or a command. Here the
context suggests a promise that is contingent on obedience to the preceding
command.
Literally "him."
The Masoretic text lacks the Septuagint's sou he cheir ("your hand")
as the subject of the verb.
Literally "sons."
See Gerhard von Rad, Old Testament Theology (New York: Harper &
Row, 1962), 1:264, n. 182; Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16: A New Translation
with Introduction and Commentary (New York: Doubleday, 2000), 457-460.
Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 17-22: A New Translation with Introduction and
Commentary. Anchor Bible, vol. 3a (New York: Doubleday, 2000), 1655.
Milgrom, Leviticus 17-22, 1646.
Milgrom, Leviticus 17-22, 1647, 1655. Note that Lev. 19:34
also commands love for "the alien who resides among you."
According to Hermann L. Strack and Paul Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen
Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch (Munich: C. H. Beck, 1961), 1:787-790,
ancient rabbinic interpretations of Lev. 19:17-18 emphasized that discipline
is an essential aspect of love.
Cf. Ethelbert Stauffer, "Agapo, agape, agapetos," in Theological
Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel and Geoffrey W. Bromiley
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964), 1:37 (not a direct quotation).
E.g., Psa. 94:12; 141:5; Prov. 3:11; 9:7-8; 10:10; 15:12; 19:25; 24:25; 28:23;
Wisdom 4:20; Sirach 18:13; 19:13-17; 20:2.
E.g., 2 Sam. 7:14; Amos 5:10; Hab. 1:12; Isa. 2:4; 11:4; Jer. 2:19; Ezek. 3:26.
Walter Bauer et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other
Early Christian Literature, 2d ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1979), 249
Friedrich Büchsel, "Elencho, elenxis, elenchos, elegmos," in
Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel and
Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964), 2:474.
Lev. 19:17 uses the future indicative of elenchein ("reprove") in
an imperatival sense, and Matt. 18:15 has the aorist imperative (elenxon);
nevertheless, the use of the same verb root combined with adelphos
("brother") and the common concern for reconciliation suggests a deliberate
allusion. See Wolfgang Trilling, Hausordnung Gottes: Eine Auslegung von
Matthäus 18 (Düsseldorf: Patmos-Verlag, 1960), 43; Wilhelm Pesch,
Matthäus der Seelsorger: Das neue Verständnis der Evangelien dargestellt
am Beispiel von Matthäus 18 (Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk,
1966), 39; William G. Thompson, Matthew's Advice to a Divided Community.
Mt. 17,2218,35 (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1970), 179.
For a more complete analysis of Matthew 18 in its literary context, see Daniel
W. Ulrich, "True Greatness: Matthew 18 in Its Literary Context" (Ph.D. diss.,
Union Theological Seminary in Virginia, 1997).
Here and throughout 18:15-17, the second person pronouns are singular.
Some manuscripts include eis se ("against you"). See below for a discussion
of this variant.
Literally, "between him and you."
Here ean sou akouse ("if he or she listens to you") connotes more
than just the physical act of hearing. The hope put forth in this text is that
the one who has sinned will heed the reproof, repent, and be restored to God's
family. That restoration is signaled by the word ekerdesas ("you have
gained"). See Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:783.
David Daube, "Kerdaino as a Missionary Term," Harvard Theological
Review 40 (1947): 109-120, argues that kerdaino is used here and
elsewhere in the New Testament as a technical term for winning someone for the
reign of God through a witness characterized by humility (cf. 1 Cor. 9:19-22;
1 Peter 3:1).
Literally, "on the mouths of two or three witnesses."
In comparison with me akouse ("does not listen") in 18:16, parakouse
("ignores") here implies a more deliberate refusal to listen. See Davies and
Allison, Matthew, 2:785.
Literally, "like the gentile and the tax collector."
Both estai dedemena ("will have been bound") and estai lelumena
("will have been released") are in the periphrastic future perfect tense, which
can be similar in meaning to the simple future ("will remain bound" and "will
remain released"). Nevertheless, I agree with Julius R. Mantey, "Distorted Translations
in John 20:23; Matthew 16:18-19 and 18:18," Review and Expositor: A Baptist
Theological Journal 78 (1981): 409-416, that the future perfect probably
implies a prior decision by God, so that the disciples' task is to discern God's
will, not to determine it.
"In my name" (eis to emon onoma) expresses the reason or basis for
the gathering (cf. 10:42). See Thompson, Advice, 196-197.
Regarding this theme, see Ulrich, "True Greatness," 25-31, 201-202; Richard
A. Edwards, Matthew's Narrative Portrait of the Disciples: How the Text-Connoted
Reader is Informed (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 1997),
96.
Thompson, Advice, 176, points out that Matthew 18:15-20 is linked
to the parable of the stray sheep by its grammatical structure. The series of
conditional sentences, which begins in 18:12-13 and continues in 18:15-20, encourages
readers to interpret the disciplinary instructions in light of the parable.
The phrase eis se ("against you") is missing from some key early manuscripts
and was probably added by copyists due to the influence of Matt. 18:21. Even
if the phrase is original, the context suggests that all disciples share responsibility
for initiating reproof (cf. 18:10-14). For arguments in favor of the originality
of eis se, see Robert Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His Literary
and Theological Art (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 367; Davies and Allison,
Matthew, 2:782; and Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the
Greek New Testament. London: United Bible Societies, 1971), 41. In support
of the shorter reading, see Eduard Schweizer, The Good News According to
Matthew, trans. David E. Green (Atlanta: John Knox, 1975), 370;
David Hill, The Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972), 275;
Gardner, Matthew, 281; Parackel K. Mathew, "Authority and Discipline:
Matthew 16:17-19 and 18:15-18 and the Exercise of Authority and Discipline in
the Matthean Community," Communio Viatorum: A Theological Quarterly
28 (1985): 119-25; Estella B. Horning, "The Rule of Christ: An Exposition of
Matthew 18:15-20," Brethren Life and Thought 38 (1993): 71.
On the competition for honor in first century Mediterranean cultures and its
relationship to Matthew, see Jerome H. Neyrey, Honor and Shame in the Gospel
of Matthew (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox, 1998), 29-32.
Marlin Jeschke, Discipling in the Church: Recovering a Ministry of the
Gospel, 3d ed. rev. and enl. (Scottdale, PA: Herald, 1988), 17, 73, 87-89.
Scholars who take this position include Donald Senior, "Matthew 19:21-34,"
Interpretation 41 (1987): 404; Thompson, Advice, 185; H. N.
Ridderbos, Matthew, trans. Ray Togtman (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1987),
185; and George T. Montague, Companion God: A Cross-Cultural Commentary
on the Gospel of Matthew (New York: Paulist, 1989), 201.
Dennis C. Duling, "Matthew 18.15-17: Conflict, Confrontation, and Conflict
Resolution in a 'Fictive Kin' Association," in SBL 1998 Seminar Papers Part
One (Atlanta: Scholars, 1998), 253-295. Unlike their Greco-Roman counterparts,
Jewish associations such as the Qumran community, rabbinic synagogues, and early
Christian communities emphasized the reproof of members in keeping with their
interpretations of Leviticus 19:17-18.
These terms could refer to two types of decisions: (1) whether a given action
was acceptable under the law or (2) whether an offender should be punished or
forgiven. See Günther Bornkamm, "The Authority to 'Bind' and 'Loose' in
the Church in Matthew's Gospel: The Problem of Sources in Matthew's Gospel,"
trans. Rose Moehike and David G. Buttrick, in Jesus and Man's Hope,
ed. David G. Buttrick (Pittsburgh: Perspective, 1970), 1:46; J. D. M. Derrett,
"Binding and Loosing (Matt 16:19; 18:18; John 29:23)," Journal of Biblical
Literature 102 (1983): 112-117; and Andrew T. Lincoln, "Matthew--A Story
for Teachers?" in The Bible in Three Dimensions, ed. D. J. A. Clines,
S. E. Fowl, and S. E. Porter (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990), 104-125.
Here and in 5:38, the second person pronouns are plural. The pronouns in 5:39-42
are all singular.
See below for possible translations of me antistenai ("do not compete").
See below for possible translations of to ponero ("evil person").
Most later manuscripts have the future tense: rapisei ("will slap").
The present tense, found in some important early manuscripts, may imply that
the slapping is repeated.
The chitona ("tunic") was an inner garment, worn next to the skin
by both men and women. See Bauer, Lexicon, 882.
The Persian loan word angareuein ("compel") alludes to the right of
imperial soldiers to force local civilians into service for a limited time.
See Wink, "Third Way," 108-112.
In agreement with the quotation from Lev. 19:18, the pronouns translated "your"
in this verse are singular. The remaining second person pronouns in Matt. 5:43-48
are plural.
The imperatives agapate ("love") and proseuchesthe ("pray")
are both in the present tense, which in this context implies continuous or repeated
action.
Many later manuscripts include phrases derived from the parallel passage in
Luke 6:27-28.
Literally, "sons."
Literally, "brothers."
Both the Greek word teleios and the English word "perfect" can mean
"complete." In context, the passage probably calls for disciples to imitate
the "completeness" or unlimited nature of God's love. See Gardner, Matthew,
111.
Matt. 5:17-20 is often understood as a thesis statement for the Sermon on the
Mount. Regarding the theme, cf. Kingsbury, Matthew as Story, 112; Gardner,
Matthew, 102-103; Robert A. Guelich, The Sermon on the Mount: A
Foundation for Understanding (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1982), 237-238.
Weaver, "Nonresistance," 48-49, 66.
Generalizing rhetoric includes phrases such as "everyone who," "all who," "wherever,"
etc. On the effect of Matthew's generalizing rhetoric and second person address,
see Kingsbury, Matthew as Story, 105-113; David Howell, Matthew's
Inclusive Story: A Study in the Narrative Rhetoric of the First Gospel
(Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1980), 106, 172-174, 218-221, 225. In
addition, Matthew's final scene makes it clear that the intended readers are
disciples-in-training, who are expected to learn and obey Jesus' commands (28:16-20).
Davies and Allison, Matthew, 1:546.
Weaver, "Nonresistance," 57.
Cf. Weaver, "Nonresistance," 51, 82, and note in addition, that Matthew's original
readers did not think of people primarily as individuals but as members of a
group. See Bruce J. Malina, The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural
Anthropology (Louisville, KY: John Knox, 1981), 51-70, for helpful reflections
on the differences between modern western individualism and the dyadic understanding
of personhood that was typical of ancient Mediterranean cultures.
Bauer, Lexicon, 690-691.
Weaver, "Nonresistance," 67-68, note 83.
Wink, "Third Way," 104-105, explains that the left hand was considered unclean
and would not have been used to strike another person. Therefore, Matthew envisions
a backhanded slap, the usual way of putting social inferiors in their place.
Stiff fines and other punishments discouraged people from treating equals in
this way, but the physical abuse of wives, children, and slaves was common.
See Wink, "Third Way," 106-111, for impressive descriptions of the social context
of these sayings. Horsley, "Ethics," 88, argues that the social context is limited
to interpersonal conflicts within a local village, but he reaches that conclusion
only by excluding Matt. 5:41 as a Matthean addition.
Weaver, "Nonresistance," 53; Gardner, Matthew, 109. Other scholars
see the fourth example as a non sequitur, the result of faulty editing; cf.
Guelich, Sermon, 223; Davies and Allison, Matthew, 1:547.
The Authorized, Revised Standard, and New Revised Standard, and New International
Versions all maintain this translation, which is also supported by Weaver, "Nonresistance,"
51.
Wink, "Third Way," 115 (emphasis original).
Guelich, Sermon, 220 (emphasis original). See also; Stuart D. Currie,
"Matthew 5:39a--Resistance or Protest?" Harvard Theological Review
57 (1964): 140-145; Schweizer, Matthew, 129; Davies and Allison, Matthew,
1:543.
Hans Dieter Betz, The Sermon on the Mount (Minneapolis: Fortress,
1995), 280.
Wink, "Third Way," 114. New Testament uses with this meaning probably include
Rom. 13:2 and Eph. 6:13, although the latter refers to spiritual warfare.
See Josephus, Jewish War 2.169-177, 193-200, 230-231; Antiquities
18.55-62, 272-274, 287. Wink, "Third Way," 125, n. 46, cites some of this literature.
Also see Horsley, Bandits, 38-40; and Horsley, Spiral of Violence,
99.
Guelich, Sermon, 220; Weaver, "Nonresistance," 41.
See Guelich, Sermon, 220, and note that antistenai is also
used in a judicial sense in Isa. 3:9; 50:8; 59:12; Judith 8:28; Job 9:19; Sirach
8:2.
I grateful for Wink's interpretation of the Q tradition behind Matthew 5:39b-41,
but I disagree with his claim that the canonical text of Matthew obscures the
historical Jesus' way of non-violent resistance ("Third Way," 113-117). If that
claim can be refuted through careful study of the canonical text, the result
could be to strengthen Wink's case for non-violent resistance as a biblical
response to oppression.
Wink, "Third Way," 104-105.
Wink, "Third Way," 106-108. Wink argues based on Luke 6:29b that in Q the lawsuit
was for the outer garment.
Wink, "Third Way," 108-112, notes that Roman soldiers faced severe punishments
if they forced civilians to go beyond the legal limit of one mile. A soldier
offered extra help would have to decide whether it was worth the risk.
Cf. Robert H. Tannehill, The Sword of His Mouth (Philadelphia: Fortress,
1975), 72.
Matthew rightly understands that the scope of the love command in Lev. 19:17-18
is limited to "neighbors," meaning compatriots. That limitation may have inspired
the further message from the tradition that God's people are to hate their enemies.
Many commentators have observed that there is no specific First Testament command
to hate enemies, although some passages may point in that direction. Davies
and Allison, Matthew, 1:549, cite Deut. 7:2; 20:16; 23:4, 7; 30:7;
Psa. 26:5; 137:7-9; 139:19-22. I would add the Greek translation of Psa. 97:10a
(96:10a in the LXX), which reads hoi agapontes ton kurion miseite poneron
("You who love the Lord hate evil," or even, "You who love the Lord must hate
an evil person").
Bauer, Lexicon, 331.
Kingsbury, Matthew as Story, 74.
Dorothy Jean Weaver, Matthew's Missionary Discourse: A Literary-Critical
Analysis (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990), 95, 101-102.
Weaver, Missionary Discourse, 101.
See Mark Allan Powell, "The Religious Leaders in Matthew's Gospel: A Literary-
Critical Study," (Ph.D. diss., Union Theological Seminary in Virginia, 1988);
Kingsbury, Matthew as Story, 115-127.
E.g., see Matt. 9:4-6; 9:12-13; 12:3-8; 12:11-12; 12:25-37; 12:39-45; 15:3-9;
16:2-4; 19:4-9; 19:21; 21:12-13; 21:16; 21:24-44; 22:18-22; 22:29-32; 22:37-40;
22:41-45; 23:1-39; 26:64.
Cf. Kingsbury, Matthew as Story, 75.
E. P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus (London: The Penguin
Press, 1993), 257; Gardner, Matthew, 316.
Gardner, Matthew, 314-315.
Eg., Isa. 3:11; 5:8-24; 10:1-4; Jer. 13:27; Hos. 7:13; 9:11-12;
Amos 5:16; 6:1. See also Keener, Matthew, 547.
E.g., Isa. 4:2-6; 10:20; Jer. 13:27; Hos. 11:1-12; Amos 5:14-15;
Mic. 7:1, 7-20.
The possibility was raised by colleagues while discussing a draft
of this paper at the International Consultation of Historic Peace Churches in
Bienenberg, Switzerland, 25-29 June 2001. Also see, Davies and Allison, Matthew,
1:564.
Matthew typically associates divine judgment with the Parousia
(e.g., 13:36-43; 19:27-30; 24:3-8; 25:31-46).
Davies and Allison, Matthew, 1:564.
Kingsbury, Matthew as Story, 117.
Keener, Matthew, 558-559.
Robert R. Beck, Nonviolent Story: Narrative Conflict Resolution in the
Gospel of Mark (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1996), 114-129, draws a similar conclusion
in his exegesis of Mark's narrative.
Kingsbury, Matthew as Story, 90-92.
On Matthew's interpretation of Jesus' blood, see Timothy B. Cargal, "'His Blood
Be Upon Us and Upon our Children': A Matthean Double Entendre?" New Testament
Studies 37 (1991): 112; John Paul Heil, The Death and Resurrection
of Jesus: A Narrative-Critical Reading of Matthew 26-28 (Minneapolis: Augsburg
Fortress, 1991), 76; Raymond E. Brown, The Death of the Messiah: A Commentary
on the Passion Narratives in the Four Gospels (New York: Doubleday, 1994),
1:839; and John T. Carroll and Joel B. Green, The Death of Jesus in Early
Christianity (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995), 48. Cargal notes that the
reference to "innocent blood" in Matt. 27:4 may allude to the prayer for the
forgiveness of blood-guilt in Deut. 21:8.
Gardner, Matthew, 375.
I am thinking especially of the movement for Indian independence, the U.S.
civil rights movement, the non-violent opposition to Communist regimes in East
Germany and Poland, and the struggle against apartheid in South Africa.
For an acknowledgment and helpful response to this misuse of Matthew's Gospel,
see Gardner, Matthew, 339-40, 417-418; also see Patte, "Love," 81-96.