|
footstool”) and Ps 48:2 (“Mount Zion, the city of the great King”). The oath
by one’s head¹² might have been given parallel treatment, since the head
too is God’s creation, but the point is made more obliquely by pointing out
that you have no power over your own head; the implication is that it is
God, not you, who determines the color of your hair (some early patristic
interpreters took this verse as a ruling against the use of hair-dye!), since he
is its creator and sustainer. All such surrogate oaths display not reverence
but theological superficiality.
37 Jesus’ prohibition of swearing is based on the assumption that God
requires truthfulness. A simple Yes or No should be all that is needed.¹²⁷ As
soon as it is necessary to bolster it with an oath in order to persuade others
to believe what is said, the ideal of transparent truthfulness has been
compromised.¹²⁸ The need for such an addition is “from evil:”¹² it betrays
our failure to live up to God’s standard of truthfulness. The option of
translating “from the Evil One” (see p. 193, n. 55) would not essentially
change the sense: whether the moral failure is blamed on an abstract
principle of “evil” or on the personal intervention of the devil (the “father of
lies,” John 8:44) does not affect its evil character. The context here gives us
no obvious reason for preferring the personal to the abstract sense.
The majority of references to oaths in the OT, especially in the book of
Deuteronomy, are to God’s oath by which he has committed himself to bless his
people under his covenant with their ancestors. Is God’s oath then also “from
evil”? In one sense it is, in that if people were prepared to trust God’s simple
word there would be no need for an oath. But in so far as God’s oath is a
powerful statement of his own dependability (“By myself I have sworn, says the
Lord”) it differs from human oaths which attempt to enlist God in support of
their less dependable words.
A more pertinent question for us is whether Jesus’ words here are intended as a
literal regulation for all human circumstances, including oaths of political
allegiance or the oath required in many courts of law: should Christians refuse to
take such oaths?¹³ The issue is similar to that with regard to divorce: Jesus’
absolute pronouncement sets out the true will of God, but in human life that will
is not always followed, and there is still a place for legal oaths (as for divorce
regulations) to cope with the actual untruthfulness of people, even sadly
sometimes of disciples. They should not be needed, but in practice they serve a
remedial purpose in a world where the ethics of the kingdom of heaven are not
always followed. Refusal to take a required oath can in such circumstances
convey quite the wrong impression. Jesus’ illustrations of the “greater
righteousness” are not to be treated as if they were a new set of literal
regulations to replace those of the scribes and Pharisees. For Jesus’ own response
when “put on oath” by the high priest see below on 26:63–64, and for other NT
oaths cf. 2 Cor 1:23; Gal 1:20; 1 Thess 5:27.¹³¹
(5) Retribution (5:38–42)
Here Jesus’ teaching moves even further away from the spirit of the OT law
quoted than in any of the previous examples. The law of Moses, like other
ancient (and modern) law codes, regulated the extent of retributive punishment.
The principle of retribution was accepted, but it must be proportionate to the
offence: one eye in retribution for an eye destroyed, one tooth for a tooth (see
comments below on how far this was understood and implemented literally).
That seems to be the main thrust of the words quoted. They provide guidance in
sentencing for those responsible for trying a case of physical assault.
In response Jesus does not comment on the appropriateness of such judicial
rules. His concern is only with the inappropriateness of such a formula to
personal ethics. Applied to that context it becomes a justification for “getting
your own back,” and thus ultimately for the relentless perpetuation of the
traditional bloodfeud with no hope of escaping the cycle of reciprocal violence
—which is still sadly evident in many cultures, not least in the Middle East
today. Jesus’ position is shockingly radical: not only no retaliation, but even no
resistance to one who is admittedly “bad.” The series of four personal examples
which make up vv. 39b-42, and which are partially paralleled in Luke 6:29–
30,¹³² illustrate the principle of not even standing up for one’s own rights (three
of the four examples involve legal principles), of not defending one’s own
honor,¹³³ of allowing others to take advantage They portray an unselfish and
uncalculating benevolence which thinks only of the other’s needs or desires, not
of protecting one’s own resources or even one’s honor. Those who have
understood the true thrust of Jesus’ teaching here have often declared it to be not
only extreme and unwelcome, but also practically unworkable in the real world.
You cannot live like this. It would be to encourage the unscrupulous and the
feckless and so to undermine the proper ordering of society.
Here more than anywhere in this section we need to remind ourselves that Jesus’
aim is not to establish a new and more demanding set of rules to supplant those
of the scribes and Pharisees. It is to establish a “greater righteousness,” a
different understanding of how we should live as the people of God, an
alternative set of values.¹³⁴ In place of the principle of retribution he sets non-
resistance; in place of the defence of legal rights he sets uncalculating
generosity; in place of concern for oneself he sets concern for the other. The
disciple may be forced to conclude that in an imperfect human society Jesus’
illustrations of these principles could not work as literal rules of conduct, that
unlimited generosity to beggars would not only undermine the economic order
but also in the end do no good to the beggars themselves. But instead of
therefore dismissing Jesus’ teaching as starry-eyed utopianism, a proper response
to this challenging section is to ask in what practical ways Jesus’ radical
principles can be set to work in our very different world. Our answers will vary,
but if they are true to Jesus’ teaching they will represent an essentially non-self-
centered approach to ethics which puts the interests of the other before personal
rights or convenience. We should note also, however, that a willingness to forgo
one’s own rights and even to allow oneself to be insulted and imposed on is not
incompatible with a firm stand for justice in principle and for the rights of
others.
Does this teaching contradict or abrogate the law? Rather, in so far as “an eye for
an eye” had come to be used to justify personal retaliation, it is simply declared
to be irrelevant to personal ethics. The principle of proportionate retribution
should not guide us in our relations with others. But then that was not its
intention: it was a judicial guideline, not a license to get one’s own back. In its
place Jesus sets an ethical approach which simply sets aside legal considerations
and goes far beyond anything the law, as law, either did or could promote. The
“fulfillment” of the law (v. 17) here consists in leaving it behind in favor of
something of a different order altogether, the righteousness of the kingdom of
heaven. But, as we have already noted in relation to divorce and to oaths, in the
real world where people do oppress and take advantage of others, society will
still have need for guidelines on how to deal judicially with such cases, and a
standard of proportionate retribution (even if not in the physical terms of the OT
rulings) may continue to serve as a useful guide for the judiciary.¹³⁵
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |
