Transforming Law, Transforming Society: an Exegesis of Matthew 5:38-481

Kit Willett

Introduction

The year is 500 BCE, and you are a citizen in Athens. Today is an important day: there has
been an assembly called. So, you gather some food into a rucksack and start the short journey
to just outside the city where you gather on a hill called Pnyx with 6,000 of your fellows.
From here you can see your entire city—the Acropolis and the Parthenon, and the Agora just
a little in front of it. You are gathering to hear the orators debate—and more than that—you
are going to vote! Democracy is a hip new trend, and you are here to contribute to your
political landscape. On the hill is a bēma—a raised platform on which a speaker stands to be
heard.2

In 100 BCE, you are a Jew in Egypt, marvelling at the Great Synagogue of Alexandria with
71 golden chairs for the Sanhedrin and room for twice as many people as came out of Egypt
during the Exodus. You can see the robust wooden platform in the middle, and you can hear
the words of the prophets spoken above the crowd. The Hebrew word for this platform
derives from the Greek—bimah.3

It is no wonder then, that when Jesus finds himself swarmed with the multitudes having
taught and healed all over Galilee, he heads somewhere where he can be heard.4 More than
this, he goes somewhere with political and religious connotations. He will speak to his
followers on the mountain as God spoke to Moses.5 He will celebrate upside-down ethics like
the Greeks and democracy, or the Jews and the prophets. Jesus is setting himself up in a
frame of religiopolitical history and tradition to emphasise what he is about to say: this is
serious.

1
All Bible references are taken from the New Revised Standard Version, the reference to Sukkah is taken from
The William Davidson Talmud.
2
Glowacki, “The Ancient City of Athens: The Pnyx.”
3
Sukkah 51b.
4
Matthew 4:23-25.
5
Exodus 19:3.
The Sermon on the Mount is the first of Jesus’ big discourses in Matthew’s gospel. This is
where he summarises his early teachings into succinct beatitudes and apophthegms. This
section of the Sermon on the Mount deals with six antitheses, so called because these
teachings are seemingly contrary intensifications of Jewish law and tradition—laws traceable
to Mount Sinai and Moses.

The last two antitheses are less direct than the previous four.6 These two are radical responses
to the lex talionis—the law of retaliation (an eye for an eye)—and the logical tradition of only
loving one’s neighbour. These are often read as commandments of radical forgiveness but are
instead interpreted by most commentators as commandments of radical condemnation of
unjust structures, and a restructuring and even distribution of power and wealth.7

Context

It’s worth noting that the book of Matthew was likely written around the time of the First
Jewish Revolt.8 By including powerful Roman military imagery, Matthew’s description of
these antitheses is often read as holding significant sententious anti-Zealot sentiment.9
Matthew and his early-Christian community were not particularly supportive of the Jews
during this time.10

In terms of their literary context, these antitheses are framed, both before and after, by the
beatitudes, and by several profoundly disruptive parables metaphoric of Jesus’ upside-down
kingdom. Jesus is painting a larger image of the kingdom where individualistic morality is
inversed hospitality is preferred. However, the final two antitheses do more than subvert
authority where it lies—they command their listeners to challenge human authority, and they
illustrate how.

6
France, The Gospel of Matthew, 242.
7
Carson, Matthew, 156.
8
Aune, The Blackwell Companion to the New Testament, 298.
9
Carson, Matthew, 156.
10
Schwartz, Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries, 276-277.
For this teaching to be trustworthy, each antithesis claims its authority by following a
formula: “You have heard that it was said…But I say to you….” By knowing the law in
detail, Jesus asserts a rabbinic authority, and by intensifying it, asserts a prophetic authority.
This formula carries implications: the use of the passive verb “have heard” juxtaposed by the
active verb “say” connotes an antiquatedness of the Mosaic law.11 Similarly, the radicality
and newness of these political antitheses are echoed with the subject of Jesus’
commandments being inward while the Mosaic laws are specifically outward.12

In Jesus’ time, the lex talionis was being abused by Jews in the way that it was interpreted.13
The law of “an eye for an eye” was a radical notion when it was first implemented in Hebrew
culture. Compared to other Ancient Near East civilisations, which often penalised beyond the
intensity of the crime, this law was fair.14 It posited that retribution for a crime should match
the crime itself—perhaps not literally, but in worth: it was “an equaliser of justice.”15 Yet the
Jews in Jesus’ time were using it as a means to promote personal revenge in a system of
Roman law.16 Jesus’ antithesis is not, therefore, so much a condemnation of the law itself, but
of those abusing it, and an invitation to be better.

Analysis

The fifth antithesis is widely known:

““You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to
you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other
also; and if anyone wants to sue you and take your coat, give your cloak as well; and if
anyone forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile. Give to everyone who begs from
you, and do not refuse anyone who wants to borrow from you.”17

11
France, The Gospel of Matthew, 228.
12
France, 228.
13
Wilkins, Matthew: NIV Application Commentary, 193.
14
Wilkins, 193.
15
Wilkins, 193.
16
Wilkins, 193.
17
Mt. 5:38-42.
This passage is commonly interpreted to justify a particularly Christian mode of forgiveness.
However, in the context of Roman occupation, this message reads a little differently. While
many Jewish resistance groups were geared toward violence retribution against the Romans,
Jesus preaches subversive passivity, and then explains.18 When struck on the right cheek—a
brutal back-hand slap used for inferiors—also turn your other cheek; instead of claiming your
right to repay violence with violence in a never-ending power-battle, assert your position
instead as an equal by requesting an open-palm slap on your left cheek.19 You and the
Romans are no different in God’s eyes, suggests Jesus. You are equals.

He illustrates further: if someone sues you for your coat (or tunic), give them your cloak. This
cloak, himation, as explored in Exodus and Deuteronomy, doubled as a sleeping blanket and
was a vital and very personal possession.20 Jesus is encouraging his listeners to shame their
oppressors with their nakedness, demonstrating to the Romans that what they are really
taking when they sue a Jewish person: by taking one’s coat, they take also one’s dignity,
one’s identity, one’s life.21 Jesus gives his listeners the authority to stand up to the Romans in
an ethical sense—not to stand against, but to speak equally.

Jesus continues with a third illustration: walking another mile. The Romans were legally
allowed to enlist bystanders to carry equipment for up to one Roman mile.22 Jesus commands
his listeners to walk two miles when forced to walk one. This is perhaps less of an equalising
image and more of a critique of the Zealots and other resistance groups.23

The final illustration of this penultimate antithesis is perhaps more in the vein of Christian
generosity: to give to all who ask. This, however, can be read primarily as a radically
equalising commandment—that self-interest is corruptive, and any goal outside equity is a
manipulation of the ego.24

These images that Jesus depicts are hyperbolic, which implies that they are not new literal
laws, but a creative way of thinking, much in the same way that the lex talionis
communicated a spirit of fair retribution by using the example of an eye for an eye.25,26,27
18
Wilkins, Matthew: NIV Application Commentary, 193.
19
France, The Gospel of Matthew, 243.
20
France, 243.
21
France, 243.
22
France, 243.
23
Carson, Matthew, 156.
24
France, The Gospel of Matthew, 244.
25
Carson, Matthew, 156-7.
26
Wilkins, Matthew: NIV Application Commentary, 193.
27
Wright, Matthew for Everyone, 43.
The final of the six antitheses is perhaps the simplest, but also most contrary to human nature:
love your enemy. Jesus has critiqued the unjust structures of Jewish and Roman behaviour
alike and is now commanding his listeners to transcend the human boundaries of
characterisation. As Brown writes, “Jesus makes it so enemies aren’t enemies anymore. This
command really messes with our us/them categories.”28

The authority of this commandment belongs to God: “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly
Father is perfect.”29 Jesus tells his listeners that God does not see social divisions, and
therefore neither should we. In the particular context of the metaphor before the antitheses—
that his listeners are the “salt of the earth” and “light of the world”—we learn that Israel is
chosen so that “through Israel, God can bless all people.”30 We, of course, see this further
when Jesus acts as a sacrifice for all people. The one is a microcosm for the many: Jesus
became one human to make all humans Christlike, so too is Israel blessed so that all may be
blessed. All this to say, everyone belongs to God, and any distinction that divides people is
unhelpful as it implies God is not enough to connect.

We shall therefore aim to be perfect as God is and notice our similarities rather than our
differences. However, “perfect” (teleioi) is maybe better translated here as “mature” or
“whole” according to Blomberg—denoting a completeness of Christian character.31 The
implication of this is that by transcending binaries and spectrums of human categorisation, we
can be closer to our true or “whole” selves in Christ. Jesus is commanding us not to
discriminate based on difference, but to try a new “creative, healing, restorative justice.”32

Although these commandments are hyperbolic, Jesus in fact models each of these antitheses
throughout his life, and asks for nothing that he does not face himself.33

28
Brown, Matthew, 63.
29
Mt. 5:48.
30
Wright, Matthew for Everyone, 43.
31
Blomberg, Matthew, 115.
32
Wright, Matthew for Everyone, 43.
33
Wright, 44.
Reflection

These are new, creative rules. But this poses a question: is Jesus giving these rules to us to
follow, or is he illustrating examples of how we might make rules or react when we find
ourselves in new contexts?34 I believe the message Jesus intended for his listeners, and indeed
intends for us today, is that we should be rooted and grounded in our contexts when making
new rules, but to pay special attention to equity. By pointing out the Roman bourgeoisie and
the Zealot proletariat, and condemning the activity of them both, Jesus offers the idea that
this unhealthy and egoistic conflict exists due to human boundary markers and social classes.
Our laws, therefore, should be made to equalise both groups and ensure power for everyone.

This message of equity must surely be pertinent for us today, with more diversity present in
our societies than ever before in human history. Jesus’ call is not only echoed throughout
Scripture but also in our tradition. After all, as Anglicans in Aotearoa New Zealand and
Polynesia, in our religiopolitical context, we adhere to the mission outlined in Article 3d: we
seek “to transform unjust structures of society.”35 Society has many facets that are
interconnected—healthcare issues, for instance, are not only issues of health, but issues of
race, gender, and class. So, what could this justice look like today in some of our
contemporary ongoing political debates? In our prisons, our tenancies, our healthcare system?

34
Wright, 43.
35
General Synod / Te Hīnota Whānui, “The Constitution / Te Pouhere.”
 Bibliography

Aune, David Edward. 2010. The Blackwell Companion to the New Testament. Malden, MA:
Wiley-Blackwell.

Blomberg, Craig L. 1992. Matthew. Nashville, TN: Braodman Press.

Brown, Jeannine K., and Kyle A. Roberts. 2018. Matthew. Grand Rapids, MI: William B.
Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Carson, D. A. 1995. Matthew. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

France, Richard T. 2010. The Gospel of Matthew. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

Glowacki, Kevin T. The Ancient City of Athens: The Pnyx. Accessed May 6, 2020.
http://www.stoa.org/athens/sites/pnyx.html.

Schwartz, Joshua, and Peter J. Tomson. 2018. Jews and Christians in the First and Second
Centuries: The Interbellum 70-132 CE. Leiden: Brill.

General Synod / Te Hīnota Whānui. 2016. “The Constitution / Te Pouhere.” Auckland, New
Zealand.

Wilkins, Michael J. 2004. Matthew: NIV Application Commentary: From Biblical Text to

Contemporary Life. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Wright, N. T. 2004. Matthew for Everyone. London: SPCK.