by Daniel W. Ulrich, Ph.D.

Associate Professor of New Testament Studies

Bethany Theological Seminary

8 2002 Daniel W. Ulrich

Many scholars have observed tension between the report of Jesus= teaching in Matthew 5:38-48 and the characterization of Jesus elsewhere in the narrative (Davies and Allison, 1:563-64). Some have interpreted Matthew 5:39 as a call for passive non-resistance in the face of evil (Fenton, 92; Strecker, 82-83; Piper, 91), and Jesus= refusal to resist arrest and crucifixion seems consistent with that interpretation (26:47-56); but his response to opponents on other occasions seems far from passive or non-resistant. The conflict between Jesus and Israel=s religious leaders becomes Aacutely confrontational@ on both sides as early as Matthew 12 (Kingsbury, 120), and it escalates sharply as Jesus confronts the leaders in Jerusalem (21:12B23:39). William Klassen speaks for many readers when he asks, ADid Jesus himself love his enemies? Matthew 23 seems to suggest that he did not@ (Klassen, 13).

The Gospel=s implied author (hereinafter called Matthew) presents Jesus as a model for the disciples (cf. 10:25), and Matthew characterizes the religious leaders as hypocrites on the grounds that they fail to follow their own teaching (23:3). Therefore, a significant discrepancy between Jesus= teaching and his example would represent a flaw within the narrative. Such flaws are possible, of course, but readers normally try to make consistent sense of a narrative. In that spirit, I hope to clarify Matthew=s characterization of Jesus by arguing that it is consistent with the command to Areprove your neighbor@ found in Leviticus 19:17-18. After defining Areprove,@ I will discuss Jesus= teaching and example in that order.

Leviticus 19:17-18 is an important text for Matthew, who quotes it or alludes to it four times (Matt. 5:44-45; 18:15; 19:19; 22:39). In the second of these allusions, Matthew follows the Septuagintal translation of Leviticus 19:17 in using the verb elenchein to mean, Apoint out sin or injustice in order to give an offender an opportunity to repent@ (cf. 18:15). I will use the word Areprove@ with that meaning.

Reproof of Enemies in Matthew 5:38-48

Matthew=s most extensive and problematic teaching about enemies appears in 5:38-48. These verses comprise the last two sayings in a series of antitheses in which Jesus explains the greater righteousness required of those who would enter the reign of heaven. The sayings in verses 38-42 and 43-48 are closely related. Both command righteous responses to people who are characterized as Aevil@ (5:39, 45). Both consist of a word from Israel=s legal tradition (5:38, 43), a contrasting pronouncement from Jesus (5:39a, 44), and an elaboration on the pronouncement (5:39b-42, 45-48). Furthermore, the two elaborations have a complementary relationship. The first describes righteous behavior in a series of four illustrative commands, but it offers no explicit motives for obedience. The second elaboration gives priority to motives (Weaver, 57)

Walter Wink=s seminal study of Matthew 5:38-42 showed that turning the other cheek, giving the other garment, and going a second mile could each be understood as forms of resistance in the colonial context of first century Palestine (Wink, 104-112). The evil person in each case is using unjust power to oppress others: physically abusing a slave or other subordinate, foreclosing even on an undergarment, or treating conquered people like pack animals. In response, the oppressed person is invited to seize the initiative, expose injustice, and insist on being treated as an equal. At the very least, I imagine that such actions would elicit questions like, AWhy are you doing this?@ The questions could lead to conversations about the justice that God demands.

Unfortunately for our purposes, Wink based his interpretation on a precanonical form of the text. This method allowed him to isolate the Q tradition in Matthew 5:39b-41 both from the initial antithesis in verses 38-39a and from the final illustrative command in verse 42. As Wink himself noted, a Matthean redactor may have subverted the emphasis on reproof in the Q tradition by placing the sayings in 5:39b-41 under a rubric of non-resistance. In addition, Wink=s translation of m‘ antist‘nai in verse 39 as Ado not resist violently@ (115) does not fit the passage in its canonical form. Wink is correct that antist‘nai often refers to a military defense or uprising, but the lex talionis, quoted from Deuteronomy 19:15-21, refers to a judicial procedure, not a military one (Guelich, 220; Weaver, 41). Likewise, a prohibition of violence seems out of step with the example in verse 42. A nonviolent Ano@ to a request for money would still be a Ano.@

Other proposals for translating m‘ antist‘nai also fail to match the context. ADo not oppose the evil person in court@ (Guelich, 220) fits the setting of the lex talionis and agrees with Matthew=s call for out-of-court settlements (5:25-26); it does not, however, account for all four illustrative commands. Only the lawsuit in verse 40 clearly has a judicial setting. Another possibility, Ado not retaliate@ (Betz, 280), also works well as an antithesis to the lex talionis, but it does not fit the illustration in verse 42 (Horsley, 87). The most logical foil for the generous response commanded there is refusal, not retaliation. Whereas the above alternatives are too narrow for the context, Ado not resist@ is too broad (cf. Weaver, 51). Taken at face value, it would prohibit all forms of resistance, even verbal calls for repentance; but Jesus elsewhere commands the disciples to preach with words that echo the prophetic reproofs of John the Baptist (10:7; cf. 3:2; 4:17). If the disciples= message goes unheeded, they are to shake the dust off their feet as a prophetic sign of God=s judgment (10:14). Clearly, verbal and nonverbal reproofs are forms of resistance that remain open to the disciples.

My proposal for translating m‘ antist‘nai tÇ ponerÇ is Ado not rival the evil person.@ The Greek verb typically connotes a military, athletic, or forensic contest in which opponents vie for supremacy in the same arena using similar tactics. (For the use of antist‘nai in connection with literal or metaphorical wrestling matches, see Josephus, Ant. 1.333; and Plutarch, Life of Pericles 11.1-2.) ARival@ conveys the nuances of competition and emulation that are implicit in antist‘nai.

Not rivaling the evil person means, in part, that the disciples must act differently than their oppressors. AEye-for-eye@ retaliation is ruled out, but so is imitation of the Aevil person@ in other ways, such as in one=s response to requests for gifts or loans. Some interpreters conclude that the petitioner in verse 42 a pest and therefore also Aevil@ (Weaver, 53; Gardner, 109), but it is unlikely that Matthew would make that assumption (Carter, 153). Instead, verse 42 turns the tables on the disciples. Previously they were cast in the role of the oppressed, but here they have the upper hand and can decide whether to act like an oppressor. Through generous giving, the disciples can demonstrate that they are not like Athe evil person,@ whose self-interested loans and subsequent lawsuits are so devastating for the poor.

The call to be different from evil people would be especially important if Jesus expects the disciples to reprove them. According to Matthew, only hypocrites do the same things that they reprove in others (cf. 7:1-5). On the other hand, responses that break the normal pattern of evil-for-evil may help to move people toward repentance. The translation, Ado not rival the evil person,@ allows for such responses.

In verses 43-48, Matthew presents God=s generosity as a positive example in contrast to the negative example set by Athe evil person.@ The call for generosity in verse 42 creates a transition toward the positive example. The gist of verses 43-48 is that enemies must be included within the scope of the love-command quoted from Leviticus 19:17-18. A brief study of the background passage will help to clarify Matthew=s assumptions about the kind of love that is required.

The refrain, AI am Lord,@ sets off Leviticus 19:17-18 as a discrete unit within a series of commands related to social justice. Translating the Septuagint literally, verse 17 includes a prohibition (AYou shall not hate your brother in your mind@), an alternative (AWith a reproof you shall reprove your neighbor@), and a motive (Aand you will not acquire sin because of him@). Verse 18 likewise includes a dual prohibition (AAnd your hand shall not take revenge, and you shall not rage against the sons of your people@), an alternative (AAnd you shall love your neighbor as yourself@), and a motive (AI am Lord@). This parallelism suggests that Areproving@ and Aloving@ are somehow synonymous (Milgrom, 1646-55). The verb translated Alove@ (agapan) refers to actions much more than emotions. It means Ato act for the benefit of others.@ Reproof is an aspect of love, since its purpose is to benefit others by informing them of their need for repentance.

The motive clause in Leviticus 19:17 indicates that someone who reproves another can avoid acquiring Asin.@ This Asin@ may be related to the secret hatred, revenge, and raging mentioned in the text. In that case, the motive clause suggests that the act of reproof may keep an interpersonal conflict from escalating to the point that both parties are guilty. Another possibility is that the sin envisioned in verse 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 also 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. Like Ezekiel, the Holiness Code in Leviticus presupposes that God will judge unjust people severely (cf. 19:8; 20:3, 5). That prospect helps to explain why the failure to reprove a neighbor would be considered a sin.

In general, Israel=s prophetic and wisdom traditions agree with Leviticus on the value of reproof. Prophets affirmed God=s intent to reprove and discipline unjust people (e.g., 2 Sam. 7:14; Amos 5:10; Hab. 1:12; Isa. 2:4; 11:4; Jer. 2:19; Ezek. 3:26-27). Likewise, Israel=s sages commended disciplinary words and actions, whether from people or from God. In Proverbs and other wisdom literature, the explicit purpose of reproof is to educate people whose actions are considered foolish or wrong (e.g., Psa. 94:12; 141:5; Prov. 3:11; 9:7-8; 10:10; 15:12; 19:25; 28:23; Wisdom 4:20; Sirach 18:13; 19:13-17; 20:2).

Given this background, it would be surprising if Matthew did not consider reproof an aspect of love. Although Matthew 5:43-48 does not explicitly quote the command to reprove one=s neighbor, Matthew assumes that readers are well acquainted with the Septuagint, including the context of the quoted love command. (For evidence of this assumption, note the allusion to Leviticus 19:2 later in the passage, and see the many other allusions listed by Davies and Allison, 1:34-57). Any reader who was unfamiliar with Leviticus 19:17-18 would hear the reproof-command explicitly in Matthew 18:15.

Although the need for reproof of enemies is probably assumed in Matthew 5:43-48, another explanation for the lack of an explicit reference to reproof is possible. Matthew may hold different standards for relationships inside and outside the community of disciples. Matthew 18:15 requires reproof among disciples, but the prayers commanded in 5:44 might be an adequate expression of love for those who are outside the community of disciples. This interpretation would not prohibit reproof of external enemies, but it would allow for situations in which reproof was impossible or inadvisable.

Before we can determine the extent of the disciples= obligations, we need to identify their enemies more precisely. Since Matthew 5:44 and 10:35-36 describe the disciples= enemies as persecutors, we need to ask who persecutes the disciples within the story. Matthew does not narrate significant persecution of the disciples, but he uses the literary device of predictions by Jesus to accomplish the same purpose. By piecing these predictions together, readers can construct a story about the disciples= mission in the difficult time between the resurrection and the parousia. Jesus expects the disciples to go out as defenseless missionaries (10:10) to Israel (10:6) and to all nations (24:14; 26:13; 28:19). In their mission, the disciples will follow in the footsteps not only of John and Jesus but also of Israel=s earlier prophets, whose reproofs led to persecution (5:12; 23:29-35). Jesus warns the disciples that they will receive the same treatment as other prophets (10:23-25). Enemies described as Awolves@ will hand the disciples over to councils, administer floggings in Atheir synagogues,@ and drag the disciples before governors and kings (10:16-18); nevertheless, the disciples should not be afraid but view their court appearances as opportunities for divinely inspired testimony (10:19-20, 26-28). 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 their enemies.

Jesus does not require the disciples to reprove every possible enemy, but reproof will be an essential aspect of their mission. Reproof will evoke persecution, and persecution will create more opportunities for reproof. Jesus offers no guarantee that reproving enemies will lead to repentance and reconciliation, but the disciples= efforts will be measured by their faithfulness not their success (cf. 10:39). Even if no one heeds their message, they will have given their enemies an opportunity to repent before the final judgment.

As Barbara Reid observed at this meeting last year, Matthew=s graphic warnings of God=s judgment stand in tension with the description of God=s universal love in Matthew 5:45 (cf. 5:21-30; 6:14-15; 10:28; 11:20-24; 13:36-43; 18:6-9, 35; 21:41; 22:5-7, 13; 25:30, 46). Even so, the parable of the weeds helps to explain how Matthew combines these views of God (13:24-30, 36-43). Matthew expects a day when God=s angels will separate the wheat from the weeds, but until then God gives rain and sun to all. The disciples are not qualified to carry out God=s judgment, since they will also be subject to judgment at the parousia (cf. 7:1). Their mission is to imitate God=s love.

Read in context, Matthew 5:38-48 not only permits reproof of enemies but even encourages it as an aspect of love. If this interpretation is correct and if Matthew=s characterization of Jesus is consistent, we should expect to find Jesus reproving his enemies in other parts of the narrative. A few examples will show that this is the case.

Based on Matthew=s description of enemies as persecutors, it appears that the chief human enemies of Jesus are the religious leaders. Matthew characterizes Jesus as greater than a prophet (16:13-18), yet as acting like a prophet in relation to his enemies. His earliest reproofs of them are relatively gentle, though still provocative (9:4-6, 12-13; 12:3-8, 11-13). His rhetoric becomes harsher after the Pharisees begin plotting to destroy him (12:14, 25-50).

The first speech I would call harsh is Matthew 12:25-45. An especially relevant part of that speech is the allusion to Jonah=s reproof of Israel=s archenemies, the Assyrians (Matt. 12:38-41). Jonah=s message in their capital Ninevah is terse: AForty more days [LXX reads Athree more days@] and Ninevah will be overthrown@ (Jonah 3:4). Although Jonah offers no hope for the Assyrians, they surprisingly heed the warning, repent, and begin fasting in case God might spare them (Jonah 3:1-10). Like Jonah, Matthew=s Jesus sternly reproves people who are characterized as Israel=s enemies. Although Matthew uses the Ninevites as a foil for the unrepentance of Israel=s religious leaders, this comparison suggests that the purpose of Jesus= preaching is not to condemn the leaders but to give them an opportunity to repent. Their opportunity extends beyond the time covered in the narrative (cf. 23:34). Since the Ninevites repented after Athe sign of Jonah,@ the religious leaders could still repent after they have experienced the greater sign of Jesus= death and resurrection. The narrative shows them refusing this opportunity, but it is real nonetheless (cf. 28:11-15).

Jesus= demonstration at the temple is another example of reproof. He overturns tables as a prophetic sign that stones will soon be overturned (21:12; cf. 23:38; 24:2). A quotation from Jeremiah=s temple sermon (Jer. 7:11) establishes a precedent for Jesus= message by reminding readers that Jeremiah also predicted the destruction of the temple as an act of divine judgment against leaders who were oppressing the poor (7:13-15). 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 (7:5-7). Jesus does not offer hope that Herod=s temple will be spared, but his reproof still gives an opportunity for repentance.

The parable of the wicked tenants epitomizes Jesus= role in relation to Israel=s prophets and the leaders in Jerusalem (Matt. 21:33-46; cf. Isaiah 5:1-7). Matthew interprets this parable as 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 the religious leaders in order to reprove them for withholding the Afruits of the reign of heaven@ (21:43; cf 3:8). According to Matthew, Jesus confronts these leaders for the same purpose.

The harshest speech of all, Matthew 23, is also an example of prophetic reproof. The word Awoe@ (ouai), repeated seven times in this passage, echoes the funeral laments of many prophets, who mourned for Israel as if their oracles of judgment had already been carried out (e.g., Isa. 3:11; 5:8-24; 10:1-4; Jer. 13:27; Hos. 7:13; 9:11-12; Amos 5:16; 6:1; Mic. 7:1). Although such laments may imply that divine judgment is inevitable, their function is still to call for repentance in the hope that God=s anger may be averted. The Septuagint frequently juxtaposes prophetic Awoes@ with more hopeful calls for repentance (cf. Isa. 4:2-6; 10:20; Hos. 11:1-12; Amos 5:14-15; Mic. 7:7-20). Thus, Matthew=s readers had ample precedent for interpreting Matthew 23 as a reproof rather than as a final rejection of the religious leaders. Even insults like Ayou offspring of vipers@ can have the 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). The final lament in 23:37-39 shows how much Jesus cares for the people of Jerusalem even though he has just pronounced an oracle of judgment against their city. He yearns to gather them together like a hen gathers her chicks, but they are unwilling. At the end of such a bleak speech, Matthew 23:39 stands like a beacon of hope: AYou will not see me again until you say, >Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord.=@ Apparently there is still a possibility in Matthew=s mind that the people of Jerusalem will welcome Jesus= final return (Keener, 558-59).

Although the debates between Jesus and the religious leaders are intense, they also reveal some important common ground. Both parties view reproof as a normal response to disagreement (e.g., 12:1-7; 15:1-2); both base their reproofs on the law of Moses; and both apparently agree that love of God and neighbor are the most important commandments (22:34-40). Their shared ethical tradition facilitates reproof. Since the religious leaders and Jesus reprove one another, it is worth asking whether Matthew draws any distinction between their methods. Again, Leviticus 19:17-18 helps to clarify Matthew=s perspective. The religious leaders try to trap Jesus with flattery and trick questions (22:15-22), while secretly they are plotting to kill him (12:14; 21:45-46; 26:14-16). In other words, they hate Jesus Ain the mind@ (cf. Lev. 19:17). Jesus, on the other hand, reproves the leaders openly and sincerely, and he insists on healing his enemies rather than killing them (26:51-56).

Jesus= silence before Pilate (27:14) contrasts sharply with his earlier reproofs of the religious leaders. Perhaps Jesus declines to reprove Romans because they do not share his religious tradition. On the other hand, the chief priests are also frustrated with Jesus= silence when on trial (26:62-63). Like the surprising actions recommended in Matthew 5:38-42, Jesus= refusal to speak in his defense disrupts the dominant parties= agenda; therefore, it can function as a reproof. In addition, Pilate receives a verbal reproof through his wife (27:19). Matthew=s inclusion of this incident confirms the importance of reproof from his perspective. Even Pilate must have a clear chance to repent.

These examples convince me (and I hope you) that Matthew portrays Jesus in a way that is consistent with Leviticus 19:17-18. Matthew=s concept of enemy-love includes reproofCpointing out sin or injustice so that offenders will have an opportunity to repent. Like Jonah, Jeremiah, and other prophets of the past, Jesus reproves enemies with stern warnings of God=s judgment.

Although Matthew=s characterization of Jesus is internally consistent, it remains troubling, especially in light of its role in fueling centuries of Christian anti-Semitism. Christians have persecuted not only Jews but also Muslims and other Christians under the aegis of reproof. As a modern religious leader and as a citizen of a rich and arrogant nation, I suspect that I need to hear stern reproofs much more than I need to give them. Certainly critical reflection is essential before attempting to reprove others in contexts that are quite different from Matthew=s story-world. Although I wish that Matthew had portrayed Jesus and his enemies more gently, I have tried to read Matthew on his terms, and I offer my reading as a possible clarification of the text.

Betz, Hans Dieter. The Sermon on the Mount. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995.

Carter, Warren. Matthew and the Margins: A Socio-Political and Religious Reading. JSNTSS 204. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000.

Davies, W. D., and Dale C. Allison, Jr.. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Saint Matthew. 3 vols. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988-97.

Fenton, J. C. Saint Matthew. London: Penguin Books, 1963.

Guelich, Robert A. The Sermon on the Mount: A Foundation for Understanding. Waco, TX: Word Books, 1982.

Horsley, Richard A. AEthics 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, 72-101. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster/John Knox, 1992.

Kingsbury, Jack Dean. Matthew as Story, 2d ed. rev. and enl. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988.

Klassen, William. A>Love Your Enemies=: Some Reflections on the Current Status of Research.@ In The Love of Enemy and Nonretaliation in the New Testament, ed. Willard M. Swartley. Louisville, KY.: Westminster/John Knox, 1992.

Milgrom, Jacob. Leviticus 17-22: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible, vol. 3a. New York: Doubleday, 2000.

Piper, John. >Love Your Enemies=: Jesus= Love Command in the Synoptic Gospels and the Early Christian Paraenesis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979.

Reid, Barbara. AViolent Endings in Matthew=s Parables and an End to Violence.@ Presented at the 2001 Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature in Denver, Colorado, November 17, 2001. Accessed October 4, 2002, on the Internet at http://www.class.uidaho.edu/jcanders/Matthew/reidviolentendingsinmatthew.htm.

Strecker, Georg. The Sermon on the Mount: An Exegetical Commentary. Trans. O. C. Dean, Jr. Nashville: Abingdon, 1988.

Weaver, Dorothy Jean. ATransforming 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, 32-71. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster/John Knox, 1992.

Wink, Walter. ANeither 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, 102-125. Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox, 1992.