101 ways to dodge Jesus' commands
Actually just 5 today
I find myself back working through the Sermon on the Mount at the moment, and a look at the history of interpretation of the Sermon as a whole, and its parts, is almost like a study in how Christians over the last 2,000 years have assiduously attempted to avoid the force of Jesus’ words. That is because the Sermon itself creates problems: (i) how are we to deal with its seemingly incredibly high ethical demands, and (ii) how do we read Matthew 5-7 in concert with the rest of the New Testament, especially Paul?
What follows are some selected examples of approaches that evade the force of Jesus’ teaching:
The monastic and medieval solution: In this reading, which emerged mostly in the West as monasticism spread from the 4th century onwards, and then well into the medieval period, divides Jesus’ commands into ‘precepts’ and ‘counsels’. The ‘evangelical counsels’ are teachings that only those really dedicated super Christians need to try to follow, you know monks and priests and the like. This essentially turns Christianity into a two-tier system, with the Sermon for elite Christians only.
Luther: Because Martin Luther reads all of Scripture through a Law-Gospel dichotomy, and sees the role of ‘Law’ as to heighten people’s awareness of their sin and need for the gospel, the Sermon is ‘Law’ - it raises the bar so high to make it impossible to fulfil Jesus’ teaching, and then the Gospel swoops in and saves us. And we all sigh a collective breath of relief, “phew, glad we don’t have to actually do those things, they sound hard!”
Luther (again): The other way that Luther left us a legacy of (mis-reading, in my opinion) the Sermon is the development of the Two Kingdoms doctrine. On that theory, there’s a rather sharp distinction between ‘how one acts as an individual’, and ‘how one fulfils one’s duties in the civic realm’. And while the Sermon applies to individual morality, it doesn’t apply to civic behaviour. The great problem of this reading and approach, in my view, is that it creates an internal schism in one’s ethical self. “As an individual and Christian, I practice non-retaliation and peace; but it’s my civic duty to execute you on behalf of the state and chop your head off.”
Here are some specific examples of what I think are dodges:
Do not swear at all (5:34). Given that Jesus is spending this section pointing to the deeper intent of Torah teaching, and his primary point is that there shouldn’t be two ‘levels’ of speech, more and less trustworthy, I do agree with the standard reading that Jesus’ point is that your speech should always be true and trustworthy, and so oaths become irrelevant. And yet Jesus’ teaching is pretty plain: oath-taking should come to an end. Which makes Article 39 of the Church of England’s 39 Articles a bit… odd: “
As we confess that vain and rash Swearing is forbidden Christian men by our Lord Jesus Christ, and James his Apostle, so we judge that Christian Religion doth not prohibit, but that a man may swear when the Magistrate requireth, in a cause of faith and charity, so it be done according to the Prophet’s teaching, in justice, judgement, and truth.
Now, Article 39 along with 38 is “anti-Anabaptist”, which gives it a particular historical context. But what does it say about an approach to this clause that says, “well, you’ll always tell the truth, so you won’t mind if we keep having oaths, giving oaths, and taking them…” The whole position against taking oaths is itself a speech-act that says, “I won’t swear an oath, because my word always has the same truth value”. That’s the line in the sand that anabaptists and Quakers drew, and why our legal systems have provisions for ‘affirmations’ instead of oaths.
If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. (5:39) Here’s another one where I have often heard interpretations that seem aimed at watering down the import of Jesus’ teaching. “Oh, well, you see, this is talking about a slap, and it’s on the right cheek and so it must be with a backhanded slap and so this isn’t really about violence, it’s just an insult, and so you see this text doesn’t have anything to say about real violence and non-violence.”1 To be fair, actual commentaries are not so glib. John Stott’s commentary on this, I think, is a great example of an author trying to wrestle the issue through - because he takes Jesus’ seriously, discusses the limits of non-violence and non-retaliation as he sees it, talks through the two-kingdoms approach with some approval, and even though Stott makes claims and moves I still wouldn’t agree with, he ends up concluding with Martin Luther King Jr., who I think wouldn’t agree with Stott’s position itself.
I could probably go on like this for quite a while, but I think that’s enough for today. Let me suggest this by way of conclusion though: if your reading of Jesus’ words allows you to come out the other side saying something like, “and that’s why we don’t need to do what Jesus teaches”, then you’ve done a backflip and landing facing the other way around.
So, how then do you read the Sermon on the Mount as a whole? See you in a couple of days.
This only gets a footnote, but I think redefining this act to say it’s not about violence but about honour doesn’t get you out of a hole because the more you understand honour and shame in 1st century Mediterranean cultures, the more you realise that the challenge to one’s honour that a public slap in the face is, is at least as serious if not more serious than physical violence occasioning harm.
I'm excited for the next post. I do agree that if we go into it with the intention of trying to figure out how we aren't obligated by what Jesus says, we are missing the point. However, the passage of plucking out the eye and cutting off your hand does suggest that a straightforward reading is not the intended reading and I don't think appealing to the rhetorical device of hyperbole would be considered a dodge. Also, I think we have good reason to read the strong black and white language of the Sermon within the context of the more specific criticisms of the Pharisees in Matthew 23. For example, I think one could justifiably read the oaths teaching in the Sermon in light of Matthew 23:16-22 and arrive at something like Article 39 (whether that is the best reading is another question; I'm merely positing it as not an unreasonable conclusion if we pair the Sermon with Matthew 23).