e. Unselfishness and Forgiveness.—Mt 5°" = Lk 62-80, The OT Law did, in fact, provide that punish- ment should be in degree and kind, ‘an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth’; thus we read in Ex 217-5 «Thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe’; as also Lv 24171, Dt 19'*71.4 This dex talionis was understood to apply to all relations of men. And not only that, for God Himself was believed to be retributive in His punishment, so that when men could not themselves execute the just penalty God could be appealed to for visiting retribution upon one’s enemies ; cf. Dt 23%-6 2517-19, Ps 3518 4 ]10.u 586-1 68! 2 6922-28 7820. 21. 60-66 1098-15, Jer 1738 185, La 35%, This primitive conception and type of justice was probably required, at least in principle, by the conditions of the earliest civilization to which it ministered. When the modes of punishment subsequently changed, and penalties were executed no longer in kind but in some suitable equivalent, it still remained true that the punishment was meant to be retributive and equal to the crime. It is only in modern times that there has come in a new conception of punishment, according to which society is to be protected, not by avenging the wrong in kind or degree, but by reforming the evil-doer. ‘This higher type of justice, based upon the principle of forbearance and helpfulness, also found recognition in Israel. The deeply spiritual saw that God’s action was in love, mercy, and forgiveness, and they plead for a like principle of treatment among men ; so Lv 1918 ‘ Thou shalt not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people’; Dt 32% ‘Vengeance is mine, and recompense,’ 7.¢. God’s; Pr 20% ‘Say not, I will recompense eyil: wait on the Lord, and he shall save thee’; cf.
* So Justin, Ireneus, Clement Alex., Origen, Jerome, Augus- tine ; of our own day, Meyer, Achelis, Bruce, B. Weiss, H. Weiss, and others; see esp. Wendt, Lehre Jesu, ii. 210-213 [Eng. tr. i. 269-273]. For the view that Jesus did not forbid all oaths, but only their misuse, thereby simply re-establishing the OT teaching, may be cited Luther, Calvin, Bengel, Stier, Ewald, Keim, Tholuck. H. Holtzmann holds that Mt 533-37 is intended to forbid all oaths, but attributes this tone to the Essenic tendencies of the First Evangelist rather than to Jesus, whose purpose was only to rebuke the profusion and casuistry of the Pharisaic practice.
+ St. Paul’s use of the oath, 2 Co 123 1181, Ro 19, Gal 120, 1 Th 25, and elsewhere, is simply a continuation of the OT and Jewish custom in its best use; the primitive Christians in this, as in many other respects, failed to rise at once to the apprecia- tion and attainment of Jesus’ ideal.
t Similarly the Hammurabi Code (c. 2250 B,c.), Nos, 196, 200,
SERMON ON THE MOUNT
SERMON ON THE MOUNT 29
“
also 2 K 671-23, La 377-89, But the love of retalia- tion, the zeal for executing vengeance, and the passion for seeing strict justice done without delay, held the field in both OT and NT times. And consequently, when Jesus came, He found little of the true spirit and service of brotherhood.
Against this false and hateful temper of men Jesus set His principle of unselfishness and for- giveness, following out the higher conception pre- sented in the OT, and requiring that by this principle all men shall determine all their conduct towards one another. In order to make His meaning more explicit and clear, Jesus used four concrete illustrations (Mt 5°"), in them suggesting what kind of conduct would result from living by this principle. The illustrations, of course, are figurative, and are to be interpreted not literally but in their main idea.* A man is not to be thinking constantly of his own rights, as though the chief aim of his life was to avenge injustices and slights towards himself (v.**); he must be willing to endure wrongs, to sacrifice his feelings and his possessions, in order to avoid trouble with others (v.*°); he must be ready to labour freely and unselfishly for the good of others, without expecting recompense (v.*!); he is not to be of a grasping, penurious disposition—rather he is to assist others in every reasonable way (v.*).+
In this principle of forgiving love and unselfish service lies the essence of Jesus’ ethical teaching ;£ it has been well called ‘the secret of Jesus.’§ On
* In Jn 1822.23 it can be seen that Jesus did not have in mind literal non-resistance, since He did not Himself practise it. That certain individuals (most recently Tolstoi) and sects (Anabaptists, Mennonites, Quakers) have taken these sayings literally, as statutes to be obeyed, is not to the credit either of their knowledge of the teaching of Jesus or of their own commion- sense. Such literalism is the perversion of Jesus’ method and intent, and is one of the worst enemies of the Gospel, for it holds up the teaching of Jesus to the ridicule of all sane, thinking men.
+ In v.29 the +4 zovmpé cannot be the Evil One (as thought by Chrysostom and Theophylact), for Jesus would have him for ever resisted ; it might be regarded as a neuter noun, referring to evil in general (so Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Ewald, Achelis, Kiibel); but probably the evil man is meant who offers the indignities and demands described ; cf. rovnpods in v.49 and Lk 635.45 (so H. Holtzmann, Nosgen, B. Weiss). The Dekscev oreyovoc of Mt 529 is altered in Lk 629 to simply viv c1ayéve, since the first blow would naturally be given by the right hand upon the left cheek. In v.40 zpizves means to bring a legal action against one (cf. 1 Co 61), in order to secure property of some kind from him. The y:rav (NjN3) was the common Oriental under-garment worn next the body, while the iuésiov (abn, 733) was the more costly and elegant tunic or over-garment (cf. art. Dress) ; that is, ifa man attempts to get from you by law a little property, give him much in order to avoid quarrel and litigation with him. In the Luke parallel (629) the idea of a lawsuit is replaced by that of a personal assault, in which case the outer garment would first be taken, after which the inner garment was to be offered. In v.41 the dyyupeices (cf. B. Weiss, Meyer-Komm. ii. d. Mattevgm. in loc.) refers to official impressment for tem- porary service, a common practice in that day (Mt 2732); Jesus uses it as a figure to teach that men must assist others by generously given and willing service. Luke does not have this verse, perhaps because it was liable to be misunderstood as literally referring to legal requisitions instead of figuratively to all social relations. In v.42 is added a fourth illustration which, because it is somewhat loosely joined to the preceding, and out of deference to the number 3, has been regarded by some scholars (Ewald, H. Holtzmann, Kostlin, Wittichen) as a re- maining fragment of a separate section of this discourse, treat- ing of the interpretation of the Eighth Commandment ; they would therefore insert between y.4! and y.42 something like this, drawn from Ex 2015, Dt 619 2412.13 jzobcure, ors Eppela: ob wrens, awodares dt 7d inériov 74 TTL eyo Dt Atyw Dui To airotves, etc. This explanation of y.42 has not, however, found general acceptance, being specifically rejected by Tholuck, Meyer, Feine, B. Weiss, and others; Luke has the saying in ¢he same connexion as Matthew, and it joins well enough, logically, to vv.38-41, The verse does not refer, at least directly, to the lending of money without requiring the payment of interest (so Feine, on the basis of Ex 2225-27, Ly 2537, Dt 157 2320, against Tholuck, B. Weiss). ;