30 SERMON ON THE MOUNT
SERMON ON THE MOUNT
Jf. Universal Love. —Mt 54-8 = Lk 627: 28-32-36, When Jesus begins this sixth paragraph illustra- tive of His statements in Mt 51-2 with the words ‘Ye have heard that it was said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour and hate thine enemy,’ He is not quoting precisely any OT or extra-biblical utter- ance on record (ct. Sir 18!8), The clause ‘ Thou shalt love thy neighbour ’ is found in Ly 198 ‘ Thou shalt not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.’ But the further clause, ‘and hate thine enemy,’ while not appearing in that form, is really implied in the words ‘the children of thy people,” which fixes a national limitation upon the teaching in the Leviticus passage. There was on the part of the Hebrews a profound contempt and disregard of other nation- alities (cf. Dt 23% 2517-19 the Book of Jonah, esp. 3°41), So that the phrase ‘hate thine enemy’ justly characterized the prevailing OT conception of social duty (in spite of occasional efforts towards a larger idea, Ex 234°), the ‘enemy’ signifying any foreigner who did not enter into Hebrew prac- tices, and the ‘hatred’ signifying their superior disdain for other peoples. The same hatred towards all Gentiles was felt by the stricter Jews of Jesus’ day; and the Pharisaic pride and exclusiveness went so far as to include in the sphere of their hatred the lower classes among the Jews them- selves who did not satisfactorily observe the Law (Jn 7*® ‘This multitude which knoweth not the law are accursed’).
When Jesus sets over against this national bigo-
we must be willing to suffer still more and to surrender still more. It is right to withstand and even to punish those who injure us; but in order to correct them and to protect society, not because of any personal animus. It is right also to with- hold our possessions from those who without good reason ask for them; but in order to check idleness and effrontery, not because we are too fond of our possessions to part with them. So far as our personal feeling goes, we ought to be ready to offer the other cheek, and to give without desire of recovery what- ever is demanded or taken from us. Love knows no limits but those which love itself imposes. When love resists or refuses, it is because compliance would be a violation of love, not because it would involve loss or suffering.’ Gore, Sermon on the Mount, p. 103f.: ‘We may truly say that the Sermon gives us a social law for Christians. That is true in this sense: the Sermon gives us principles of action which every Christian must apply and reapply in his social conduct. But just because it embodies motives and principles and does not give legal enactments, it must appeal in the first instance to the individual, to his heart and conscience ; and it is only as the character thus formed must set itself to remodel social life on a fresh basis, that the Sermon can become a social law for Christians. You cannot take any one of its prescriptions and apply it as a social law at once. You cannot take the maxim, ‘If a man smite thee on the one cheek, turn to him the other also,” or, “If aman take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also,” and make it obligatory on Christians as a rule of external conduct, without upsetting the whole basis of society, and without ignoring a contrary maxim which our Lord gives us in another connexion. But each of the maxims can be taken to the heart and conscience of the individual, to become a principle of each man’s own char- acter and conduct, and then to reappear, retranslated into social action, according to the wisdom of the time, or the wisdom of the man, or the wisdom of the Church.’
It is difficult to understand how Dr. Sanday (art. Jusus Curist, vol. ii. p. 621) can say: ‘The ethical ideal of Christi- anity is the ideal of a Church. It does not follow that it is also the ideal of the State. If we are to say the truth, we must admit that parts of it would become impracticable if they were transferred from the individual standing alone to governments or individuals representing society.’ A similar view was advo- cated by the Bishop of Peterborough in the Fortnightly Review, Jan. 1890. This misconception of Jesus’ teaching seems to arise out of a confusion of principles with precepts. Social ethics and individual ethics cannot rest upon different prin- ciples; but the principles of ethics will call for different out- workings in concrete cases of their application—and this will be as true for individuals as for society. The people acting collec- tively through their governing officials (the State) are required to act according to precisely the same ethical standard as when they are acting individually ; namely, they are bound to obey the principles of forgiving kindness to all (Mt 521-24), of moral purity ead of protection of marriage (581f), of honesty in speech (533-87), of an absence of the revengeful spirit (589), of long-suffering (540), of helpfulness (541), of generosity (542), and of an all-embracing love (543-48), Gan any one think that the State is not bound so to act?