Luke 6:27-38 continues the Sermon on the Plain with special emphasis upon love of enemies.
The beatitudes are the starting point, but the heart of the sermon on plain in Luke is the love that must dominate the life of the Christian disciple, even for the enemy. That love has its root in the love and mercy of the Father.
If we think of those who first gathered these sayings, most scholars think of this material as part of a hypothetical document Q, material that Matthew and Luke and share but the material is not in Luke. The community would have gathered these sayings of Jesus in the 30s and 40s. I mention this only because the material of this sermon represents a concern for ethics. Ethics directs attention at the resolution of concrete problems or specific cases as well as the further specification of an established or developing way of life. What is the concrete situation in life that must be imagined for the ethical instruction given here, if taken at face value, not to register in practice merely an open invitation to repeated abuse by others and self-destruction? What is the logic of this speech? How do its various parts fit together? Why "love your enemies"? The problem dealt with here is the experience of hostile opposition: the various predicaments provoked and suffered by the early Jewish-Christians because of their decided social marginality. The result is a skillfully argued piece of early Christian ethics, helping further to articulate in both word and deed as a moral posture the underlying ethos of the Christians of this period, most of whom lived around Galilee. Clearly, this life was on increasingly under fire. They assume that people want to be like God. They also assume that God will reward the faithful.
Scholars call these parenetical hortary sayings, aphorisms, and parody. They are a form of discourse that exaggerates certain traits for comic effect. Such sayings have the design of producing insight, prompting the listener or reader to react differently to acts of aggression. The supreme art of the world government by God is to cause good to come from evil, and in this way to overcome evil with good, as Jesus commanded his disciples to do.[1] That may well be the intent. Yet, at the least, the demands of Jesus do not consider their consequences, which might be very ambivalent: it also could happen that the one who strikes winds up for another hit, that the poor person without a cloak must freeze and that one strengthens the hostile occupation power! There is a piece of conscious provocation in these sayings. It is a matter of alienation, of shocking, a symbolic protest against the regular rule of force. They are the expression of a protest against any kind of spiraling of force which dehumanizes the human being and of hope for a different behavior of the person from that which is the everyday experience. In these sayings, we might find a gentle protest and an element of provocative contrast to the force that rules the world. These commands intend to find obedient persons to obey them. One understands provocative renunciation of force as an expression of love. Interestingly, in the circumstances of the first centuries of Christianity, the church applied these sayings literally. Christians could not be part of the armed forces of the Roman Empire. The reason is obvious. The Empire could call upon you to arrest and kill Christians. As Christianity no longer experienced persecution, the application of the rule changed. Once Christianity had some responsibility for the culture, the application of the rule changed. The point is that a provocative use of this saying intends that nonviolence lead to the possibility of change in the aggressor. However, we also have experience of people for whom such nonviolence is a sign of weakness that invites more violence. The point is that an absolute application of this rule without regard to context is hardly the intent of Jesus.
27 "But I say to you that listen, Love your enemies, placed first in the list of ethical concerns for rhetorical effect. It has become one of the most central commands of Christian texts. People of the ancient world considered it something new. It creates the condition of the possibility that now permits the reader to imagine the heretofore inconceivable notion of overcoming evil with good, to use Paul's terms, or the defeat of enmity through different means than those of hatred and retaliation. The initial imperative depends upon the preexistence of these other sayings to think itself. This is a memorable aphorism because it cuts against the social grain and constitutes a paradox: those who love their enemies have no enemies. Enemies are not those we love; those we love are not usually our enemies. Jesus gives counsel here that cuts against the grain of customary wisdom. The secret hope is that such love could turn an enemy into a friend. It invites the listener to imagine a new possibility of overcoming evil with good. Interestingly, Diogenes, a Greek Cynic philosopher, gave similar advice: "When asked by someone how to repulse an enemy, he replied, 'You be kind and good to him."' The phrase "love your enemies," would lose its rhetorical force, if the activity of love in the imagined confrontation were somehow to eliminate or ignore the hostile character of the stated enemy. It is a strategy for handling unfriendly opposition. Love your enemies becomes a way to take care of the jerks. Abiding hostility provides the context for the injunction. This counsel to love your enemies has the purpose of forming a certain social character. One of the morally salient features of the teachings of Jesus was precisely this ability to handle hostility with notable restraint and calculated inversion.
Today, we think in scientific terms. Contempt destabilizes relationships and politics, but it also degrades the immune system. It damages self-esteem, alters behavior, and even impairs cognitive processing. Those at the receiving end of contempt tend to have increased anxiety, depression, jealousy, and sadness and reduced performance on difficult intellectual tasks. Being treated with contempt takes a measurable physical toll. Those who routinely feel excluded have poorer sleep quality, and their immune systems do not function as well as those of people who do not suffer contemptuous treatment. As we might expect, contempt is not good for the person who has it either. Treating others with contempt causes us to secrete two stress hormones, cortisol and adrenaline. If one leads a life of that often expresses contempt, one is constantly secreting these hormones — the equivalent of living under significant consistent stress. Our contempt is inarguably disastrous for us, let alone the people we are holding in contempt.[2]
Further, on a practical level, one wonders if it asks too much of a disciple. Paul is not squeamish about writing of his enemies. II Peter 3:12-22 will call enemies irrational animals, and so on. Not only that, if one reads Matthew 23 from the perspective of a scribe or Pharisee, one might not feel the love from Jesus. One could even wonder if the ethical teaching of Jesus is so high that it fails to produce solid and practical results in the followers of Jesus. Some people would say it violates the basic biological, anthropological, and psychological dimension of the human being. Church history, with its crusades, wars between Protestant and Catholic, forced missionary endeavors, and anti-Judaism in Christian Europe, all suggest as much. Jesus continues that disciples are to pray for those who persecute them, so that they may be children of their heavenly Father.
Placing oneself in the American political setting of the 2020s, it seems like applying this saying of Jesus in the public square is not possible. If we agree upon political and national goals, but disagree upon how to get there, we have some common ground upon which to dialogue. When we disagree about the kind of nation in which we want to live, the basis for dialogue and negotiation becomes unlikely. Therefore, the rhetoric becomes heated. We are no longer simply opponents vying for votes, but enemies involved in what feels like a life-or-death struggle. The United States is a nation of enemies at war with itself. It is a house divided, as Lincoln put it. How does the political progressive who wants to live Christianly love their enemy in that setting? How does the political libertarian or conservative who wants to live Christianly love their enemy in that setting? The preferred option is for each to accuse the other of not living Christianly and thus that Jesus is on one side or the other. The preferred option by the progressive is to accuse their enemies of being racist, homophobic, and misogynist. The progressive rewriting of history, frustration with the constitutional system, and appreciation for Marxist ideology, makes it difficult for those who appreciate the struggle witnessed in American history for expanding freedom, appreciation the limits placed upon government to encroach upon individual freedom, and appreciate the political and economic views of Adam Smith, John Locke, Kant, Hegel, Edmond Burke, Jefferson, and Madison to comprehend the progressive viewpoint. Such a view comes across as ignorant and profoundly wrong. The country has views related to covid-19 that have become heated differences. Climate change has long been a difficult conversation. My point is that at this stage in history, it has become difficult to see a peaceful path out of the present debate in the public square. With the depth of feeling and ideological commitment on opposing sides, it is becoming difficult to find anything that holds us together. Loving the enemy in the public square of America today feels impossible.
As a general note, the various injunctions of Jesus as to how deal with opposition had the objective of some form of liberation from the menace of unresolved hostility and sporadic military repression, with personal enmity and the permanent threat of abuse. We must assume the pervasive and seriously destabilizing nature of all colonial rule as such. "Organized" political projects of resistance and revolt did not fully articulate themselves in Galilee and Judea until much closer to the outbreak of the first Jewish war than scholars used to assume. However, it could hardly have been business as usual after the Romans arrived on the scene even though commercial and other businesses were compelled to function more productively than before. How do you love your enemies?
Jesus of Nazareth lived among enemies. The follower of Jesus has a vocation in which he or she will need to have the courage to live among enemies Christianly. The rule of God is amid its enemies. If we only want to be among friends and among those whom we think of as devout, then we are avoiding the suffering that is part of our vocation.[3]
Jesus offers some ways in which we can, even within the heated debate of the American public square, practice love of the enemy. We need to meditate upon these sayings and think of ways in our setting that we can practice an unusual object of love. His advice may feel impractical and idealistic. Yet, it may be the most practical and realistic thing Christians could practice. It may even help freedom survive. Love may be the path we need to pursue to bring healing to the nation and to nations. Such love will expect nothing from the enemy, but simply reflects the love God has for all persons. Such love is provocative and may bring a change in the enemy, but such love can liberate us from the bondage of hate. Martin Luther King Jr. once said, “I have decided to stick with love. Hate is too great a burden to bear.”[4]
You love your enemies by 1) 27bdo good to those who hate you, 2) 28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. 3) 29 If anyone strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also; and 4) from anyone who takes away your coat do not withhold even your shirt. This notion is a case parody, with an extremely narrow focus that has broad application. In this case, it points to a situation that rarely occurs. One could not take such a saying literally without comic effect. When taken literally, it can produce insight, prompting the listener to react differently to acts of aggression. In fact, the proposed response reverses the natural human inclination: when struck, we tend to strike back. The demand level on the follower of Jesus through such a saying is high. The use of the singular “you” makes this very personal: you offer the other cheek; you give up your coat and cloak. In Semitic culture, striking someone was a form of insult among Jews and Romans. It was a sign of challenge in which the aggressor was ready for a real fight. In this verse, a certain proactive strategy of passive resistance is apparent. Not always successful, the same behavior may nonetheless frequently produce a holding pattern, delayed attack, bewilderment, and retreat, if not defeat on the part of the predator. The Stoic philosopher Epictetus said, in a similar vein: "Does anything seem strange to him? Does he not expect worse and harsher treatment from the wicked than actually befalls him? Does he not count it as gain whenever they fail to go to the limit? 'So-and-so reviled you.' I am greatly obliged to him for not striking me. 'But he also struck you.' I am greatly obliged to him for not wounding me. 'But he also wounded you.' I am greatly obliged to him for not killing me." He also said, "Now the Cynic must have such patient endurance that most people will think that he is insensate and a stone. Nobody reviles him; nobody beats him; nobody insults him. But his body he himself has given for anyone who wants to use it as they see fit." By not feeling the need to protect what they had, every material means of manipulating and imposing oneself on Jesus and his followers in Galilee had been taken out of their enemies' hands. Under the circumstances, such injunctions were smart moves. We cannot meaningfully understand such statements as the demand for an extraordinary exercise of moral virtue, but only as the marching order never to allow the rejection and opposition that they encounter to divert them from their accepted role as witnesses of the reign of God in which they must love, do good, and bless. They cannot be witnesses of the rule of God in any other way. They must witness in this way, even though they meet with enmity, hatred, cursing, and affliction.[5] The text offers one more way to love your enemies. 5) 30 Give to everyone who begs from you, and if anyone takes away your goods, do not ask for them again. Obeying Jesus here could leave one naked. Such an action would move against the natural inclination of suing in return. The point of the saying is that one should not involve oneself in such lawsuits at all. Here is another case parody. If taken literally, it is ridiculous; the person would soon be destitute. It cuts against the social grain. The philosopher Crates once said: "You will be able to open your purse easily and to give away freely what you draw out with your hand: not as you do now, calculating, hesitant, trembling, as those with shaky hands. But you will regard a purse that is full as full and after you see that it is empty, you will not complain." Note the casual approach to cash and collateral. This is subversive wisdom of the Cynic regarding money and its proper management. Significant deviation from the usual habits for handling such an issue belongs to the teaching of Jesus and his effort to upset the social order or disorder created by these patterns of both thought and action. One should see everything in these verses as part of the regular daily grind of a subjugated people's struggle to survive. Personal violence and theft are as normal a part of everyday existence as the more peaceable exchange of goods and services. It provides yet another example of how one should express the love of the enemy. The use of the singular “you” makes the difficult response direct and personal: “You give go beggars.”
31 Do to others as you would have them do to you. The standard of behavior is how one wants to be treated by others. Thus, if I wanted others to treat me as a king, I should treat others as though they were kings. If I want others to love me, I should love others. For some, the flaw in the saying is whether there is a calculating egoism. Does it suggest that one should not go beyond self-interest? However, the saying more likely means that, given the natural tendency of human beings to retaliate and seek revenge, we need to adopt another set of values. Such questions raise the possibility propose at least a relativizing of this saying and they may even evaluate the saying in a negative way. In other words, Christian ethics must go beyond the mere consideration of what we would like others to do to us.
32 "If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. This phrase suggests the motive clause for the phrase "love your enemies." Only by behaving in a patently different fashion from the normal patterns of typical collegiality would they be able to realize their distinctive virtue.
33 If you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. 34 If you lend to those from whom you hope to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to receive as much again. 35 But love your enemies, do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return. Your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High; for he is kind to the ungrateful and the wicked. This is the only place in Q that one can become a child of God. Jesus could demand of his hearers that they should show themselves to be the children of their heavenly Father by loving their enemies as God causes the sun to shine on both the good and the bad.[6] The fact that God's sun shines on all, regardless of comportment and accomplishment, means that no prevailing standard form of civic righteousness exists that God might validate. Epictetus, the Stoic philosopher, expressed a similar thought: "... the Cynic has made all persons his children ... In this way, he approaches them all and cares for them all. ... It is as a father that he does it, as a brother and as a servant of Zeus, who is father of us all." Verse 35 is a reminder to love the enemy, expecting nothing. Jesus calls his listeners to imitate God's penchant for meeting out unmerited mercies and love. It a natural conclusion of the message presented to have Jesus remind his followers not to judge others. Being the children of God is the essence of the Christian life, which we see here in the promise that the love of enemies makes us children of God.[7]
36 Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful. Such perfection suggests a pure, undivided heart oriented toward fulfilling what Jesus has commanded of disciples. Such sayings suggest that divine love is not restricted to those whose moral performance is superior. We find here the perfection of the goodness of the Father demonstrated in the sun shining on the good and bad alike.[8] We find here an echo of the statement in Deuteronomy that the people are to be holy since the Lord is holy. Belonging to God in this way means separation from the world of sin.[9]The theological tradition applies references to creation here to the whole Trinity in its involvement in creation.[10] Here is a thought in the preaching of Jesus that by his message and work the Father shows us the mercy that pardons our sins. Paul would apply the thought to the death of Jesus.[11] Thus, one can abide in the love of God only as one passes it along to others.[12]
37 "Do not judge, and you will not be judged; do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Paul, as part of his argument against the Jewish person standing in judgment of the Gentile, says one has no excuse, for when one judges others, one is also condemning oneself, because the one who judges does the same things (Romans 2:1). James offers that since humanity has one lawgiver and judge, we are not to judge our neighbors (James 4:12). The fact that they do not site Jesus as a source for the saying is interesting. Yet, on the lips of Jesus, I wonder if not judging is a part of that mercy God showers down upon the just and unjust.
37bForgive, and you will be forgiven; 38 give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over, will be put into your lap. The promise of bounty following upon forgiveness is reminiscent of the rewards guaranteed for Christian performance in Mark 10:29-30. While no merchants would dare to be caught doctoring their scales, neither would they "press down" or "shake together' a measurement to assure customers a maximum amount for their money. In God's extravagance, the "good measure" is poured out until it is "running over'- spilling over the sides of the measuring device and filling the robe-pocket or lap of the receiver. This is what God wants to pour out to us, Jesus declares, if we will only offer the same to others.
38cFor the measure you give will be the measure you get back." One could interpret this proverb as "eye for eye."
Christians are not sent to the world to judge, to condemn, to evaluate, to classify, or to label. When we walk around as if we must make up our mind about people and tell them what is wrong with them and how they should change, we will only create more division. Jesus has said clearly that we are to be compassionate like the Father and refuse to judge or condemn, but to practice forgiveness even toward the enemy. In a world that constantly asks us to make up our minds about other people, developing such a presence in the world seems impossible. However, for those who long for reconciliation, it is one of the most beautiful fruits of a deep spiritual life.[13]
I have focused upon these sayings as part of the wisdom teachings of Jesus. He offers wisdom for how disciples are to relate in a social and political environment in which they have no obvious power. The only power they may have is to awaken the conscience of those in power. As wisdom, it requires the cultivation of wisdom to know when and how to apply it. Loving the enemy is a good strategy if the enemy has at least the basic requirement of ethics. Turning the other cheek will work if the other has a modicum of decency. Jesus is suggesting that if you show the smallest amount of compassion to the enemy, it will provide the opportunity for a new insight the enemy did not have.
As wisdom, we are not to apply these sayings as if they were law or commands that we are to obey regardless of circumstances. Pacifists who appeal to these sayings are wrong for that reason. They approach legalistically what Jesus viewed as wisdom. The wise person knows how and when to apply such sayings. To use a separate set of wisdom sayings, the wise person knows how and when to apply the wisdom contained in the notion that the rolling stone gathers no moss and how and when to apply wisdom contained in the notion that we must look before we leap. Both sayings represent wisdom when properly applied by the wise person to a specific set of circumstances. The same truth applies to the wisdom of Jesus here. Part of discipleship is learning when and how to apply this wisdom to the situation the follower of Jesus may face today. The problem with the pacifist view of these sayings is that they approach legalistically and absolutely when Jesus intended as wisdom for ad hoc and contingent settings.
In the world in which you and I live, evil is still present in overt and covert ways. I am convinced that one of the signs that we are in the presence of an evil person is how the person responds to weakness. If the person sees another who is weak and responds with compassion, we have someone with whom we can hope to have a moral conversation. However, if someone sees weakness and sees an opportunity to take advantage in order to build up oneself, we have a different case. Cruelty to animals can be a sign. Cruelty to infants and children can be such a sign. People who go down this path have crossed a moral bridge into the territory of evil. Such persons do not need followers of Jesus to turn the other cheek. They need followers of Jesus who will stop them from inflicting their evil upon others. Followers of Jesus will show love for their neighbors if they stop such evil persons from projecting their evil into the world. The same truth applies to nations. Nations who have become beastly in the use of their power to oppress others need to have good nations who will stop them.
I have stressed that we must not take what Jesus says here literally or legalistically. Rather, the point of such stark and abrupt sayings is to get us to think about the way we engage others in this this world. Specifically, the concern is confronting a hostile social environment. For him, the setting involved occupation by foreign power. Yet, let us not kid ourselves. All of us face a hostile environment at some points in our lives. People and governments have approached us aggressively. Our natural tendency is to fight back. While such a response may be the right one, Jesus is inviting us to consider another path that may defuse a potentially violent situation. Knowing when to do so is wisdom according to Jesus. Even then, it may seem that what Jesus asks of his followers is impossible. It may seem like he is too idealistic. Yet, behind Jesus' words are the vision and the conviction that God will bring in a reign of peace. In God's reign, there will be no violence and former enemies will join in love and reconciliation. In God's reign, words of blessing and forgiveness will overcome cursing and condemnation. To live as a disciple - and this is the key - is to live today as one who already belongs to this new sovereignty. Disciples listen to different music, respond to another source of direction, and trace a different pattern on the world's canvass.
The members of Luke's church caught a glimpse of this new reality every time they went to church. There around the Lord's Table were old enemies, now made friends. Roman soldiers and those they had oppressed pass the bread and the cup. Jews and Gentiles, hated adversaries, now clasped hands and said, "The peace of Christ be with you." Anybody who grew up in a roiling turbulence of Palestine would have said that this kind of community was flat impossible. However, "what is impossible for mortals is possible for God," and the proof was there every Sunday. They got up from that table and went into the world, living out here and there, now and then, the way of life they had experienced in worship.
[1] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 3, 525.
[2] —Arthur Brooks, Love Your Enemies: How Decent People Can Save America from the Culture of Contempt (HarperCollins, 2019), 26.
[3] Inspired by —Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Life Together (Harper Collins, 1954), 17-18.
[4] King, Martin Luther Jr. “Loving your enemies” (a sermon preached at Dexter Avenue Baptist Church, Montgomery, Alabama, on November 17, 1957). The Martin Luther King, Jr. Research and Education Institute at Stanford University website, kinginstitute.stanford.edu. Retrieved August 1, 2021.
[5] Barth, CD, IV.3 [71.5] 625.
[6] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 2, 372.
[7] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 3, 212.
[8] Systematic Theology Volume 1, 432.
[9] Systematic Theology Volume 3, 491-2.
[10] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 1, 326.
[11] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 1, 433.
[12] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 3, 211.
[13] —Henri J.M. Nouwen, The Essential Henri Nouwen (Shambhala, 2009), 159-160.
At the time of Constantine there were large numbers of Christians in the military. some historians suggest that that was a reason for in this you shall conquer. Christians were part of the military in large numbers before the end of persecution. Last general persecution was under Domitian. This is very interesting never thought of these verses as wisdom lit. you point out correctly if followed completely they become absurd. However, I think this needs more work as to the details. Jesus certainly went to the extreme. Liked your view of what is evil but it is subjective. Palestinians see the US forgien policy as evil, since it has led to the slaughter of thousands of Palestinians. My point is this is interesting but needs more work or conversation as to application. Aanother question is how do you decide what is wisdom lit. and not a command? Lynn Eastman
ReplyDeleteyes, it is difficult to know how to apply any wisdom saying wisely. It requires development of our ability to discern the moment. It is not as difficult to apply a command, like Do not murder, Do not steal, and such. We tend to know the command, even if we do not follow it. Thus, You shall have no other gods before is a command which we get, even if we have difficulty applying. A wisdom saying is more likely to intentionally provoke thought about our behavior. Thus, we normally avoid the enemy and maybe hold grudges and hold in contempt. to say advise us to love the enemy is provocative. How do we do that? In certain settings, it seems impossible. If someone hits you, it is natural to hit back. to suggest that you turn the other cheek is provocative as it stimulates us to ponder what we can do to reduce violence rather than escalate it. A command sets a limit, while wisdom keeps pushing us beyond limits. BTW, i have added much to the reflections on that passage today.
Delete