Luke 6:20-31
20 Then he looked up at his disciples and said:
"Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.
21 "Blessed are you who are hungry now, for you will be filled.
"Blessed are you who weep now, for you will laugh.
22 "Blessed are you when people hate you, and when they exclude you, revile you, and defame you on account of the Son of Man. 23 Rejoice in that day and leap for joy, for surely your reward is great in heaven; for that is what their ancestors did to the prophets.
24 "But woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation.
25 "Woe to you who are full now, for you will be hungry.
"Woe to you who are laughing now, for you will mourn and weep.
26 "Woe to you when all speak well of you, for that is what their ancestors did to the false prophets.
27 "But I say to you that listen, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. 29 If anyone strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also; and from anyone who takes away your coat do not withhold even your shirt. 30 Give to everyone who begs from you; and if anyone takes away your goods, do not ask for them again. 31 Do to others as you would have them do to you.
Luke 6:20-31 is part of the Sermon on the plain that extends to verse 49.
Its source is Q and material unique to Luke. In fact, the sermon constitutes what scholars call the “little interpolation” in the material Matthew and Luke had in Mark. They have reworked the sermon in their unique ways. Matthew has incorporated material from other settings and group them topically in his presentation of the Sermon on the Mount. Luke has omitted some of the sayings in Matthew. Matthew has a tightly structured sermon, while the presentation in Luke has a loose construction. In verse 37, we have an example of how some scholars think that a saying from common wisdom is not from Jesus. I remain unconvinced by this argument. In verse 38, we have an example of how some scholars do not want to attribute to Jesus the notion of receiving a reward for their behavior, and thus do not consider them authentic words of Jesus. I find this incredibly convenient for the modern interpreter, aligning the words of Jesus with their notions. It is from Q and Mk. Uncertainty about whether it referred to retribution or reciprocity makes scholars wonder whether Jesus could have said this. In verse 39, the assumption of many scholars is that Jesus could not have spoken in proverbial wisdom, since it was not distinctive enough. I find this a questionable assumption. In verses 41-42, the saying is from Q and Thomas. For some scholars, this group of sayings follows more logically on v. 37a, though Luke may be following the Q order. Verse 43-44a, 45, we find this passage in Q and Thomas. This group of sayings are part of everyday proverbial wisdom, leading some scholars to conclude that Jesus could not have said such things. However, I have already suggested that this overly skeptical.
Jesus preached a significant sermon early in his Galilean ministry. One might call it his inaugural sermon. The sermon on the plain becomes a sample of the preaching of Jesus. Luke has stressed that the people came to listen. Now he shows Jesus' response and his giving a challenge to them. Although surrounded by a crowd, 20 Then Jesus looked up at his disciples and said. He addressed the sermon to his disciples. By using his eyes to hold his disciples' attention, he lets his closest companions know that these words are of particular importance for them. Before Luke begins the recitation of blessings and woes, he masterfully intertwines this public discourse with a private lesson specifically for Jesus' chosen disciples.
How do we live in a world gone so wrong? It may surprise us, but Jesus has offered to those who seek to follow him some sayings on which to ponder.
People often praise the beatitudes. It seems as if people rarely read them. We can easily praise them, but our words are empty when they fail to consistently to translate into action.[1] It will be best to admit the difficulty of preaching or teaching on this part of scripture. Generally, it would be easier to preach ten sermons than to live just one sermon. Such a statement is true in spades when considering the text before us.[2]
The temptation not to preach on the Beatitudes has to be strong. People have stitched them on so many samplers, engraved them on so many walls, used and misused them so much by those who rip them out of context. Yet, there is nothing but freshness in them, and we will hear them if we let the lines of the Sermon speak. Von Balthasar used a phrase out of Nietzsche to describe this: "Jesus did not `think what the day thought.'" Those who think today’s conventional, expectable thought see it fade and disappear with the day. These Beatitudes are fresh, radical, and thus capable of unsettlling and healing anyone in range.[3]
Jesus describes the life blessed by God with the rewards of that life. One should imagine a discussion between Jesus and his students organized around a problem they are pondering. The rabbi in that day would crystallize his teaching with a short and memorable saying. The beatitudes here are the result of that process. They are profound statements. Yet, they would make little sense without some of the background just suggested.
The church, at its best, keeps directing us to what is important and relevant in a human life, even when it goes against the way the culture defines relevance. These beatitudes are inviting us to reflect upon what “success” means to God. Jesus wants to clarify for the disciples and for the people what it means to follow him. These sayings of Jesus are wisdom sayings. Their design is to bring us to a place of insight concerning what Jesus thinks genuine happiness might be. Thus, if we approach them as a set of rules, we will miss the point. Rather, if we spend some prayerful time maybe spending a day using it as a mantra or brief prayer, letting its truth sink into our hearts, we will be far closer to what Jesus wanted. What is your calling? What should you do with your life? What really matters? Here is the challenge for us today. Your happiness may not be where you think it is. If we listen carefully, Jesus will turn our sense of happiness upside down.
The Beatitudes receive this name due to the Latin adjective beatus (“fortunate”) that stands at the beginning of verses 3-11 in the Vulgate. The word in Greek is Μακάριοι and one best translates it as “happy” or “blissful” to distinguish it from euloghtoV (“blessed”), which does not occur in the Beatitudes. Beatitudes (i.e., any statements that begin “Happy is the one who ...”) are thus distinct from blessings; beatitudes acknowledge praise due to an individual for some deed or quality, while blessings (“Blessed be the one who ...”) are petitions that God bless the one who possesses a particular characteristic or performs certain acts. The statements are synthetic rather than analytical. However, I do not think Barth is quite right when he wrote that they do not refer to human endowments or virtue. Rather, he thinks they are the proclamation in human words of a divine judgment. Yet, if happiness comes to people who possess particular characteristics, then Barth is mistaken. They are in line with Barth will elsewhere so eloquently describe as the direction of the Son. They describe the life-direction of the one following Jesus. He is quite right to say that they stand opposite to current ideas of happiness and good fortune. He is giving them new information about themselves. The presence of Jesus makes these persons blessed.[4]
"Blessed" is a formula of congratulations in relation to piety, wisdom, and prosperity. Μακάριοι has an association with the joy and peace associated with a relationship with divinity. These are not statements, but punctuation. How Blest, How wonderful. There is an emotional quality of blessedness and joy.
There are other beatitudes in 11:6, 13:16, 24:46, Luke 11:27-28, Revelation 1:3; James 1:12; Romans 14:22; and John 20:29.
Jesus ignored, almost to the point of prejudice, the high, mighty, and wealthy in favor of the weak, meek, and lowly. He ignored the righteous for the sinners. He ignored Israel for the Gentiles. God is poor in this world, and the royal man Jesus is poor. He fulfills this transvaluation of all values, acknowledging those who are in different ways poor people as this world counts poverty.[5]
The beauty of the beatitudes is that all to whom they apply will have a share in the coming salvation, whether or not they ever heard of Jesus in this life. The reason is that they factually have a share in Jesus and his message, as the Day of Judgment will make obvious.[6] Congratulating the poor without qualification is unexpected, even paradoxical, since one reserves such congratulation for those who enjoy prosperity, happiness, or power. Jesus expresses congratulations to the weeping and the hungry in vivid and exaggerated language, which announces a dramatic transformation.
The poor, the sick, and the possessed ‑‑ those who stood listening ‑‑ could easily identify with the physical nature of Jesus' blessings.
We do not look as good nor do have everything in order as we present ourselves to others. Pain brings us to our search for happiness, meaning, and joy. Our inner aches and pains tip us off that something is wrong, either within us or in our world. We come to Jesus and to those who follow him today in hopes of finding some satisfaction. One author gave the following assessment of happiness. Happy people are at ease only because the unhappy ones bear their burdens in silence. If there were not this silence, happiness would be impossible. It is a general hypnosis. Behind the door of contented, happy people, there ought to be someone standing with a little hammer continually reminding them with a knock that there are unhappy people. However happy they may be, life will eventually show their flaws and trouble will come to them. However, there is no one with a hammer. Happy people live at ease, faintly fluttered by small daily cares, and all is well. However, if life has a meaning and purpose, that meaning and purpose is not our happiness but something greater and grander. Is perhaps the role of the preacher to be "the person with the little hammer"?[7]
Jesus will invite us to consider that genuine happiness arises when we listen to the persistent voice inviting us to move from where we find it comfortable, where we want to stay and where we feel at home. The voice invites us to consider a form of voluntary displacement that recognizes our inner brokenness that brings us into solidarity with the brokenness of our fellow human beings.[8] Jesus bids his followers to extend their hands over the gulf between those who have and those who do not have. They do so in recognition that while the eternal happiness with God is their destiny, they focus their attention upon the needs of this time and this place.
20b“Blessed are you who are poor (πτωχοί), for yours is the kingdom of God. Jesus pronounces a beatitude promised to God's poor, oppressed people, with the need for them to show love and mercy. Those blessed are those who outwardly whom we should pity. God’s future action will meet their present need. Jesus' blessings are a proclamation of the way the world is in the rule of God. Note that there are no imperatives here, no exhortations to do better. The poor refers to those who are "so poor as to have to be," that is, those who are completely destitute. Jesus does not find any blessing in being poor; he does find that God's promise makes the poor blessed.
Thus, (in common with Luke) the poor (this part added by Matthew) in spirit receive the kingdom of heaven. Matthew may shift the meaning from the poor economically to a quality of the inner life. Matthew has correctly interpreted what Jesus meant here. This poverty, true and saving despair, is the gift of the Holy Spirit and the work of Jesus Christ. In this, it resembles faith, of which it is a part. It is to know our sin and divine compassion, forgiving us our sins. For him, it suggests despair about ourselves and the possibilities of existence. [9] The notion of the poor in spirit focuses upon inner life. It has in mind inner resources. It is close to the ethical attitude of humility. It contrasts lack of sufficiency for life verses self-sufficiency. It suggests the poverty of human resources. It has some similarities with the Old Testament. The Lord will look upon those who are humble and contrite in spirit (Isaiah 66:2b). The Lord hears the oppressed and needy (Psalm 69:32-3). God is forever kind and full of pity (Psalm of Solomon 10:7). In the Old Testament, the poor recognize their state of poverty before God. "Poor" people do not have to do something first.
Prosperity is so often a sweet poison. Pain is often a bitter medicine.[10]
As Jesus speaks, the future kingdom comes. God's authority is behind him. One must hear in the beatitudes one's own lack. Although the economically poor are in view, Matthew’s version of the beatitude makes it clear that it refers to the poverty of people before God. In the history of influence, the majority of the ancients viewed this as a spiritual poverty, humility. The humble are promised the kingdom. In doing so, the salvation that Jesus mediates consists of fellowship with God and the related life, which also embraces a renewal of fellowship with others. To have part in the rule of God is of the very essence of salvation.[11]
21 “Blessed are you who are hungry now, for you will be filled. The second beatitude has an intimate relation to the first. For where there is poverty there is surely hunger. Again, Luke's text emphasizes a bodily condition, not a spiritual malaise. The particle "nun" (now) focuses this beatitude because while hunger did not describe a social status like poverty, for many, hunger was a constant in their lives. Jesus' blessing promises that this unwanted companion God will banish and instead God will at last fill the hungry. Their hunger is for "now," but God will give complete and unwavering satisfaction. True spirituality, then, focuses our attention upon “now” rather than escaping our “now” for another world.[12]
In pronouncing this blessing, Jesus demonstrates two aspects of his messianic authority. He reveals that the rule of God is near. He proclaims his authority to declare this kingdom of God as the special possession of the poor. Upon those who have nothing in this world, Jesus bestows the whole of the kingdom. A life without political power or material prosperity was neither inevitably defeated nor depressed, but instead somehow blessed. The Cynic epistle, in a similar vein, says: "Practice needing little, for this is nearest to God, while the opposite is farthest away." The rule of God is this ability, this wisdom, to incorporate adversity into the enjoyment of contentment.
In Matthew, those who hunger and thirst for righteousness will receive satisfaction. They have not attained righteousness. It suggests continual hungering and thirsting, the longing of the pious for what they lack. The long for what only God can give. The “righteousness” to which Jesus refers receives a description in Matthew 5:20-48. The Old Testament knows of hungering and thirsting for God's word, mercy, and presence. The people will experience famine of the word of the Lord (Amos8:11). The Lord will provide a rich feast (Isaiah 25:6). Those who thirst are to come to the waters and those without money are to buy and eat that which will satisfy (Isaiah 55:1-2, 7). They shall not hunger or thirst for the Lord will guide them by springs of water (Isaiah 49:10). His tears have been his food day and night (Psalm 42:3). Some wandered in the desert, hungry and thirsty, but they cried to the Lord the Lord and the Lord satisfied the thirsty and hungry (Psalm 107:4-9).
“Blessed are you who weep (κλαίοντες) now, for you will laugh (γελάσετε). The third beatitude Jesus proclaims upon those who "weep now" (again the "nun" particle focuses the time and place). The Lucan term for weeping expresses general sorrow, not some specialized mourning over the ways of the world. This weeping accompanies everyday life and its losses. Luke contrasts this weeping with ordinary laughter in his elevated declaration that those with tears will find comfort ("paraklethesontai"). Those who mourn receive comfort. Mourning here is over one’s own sin as well as the sins of others. It suggests mourning over the state of the world. God will replace the mourning of this age with the comfort of the next age. It suggests strengthening and consoling. We also need to note the prophetic promise is the year of the favor of the Lord will bring comfort those who mourn and gladness instead of mourning (Isaiah 61:2-3).
22 “Blessed are you when people hate you, and when they exclude you, revile you, and defame you on account of the Son of Man. The reference to the Son of Man here may not be “authentic,” but the general New Testament reference to Jesus as the Son has its basis in the way Jesus referred to God as his Father.[13] 23 Rejoice in that day and leap for joy, for surely your reward is great in heaven; for that is what their ancestors did to the prophets. What kind of reception can the followers of Jesus expect? What would happen if the answer were to have others hate, exclude, revile, and attack you? Being "defamed" ("casting out your name as evil") probably refers to an official excommunication from the synagogue ‑‑ an attack leveled by one's entire community. Jesus' surprising revelation to his disciples is that this experience of rejection is in fact a sign of blessing.
Some scholars have suggested that the pointedness of the "woes" in Luke's beatitudes section indicates that many of these listeners may have been actively hostile toward Jesus and his message.
24 “But woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation (παράκλησιν). The "woe" declared upon those who are rich in this world stipulates that these rich ones have nothing to look forward to at all. Having "received their consolation," that is, they have all their receipts, they have no future claims whatsoever.
True, we make a living by what we get. We make a life by what we give.[14] Yes, prosperity is often a sweet poison. Pain can be a bitter medicine.[15]
25a “Woe to you who are full now, for you will be hungry. The particle “nun” also focuses the “woe” that parallels this “hunger” blessing (v.25). The fullness enjoyed by those sated now is as temporary as it can be. A hungry future awaits them. The underlying reference in both this blessing and woe is probably to the messianic banquet. The kingdom of God was often described as a feast with humanity in fellowship at the table with God (see Luke 13:28f; 22:16, 30; and 15:20‑ 24).
25b“Woe to you who are laughing now, for you will mourn and weep. The parallel "woe" text of 21b declares those now laughing have a messianic future of mourning and weeping ahead of them. The laughter derided by this woe is a smug self‑satisfied laughter that is indifferent to the plight of others. It may even suggest a kind of idolatry of pleasure‑seeking that refuses to consider what the cost may be to others. Luke's final blessing/woe proclamation switches to the second person.
In Luke 6: 24-25, we find an element of compensation for the suffering and deficiencies of the present world, which is part of the eschatological transformation that will take place. Those compensated now and find satisfaction in what they receive now, and therefore no longer yearn for the coming salvation of God, will be those whom God shuts out of the participation in salvation.[16]
26 “Woe to you when all speak well of you, for that is what their ancestors did to the false prophets. Jesus seems to direct the linked declarations in verses 22 and 26 to those who have at least established themselves in some sort of relationship with Jesus. The "woe" that Jesus warns the disciples to stay away from is the experience of acceptance, the disaster of having "all speak well of you." Jesus contrasts the historic treatment of genuine and false prophets to demonstrate his disciples' own acceptance or rejection by their communities. The false prophets, those crowd‑pleasers who used smooth words to hide evil intentions, stand as a warning to all who may be tempted to accommodate the gospel message to make it more acceptable to everyone. Followers of Jesus need to reconcile themselves to adversity. In fact, maybe we need to consider that when the culture or the tribe to which we belong smiles upon us, we need to have some caution.[17]
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 we must imagine 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 ultimately self-destruction? What is the logic of this speech? How do its different 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, who generally lived in the area of 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.[18] 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 has to 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 in order 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 generally 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.
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. 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.
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 they compelled commercial and other businesses to function more productively than before. How do you love your enemies?
In the next sayings, the demand level on the follower of Jesus through such a saying is high. The use of the singular “you” makes this very personal. In fact, the proposed response reverses the natural human inclination. 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. 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." 4) 29bFrom 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. By not feeling the need to protect what they had, Jesus took every material means of manipulating and imposing oneself on Jesus and his followers in Galilee out of the hands of the enemy. 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.[19] 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 others to treat one. 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. People who have such questions raise the possibility or propose at least a relativizing of this saying. 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.
[1] Archbishop Desmond Tuto.
[2] Martin Marty
[3] Martin Marty, Emphasis Ja-Fe 1996
[4] Barth (Church Dogmatics IV.2 [64.3] 188)
[5] Barth CD, IV.2 [64.3] 168-9.
[6] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 3, 615.
[8] Henri Nouwen, Compassion.
[9] Barth (Church Dogmatics, I.2 [16.2] 265)
[10] John Wesley.
[11] Pannenberg (Systematic Theology, Vol II, 398)
[12] Rob Bell, Velvet Elvis, inspired this thought.
[13] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 2, 364
[14] Winston Churchill
[15] John Wesley.
[16] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology 3 p. 639.
[17] John Wesley.
[18] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 3, 525.
[19] Barth, CD, IV.3 [71.5] 625.
No comments:
Post a Comment