Matthew 5:38-48

Matthew 5:38-48

38 "You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' 39 But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also; 40 and if anyone wants to sue you and take your coat, give your cloak as well; 41 and if anyone forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile. 42 Give to everyone who begs from you, and do not refuse anyone who wants to borrow from you.

43 "You have heard that it was said, "You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' 44 But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 so that you may be children of your Father in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous. 46 For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47 And if you greet only your brothers and sisters, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

5:38-48 The New Righteousness Toward People: Reconsidering Revenge, Hate, and Love

In Matthew 5:38-48 (Year A Epiphany 7), Jesus continues his proclamation of the rule of God that moves us toward understanding and practicing a better righteousness. He expands the command to love the neighbor to the love of the enemy, removing any expectation of reciprocity for such love. Yet, such sayings suggest provocative responses to persons and circumstances designed to elicit a response that defuses the tendency toward revenge, hatred, and violence. A casuistic interpretation could lead to more violence, which is not the intent.

Confucius memorably said that if you devote your life to seeking revenge, dig two graves. Many of us want to think that hatred is an emotion that we cannot help to have or a feeling we cannot overcome. If we hate someone, so we tend to think, we simply cannot help ourselves. We are human and thus have no choice but to hate. We believe this to excuse our hatred. We are not at fault when we hate. Our problem is that we can help it if we hate, and hatred is our fault. Hatred is a choice, even as love is a choice. Love and hate are matters of the will.^[1]

Matthew 5:38-41 are exhortations around non-resistance in a legal style.[2] In the part of this segment unique to Matthew, we find Jesus drawing a sharp contrast with a well-known saying, the first clause containing the opposing standpoint: ³⁸ "You have heard that it was said in Ex 21:22-25, Lev 24:17-21, and Deut 19:15-21 that one can administer justice equitably, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' The Old Testament context occurs in three casuistic legal texts. The first instance of the maxim is found in Ex 21:22-25. This case addresses an altercation between a pregnant woman and another individual — or a situation when a bystander inadvertently injures her — that causes harm beyond a miscarriage. According to the statute, the one who injures the woman is to be punished in the same way: “life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe” (Ex 21:23b-25). We also find the expression in Lev 24:17-21, embedded in a series of ordinances that stipulate the kind and degree of retaliation that the Law permits when one individual suffers the loss of an animal or another person give harm. Specifically, in such cases the law required that “Anyone who maims another shall suffer the same injury in return: fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; the injury inflicted is the injury to be suffered” (Lev 24:19-20). The phrase occurs a third time in Deut 19:15-21. In this instance, the expression “eye for eye, tooth for tooth” is set within the context of one who bears false witness against another with the intent to do that person harm. In such circumstances, the Israelites were not to show any pity to the perpetrator. Instead, they were to exact “life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,” to do to that one what he or she intended to do to another (Deut 19:21). They had the purpose of curtailing excessive retaliation. In practice, when applied to ordinary encounters, life became transactional. Each person was to pay back others. Such a practice was common in the honor-shame culture of the ancient world. People were to reclaim the honor of the family by exacting revenge. In fact, the greater the revenge, the better. Genesis 34 contains one such story of the brothers of Dinah exacting revenge. Once her brothers discovered that Shechem had violated her, Simeon and Levi set a trap by requiring him to submit to circumcision before they would allow him to marry Dinah. Three days later when Shechem and his comrades were still sore, Simeon and Levi took up the sword, slaughtering all of them. Jacob was horrified by his sons' deed, certain that they had made him "odious to the inhabitants of the land," and was convinced that they were in danger of destruction. Nevertheless, Simeon and Levi were unfazed; they maintained that they had done what was honorable and asked, "Should our sister be treated like a whore?" (Gen 34:1-31, esp. vv. 30-31). In Judges 13-16, Samson exacted revenge, and in II Sam 21:1-14 the Gibeonites exacted revenge. The disciples of Jesus, James, and John, wanted to exact revenge when the Samaritans did not welcome Jesus (Luke 9:51-56). Jesus seems to reject such a personal application for his disciples. ³⁹Thus, in direct contrast with the Law of Moses, the second clause contains the new standpoint, But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. Can one still say that Christ has fulfilled the law? Of course, the Old Testament law of retaliation was already a limit on revenge, and thus a positive approach in the direction of the way of Jesus in overcoming force. Negatively, love means renunciation of counterforce and resistance.  In context, the next antithesis will make the positive influence of love clear: (Luke 6:29-30), But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, a blow with the back of the hand is a special insult,[3] turn the other also. Instead of giving in to the natural inclination of striking back. In that culture, a slap in the face was an expression of hate and insult. 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 befalls him?  Does he not count it as gain whenever they fail to go to the limit?  'So-and-so reviled you.' I am obliged to him for not striking me.  'But he also struck you.' I am 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." ⁴⁰ And if anyone wants to sue you and take your coat, give your cloak as well (Luke 6:29b), an injunction that could leave one naked. Such an action would move against the natural inclination of suing in return. 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.^[4] Jesus opens an indirect opposition to the OT law of pledging. To the poor man, who must give his cloak as a pledge, one must return this cloak every evening so that he can sleep in it.

Exodus 22:26-27

²⁶ If you take your neighbor's cloak in pawn, you shall restore it before the sun goes down; ²⁷ for it may be your neighbor's only clothing to use as cover; in what else shall that person sleep? And if your neighbor cries out to me, I will listen, for I am compassionate.

Deuteronomy 24:12-13

¹² If the person is poor, you shall not sleep in the garment given you as the pledge. ¹³ You shall give the pledge back by sunset, so that your neighbor may sleep in the cloak and bless you; and it will be to your credit before the LORD your God.

 

The point of the saying is that one should not get involved in such lawsuits at all.

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.  ⁴¹ And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile. A reference to the occupying Roman army, resisting the natural inclination to resist such conscription by the occupying force. 

In a secular proverb,[5] ⁴² Give to everyone who begs from you, and do not refuse anyone who wants to borrow from you. The use of the singular “you” makes the difficult response direct and personal: “You give go beggars.” “Whoever gives to the poor will not want” (Prov 28:27). “Don't refuse to help a beggar who is in distress. Don't turn your back on a poor person or give the poor any reason to curse you” (Sirach 4:4-5). “Be kind enough to lend to your neighbor when the neighbor needs help. You are keeping the Lord's commands if you help the neighbor. If neighbors need something, lend it to them. And when you are in debt, pay it back as soon as you can” (Sirach 29:1-2). “Give generously to anyone who faithfully obeys God. If you are stingy in giving to the poor, God will be stingy in giving to you” (Tobit 4:7). Obeying Jesus here could leave one naked. 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.”

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. That may well be the intent in such injunctions.^[6] 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 such sayings.  It is a matter of alienation, of shocking, a symbolic protest toward the regular rule of force.  They are the expression of a protest toward 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. 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 history moved to a different historical setting, 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. The point is not simple literal obedience, but re-discovery of their truth in new situations, in freedom but in a similar radicality. The arrival of the kingdom of God indirectly determines their motivation and context. They fit well into the eschatology of Jesus, who repeatedly speaks not of the rule of God itself but of the everyday life that the rule of God influences. If this is correct, then one may dare still a further statement. For Jesus, the limitless love of God for the people makes possible the love of human beings among themselves and even for their enemies marks the arrival of the kingdom of God. One understands provocative renunciation of force as an expression of love.

Jesus confronts us with a profound insight into the root of human violence. A common philosophical insight is that human beings learn by imitating others. This especially leads to shaping what we desire. Even at an early age, we learn to desire what those who care for us desire. We desire to have what they have. This can be good, such as when we learn the language that others use. It can also lead to a mimetic crisis in that what we desire encounters rivals. This rivalry can lead to resolution through violence. Jesus is not inviting us to renounce imitation, but to move us toward nonviolent imitation. For example, consider the wisdom of “turning the other cheek.” If you want to put an end to mimetic rivalry, you must surrender everything to your rival. This will suffocate rivalry at its core. This is not just a matter of political strategy; it is much easier and more fundamental. If the other places outrageous demands on you—because the other is already under the spell of mimetic rivalry—he expects that you play along and attempt to outdo him. The only way to take the wind out of his sails is to do the exact opposite: Instead of outbidding him, yield to him doubly as much. If he demands that you run a mile, run two. If he strikes you on the left cheek, turn to him your right cheek. The rule of God means nothing else; but that does not mean it is easy to reach. A Christian existence does not denote an extinguishing of desire, but rather a redirecting of desire towards an end free of violence and rivalry.[7]

One way to think of such a command from Jesus is that Jesus taught consistent living and suffering of the truth of the soon arrival of the kingdom of God in contrast to and provocation of the world. Yet, a simple back to Jesus movement is impossible for basic theological reasons.  Rather, we need to interpret the exemplary nature of the text considering the situation one faces. Will a non-violent response reduce violence or will it expand violence? A fundamental change took place at the Constantinian reversal, a change that had to have its effects on the interpretation of our text if one is to deliver it anew in each situation.  Until then, what confronted the Christians was the question of how they should carry out and live their testimony in the world of law and politics, a world for which the Christians were not at all responsible.  Only now a tension existed between, first, the Christian commission to carry the testimony of the gospel to the world and to live in the community itself and second the Christian commission to help in shaping the realm of the world, including politics, for the best of humankind.  To forgo the use of force is a contrasting sign of the rule of God or a part of a new way of righteousness that Jesus has opened up. Jesus understands the renunciation of force as an expression of love.

To address the matter most directly, one does not use this saying in a provocative way by giving in to the aggression of others in every situation. A provocative use of the saying looks to changing the behavior of the aggressor toward peace. In some situations, the nature of the aggressor has no possibility of such change. On a personal level, to stand by and allow an aggressor to kill one’s neighbor when one could use force to stop it is not an act of love nor is it provocative. Rather, such a stance is cowardly. On a corporate level, to do nothing to free slaves in the south, to stop the extermination of Jews in Europe, or to stop Muslim militants who want to erase freedom from the earth and replace it with shira law, far from provocative behavior, becomes cowardly, unjust, and lacking in love for the betterment of humanity.

Matthew 5:43-48 are exhortations, in the form of a brief proverb enlarged with an illustration,[8] offered in legal style,[9] concerning love for enemies. ⁴³ Beginning with the source unique to Matthew, the first clause contains the opposing standpoint: "You have heard that it was said in Lev 19:18, "You shall love your neighborand, in a saying not directly in the Old Testament, but possibly implied in Ps139:19-22 and 137:1-9, hate your enemy.'  The second clause contains the new standpoint: ⁴⁴ In sharp contrast, (Luke 6:27-28) But I say to you, Love your enemies. Quoted often in early Christian teaching, they consider it a Christian distinction and innovation. The opinion of the church fathers that Jesus' commandment to love one's enemies is something new is only conditionally correct.  In Greek philosophy, particularly in the Platonic and Stoic tradition, there are basic statements like those of Jesus.  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."' In contrast with this, it is striking that Jesus speaks explicitly of the love of enemies. Nelson Mandela took this approach in South Africa when he said, "If you want to make peace with your enemy, you have to work with your enemy. Then he becomes your partner." 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 saying is memorable because it cuts against the social grain and constitutes a paradox. Enemies are not those we love; those we love are not usually our enemies.  Those who love their enemies have no enemies. The secret hope is that such love could turn an enemy into a friend. 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.  It rejects the potential violence inherent in hate of the enemy. 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 has a separate way of handling enemies in calling 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 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.^[10]

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? 

 You love your enemies in the following way. And pray for those who persecute you, ⁴⁵ so that you may be children of your Father in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous. Being a child of the Father is an eschatological gift of salvation,[11]applied to those who take the perfect love of the Father as their model.[12] 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." Jesus speaks of the love of God, that causes the sun to shine on good and bad, that causes rain to fall on the just and unjust, as a pattern of the love his followers are to have.^[13] Followers of Jesus abide in the love of God and in fellowship with God only as they pass it on to others, and therefore are children of God. They live in a special and filial relationship with the Father.^[14] If the work of God as the creator and sustainer who causes the sun to shine on the good and the bad is a model and basis for the command to love, then we must see the creation of the world as already an expression of the love of God.^[15] We can also see here connection between the love and goodness of God in creation as the basis for the love and goodness of God in sending Jesus to seek and save the lost.^[16] Generally, love is not so much a command but living reality, an impulse proceeding from the love of God for the world that lays hold of us and catches us up into its movement. Participation in the kindness of God as Creator ought to be the natural consequence of thankful acceptance of this kindness.^[17] Jesus teaches the notion of the creative activity of God, especially in the providential care for the creatures of God, bringing such notions into the picture of the fatherly goodness of God. Jesus teaches the patience of God involved in this basic goodness expressed in creation.^[18] 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.^[19] Such sayings suggest that divine love is not restricted to those whose moral performance is superior.^[20] We find here the perfection of the goodness of the Father demonstrated in the sun shining on the good and bad alike.^[21] The theological tradition applies references to creation here to the whole Trinity in its involvement in creation.^[22]

⁴⁶ For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Part of the religious language of the time was that of merit, a notion followers of Jesus are to detach themselves from.[23]Do not even the tax collectors do the same? ⁴⁷ And if you greet only your brothers and sisters, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? 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. Jesus is advising that the wall of the exclusiveness of fellowship and love that is at iue here, and of which all groups at all times have been guilty, is what Jesus is trying to break down as he forms his community.[24] ⁴⁸ Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.[25] Such perfection suggests a pure, undivided heart oriented toward fulfilling what Jesus has commanded of disciples. 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.^[26]

---

[1] Philip Gulley, For Everything a Season (Multnomah, 1999), 204.

[2] (Bultmann, The History of the Synoptic Tradition, 1921, 1931, 1958) 135.

[3] (Jeremias, New Testament Theology: The Proclamation of Jesus, 1971), 239, which is more original than Luke 6:29.

[4] (Barth K. , Church Dogmatics, 2004, 1932-67), IV.3 [71.5] 625.

[5] (Bultmann, The History of the Synoptic Tradition, 1921, 1931, 1958), 103, where it is typical of Old Testament wisdom but out of place in this context.

[6] (Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, 1998, 1991)Volume 3, 525.

[7] (Palaver, 2013) 216.

[8] (Bultmann, The History of the Synoptic Tradition, 1921, 1931, 1958), 81.

[9] (Bultmann, The History of the Synoptic Tradition, 1921, 1931, 1958) 135

[10] Inspired by —Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Life Together (Harper Collins, 1954), 17-18.

[11] (Jeremias, New Testament Theology: The Proclamation of Jesus, 1971), 181.

[12] Schneemelcher, TDNT, VII, 390

[13] (Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, 1998, 1991)Volume 3, 184.

[14] (Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, 1998, 1991)Volume 2, 372, Volume 3, 211. 

[15] (Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, 1998, 1991)Volume 2. 144. 

[16] (Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, 1998, 1991)Volume 2, 331.

[17] (Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, 1998, 1991)Volume 3, 78.

[18] (Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, 1998, 1991)Volume 1, 262.

[19] (Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, 1998, 1991)Volume 3, 212.

[20] (Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, 1998, 1991)Volume 1, 440.

[21] (Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, 1998, 1991)Volume 1, 432.

[22] (Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, 1998, 1991)Volume 1, 326. 

[23] (Jeremias, New Testament Theology: The Proclamation of Jesus, 1971), 216.

[24] Stahlin, TDNT, IX, 160-1.

[25] (Bultmann, The History of the Synoptic Tradition, 1921, 1931, 1958), 96, it is difficult to say if this is the original or if Matthew has altered it to use the saying as the conclusion of what has preceded it.

[26] (Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, 1998, 1991)Volume 3, 491-2.

I Corinthians 3:10-11, 16-23

I Corinthians 3:10-11, 16-23

10 According to the grace of God given to me, like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation, and someone else is building on it. Each builder must choose with care how to build on it. 11 For no one can lay any foundation other than the one that has been laid; that foundation is Jesus Christ.

16 Do you not know that you are God's temple and that God's Spirit dwells in you? 17 If anyone destroys God's temple, God will destroy that person. For God's temple is holy, and you are that temple. 18 Do not deceive yourselves. If you think that you are wise in this age, you should become fools so that you may become wise. 19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, "He catches the wise in their craftiness," 20 and again, "The Lord knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are futile." 21 So let no one boast about human leaders. For all things are yours, 22 whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future—all belong to you, 23 and you belong to Christ, and Christ belongs to God.

       I Corinthians 3:1-23 has the theme of the leadership and nurture of the church.

I Corinthians 3:10-11 has the theme of the powerful metaphor of Christ being the foundation of the church. One consistent major theme throughout I Corinthians is church unity. Paul exhorts the Corinthian church to break through the various divisions that cause factions within the church. These divisions seem to be both varied and many, and Paul spends a great deal of his letter systematically addressing each concern or division. Although the divisions are many, Paul’s solution is singular: You are the body of Christ, grounded in Christ, and therefore One. 

¹⁰ According to the grace of God given to me, like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation, and someone else is building on it. Each builder must choose with care how to build on it. When one says “Christ,” one is also saying, “Christ and His own.” Christ in his fullness includes the community of people who belong to Him. Yet, the community is not just a passive object in this building up. It is not a spectator in its upbuilding. It builds itself. Christ builds it up, but through the work and life of the church. The church needs constant correction and improvement in accord with the instruction and admonition of the apostles. The church is also the subject to future judgment. Yet, in all its weakness, need, and dubious quality, it remains a provisional representation of the goal set by God in Christ. In this passage, Paul has authority to build up. Building up means integration, which is the work of God, of the apostles, and ultimately the whole community.^[1] 11 For no one can lay any foundation other than the one that has been laid; that foundation is Jesus Christ. Theology has developed certain preliminary deliberations or preambles to faith, or today, “fundamental theology,” that is, theological reflection that lays a foundation for dogmatics. Such deliberations are fundamental only in terms of methodology. Materially, only the self-revelation in Jesus Christ is fundamental, as this passage stresses.^[2]The ministries of the church are to serve the unity they have in Christ. If the unity of the church had its basis in them (such as pope and bishops), it would have been irretrievably lost in view of the fact that in the course of history the church’s higher ministers have often been the ones to contribute to its schisms. The ministries of the church can only be signs of this unity.^[3]

I Corinthians 3:16-23 explores the implications of the church as the temple of God. ¹⁶ Do you not know that you are God's temple and that God's Spirit dwells in you? Such a statement directly implies the deity of the Spirit. In fact, the tension between the notion of transcendence and immanence gains specificity in this passage, in which the Spirit dwells in believers.^[4] The same Holy Spirit who dwells in believers is none other than the creator of all life in the whole range of natural occurrence and also in the new creation of the resurrection of the dead. Purity here is a primary concern, as is holiness. Most of all, however, God’s central and foundational role in the church is at stake.^[5] The Spirit is not “gift” in the sense of becoming a possession of believers, but rather, is the one who dwells in believers in order to lift them outward toward others and toward God.^[6] 17 If anyone destroys God's temple, God will destroy that person. For God's temple is holy, and you are that temple. 

Paul now makes what seems to be an abrupt shift, even though it continues a theme he has already explored in Chapters 1-2. In these chapters, Paul has been combating the division that comes with people who consider themselves “wise” from within the church. Paul plays beautifully with the theme of “wisdom” and “foolishness.” On the one hand, he is addressing the specific divisive issue in the church, and, with incisive force, clearly states that not many were wise before they came (1:26). Moreover, Paul addresses those who think they are “wise” by furthermore insisting that God chose the foolish to shame the wise. Paul once again reiterates his theme of unity: All are one in God. Indeed, if there is a divide for Paul, it is the stark divide between those of the church and those of the outside. For the cross is a divisive line: For those who do not believe, it is folly, but to those who do believe, it is salvation and the power of God (1:18). However, because that line is so stark and bold, nothing is left but unity within it. On the outside, there is still division: Neither Jew nor Greek understand, for Christ is an obstacle to Jews and foolishness to Greeks (1:23). Nevertheless, from the inside, there is no division, neither Jew nor Greek, only unity. Chapter 3:18-21 therefore picks up these themes. He first states his paradoxical theme. ¹⁸ Do not deceive yourselves. If you think that you are wise in this age, you should become fools so that you may become wise.  ¹⁹ For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written in Job 5:13, "He catches the wise in their craftiness," ²⁰ and again in Psalm 94:11, "The Lord knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are futile." Barth refers to Goethe, who took great offense at this passage, saying that if it were true, there would be no use in living. He raises an interesting point, for surely, a proper notion of creation suggests that we have these brains in order to enable us to make our way through life, and this includes “human wisdom.” Yet, the point Paul seems to make is in another direction. This does not mean, of course, that one should seek to be less intelligent than he or she is, but rather that one’s intelligence does not give one an advantage over others with respect to our relationship with Christ or the body of Christ.^[7] Paul now completes the conversation begun in Chapter 1, in which members of the congregation created divisions by claiming a particular leader as belong to them. It is probable, therefore, that the Corinthian church members assumed their congregation would work in much the same way that society around them would. Horrified at this behavior, Paul scathingly retorts that it was not “Paul” who was crucified for them but Christ. Paul spends several verses declaring himself glad that he baptized only a very few of the church members in Corinth so they would not have cause to boast in Paul’s name even more. Paul instead urges that the risen Christ does not live as a divided self and, therefore, neither should God’s people be. Paul notes this theme of unity again in verses 21-23. Here, however, Paul adds to his earlier argument: It is not merely unity that should prevent people from dividing into factions but the realization of the riches they have in Christ. ²¹ So let no one boast about human leaders. For all things are yours, ²² whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future—all belong to you, ²³ and you belong to Christ, and Christ belongs to God.Paul’s argument is that if they have all these things, why would they be so eager to claim only one apostle as “theirs”? They in turn belong to Christ. Each faction would apparently vie with each other, trying to assert dominance or a position of authority based on which disciple it followed. In Greco-Roman culture, people would attach themselves to wealthy patrons. In return for flattering behavior and public attention, these patrons would give their “clients” credibility and social status they could never gain on their own. Particularly when speaking for a patron, a client would enact the authority that the patron possessed and, therefore, could wield great power. The argument of Paul is that if they have all these things, why would they be so eager to claim only one apostle as “theirs”? The apostles, in turn, belong to Christ. Christ owns and possesses them, and in this fact in a paradoxical way, they have their secure freedom, whether in relation to human teachers or to the world around them. He is letting Christians know who and what they are.^[8] We can think of Paul as attacking the human tendency to snatch at that which one thinks gives honor. One can seek honor in a futile way by basking in the reflected glory of another, whether in Paul, Apollos, or another apostle. One seeks honor from the one who plants or waters rather than from the God who gives increase. Paul thinks of it as self-deception if they think they receive honor in this way. They belong to Christ alone.[9] Paul therefore emphasizes throughout the entirety of his first letter to the Corinthians the importance of unity, a theme that pervades the first three chapters. Christ is the foundation on which the church is built; indeed, each individual person, as well as the collective community, represents the temple of God. The wisdom of this age is nothing, and to become wise one must seek to be a fool. And in Christ the church has all things. Therefore, there is no cause for division but only unity.

---

[1] Barth (Church Dogmatics IV.2 [67.1] 634)

[2] Pannenberg (Systematic Theology, Vol I, 61)

[3] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology (Vol III, 108, 391)

[4] (Systematic Theology, I, 303)

[5] (Vol. III, 2)

[6] (Vol. III, 12)

[7] Barth (Church Dogmatics IV.2, 419)

[8] (Church Dogmatics IV.3 [71.3] 537)

[9] Church Dogmatics III.4 [56.3] 667.

Leviticus 19:1-2, 9-18

Leviticus 19:1-2, 9-18

1 The Lord spoke to Moses, saying: 2 Speak to all the congregation of the people of Israel and say to them: You shall be holy, for I the Lord your God am holy.

⁹ When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap to the very edges of your field, or gather the gleanings of your harvest. ¹⁰ You shall not strip your vineyard bare, or gather the fallen grapes of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the poor and the alien: I am the Lord your God. ¹¹ You shall not steal; you shall not deal falsely; and you shall not lie to one another. ¹² And you shall not swear falsely by my name, profaning the name of your God: I am the Lord. ¹³ You shall not defraud your neighbor; you shall not steal; and you shall not keep for yourself the wages of a laborer until morning. ¹⁴ You shall not revile the deaf or put a stumbling block before the blind; you shall fear your God: I am the Lord. ¹⁵ You shall not render an unjust judgment; you shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great: with justice you shall judge your neighbor. ¹⁶You shall not go around as a slanderer among your people, and you shall not profit by the blood of your neighbor: I am the Lord. ¹⁷ You shall not hate in your heart anyone of your kin; you shall reprove your neighbor, or you will incur guilt yourself. ¹⁸ You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against any of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord.

Leviticus 17-26, what scholars call the Holiness Code (H in the documentary hypothesis) formed sometime during the 600s BC. This book is not one that most Christians find enjoyable to read. The late British preacher Leslie Weatherhead wrote a book called The Busy Man’s Old Testament in which he provided an outline for what he considered to be the most useful parts of the Old Testament for modern readers. He urged people to read those parts, but the vast material in between he generally covered with a few summary sentences. When it came to Leviticus, he advised, “This book concerns itself with the minutiae of the sacrifices on the altar and the sins which demanded such sacrifices. For devotional purposes, the book may be omitted altogether.” I am not going to take that approach here.

The Holiness Code likely originated among the priests in the Temple in Jerusalem. Another group of priests would insert it into the Priestly source during the exile. It seems to build upon the Covenant Code of Exodus 20:22-23:33. It also seems to have affinities with the Deuteronomic Code of Deuteronomy 12-28. A generally accepted date is sometime in the seventh century BCE and presumably originated among the priests in the Temple in Jerusalem. In the documentary hypothesis, the Holiness Code is part of the Priestly source. However, the hypothesis also suggests that it was an originally separate legal code (referred to as "H") which the priestly source embedded into its writing. The priestly source subjected the Holiness Code to editing. 24:1-14, 23 is from the priestly source. Chapter 27 is a post-exilic addition related to that temple.

This code is the way in which God binds people by rules of conduct that epitomizes the regulations needed to safeguard the fellowship that those who are related to God have both with God and with each other. 19:2 makes it clear that the Lord elects Israel to participate in the divine holiness.[1] 19:5 and 22:19 are examples of the different terms for the divine good pleasure that may originate in the reception of sacrifices by God, but could then apply to the divine will in general.[2] The prohibition against consulting the dead and soothsayers had the point of forbidding the people from seeking any light from them concerning the things of God. Their source was to be the revelation from the God of Israel.[3]

For Barth, the concrete content of the Holiness Code illustrates the complete, all-embracing divine action for humanity. It reminds humanity that all along the line God’s own holy will is dealing with humanity, and that humanity is saved by it, not because humanity sanctifies itself, but because in obedience to these commands humanity submits to the holiness of God. For him, since the good will of God has its origin in the free will of God, its content is not one we should assimilate into a general system of the ethical and teleological type. This or that command has its ground in the affirmation: For I am the Lord. The keeping of the Holiness Code cannot even remotely signify anything that one might construe as a meritorious righteousness of works. The keeping of it can mean only that Israel accepts this contingent reality of its God. The divinity of the love of God is in few other passages of the Bible so distinctly manifest as in Leviticus, a book often misunderstood and regarded obscure, a useless and book, imprisoned within the limitations of its period. He refers to J. Wichelhaus[4] in saying that humanity cannot and will not understand that it is because God is good, holy, and loving, that God is also angry, chides, hurts, and casts into the flames. The holiness of God is terrible to humanity. He criticizes A. Ritschl, who tried to reduce everything that the Old Testament says about the wrath of God to the idea of occasional outbursts of the passion and destructiveness of God against the enemies of Israel and those who broke the covenant in Israel itself. For Barth, if God does not meet us in jealous zeal and wrath, then God does not meet us at all, and in spite of all our asseverations about divine love, humanity is in actual fact left to itself. To accept the grace of God means to respect the holiness of God, and therefore to accept, heed, and keep the laws of God, to fear divine treats, to experience divine wrath and to suffer divine punishment. If not, acceptance of grace is indistinguishable from heathen quietism. Respect for the holiness of God, if it is not a vain heathen religion of fear, can only mean directly to accept the grace of God in thankfulness, to receive replenishment that leads to contentment in the grateful acceptance of such grace.[5]

The code concerns the holiness of God and the holiness of Israel. It contains one of the central theological concepts of the Hebrew Bible. Priestly writings in the Old Testament contain the greatest concentration of references to holiness in the Bible, and the concept of holiness became a central concern to those priestly-influenced circles, especially after the destruction of the northern and southern kingdoms of Israel and the exile of the Israelites in Babylon. Holiness became the means by which a postexilic identity for Israel as a viable religio-political community that priestly leaders constructed, gradually supplanting Israel’s pre-exilic royal dynasty.

Holiness, in the religion of ancient Israel, was, primarily, the distinguishing characteristic of the God of Israel: 

“For I am the Lord who brought you up from the land of Egypt, to be your God; you shall be holy, for I am holy” (Leviticus 11:45). “ 

 “For I am the Lord your God; sanctify yourselves therefore, and be holy, for I am holy. You shall not defile yourselves with any swarming creature that moves on the earth.” (Leviticus 11:44) 

“You shall be holy to me; for I the Lordam holy, and I have separated you from the other peoples to be mine.” (Leviticus 20:26)

“you shall treat them as holy, since they offer the food of your God; they shall be holy to you, for I the Lord, I who sanctify you, am holy.” (Leviticus 21:8) 

“Extol the Lord our God, and worship at his holy mountain; for the Lord our God is holy.” (Psalm 99:9) 

¹⁵ Instead, as he who called you is holy, be holy yourselves in all your conduct; ¹⁶ for it is written, “You shall be holy, for I am holy.” (I Peter 1:16)

The Divine was holy as far as the Divine was, in Rudolph Otto’s famous formulation, a mysterium tremendum. Holiness in ancient Israel always included the notion of power, often displayed in awe-inspiring and frightening natural phenomena: “When all the people witnessed the thunder and lightning, the sound of the trumpet, and the mountain smoking, they were afraid and trembled and stood at a distance” (Exodus 20:18, God’s giving of the Ten Commandments to Moses at Mount Sinai).

Holiness also always implied and demanded separation; that which was holy was always, in some manner, set apart from the ordinary and profane: “Out of all the gifts to you, you shall set apart every offering due to the Lord; the best of all of them is the part to be consecrated [literally, “made holy”]” (Numbers 18:29).

Because of the innate holiness of God, anything associated with God or touched by God’s presence became similarly holy. The various attributes of the deity were holy, such as the divine name, an idea found especially in priestly and cultic writings (e.g., Leviticus 20:3; 22:2; 22:32; 1 Chronicles 16:10, 35; 29:16; Psalm 30:4; 33:21; 97:12; Ezekiel 20:39; Amos 2:7; etc.). The arm of God was also holy (Psalm 98:1; Isaiah 52:10), as were divine words (Jeremiah 23:9) and the divine habitation (Deuteronomy 26:15; Psalm 46:4; 68:5; Jeremiah 25:30). 

One of the most important objects made holy by the divine presence was the temple in Jerusalem, the earthly dwelling place of the God of Israel. We find this idea especially in the Psalms (Psalm 5:7; 11:4; 65:4; 79:1; 138:2; see also Jonah 2:4, 7; Micah 1:2; at least some of the psalmic references may be to the heavenly, rather than the earthly temple of the Divine, e.g., Psalm 11:4).

However, no object in ancient Israel was more important in its divinely bestowed holiness than Israel itself. “The Lord will establish you as his holy people, as he has sworn to you, if you keep the commandments of the Lord your God and walk in his ways” (Deuteronomy 28:9; see also Leviticus 11:44; 20:7; Isaiah 63:8; Exodus 19:6; 3 Maccabees 2:6). Concepts such as justice and righteousness figure prominently in the identity of Israel. Yet, the concept of Israel’s identity as a holy people, separated by that holiness from all other nations (Leviticus 20:26), and the continual failure of Israel to maintain its holy identity was the dynamic underlying the creation, preservation and reapplication of Israel’s sacred Scripture. The Lord elects Israel so that it will participate in divine holiness. Incorporation into the sphere of divine holiness also means separation.[6] They are holy when they keep the statutes.[7] It represents “a democratizing element” in the theology of the priestly circles within Israel. Rather than limiting holiness to a special class within Israel, such as priests, the command receives broader application.[8] We find the command repeated in I Peter 1:16. The holiness of God demands and enforces the holiness of the people of God. It means divine confrontation with humanity that leads to a human correspondence to the divine.[9]

Leviticus 19:1-37 are miscellaneous moral and religious regulations. 

In Leviticus 19: 1-2, we continue with the Holiness Code begun in Chapter 17. We find the formulaic statement (see also 12:1; 14:1; 16:2; 17:1; 18:1; 20:1) that ¹The Lord spoke to Moses. It reminds us that the context of this passage is the instruction at Mount Sinai and that Moses plays a prominent role in the canonical text as the one who receives and communicates the Torah. He is not only transmitter of the revelation, but more importantly is intercessor between the people and the deity, the prophetic role par excellence (see, for example, his attempt to atone for the people after the incident with the golden calf, Exodus 32:30-32; see also Abraham’s designation as prophet-intercessor for King Abimelech in Genesis 20:7). In Israelite memory, Moses was without peer as the recipient and interpreter of divinely given revelation, although there are traces of an ancient rivalry for this role with his brother Aaron (see, for example, Leviticus 11:1; 13:1; 15:1). Moses will speak to ²congregation of the people of Israel, a phrase that occurs only here, but the term “congregation” usually refers to sacred assembly limited to adult males.[10] The message he is to deliver, which will become the theme of the chapter, is You shall be holy, for I the Lord your God am holy.

What does holiness look like? We will find out in the Holiness Code generally and in Leviticus 19 in particular.

In verses 9-10, we have the command to practice eleemosynary or charitable farming. ⁹ When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap to the very edges of your field, or gather the gleanings of your harvest. ¹⁰ You shall not strip your vineyard bare, or gather the fallen grapes of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the poor and the alien: I am the Lord your God. In verses 11-12, we find prohibitions against theft, business transactions, lying and perjury. ¹¹ You shall not steal; you shall not deal falsely; and you shall not lie to one another. ¹² And you shall not swear falsely by my name, profaning the name of your God: I am the Lord. Verses 13-18 contains a list of things that one is not to do to one’s neighbor. In particular, we find prohibitions against defrauding one’s neighbor (which meant a fellow Israelite, not anyone who just happened to live nearby), a repeated prohibition against theft and prohibitions against reviling the deaf and putting stumbling blocks in front of the blind. ¹³ You shall not defraud your neighbor; you shall not steal; and you shall not keep for yourself the wages of a laborer until morning. ¹⁴ You shall not revile the deaf or put a stumbling block before the blind; you shall fear your God: I am the Lord. In verses 15-18, we find a continuation of a theme that began in verse 13 of a list of things that one is not to do to the neighbor. ¹⁵You shall not render an unjust judgment, which may suggest that adult males took their turn as part of the group of elders of the community. It certainly applied to priests, prophets, and judges (e.g., Deuteronomy 19:11-12, 17; and especially chapters 21-22). We do not know if all male Israelites were expected, at some point in their lives, to assume responsibility for the administration of justice as part of the body of elders (analogous to serving on a jury today) or specifically as a judge; the former seems much more likely than the latter.  You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great: with justice you shall judge your neighbor. Their just judgment included neither disadvantage due to poverty nor special privilege to the rich. See also at Exodus 23:3. While the Bible clearly has “a preferential option for the poor” (see, e.g., Deuteronomy 24:12, 15; I Samuel 2:8; Job 29:12), that concern, in practical terms, may not result in concrete actions that harm those who are not poor. Those who were most vulnerable in ancient Israelite society — the widow, the orphan, the poor and the resident alien — received particular protection by all members of society from the natural group abundance that provided more than a subsistence existence for its members. ¹⁶ You shall not go around as a slanderer (the root meaning of rachil is “to go about, from one to another” but Hebrew has a particular verb form, the Hithpael, not used here, usually conveys such iterative action) among your people, and you shall not profit by the blood of your neighbor, meaning to take advantage of a fellow Israelite’s physical calamity, whether from accident, violence, illness or decrepitude. I am the Lord. ¹⁷ You shall not hate in your heart anyone of your kin, one of the few times an inward disposition receives a prohibition. It would be unwise to interpret the mention of kin to imply that hatred of non-kin was acceptable. You shall reprove your neighbor, or you will incur guilt yourself. Yet, we also have some responsibility for our neighbor that may take the form of reproof, rebuke, confrontation, correction, and reasoning frankly with them. Such counsel was also part of the wisdom tradition. The idea draws a line between hate and offering correction. Given the context, one shows love to the neighbor by correcting and confronting the neighbor. Your silence may mean you become complicit in the sin. In Psalm 141:5, the writer invites the righteous person to strike him, for that would be kindness. He will not refuse the rebuke. Proverbs 9:8b says that wise people love those who offer them correction. Proverbs 19:25 says that if you correct people of understanding they will gain in knowledge. Proverbs 27:6 says the wounds from a friend are faithful. Luke 17:3, one is to rebuke the fellow disciple who sins. In Matthew 18:15, if a fellow disciple sins against you, you are to confront the person directly. In both cases, the goal is repentance and forgiveness. In Galatians 6:1, Paul urges a spirit of gentleness as the church restores one who has sinned. Yet, they should have care not to succumb to temptation. James 5:19 urges bringing back one who has wandered from truth. All of this is a reminder that those who live in covenant with the Lord are also in covenant with each other. To put it another way, if you see yourself doing something badly and nobody bothers to tell you anymore, that is a very bad place to be. Your critics are the ones telling you they still love you and care about you.[11] ¹⁸ You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against any of your people, but you shall love your neighbor, your fellow Israelite, as yourself. Thus, given the context, we could say that offering such correction is an expression of love for the neighbor. Yet, we also need to take care lest all we are doing is expressing hatred on the one hand or vengeance on the other. Verse 34 seems to expand the notion of neighbor to the stranger. Jesus would generalize the command with the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10) and with making it the second of two great commandments, neither of which are part of the Ten Commandments. Jesus has brought together the two passages of scripture, Deuteronomy 6:4-5 and Leviticus 19:18, in a way no other Jewish teacher had done.[12] Paul refers to this passage in Romans 13:9 and Galatians 5:14 as a summation of the Torah. The Letter of James may even be a sermon based on Leviticus 19:12-18. The basis for the commandment is simple and profound: I am the Lord. The Israelites have pledged loyalty to Yahweh. Their identity and the identity of Yahweh have bound together in a covenant relation. The holiness of this God demands and enforces the holiness of the people of God. It requires that the divine confrontation of the world and all humanity should find a human correspondence and copy in the mode of existence of this people. God is holy, and acts among them as such, and therefore make them holy, as your life and norm. The start for any such discussion is 20:8, the Lord is the one who sanctifies you.[13]

---

[1] Pannenberg, (Systematic Theology, Volume I, 398)

[2] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, Volume I, p. 381.

[3] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume I, p. 199.

[4] Die Lehre der hl. Schrift, 1892, 343

[5] (Church Dogmatics III.2 [30.1], 364-368)

[6] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 1, 398.

[7] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 3, 491.

[8] (J. G. Gammie, Holiness in Israel [Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989], 32).

[9] Barth (Church Dogmatics II.2 [66.1], 501)

[10] Often, the designation is as “all the congregation of the Israelites” (Exodus 35:4, 20; Numbers 15:25, 26; 13:26; 14:7) or “all the congregation of Israel” (Joshua 22:20; 1 Kings 8:5), or simply as “all the congregation” (Leviticus 10:6; Numbers 13:26; 14:1). The construction here is peculiar (and missing from some manuscripts).

[11] Randy Pausch, The Last Lecture.

[12] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 3, 78.

[13] (Church Dogmatics II.2 [66.1], 501)