`You heard that it was said: Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth (Ex. 21:22-25); 39 but I -- I tell you not to resist the evil, but whoever shall slap thee on thy right cheek, turn to him also the other;40 and whoever is willing to take you to law, and to take your tunic -- grant him also your cloak.41 `And whoever shall impress you one mile, go with him two,42 to him who is asking of you be giving, and him who wants to borrow from you you may not turn away.
43 `You heard that it was said: Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and shalt hate thine enemy;44 but I -- I say to you, Love your enemies, bless those cursing you, do good to those hating you, and pray for those accusing you falsely, and persecuting you,45 that you may be sons of your Father in the heavens, because His sun He doth cause to rise on evil and good, and He doth send rain on righteous and unrighteous.
46 `For, if you love those loving you, what reward have you? do not also the tax-gatherers the same?47 and if ye salute your brethren only, what does it profit you? do not also the tax-gatherers so?48 you shall therefore be perfect, as your Father who [is] in the heavens is perfect.
This passage is, of course, another one we can’t avoid. Let’s take it in the two parts of the original text. First, the Lex Talionis. My first question is: would Yeshua’s audience have thought immediately of the Exodus passage, or would the concept already have migrated into a general consciousness, shedding its specific original context? Christians, certainly, are not commonly aware that the term originated in a passage about two men coming to blows in the vicinity of a pregnant woman and, by the collateral damage of hitting her, causing a premature birth. The rule is that if apart from the birth there is no serious injury, the hitter must pay what the woman’s husband demands and the court corroborates; if there is serious injury, retribution must be specific and appropriate: if she loses an eye, the hitter must lose an eye, etc. It has often been said that the purpose of this rule was to limit the retribution, which might otherwise degenerate into a vendetta; and this may well be true.
In later years it may well have continued to guard against unlimited vengeance, and thus to be a reasonable law, especially in less painfully physical cases. However, Yeshua again begins, “But I – I tell you . . .“ And now he launches into what becomes a genuinely counter-intuitive response. In some ways, it reminds us of a famous tactic in Oriental martial arts: giving way in the face of a blow so that the adversary may find his momentum carrying him through to a fall. If someone hits you in a moment of anger (and see earlier for that topic), turn the other cheek to let him hit you again. Two questions: what will be the effect, and in what spirit is it suggested? The effect will depend upon the adversary, but there is at least a chance that he will be suddenly and completely disconcerted, and that your reaction will break through his bubble of rage and stop him in his tracks.
In what spirit is the advice offered? It might be thought that, as in judo, the suggested action is a tactic the better to defeat your enemy. Clearly, though, that is not what Yeshua is about. Once again, the pattern is that of a general statement – “resist not evil” – followed, in this case, by three examples: the slap, the lawsuit for an item of clothing, and the Roman soldier’s impressment. What do these last tell us? First of all, that the general statement applies to individuals only. It is not a principle for public policy or for geopolitics (although it may contain a hint against the Zealot resistance fighters). Secondly, that for individuals it does not apply only in purely private situations (the slap) but also in the context of a community (the lawsuit) and of society at large (the impressment). In each of the examples, the initial deed is characterised as “ponèros”, which is perhaps not quite “evil” but rather worthless, knavish, malicious or wicked: it lacks the metaphysical extreme that “evil” suggests. If you resist, the first possibility is that you will fail: the slapper may be stronger than you, the person who wants your chiton or tunic may have a better lawyer and so get your himation, your cloak or toga, also, and resisting a Roman soldier’s legal demand would certainly be foolish. The second possibility is that you may be more or less successful; but if you are, your resistance will stir up and/or keep alive a counter-animus that will draw the situation out and create more enmity, so that the only profit may be a brief surge of self-respect i.e. pride.
Now, what happens if you follow the suggestion? True, you may get slapped again. But the counter-intuitive nature of your response, in all three cases, may well help to create the opposite of enmity – not friendship necessarily, but “peace”.
At this point, it is necessary to parse the Hebrew word shalom. In its Biblical appearance, it is almost always translated as “peace”. But in fact it is a vast word, a huge word, a cosmic word. It means a state of wholeness and completeness, of equilibrium, of the way things ought to be. “Making shalom” is a characteristic of God, and is therefore enjoined upon human beings. (NB: this casts an even more important light on the Beatitude “blessed are the peacemakers”: the are the ones who make Shalom.) So the purpose of this article of the new Torah is just that: making shalom. Yeshua once again completes the old Torah (which will not be abolished) by a greater inwardness: instead of an act of resistance, which will maintain the inwardness of the ponèros by returning it, we should inwardly make shalom, the outward and visible sign of which will be our counter-intuitive and unexpected reaction.
And when Yeshua goes on to the second part of our passage, he in fact does explain the general principle. Making shalom in an adversarial situation helps to make us more like the Father, who does not deprive the wicked of sunshine nor the unjust of rain. And I suspect his two clinching arguments of having been said with a smile: even if you only care about your own reputation, well, if you are only nice to those who are nice to you, in what way are you better than those collaborationist quislings you so despise? Hmmmm? Get a life! Shape up!
And finally, the summing-up. To us it sounds like an outrageous demand. We are to be as perfect as God? Really? Well, once again it is worth looking at the Greek word, which is teleios. And teleios has in it the root of “completing”. So it is more like “perfected, completed, finished” (in the sense that a potter’s pot comes out of the workshop teleios, finished). So it reminds us that we are made in God’s image but that we are a bit out of true. Following the new Torah, which completes the old, will help to complete us, bring us back to what we were made to be: in the image of the Father. Just as shalom restores Creation to what it was created to be: whole and teleios, complete.
No comments:
Post a Comment