A Jewish professor’s take on the Sermon on the Mount.
Sermon on the Mount: Agree With Your Adversary: Matthew 5:25-26
Posted on 7/2/2010
In this portion of the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus instructs his followers: “Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison. Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.” In short, Jesus was teaching reaching a compromise rather than going to court. Why did he so teach? The answer lies in the nature of Judaism. Judaism is not just a religion, but a legal system, too. Thus, it is a religious-legal system.
As part of this religious-legal system, Jews are commanded to do justice: “Justice, justice thou shalt pursue.” Deuteronomy 16:20. (Compare King James Version with New Revised Standard Version.) What is the significance of the term “justice” appearing twice? Some of the ancient rabbis opined it meant that the litigants must seek justice. Other rabbis believed, however, that both the litigants and the court must seek justice.
But if justice is to be emphasized, that seemingly precludes a friendly settlement, whereby strict justice is avoided. Is there no place for a compromise in the law?
In fact, Judaism finds compromise of claims meritorious. Why? Because a friendly compromise which leads to peace among the litigants is itself a manifestation of justice. As the prophet taught, “Execute the judgment of truth and peace in your gates.” Zechariah 8:16. Thus, just as God tempers His attribute of justice with His attribute of mercy, so, too, do litigants when they split the difference in a civil suite and avoid prolonged and, as Jesus points out in Matthew 5:26, a possibly destructively adverse judicial ruling. You may think you have a strong case, but you never can know for sure what the outcome will be once your case is in the hands of the judicial system.
Thus, a friendly settlement that avoids a long trial and a possibly adverse outcome is preferred, which is exactly what Jesus taught.
Sermon on the Mount: Jesus, Women, and Sex: Matthew 5:27-28
Posted on 7/6/2010
Jesus continues his instruction to his disciples, teaching them: “Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.”
During the presidential campaign of 1976, Jimmy Carter gave an interview in Playboy magazine and, when asked if he had ever been unfaithful, he responded:
Because I’m just human and I’m tempted and Christ set some almost impossible standards for us. The Bible says, “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” Christ said, I tell you that anyone who looks on a woman with lust has in his heart already committed adultery. I’ve looked on a lot of women with lust. I’ve committed adultery in my heart many times….
Did Jimmy Carter commit sin? Jimmy Carter and many Christian theologians believe so (although he later went on to state that God had forgiven him, pursuant to traditional Protestant theology).
There are two interesting aspects to this Gospel passage: The first is that Jesus seemingly is putting a “fence around the Torah” (something that I explain immediately below). The second is that Jesus seems to teach that mere thoughts may be sinful. We tackle each of these points in turn.
As to the first aspect, note how Jesus seemingly puts a greater “burden” on his students than the Torah does: the Torah limits the act of adultery; Jesus seemingly demands more, as President Carter acknowledged. This is something that the ancient rabbis often did, what is referred to as, making a “fence around the Torah.” This means that the ancient rabbis enacted rules to make the breach of a Torah commandment more difficult. Thus, for example, by rabbinical enactment, a Jewish man is not to be alone with a woman not his wife, daughter, or mother, all with an eye toward not violating Exodus 20:18 the Eighth Commandment of the Decalogue, prohibiting adultery.
What has often fascinated me is that more than a few Christian theologians and writers criticize the Pharisees for enacting these additional rules (the Pharisees began the “fence around the Torah”), referring to them as burdensome rules. Yet, in his own stress on purity, this is exactly what Jesus does in his Sermon (don’t get kill and don’t’ even get angry; don’t commit adultery and don’t even look).
As for Jesus’ “fence” of not even looking, was this appropriate from a Jewish perspective? Well, it all depends on which rabbi you ask. One rabbi, like Jesus himself, taught that one should not look “admiringly” on a heathen woman (would it be okay to look admiringly upon a Jewish woman?). Yet another rabbi responded that it is not only not wrong to look upon such a woman, but when doing so, one should declare, “How great are your works [of beauty] O Lord!” (referencing Psalm 111:2, “The works of the Lord are great”). So, some thought it was not okay to look; others thought it was okay.
In any event, we now come to the second aspect of this part of the Sermon on the Mount: did Jesus (and at least some rabbis) prohibit mere thoughts? Recall that Judaism is a religion of deed, not creed (see posts of April 15 and April 18, 2010). As such, while one should always strive for pure thoughts, there is no sin occasioned by thinking base thoughts. Indeed, even the Tenth Commandment of the Decalogue (Exodus 20:17), “You shalt not covet,” does not prohibit mere thoughts; the ancient rabbis interpreted this to mean that the commandment prohibits only actions in furtherance of these thoughts.
As to Jesus teaching against “looking on a woman to lust after her,” I do not believe that Jesus and (at least) some rabbis were teaching that thoughts alone can be sinful. Both Jesus and the rabbis were dealing not just with thoughts, but with an act — looking.
Hence, thinking base thoughts about a woman is not sinful, notwithstanding Jimmy Carter’s view; the act of looking, however, may be such an act, at least according to Jesus and some rabbis, while other rabbis believed that beauty is to be admired and for which God is to be praised.
The sages of the Talmud were all “down to earth men.” They all had occupations (there were no paid rabbis during those times). They all had families. They had sexual urges. They looked at pretty women. Some thought it was quite all right to look; others did not.
As I have stated in previous posts, such is the nature of Judaism: put 12 Jews in a room and you will get 13 different opinions.
Sermon on the Mount: Jesus, Women, and Sex: Matthew 5:27-28 (Continued)
Posted on 7/9/2010
In the last post, we saw Jesus teach his disciples: “Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.”
In this post, I leave the realm of scholarship and turn to the realm of morality and psychology: I write this because I simply cannot understand how any husband can cheat on his wife. Nor can I comprehend how any woman can cheat on her husband. I just do not get it.
The Torah prohibits adultery. Exodus 20:14. Whether or not one agrees with Jesus’ and the rabbis’ teaching about mere “looking” (see post of July 6, 2010) one cannot explain away adultery. Yet, although the statistics are not clear, more than a few men and women cheat on their spouses. Maybe it is one-third. Maybe it is one-fifth. Whatever the precise number (who would admit to this in a poll?), many men and women cheat on their spouses. Again, I just don’t get it.
Not only does adultery violate the Torah’s commandment (it is a commandment, not a suggestion), but it also tears apart the marital relationship of trust and confidentiality. Moreover, if the marriage has children, it hurts them, the innocent ones, irreparably. Inevitably, the kids find out about it. Again, I state, I cannot understand how any man or woman would jeopardize his or her relationship, not just with God, but with his or her spouse and children.
When I was growing up, I saw how cheating can destroy a family. I won’t go into any details. It would do no good. Suffice to say that such conduct greatly harms a family, if it does not destroy it. I see adultery as nothing less than a selfish, narcissistic, poisonous act.
All marriages have challenges. If it is bad enough to get out, then get out. Or try to fix it. Or grin and bear it. But cheating? It is dishonorable to God, spouse, children, and self.
We are not like animals. We have free will. We can make moral choices. In that sense, we are all made in the image of God. Genesis 1:28.
The motto of the Marine Corps is, “Semper Fidelis,” “Always Faithful.” Simple. Not complicated. It makes sense to me.
Sermon on the Mount: Self-Mutilation: Matthew 5:29-30
Posted on 7/13/2010
In this post, Jesus implores his students to avoid the sin of adultery (or even looking), by admonishing them: “And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.” Pluck out one’s eye? Cut off one’s hand? Was Jesus serious?
Clearly, Jesus was resorting to hyperbole to make his point, as he (and the ancient rabbis) were wont to do. How can we be sure that Jesus did not mean to be taken literally? The answer is simple: Jewish law prohibits one from engaging in self-mutilation.
The basis for the prohibition is Genesis 9:5: “And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man’s brother will I require the life of man.” With self-mutilation comes blood, and Jews are prohibited from desecrating their own body. Bear in mind, too, that in Judaism, we do not “own” our bodies; God does. Hence, suicide also is prohibited.
Thus, Jesus was making a point and using exaggeration to do it. He was not the first and not the last Jewish teacher to do this!
Of course, one may ask whether modern body piercing is prohibited. If the piercing draws blood, many rabbis would oppose it. Some rabbis take the approach that it is not allowed because of the potential for harm that it might do, even in the absence of blood, while others (typically the progressive versions of Judaism) are not as rigorous in this regard. Still other rabbis are opposed to piercing, focusing on the impropriety of following the “fads” of other nations: “After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances. Yet, again, we see that Jews do not agree on many matters.” Leviticus 18:3.
Should one have an actual question in this regard, such a person should consult with a competent rabbi. The matters addressed here are solely for the purpose of discussion and not for the purpose of giving practical advice on the law ( halacha ).
Sermon on the Mount: Divorce: Matthew 5:31-32
Posted on 7/16/2010
Jesus follows his teaching on adultery with the related issue of divorce, instructing his students: “It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.” Matthew 5:31-32. Thus, Jesus would allow a man to divorce his wife only in the case where she commits adultery. While this was not the law at the time, and is not the law today, Jesus was not alone in his position, one which was more rigid than the law, which I now explain.
Initially, Jewish law generally allowed a man to divorce his wife: “When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.” Deuteronomy 24:1. Because Judaism is a legal system in addition to be a religion, we find ourselves asking, what does “uncleanness” mean?
Some rabbis, such as the great Hillel, took the position that the term means, if he finds anything wrong with his wife — even the way she prepares his food — that is sufficient to trigger “uncleanness” and, thus, allow him to divorce her. A competing rabbi, the great Shammai, took the view that the term means adultery — the same view as that held by Jesus. Yet again, we see that it is not shocking that Jesus espoused the view of another Jewish teacher: Jesus, of course, was a Jewish teacher, too. Further, Jews disagree with each other. As we have stated in many of these posts, such is the nature of Judaism.
That all said, what is the state of the law of divorce? Then, as now, it is the husband who must give his wife a decree of divorce. Still, that is not the whole picture.
The Torah gives several examples where a husband could not divorce his wife at all. Where he falsely accused her of not being virgin when they married (Deuteronomy 22:13-19) and where he ravaged her before marriage. Deuteronomy 22:28-29.
In addition, as time went by, the rabbis added laws to make it more difficult for a husband to divorce his wife. He could not divorce her when she was insane or a captive. He also had to give her a dowry at marriage, which could be collected by the wife at the time of death or divorce. (Money talks.) Most importantly, by the time of the Middle Ages, it was decreed that at husband could not divorce his wife without her consent, unless there was good cause. Further, the rabbis gave the wife the power to divorce her husband for various causes: when he would not have sex with her; when he had a “loathsome” disease; when he was engaged in a malodorous business; when he was impotent; or when he was cruel to her. In any case, the husband still had to give his wife a bill of divorce, even if she had good cause. But the rabbis found a “legal” solution to that, too. If the wife had cause for divorce and the rabbinical court (beth din) found in favor of the wife and the husband refused to give his wife a divorce, and if all other forms of pressure failed, the court could send out court officials who would beat the husband until he said, “I will voluntarily give my wife a bill of divorce.” Of course, this can no longer be done. In the Diaspora, a rabbinical court and its officials would face criminal and civil charges for such conduct. In Israel, where Jewish law is the law of the land for family law matters (in most other matters, the law is English and Turkish law, nations that previously controlled the area now known as Israel), courts have contempt powers: to send a man to jail until he gives his wife a bill of divorce.
In one famous case in Israel not that long ago, a young woman married a man many years her senior. She wanted to divorce him because he was exceptionally cruel. The divorce court found in her favor. The husband refused to give her a decree of divorce. The court held him in contempt and sentenced him to jail; he could leave jail whenever he gave her a bill of divorce. He never did. Rabbis came to him and begged him to give his wife a bill of divorce, promising him money and even a seaside villa! He refused. He died in jail in his eighties; his wife was past child bearing years. She was finally free, but she could not have children of her own.
In Judaism, even among the irreligious, getting a bill of divorce (called a get in Hebrew) is of great importance. To remarry without getting a bill divorce means that one cannot have children because such a child would be deemed to have been product of an adulterous relationship. Such a child is called in Hebrew, a mamzer (what the King James Version in Deuteronomy 23:2 incorrectly translates as “bastard”). If you are interested you can read about in 2 Jewish Encyclopedia 587 (“Bastard”). If more convenient, here is the link: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=414&letter=B&search=bastard
Sermon on the Mount: Oaths and Truth: Matthew 5:33-37
Posted on 7/20/2010
Jesus next instructs his students on the swearing of oaths: “Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God’s throne: Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.”
In ancient Israel, oaths were an integral part of the judicial system in civil (that is, non-criminal) cases. (Recall from earlier posts that Judaism is not just a religion, but a legal system, too.) Oaths often took the place of witnesses: a person could swear that a certain fact was true or false For example, a custodian of property could swear that he did not fall asleep while watching the owner’s property, which the owner of the property claimed was stolen when the custodian slept.
Over time, however, oaths became common place even in non-judicial settings, in everyday life. Indeed, the Bible tells us Abraham swore an oath of agreement to Abimelech (Genesis 21:23) while Abraham’s servant, Eliezer, swore an oath to his master (Genesis 24:3). It was to these extrajudicial oaths that Jesus objected.
But Jesus was not the only Jewish teacher who opposed oaths where not legally required. The rabbis of the Talmud declared, in virtually the same words as Jesus, “Let thy ‘yea’ be ‘yea’ and thy ‘nay’ be ‘nay,’ “ meaning speak always the truth, and nothing more. When one speaks the truth, one need not swear. The Essenes, such as John the Baptist (see post of May 12, 2010), Jesus’ cousin, considered swearing worse than perjury, declaring, “he that cannot be believed without an oath is already condemned.” 9 Jewish Encyclopedia 367 (Oaths). Philo, the ancient Jewish philosopher and writer, wrote, “The bare word of a virtuous man should be like an oath, steadfast, inviolable, and true. Should necessity absolutely require an oath let a man swear by his father and mother … Instead of by the name of the highest and first Essence.” Id.
All of this is good advice for us today, which our society would be well to emulate. In our own times, there is just too much sweet talk and foolish chat, with much hidden meaning. Euphemisms are epidemic. Store clerks are now “sales associates.” Students who fail are experiencing “academic challenges.” Bribery from voters to elected officials is a “campaign contribution” or “soft money,” and bribes from elected officials to voters are “earmarks.” And of course, terrorism no longer exists: we now guard against “man-made disasters.” Oh, what ever happened to the plain, honest talk advocated by the Jewish teachers of old!
In short, as another rabbinic sage taught, one should “say little and do much.” Jesus, another Jewish teacher, would have been quite comfortable with that.
Sermon on the Mount: Eye for Eye: Matthew 5:38-39
Posted on 7/23/2010
Next we discuss one of the most misunderstood passages of the Torah. “Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you …. ” In this passage, Jesus quotes from the Torah and, quite interestingly, seems to set up his own view of the law of retaliation (“But I say unto you”), which we will take up in the next post. For now, however, we examine the law of retaliation as stated in the Torah.
The Torah states, “Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.” Exodus 21:24-25. Christian commentators have often remarked of the decency of the Torah because the punishment is proportional: an eye for an eye, not two eyes for an eye; an eye for an eye, not a life for an eye, as was common among ancient pagan civilizations. Judaism was different. But it was actually more different and humane than most of these commentators understand.
Initially, it is important to keep in mind that context is critical. What the Torah is discussing here is the loss of life. Where the loss is due to murder, then the law of retaliation applies: life for life. “He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death.” Exodus 21:12. Moreover, if the killing is intentional, that is, murder, the perpetrator will find no refuge in the Temple: “But if a man come presumptuously upon his neighbour, to slay him with guile; thou shalt take him [even] from mine altar, that he may die.” Exodus 21:14. Indeed, the ancient rabbis remarked that if the perpetrator is the High Priest, officiating even during the Yom Kippur (“Day of Atonement”) service, the holiest service of the year, court officials are still to “take him from mine altar.” There is no sanctuary for a murderer, not even if the murderer is the High Priest himself, officiating during the Yom Kippur service. Nor could a murderer avoid the death penalty by paying off the victim’s family with “blood money” as was common (and still is common) in some parts of the world. Life for life. (Where, however, the killing was in the heat of passion and not premeditated, what we today call voluntary manslaughter, the killer could escape to a so-called city of refuge and live out his days in exile, apart from his family. Exodus 21:13.)
There was only one other time where the law of retaliation was carried out literally: in the case of lying witnesses. If witnesses conspired to have an innocent man put to death by their testimony, for example, they themselves would suffer the death penalty: “Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you.” Deuteronomy 19:19.
But other than murderers and perjurers, the law of retaliation did not apply, and therein lies the true meaning of “eye for eye”: the law of compensation for civil wrongs we know as tort law. Indeed, the Oral Law (see posts of April 27 and April 29, 2010) details the compensation due to someone who is accidentally injured (e.g. loss of tooth, eye, limb, etc.): lost wages, pain and suffering, medical expenses, loss of body part, and humiliation damages. Thus, “eye for eye” means physical retaliation only in the context of murder and perjury: in all other cases “eye for eye” means monetary compensation. Considering that this system of tort law took root some 3400 years ago, this was nothing if not revolutionary. While the Code of Hammurabi required a literal retaliation in all circumstances, the Torah limited it severely (and because of procedural rules, rarely was the law of retaliation ever carried out with regard to lying witnesses).
That said, did Jesus intend to modify the law of the Torah? We discuss that aspect of the Sermon on the Mount in the next post.
Sermon on the Mount: Eye for Eye: Matthew 5:39-42
Posted on 07/27/2010
In the previous post (July 23, 2010), we introduced Jesus’ teaching of the “eye for eye” doctrine by seeing how, in Judaism, the principle was literally carried out in only two circumstances: when a defendant was convicted of murder (in which case the murderer was put to death) and when witnesses lied to convict an innocent person (in which case, what the witnesses had sought to do to the guiltless defendant was done to the witnesses). In all other cases, “eye for eye” simply meant monetary damages — what we know today as the law of torts.
That said, Jesus now gives his elucidation of “eye for eye”: “But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.” Matthew 5:39.
I have often opined in this blog that Jesus was a Jew who taught Judaism, remembering that Jews often, and still today do regularly and even habitually, disagree on points of Torah. But this makes total sense: As I have also often stated, Judaism is not just a religion, but also a legal system. Moreover, it is not just litigants who disagree with each other; judges and justices often do, too. (It is not a rarity for the United States Supreme Court justices to disagree with each other on outcome and even reasoning of a case.) Thus, in this regard, that Jesus sometimes disagreed with other teachers cannot in any way be used to show that he turned his back on his Jewish roots. To the contrary, he taught, “For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” Matthew 5:18. See also post of April 27, 2010.
Did Jesus now teach something way off the beaten path with his instruction that one should turn the cheek and not resist evil? If he did, did he mean it to be taken literally?
At the outset, it is important to point out that pacifism is not part of Judaism. For example, when Lot was taken captive, Abraham raised an army to free his nephew. Genesis 14:14. When Moses saw an Egyptian overseer beat a Jewish slave, Moses went to the assistance of his fellow Jew and slew the Egyptian. Exodus 2:11-12. Moreover, if a criminal burglarizes someone’s home at night and is killed by the homeowner, the latter is not punished. Exodus 22:2. One rabbinic sage summed up Judaism’s view on the subject with the terse teaching, “If someone comes to kill you, be quicker and kill him.” Did Jesus change this?
To be sure, there are some branches of Christianity, such as Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Society of Friends (Quakers), that teach absolute non-violence. To the extent that Jesus taught absolute non-violence in all circumstances, we must conclude that he was teaching a doctrine foreign to Judaism in any of its forms, then (Sadducees, Pharisees, Zealots, etc.) or now (Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, etc.). But I do not think that Jesus was teaching pacifism.
The term “smite” as used by Jesus means, in the Greek (although he spoke Aramaic and not Greek), a slap with the palm of a hand. See Strong’s Concordance. While not pleasant, this is not a life threatening blow. In fact, the Zondervan Study Bible commentary on this verse interprets “smite” as an insult — and not a blow of any sort. If, then, this was the context of Jesus’ teaching, most rabbis would agree with him: be “pliant like a reed” and not like a tree.
There is an old Yiddish proverb which, loosely translated, means, “a wise person you don’t have to tell; a fool does no good to tell.” In short, do not respond to verbal insults.
As for the teaching, “And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also” (Matthew 5:40), was Jesus teaching the antithesis of justice? Not in the least. Just as it is inconceivable that Jesus would countenance absolute pacifism, it is equally inconceivable that Jesus would want a non-meritorious suit to prevail because a defendant simply refused to raise appropriate and just legal defenses. “Justice, justice you shall pursue” demands the Torah. Deuteronomy 16:20. In this regard, what I believe Jesus was teaching was, by way of analogy, similar to what he taught about insults: let insults roll off your back, but (by implication) fight when it is needed to preserve life. Similarly, defend a law suit when the lawsuit is not meritorious; otherwise, when the lawsuit has merit, try to seek a friendly compromise. See Matthew 5:25-26 and post of July 2, 2010.
Likewise, when Jesus taught, “And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain,” and “Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away” (Matthew 5: 41-42), he could not have meant these propositions without any limitations and under all circumstances. Jesus, like many Jewish teachers, used hyperbole to make a point. One cannot give away all of one’s money to every homeless person on the street or to every charity that makes a mailing: insolvency will rapidly follow. Indeed, Judaism actually prohibits this. One cannot give so that one ends up being impovershed himself.
Thus, here and elsewhere, Jesus taught the same: moderation, a cornerstone of Judaism. As a Jew, he did not teach absolute pacifism, but he did teach to not respond to foolish words of insult. He did not preach caving in when faced with a non-meritorious lawsuit, but he did advocate a friendly compromise when each side has merits to the dispute. He did not teach emptying one’s pocket for the poor, but only reasonable assistance.
Yes, I am aware of arguable internal problems with the Gospel, such as Matthew 26:52 (“for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword”) and Mark 10:21 (“sell whatsoever thou hast and give to the poor”). Nonetheless, it is morally and theologically implausible to me that a Jewish teacher (who also was God Incarnate, as Christians believe) would have one die rather than defend himself, or give so much that he would bankrupt himself.
A fundamental teaching of Judaism is found in the Torah: “All the commandments which I command thee this day shall ye observe to do, that ye may live …. ” Deuteronomy 8:1. A person is to live by God’s laws — not die by them, not physically, not legally, and not financially.
Sermon on the Mount: Love Your Neighbor, Hate Your Enemy: Matthew 5:43-48
Posted on 7/30/2010
Should a Jew who was persecuted and sadistically attacked by his Nazi tormentors have loved his enemy? This is apparently the message of Jesus:
Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. Matthew 5:43-48.
Love a Nazi? Love one who literally hurled innocent children into fire pits, to be burnt alive? Love someone who forced a mother to watch from a short distance her newborn baby cry while being slowly starved to death on a cold stone slab? Should a person love an evildoer?
If Jesus taught that one must love an evildoer (if the monsters I described in the preceding paragraph are not evildoers, then evil does not exist), then Jesus, who taught and practiced Judaism, God’s law (see Matthew 5:17-19), was wrong. Could this be?
While the Hebrew Scriptures do require a person to love one’s neighbor (Leviticus 19:18), kindness is also required of one’s enemy: “If thou meet thine enemy’s ox or his ass going astray, thou shalt surely bring it back to him again. If thou see the ass of him that hateth thee lying under his burden, and wouldest forbear to help him, thou shalt surely help with him.” Exodus 23:4-5. “If thine enemy be hungry, give him bread to eat; and if he be thirsty, give him water to drink.” Proverbs 25:21. See also 2 Chronicles 28:15 (compassion for captives). From these passages, it appears that Jesus was reiterating Jewish law and philosophy toward one’s enemies. Thus, still again we must ask: Was a Jew during the Holocaust required to love a sadistic Nazi? Is a rape victim required to love her attacker?
While Scripture does require a compassion for one’s enemy, Judaism also provides for hating evil. “Ye that love the LORD, hate evil.” Psalms 97:10. “I will set no wicked thing before mine eyes: I hate the work of them that turn aside; it shall not cleave to me.” Psalms 101:3. “Do