Historical perspectives on the Sermon on the Mount

Great Debates
1

Namely, this passage (quoted from the NIV):
You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

At face value, it would seem that Jesus was teaching a level of passiveness that fits in with the idea that the meek shall inherit, blessed are the persecuted, love your enemies, etc. But I’ve also heard arguments that Jesus was teaching a passive-aggressive bit of resistance in that:

If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also
The arguement being that supposively raising the other cheek was symbolic of saying “You can not break my spirit. Strike me again”

And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well
The arguement being that the ‘cloak’ was actually an undergarment and that, by giving it to them, you would make a mockery of their suing by standing before them naked and shaming them.

If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles
The argument being that supposively there was a law that stated that Roman soldiers could only force Jews to carry their burdens for a single mile before they had to take it back. By continuing to carry the load, you forced the soldier to humiliate himself into asking you to let him have his load back.

The first one is pretty much open to interpretation, I suppose. The second hinges on the validity of “cloak” being an undergarment and Jesus telling people to get naked in court. The third hinges upon whether or not there was actually such a law and whether or not the soldier would actually be humiliated, etc. While I can find all sorts of sermons, editorial pieces and other bits of text saying this is all ture, none of them have any actual supporting evidence by historians, etc. After all, I can find all sorts of places saying America lost an attempt to speak German as a national language by a single vote as well. So you can understand my skepticism.

So is there actual historical evidence to hinge the above interpretation on or is it just someone’s opinions backed by myth? All of this is regardless of whether or not there was a Jesus and whether or not he actually said these things. Someone wanted us to take something away from the Book of Matthew and the question is what.

2

Depending on how this thread develops, I imagine it may end up being moved to GD or The Pit. Before it does, I’ll attempt a brief factual answer.

What you are dabbling in is the field generally referred to as historicity, i.e., the question of which parts of the Gospel story actually happened. Most authorities I’ve seen identify the Sermon as exemplary of a philosophy associated with the Greek Cynics. Another important element of Gospel theology associated with the Cynics is the poverty-a-virtue stuff. Such elements so permeate the Gospels that most scholars consider them historical. That is, that the fellow we know as Jesus - whether or not actually the Son of God - probably was a Cynic teacher.

If you want to know more, there’s a huge amount of material available. Go to the religion section of any major bookstore and you’ll find scores of titles. For something online, the Secular Web has a large collection of articles. If after digesting those your appetite still hasn’t been satisfied, simply enter “historicity” in Google; most of the hits will be on this topic.

3

Moved to GD.

-xash
General Questions Moderator

4

Jesus was real, and He taught spiritual growth. There was no “hidden” meaning to what He said. This was the same teachings of other Spiritual Masters throughout the centuries of mankinds existence.

5

Moved to GD

Not to question the moderators but because I haven’t been around a while and might have missed a change in rules, but are all questions pertaining to religion now GD material? My intended question had a factual answer to it, namely if there was historical evidence backing up the “Roman soldier” story and about the cloak being an undergarment, so I figured GQ was where it belonged.

Granted, so long as people read it and I maybe get some sort of answer, it can go into MPSIMS for all it matters to me :smiley:

6

Not quite. As I understand it, the OP was asking about the historical background of things Jesus (supposedly) said, not whether or not he actually said them. For instance, the OP wants to know if it was really true that

And yes, I do see this question as appropriate for GQ, though the responses it will get could easily take us into GD territory. But it’s a similar kind of question to the one about whether there really was a gate called the Eye of the Needle.

7

I think it was a preemptive strike. Somebody (me) is bound to disagree with one of the answers, like, “Turning your other cheek meant he’d have to strike you with his open hand which would be degrading to him,” or somesuch nonsense.

[aside] Somebody was inquiring after you a while back but I can’t recall who, where, or when it was. :frowning: [/aside]

8

I’ve also heard a Messianic Jewish interpretation in response to a Rabbi’s objection that JC’s SotM promotes injustice through non-resistance-

that if one was taken to court & ordered to be struck or to surrender one’s garment as the sentence for an offense, one should show true contrition & repentance by showing willingness to take a double penalty.

The Rabbi was neither convinced nor impressed.

I think the “embarrasing the oppressor” one is preferable. I’ll also note that the whole SotM is JC encouraging personal forgiveness & charity & keeping the peace, but does not mandate predator-enabling pacifism.

9

In this passage Jesus is addressing disciples or potential disciples and is informing them of the costs involved in following Him. There might have been some existing cultural connections in His examples but the message to all generations of future disciples is the same: if we are attached to worldly possessions, other relationships, and even our own dignity, we will not be successful followers of Christ. (Luke14:33 So then, whoever of you does not forsake all that he has cannot be My disciple; Luke9:23 Take up your cross and follow Me; Matt6:24 You cannot serve God and mammon; Luke13:24 enter by the narrow gate). In Phil3:8 Paul states, “I count everything as loss compared to the privilege of knowing Christ and understanding Him more fully. For His sake I have lost everything and consider it to be mere rubbish.” The idea of having to lose one’s life in order to save it is difficult to accept and the reason Jesus said
“difficult is the way and few there are who find it” (Mt7:13)

10

Great Post. Adding even those who find it struggle with the difficulty daily until the path finally widens bringing peace, love, and understanding wisdom to the seeker.

11

It’s possible to answer questions regarding religion in GQ, but extraordinarily difficult to achieve the proper degree of dispassivity regarding them to do so. Note the debates that arose regarding the two other questions recently moved over.