LOVE

YOUR ENEMIES

JESUS’ LOVE COMMAND in the SYNOPTIC GOSPELS AND

THE EARLY CHRISTIAN PARAENESIS

JOHN PIPER

W H E A T O N , I L L I N O I S

To

Noël

Love Your Enemies: Jesus’ Love Command in the Synoptic Gospels and the

Early Christian Paraenesis

Preface © 2012 by Desiring God Foundation

Text © 1979 by Desiring God Foundation

Published by Crossway

1300 Crescent Street

Wheaton, Illinois 60187

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval sys-

tem, or transmitted in any form by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording,

or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher, except as provided for by USA

copyright law.

First published in the Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series (Cambridge

University Press, 1979).

Cover design: Studio Gearbox

Cover image(s): Ecce Homo Antonio Ciser / SuperStock

First printing 2012

Printed in the United States of America

Scripture quotations are the author’s translation.

Hardcover ISBN: 978-1-4335-3475-1

PDF ISBN: 978-1-4335-3476-8

Library of Congress Control Number: 91-24175

Crossway is a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers.

VP

20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12

13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Contents

Preface to the 2012 Republication

v

Note on the Title and Previous Editions

xi

Preface to the 1979 Edition

xii

Abbreviations xiii

Introduction 1

1 In Search of the Paraenetic Tradition of a Command of Enemy Love 4

I. The Pertinent Texts

4

II. Literary Dependence or Common Traditional Source?

5

III. Determining the Form of the Command in the Paraenetic Tradition

8

A. I Thess 5:15

8

B. Rom 12:17 and I Pt 3:9

14

IV. Conclusion

17

2 The Origin of the Command of Enemy Love in the New Testament 19

Paraenetic

Tradition

I. The Question and the Approach

19

II. Hellenistic Philosophy

20

A. Seneca

21

B. Epictetus

25

III. The Old Testament

27

IV. Hellenistic Judaism

35

A. Works from the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha

35

B. Philo

39

V. Qumran and Works in the Region of its Influence

39

A. Manual of Discipline

40

B. The Book of Jubilees

42

C. The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs

43

VI. Palestinian Judaism outside Qumran

45

A. The Wisdom of Jesus Son of Sirach

45

B. Josephus

46

C. The Rabbis

46

VII. The Teaching of Jesus

49

A. The Question of Q

49

B. The Question of the Antitheses

51

C. Analysis of the Individual Sayings

56

VIII. Conclusion

63

3 Jesus’ Command of Enemy Love in the Larger Context of His Message 66

I. Preliminary Remarks

66

A. The Hermeneutical Problems

66

B. The Validity of Systematizing

67

C. The Content of the Chapter

68

II. Jesus’ Command of Enemy Love and the Kingdom of God

69

A. Four Recent Studies and One Older Work

69

B. Jesus’ Command of Enemy Love and the Coming Kingdom: Condition?

76

C. Jesus’ Command of Enemy Love and the Present Aspect of the

Kingdom:

Enablement

80

D. Jesus’ Command of Enemy Love as a Sign of the Kingdom

86

III. Jesus’ Command of Enemy Love and the Law

89

A. Non-Resistance (Mt 5:39– 42) vs the Lex Talionis (Ex 21:24)

89

B. Enemy Love (Mt 5:44 par Lk) vs Neighbor Love (Lev 19:18)

91

C. Abolition vs Continuation of the Law

95

4 The Use and Meaning of Jesus’ Command of Enemy Love in the 100

Early

Christian

Paraenesis

I. Preliminary Remarks

100

II. The Motivation of the Command of Enemy Love

101

A. A Brief Survey of the Previous Research

101

B. Paul

102

C. I Peter

119

III. The Content of the Command of Enemy Love

128

A. The General Features of Enemy Love

128

B. Love and the Command of Enemy Love and the Institutions of Society

130

5 The Gospel Tradition of Jesus’ Command of Enemy Love and its 134

Use in Matthew and Luke

I. The Gospel Tradition of Jesus’ Command of Enemy Love before the Gospels

134

A. Determining the Vorlage

134

B. Determining the Sitz im Leben of the Vorlage

136

II. The Gospel Tradition of Jesus’ Command of Enemy Love in the Gospels

139

A. The Approach and Methodology

139

B. Matthew’s Use of the Gospel Tradition of Jesus’ Command of Enemy Love

141

C. Luke’s Use of the Gospel Tradition of Jesus’ Command of Enemy Love

153

Conclusion 171

Notes 176

Bibliography 235

Index of Passages Cited

249

Index of Modern Authors

267

Index of Subjects

271

Preface to the 2012 Republication

A Monument to Mercy and Faithfulness

Publishing again my doctoral dissertation, written for the theological faculty

of the Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, München, is like building a monu-

ment to God’s mercy and faithfulness. Monuments are usually built much

later than the event celebrated, in this case, the years 1971–1974 in Munich,

Germany. Monuments are not about themselves. They remind. They point. In

this case, to the mercy and faithfulness of God. Monuments are often made of

plain, lifeless stone while representing something utterly vital and beautiful.

In this case, a mere book representing the shining face of God and his mighty

hand on my life in those days—and before.

Mercy and faithfulness are the right words. It was a huge risk to study

theology at a German university in the 1970s. In fact, from my parents’ stand-

point, I had been taking increasing risks since I left home in 1964. From their

solid, joyful, biblically faithful fundamentalism, my going to Wheaton College

was a risk. Then to go to Fuller Seminary was a greater risk. Then to go to the

University of Munich was the greatest risk of all. But none of these moves was

motivated in me by a departure from the fundamentals my parents embraced. I

loved them then. I love them now.

That was not the case with all my classmates. I know Wheaton classmates

who walked away from the faith of their parents. I know Fuller classmates

who now think it is intellectually impossible to be a Bible-believing evangeli-

cal. And in my part of the University of Munich, I was totally alone in my

view of the inerrancy of Scripture, not to mention my Edwardsian commit-

ment to doxology as the aim of all theology, and my inveterate skepticism, not

of Scripture, but of all so-called ‘assured results of higher criticism.’

A Hard Thicket to Get Out Of

This was the context for God’s mercy and faithfulness. For three years, most

of my time was spent reading cutting-edge German, British, and American

New Testament scholarship, with a tiny bit of French thrown in. I sat in classes

(all in German) and watched as world-class scholars led young ministerial

candidates into the thickets of Religionsgeschichte (history of religions) and

Traditionsgeschichte (history of traditions) and Formgeschichte (form criti-

cism) and Redaktionsgeschichte (redaction criticism) and Sachgeschichte

(almost untranslatable: substance/essence criticism). I say ‘led them in,’ not

led them out.

vi Preface to the 2012 Republication

It is a hard thicket to get out of. And why would you want to, since it

seemed as though the esteem of the academic guild and pride of scholarship

flourished there? But this is where the mercy and faithfulness of God comes

in. I was not smarter than others. Smartness is not a fruit of the Holy Spirit.

But I had different intellectual taste buds.

Inoculated with Joy

Under the guidance of Daniel Fuller, from 1968 to 1971, I had tasted the

sweetest spiritual fruit from the painstaking exegetical effort to understand the

intention of the inspired biblical authors. His method was not to suspiciously

peel away layers of tradition from the biblical books in search of some other

Sitze im Leben (setting in life). It was the backbreaking effort to see what is

really there. An effort that, I dare say after sixty-six years of life, has for me

barely begun.

So the mercy and faithfulness of God had begun long before I studied in

Germany. It began in eternity, of course. But also in every sweet influence of

God’s Word in my life from the time I could hear my father speak; through

Sunday school at White Oak Baptist Church in Greenville, South Carolina;

through Bible classes at Wheaton College; through daily disciplines of medita-

tion and memorization; through class after class with Dr. Fuller; being trained

in the severe discipline of observation. The fruit of these labors was so power-

fully self-attesting and soul-satisfying that the critical methodology I found

at the University of Munich held no allurement. And the more I cut my way

through that thicket, the less fruitful it seemed.

I had been inoculated against the fascination of speculative scholarship

by the joy of seeing and savoring the glory and the power that is really there in

God’s Word. This dissertation is, therefore, strewn with my skepticism about

the certainties of critical scholarship. You will know them by their fruit. And in

my experience, the methodologies reigning in the mid-seventies, and in many

places today, did not produce spiritual orchards but wastelands.

German Giants I Love

There were exceptions. My own Doktorvater, Leonhard Goppelt, was I

believe a brilliant, humble, godly man, though we had significant differ-

ences about how to view the Scriptures. And historically I found a hero in

the New Testament scholar Adolf Schlatter, who forty years after his death

was still a magnificent model of intense textual observation. His motto was

‘ Die Wissenschaft ist erstens Beobachtung, zweitens Beobachtung, drittens

Bebachtung’ (‘Scholarship is first observation, second observation, third

observation’). Schlatter’s name still had enough esteem in the university that

I could lay claim to it to warrant my method, should anyone not feel the same

esteem for its real source, Daniel Fuller.

Preface to the 2012 Republication vii

God’s Precious Church

Not only did God show his mercy through my disenchantment with fruit-

less academic methods, but also through the preciousness of his church. My

wife, Noël, and I were in a small fellowship of believers that met almost

every Friday night for the three years we were there. We were always in the

Scriptures together, and the group prayed for us. And we worshiped with the

German Baptist Church on Sunday mornings under the powerful preaching

of Pastor Rudzio and under the robust singing of ‘O dass ich tausend zungen

hätte!’

I remained ‘under the care’ of the deacons of Lake Avenue Church

in Pasadena where we belonged while in seminary and where I would be

ordained in 1975. Noël and I read and prayed together every evening during

these fourth through sixth years of marriage. And I met Jesus alone each morn-

ing in a small pantry-turned-study just off the kitchen in our third floor flat. By

these precious means of grace, the grace and mercy of God was manifest in

those years.

Light Will Break Forth from God’s Word

So the context for this dissertation was not merely a German university that I

found spiritually sterile, but a Christian community that I found joyfully life-

sustaining. And after all, I was studying the Word of God. By his Spirit, God

makes his Word the source of all our life. And even in an academic wasteland,

the Puritan adage is true: ‘I am verily persuaded the Lord hath more truth and

light yet to break forth from His holy word.’ Yes, he does. Those years were

not wasted. Even though the pillars of my theological house had been built in

preceding years, rooms of insight were added in Germany. Some significant

ones are in this book.

Finding Fruit in the Thicket

One way to see this dissertation is as the record of my work in the ‘thicket.’ The

book is shaped by the ‘history-of-traditions’ methodology. What that means is

that I tried to discover the source or sources (roots) of the New Testament com-

mand to love your enemies, and then discern how it made its way into the New

Testament, and what it meant in all the contexts where it was used (always, of

course, stubbornly open to the possibility that the New Testament writers may

not have been dependent on any sources at any given point).

The most explicit commands to love our enemies are found in Mt 5:38–

48; Lk 6:27–36; Rom 12:17–21; I Thess 5:15; and I Pt 3:9. In the Gospels,

this command takes the form, ‘Love your enemies, bless. . . . ’ (Mt 5:44; Lk

6:27, 35), and in the Epistles it takes the form, ‘Repay no one evil for evil, but

bless. . . . ’ (Rom 12:17; I Thess 5:15; I Pt 3:9). One of the most interesting

viii Preface to the 2012 Republication

questions this raises is: Why was Jesus never quoted in the Epistles to rein-

force this very difficult teaching? It would cost Christians their lives.

In fact, why are the words of Jesus that we find in the Gospels almost never

quoted as such in the Epistles (with the exception of 1 Corinthians 11: 24–25)?

There are other allusions to Jesus’ words in the Gospels (for example,

I Cor 7:10; I Tim 5:18; I Pet 2:12), but it is remarkable that he is virtually

never quoted by explicitly saying these are the words of Jesus. One of the

hopes of posting the question the way I did was to find a possible answer to

this question (see pp. 136–139).

Another hope in posing the question the way I did (German has a

nice word for this: Fragestellung) was to discern the meaning of the New

Testament contexts more clearly. If, in fact, Paul and Peter and Matthew and

Luke were using similar sources, especially the words of Jesus himself, then

the unique use each made of these sources might shed more light on how we

should understand and apply the command of enemy love today.

Pastors, Don’t Do It This Way

But, to be honest, and I hope encouraging to pastors, the payoff for this his-

tory-of-traditions approach to biblical studies is disproportionately small. Very

small. Or to put it positively, since you only have one life to live, the payoff

historically, theologically, spiritually, and practically will be far greater if you

focus your prayerful mental energies like a laser on the text and the biblical

context itself. Most of what I saw of value in my research I saw by looking at

the texts themselves, not by being aware of sources.

Why Do New Creatures Need Commands?

And see things I did—things that to this day form a crucial part of my under-

standing. Just to mention two examples: In grappling with the way Jesus and

Matthew and Luke and Paul and Peter motivated the command to love our

enemies, I ran into the simple question: Why do new creatures in Christ need

commandments at all? If our minds are being renewed to discern the will of

God (Rom 12:2), if we are indwelt by the Spirit of God whose first fruit is

love (Gal 5:22), if we are God-taught to love each other (I Thess 4:9), why do

we need to be commanded by words from human mouths—words like, ‘Love

your enemies’? Does the born-again believer act this way from the inside out?

Why does he need words from the outside in? It is not an easy question. And

the answer I hit upon in those days remains as a foundational understanding of

how God works in our day (pp. 106–110).

Does Enemy Love Govern All of Life?

Another example of the discoveries that remain with me is the relationship

between the radical command to return good for evil, and the equally clear

Preface to the 2012 Republication ix

command to live in the structures of this fallen world that do not operate

simply by the principle of returning good for evil. Jesus commanded that we

‘not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn

to him the other also’ (Mt 5:39). But he also said, ‘Render to Caesar the things

that are Caesars’ (Mt 22:21). And one of Caesar’s rights is: ‘He does not bear

the sword in vain’ (Rom 13:4).

In fact, government is not the only sphere of life in which the Bible

demands that we not turn the other cheek. In the family: ‘Fathers, . . . bring

them up in the discipline . . . of the Lord’ (Eph 6:4; cf. Heb 12:5). Disciplining

children is not turning the other cheek. Commerce: ‘If anyone is not willing

to work, let him not eat’ (II Thess 3:10). An employee who refuses to come to

work should not keep getting paid. Church discipline: ‘Do not even eat with

such a one’ (I Cor 5:11).

What I saw was that the kind of enemy love that we find in Mt 5:38–48,

Lk 6:27–36, Rom 12:17–21, I Thess 5:15, and I Pt 3:9 is one way that we

reflect the character of God and the freedom from hate and bitterness that we

have in him. But, while this fallen world lasts, God also means for his justice

to be displayed, even by his own people within the spheres where that justice

is essential to the fruitful working of the world God has made. Or another way

to say it is that love is more complex than enemy love. It is more complex than

turning the other cheek.

Make the Tree Good!

How do we know when to act one way and when the other? Jesus and his

apostles do not answer that question by pointing us to information, but by

pointing us to transformation. ‘Do not be conformed to this world, but be

transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern

what is the will of God’ (Rom 12:2). In the end, as Jesus says, the command

to love our enemies and all the other commands of the Bible are commands

to ‘make the tree good’ (Mt 12:33). For ‘every good tree bears good fruit’

(Mt 7:17).

It has been almost forty years since I wrote this book. I wrote it between

my twenty-sixth and twenty-eighth years. In what follows, we have let it

stand as it was for historical purposes. I would not write it this way today,

for reasons I have given already. If you want to see how I would write a book

today on Jesus’ command to love our enemies, read What Jesus Demands from

the World (Crossway, 2006, especially chapters 28–31). That book reflects my

seasoned judgment about how to do Gospel studies for the greatest payoff.

No Enemy Love without God’s Enemy Love

One of the most important changes I would make in my doctoral dissertation,

if I wrote it today, would be to make the cross of Christ far more prominent. It

x Preface to the 2012 Republication

is there. And it is crucial. But it is not prominent. And that is not as it should

be. I hope that what I have said and written since then has set the record

straight.

Our only hope for loving our enemy is to be a new creation in Christ. And

our only hope for being a new creation in Christ is to be reconciled to God

through the death of his Son. ‘If anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The

old has passed away; behold, the new has come. All this is from God, who

through Christ reconciled us to himself’ (II Cor 5:17–18).

The only hope that we might love our enemy is that God loved us when

we were his enemy. ‘If while we were enemies we were reconciled to God

by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be

saved by his life’ (Rom 5:10). This is the great root of the good tree we are

becoming: ‘Forgive one another, as God in Christ forgave you’ (Eph 4:32).

Turn the other cheek—seventy times seven (Mt 18:22). Love does not keep an

account of wrongs (I Cor 13:6). ‘Bless those who persecute you; bless and do

not curse them’ (Rom 12:14).

Jesus is the great example here, and the inimitable substitute: ‘When he

was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten,

but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly’—that’s the exam-

ple (I Pt 2:23). And ‘he himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we

might die to sin and live to righteousness’—that’s the substitution (I Pt 2:24).

What he has done for us is the ground for what he does in us. We can become

a good tree only because he was cursed for us on a horrible tree (Gal 3:13).

Display This Glory Now—Or Never

The aim of being a good tree—loving our enemies from the heart—is to

display the glory of our Redeemer. This is a calling that has an end. In heaven

there will be no enemies to love. We get a few years to display the glory of

Christ in our own bodies like this. In the age to come, we will sing of Christ’s

enemy love forever—the song of the Lamb (Rev 15:3). But neither he nor we

will have any enemies to love. They will have all become friends (Lk 16:9),

or they will have been cast into outer darkness (Mt 8:12). And the enemy love

that will be remembered will be to the praise of the glory of his grace.

If the republication of this dissertation can awaken some to make those

friends and that memory, I will be glad.

John Piper

Minneapolis, Minnesota

March 12, 2012

Note on the Title and Previous Editions

The word paraenesis in the title of the book is a technical term that carries for-

mal and material connotations. Materially, it refers to ‘advice or exhortation.’

Formally, it refers to a concise, staccato style. We see it, for example, in

I Thess 5:16–22:

Rejoice always, pray without ceasing, give thanks in all circumstances;

for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you. Do not quench the

Spirit. Do not despise prophecies, but test everything; hold fast what is

good. Abstain from every form of evil.

For additional comments on the meaning of paraenesis, see pages 8 and

102–103. You would not be far from the mark if you altered the title to: Love

Your Enemies: Jesus’ Love Command in the Synoptic Gospels and the Early

Christian Ethical Tradition.

The term Synoptic Gospels refers to Mt, Mk, and Lk. The word synoptic

means ‘see together’ or ‘see in a similar way.’ So the Synoptics are the three

Gospels that see the story of Jesus in a similar way, while John is significantly

different in the way he tells the story.

The book was written as my doctoral dissertation for the degree of

D. theol., granted in 1974 by the University of Munich, Germany. It was first

published in 1979 by Cambridge University Press as #38 in the Society for

New Testament Studies Monograph Series. Then in 1991, it was published as

a paperback by Baker Book House.

Preface to the 1979 Edition

This book is a slightly revised and updated version of my doctoral disserta-

tion which was accepted by the Protestant theological faculty of Ludwig-

Maximilians-Universität, München, in the summer of 1974.

I want to express my gratitude for, if not to, my gracious and highly

esteemed ‘Doktorvater’ Professor Dr Leonhard Goppelt who died seven

months prior to the completion of my studies in Munich. His exemplary schol-

arship, humility, and hospitality provided the guidance and encouragement

needed to complete this work. His influence upon the conception of the book

will be obvious even though we did not always agree.

At Professor Goppelt’s untimely death Professor Dr Georg Kretschmar, in

addition to his many other responsibilities, generously agreed to supervise the

finishing touches on the dissertation which was at that time substantially com-

plete. For his time and help he deserves more praise than many know because

of the unusual burden he was carrying.

I also owe thanks to the Evangelisch-Lutherische Landeskirche Bayern

for a monthly stipend which together with my parents’ generosity enabled me

and my family to do research in Munich for three years. My good friend Scott

Hafemann should be mentioned for his help in compiling the indexes.

The debt I owe my wife is only symbolized but not exhausted by the fact

that she typed the full manuscript at least three times through the stages of its

emergence (sometimes with infant Karsten in her lap). For her prayers and

her timely ‘You can do it,’ I give thanks to her and to the Lord whom we serve

together—who loved us ‘while we were yet enemies,’ reconciling us to himself

and giving us a ministry of reconciliation.

Abbreviations

ATD

Altes Testament Deutsch

ATLA

American Theological Library Association

ATR

Anglican Theological Review

BEvTh

Beiträge zur evangelischen Theologie

BFChTh

Beiträge zur Förderung christlicher Theologie

BL

Bibel und Leben

BNTC

Black’s New Testament Commentaries

BR

Biblical Research

BSGNT

United Bible Societies Greek New Testament

BSt

Biblische Studien

BZ

Biblische Zeitschrift

BZNW

Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für neutestamentliche Wissenschaft

CBQ

Catholic Biblical Quarterly

EK

Evangelische Kommentare

Encycl Jud Encyclopaedia Judaica

ET

Expository Times

EvTh

Evangelische Theologie

FRLANT

Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments

FZTP

Freiburger Zeitschrift für Theologie und Philosophie

HNT

Handbuch zum Neuen Testament

HThK

Herders theologischer Kommentar

HTR

Harvard Theological Review

ICC

International Critical Commentary

IDB

The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible

JBL

Journal of Biblical Literature

JBR

Journal of Bible and Religion

JR

Journal of Religion

JTS

Journal of Theological Studies

KuD

Kerygma und Dogma

LZ

Lebendiges Zeugnis

MK

Meyer Kommentar

MNTC

Moffatt New Testament Commentaries

NovTest

Novum Testamentum

NTA

Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen

NTD

Neues Testament Deutsch

NTS

New Testament Studies

PTR

Princeton Theological Review

xiv Abbreviations

RB

Revue Biblique

RGG

Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart (3rd edition)

SacMun

Sacramentum Mundi

SBT

Studies in Biblical Theology

SNTS

Society for New Testament Studies

StTh

Studia Theologica

TDNT

Theological Dictionary of the New Testament

ThEx

Theologische Existenz Heute

ThGl

Theologie und Glaube

ThLZ

Theologische Literaturzeitung

THNT

Theologischer Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament

ThP

Theologie und Philosophie

ThQ

Theologische Quartalschrift

ThR

Theologische Rundschau

ThStKr

Theologische Studien und Kritiken

ThZ

Theologische Zeitschrift

TU

Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur

UNT

Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament

WMANT

Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament

WUNT

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament

ZEE

Zeitschrift für evangelische Ethik

ZKT

Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie

ZNW

Zeitschrift für neutestamentliche Wissenschaft

ZSTh

Zeitschrift für systematische Theologie

ZThK

Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche

IN TRODUC TION

The Question and the Approach

'Love your enemies !' is one of the few sayings of Jesus, the authenticity

of which is not seriously questioned by anyone . Nor is it disputed that this

command is crucial in understanding what the earthly Jesus wanted to

accomplish. It is further evident in the paraenetic 1 portions of the New

Testament epistles that commands are found which, while not rendering

Jesus' command of enemy love2 word for word, nevertheless aim in the

same direction and at times echo the phraseology of Jesus. In view of these

facts it is surprising that (to my knowledge) no monograph exists which

treats in a thorough way the history of this command in the various levels

of the New Testament tradition. Therefore, as the title indicates, the

present work aims to analyse the history of the tradition of Jesus' command

of enemy love and to interpret the way it was understood in the various

stages of early Christian tradition within the New Testament.

The peculiarity and limitation of my approach can perhaps be clarified

by contrast with the approach taken in a related study : The Love Command

in the New Testament {1972) by Victor Furnish. Dr Furnish distinguishes

his own approach from those of James Moffatt's Love in the New Testament {1929), Ceslaus Spicq's Agape dans le Nouveau Testament: Analyse des Textes {1958), and Viktor Wamach's Die Liebe als Grundmotiv in der

neutestamentlichen Theologie3 {195 1) in that 'each of these . . . seeks to

cut a broad swathe through all aspects of ''love" in the New Testament,'4

not focusing as such on the love command, while his work, being more

limited, 'focuses on the love ethic, the love command.'5 But even Furnish's

focus is very broad and the content of the book shows that the emphasis

in the above quote falls on 'ethic' rather than 'command'. The subtitles

of the Pauline section reveal that Furnish's focus is broader than the love

command: 'Love and the New Creation,' 'Love and the Law,' 'Love and

Freedom,' 'Love in the Deute ro-Pauline Letters .' A fitting subtitle for

Furnish's book may have been , to use Furnish's own description of its

Love your enemies

2

content, 'what the New Testament teaches and otherwise reflects about

earliest Christianity's view of loving one's brother, one's neighbor, and

6

one's enemy.'

In contrast, the focus of the present work is narrowed in two ways : the

love command which is the object of my attention is specifically Jesus '

love command and further it is Jesus' command of enemy love . This

narrowing of focus onto a particular command of Jesus is necessitated by

the history-of-traditions viewpoint which has governed the work from the

beginning. It is the history of the tradition and the various understandings

and applications of this one command of Jesus that I intend to investigate.'

While Furnish does say his intention is 'to trace and define the various

ways the love command has been received, interpreted and applied,'8 he

does not defme which precise command he means nor, therefore, in what

sense that particular command is 'received'. In other words his work is

not governed by the history-of-traditions viewpoint and that is its fundamental difference from mine.

It is my hope therefore that , although its general subject matter has been

the object of countless studies, my work will not merely retrace the steps of

its worthy predecessors , but add its own fresh contribution to the understanding of Jesus' command of enemy love.

The Content

The title of this work anticipates in part the results of the investigation,

namely, that the tradition of Jesus' command of enemy love may be

traced not only in the 'gospel tradition'9 which in the New Testament

formed the core of the synoptic gospels, but also in the 'paraenetic

tradition '10 which left its deposit in the paraenetic portions of the New

Testament epistles. That Jesus' love command was transmitted along

lines which led to the synoptic gospels is not disputed.11 That it was

taken up into the paraenetic tradition is disputed. Therefore , the first

task before me is to isolate the elements of the paraenetic tradition

which possibly represent the reception and application of Jesus' command

of enemy love (Chapter 1 ). Whether or not these elements of the paraenetic

tradition do in fact rest on Jesus' command is the question I try to answer

in Chapter 2 . The approach in that chapter is to pursue a history-ofreligions investigation of the teaching on enemy love in the environment of the early church which may have influenced the formation of the New

Testament paraenesis. This investigation culminates with the interrelated

attempts to determine on the one hand the genuineness and scope of Jesus'

command of enemy love and on the other hand its relation to the corresponding elements in the New Testament paraenesis.

Introduction

3

The remaining three chapters form a triad in which I try to interpret

the function of Jesus' command of enemy love first in his own earthly

ministry (Chapter 3}, then in the New Testament paraenesis (Chapter 4)

and finally in the gospel tradition and synoptic redaction (Chapter 5). The

concern in these three chapters is to go beyond merely formal and purely

historical observations to the fundamental intention of Jesus and of those

in the New Testament who used his command of enemy love. The questions which govern my investigation at each stage of the tradition are , therefore , very basic : Wherein consists obedience to this love command?

and, How shall this obedience be realized?

The Concern of the Author

Every scholarly work on the New Testament is preponderantly an intellectual exercise . The work of thinking which the production of a book like this demands from the author is demanded also from its reader. But

because of the nature of the reality with which this work has to do, the

necessary preponderance of intellectual work can nevertheless frustrate the

goal for which the work is done. For that reality is and demands far more

than thinking. Adolf Schlatter has warned : 'Thought can become scholasticism, a mere jangle of words, if the concept replaces the essence , or dogma replaces reality .'12 The reality from which Jesus' command of enemy love

springs and the reality at which it aims is not exhausted by correct thinking

about the command . If a book about this command does not ultimately

lead beyond mere thinking to an active realization of what the command

intends, then that thinking itself, in all of its possible technical accuracy,

becomes worthless. 'Though I understand all mysteries and all know-

ledge . . . and have not love, I am nothing.'

1

IN S E A R C H O F T H E P A R A E N E TIC T R A D IT I O N

O F A C O M M A N D O F E N E M Y L O V E

Our first task i s to isolate the elements of the paraenetic tradition which

possibly represent the reception and application of Jesus' command of

enemy love. To do this we must, first, focus on those commands in the

paraenetic portions of the New Testament which have a similarity to Jesus'

command of enemy love; second, we must determine whether these

commands were a part of the early Christian paraenetic tradition which

existed prior to and alongside the New Testament epistles; and third, we

must try to determine what form the command(s) had in that tradition.

The existence of such a tradition is not one of my assumptions, but is to

be demonstrated by the investigation.

I. The Pertinent Texts

Since we are concerned not with commands to love in general, but only

with commands of enemy love, our attention may be confined primarily

to three texts:

Rom 12:14,1 7-20

Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them.

Pay back no one evil for evil.

Take thought for what is good before all men.

If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men.

Do not avenge yourselves, beloved, but give place to wrath

for it is written: Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.

But if your enemy hunger, feed him;

If he thirst, give him drink;

for, doing this, you will heap coals of fire on his head.

The structure of the paraenetic material in Rom 1 2 and 13 will be discussed

in Chapter 4, p 1 03 . Anticipating that discussion, we may simply note

here that Rom 1 2:14,1 7-20 is part of a fairly long chain of admonitions

In search ofthe paraenetic tradition

5

which are grouped roughly with regard to the problems Paul is addressing.

Rom 12:3-8 deals with the functioning of the body of Christ; Rom 12 :9-21

begins with the phrase 'Let love be genuine,' and deals more generally with

the Christian's relations to his brothers and to outsiders; and Rom 13 :1-7

deals with the Christian's relation to the state. That gives the general context in which the command with which we are concerned is found.

I Thess 5:1 5

See that none of you pays back evil for evil,

but always pursue good to each other and to all.

This text too comes in the midst of a series of short, crisp imperatives. It is

preceded by admonitions concerning the relations between Christians and

their church leaders, and it is followed by admonitions concerning the

individual Christian in his relation to God: 'Rejoice always, pray constantly,

give thanks in all things' (5: 16ff).

I Pt 3:9

Do not pay back evil for evil or reviling for reviling,

but on the contrary, bless;

for to this you were called in order that you might inherit a blessing.

This text comes at the end of I Pt's 'Haustafel' .1 I Pt 2 :13-17 deals with

the Christian and the 'human institution' or governmental authority.

I Pt 2: 18-25 deals with Christian servants and their masters. I Pt 3 : 1-7

deals with wives and husbands. I Pt 3 :8 is usually taken to refer to relationships among Christians, while 3 :9 goes farther and refers to the Christian's relations to his non-Christian neighbors.2 The text is then followed by an

Old Testament quote from Ps 34 which grounds the command of 3 :9 .

Other texts relating to love (such as I Cor 4 : 1 2) will come into view

only insofar as they stand in textual or essential proximity to these.

II. Literary Dependence or Common Traditional Source?

A detailed comparison of these three texts reveals some very close parallels

in Rom 12 :14,17 ; I Thess 5 : 15 ; and I Pt 3 :9. These parallels can be recognized most readily from the following diagram. Following the diagram is a detailed list of the similarities and differences among Rom 12 :14 , 1 7 ;

I Thess 5 :15; and I Pt 3 :9 .

Love your enemies

6

Rom 12:14

e iJA.oye(re rove; DtWKOVTCX.C:

e iJA.oyeire KCX.L' f.J.fl KCX.rcx.priaOe

I Thess 5: 15

Rom 12:17

I Pt 3:9

bp&re 1111 nc:

K.CX.IUJV &vn' KCX.I<OV

KCX.KOV Ot.vn' KCX.KOV

rwt

t<CX.Kov Ot.vn'.Kcx.K.OV

7} A.othoplav Ot.vrt A.otf>opicx.c;

a A. A. a

rovvcx.vrwv lie

(n&vrore ro &ycx.Oov

( 1rpOVOOVJ1€VOL I<CX.Aa

( e vA.orovvrec:)

8t.Wt<.ere eic:

evwnwv n&vrwv

Ot.A.Ai}A.ovc: K.cx.t' e ic:

Ot.vOpwnwv) [Prov 3:4 LXX]

n&vrcx.c:)

A. Similarities

1 . Common to all three commands:

a. Each contains the identical phrase Kcx.t<OV Ot.vn' K.cx.t<OV.

b. The verb governing this phrase in each is a form of the verb

&.noli iJ)wJlL.

c. Each contains a form of the negative J..Lfl.

2. Common to Rom and I Pt:

a. Each has the imperative participle &nolitlidvrec:.

b. Each has the command to bless, though not in the same order or

form.

3. Common to Rom and I Thess:

In each the verb &nooiliwJ..LL has a dative object.

4. Common to I Thess and I Pt:

a. In each the verb &7TooiowJ1t is negated by Jlfl.

b. In each the negative command is followed by an adversative

particle (&A.A.d., rovvcx.vriov 8€) and a positive command (which

are different in content and length).

B. Differences

1 . Unique to I Pt:

a. I Pt is unique in adding to K.CX.KOV &vri K.cx.K.OV the phrase A.otliopicx.v

Ot.vri A.otBopci:xc;.

b. It attaches an Old Testament quotation (3 : 1 0- 1 2) in order to

ground the command.

c. It reverses the order of K.CX.Kov &vri KCX.t<ovjanolitoovrec:.

2. Unique to Rom:

a. Rom is unique in separating the elements of the command by

other admonitions (cf Rom 1 2 : 14,1 7, 1 9).

In search of the paraenetic tradition

7

b. It precedes IWJ<.ov lwri K(){J(.OV &:rrootBdvrec; with its positive counterpart (eWv:ryet'Te, 12 : 14).

c. It uses the negative Jl'T/OEVi.

3. Unique to I Thess :

a. I Thess is unique in using a subjunctive form of the verb 6:rroot11WJ1L.

b. Its chroli 0 clause is d ependent on the introductory bpdre.

c. It attaches to the negative command the positive command to

pursue good toward all.

(Other minor differences may be inferred from the list of similarities.)

The similarities in these three texts demand an explanation. The three

possible explanations from which we can choose are: (1) these commands

are the writers' own formulations and are only coincidentally similar; (2)

there was a literary dependence of one writer upon the other; (3) the

writers drew from a common paraenetic tradition.

The first of these three possibilities may be dismissed right away. The

coming together in the same command of the identical phrase KCXKov avri

KCXKov with the same verb anooioWJlL is not to be explained by coincidence.

Thus the question remains whether there was literary dependence of one

writer on another or dependence on a common tradition. Since I Pt is

later than Rom and I Thess, the question may be formulated: Was I Pt

dependent on either Rom or I Thess? In view of the identical imperative

participle ano&toovrec; in Rom 12:17a and I Pt 3:9a, Rom and not I Thess

is the more likely candidate if we are to choose a literary source for I Pt.

Thus our question is finally: Was I Pt 3:9 dependent on Rom 12: 17 or

were they both dependent on a common paraenetic tradition? In spite of

Beare's assertion to the contrary, 3 the scale has been tipped in favor of a

common paraenetic tradition rather than literary dependence. In the first

place, while the core of the command in Rom 12: 17a and I Pt 3 :9a is

strikingly similar, the differences listed above eliminate the possibility of

simple transcription. In the second place, if we compare the immediate

contexts in both epistles, the imprecise similarities amidst wide divergences

make direct dependence

Rom

I Pt

12: 1 0 rfl </>t'A.cxo e A.c/>t'cy. </>tA.Oaroprot

. •.

3:8 ¢tMoeA.¢ot

12:14 evA.ayeire

3 :9 eiJA.orovvrec:

12: 16a TO avro ... ¢povovvrec;

3 :8 b116¢povec;

12: 16b TCXC: TCX1rE LVOii; OVVWCXrOJlEVOL 3:8 TCX1rE LVOrppovec;

12:17 Jl'Tlliev£ KcxKov &.vn' KCXKOV

3 :9 JlfJ lX1roOLOOVTEC: KCXKOV avn

wolitli6vrec;

KCXKOV

12: 18 eiprwevovrec;

3:11 r'T/T'T/OcXTW eipTJVT}V

Love your enemies

8

In the third place , Dodd has made the point well that the paraenetic

sections like I Thess 5 : 14-18; Heb 13 : 1 -3 ; I Pt 3 :8-9 (and we may surely

add to his list Rom 1 2 : 9-2 1 ) are alike in style but differ from the style of

their authors. 'They are all marked by a concise staccato style. They use

the fewest words possible. They have a kind of sing-song rhythm that helps

the memory.' He concludes, 'It seems probable on general grounds that we

are here indirectly in touch with the common tradition.'4 In the fourth

place , since the texts in question (Rom 1 2 : 1 7a; I Pt 3 :9a) contain a participle used as an imperative, David Daube's argument is pertinent, namely, that behind this use of the participle in the New Testament lie early

Christian Semitic ethical codes, probably in Hebrew .5 On the basis of these

four arguments it is more probable that the similarity of Rom 12 : 1 7 a and

I Pt 3 :9a is to be traced back to a common paraenetic tradition than that

it stems from literary dependence.6

conclusion has met widespread

scholarly acceptance.7

III. Detennining the Fonn of the Command in the Paraenetic Tradition

What was the form(s) of this command as it appeared in the tradition

behind I Thess 5 : 1 5 ;8 Rom 1 2 : 1 7 ; and I Pt 3 :9? In trying to answer this

question my procedure will be first to treat I Thess 5 : 1 5 in an attempt to

account for its divergences from both Rom 1 2 : 1 7 and I Pt 3 :9 ; then to

investigate Rom 1 2 : 1 7 and I Pt 3 :9 in order to ferret out more precisely

the wording of the traditional command.

A. I Thess 5:15

I Thess 5 : 12-22 appears least likely to offer the original traditional con-

text of the command, and 5 . 1 5 appears least likely to be its traditional form.

I do not mean that in I Thess 5 : 1 2-22 Paul did not draw upon the paraenetic

tradition, but rather that, while drawing upon it, his own hand is evident,

especially at 5 : 1 5 . The following paragraphs are an attempt to support

this contention.

Above I argued that the presence of the imperative participle

in Rom 1 2 : 1 7 and I Pt 3 :9 is a clue to their traditional origin. It is

noteworthy, therefore, that none of the admonitions in I Thess 5 employs

an imperative participle (such as we find, for example, in Rom 1 2 :9-1 3 ,

16,1 7 , 1 9 and I Pt 3 : 1 ,9). This is not to be explained by supposing that the

admonitions in I Thess 5 have a different content from those admonitions

which elsewhere use the imperative participle . The opposite is the case : as

the following table shows, the traditional commands in Rom 12 which use

the imperative participle have

essential counterparts in the commands

ofl Thess 5 which do not use the imperative participle .

In search of the paraenetic tradition

9

/Thess

Rom

5 : 2 1 f nl KO:AOV KO: rex ere' cbo

1 2 :9b cX1fOUTlyYOVVT€<:; TO 1TOVT/POV

na:vro<:; eto OV<:; 1fOV'r/POV

IWAAWIJ.EVOt rei; lx:ya:8 ciJ

txn€x_ea8 e

5 : 1 9 ro tr vev{J.a: f.lil a�evvvre

1 2 : 1 1 b rei; nvro{J.a:rt �eovre<:;

5 : 1 6 n& vrore xa:{pere

1 2 : 1 2 a ril i:A.mot xa:{povre<:;

5 : 1 7 &. oLG:A.et1rrw<:; npoaeuxea8e

1 2 : 1 2c rfltrpoaevxfl

npoaKa:prepovvre<:;

5 : 1 5 bp&re f.lil rt<:; Ka:Kovl:ivri

1 2: 1 7a f.J.T/0 evt' KO:KOV l:ivrt' KO:KOV

KO: KOV TLVt CxtroEiciJ

&tr o8t06vre<:;

5 : 1 3 eipflvevere ev €a: uro�

1 2 : 1 8 {J.€TQ 1TcXVTWV &v8 pW1TWV

etpfiV€UoVT€<:;

This fact suggests that, even though Paul was in I Thess 5 depending on the

tradition, he was nevertheless more thoroughly reworking the traditional

material in I Thess 5 than he was in Rom 1 2 . As Charles Talbert observes,

'It is far easier to see these non-participial imperatives [in I Thess] as

Paul's selection and rendering into proper Greek of certain individual rules

from a unit of Semitic tradition than to see Rom 1 2 : 9ff as a Pauline

collection and rendering in a Semitic style of individual injunctions, many

of which he uses elsewhere in a non-participial form. It is easier to see Paul

moving away from the participle used as an imperative than in [sic] moving

to it.'9

A second clue for seeing the hand of Paul in shaping the context of

I Thess 5 : 1 5 is found when we consider whether the admonitions of 5 : 14

may have been especially formulated for the specific Thessalonian situation.

Dibelius asserts to the contrary : 'There is not the slightest trace of evidence

that precisely these admonitions would have been especially appropriate

for this

It seems to me , however, that Dibelius has here carried a

correct insight too far : in general vv 14- 1 8 reflect traditional admonitions

which are binding on every church but this does not exclude the possibility that Paul could have adapted the tradition to meet the specific Thessalonian needY

Verses 14f read: 'We exhort you , brothers, admonish the idle , encourage

the fainthearted, help the weak, be patient with all . Watch lest someone

pay back evil for evil, but always pursue good for each other and for all .'

The word &r& Krov<:; ('the idle') and its cognates (i]ra: Kri!aa:{J.eV, II Thess

3 :7 ; &r&Krw<:;, II Thess 3:6 , 1 1 ) are unique to the Thessalonian epistles in

the New Testament. From one standpoint the rarity of the word could

suggest that it is not typically Pauline and was thus taken over by him

from the tradition. That would support Dibelius' contention. But from

Love your enemies

10

another standpoint, the rarity of the word in the paraenetic tradition

with which we are acquainted could suggest that it was not taken over

from the tradition but was occasioned by a specific problem in Thessalonica.

These two ways of arguing from the rarity of dT&:Krov� reveal the ambiguity

which usually accompanies literary judgments of this nature . How shall we

proceed?

The uniqueness of a word is not by itself enough to determine whether

the word is merely a quote from the tradition or not. But when there is

other evidence that precisely this word is called for by a specific situation,

then the uniqueness of the word together with this evidence is a good indi·

cation that the word represents not a mere rehearsal of tradition but a

concern of the author to meet a particular need. The 'other evidence' that

the command 'admonish the idle' was specifically called for in Thessalonica

comes from 4 : 1 1 12 where Paul exhorts the Christians 'to aspire to live

quietly, to mind your own affairs and to work with your hands as we

charged you in order that you might walk respectfully before outsiders

and not have need.' With the words 'as we charged you' Paul lays emphasis

on the admonition 'to work,' that is, not to be 'idle.' That this admonition

was especially needed at Thessalonica may also be the reason Paul in 2 :9

stresses his own manual labor : 'For you remember our labor and toil,

brethren; we worked night and day that we might not burden any of you

while we preached to you the gospel of God.' The singularity of the command 'admonish the idle' together with this other evidence is sufficient support, I think, for the contention that Paul is not merely being carried

along by the tradition here but is at this point writing specifically for the

Thessalonian situation. 13

Somewhat less persuasive but perhaps worthy of note is the uniqueness

of the command 'encourage the fainthearted' (5 : 14). While b"Aqo!JJvxov�

is a hapax legomenon in the New Testament, the verb rrapapvOeia Oe

occurs in one other place in the New Testament, namely in 2 : 1 2 of this

epistle: 'You know how, like a father with his children, we exhorted each

one of you and encouraged and charged that you might walk worthily of

the God who called you into his Kingdom and glory.' In a sense 2 : 12 is an

admonition to the Thessalonians to 'encourage' each other since Paul is

here describing his own behavior as exemplary. Therefore rrapapvOeop.at

is used twice in I Thess in a similar sense but nowhere else in the New

Testament paraenesis. This could suggest again that Paul's composition is

being controlled not merely by the tradition but also by his concern for

the Thessalonian si tuation.14

A third clue that I Thess 5 : 14-22 may not offer the original traditional

context of the command in 5 : 1 5 is found when we consider vv 16ff. The

In search of the paraenetic tradition

11

vv 16-22 are distinguished from the preceding in content and in form.

They deal not with relationships between men but with the personal

religion of the believer: 'Rejoice always, pray constantly' etc. Dibelius'

judgment (see above, p 9) applies well to these verses: they are taken

from the tradition and seem to have no special application to the

Thessalonian situation.

But if we observe the context of the commands as they occur in other

paraenetic contexts we are given no reason to think that they were attached

to the command of I Thess 5:15 in the tradition. In Rom 12 the parallels

to the command to rejoice (I Thess 5:16 =Rom 12:12a), to pray (I Thess

5:17 = Rom 12: 12c) and to hold fast to the good (I Thess 5:21 =Rom

12 :9) are not directly connected to the command in Rom 12: 17a (= I Thess

5:15). The parallels between I Thess 5:14-21 and Phil 4:5-8 may be tabularized as follows:

I Thess

Ph ills

5: 14d be patient (j.taKpo-

4:5 let all men know your for8vJ1E�TE) with all

bearance (emEU<tk)

5:16 always rejoice

4:4 rejoice in the Lord always and

again I say rejoice

5:17 pray without ceasing

4:6 in everything with prayer and

supplication . . . let your

requests be known to God

5:18 in everything give thanks

4:6 with thanksgiving

5:21 test everything and hold fast 4:8 whatsoever is true . . . think

to the good

on these things

As the first parallel in this table shows, the admonitions of I Thess 5:16-21

may have been connected with an admonition on patience or forbearance

in the tradition. Were this the case, I Thess 5:15 would thus be a redactional

insertion into the traditional unit. But this is very speculative. Let it suffice

to note that we have no evidence outside I Thess 5 that I Thess 5:15 was

transmitted in its present context.

The best evidence that the form of I Thess 5:15 is due to the hand of

Paul and not to the tradition is found in the verse itself. To this we now

tum our attention.

Given the agreement of Rom 12: 17a and I Pt 3 :9a on the participial

form of &1TolitMvrEc; plus the traditional character of the imperative participle, we have a good case against the originality of &1Tolici) in I Thess 5: 15a. Paul's form of the verb is accounted for by its subordination to the

verb bp&re. The inference then that op&re is to be attributed to Paul and

Love your enemies

12

not to the tradition finds support in the observation that this kind of construction is less characteristic of the New Testament paraenetic material than it is a frequent stylistic device of Paul.16 Besides injecting this initial

verb bpcx7€ Paul (we may suppose) employs the subject n" and dative

object 7Wt. Is it possible to explain these redactional variations from the

context in I Thess 5?

We must decide first whether bpwe is addressed to the leaders of the

church referred to in v 12 (70"" KaTrLWV'TO!" ev VJlW Ko:(rrpoi'a70'.JleVOV"

VJJ.wv)17 or whether it is addressed to the congregation as a whole.18 For

Paul's construction would be explained if the presence of apliTe here was

intended to remind the leaders to watch over the congregation lest the

members avenge themselves. However, the relationship between the two

halves of v 15 seems to be decisive here against this view. The 6t.'A'Adt following 6aro6c{J introduces the positive counterpart either of opri7€ or of 6aro6c{J; since l>LWK€7€ is indicative like bpwe and not subjunctive like

&.1roo0, the a'A'Adt sentence is grammatically the counterpart of bpwe.

But from the meaning it is obvious that Paul intends to give the positive

counterpart not of overseeing the church (bpa7e) but of rendering evil for

evil (&.1ro60 ). The conclusion, therefore, is that bpcx7€ is to be taken not as

a separate command to the leaders but as united with &.1ro60 and thus

addressing the whole church.19 The command would thus read, 'All of you

take heed lest someone avenge another.'

But if Paul is addressing the whole church why did he not merely say

JJ.il &.1rooilio7€ Ko:Kov avn' Ko:Koii? Why the extra verb, and why particularly

bpriw which he uses nowhere else in this way? The three closest analogies

to this construction, where Paul uses {J'Aerrw instead of bp&w (I Cor 8:9 ;

10: 1 2; Gal 5: 1 5), constitute warnings to the church of unexpected pitfalls. Paul attempts to alert them to an incipient error to which they may be oblivious. We may only surmise from this that in addressing the Thessalonians whose particular problem was idleness or disorderliness ( <hd.Kmv<;, 5: 14; 4: llf) and faintheartedness (b'At-yol/luxoV<:, 5: 14) Paul

considered it especially needful to make a special call for alertness as he

brought this section of his exhortations to a climax with this command

against revenge in 5: IS. The preference of op&w over {3'/l.brw may have

merely stemmed from the stylistic desire for assonance (note the 'o' and

'a' sounds in the preceding and following phrases). As for the use of n"

and 7Wt, we can only guess that if Paul's intention really was to create a

special alertness to this command, the insertion of the unusual n<; and

nVt in the familiar traditional phrase (p7l ano6t6oV7€" KO'.KOV dvn' KO'.KOV)

would probably elicit even more attention as well as sharpening the individual thrust of the demand.20 Since I Thess 5: lSa has proved to be so

In search of the paraenetic tradition

13

heavily redactional we must wait until we examine Rom 12 : 17a and I Pt

3 :9a before we determine the precise form of the tradition.

We must now ask whether I Thess 5 : 15b (&A.Aa rravrore Tl) &r01.8ov

f.tWKeTe eic; &t..A7jt..o� KOI.t' eic; rr&vr01.c;) or some core of it was attached to

the command against revenge (5 : 15a) which Paul found in the tradition .

Portions of this positive command are probably Paul's own additions for

this particular letter. In the first place, the phrase eic; &t..t..flt..ovc; KOI.t' eic;

rra!vmc; occurs only once again in the New Testament and that is in 3 : 1 2 of

this same epistle : 'May the Lord make you increase and abound in love

eic; &t..A7jt..ovc; KOI.i eic; rr&vmc; . The absence of this phrase from the other

'

New Testament paraenetic material and its double occurrence in I Thess

point to its occasional rather than to its traditional character. This is not to

say that &t..t..i}t..ovc; or rravmc; could not have been found in this connection

in the tradition (dt..Ar)t..o�: Rom 1 2 : 10,16; 1 3 :8; I Pt 4 :9 ; 5 :5 ; 7rcXV70/.c;:

Rom 1 2 : 1 7b ,18; Phil 4: 5), it is merely to say that the present combined

construction is probably Paul's own formulation for this occasion.21 In the

second place, the occurrence of rr&VTore may possibly be viewed as Paul's

attempt to bring this command into line with the abundant use ofmic; or

rr&vTOre in 5 :14d,16 (df.LOI.f..drrrwc;, v 1 7), 18,2 1 ,22 . However, since one

of the features of traditional paraenesis is superficial catchword connections,22 this chain of words could itself point to the original traditional coherence of these exhortations. Whether rra!vrore in 5 : 15b was an original

element of the tradition or was Paul's own contribution remains open. Most

important is whether the positive command TlJ dr01.8 ov o LWK ere was found

by Paul in the tradition already attached to the negative command against

revenge (v 15a).

To answer this question we may notice first that the command TlJ

&"/01.8ov otWK ere is not attached to the command against revenge in either

Rom 1 2 : 17 a or in J Pt 3 :9a. If it had originally been attached to this

command, it has been dropped in these two texts. Yet it is precisely these

two texts which follow most closely the tradition of

command against

revenge. In both Rom 1 2 : 17 and I Pt 3 : 9 the negative command is followed

by a positive one, but in each case it is different (Rom 1 2 : 1 7b, rrpovoot)J.Levot

KO!.M EIJW'TrWV 1rcXV7WV w 8pwrrwv;23 I Pt 3 :9b, TOVVO/.VTWV oe ebt..oroiiVTec;).

Secondly, we may notice that the two words &r01.86c; and {j tWKew are

common in the paraenetic material, and that their use probably stems

from Ps 33 : 1 5 (LXX) which is quoted from the LXX with only minor

grammatical changes in I Pt 3 : 1 1 :24

Let him turn away from evil and do good,

i:KKf..warw {)€ drro KOI.Koii KOI.t' rrotflaa!rw dr01.86v-,

Love your enemies

14

let him seek peace and pursue it.

�T/TT/UarW elpT/V'f/V K.0£6tw�aTW OtVTT/V.

Both the command to do good25 (1TOLT/UcXTW lryatOov) and the command to

pursue peace26 (litw�&Tw Otimiv) became integral constituents of the

parae netic tradition. The poetic parallelism between pursuing peace and

doing good in Ps 33 : 1 5 (LXX) is certainly enough to suggest Paul's combined construction 'pursue good'. Whether it had been suggested to someone before him, we have no way to be sure. Therefore, while the vocabulary and, as we shall see later, the attachment of a positive command to the command against revenge are traditional, the precise wording of this

verse cannot be assigned to the tradition with much certainty.

B. Rom 12: 1 7 and I Pt 3:9

Turning now to a treatment of Rom 12: 17 and I Pt 3 :9 we may orient

ourselves in the discussion with a short critique of a recent attempt to

determine the tradition behind Rom 12:14-21.

In an article entitled 'Tradition and Redaction in Romans 1 2 : 9-2 1 '

( 1 969) Charles Talbert attempts to show that, in accord with David

Daube's general thesis, there is a primitive Semitic code (composed

of vv 1 9 a, 1 6a, 1 7a, 1 8 , 1 9 a, and 2 1 ) behind Rom 1 2: 1 4-2 1 into

which a Hellenistic redactor, probably Paul, has inserted Hellenistic

material (namely 1 4 , 1 5 ,16c, 1 7b, 1 9b) (p 9 1 ). If his conclusions are

correct he will have provided us with a fixed traditional context for

the command in Rom 1 2 : 1 7a.

Talbert describes four problems which he says make it virtually impossible for 1 2 : 1 4-2 1 in its present form to go back to a Semitic source (p 8 7 ). ( 1 ) He sees echoes of the sayings of Jesus in vv 1 4 , 1 7a, 1 8 ,

1 9 a, but such sayings are unlikely to occur in such a code formulated

in Palestine because 'the use of a form of language for Jesus' sayings

which was associated in a Semitic milieu with rules of derived and

secondary authority [namely , the imperative p articiple] would be an

acute problem for the Semitic church' (p 8 8 ) . ( 2 ) Vv 1 4ff 'contain a

large number of p erfectly acceptable Greek forms for the imperative'

(p 8 8 ) . (3) The quotations from the Old Testament are primarily from

the LXX (p 88). (4) 'The presence of Greek link words . . . presents yet

another problem for any theory of a Semitic source' (p 8 9 ). Talbert's

methodology of determining what is traditional and what is redactional

is to say that any part of 1 2 : 1 4-2 1 against which two or more of these

objections can be raised must be peeled away and regarded as redaction

(p 90). The result is that he discovers a two-strophe pattern of three

lines each which he considers to be more likely a fragment of a

traditional code than a coincidence.

In spite of the splendid clarity which characterizes Talbert's work, I

find his reconstruction unconvincing for the following reasons. In trying

In search of the paraenetic tradition

15

to explain

redaction one must claim either that Paul took a fixed

well-structured two-strophe code and at random stuck in other exhortations or that he consciously chose and inserted his material with a new structure in mind. The first alternative is highly unlikely . Talbert

opts for the second. He maintains, 'The result of this redaction of the

Semitic code was a well-ordered paragraph' {p 93). This, I submit, is

simply not true. To illustrate : he says that verses 1 4 and 2 1 , which are

concerned with returning good for evil, form an inclusion. But there is

no mention of good and evil in v 1 4 whereas v 9 forms a closer parallel

to v 2 1 . He says vv 1 6-2 1 form an a (v 1 6) b (v 1 7) a' (v 1 8 ) b' (vv l 9-20)

pattern, the 'a' being commands relating to living in harmony, the 'b'

being commands against revenge . But v 1 5 is left completely unexplained

and v 1 7b is slipped in with 1 7a when it really means something quite

different. 27

A serious problem lies in Talbert's criterion for eliminating redactional

material. He conceded that each one of the four objections (listed

above) to a Semitic origin of vv 1 4-2 1 as they stand is not in itself

prohibitive. Therefore his criterion is that redactional material must be

opposed by two objections. While it is not altogether illegitimate, yet

it is at least questionable to claim that two indecisive arguments make

a decisive one. The peculiar result of this criterion reveals, I think, its

inadequacy: he eliminates as red actional v 14 because ( 1) it echoes the

words of Jesus, and (2) has Greek imperatives (p 9 1 ), while he retains as

traditional v 1 7a, j ust as much a saying of Jesus, and v 2 1 which contains

two Greek im peratives. The p roblem can be seen from another angle

when we look at v 1 7b. It is excluded 'because of the use of the LXX

text and the Greek link words made possible by the insertion of

rravrwv . . .' (p 90). This verse he says ' comes from Hellenistic or Greekspeaking Christianity' (p 9 1 ). But nowhere does he explain why we have here a Semitic imp erative participle which does not stem from the

LXX. In fact he says (p 87) it is very unlikely that Paul himself would

convert Greek im peratives into imperative participles. For these reasons

I think Talbert's attempt to determine a fix ed Semitic code behind

Rom 1 2 : 1 4-2 1 has failed. He has made more obvious than ever the

complexity of the background of the passage and the curious intermingling of Hellenistic and Semitic influence .

If we have become skeptical about the existence of such a fixed

code behind Rom 9 : 14-2 1 as Talbert suggests, we must now press on either

to confirm or to contradict this skepticism by our own limited crosssectional method of investigation. We will do this indirectly by continuing our quest for the traditional form of the command behind I Thess 5 : 1 5 ;

Rom 1 2: 1 7 ; and I Pt 3 :9.

We observed earlier that the similarities between Rom 12 : 1 7a and I Pt

3 :9a point not to literary dependence but to a common tradition behind

both verses ( cf pp 7 -8). In treating I Thess 5 : 1 5 we tried to establish that

the form which this common tradition received in I Thess 5 : 1 5 is not its

Love your enemies

16

traditional fonn, but rather the traditional fonn must be sought in the

wording of Rom 1 2 : 1 7a and I Pt 3 :9a. On the basis, therefore , of the

elements common to both Rom 1 2 : 1 7 a and I Pt 3 :9a we may conclude

that the original fonn of the tradition contained the phrase KO:KOV avn'

KO:Koii along with the imperative participle cX1roooo6vre<; and a negating

particle (see the table p 6).

Which of these two texts preserves the tradition more precisely : Rom

1 2 : 1 7a (}.tfiOEVi KO!KC>V Wl'i KO!KOV exrrooooovrec;) or I Pt 3 :9a (j..tfl exrroooo6vrec;

Ko:Kov wri KO:Koii)? Decisive in answering this question is the occurrence in

Joseph and Asenath 28 :4 of the fonn which we have in I Pt 3 :9. (See

Chapter 2 , pp 37-9 for a discussion of the Jewish-Hellenistic background

of this command .) We must, of course , reckon with the possibility that

this traditional exhortation had itself undergone some variation and

specification so that it may have existed in a number of similar fonns. It is

possible then that the minor alterations found in Rom 1 2 : 1 7a are due not

to Paul, but to a variant of the tradition.

We focus now on the remaining commands of I Pt 3 :9 (tl "Amoopi.Olv Wl'i

"AotBopitx<;, rovvo:vrtbv o€ eb"Aoroiivrec;), referred to now as v 9b. The key

parallel here is I Cor 4 : 1 2 : 'When reviled we bless, when persecuted we

endure , when slandered we try to conciliate .' Paul describes his response to

opposition with the words "AotBopOIJJJ.EVOL ev"AoroiiJJ.EV, 'when reviled we

bless.' He adds that he is writing this to 'admonish' them (v 14) and he

urges them to 'imitate' him (v 1 6), and then he refers to his 'ways in Christ'

(v 1 7) which he 'teaches everywhere in all the churches' ( v 1 7). Probably,

therefore , "AotBopovJ1EVOL ev"AoraiiJJ.EV reflects the catechetical teaching

common among all the churches. The combination of 1\.otBopltxv and

ev"Ao"(oiivrec; in I Pt 3 :9b is almost certainly, then , traditional . Moreover, on

the basis of I Pt 3 :9 we may suppose that the connection of the command

not to return evil for evil with the command to bless is also traditional . An

analysis of Rom 1 2 : 14- 1 7 supports this supposition.

Rom 12: 1 4- 1 7 reads:

Bless those who persecute you, bless and do not curse . ( 1 5)

Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep.

( 1 6) Be of one mind among yourselves; do not set your mind on high

things, but be carried away with the lowly. Don't think yourselves

wise. ( 1 7) Render to no one evil for evil but take thought for what is

good before all men.

Michel observes, 'Between v 1 6 and v 1 7 there is no bridge, but rather v 14

and vv 1 7-2 1 are closely connected to each other. While v 16 has relations

In search of the paraenetic tradition

17

within the church in view, v 14 and vv 17-21 are admonitions of a more

general kind with a stronger traditional connection ; they put relations with

non-Christians in the foreground.'28 lt is not unlikely, therefore, that vv 14

and 17 were originally connected ii1 the paraenetic tradition and that v 14

was drawn away from v 17 because of the catchword connection between

v 13 (riw (/>iAo�evt£xv

and v 14 (ev'Ao-yet'Te rove; OtWK.OVrcxc;). Thus

there is no evidence either from Rom 12: 17 or from I Pt 3 :9 or from I Thess

5: 15 that the command p.fl arroo t86vr ec; K.CXK.OV &.vri K.CXKoii ever circulated

among the churches without a positive counterpart (such as 'bless' or 'pursue

good toward all').

From all of this I would propose that the situation was something like

the following. The saying p.fl &.rroot86vrec; K.CXK.OV tx.vn' KcxKor] became a fixed

rule early in the Christian paraenetic tradition . As the community reflected

upon this rule and endeavored to apply it to life-situations a process of

specification occurred. KcxKov txvri K.CXKOV is defined more closely, for example

in I Pt 3:9b , as 'Aot8opt£xv &.vn''Aowopt£xc;. Another example is Polycarp

(2:2) who, after quoting I Pt 3:9, adds 17 -yp6v8ov txvri -yp6v8ov 17 Kcxr&pcxv

fum' K.cxr&pcxc; ('blow for blow, curse for curse'). Along with this specification

of the negative side, that is, what must no t be repaid, there was probably a corres

ponding specification of the appropriate Christian response to these specific

forms of opposition . We have already seen the ev'Ao-yovvrec; of I Pt 3 :9b

(cf Rom 12 : 14) and the ro d-ycx8ov 8t.WK.ere of I Thess 5 : 15b , to which

may now be added the closely connected command to 'seek peace' (I Pt

3: 1 1; Rom 12: 18; I Thess 5:13; see note 26) and the extended list in I Cor

4 : 12ff: 'when reviled we bless, when persecuted we endure, when slandered

we try to conciliate.'

N. Conclusion

In conclusion, this portion of our study has turned up the following information. The command p.fl drro8t86vrec; KCXK.ov&.vri K.cxK.oii belongs to the early Christian paraenetic tradition. This command was probably taught in

close connection with certain specifications such as 'Aot8opillv &.vri 'Aot8opillc;

as we have , for example , in I Pt 3:9. These negative commands were always

accompanied by a positive counterpart and here is where the emphasis fell.

This must be stressed for, as we shall see, in this consists the distinction

between the New Testament command of enemy love and many similar

commands in the environment of the early church. The negative command

to renounce retaliation is never found in the New Testament paraenesis

without a positive command of some sort. The command to bless was a

certain constituent of the tradition, as seen from I Pt 3 :9; I Cor 4 : 12;

Rom 1 2 : 14 ; Lk 6:27; and was versatile enough to counter a wide variety

Love your enemies

18

of antagonisms. Other such positive traditional commands in the immediate

context of the prohibition of revenge were very likely 'pursue/ do good

toward all' (see note 25) and 'pursue peace' or 'live at peace' (see note 26).

Our study has not encouraged us to postulate flxed codes (such as

Talbert sees) behind the New Testament paraenesis. Ratl).er there appears

to have been a fund of oral traditional material systematized only loosely

under different themes (e .g., church order, behavior toward Christians,

behavior toward non-Christians, personal piety). In these thematic groupings there was apparently much variation. From this fund of paraenetic material the New Testament writers with whom we are concerned drew

out what was useful and within certain essential limitations adapted it

freely .

2

THE ORIGIN OF THE COMMAND OF ENEMY

LOVE IN THE NEW TESTAMENT PARAENETIC

TRADITION

I. The Question and the Approach

The question I will try to answer in this chapter is whether or not the

elements of the New Testament paraenetic tradition, determined in Chapter

1 , do in fact rest in some way on Jesus' command of enemy love . My

approach here is to pursue an investigation of the teaching on enemy love

in the environment of the early church which may have influenced the for·

mation of the New Testament paraenesis. This investigation culminates

with the interrelated attempts to determine, on the one hand, the genuineness and scope of Jesus' command of enemy love and, on the other hand, its relation to the corresponding elements in the New Testament,paraenesis.

This investigation has brought up far more questions than can be

answered in the limited space available here. In a number of cases the

complex problems of origin and composition make it very difficult to

draw even probable conclusions about the relationship between certain

documents (e.g., the Testaments of the XII Patriarchs and the Slavonic

Book of Enoch) and the early Christian paraenetic tradition. Where this

is so I have been very hesitant to make any remarkable claims even if the

subject matter suggests fascinating possibilities. Others who have more .

expertise than I can at these points pursue the matter further.

The documents discussed were not read with a view toward their teaching on love , but rather with a view toward their teaching on how enemies (in a broad sense) should be treated. Documents which have nothing very

explicit to say on this are not included. The investigation begins with the

pervasive Hellenistic philosophy, Stoicism. It is unique among the possible

spheres of influence discussed, in that it in no way emerges from Old

Testament thought or tradition. We focus next on the Old Testament upon

which, in various degrees of directness, the rest of the documents depend.

In treating the relation between the Old Testament and the New Testament paraenetic tradition we should be aware that the Old Testament's influence impinged upon the early church in more than one way. Alongside

Love your enemies

20

the direct influence of the Old Testament canon were its scribal interpretation and elaboration (which reached the ordinary people in the synagogues), its peculiar adaptations in contemporary movements like Qumran , its absorption into the other intertestamental literature and its formation

of the unwritten inherited piety of the people. However, it is beyond the

scope of this work to trace each Old Testament statement on enemy love

through the various channels by which it may have come to the early

church. Rather, my procedure has been to treat the Old Testament as a

direct influence but also to stay alert in my investigation of the other

documents for instances where explicit Old Testament material has been

preserved or has been taken up and given a new form. At such points the

traditional connections will be brought out (see especially Joseph and

Asenath, and Qumran).

Following the discussion of the Old Testament material come the

spheres of Hellenistic and Palestinian Judaism, the latter being divided

into the works inside and outside the influence of Qumran. With regard

to the locale of the documents discussed , the consensus of the standard

introductory works has been followed.

II. Hellenistic Phllosophy

Here I intend no survey of all the Greek ethical systems. Rather I will

restrict myself to that ethical school, the teachings of which could most

immediately have influenced the young church in the formation of the

paraenetic tradition, namely, the school of the Stoics. Stoicism had

spread throughout the empire before the birth of Jesus and there is little

doubt that the soil from which the church sprang up had been watered by

the Stoic philosophy .1 The ethics of the classical era of Greek philosophy

were not only temporally at a greater distance from the first century, but

they also had a 'lower' view of enemy love than did the Stoics.2 Epicureanism, which Max Pohlenz describes as 'der weltanschauliche Antipode'3 of Stoicism, was too contrary to Christian teaching to be a source of paraenetic

material.4 It is generally recognized 'that among all the manifold philosophical views of life which stamped the Greek world , none stood nearer to Christianity than the Stoic view .'5

Leaving aside the e arlier Stoics (Zeno, c. 336-263 B.C. ; Cleanthes,

c. 331-232 B.C.; Chrysippus, c. 280-205 B.C.; Posidonius , c. 135-51 B .C .)

and those after the New Testament period (e .g., Marcus Aurelius , A.D. 121-

180), our focus will be on the two main representatives of Stoic thought

who flourished in the first century A.D.: Epictetus of Hierapolis (c. A.D .

55-135) and Lucius Annaeus Seneca (c.4 B.C.-A.D. 65).

Origin of the command in the paraenetic tradition

21

A. Seneca

The dates of Seneca's birth and death plus his activity in Rome could make

one wonder whether a direct contact between him and the Christians existed.

Such a contact, however, cannot be asserted on the basis of the evidence :

nowhere does Seneca mention the Christians6 and the alleged correspondence between Paul and Seneca which has come down to us is of little historical value .7 Our investigation of his views on enemy love will confirm

(at least) the ethical distance between the two men.

Perhaps the most commonly quoted passage with regard to enemy love

is De Otio 1 .4 where the Stoics say : 'We shall engage in affairs to the very

end of life , we shall never cease to work for the common good, to help

each and all, to give aid even to our enemies when our hand is feeble with

age.'8 To this we may add the instruction in De Bene[iciis V I I .3 0 .2 an d 5:

And so let your thoughts follow this trend : 'He has not repaid me with

gratitude : what shall I do?' Do as the gods, those glorious authors of

all things, do, they begin to give benefits to him who knows them not,

and persist in giving them to those who are ungrateful . . . Let us imitate

them : let us give even if many of our gifts have been given in vain; none

the less let us give to still others, nay, even to those at whose hands we

have suffered loss.

However, as a norm for determining right behaviour the imitation of the

gods is secondary and relative, as the following discussion of the same

problem shows (De Beneficiis IY.26) :

I f you are imitating the gods, you say, 'then bestow benefits also upon

the ungrateful; for the sun rises also upon the wicked, and the sea lies

open to pirates (nam et sceleratis sol oritur et piratis patent maria).'

This point raises the question whether a good man would bestow a

benefit upon one who was ungrateful, knowing that he was ungrate-

ful . . . Understand that according to the system of the Stoics, there are

two classes of ungrateful persons. One man is ungrateful because he is

a fool . . . Another man is ungrateful, and this is the common meaning

of the term, because he has a natural tendency to this vice. To an

ingrate of this first type . . . a good man will give his benefit . . . To the

ingrate of the second type . . . he will no more give a benefit than he

will lend money to a spendthrift, or entrust a deposit to a man whom

many have already found false .

One does not just do what the gods do. One calculates what kind of

person he is dealing with and treats him appropriately. There are some

Love your enemies

22

persons to whom it is simply not fitting to give benefits. But we cannot

overlook that at times Seneca insists that one should not return evil for

evil. The instances are numerous. For example in De Ira 11.32. 1 ff we read :

'But of course there is some pleasure in anger,' you say , 'and it is sweet

to return a smart.' Not at all ; for it is not honorable as in acts of kindness to requite benefits so to requite injuries with injuries. In the one case it is shameful to be outdone , in the other not to be outdone.

'Revenge' is an inhuman word and yet one accepted as legitimate; and

'retaliation' is not much different except in rank; the man who returns

a smart commits merely the more pardonable sin.

On the surface this sounds much like the Christian teaching on enemy love .

But what lies behind this c oncern to be 'honorable' (honestus)? And in

what

is it 'shameful' (turpis) to be outdone? The immediately

following illustration of Seneca's ideal man, Marcus Cato, reveals the proper

understanding of the preceding quotation .

Once when Marcus Cato was in the public bath, a certain man, not

knowing him struck him unwittingly . . . Later when the man was

making apology, Cato said, 'I did not recall that I received a blow.' It

is better, he thought, to ignore the incident than to resent it . . . Only

a great soul can be superior to injury ; the most humiliating kind of

revenge is to have it appear that the man was not worth taking revenge

upon . . . He is a great and noble man who acts as does the lordly wild

beast that listens unconcernedly to the baying of tiny dogs. 9

Evidently it is 'honorable' to disdain the lowly and foolish man who cannot control his passions as Cato can, and to requite him by humiliation, and above all to preserve and manifest the lofty tranquility of 'the great

and noble man'.

With this we hit upon the motivating force of Seneca's ethics : good

and wise behavior is behavior that springs from and thus displays mastery

over one's passions and a freedom from external threats and rewards. The

cultivation and exercise of such mastery is the aim of the good life and

the only way to peace and happiness. How one behaves toward friend or

foe is simply a re flex of the 'great soul's' calculation of how to be master

of the situation and thus stay unperturbed. This concern with one's own

self may be further illustrated by Seneca's argument against hate in De Ira

III.42 .3 ,4 ; 111.43 . 1 ,2 :

Why do we , forgetting our weaknesses, take up the huge burden of hate ,

and, e asily broken as we are , rise up to break? Soon a fever or some

Origin of the command in the paraenetic tradition

23

other bodily ill will stay that war of hatred which we now wage with

such unrelenting purpose. Soon death will step in and part the fiercest

pair of fighters . . . That hour you appoint for the death of another is

perchance near your own.

Why do you not rather gather up your brief life and render it a peaceful one to yourself and all others? Why do you not rather make yourself beloved by all while you live and regretted by all when you die? . . .

Why do you try with all your might to crush the man who rails against

you, a low and contemptible fellow but sharp-tongued and troublesome to his betters? Why are you angry? . . . Wait a little . Behold death comes who will make you equals . . . Can you wish for the victim of

your wrath a greater ill than death? . . . You waste your pains if you

wish to do what needs must be .10

Should a wise man render evil for evil, injury for injury? Seneca would

say the question is wrongly conceived. The question is : Can a wise man be

injured in the first place?

'What then,' you will say, 'will there be no one who will attempt to do

the wise man injury?' Yes, the attempt will be made but the injury will

not reach him. For the distance which separates him from contact with

his inferiors is so great that no baneful force can extend its power all

the way to him (De Constantia 4.1).

Belonging to this 'distance' above one's 'inferiors' is an appropriate scorn

which we saw already in Cato: 'Whoever scorns his tormentors removes

himself from the common herd and towers above them. The mark of true

greatness is not to notice that you have received a blow' (De Ira 111.25.3).11

How is it to be explained that the wise man cannot be injured? It is very

logical : 'That which injures must be more powerful than that which is

injured; but wickedness is not stronger than righteousness; therefore it is

impossible for the wise man to be injured' (De Constantia 7 .2). Or to look

at it from another angle , 'the wise man can lose nothing. He has everything

invested in himself (De Constantia 5 .4). Should a man return evil for evil?

The answer is evident : 'The really great mind, the mind that has taken the

true measure of itself, fails to revenge injury only because it fails to perceive

it' (De Ira III.S .8).

What is liable to go unnoticed is that the wise man 'fails to perceive'

injury only in the sense that he is not perturbed or unsettled by it. He

indeed does perceive it in the sense that he knows that a common rascal

has done a reprehensible thing. Therefore it is not too surprising to read

that 'The wise man . . . will admonish them and inflict suffering and

Love your enemies

24

punishment not because he has received an injury but because they have

committed one , and in order that they may desist from doing so' (De

Constantia 12.3 ; 13.1). Again it is evident that how one treats his enemy

is quite secondary to the overarching concern to maintain a sovereign tranquility of mind . Such a stance relativizes interpersonal ethics in such a way that Seneca, when discussing the problem of how to overcome the anger of

another, can say, 'Some matters are cured only by deception' (De Ira

III.39 .4), and can assert that 'if any man's power is so great that he can assail

anger from an eminent position , let him deal with it harshly' (De Ira

III.40.5).

We may now sum up briefly the similarities and differences between

Seneca's teaching on enemy love and that of the New Testament paraenesis.

Seneca admonishes non-retaliation and good deeds toward one's enemies.

This behavior is occasionally based on an imitation of the gods. In this he

stands remarkably close to the New Testament. From one standpoint

Seneca's ethics may be classified with the admonitions of the wisdom

literature , in that he argues from experience and aims to provide insight

into how one can lead a happy life . His hero is often called a wise man.

The New Testament paraenetic tradition too contains elements of wisdom

(cf. Rom 12:16-19).

The paraenetic tradition of the New Testament differs formally from

the long reasoned discourse of the Stoics. It is characterized by a concise ,

staccato style , linking together a chain of short imperatives. The more

substantial differences reveal that the similarities mentioned above are

superficial and do not extend to the essence of the New Testament

paraenesis. The p araenesis starts from the mercies of God in Christ (Rom

12 : 1 ,2) which the Christian has encountered and by which he has been

transformed. This unique Christian starting point gives rise to a deep

divergence from the Stoics in motive and eventually in conduct.

We saw that for Seneca 'the principal motive behind the conduct he

advocates is always the keeping intact of the wise man's inner imperturbability. In Seneca every description of the wise man's conduct towards those who abuse , insult or do him an injustice only serves to magnify

the inviolate wise man who is raised far above common mortals.'12 But

the paraenetic tradition of the New Testament has no praise for Seneca's

'great soul' or 'noble man.' On the contrary the man who loves aright is

'not b oastful or puffe d up' (I Cor 13 :4), he is 'not high minded but is concerned with the lowly' (Rom 12 : 16). He 'weeps with those who weep'

(Rom 12 : 15). In the New Testament paraenesis love is not motivated by a

concern for one's own greatness and nobility. It is motivated by the freeing mercies of God and the concern is for the other person's good. While

Origin of the command in the paraenetic tradition

25

Seneca's wise man may ignore , humiliate, punish and deceive his enemy,

the Christian is commanded with regard to his enemy, do not render evil

for evil but do good, bless, seek peace .

B. Epictetus

In his book Epiktet und das Neue Testament, Adolf Bonhoeffer says that

his criterion for gathering parallels between Epictetus and the New Testament was not in 'the verbal correspondences which force themselves on us'

but was rather the 'relationship of thought lying deep within and penetrating

to the center of the whole life-view.'13 It is highly instructive, therefore ,

that the best parallel he can fmd to I Pt 3 :9 : 'Do not repay evil for evil or

reviling for reviling' (A.oooopicxl\) is Encheiridion 42 : 'If therefore you start

from this point of view, you will be gentle with the man who reviles

(rov A.oooopovvra) you.' The 'point of view' referred to, from which this

gentleness springs, is the awareness that the reviler is mistaken and 'the

man that suffers is the man who has been deceived.'14 In other words the

good man will not be harsh with those unlike himself 'because he knows

well the saying of Plato , that "every soul is unwillingly deprived of the

truth" ' (Discourses 1.22.36).

The 'deep lying' disparity between Epictetus and the New Testament

paraenetic tradition is unmistakable . Plato's quote stands in diametrical

opposition to Paul's conception of men's ignorance : 'They hold down the

truth in unrighteousness' (Rom 1 : 1 8). The Christian's love for his enemy

is not grounded in any amelioration of the enemy's evil.

Another difference between Epictetus and the New Testament paraenesis

is that gentleness toward an enemy generally has the purpose of cultivating

the 'moral purpose' (rrpooipeatl\) of the Stoic rather than achieving the

good of the enemy (cf Mt 5 :44; Lk 6 :28, 35 ; Rom 12 : 14 ; 1 Thess 5 : 1 5 etc.).

Epictetus advises the Procurator of Epirus who had taken the side of a

comic actor and thereby incurred the reviling of the citizens : 'No one is

dearer to me than myself; it is absurd, therefore , for me to let myself be

hurt in order that another man may win a victory as a common actor'

(Discourses III .4.9). And if I cannot avoid being reviled, I can still make

good use of the occasion to train my own character:

Is it possible , then , to derive advantage from these things? Yes, from

everything. - Even from the man who reviles me? - And what good

does his wrestling-companion do the athlete? The very greatest. So also

my reviler becomes one who prepares me for my contest, he exercises

my patience , my dispassionateness, my gentleness (Discourses III.20.9).

Love your enemies

26

While there is some similarity here to a text like Rom 5 :3 ff, nevertheless,

unlike the New Testament, 'dispassionate' is here the key word. Indeed

when Epictetus reaches for a metaphor to picture his ideal, his choice is a

stone : 'Take your stand by a stone and revile it; and what effect will you

produce? If, then, a man listens like a stone , what profit is there to the

reviler?' (Discourses 1.25 .29). So it is with the man who has learned the

lesson of the philosophers :

He will feel no pain , no anger, no compulsion, no hindrance but . . .

will pass [his life] in tranquility and in freedom from every disturbance

. . . He contemplates and reflects ; 'Now no evil can befall me, for me

there is no such thing as an earthquake , everything is full of peace ,

everything full of tranquility; every road,

city, every fellowtraveller, neighbor, companion, all are harmless' (Discourses III . 1 3 . 1 1 ,

1 3).15

As with Seneca the important thing is not so much to avoid avenging an

insult or injury ; what is really important is to be so completely the master

of yourself that you cannot be insulted or injured.16

It is against this background that we should probably understand

Epictetus' commendation of enemy love in the true Cynic :

For this too is a very pleasant strand woven into the Cynic's pattern of

life ; he must needs be flogged like an ass , and while he is being flogged

he must love (l/>t'Aew) the men who flog him, as though he were the

father or brother of them all (Discourses III.22.54).

It is difficult to know in just what sense this love is meant. To give

Epictetus the benefit of the doubt we could argue from Discourses

III.22 .8 1 , 82 that the Cynic has a real concern for the best welfare of his

enemy :

Man, the Cynic has made all mankind his children . . . ; in that spirit

he approaches them all and cares for them all ('rr&vTwv KT1li erat). Or do

you fancy that it is in the spirit of idle impertinence he reviles those he

meets. It is as a father he does it , as a brother and as a servant of Zeus,

who is Father of us all.

But this concern for the good of the enemy seems greatly overshadowed

by the delight the Cynic takes in appearing sovereignly serene in adversity .17

One could also add that this particular motive of the familial b ond with all

humanity is foreign to the New Testament which pictures a new humanity

and brotherhood in Christ . Yet there is at least a superficial parallel between

the Cynic's acting as the servant and son of Zeus and the Christian's acting

as his Father in heaven (Mt 5 :4 5 , 48 ; I Pt I : 14£).

Origin of the command in the paraenetic tradition

2 7

Bonhoeffer assesses the relation between Epictetus and the New Testament so : 'At one point in its social ethics Christianity seems to deserve superiority over the Stoics, namely in its practice of active deeds of

neighbor love. '18 His judgment that Epictetus possesses, a disposition

which is completely free of hate and vengefulness exactly to the same

degree as the New Testament19 may be misleading unless one remembers

Epictetus' metaphor of the stone : it too is completely free of hate and

vengefulness. Our investigation of Epictetus' teaching on enemy love has

shown it to be not essentially different from Seneca's. We have seen

certain external similarities between the Stoics and the early Christian

paraenetic tradition but are not able to speak of any kind of dependence

or deeper harmony .

lll. The Old Testament

There is no question that the early church drew from the Old Treatment

in forming its paraenetic tradition concerning enemy love. The tradition

which we isolated in the preceding chapter contains explicit Old Testament elements and stands in loose relation to Old Testament quotations : Rom 1 2 : 1 6b Prov 3 :7 (Is 5 : 2 1 } ; Rom 1 2 : 1 7a Prov 1 7 : 1 3 ;20 Rom

=

=

1 2 : 1 7b Prov 3 :4 (LXX}; Rom 1 2 : 19b Dt 32 :3 5 ; Rom 1 2 :20 Prov

=

=

=

25 :21 f; I Pt 3 : 10-12 Ps 34 (LXX 33}: 12- 1 6 .2 1 Therefore , the following

=

investigation of the Old Testament's teaching on enemy love does not aim

to determine whether the Old Testament was a source for the New Testament paraenesis; rather the aim is to determine whether the Old Testament as a source is adequate to account for the understanding of enemy love in

the New Testament paraenetic tradition.

The m eanings of the words 'love' and 'hate' should not be rigidly predetermined, for, as the following discussion shows, the immediate context is all-important in discovering the intention behind the concept of love and hate in the Old Testament. It is appropriate, however, to keep in mind that the connotations of love and hate which we

bring to the text from our own'experience may not correspond to

the meaning intended by the Old Testament author. We must be open

to that which is new for us if we hope to learn from , rather than distort , the Old Testament. The articles by Quell22 and Michel23 in TDNT

are helpful to this end .

We may mention briefly several dimensions of love and hate in the Old

Testament in order to give some idea of the range of meanings. The

active side of love is seen in such favorite combinations as: to love

Yahweh and keep his commandments (Ex 20 : 6 ; Dt 5 : 1 0 ; 7 : 9 ; 1 1 : 1 ;

I Kg 3 : 3 ; Dan 9 :4 ; Neb 1 : 5 ) ; to love him and serve him (Dt 1 0 : 1 2 ;

1 1 : 1 3 ; I s 5 6 :6 ) ; or to love him and walk in his Jays (Dt 1 0 : 1 2 ; 1 1 : 22 ;

Love your enemies

28

1 9 : 9 ; 3 0 : 1 6 ; Josh 22 : 5 ; 2 3 : 1 1 ). But while the focus here is on active

obedience, feeling is not excluded : Jeremiah recalls the days when

Israel loved God as a bride (2 : 2). God is to be loved with all the heart

and with all the soul and with all the might (Dt 6 : 5 ). In fact, only

from a tender heart of flesh , not a heart of stone, can God's commands

be obeyed (Ez 1 1 : 1 9 ; Jer 3 1 :3 3 ). 'To love God is to have pleasure in

him and to strive impulsively after him' (Quell, p 2 8 ). Similarly in

human relationships, the active (cf Dt 1 0 : 1 8 , 1 9 ) as well as passionate

(II Sam 1 :26 ; Song of Sol 8 : 6 f) side of love is evident.

Similarly , hate can refer to the active execution (Mal 1 : 3 ) of ill against

someone , as well as the disposition of heart (Lev 1 9 : 1 7 ; Dt 4 :4 2 ; Ps

4 1 : 7 ) from which such action proceeds. What measure of passionate

feeling is intended must be determined from the context , for it is

possible that 'hate' can mean merely 'love less' as for example in the

case of Jacob's 'hate' of Leah (Gen 29 : 3 1 ff; cf Michel, p 690, note 2 3 f).

Similarly in the laws of divorce in Dt 24 : 1 -3 , to hate a wife means that

she finds no favor in the eyes of her husband, i.e., she is probably an

unsatisfactory sexual partner (cf Dt 2 1 : 1 5 - 1 7 ; 22 : 1 3 ). But hate can

also include very extreme distaste (II Sam 1 3 : 1 5 ) and strong desire for

someone's total ruin (Ps 1 3 9 : 1 9-22).

This very brief survey should alert us to the breadth of connotation

possible in the words 'love' and 'hate' in the Old Testament, and should

sensitize us to the need to be open in our treatment of the various

contexts in which the words or the concepts occur.

The Old Testament statements and stories about enemies are very diverse.

We will begin with the more positive and proceed toward the negative. In

Ex 23 :4,5 we find:

If you meet your enemy's ('TJ��N/ex8pov) ox or ass going astray; you

shall bring it back to him. lf you see the ass of one who hates you (9��� I

€)(8 pov) lying under its burden, you shall refrain from leaving him with

it, you shall help him to lift it up.

The word for enemy here :J�N (poet of.:J;�) occurs 53 times in the Pentateuch

and means uniformly the national enemy of Israel ( cf the nearest example,

Ex 23 :22,27). We shall see, when dealing with Philo (p 39) and the Rabbis

(p 48), that these verses have been understood to the effect that one is here

seeking his own advantage (Philo) or that the 'enemy' is only another

Israelite (Rabbis). Standing alone in its specificity with no ground- or

purpose-clause , the command is subject to such (mis-?) interpretations. But

Schmauch is surely correct when he describes these verses as 'an embryo of

the rule of enemy love.'24

Two instances where revenge is denounced are Prov 24 :29,

Origin of the command in the paraenetic tradition

29

Do not say, 'I will do to him as he has done to me,

I will pay the man back for what he has done.'

and I Kings 3 : !Off. In the latter instance Solomon has just prayed for wisdom to determine right and wrong and to govern his people well; God responds to his prayer : Because you have asked this and have not asked for yourself long life or

riches or the life of your enemies but have asked for yourself understanding to discern what is right, behold I now do according to your word.

It is significant to note here that God is pleased that Solomon did not pray

for the destruction of his enemies. This stands in contrast to certain prayers

of the psalmists and to King David's attitude on his death bed (see note 30).

Nevertheless one could even from this text maintain that revenge is not

eliminated but is only less desirable than wisdom.

Another example of positive treatment of the enemy is the book of

Jonah. The book is consciously directed against an exclusivism which

restricts God's mercy to Israel. It intends to drive home the point that God

is 'gracious and merciful, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love'

even toward non-Israelites ( 4 :2). Though the emphasis of the story is on

God's love, the implications are obvious for Jonah and men in general. The

answer to God's question to Jonah is clear: 'Do you do well to be angry?'

(4 :4). He does not do well. The conclusion is not ambiguous: Jonah would

do well if he, like his Lord, abounded in steadfast love toward his enemies

in Nineveh.

Next we may cite Prov 24 : 1 7,18:

Do not rejoice when your enemy falls,

and let not your heart be glad when he stumbles,25

lest the Lord see it, and be displeased,

and turn away his anger from him .

Are we to suppose with some that the last line of this proverb ruins the

whole thing? Was the wise man really describing a subtle method for

securing the destruction of one's enemy? I think not. So interpreted the

proverb admonishes a psychological impossibility. Verse 1 7 demands that

in your heart you not desire the destruction of your enemy (for it is the

attainment of what we desire that makes us glad). If v 1 7 excludes the

inner disposition that desires the enemy's destruction, then v 18 cannot

be an appeal to that disposition. Verse 1 8 must be understood another

way. I would suggest that v 1 8 supports v 1 7 in this way : there is a bit of

Love your enemies

30

irony ; if a man does not obey v 1 7 but instead exults over his enemy's

trouble , God will be displeased with him and he will show this displeasure

in a very effective way ; he will remove the man's cause of exultation, that

is, he will restore the fortunes of the enemy so that the man who exulted

will be humiliated for his sin. He who laughs last laughs best, we would say

today.

While Prov 24 : 1 7f was only a prohibition, Prov 25 : 2 1 f is a positive

command to do good to the enemy and is taken over by Paul in Rom 1 2 : 20

almost in its entirety :

Prov 25:21/(LXX)

Rom 12:20

edtv trewci b ex8 pOe: aov rpel/)e

ecxv 1TEtv� b €x.8pQc: GOV IJ;w#).t�e

cximiv, edv 8 t1/lci 1ron�e cxiJr6v,

cxl.rrov eclv &tJ;�. non�€ cxl.rrov

TOVrO -ydtp 1TOtWV

TOVrO -yap 1TOtWV

lf.v8pcxKcxr; nvpOc: awpeiaetr;

lf.v8 pCXKCX<; 1rVp0c: GWpeVGEt<;

brt' r?iv Kei/JCX'A?iv cxl.rrov

em' riw Ke</XXMv cxl.rroti.

b 8 € K VPW<: WTCX1TOO WG€t

GOt crycx8a.

For our present purpose it is important only to notice that the proverb is

not taken over in its entirety. Omitted from the Christian paraenesis is that

which would suggest that the good deeds are being done for private advantage .

We pose the question next as to the extent of the Old Testament command

to love your neighbor. The meaning of Lev 1 9 : 1 8 where this well-known

command occurs becomes clear when seen in its immediate context :

You shall not go up and down as a tale bearer among your people

( 1'7?�-i I I ev r4; ee vet aov ),

and you shall not stand forth against the blood of your neighbor

( 1¥1 /rov 1TA1/0WV aov): I am the Lord.

You shall not hate your brother (1't:ll$ /rov tro e'AI/)6v aov) in your heart.

You shall surely reprove your neighbor ( 9t''�P, /rov 1TA1/GWV aov), and

not bear sin because of him.

You shall not take vengeance nor bear any grudge against the children

of your people (17?� ·�_:;I /roti; vimi; rov 'Acxov),

but you shall love your neighbor (9�1(/rov 1TA1/GWV aov) as yourself:

I am the Lord (Lev 1 9 : 1 6-18).

In this context all of the objects of the action are members of the Israelite

community . The word �1 /tr'A'T/UWV occurs twice and in both instances is

coordinate with 9�� , 'your people'. Consequently , there is general agree·

ment that 'neighbor' in Lev 1 9 : 1 8 is a command to love , not men in

Origin of the command in the paraenetic tradition

31

general, but fellow lsraelites.26 Lev 19 :34 then explicitly broadens the

object of love:

The sojourner (,�tl) who sojourns with you will be to you as a native

(M"H�:P. cf Ex 1 2 : 19),

and you shall love him as yourself; for you were strangers in the land of

Egypt: I am the Lord your God.

Here again the commandment to love falls short of including the average

non-Israelite, for ,� denotes a non-Israelite who has become part of the

Israelite community .27

In order to see this Old Testament teaching on love of the neighbor in

its proper

the following observations should be made. Dt 1 0 : 1 8 ,19

offers a close parallel to Lev 1 9 : 34 :

He [God] executes justice for the fatherless and the widow , and loves

the sojourner, giving him food and clothing. Love the sojourner therefore ; for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt.

The two texts are bound together in that they both command love for the

soj ourner and both refer to the Israelites' sojourn in Egypt. Most important, however, is that the statement in Lev 1 9 :34, 'I am the Lord your God,' has its counterpart in Dt 1 0 : 1 2-22 in a full description of God's

love, justice and mighty deeds on behalf of his people . The Israelites are to

show the same kindness to the sojourner as God had shown them. Similarly Lev 1 9 begins with the command, 'You shall be holy ; for I the Lord your God am holy.' The repeated phrase 'I am the Lord' ( 1 5 times) which

follows the individual commands of Lev 1 9 shows that the intention of the

chapter is to give specific instances of how to be holy as God is

Accordingly the command to love the neighbor ( 1 9 : 1 8) and sojourner ( 1 9:

34) are instances of being holy as God is holy. Seen in the wider context

of Dt 1 0 : 1 2 -22 this means that the command to love is grounded in the

nature of God and the way he acts toward his people. The love which the

Israelites are to render is a love which springs from the greater love they

have already been shown by God (Dt 1 0 : 1 5 ff).

God's love for Israel was free , unmerited by any peculiarity in the people

(Dt 7 : 7 ,8). One might expect that Israel would conclude that she too

should love without placing prior conditions on non-Israelites (cf J onah).

But Israel did not as a rule draw this conclusion. Rather the conclusion

was more commonly drawn : since God has established his covenant

with us alone and

his love upon us, it is right that others

should place themselves under the terms of his covenant ( i.e., t ake the

yoke of the law upon them ) before we show them love. We shall see

how the Qumran sect follows this line of argument to its vivid conclusion :

Love your enemies

32

love for those in the sect, hate for those outside, even though they

know themselves totally dependent on God's mercy ( l QS 1 : 9 , 1 0 ; 1 0 :

9-1 3) !

Looking more closely at what love means in Lev 19 :18,34 w e see that it

is not merely activity but is also a condition of the heart: 'You shall not

hate your brother in your heart' (19 : 17). Accordingly it excludes both the

deed of vengeance and the bearing of a grudge (19 : 18). Further, it should

not be overlooked (as is already hinted in the command not to bear a

grudge) that Lev 19 :18 does include love of enemies if they are Israelites,

that is, personal enemies. Nevertheless, the non-Israelite enemies are not in

view in Lev 19.

From this limitation of the love command implied in the term 'neighbor,' we move now to a consideration of those texts where the enemy is the object of hate or destruction.28 We may begin with Israel's conquest of

Canaan. According to Dt, when the people had taken possession of the

land and defeated the seven nations greater than themselves, they were to

make no covenant with them, show no mercy to them and utterly destroy

them (Dt 7:1,2 ; cf Dt 25:17-19 ; Ex 34 : 12). Concerning the Ammonites

and Moabites, Israel was not to seek their peace or their prosperity all their

days, because they did not offer bread or water to Israel when Israel came

out of Egypt (Dt 23:3-6). The word 'hate', however (��',C\;Iif) does not

occur at all in Dt (or Josh) with reference to enemies. The reason given in

Dt for the utter destruction of the enemy is

First, 'that they may

not teach you to do according to all their abominable practices which they

have done in the service of their gods, and so to sin against the Lord your

God' (Dt 20: 18). Second, the destruction is not only a protection of Israel

from sin, but also a punishment of the nations for sin : 'Because of these

abominable practices the Lord your God is driving them out before you'

(Dt 18 : 12). Since it is God who is driving out the enemy, the command to

destroy the enemy is a command to be a weapon in God's hands. This is

the picture we have of the actual conquest in the book of Joshua. 'One

man of you puts to flight a thousand, since it is the Lord your God who

fights for you, as he promised you' (Josh 23: 10). 29

We may include here two other texts related to the above only by the

theme of conquest. In II Chr 19 :2 Jehoshaphat returns from a rather poor

showing in battle with the Syrians. Jehu goes out to meet him and rebukes

him with the words, 'Should you help the wicked and love those who hate

the Lord?' The obvious meaning is that love is a completely inappropriate

response to the enemies of God's people . In II Sam 19 :6 David is found

weeping over his son Absalom whom Joab had killed. He is thus humiliating

his servants who were prepared to rejoice over the victory. J oab accuses

Origin of the command in the paraenetic tradition

33

David of covering the faces of his servants with shame: 'because you love

those who hate you and hate those who love you.'30

Turning to the Psalms, the clearest statement on hate which we fmd is

Ps 139: 1 9-22 :

0 that thou wouldst slay the wicked, 0 God,

and that men of blood would depart from me,

men who maliciously defy thee,

who lift themselves up against thee for evil !

Do I not hate them that hate thee, 0 Lord?

and do I not loathe them that rise up against thee?

I hate them with perfect hatred ;

I count them my enemies.

Here the object of hate is not nations, but individuals, and the cause for

the hate is not national allegiance , but religious devotion. The last line, 'I

count them my enemies,' discloses the process of the psalmist's thought:

he does not hate them because they are his enemies but rather he declares

them to be his enemies, i.e., the objects of his hate, because they are

already God's enemies. The psalmist seeks to align himself with God,3 1 and

he subjects himself to God in that he does not seek vengeance himself, but

asks God to slay the wicked. For the psalmist the declaration of his hate is

the proof of his purity. The psalm begins and ends with the acknowledgment

that God searches the heart and knows all of a man's thoughts (vv 3 ,4,23 ,24).

To hate those who hate God is the negative demonstration of the psalmist's

confession (vv 17,1 8):

How precious to me are thy thoughts, 0 God!

How vast the sum of them !

If I would count them , they are more than the sand.

When I awake, I am still with thee.

In the light of this psalm taken alone it would be quite natural for a devout

Jew to conclude that to hate the wicked is a virtue, indeed an obligation.

It is not obvious, however, how this pious declaration of hate actually

worked itself out in personal relations. If one probes more deeply into the

psychology of the Psalms, one encounters a complexity that makes questionable any simple opposition of love and hate . Ps 1 09 presents the most astounding sequence of maledictions in the psalter. For fifteen verses the

psalmist calls down every sort of curse on his accusers. They are a plea

for God to act on his behalf (v 2 1 ) for he is poor and needy (v 22). 1f the

psalmist does not avenge himself, how does he relate to his enemy?

Immediately preceding the table of curses we have these words (vv 4,5):

Love your enemies

34

In return for my love they accuse me,

even as I make prayer for them.

So they reward me evil for good,

and hatred for my love.

Thus we have an expression of the psalmist's love for his enemies side by

side with merciless curses. In Ps 3 5 we fmd a similar pattern. The writer

prays (v 1 ):

Contend, 0 Lord, with those who contend with me;

fight against those who fight against me!

But as for his own action he says (vv 12-14):

They requite me evil for good;

my soul is forlorn.

But I, when they were sick - wore sackcloth,

I afflicted myself with fasting.

I prayed with head bowed on my bosom,

as though I grieved for my friend or my brother.

Thus even the psalms of revenge contain within themselves the diversity

of attitude toward the enemy which we said at the beginning characterizes

the Old Testament as a whole.32 (On the theological problem see note 54.)

The question we posed at the start was : Can the Old Testament as a

source account for the understanding of enemy love in the New Testa·

ment paraenesis? In answer to this we may draw the following conclusions.

We have no grounds for asserting that the God of the New Testament is

any other than the God of the Old Testament - a God of mercy and of

judgment who, in the end, does indeed take vengeance on his enemies

(Rom 2 : 8 ; 1 2 : 1 9 ; Rev 20:9 ,1 5 ; Mt 13 :30). The difference between the Old

and New Testaments does not consist in any weakening of a proper

abhorrence of evil by God and man (Rom 12 :9).33 Moreover we have seen

the seeds of enemy love sown widely in the Old Testament (Ex 23 :4f; Prov

24 :29 ; I Kg 3 : 10; Jonah; Prov 24: 1 7f; 25 : 2 1 f; Dt 1 0 : 1 8f etc.), some of

which have taken root in the New Testament paraenesis (e.g. Prov 25 : 2 1 f

= Rom 1 2 :20; Prov 1 7 : 1 3 = Rom 1 2 : 1 7 ; Ps 34 : 1 2-16 = I Pt 3 : 10-1 2 etc.).

What is unique in the New Testament paraenesis is the new eschatological

context in which the teachings on enemy love are put (cf Rom 1 : 1 ,2 ; I

Thess 5 : 1 -10; I Pt 1 : 1 3 ; 2 :9f) and the selective use of the Old Testament

(see on Prov 25 : 2 1 f; p 30) to avoid possible misunderstandings to which

the Old Testament admixture of love and hate was so susceptible (cf

rabbinic teaching, p 48). As a source the Old Testament alone cannot

Origin of the command in the paraenetic tradition

35

entirely account for the understanding of enemy love in the New Testament

paraenesis. The followers of Jesus had heard a new word which guided them

in the proper use of the old word.

IV. Hellenistic Judaism

A. Works from the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha34

The works discussed in this section are arranged in chronological order so

far as this can be determined. The problems surrounding their origin and

traditional relation to Christianity will be discussed in turn as we investigate each document.

1 . In the Book of the Words of Tobit, which according to Eissfeldt

reflects a 'realistic picture of the conditions in the eastern Jewish diaspora

in about 200 B .C.,'35 there is no mention of enemy love. Tobit's exhortation to his son Tobias is rather a negative form of the Golden Rule and an admonition to be generous with his surplus only to the righteous, thus

preserving the restrictive side of the Old Testament love command.

Take heed to thyself, my child, in all thy works and be discreet in all

thy behavior. And what thou thyself hatest, do to no man . . . Give of

thy bread to the hungry, and of thy garments to them that are naked:

of all thine abundance give alms; and let not thine eye be grudging

when thou givest alms. Place your bread on the grave of the righteous,

but give none to sinners (Tobit 4 : 14-1 7).

2. The Letter of Aristeas36 contains a banquet conversation (187-294)

by which the author intends to show the superiority of the virtue and

knowledge of the Jewish envoys over that of 'the philosophers' (Aristeas

200). The superiority results from the fact that the Jews 'all made God the

starting point of their words' (220, 235). However, a closer examination of

the content of the Jewish responses at the banquet conversation shows

that the wisdom of the Jews is not essentially different from that of 'the

philosophers' and shows distinct Stoic influence (2 1 1 , 222 , 235 , 256).

Consequently in its teaching relating to enemy love , the Letter of Aristeas

reflects some of the same features we found in Seneca and Epictetus : e.g.,

expediency for the sake of one's own advantage, and a high estimation of

the mind's tranquility . This may be found in the following excerpts. See

the discussion of this kind of wisdom on pp 23f.

The King . . . said, 'What is the teaching of wisdom?' And the other

replied, 'As you wish that no evil should befall you, but to be a partaker

of all good things, so you should act on the same principle towards your

Love your enemies

36

subjects and offenders, and you should mildly admonish the noble and

the good. For God draws all men to Himself by his benignity' (207).

The King . . . asked another How he could despise his enemies? And he

replied, 'If you show kindness to all men and win their friendship , you

need fear no one. To be popular with all men is the best of good gifts

to receive from God' (225).

The King asked the next, 'To whom ought a man show liberality?' And

he replied, 'All men acknowledge that we ought to show liberality to

those who are well disposed towards us, but I think we ought to show

the same keen spirit of generosity to those who are opposed to us

that by this means we may win them over to the right and to what is

advantageous to ourselves' (227).

The King asked another How he could be free from grief? And he replied

'If he never injured anyone, but did good to everybody and followed

the pathway of righteousness, for its fruits bring freedom from grief

(232).

3. In the Fourth Book of Maccabees37 we encounter another author

whose aim is to stimulate faithfulness to the law and to show that the Greek

ideal of virtue can be realized only by Judaism.38 As with the Stoics, so

here 'Reason is in the position of master over the passions or affections'

(IV Mace 2 :9). While Reason controls the love of wife, children and friends so

that a man rebukes and punishes them at times (2 : 10-1 2), 'do not think it

a paradoxical thing when Reason through the Law is able to overcome

even hatred, so that a man refrains from cutting down the enemy's orchards,

and protects the property of the enemy from spoilers, and gathers up their

goods that have been scattered' (2: 1 3 ,14). As we saw in the Stoics, so here

it is primarily the mastery of self and not the good of the enemy which is

at stake.

4. In the Slavonic Book of Enoch39 revenge against neighbor and enemy

is explicitly forbidden, because God will be the avenger on the day of

judgment:

Endure for the sake of the Lord every wound, every injury, every word

and attack. If ill-requitals befall you, return them not either to neighbor

or enemy because the Lord will return them for you and be your

avenger on the day of great judgment, that there be no avenging here

among men (50:3 ; cf 5 1 : 3 ; 60: 1 ).

Here the command is negative and recalls Rom 1 2 : 19; 'Never avenge

yourselves but leave it to the wrath of God.' But Slavonic Enoch also gives

Origin of the command in the paraenetic tradition

37

a positive love command, once expressed in a form of the Golden Rule

and once as an admonition to universal charity especially to the needy:

Just as a man asks (sc. something) for his own soul from God, so let

him do to every living soul (6 1 : 1 ).

Blessed is the man who does not direct his heart with malice against any

man, and helps the injured and condemned and raises the broken down,

and shall do charity to the needy because on the day of the great

judgment every weight and every measure . . . will be as in the market,

that is to say they are hung on the scales and stand in the market, and

everyone shall learn his own measure and according to his measure shall

take his reward (44 :4,5).

One is tempted to see in these quotes the echoes of Christian tradition.

The unrestricted nature of the admonitions stands in tension with a

command like 'Hide not your silver in the earth, help the faithful man in

affliction , and affliction will not fmd you in the time of your trouble'

(5 1 :2). But we are in no position to draw secure conclusions about

Christian influence on Slavonic Enoch or vice versa. We may simply say

that there are material parallels. It is not impossible that the enemy love in

this book represents a further development of Old Testament commands

like Lev 1 9 : 1 8 and Dt 32:35.

5 . More important for our purpose than the other Hellenistic writings is

Joseph and Asenath. 40 In the final chapters of this work (23 -29) the son

of Pharaoh plots to kill his aging father and Joseph so that he may

possess the throne and marry Joseph's wife Asenath. To this end he

attempts to enlist the support of two of Joseph's brothers, Simeon and

Levi : he threatens to kill them if they do not join his conspiracy . Simeon

is so enraged that he reaches for his sword to strike the son of Pharaoh.

But Levi restrains him with these words (23 :9):41

i'vcm.' au €()V/1W()'(/<; KCXT' cxiJroiJ;

Why are you angry at him?

l>wn i111ei<: Ot.vopo<: eeoae{3ovc:

For we are sons of a godly

trail> e<: €a11ev, Kat'

trpoafiK et

man, and it is not seemly

Ot.vopi eeoae{3ef &troooiivcxt KCXKov

for a godly man to repay

btvri KCXKOV r<j; 1TA'(/OWV CXVTOV.

evil for evil to his neighbor.

Pharaoh's son manages, however, to persuade the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah

to attempt to kidnap Asenath with a band of men. In the fight that

ensues this band of men is wiped out (Benjamin being the decisive defender);

the four rebellious brothers of Joseph plead with Asenath to have mercy

on them. She responds to them (28 :4):

Love your enemies

38

(}apaetre Kat' p.fl

Be of good courage and

O LOTL ol dto e"'A.<J>oi vp.wv elaw

fear not for your brothers

Civo per; eeoae{3eir; Kai p.fl

are godly men and do not

OaroO tOOVTer; KaKOV divn' KaKOU

repay evil for evil to

TWt dtv(} pW1T <iJ.

any man.

Asenath then intercedes for the fearful brothers and tells the others to be

content with their victory. Simeon, who has not learned his lesson, is irritated and asks, 'Why is she speaking good words on behalf of her enemy?'

(28 : 1 2). She answers for herself (28 : 14):

&5 e"'A.<J>e, diTToowaetr;

In no way, brother, shall

KaKov dtvn' KaKou r<{J 1TAfiOWV

you repay evil for evil to

aov, O WTL Kvpwr; eKO LKilaet TflV

your neighbor' for the Lord

v(3pw ravrrw.

will avenge this insolence .

Finally, Benjamin, in his eagerness to complete the defeat which he had

largely brought about, is about to slay the wounded son of Pharaoh, when

Levi intervenes with these words (29 :3):

Jlf/0 ap.wr; aoe'JI.<j>e' 1TOtilaf1r; TO

In no way , brother, shall

Ep"fOV TOVrO, o u5n 1]p.eir; livoper;

you do this deed, for we

Oeoae(3eir; eap.ev' Kat' ob

are godly men, and it is

1rpoai7K et av5pl 8eoae{3ei

not seemly for a godly man

·

OaroO OVVat KaK OV avn' KaKOU

to repay evil for evil . . .

. . •

obo e €K8M/Iat TOV ex8pov i;wr;

neither to crush his enemy

eavdrov.

to death.

In 28 :4 above we have the exact wording of the tradition which in the

preceding chapter we determined lay behind I Thess 5 : 1 Sa; Rom 1 2 : 1 7a

and I Pt 3 :9a (p.fl daroo tb6vrer; KaKov dtvn' KaKou). Three other instances of

the clause occur with minor variations. Dieter Li.ihrmann drew attention

to this phrase in Joseph and Asenath in reference to the Christian abolition

of the lex talionis in Mt 5 :38f.42 But, to my knowledge , its relation specifically to the New Testament paraenetic tradition has not been treated in any detail.43

That this parallel is the result of New Testament influence on Joseph

and Asenath is not probable (see note 40). Any other Christian feature

is missing from the contexts. The ethical framework is Jewish, characterized by the ob 1rpoai7Ket sentences and the use of dtvf/p Oeoae{3ilr; . The word (}eoae{3ilr; occurs in the New Testament only in Jn 9 :3 1 and then in

the first-century Christian literature only in I Clement 1 7:3 (a quote of

Job 1 : 1 ). However, in the diaspora Judaism, it had become almost a

technical term for the self-designation of a Jew.44

Origin of the command in the paraenetic tradition

39

Moreover, the author's use of the phrase 'do not repay evil for evil' does

not indicate that it is original with him, but already has the character of a

common tradition. In each instance it is brought forth in stereotype fashion

as if it is a well-known proverb : a God-fearing man does not repay evil for

evil. Therefore we need not suppose that the New Testament paraenetic

tradition was directly dependent on Joseph and Asenath. But we may say

with confidence that the saying behind I Thess 5 : 1 5a, Rom 1 2 : 1 7a and

I Pt 3 :9 was taken over from previously existing Jewish paraenetic tradition.

Johannes Thomas suggests reasonably that the tradition stems ultimately

from Prov 1 7 : 13 (&; MroEiil>wow KCXKa txvri txrcx8wv, ov K UJ118ilaercxt KCXKOt

i:t< roii oikov cxiJrov) and represents a further development of the principle

developed there.45

In spite of the verbal parallel between Joseph and Asenath and the New

Testament paraenetic tradition we cannot conclude that the same ethic is

present in both. This Hellenistic Jewish element was not merely taken over

by the early church; it was put into the context of the gospel

which a

man is made new (Rom 12 :2; I Pt 1 :3 ,23 ; cf I Thess 2 : 13) and it was

expanded so that it became only the negative counterpart to the positive

love command.46 In Joseph and Asenath the commands relating to neighbor

(Joseph's brothers) and enemy (Pharaoh's son) are all prohibitions.47

B. Philo

Philo's indebtedness to the Stoics is explicit. They are the best (De

Migratione Abraham 128) and first (De Plan tatione 49) philosophers .

Their influence is especially evident in his ethics.48 We need not, therefore,

devote much space to his teaching on enemy love . The following exposition

of Ex 23 : 5 will suffice to show out of what tradition he lives :

By this he [Moses] implies a further lesson : that one should not take

pleasure in the adversities of those who have shown him hatred . . . Again

if you see an enemy's beast straying, leave the points on which you

quarrel to serve as incentives for other more vindictive dispositions and

lead the animal away and restore it. You will benefit yourself more

than him : he gains an irrational and possibly worthless animal, you the

greatest and most precious treasure in the whole world, true goodness.

And this, as surely as the shadow follows the body, will be followed by

a termination of the feud (De Virtutibus 1 16-1 18).49

V. Qumran and Works in the Region of its Influence

Fragments of each of the documents discussed here have been found in the

caves of Qumran. 50 They are discussed here in chronological order insofar

Love your enemies

40

as this can be fixed. Even if the composition of the Testaments of the

Twelve Patriarchs preceded the composition of the Book of Jubilees, the

text as it has come down to us is certainly later (see below).

A. Manual of Discipline 51

The Manual of Discipline opens with the most explicit command to hate

in the environment of the early church. The sectaries are instructed :

to seek God with [all their heart] and [all their soul]

and to love all that he has chosen 52

and to hate all that he has despised

and that they may love all the sons of light

each according to his lot in the council of God

and that they may hate all the sons of darkness

each according to his fault in the vengeance of God (1 :2,4,9 ,10).

This commitment to hate those outside the community must not lead us

to think, however, that the perfect sectary was vindictive in his actions. To

the contrary, he expresses himself in this way :

To no man will I render the reward of evil,

With goodness I will pursue each one;

For judgment of all the living is with God,

And He it is who will pay to each man his reward.

As for the multitude of men of the Pit

I will not lay hands on them till the Day of Vengeance (10: 1 7-19).

The man of understanding apparently saw no contradiction between

hating a man and pursuing him with goodness until the Day of Vengeance.

This strange combination may find an explanation in the source of the

sectary's hate . His hate does not spring from a feeling of superiority :

As for me I belong to wicked humanity

To the assembly of perverse flesh

For is man master of his way?

No, men cannot establish their steps,

For their justification belongs to God,

And from his hand comes perfection of way (1 1 :9-10).

Origin of the command in the paraenetic tradition

41

For the sectary , love and hate are an inevitable reflex of God's absolutely

sovereign and eternal election :

Truly the Spirits of light and darkness were made by Him :

The one God loves everlastingly

And delights in all his deeds forever

But the Counsel of the other he loathes

And he hates all his ways forever (3 :25 ; 4 : 1 ) 53

.

The destiny of the just and the unjust is fixed from all eternity. The lot

of the one is to share in the 'Council of God' ( 1 : 10); the lot of the other is

to endure the 'Vengeance of God' ( 1 : 1 1 ). Therefore , the sectary's hate for

the unjust is simply an aligning of himself with God and an affirmation of

the rightness of God's decrees.

In spite of the sectary's willingness to pursue his enemy with good

deeds, it is hate for the outsider that brings satisfaction:

I will not withdraw my anger far from perverse men,

I will not be content till he [God] begins the Judgment ( 1 0 : 20).

As with certain parts of the rabbinic literature (see p 48) Qumran apparently

represents a further development of that side of the Old Testament seen in

Ps 69 : 2 1 -28 ; 1 09 ; 139: 19-22.54 From God's absolute election follows the

clear division of those to be loved and those to be hated. Paul too, who

was one of the chief bearers of the early Christian paraenetic tradition, had

a conception of God's absolute election (Rom 9-1 1 ). Indeed he could say,

'Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated' (Rom 9: 13). But unlike Qumran, Paul

does not conclude from this that the non-Christians are to be hated. On

the contrary he says, 'I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my

heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ

for the sake of my brethren my kinsmen by race' (Rom 9 :2,3). Paul's

'heart's desire and prayer to God for them is that they might be saved'

(Rom 1 0 : 1 ) This is a different atmosphere than we find in Qumran. The

.

election of God is here realized in the hearing of faith (Rom 1 0 : 1 7 ; Gal

3 :2), not in the adherence to a strict community code . The result is that

'the mercies of God' 'transform' the believer (Rom 1 2 : I f) and move him

to bless those who persecute him (Rom 1 2 : 14). That Qumran did not

develop an ethic in this direction even though it confessed its absolute

dependence on God for justification ( 1 QS 1 1 : 10) is perhaps due to its

focus on the primacy of legal perfection as a demonstration of piety.

Love your enemies

42

B. The Book of Jubilees55

When the Book of Jubilees speaks to Israel about other nations it has one

dominant thing to say : stay separate. Abraham admonishes Jacob in 22 : 1 6 :

And do thou my son Jacob remember my words

And observe the commandments of Abraham, thy father :

Separate thyself from the nations,

And eat not with them:

And do not according to their works

And become not their associate.

Separation from unbelievers (II Cor 6 : 14-1 8 ; Eph 5 : 7 ; II Jn 10) and from

disobedient believers (II Thess 3 :6; Rom 1 6 : 1 7 ; Tit 3 : 1 0) had a place in the

paraenetic teaching of the early church. To this extent the church preserved

this Jewish custom. It differed, however, in two ways : it was never to be

based on nationality or pride in any natural quality ; and it was not an

absolute separatism. The command to be separate is relativized by freedom

in Christ, so that Paul can say, 'If an unbeliever invites you (to dinner) and

you want to go, eat whatever is set before you . . .' (I Cor 10:27). In this

Paul follows the freedom of his Lord who 'received sinners and ate with

them' {Lk 1 5 : 2 ; 5 :30 ; 1 9 : 7). Therefore Christians could not properly

conclude from the admonitions to separate , that unbelievers are not to be

loved. On the contrary such a conclusion is specifically contradicted when

Paul prays that the believers in Thessalonica might 'abound in love to one

another and to all men' (I Thess 3 : 12) and when he commands, 'do good

to one another and to all' {I Thess 5 : 1 5 ; cf Gal 6 : 1 0). Differently from

this, the Book of Jubilees only commands love to the brother, i.e., the

fellow Israelite. In Isaac's farewell address he commands his sons with

these words:

And love one another, my sons, your brothers as a man who loves his

own soul, and let each seek in what he may benefit his brother and act

together on the earth; and let them love each other as their own souls . . .

And if either .of you devises evil against his brother, know that from

henceforth everyone that devises evil against his brother shall fall into

his hand, and shall be rooted out of the land of the living and his seed

shall be destroyed from under heaven {36 :4,9 ; cf 7 :20).56

Even here the notion of 'falling into the hand of the brother' seems to condone a revenge which brother will execute on brother.

Origin of the command in the paraenetic tradition

43

C The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs

The difficulties in deciding how and when the Testaments came into being

complicate tremendously our discussion of their teaching on enemy love

and their relation to the New Testament paraenetic tradition. Jacob

Jervell writes : 'The state of the research can be described as follows : At

this time ( 1969) it is not possible to find a solution on the basis of literary

criticism.'57 The same conclusion may be drawn from the Introduction by

Denis ( 1970), for in discussing the date of the Testaments and their

Christian interpolations58 he simply gives the various possibilities ranging

from R. H. Charles to M . De Jonge .59 According to Charles the Testaments

date from 109 B.C. and were written originally in Hebrew . The ethical

teachings, he claims, belong to the essence of the work and form its warp

and woof; they must be distinguished from the 'dogmatic Christian interpolations' which are of a different color and texture from the original material.60 De Jonge, on the other hand, in his older work asserts that the

Testaments 'may no longer be reckoned to the pseudepigraphic literature

of the Old Testament. They must be classified among the literary products

of the early Christian Church . . . The Testaments, because they contain

notions which seem to be generally accepted in the time of Irenaeus,

Hippolytus and Tertullian and are not found earlier, were written c. A.D.

200.'61 However, since fragments of the Testaments of Levi and Naphtali

have been found at Qumran (see note 50) De Jonge now maintains that

'the Testaments, though perhaps not composed by a Christian author using

much Jewish traditional material of all kinds (as I thought in my book),

underwent at any rate a thoroughgoing redaction.'62 Similarly Leonhard

Rost views the Testaments ofNaphtali and Levi as pre-Christian and related

indirectly to Qumran while, according to his view, the remainder of the

Testaments originated in the first century A.D. This Jewish work was then

reworked by a Christian around A.D. 200.63

A. Dupont-Sommer, however, maintains that all twelve Testaments

originated in Qumran before the Christian era since parallels to all but

one of the Testaments have been found in the Damascus Document.64

About the same time that Dupont-Sommer's book appeared, M. Philonenko

published his little book, Les Interpolations chretiennes des Testaments

des Douze Patriarches et les Manuscrits de Qoumrdn (1960), in which he

argued (following Dupont-Sommer) that the Testaments are very closely

related to Qumran and that Christian influence on them is almost negligible .65

This work, however, along with the work of A. S. van der Woude66 received

a detailed and telling critique by M. De Jonge whose position has been

greatly strengthened.67 It would seem to me that in view of the work of

De Jonge and Becker (see below) we may tentatively say that the Testaments

Love your enemies

44

originated in the sphere of Qumran in the first pre-Christian centuries but

then underwent expansion with Hellenistic influence and finally a large-scale

Christian redaction (see Becker's view below in support of this).

Given this uncertain state of affairs in contemporary scholarship relating

to the Testaments, we should proceed very cautiously as we examine their

teaching on enemy love . The most important texts for our purposes are

the following:

For the good man hath not a dark eye, for he showeth mercy to all

men, even though they be sinners, and though they devise evil intent

concerning him , by doing good he overcometh evil, being shielded by

God (Benjamin 4 : 2 f).

If anyone seeketh to do evil unto you, do well unto him , and pray for

him and ye shall be redeemed of the Lord from all evil (Joseph 1 8 :2 ) .

And i f h e [ your enemy ] be shameless and persist in his wrongdoing

even so forgive him from the heart , and leave to God the avenging

(Gad 6 : 7 ).

I loved the Lord , likewise every man with all my heart (Issachar 7 : 6).

Do you, therefore , my children from that which God bestoweth upon

you, show compassion and mercy without hesitation to all men and

give to every man with a good heart . . . I know that my hand found

not the wherewithal to give to him that needed, and I walked with him

weeping seven furlongs, and my bowels yearned towards him in compassion (Zebulun 7 : 2-4).

Neither De J onge nor Philonenko discusses these ethical texts. So we

tum for help to a work by Jiirgen Becker. In his Untersuchungen zur

Entstehungsgeschichte der Testamente der Zwolf Patriarchen (1 970) Jiirgen

Becker devotes a good deal of space to the specific problem facing us here

and I am largely dependent on his work in the following discussion. According to Becker's analysis the origin of the Testaments occurred in three stages: ( 1 ) a Hellenistic Jewish Grundstock, (2) later Hellenistic Jewish

expansions, and fmally, (3) a Christian redaction.68 Concerning the love

command in the earliest stage he says, 'Like a red thread the theme of

neighbor love extends through the entire Grundschrift of the Testament�9

The demand is for 'Agape, to be free from oneself, one's life , will and

possessions and to be there wholly for the other person. 'lO 'With this radicalization the Grundstock of the Testaments stands alone within Judaism.'71

In spite of the apparently unique character of this love command within

Judaism there may still be a restriction of love to one's neighbor (Reuben

6 : 9 , neighbor brother). 'The love command is valid for the Israelite

=

community. The neighbor is not simply everyone.'72 This comes out

clearly in Zebulun 8 : 5 - 9 :2 .Becker asserts that the places where love is

.

Origin of the command in the paraenetic tradition

45

commanded toward 'all men' are later additions because they have 'an

especially strong Hellenistic stamp. One must assume the background consists of popular philosophical ideas, especially stoical thoughts about the equality of man's honor and nature .'73 Besides this restriction of love to

the neighbor, Becker notes two other features of the love command in

the Grundstock which set it off from the New Testament view . The

expression of love is viewed in Zebulun 8 : 5 - 9 : 2 as a means of preventing

the dispersion of the Jews 74 and in Joseph 1 8 : 1 -4 as a meritorious act that

God repays on this earth with well-being.75

On the basis of Becker's work we may conclude the following. The

Testaments do not present a unified view on neighbor love (in Reuben

6 :9 the neighbor is a brother; in Zebulun 6 :6 and 8:3 the neighbor refers

to 'all men'). The universal expressions of love are probably, therefore,

under the influence of Stoicism. Nevertheless the remaining

admonitions to have mercy upon, forgive, and pray for one's 'enemies'

(Gad 6:7; Joseph 18 : 2) are singular in the literature we are investigating. If

the 'enemy' here is not intended to be restricted to fellow Jews, then these

admonitions come nearer than any we have found to the New Testament

paraenetic commands of enemy love. However in view of De J onge 's and

Becker's arguments for a Christian redaction of the Testaments, we can

make no dogmatic assertions about which direction the influence may have

gone between the early Christian paraenetic tradition and the Testaments

of the Twelve Patriarchs. 76

VI. Palestinian Judaism outside Qumran

Before discussing the early church's living contemporaries (Josephus and

the Rabbis), we will take a brief look at Sirach which was probably written

around 1 90 B.C . in Jerusalem.77

A. The Wisdom of Jesus Son of Sirach

Like each of the sources we will examine in this section on Palestinian

Judaism, Sirach's ethic is characterized by a limitation of who should be

loved. This narrowness which in Sirach restricts the doing of good deeds to

the godly is seen most clearly in 1 2 : 1-7 :

I f you d o a kindness, know t o whom you d o it,

and you will be thanked for your good deeds.

Do good to a godly man, and you will be repaid -

if not by him, certainly by the Most High.

Give to the godly man, but do not help the sinner.

Love your enemies

46

Do good to the humble , but do not give to the ungodly ;

hold back his bread, and do not give it to him,

lest by means of it he subdue you;

for you will receive twice as much evil

for all the good which you do to him.

For the Most High also hates sinners 78

and will inflict punishment on the ungodly.

Give to the good man, but do not help the sinner.

Here the author argues in good wisdom fashion by appealing to experience

and to the desire for a good life in the world : 'Hold back his bread . . . lest

by means of it he subdue you.' We have seen in our discussion of the Stoics

that the early Christian paraenetic tradition has an element of wisdom too ,

although here the substance is quite different. This difference is even

clearer when Sirach turns to argue theologically : 'For the Most High hates

sinners and will inflict punishment on the ungodly.' That God would

inflict punishment on the ungodly, the Christians did not deny. But that

this work of God should be imitated by men is emphatically rejected ( cf

Rom 1 2 : 19). The argument of Sirach 1 2 : 6f is the precise opposite ofJesus'

argument in Mt 5 :44f.

B. Josephus 79

Although Josephus may on some counts be reckoned as belonging to

Hellenistic Judaism we include him here primarily because of the kinship

his view of enemy love has to the rabbinic view. His terminology (e .g.,

</>t'A.av8pw1TWt. and &peril) may at times reflect the influence of the philosophers, but it is his allegiance to the law which controls his teaching on enemy love.

Apion levels a blow to Judaism claiming that Jews take an oath not to

show good will to a single alien, especially to Greeks. Josephus responds to

this charge :

From the Greeks we are severed more by our geographical position than

by our institutions, with the result that we neither hate nor envy them.

On the contrary, many of them have agreed to adopt our laws; of whom

some have remained faithful, while others, lacking the necessary endurance,

have again seceded (Against Apion 11. 1 23).

The opposite of hating the Greeks is to extend to them an invitation to

become proselytes. There is a generous provision for aliens (enemies) in

the law, namely a welcome to any who will accept it :

Origin of the command in the paraenetic tradition

4 7

The consideration given by our legislator to the equitable treatment of

also merits attention. It will be seen that he took the best of all

possible measures at once to secure our customs from corruption, and

to throw them open ungrudgingly to any who elect to share them. To

all who desire to come and live under the same laws with us, he gives a

gracious welcome , holding that it is not family ties alone which constitute relationship, but agreement on the principles of conduct (Against Apion 11.209£).

How a Jew relates to a non-Jew depends on 'agreement on the principles

of conduct,' that is, it depends on the non-Jew accepting the law, or

becoming a proselyte . That this possibility exists for the non-Jew is proof

of the Jews' l/Jt"'A.OI.v8pwrria.

We , while we have no desire to emulate the customs of others, yet

gladly welcome any who wish to share our own. That, I think, may be

taken as a proof both of humanity and magnanimity (l/Jt"'A.OI.v8pwrrlac;

&p.01. KOI.t' J1E')'OI."'A.ol/Jvxthc; ; Against Apion 11.26 1 ).

On Josephus' terms it is understandable that he views an invitation to

obey the law as a magnanimous act, for 'the only wisdom (cpp61117atv) and

the only virtue ((xperrw) consist in refraining absolutely from every action,

from every thought that is contrary to the laws originally laid down'

(Against Apion 11. 183 ). Without the Jewish law the gentiles are hopelessly

ignorant and immoral.

Among these laws there are, incidentally, some duties to be carried out

toward your enemies, even when you have done battle with them :

We must furnish fire, water, food to all who ask for them, point out the

road, not leave a corpse unburied, show consideration (ememe'ic;) even

to declared enemies. He does not allow us to burn up their country or

to cut down their fruit trees, and forbids even the spoiling of fallen

combatants (Against Apion 11.2 1 1 f).

This behavior, as with the welcome to the proselyte above, is called

ljJt"'A.OI.v8pwrria. The moral edge is taken off this word, however, when, in

the following section , the law's concern with brute beasts is also viewed

as an evidence of l/Jt"'A.OI.v8pwrria.BIJ Thus for Josephus enemy love means

primarily offering the enemy a chance to become a proselyte .

C The Rabbis

The lawyer's question in Lk 10:29 ('Who is my neighbor?') shows that in

Jesus' day the reference to loving your neighbor in Lev 19 : 1 8 was not

Love your enemies

48

unequivocal. In fact in the synagogue at that time 'only the Israelite

counted as a �'1 ; the others, i.e., the non-Israelites, are not included in

this term.'81 Further, the ,� , mentioned in Lev 19 :34 as the object of

Israel's love, is interpreted to exclude those non-Israelites who do not

become full proselytes within the first twelve months they spend among

the Israelites.82 It is evident here , as Michel says, that 'The election of

Israel, the covenant made with her, and the fact of the Law determine the

concept of "neighbor" .'83

We should not think, however, that the Rabbis presented a unified front

on these matters.84 The literature itself is often a record of debate. In the

Talmud, Ex 23 :4f {helping your enemy with his ox) was debated as to

whether the 'enemy' here is a gentile or not.85 And the command to give

bread and water to your enemy (Prov 25 :2 1 ) is given primarily an allegorical interpretation: the 'enemy' is the 'evil impulse' in man which, through the bread and water of the Torah, can be stilled.86

Along with the debate over who the 'neighbor' and 'enemy' are (and

the generally narrow conclusions) there are also some very unloving

comments regarding gentiles87 and even the admonition to hate certain

ones:

A man should not direct his mind to say, 'Love wisdom (the scholars)

and hate the pupils, love the pupils and hate those ignorant of the law ,'

rather, 'hate the Epicureans (free thinkers), the seducer, likewise the

informer.' David also said, 'Should I not hate those who hate you, Lord,

should I not abominate those who raise themselves up against you? With

perfect hatred I hate them, they have become my enemies' (Ps 139:2 1 f).

But does it not say, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself; I am the

Lord; (Lev 19 : 1 8) I have created him'? Yes, when he behaves according

to the conduct of his people , you should love him, but when he does

not, you should not love him (Aboth R. Nathan 1 6 : 7).

Here we see how it is possible to develop an ethic from the Old Testament

quite unlike that of the New Testament paraenesis. Why the early Christian

paraenetic tradition did not develop a similar conception on enemy love

even though it drew upon the Old Testament is a question we will try to

answer when dealing with the teachings of Jesus.

The Rabbis could also speak positively about behavior toward non

Jews. 88 Hillel is credited with the statement, 'be of the disciples of Aaron,

loving peace, and pursuing peace , loving mankind and bringing them nigh

to the law' (Aboth 1 : 1 2). R. Joshua ben-Hananiah (around A.D. 90) said,

'An evil eye , the evil inclination, and hatred of the fellow-creatures put a

man out of the world' (Aboth 2 : 1 1 ). More important for our purposes is

Origin of the command in the paraenetic tradition

49

the interchange between R. Jochanan and R. Simeon b. Abba (middle of

third century). The former began his address with Prov 1 7 : 1 3 : 'If a man

returns evil for good, evil will not depart from his house .' But the latter

responded: Not that alone - 'if a man returns evil for good' - but also, 'If

a man returns evil for evil, evil will not depart from his house .' R. Meir

(around A.D. 1 50) said, 'God said to Moses, Be like me, as I repay good

for evil, so you also repay good for evil.' Here we have a confirmation of

J. Thomas' suggestion cited above (p 39) that the command not to repay

evil with evil (I Thess 5 : 1 5a; Rom 1 2 : 1 7a; I Pt 3 :9) is a further development of Prov 1 7 : 13. The saying (pf1 woo w6vre<; t<cxt<ov c'xvn' t<cxt<ov) should not be confmed either to Hellenistic or to Palestinian Judaism . It was

apparently a common proverb in the environment of the early church which

she adapted to her own purposes (see note 46).

VII. The Teaching of Jesus

The last and most important step in our survey of the environment of the

early Christian paraenetic tradition is to pose the questions: What did Jesus

teach concerning love of enemies? and , How likely is it that this teaching

was taken over by and accounts for the character of the early church

tradition on love of enemies? The first of these two questions draws the

discipline of synoptic criticism into our history-of-religions survey. The

key teaching of Jesus on enemy love, upon which we will focus, is found

in two different forms : one in Mt 5 :38-48 , the other in Lk 6 :27-36. The

effort to determine as precisely as possible the teaching of Jesus which

stands behind these accounts involves us in a detailed synoptic comparison.

This effort and its accompanying synoptic analysis cannot be separated

from the possible influence Jesus had on the New Testament paraenetic

tradition because this influence itself figures in the determination of what

Jesus taught.

A. The Question of Q

Dieter Ltihrmann has published the table on p 50 in two different works;89

its importance for this study makes another showing worthwhile. A glance

at this table reveals ( 1 ) that almost the entirety of Lk's Sermon on the Plain

is contained in Mt's Sermon on the Mount and (2) that the ordering of

the subject matter (with minor exceptions) is the same in both.

In view of this it would be unreasonable to maintain that Mt and Lk

·

independently constructed their sermons with no dependence on a

common pattem.90 But neither is it correct to speak simply of Q as the

common source with which Mt and Lk worked.91 To do so with no qualification is to overlook differences between Mt and Lk that cannot reasonably be attributed to the redaction of the evangelists. 92 If we

Love your enemies

50

L k

Mt

6 : 20

5 : 3

6 : 2 1 a

5 : 6

Beatitudes

6 : 2 1 b

5 :4

Lk 6 : 20-23/Mt 5 : 3-1 2

6 : 22f

5 : 1 1 f

6 :24-26

Woes Lk 6 : 24-26

6 : 27f

5 :44

6 : 29f

5 : 39b-42

6 : 3 1

* 7 : 1 2

Enemy love

6 : 32f

5 :46f

Lk 6 : 27-3 5/Mt 5 : 39b-47

6 : 34

6 : 3 5

5 :44f

6 : 36

5 :48

6 : 3 7a

7 : 1

6 : 3 7b, 38a

( 1 2 : 36? )

6 : 38b

7 :2b

Judging

6 : 39

1 5 : 1 4

Lk 6 : 36-42/Mt 5 :48 ; 7 : 1 -5

6 :40

1 0 : 24

6 : 4 1 f

7 : 3-5

6 :43

*7 : 1 8

The fruits

6 : 44

7 : 1 6

Lk 6 :43-45/Mt 7 : 1 5 -20

6 :45

1 2 : 35 , 34b

6 :46

7 :2 1

Hearing and doing

6 :47-49

7 : 24-27

Lk 6 : 46-49/Mt 7 : 2 1 -27

* signifies a different sequence i n Mt.

designate the common pattern which underlies the Sermon on the Mount

and the Sermon on the Plain as Q, then we must think in terms of two

distinct forms of Q in order to account for the divergences between

Mt 5 :38-48 and Lk 6 :27-36 .93 These intermediate stages make our

effort to determine the oldest single tradition all the more complex.

As I have weeded my way through the extremely detailed literature on

these texts I have become aware of the speculative and conflicting nature

of the results which the various critical analyses frequently yield (see for

example notes 144 , 1 70, 1 7 1 ). The attempts to penetrate behind the

evangelists have become ever more complicated. Accompanying this

increased complication is a rise in the frequency of suppositions, guesses,

conjectures and assumptions. It seems to me , however, that the value of

arguments and conclusions overburdened with speculation is at le ast

questionable.94 It is even more questionable when an author ceases to

insert the guarded 'probably' or 'supposedly' and instead presents as facts

what are only guesses. I am not pretending myself to be free from the

difficulties which prompt speculation. I make these observations rather as

Origin of the command in the paraenetic tradition

51

an attempt to justify my hesitancy in the following analyses to press for

conclusions where the evidence for such does not suffice . Even if we are

dissatisfied with the information available to us, it is still more valuable to

utilize that to the full than to spend our time and energy supposing what

we do not know.

B. The Question of the An titheses (Mt 5:38-39a, 43-44a)

We will consider Mt 5 :38-42 with Mt 5 :43 -48 because they are bound

together by the common theme of the stance one should take toward his

enemies and because the Lukan parallel unites the material of Mt 5 :38-48

under the love command.

Our first question in comparing Mt 5 :38-48 with Lk 6 :27-36 is the

origin of the last two antitheses in Mt. Jeremias has shown that the

common division95 between the first, second and fourth antitheses as

original and the third, fifth and sixth antitheses as secondary is questionable.96 With regard specifically to the fifth and sixth antitheses, which concern us here , we may consider the pertinent data. Bultmann writes,

'The introductory forms in vv 3 1 , 32a, 38, 39a, 43 , 44a are obviously

moulded on the pattern of the antithetical forms in vv 2 1 f, 27f, 33-37 . . .'97

From the standpoint of form this is not obvious, however: the antithetical

half of all six antitheses begins with the identical phrase erw o€ Mrw vp. iv

which in itself speaks as much for common origin as for any secondary

formulation. With regard to the initial words of the thesis half of the

antitheses, no uniform structure appears in the so-called original anti-

theses. The second, fifth and sixth antitheses begin with 'HKovawe on

eppe(}f/. This phrase distinguishes itself from the other 'secondary'

antithesis (third : 'Eppe(}f/ o €) and from two of the 'original' antitheses

(first : 'HKovawe on eppe� TOt<; lxpxcximc; ; fourth: IT&A.tv i]KOVUCXT€ on

eppe(}f/ TO[<; apxcxwt<; ). Moving beyond the introductory words to the form

of the antithetical statements themselves, we notice that the infmitive

form of the fifth antithesis (5 :39 J.lfl OtVTWTf/Vcxt) sets it off from the other

two 'secondary' antitheses ( 5 : 32 , 44) and parallels only one of the 'original'

antitheses (fourth: 5 : 34, bp.6acxt). The imperative form of the sixth antithesis (5 :44, ix-ycxrr6.Te . . . rrpoaet.ixeaee) has no parallel in the 'original' or

'secondary' antitheses.98 The thesis half of the fifth antithesis (5 :38 lex

talionis) is a simple Old Testament quote� As such it is similar to the second

and fourth99 (but not the first) of the 'original' antitheses and is similar to

the third (but not the sixth) of the 'secondary' antitheses. On the other

hand, the sixth antithesis is an Old Testament quote with a non-Old

Testament addition, and as such is unlike the other two 'secondary' antitheses (third and fifth) and is like only the first of the 'original' anti-

Love your enemies

52

theses.100 The supposition, therefore, that the third, fifth and sixth

antitheses were secondarily formulated on the pattern of the first, second

and fourth antitheses does not account for the complicated mixture of

similarities and divergences of form.

Bultmann's argument from the subject matter is that the three 'original'

antitheses have a prohibition which is not abolished but surpassed, whereas

in the 'secondary' antitheses there is no prohibition but an instruction (or

concession, 5 :3 1) which is not surpassed but abolished . 101 However, the

fourth antithesis does not fit this scheme. 5 :34 (prz b{.16acxt CJXwc:) is not an

intensification of the command not to swear falsely (5 :33 E1TWpK.r]aetc; ),

but an abrogation of the command to perform to the Lord your oaths

(5 :33 arrofiwaetc; fie r!;J, 1<.vpi4; roVe; opK.ovc; aov). It must, there fore , on this

count be included with the 'secondary' antitheses which overthrow the meanings given their individual Old Testament quotations. Thus if we insist on the criterion that only those antitheses are original which surpass but do not

overthrow the theses, then only the first two antitheses remain as original}02

And there are notable discrepancies even between these two.103 Moreover

as Luhrmann points out, the first and second theses (5 :2 1 ,27) cannot be

abolished, and as for the third antithesis we have a limitation, not an

abrogation of the possibilities of divorce (differently from Lk and Mk).104

Are we justified in insisting that every genuine antithesis conform so closely

to a single pattern of negative thesis, intensified antithesis?

This argument from the subject matter does not, however, stand alone.

It is buttressed by at least two other significant observations : first, that the

'original' antitheses could not have been formulated from non-antithetical

statements because the second halves of the antitheses are not intelligible

except in the antithetical context; and, second, the antithetical halves of

the 'secondary' antitheses have all been handed down in an independent

form by Lk.105 A closer examination of the fifth antithesis (Mt 5 :38 ,39a)

from the perspective of these two arguments reveals, however, that they

support rather than contradict its originality. Jeremias has pointed out

that the fifth antithesis (E-yw fie AE'YW Vf.liv f.1Tz avrwriwcxt ri;; 1WV11PciJ) has

no parallel in Lk 6 : 27-36 or anywhere else in the synoptics}06 The change

of person from plural to singular between 5 :39a and 5 :39b shows that the

basic antithesis was probably restricted to 5 :38,39a. Lk 6 :29,30 parallels

not the antithesis but its expansion in Mt 5 :39b-42.

![ the fifth antithesis (Mt 5 :38,39a) is not original, there are two possibilities: (A) Mt invented the command not to resist evil (pfl avnariwcxt rei; 1TOV11P0 );107 (B) he found it as an isolated saying of Jesus in the tradition. 108 Against A are the following considerations: (1) M t did not need to invent it; he could have said with good effect, 'But I say to you, "Who-

Origin of the command in the paraenetic tradition

53

ever strikes you on the cheek tum to him also the other." ' (2) If he created

the fifth as well as the sixth, why is the fifth welded to the antithetical form

by the infmitive (of indirect address) structure while the sixth is a loosely

connected imperative? (3) The command is extreme, drastic, pointed, risky;

as such it sounds more like a saying of Jesus than a creation of the evangelist.

Against B (that Mt found the saying isolated in the tradition) there are also

objections : ( 1 ) First of all, the possibility that the saying originated in the

church may be excluded because , wherever avB iaTf/J.Lt appears in connection

with some sort of evil in the paraenesis, the command is 'Resist' (Gal 2: 1 1 ;

Eph 6 : 1 3 ; Ja 4 : 7 ; I Pt 5 :9).109 (2) As we already noted above the saying in

its present infinitive form is integrally bound to the antithetical form and

does not look like a free-floating saying (cf Mt 5 :34). (3) Most important

is to notice that the argument of Bultmann and others that the second

halves of the 'original' antitheses are not intelligible if separated from their

antithetical contexts, applies even more so to the fifth antithesis. That the

command 'Do not resist evil !' circulated without some counterpart to give

it concrete direction is virtually unthinkable.

But if Mt did not invent 5 :39a and did not find it as an isolated saying

in the tradition, then the explanation lying nearest at hand and with the

fewest problems is that Mt 5 :38,39a existed from the beginning in antithetical form.1 10 I do not claim certainty for this conclusion but I do maintain that it is just as probable as any other possibility .111 In support

of this conclusion we may cite first J a 5 :6 which, while not rendering the

Matthean form of 5 :39a, nevertheless offers an essential parallel and may

well be an application of Jesus' command. The rich condemn (Ko:Tel> ua:Xao:re)

and murder (ecpovaJao:re) the righteous man, but 'he does not resist (oiJK

b:vnr&aoemt) them.' Second, it is noteworthy to recall that a prominent

element in the early church paraenesis was the rejection of the avri principle

of retaliation. The memory of Jesus' explicit denunciation of the cXVTt'

principle in Mt 5 :38,39a ( . . . bcp8o:Ap.dv avri bcf>Bo:'AJ.LOV KO:i oo6vm ixVTi

00 01/T<X; , . . J.Lfl WTtUTf/VO:t) would have offered the incentive and Criterion

for the early church's frequent use of the Jewish saying 1.1il darol> w6vrec;

Ko:Kov avTi Ko:Kov (Rom 1 2 : 1 7a; I Thess 5 : 1 5a; I Pt 3 :9a) .

The origin of the sixth antithesis (Mt 5 :43 ,44a) is more difficult to

decide . In this case, unlike Mt 5 :39a, the second half of the antithesis is

found word for word in Lk 6 :27 without the antithetical form (bryo:rr&re

roVe; exBpouc; UJ.Lwv). The question poses itself: Did Lk (or Q-1)1 12 eliminate

the antithesis already found in Q , or did Mt (or Q-m) build the sixth antithesis secondarily from the simple command in Q to love your enemies?

To bring this question into sharper focus let us reconstruct the processes

of redaction 113 which would probably have occurred in each of the two

Love your enemies

54

instances. (In the following two paragraphs. Lk 'Lk or Q-1,' and Mt

=

=

'Mt or Q-m.')

In the first instance Lk has before him material in the form of Mt 5 :38-48 .

Having no intention to polemicize against 'what has been said of old' he

purposes to omit the antithetical form . This leaves Mt 5 :39b-42 without a

context. The verses must be brought within the material of Mt 5 :44-48.

The only suitable slot for their insertion is right after the imperatives of

5 :44. This breaks off the promise of sonship (Mt 5 :45) from the love

command so that the promise must be temporarily omitted. The opening

which is left allows Lk to gather in another semi-related saying, the Golden

Rule. After the Golden Rule (Lk 6 :3 1 ) Lk continues with the Matthean

order, i.e. , the rhetorical questions (Mt 5 :46/Lk 6 :32-34). The promise of

sonship is too important to omit altogether and yet it must be attached to

the love command. Therefore Lk restates the love command, molding it so

that it symmetrically recalls each of the three preceding rhetorical questions. To this command he now attaches the promise of sonship which he earlier had to omit in order to insert vv 29,30. 114 He closes with a command to be like God.

In the second instance Mt finds before him in Q the material of

Lk 6 : 27-36. He decides to close his program of antitheses with this

material on the love command. He notices that Lk 6 :29 ,30 are not well at

home in their present context but that they would provide an admirable

expansion for the fifth antithesis. After excerpting Lk 6 :29 ,30 he sees too

that the Golden Rule is not directly related to the real concern of enemy

love and takes it out for later use. Seeing no need to repeat the love command as Lk 6 : 3 5 does and desiring all attention to be on the antithesis of Mt 5 :43 ,44 , Mt drops the second love command and brings forward the

promise of sonship which was attached to it and attaches it to Mt 5 :44.U 5

Then he continues with the rhetorical questions and closes with a command

to be like God.

While these two hypotheses are over-simplified because they do not

take into account the various levels at which these changes occurred or

the complex differences between the individual sayings, nevertheless a

process akin to one of these two must have taken place between Q and

the final redaction of the evangelists. The question of the originality of

the sixth antithesis is the question : Which of these two processes is more

probable?

In support of the first process (that Lk has eliminated the original fifth

and sixth antitheses) are the following arguments: (1) Lk 6 :35a is so artfully designed on the pattern of the preceding three verses that its repetition of Lk 6 :27 really does appear calculated , as Bultmann suggests (see note

Origin of the command in the paraenetic tradition

55

1 14), to allow for the connection of the promise of sonship. Is not the

displacement of the promise of sonship by the insertion of Lk 6 : 29 ,30 and

the subsequent need to attach it to the love command the best explanation

for Lk's calculated repetition of Lk 6 :27? (2) Because of the relatedness of

the subject matter it is likely that in the early gospel tradition Lk 6 :29 ,30/

Mt 5 :39b-42 first became attached to the fifth antithesis and was later disengaged from this context in order to become part of a whole paragraph on love. (3) Ernst Percy points out that while Lk has dropped the antithetical form, nevertheless he cannot get away from its intention, for the command to love your enemies in Lk 6 :35 is stated as the antithesis (trMv)

of the neighbor love in the three preceding verses. The command to love

your enemies demands a contrasting background.116 Finally J. Jeremias

and P. Gaechter maintain that the 'A}I.}I.d: brjiv M-yw . . of Lk 6:27 reflects

.

a remnant of the antithetical form itself. 117

In support of the second process described above (that Mt formed two

paragraphs out of one and created the sixth antithesis) are the following

arguments : (1) D. Ltihrmann and H . Schiirmann have pointed out that

common elements118 in the love command and in the beatitudes suggest that

these two. passages were at one time directly connected. It is hardly conceivable that the material of Mt 5 :38-42 would come between the beatitudes and the love command. 'Rather opening with the command of enemy love , as it is preserved in Lk, offers a meaningful beginning.'119 (2)

Lk is characteristically less prone to alter the Q material. (3) The antitheses

are an important part of Mt's program and reflect a pattern set in Mt 5 :20.

Thus a motivation is close at hand why he should want to reconstruct the

material of Lk 6 :27ff into antitheses.120

Which of these two sets of arguments shall we follow? In my judgment

the evidence is not adequate for us to make a certain decision. However,

we can now say that those scholars121 who, against the current, have

maintained the originality of the fifth and sixth antitheses have as much

evidence in their favor as the majority who deny it. This does not, however,

hinder us significantly in understanding Jesus' command. Ernst Percy's

insight is worth repeating, namely, that, even in Lk where the formal

antithesis is gone , Jesus' command of enemy love demands a contrasting

background of restricted neighbor love (Lk 6 :35 over against 6 :32-34)

against which Jesus' command is antithetical. Therefore , even if Jesus

never expressed this command in the 'you have heard . . . but I say to you'

form, nevertheless this form in Mt 5 :43 , 44a interprets precisely the antithetical accent which the command 'Love your enemies !' must have had in Jesus' preaching.122

Love your enemies

56

C. Analysis of the Individual Sayings (Mt 5:39b-42, 44b-48/Lk 6:27-36)

Our aim in this section is not primarily to detennine the origin and intention of redactional variants or to reconstruct Q, but to penetrate as directly as possible to Jesus' teaching. Where literary analysis reaches its limits, we

will attempt to go beyond this point by way of the subject matter itself.

As we mentioned already (p 49), this effort cannot be separated from the

influence Jesus had on the New Testament paraenetic tradition. Consequently in the following analyses we will endeavor to bring to light simultaneously what Jesus taught and its effect on early Christian paraenesis.

Lk 6:2 7,28/Mt 5:44

The command to love your enemies (Mt 5 :44a/Lk 6:27a) is identical in

both gospels. The next two commands in Lk are missing in Mt ; then both

close the group with a command to pray. �tWKOVTWV is to be attributed to

Mt (or Q-m). 1 23 Bultmann observes that Lk's 'is more likely to be the

original fonn since he gives otherwise parallel elements in abridged fonn.'124

Further Seitz argues that the synthetic parallelism of Lk 6:27,28 shows that

these four lines are preserved 'with great fidelity' and 'are probably of

Palestinian origin.' 125 Liihnnann, however, argues that Mt's two-line fonn

is more original, 126 and that from these two lines only the first (M t 5 :44a)

is original. 127 From the standpoint of fonn Schulz, it seems to me, has

drawn the most acceptable conclusion : 'A secure decision as to whether

here [Lk 6 : 27 ,28] we have Q is scarcely possible.'128

From the standpoint of content what may be said concerning these

four commands? There need be no doubt that Jesus commanded

d:'YamiTe TO� ey,Opovr:; bpwv: the command is identical in both gospels ;

we found nothing so explicit and unequivocal in our survey of Jesus'

environment;129 nor is it thinkable that the early church should invent

the saying and thus impose upon themselves such a troublesome requirement. On the contrary it was Jesus' unflinching stand against the d:VTt'

principle of retaliation (Mt 5 : 38,39a; see p 53) and his insistence upon

enemy love which stamped the paraenesis of the church. Nevertheless,

we do not fmd anywhere in the New Testament paraenesis the command

'Love your enemies.' In Jesus' own environment, where Rabbis discussed

'Who is my neighbor?' (Lk 10:29) and where nationalistic feelings ran

high , the command 'Love your enemies!' struck home with discomforting

concreteness. As such it was a penetrating, concrete element of Jesus'

eschatological call to repentance (see Chapter 3). In the early church the

situation was different. Neither nationalistic allegiance nor rabbinic

exegesis formed the immediate backdrop for the love command. The

question the early church faced was: How shall we act toward the

Origin of the command in the paraenetic tradition

5 7

unbeliever, the hostile townspeople, the ridiculing old friends? 'Love your

enemies' would not strike home here like it did in Jesus' situation. Therefore the 'enemies' were specifically described : revilers (I Pt 3 :9 ; I Cor 4: 1 2), persecutors (Rom 1 2 : 14), those who do evil to you (I Thess 5 : 1 5 ;

Rom 1 2 : 1 7 ; I Pt 3 :9).

This specification in the early church paraenesis raises the question

whether the three remaining commands in Lk 6 :27b,28 might be the

paraenetic commentary of the early church. At least the command

npoa€Vxea8e imep rwv E1Tf/pea.�6vrwv goes back to Q. While praying for

one's enemy is not unknown in the Old Testament, its occurrence in the

literature of Jesus' day is very rare.1 30 In the New Testament the words

npoaerix11 or npoaerixopa.t occur nowhere else with regard to an enemy of

any sort. 131 The word €1Tf/ped�w is found only once more in I Pt 3 : 1 6

where the context is a Christian suffering abuse unjustly . The command to

pray for your abusers was apparently not a favorite in the early church.

There appears to be no good reason why we should deny that Jesus himself gave this command.

With the remaining two commands the situation is different. The command to 'do good' (t<a."Awc; notetre/(rya.801Totetre Lk 6 :27b/35), as we showed in Chapter 1 (p 1 4 ), is an Old Testament command (Ps 33 : 1 5 LXX),

and was drawn into the early church paraenesis in its Old Testament context (cf l Pt 3 : 1 0-1 2). The command 'Do good !' is common in the paraenesis although it never has an object as it does here in Lk 6 : 27b.132 With regard

to the word ptaovaw, nowhere in the New Testament outside the gospels

is there a reference to outsiders hating Christians. That Jesus himself used

the words Ka."Awc;/Oi:ya.8ov noteiP on other occasions is shown by Mt 1 2 : 12/

Mk 3 :4/Lk 6:9. However, whether it was Jesus' command in Lk 6 :27b

which gave the early church the incentive and criterion for taking up the

Old Testament command to do good , or whether the early church took it

up and put it here in Jesus' mouth as a specification of his love command,

remains an open question.

The command eiJ"Acryetre roUe; Ka.ra.pwpevovc; (Lk 6 :28a) does not in

this form occur in the paraenesis, but Rom 1 2 : 14 offers a very close

parallel : eVAO"(eire roUe; rw..:JKOVTa.c;/eiJ"AO"(€LT€ Ka.i pfl Ka.ra.p008e. In I Pt

3 :9 blessing is commanded in response to reviling (Aoll>optixc;, cf I Cor

4: 1 2). There are no other comparable uses of eiJ"Acryew or Kara.p&aOru in

the New Testament paraenesis (cf Ja 3 :9-12). The far more common

use of eVAO"fEW in the New Testament is God's blessing and being blessed.

Therefore it is not likely that this command in Lk 6 :28a would be created

by the church. Rather Rom 1 2 : 14 looks like a free reconstruction of

Jesus' saying of which Paul was aware .133

Love your enemies

58

From our analysis of Lk 6 :27, 28 par and in anticipation of the following

analyses we may suggest that in these verses we have the substance of

Jesus' teaching on enemy love. Viewing it in relation to the New Testament

paraenetic tradition has revealed how thoroughly Jesus' commands determined the early church's teaching on this matter. His sayings were quoted, interpreted and applied; they also constituted the criterion according to

which Jewish paraenetic elements were taken over.

Lk 6:29-30/ Mt 5:39b-42

The change of person from plural to singular between Mt 5 :39a and 39bff,

and between Lk 6 :28 and 29f suggests the original independence of this

sayings group . 134 Although Mt 5 :4 1 is not found in Lk we may with

good reason assign all of Mt 5 :39b-42 to Q.135 That the content of these

sayings is probably more original in Mt follows from the observation that it

is more probable that Lk (or Q-1) has simplified the text by eliminating the

legal technicalities suggested by 8 e�tbv (Mt 5 :39b ), KptiJfJva:t (Mt 5 :40), and

&:ryapeiJaet (Mt 5 :4 1 ) than that Mt (or Q-m) complicated with legal details

a more simple text in Q.1 36 But the priority of Lk is maintained by some

because it is 'in strict poetic form, showing parallelism and - on translation

into Aramaic - rhyme and rhythm.'137 However, a distinct poetic form is

also seen in Mt 5 :39b-42 in which Semitic influence is evident. 138 Therefore ,

we cannot from th e standpoint o f form decide with any reasonable degree

of certainty what the earliest wording of these commands was.139 Nor is

it certain whether the individual commands were originally in this manner

grouped together. 140

The 'imaginative quality', the 'realism and dramatic power' that shines

through the words of Mt 5 :39b-42 par is a mark of Jesus' teaching, not

of the early church paraenesis. 141 While these sayings have the appearance

of wisdom proverbs, nevertheless, they 'reach out beyond popular wisdom

and piety and are yet in no sense scribal or rabbinic nor yet Jewish apocalyptic. So here if anywhere we find what is characteristic in the preaching of Jesus.'142

With all the variety in wording between Mt and Lk, the point of the

teaching comes through: retaliation against physical abuse is rejected

(Mt 5 :39b); more than that, positive generosity is commanded toward

the one who makes harsh demands on your possessions (Mt 5 :40) and your

time and energy (Mt 5 :41). One must be ready to give and to loan without a view to one's own financial advantage (Mt 5 :42). This teaching continues and elaborates the

we isolated in the preceding section :

Jesus renounces unconditionally the txvn' principle of revenge and stresses

the positive response of love precisely toward the one who seems least

Origin of the command in the paraenetic tradition

59

likely to deserve it, the enemy .

The paraenetic tradition of the early church does not employ these

sayings of Jesus directly . His commands were so specific that they were

apparently unsuitable for moral instruction in the congregation. Even so

his commands control the development of the paraenesis: 'Never avenge

yourselves!' (Rom 1 2 : 1 9); 'Give your needy enemy food and drink ! '

(Rom 1 2 : 20); 'Suffer an unjust beating patiently !' {I Pt 2 :20) ; 'Suffer

wrong and be defrauded rather than go to court, especially with a brother! '

( I Cor 6 : 7).

Lk 6:32-34/Mt 5:46,47

A group of rhetorical questions in connection with the love command may

be assumed in Q. Again it is Mt's form which is likely to be the more

original. We have already noticed the stylized symmetry between Lk's

rhetorical questions and his repeated love command in 6 :35a (see p 54).

Lk's third question (6 :34) separates itself from the others by describing a

different kind of situation. 143 It may thus be a secondary addition to

reintroduce the l>cxvt'acxa6cxt omitted in Lk 6 :30b {cf Mt 5 :42b). 144 Concerning the second rhetorical question , if Mt 5 :47 and Lk 6 :33 did not both stand in Q then Mt's <XarrcfawBe is probably primary .145 The first

question concerning loving those who love you is common to Mt and Lk.

It is a common opinion that Mt's J1ta66v is more original than Lk's

xcfpt� . 146 But the meaning of both expressions is probably the same so

that they may be merely stylistic variations of a common Aramaic original. 14�

The bringing together of 'tax collectors' and 'gentiles' in Mt 5 :46,4 7 calls

to mind this pair in Mt 1 8 : 1 7 , which suggests that the combination may be

Mt's in both places. Moreover, the word for gentiles in these two texts is

€8vtx�, a word occurring only three times in the synoptics. The other

occurrence is in Mt 6 : 7 , which is unparalleled in Mk and Lk. On the other

hand 'sinners' in Lk 6 : 3 2 ,3 3 ,34 may be an accommodation to gentile

readers.148 But again in any case , the meaning is essentially the same .149 The

rrepwa6v of Mt 5 :4 7 is probably Mt's adaptation under the influence

of 5 :20 (1Tepwaevan).150

The rhetorical questions did not likely circulate as an independent unit

but were attached from the time of their origin to the love command as

the Q context shows. Lurhmann, while agreeing with this, denies however

that the questions go back to Jesus. He argues that the reference to 'tax

collectors,' 'gentiles' and 'sinners' is a Qualifizierung der anderen which

contradicts Jesus' love command and therefore did not form a part of his

teaching. 'If the "Neighbor" can even be the "enemy" then such talk is

no longer possible.'151

Love your enemies

60

This argument is, in my opinion , not convincing. If Liihrmann means

that Jesus did not make distinctions between men with regard to sal-

vation or morality, then I think the synoptic tradition shows him wrong.152

If he means , however, merely that the distinctions Jesus made would not

have been made in this way, i.e., with the words re'Awvat, eOvm ot', or

rxp.Olprw'Aoi, then the objection is superficial. Whether a man is speaking in

accord with Jesus' love command will not hang on something so outward

as the titles he uses for people . In Jesus' situation few words would have

driven his point home to a pious Jew like TEAWVOlt, eOvmoi, 153 or CxpOlprw"Aoi.

Such people love those who love them ; therefore, if you do no more than this,

you class yourselves with those who, even by your own standards, will

receive no reward. There seems to be no reason to deny that Jesus addressed

his hearers in this way.154

The element in Jesus' teachings here which we have not yet encountered

is the idea of reward (see further pp 76ft). Does this aspect of Jesus'

teaching, which is not restricted to this text, 155 reduce Jesus' command of

enemy love to a mere expedient whereby his disciples, by using others,

satisfy their own desires? The 'reward', as the context here (Mt 5 :45 ;

Lk 6 :3Sc) shows , is 'to be sons of God' or, as the wider context of the

beatitudes (cf Mt 5 : 9 ,3/Lk 6 : 20) shows, 'to attain the blessings of the

Kingdom of God.' 156 Does Jesus mean then that a man earns his way into

the Kingdom, that God is waiting to see who deserves to enter on account

of his superior moral effort? A text like Mt 6 : 1 5 seems to suggest this : 'If

you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive

your trespasses.' But the parable of the unforgiving servant (Mt 18 :23 -3 5)157

makes explicit a principle which underlies Jesus' command to forgive and love :

the forgiveness and love of God precedes the servant's forgiveness of his brother.

Therefore loving one's enemies is not the test by which one proves to God

that he is worthy to be forgiven and accepted into the Kingdom ; the reverse

is the case : God first forgives and accepts in order that a m an through faith

in his acceptance may pass the test of loving his enemies. 158 When Jesus

calls for a man to love those who do not love him , he is not calling for heroes

who, by the sheer will to self-surrender, act for the good of others . He is

calling for insecure and self-indulgent children (cf Mt 18 :3) to trust their

Father and thus find the security (cf Mt 6 :2Sff, p.'h p.eptp.vcir€) and glad-

ness (cf Mt 5 : 1 2 , xcxipere K.Olt 0:-yOl"XtaaOe; Lk 6 : 23, xapfiT€ K.Oli aK. tpn1aOl7e)

which will enable them to take patiently whatever pain or humiliation

may come from loving their enemies.159 Having his own longings satisfied in

God's acceptance , the disciple is freed to satisfy the longings even of his enemy.

But a man who does not love his enemy will not enter into the Kingdom of

Origin of the command in the parae netic tradition

61

God : a good tree cannot bear evil fruit (Mt 7 : 1 8 ; cf 24 : 1 2f). That Jesus'

call to this newness of existence is first concealed in the form of an ethical

command corresponds to the hiddenness of his mission and to the fact

that an ethical transformation must accompany a response to his call.

Following Jesus the early church did not urge enemy love with

the promise of earthly reward. As we have already noted, when Prov

25 : 2 1 was taken up into the Christian paraenesis (Rom 1 2 :20), the last

phrase , 'and the Lord will reward you,' was omitted. The early church

is pre-eminently conscious of the priority of God's love and forgiveness in

accomplishing all that is necessary for a man's salvation (Rom 5 :6-8 ;

I Thess 2 : 1 2 ,1 3 ; I Pt 1 :3-5 , 1 8-2 1 , 23 ; 2 :24 ; 3 : 1 8). But, also like Jesus,

the threat of losing one's 'reward' is an inextricable part of the New Testament paraenesis. To the believer who, instead of bearing the fruit of love, does the works of the flesh , Paul warns (Gal 5 : 2 1), 'I say to you, as I have

said before , that those who do such things will not inherit the Kingdom of

God .' To the believer who may be tempted to 'transgress or wrong his

brother' in the matter of immorality, Paul warns (I Thess 4 :6), 'The

Lord is an avenger in all these things as we said before and testified.'160

Finally, the function of the Old Testament quote in I Pt 3 : 10-12 is to

provide incentive for loving one's enemies (I Pt 3 :9); it does so by

reminding that 'life' is contingent upon the way_ one uses his tongue (v 10),

and by warning that the Lord looks favorably on those who do good but

turns his face against those who do evil (v 1 2).161

Each of these three instances of warning/promise manifests a similar

pattern of the divine saving work. In Gal the key is found in the phrase

'faith working through love' (5 :6b). In I Thess, 'the word of God is at

work in the believers' (2 : 13) and it is the Lord who makes believers abound

in love to one another and to all (3 : 1 2). In I Pt the believer has been

'brought to God' by the death of Christ (3 : 1 8), 'born anew' through

the living and abiding word of God , so that he can 'do good' and even

suffer for it because 'he trusts his soul to a faithful creator' (4 : 19). The

priority of the divine saving work is stressed in each case . As in Jesus'

teaching there is a reward for loving your enemies, but it is not a reward

of mere human achievement. It is not a reward which encourages the

manipulation of the enemy to meet my own needs, on the contrary it

will be given only to him whose needs have been met in the saving work

of Christ.

Lk 6:35b/Mt 5:45

The saying on sonship was connected to the love command already in Q

and it probably did not ever exist independently since it demands that the

Love your enemies

62

deed be mentioned which results in sonship . The original form of the

divine name and the verb for 'be/become ' cannot with confidence be

determined.162 Lk sums up Mt's sending of sunshine and rain in the word

XPf'/UToc; . This condensation is theologically more abstract; Mt's more

lively , realistic form is probably original.163 Whether one accepts as primary

Lk's 'ungrateful and evil' or Mt's 'evil and good . . . just and unjust' will

depend on whether one thinks the sixth antithesis is original in which

Mt's 'good and evil' is paralleled by 'neighbor and enemy' (see my conclusion, p 55).

The saying in both Mt and Lk affirms that sonship of God depends on

acting like God : God is kind to his enemies ; therefore anyone who wants

to be a son of God must do the same . There is nothing specifically Christian

in the command to imitate God.164 In fact the saying as we have it here

looks very much like a popular proverb attributed to the Stoics : 'If you

are imitating the gods then bestow benefits also upon the ungrateful ; for

the sun rises also upon the wicked and the sea lies open also to pirates'

(Seneca, De Beneficiis IV.26. 1).165 Nevertheless the early church did not

use this kind of lively realistic language so that there is no decisive objection

to Jesus' having taken up the proverb and putting it to his own use .166

The on of Mt 5 :45 does not introduce an observation of nature which

intends to prove in this instance the kindness of God ; it introduces an

absolute statement about the kindness of God which is realized, among

other ways, in rain and sunshine. In other words, the concern of the verse

is not to deal with the problem of how we know God is kind to his enemies,

but rather, by the assertion that he is kind to his enemies , to provide the

pattern for his sons' behavior.167

How did this pattern function for the early church? It is not immediately

obvious that to imitate God means always to love one's enemy . God is the

one who having killed has the power to cast into hell (Lk 1 2 :5/Mt 10 :28 ;

cf Mt 5 : 29f). He will judge those on whom he has sent sun and rain (Mt

5 : 22). Does this mean that for the believer the love command is accordingly

qualified? In the New Testament paraenesis the imitation of Christ overshadows the imitation of God (cf Rom 15 :3 ,7 ; I Cor 1 1 : I ; Phil 2 : 5 ff; I Thess I :6 ; I Pt 2 : 2 1 ). But the imitation of God does come to expression

in Eph 4 :32-5 : 2 where forgiveness is commanded. In all of the places

where Christ is the example , loving, self-giving behavior is exhorted . 168

Nowhere does the paraenetic tradition suggest that the imitation of God

or Christ could be a justification of abusing or injuring someone . While

the e arly church knew God as judge of his enemies, it was precisely this

divine prerogative of which imitation was explicitly forbidden (Rom

1 2 : 19). Thus the church employed the concept of imitation in a way not

Origin of the command in the paraenetic tradition

63

essentially different from the way Jesus did. It developed the concept,

further focusing on the kindness shown by God 'in Christ' (Eph 4 :32), but

it never transferred the notion of imitation to his wrath.

Lk 6:36/Mt 5:48

This parallel shows that a command to be perfect/merciful like God closed

the section on enemy love in Q.169 The prim ary difference between the

two forms of the command is the difference between reXewt in Mt and

oiK TtpiJ.WV in Lie While good arguments are not lacking for the originality

of Mt's form, 170 the Matthean addition of reXewc:; in I9 :2 I makes Mt's

reXewt here more probably redactional. 171

In the early church paraenesis the believer is exhorted to be both

r{l\ewc:; (I Cor 14:20 ; Phil 3 : 1 5 ; Coi l :28; 4: 1 2; Heb 5 : 1 4; Ja I :4, cf 3 : 2)

and oiKrtppwv (Phil 2 : 1 ; Col 3 : 12); but nowhere is either of these words

directly connected with an imitation of God as here in Mt and Lk. If Lk is

original here , then Lk 6 :36 only makes more explicit the direction which

Jesus gave to the concept of imitation ; mercy not judgment is to be

imitated.172

VIII. Conclusion

The over-arching concern of this chapter has been to determine whether or

not the elements of the New Testament paraenetic tradition, worked out

in Chapter I , rest in some way on Jesus' command of enemy love. In the

course of our investigation we have seen that, as far as the raw material of

the paraenetic tradition is concerned, the early church did draw from the

sayings of Jesus as it did also from the Old Testament and Jewish Hellenistic sources. We may summarize these adaptations as follows. 173

'Bless those who persecute you, bless and do not curse ' (Rom I 2 : 14; for

'persecute' see I Cor 4 : 1 2 ; II Cor 4 : 9 ; Gal S : 1 1 ; 6 : 1 2 ; II Tim 3 : 1 2 ;

Rev 1 2 : 13). This i s likely a free construction o f Jesus' command, 'Bless

those who curse you.'174 The focus on persecution is a result of the

young church's experience (see pp 56-8).

'Do good (to all) ' (I Pt 3 : 1 1 ; I Thess 5 : 1 5 ; Gal 6 : 10; cf Rom 2 : 10; 13 :3 ;

Eph 6 : 8 ; I Pt 2 : 14f,20 ; 3 :6,1 3 ,I 7 ; 4 : 1 9 ; III Jn 1 1). The same may be

said here as with the preceding command. We should emphasize here ,

however, that the widespread utilization of this element of Ps 34 and its

expansion to 'do good to all' (Gal 6 : 10; I Thess 5 : 1 5)

was

prompted by Jesus' own use of the command to do good (Lk 6 : 33 ,35)

even to those who hate you (Lk 6 :27). Such a traditional connection

would be supported by I Pt 2 :20 which recalls clearly Jesus' rhetorical

question in Lk 6 :33 175 (see pp 1 3 , 57).

Love your enemies

64

'Seek peace (with all) ' (I Pt 3 : 1 1 ; Rom 1 2 : 1 8 ; I Thess 5 : 13 ; cf Rom 14 : 1 9 ;

Heb 1 2 : 14). This command and its variations probably entered the

Christian paraenetic tradition directly from Ps 34 : 1 5 (LXX 33 : 1 5) as

the quote in I Pt 3 : 1 0-1 2 (cf 2:3 = LXX Ps 33 :8) shows. In this the

church may well have been following the teaching of her Lord,

Mt 5 : 9 ; Mk 9 : 50 (see p 14).

'Do not return evil for evil ' (Rom 1 2 : 17; I Thess 5 : 1 5 ; I Pt 3 :9). The phrase

occurs repeatedly in Joseph and Asenath and was rendered also by R.

Meir (A.D. 1 50). It appears to be a further development on the thought

in Prov 1 7: 13 (cf 20 :22 Mas) and was a common possession of Palestinian and Hellenistic paraenesis (see pp 39, 49).

It was natural that the early church should preserve in its paraenetic tradition,

certain elements of its Jewish inheritance. But we noted earlier that, at

those points where the church took up raw material from the Old Testa-

ment and from Jewish Hellenistic sources (cf the section on Joseph and

Asenath), it did not do so without distinction. Therefore , the elements

taken up do not merely reflect the character of the sources. They were

chosen because they suited a Christian purpose and they were altered by

the context into which they were put (cf p 39).

Our investigation of Jewish and Hellenistic sources revealed that they

could not alone account for the precise character of the command of

enemy love in the early Christian tradition, because they were characterized by one or more of the following features : a command or permission to hate another person ; a qualification of enemy love so that it is not

always or in every case demanded; an ambiguous mixture of unrelated

directions to love and hate ; a ground and aim in 'loving' which is

irreconcilable with the New Testament paraenesis. 176

The early Christian paraenesis, on the other hand, answers the question,

'How shall I treat my enemy?' with the unequivocal and unqualified

demand upon the believer not to repay evil with evil but, positively , to

do good, bless, pray for, seek peace, in short, to love. This love is grounded

in the mercies of God experienced by the believer in Christ and it aims

ultimately at the enemies' enjoyment of that mercy.

That which sets the early church off from its environment, however, is

that which it has in common with Jesus. The paraphrased, interpreted and

applied sayings of Jesus form the center of the paraenetic teaching on

enemy love. Therefore it is the peculiar character177 of Jesus' command of

enemy love which constituted the unique criterion according to which the

non-Christian paraenetic elements were taken up into the early Christian

paraenetic tradition. (This conclusion will be further tested in Chapter 4 .)

Origin of the command in the paraenetic tradition

65

With this conclusion our study aligns itself with those who find the roots

of the early Christian paraenetic tradition in the teachings of Jesus.178 The

notion that Paul and others involved in the gentile mission and in the formation of this tradition were either unaware of or deliberately ignored the words of the earthly Jesus is, in view of our conclusion, untenable. 179

3

J E S U S ' C O M M AN D O F E N E M Y L O V E IN T H E L A R G E R

C O N T E X T O F H IS M E S S A G E

I . Preliminary Remarks

A. The Hermeneutical Problems

It is a hermeneutical axiom that the part can only be properly understood

in relation to the whole . For us that means : Jesus' command of enemy

love can only be properly understood in relation to the message of Jesus as

a whole. But every whole , including Jesus' message , is the sum of its parts

and is accessible to the investigator only through its parts. We are , therefore ,

at the outset, confronted by the venerable problem of the hermeneutic

circle : one must have some conception of Jesus' over-all intention in order

to construe correctly his individual sayings, and one cannot have a proper

conception of Jesus' over-all intention until one perceives in some degree

the meaning of his individual sayings.

This is a problem that every interpreter of any document faces . But it is

exacerbated in the case of Jesus' message because, as the form critics have

shown, the sayings of Jesus, preserved for us in the gospels, are not always

preserved in their original historical context. In other words the 'whole' in

which we now find the words of Jesus (= parts) and which would normally

shed light on these individual sayings has been shown in many cases to be

the work of the evangelists.

The hermeneutical circle is also made more difficult by the shadow o f

uncertainty that has been cast across the individual sayings themselves.

J. Jeremias has argued that 'In the synoptic tradition it is the inauthenticity

and not the authenticity of the sayings of Jesus that must be demonstrated.'1 But this conclusion has not put an end to the opposite one : 'The nature of the synoptic tradition is such that the burden of proof will be

upon the claim to authenticity .'2 Regardless which of these two views is

correct, it is evident that the problem o f determining the meaning of Jesus'

love command in the larger context of his message is not merely the problem

of the hermeneutic circle . Modern research has thrown into question both

the part and the whole of Jesus' message as we have it in the gospels .

Jesus ' command in the context of his message

6 7

In view o f this, our task in this chapter has involved an investigation of

the authenticity of a number of Jesus' sayings besides his command of

enemy love. But the reader should be made aware in advance that this

work has, as a rule, been consigned to the notes. Its position there signifies

that, while needful, it is of secondary importance to the purpose of the

chapter. I stress the fact that the question of authenticity is handled in the

notes so that the uninterrupted flow of the text will not give the impression

that the sayings cited are employed without an awareness of the problems

they raise.

Even if due consideration has been given to the question of the authenticity of the individual sayings, the problem remains as to how these shall yield a total picture of Jesus' message . There must be a careful and

judicious attempt to piece the parts together in view of their essential content and the historical milieu and the clues offered by the gospel contexts.

As the pictur:: begins to take shape , we have a tentative 'whole' by which

we can construe other individual sayings and judge more appropriately

their genuineness. Thus while we do not escape the hermeneutic circle,

our emerging interpretation is hopefully guarded from arbitrariness by the

mutually corrective interplay of the whole and the parts.

From this short sketch of the hermeneutical problems encountered in

this chapter it has become clear that a thorough understanding and demonstration of the meaning of Jesus' love command requires that we view the command within the total picture of Jesus' message . But to develop such

a total picture would demand more than a whole monograph itself. The

limitations of this chapter will, therefore , be evident in two ways. The

'total picture' of Jesus' message will be considered only as it comes to

expression in two of its major components: the Kingdom of God and the

law. And further we will lean more heavily on the secondary literature

where we must develop the themes of Jesus' message more distant from

our limited topic.

B. The Validity of Systematizing

The attempt to present Jesus' own understanding of his command of

enemy love raises the question of the appropriateness of systematizing.

Jesus did not write a systematic theology, nor did he spend a lifetime

developing any theological system. To use an analogy of the late Leonhard

Goppelt, Jesus' ministry was like a thunder-shower that comes over the

land with its rain and is then quickly gone . He left many issues unaddressed

and many of our questions unanswered. Due to the nature of his mission

much of what he wanted to communicate was implicit and hidden. The

questions, then, are : How much of Jesus' implicit intention should we make

Love your enemies

68

explicit? How many unanswered questions can we legitimately attempt to

answer? How far can we carry a proper systematization of Jesus' message?

My stance on these questions may be summed up in the following way.

If Jesus made two seemingly contradictory statements with no effort to

reconcile them , the task of the exegete is three-fold : ( 1 ) to acknowledge

the apparent contradiction openly; (2) to inquire if there is an underlying

unity between the two statements and what it is; (3) to explain why Jesus

did not try to reconcile them in his own ministry. So far as I can see it is

legitimate and necessary to seek the unity behind Jesus' words and work

if such exists. Without a perception of this underlying unity one can

scarcely claim to have understood Jesus.3 Insofar as a presentation of this

unity must appear 'systematic', to that extent is systematization legitimate .

What is important is to distinguish the system from the explicit message of

Jesus and to make as plain as possible why Jesus expressed himself as he

did.

C. The Content of the Chapter

The first major section (II) of the chapter focuses on the relationship

between Jesus' command of enemy love and that reality called the Kingdom

of God. After hearing five voices on this relationship in Section A, we tum

to our own presentation. Section B brings the love command into connection with the coming Kingdom. Specifically the question is posed : Is the love command a condition for entrance into the Kingdom, and, if so ,

in what way? We pursue this question because

sayings behind Mt

5 :43-48 and Lk 6 :32-36 put it unavoidably in our path and because it

provides a point of contact with Jesus' call to repentance . Section C

brings the love command into connection with that aspect of the Kingdom

which is present in Jesus' ministry. We limit ourselves here to the manifestation of the new age in Jesus' acceptance and forgiveness of sinners. A contact with Jesus' love command is more easily observable here than in

his healings and exorcisms. Section D is a discussion of the widespread

designation of the love command as a 'sign' of the Kingdom of God.

The second major section (III) of the chapter focuses on the relationship between Jesus' command of enemy love and the law . Section A deals with the conflict between the love command and the lex talionis

(Ex 2 1 :24).

Section B deals with the positive relationship between the command of

enemy love and the Old Testament command of neighbor love (Lev 19 : 1 8).

Finally in Section C we struggle with the difficult question of whether, in

view of Jesus' radical command of enemy love, a disciple can or should

ever follow the path of resistance.

Jesus ' command in the context of his message

69

In the Introduction (p 3) we said that the questions governing our

study throughout are : Wherein consists obedience to Jesus' command of

enemy love? and, How shall this obedience be realized? The emphasis of

this chapter falls heavily upon the latter of these two questions. Jesus

himself gives the clearest and most concrete illustrations of what he means

by 'Love your enemy ! ' It is not my intention to develop from these an

extensive casuistry (though I believe there is a place for such reflection).

This does not mean that nothing is said concerning the nature of obedience

to Jesus' love command. On the contrary, in stressing the 'how' of the

love command's realization, we uncover the decisive element of that

obedience.

The essence of Jesus'

was such that if we stressed a specific

pattern of behavior in daily life instead of stressing the enabling source of

that pattern, we would misrepresent it as a new legalism . It is our conclusion that if the question of enablement can be properly answered, the concrete nature of obedience will emerge naturally , just as a good tree

naturally brings forth good fruit.

II. Jesus' Command of Enemy Love and the Kingdom of God

Milan Machovec states clearly our hermeneutical starting point in seeking

to understand Jesus' love command : 'If one is to understand and interpret

it, one must surely guard himself from arbitrariness. The only correct basis

of interpretation is without doubt found only by answering this question:

What place do these expressions in the Sermon on the Mount have in the

total structure of Jesus' thought, what place alone could they have?'4 At

the center of the 'structure of Jesus' thought' is the Kingdom of God. The

question concerning the place of Jesus' command of enemy love in the

whole structure of his thought is, therefore, chiefly the question concerning

the role this command played in his proclamation of that reality called the

Kingdom of God.

A. Four Recent Studies and One Older Work

Almost everyone who writes seriously about the message of Jesus discusses

his teaching on the Kingdom of God and at least mentions his love command.

There is, therefore, a vast literature from which we could take a sampling.

The studies I have chosen to discuss briefly were not chosen because they

represent all the main options for understanding Jesus' love command.

They do not present a very broad spectrum. 5 I chose them rather as timely

expressions of the recent radical and dramatic trends in biblical studies,

and because they all6 raise in a radical way the question whether God is

necessary to a proper understanding of Jesus' command of enemy love.

Love your enemies

70

Milan Machovec is chosen as a representative of the contemporary

(and sympathetic) Marxist treatment of Jesus' message. Although Jesus

fiir A theisten does not stem from a member of the establishment of

biblical and theological studies, 7 it is nevertheless characteristic of a

significant interchange between Christians and Marxists which is definitely

affecting that establishment. Herbert Braun represents the radical and

influential development inside German New Testament scholarship. Kurt

Niederwimmer is one of the periodic non-conformist voices which bring to

bear upon Jesus' message some contemporary discovery - in this case

depth psychology . Dieter Liihrmann is included primarily because his is

one of the most recent detailed studies dealing strictly with Jesus' command

of enemy love. Finally, one can still not overlook Bultmann's view because

it has left its mark on each of the above and is thus still widely influential.

I. Milan Machovec's 'Jesus fur A theisten '

I have cited Machovec as one who states well my own methodological

starting point for interpreting Jesus' love command. This does not mean

we come to the same conclusions; rather the fact that we come to such

radically different conclusions starting from the same point8 shows how

carefully the synoptic tradition must be handled. How does Machovec

view the relationship between Jesus' command of enemy love and the

Kingdom of God? 'The basic thought . . . is for Jesus undeniably the idea

of the nearness, the actuality and the binding claim of the so-called "Kingdom of God". '9 His love command 'is an anticipation of the "Kingdom of God" through demand, change and mental transformation' (p 1 33). 'It has

to do with a claim and a demand upon the "I" of the believer, the man

completely grasped by the Kingdom' (p 130). All the details of the Sermon

on the Mount 'have their authenticity only insofar as we conceive them as

details of the foundational message about transformation for the Kingdom

of God' (p 100). Jesus was not effective, however, in that he proclaimed a

future Kingdom: 'Jesus swept men along with him as one who laid a

present claim upon men from the standpoint of this future age' (p 99).

But what is this future age that has the power to grasp a man? 'The

future is your own affair . . . Jesus brought the future down from the

heavenly clouds . . . The future is not something that is "coming" from

somewhere independently of us . . . rather the fUture is our own affair in

every moment; it is the demand of the present, the challenge to human

ability to exploit every moment as fully and as exactingly as possible'

(p 1 0 1 ). The key phrase in this quote is that which summarizes the future

age as the 'challenge to human ability (Herausforderung der menschlichen

Fiihigkeit).' Accordingly it must be said of Jesus' love command, which is

Jesus ' command in the con text of his message

71

an 'anticipation of ( Vorgriff auf) the Kingdom of God,' 'It does not have

to do with casuistic rules for daily behavior; what we are dealing with are

examples of maximum claim upon possible human activity' (p 1 30, my

italics). It is a necessary consequence of Machovec's atheism that man is

made the measure of the Kingdom of God. The man who is 'completely

grasped by the Kingdom' is grasped and empowc:lred by nothing more than

the challenge to make himself a morally better person. Accordingly the

'believers' are defined as 'those already changing themselves' (p 1 13 ) and

'metanoia' means 'Strive for your own inner transformation' (p 1 00).

Jesus' preaching is the challenge of a great man with a great ideal to other

men to do and be the best they can with the human powers at their disposal. Machovec summarizes this way: 'If we dispense with the mythical, time-bound garb, it would be possible to render the basic message of

Jesus (Mt 4: 1 7) as follows . . . : ''Demand much from your life, for perfect

humanity is possible ." It is near, that is, one can grasp it, one can become

morally better, purer, one can be more human and one can do it on his

own (durch eigenes Zutun)' (p 1 02, my italics). Machovec's answer to

the question concerning the relationship between Jesus' love command

and the Kingdom of God is not only that the love command anticipates

and corresponds to 'the ideal of the future age' but, more basically, that

the love command is the challenge to realize that ideal in every moment

of one's own existence by one's own human power.

2. Herbert Braun 's 'Jesus '

The second study representative of the current positions being taken on

the subject of enemy love and the Kingdom of God is Herbert Braun's

Jesus. According to Braun, 'The Kingdom of God is the center of Jesus'

end-time proclamation.'10 This Kingdom is not present, rather ' "nearing"

and "coming" are the appropriate verbs to describe its place in time'

(p 54). The end was expected within one generation but this was an error

as the New Testament itself implies (p 60). No attempt is made to

recalculate a new time for the end of the world , 'because Jesus does not

aim to teach about the near end but to summon men in view of its

nearness' (p 6 1 ). 'The actual burden of Jesus' end-time proclamation is . . .

an unimaginable sharpening of human responsibility' (p 59). The warning

which Jesus expresses by the coming of the Kingdom of God must be

expressed by us today in a new way . With the sinking away of Jesus'

apocalyptic preaching of the Kingdom, the 'essential parts of his proclamation maintain their validity' (p 6 1 ).

What is this that remains? 'The right conduct toward one's neighbor is

for Jesus the main issue' (p 1 22). 'Love of one's neighbor is in fact the

Love your enemies

72

center of the life which Jesus demands' (p 1 32). If we ask now about how

this relates to the Kingdom of God we receive no explicit answer, for there

exists no longer a Kingdom of God. God has been deposed by his subjects:

in the decisions and opinions of Jesus 'The neighbor already reigns . . . as

the secret king' (p 132). God is not the source, ground or goal of Jesus'

love command; God 'is an expression for this path along which a man can

obediently and humbly go' (p 1 7 1 ). 11 God is permitted to exist (but in no

sense as king) to the extent that I accept myself and then serve others

(p 169).12 There is, therefore, no essential connection between Jesus' love

command and the Kingdom of God, which was entirely an illusion.

3. Kurt Niederwimmer's 'Jesus '

The third book to consider is Kurt Niederwimmer's Jesus, which, according to the blurb on the back of the book, aims to utilize the 'secured results of depth psychology' in interpreting the preaching of Jesus. How

does Niederwimmer relate Jesus' love command to the Kingdom of God?

Of Mt 5 :43-48 and other radical demands of Jesus, Niederwimmer

comments: 'What is peculiar consists . . . in this : that the level of legalism

is totally abandoned and man is put before the unconditional

fathomless demand, a demand which can only be proclaimed in connection with

hope for the eschaton and which is absurd outside the eschaton .'13 Here

we see the present and future aspects of the eschaton: Jesus' radical

demand is absurd unless it is made inside the eschaton and yet is made

in hope of the eschaton. What is this eschaton which makes Jesus' radical

demand possible?

Another name for this eschaton is the Kingdom of God. Niederwimmer

defines this aspect of Jesus' teaching in the following way . 'Speech about

the coming Kingdom of God can and must be unmasked as an illusion, if

it is interpreted as a temporal Nearness approaching in the immediate

future. Rather it must be understood as the objectification of a collective

process of consciousness (Bewusstseinsprozess); it points to the fact that

this consciousness is about to take on a new attitude (Neueinstellung)'

(pp 8 7f). The coming of the eschaton or the Kingdom of God is the

approach of a 'new adjustment' in the human psyche . Our hope for this

change in our consciousness plus its fragmentary present reality is the

ground of Jesus' love command. This change which we are hoping for may

be described as a 'final self-realization,' a fulfilment of all that which our

fragmentary human experience promises (p 87). The eschatological symbols in Jesus' preaching show that man in his existential crisis is open to this goal of history (p 5 1).

The guarantee that there is such a goal of history is Jesus himself. In his

Jesus ' command in the context of his message

73

freedom he certifies 'that man - in spite of everything - is on the way

to himself (p 87). In Jesus 'the man has already appeared toward whose

realization all of history is flowing' (p 8 7). Jesus is thus the present personification of that 'Neueinstellung des Bewusstseins' which constitutes the coming of the eschaton or the Kingdom of God. He is, therefore, also

the legitimation of his own love command. The fragmentary fulftlment

which his disciples may achieve is possible only because of the hope he

awakens in them for an eventual complete self-realization. However, Jesus

was completely ignorant of the fact that these psychological phenomena

were occurring in his ministry and that his love command related to the

Kingdom of God in this way : 'Jesus did not see through the mythological

character of his concepts, he did not see through the myth as myth and

therefore lived in the illusion of the myth' (pp 8 7 , 42).

4. Dieter Liihrmann 's 'Liebet eure Feinde '

The fourth study is Dieter Liihrmann's article , 'Liebet eure Feinde .' The

scope of this article is more limited than that of the previous three studies

which we have examined, so that there is no broad discussion of the Kingdom of God in which Jesus' love command might take its place. The article was, after all, written by request 'with special attention given to method .'14

Nevertheless Liihrmann does comment summarily on the relationship

between Jesus' love command and the Kingdom of God. His last sentence

says of Jesus' love command, 'Its eschatological horizon lies not in its

exegetical coordination with Jesus' {3cxat"Aeicx proclamation, but rather in its

Macht gegeniiber aller Aktualisienmg. '1 5 Jesus' love command is, therefore,

eschatological in that it is always beyond our attempts to understand

exegetically its relation to the Kingdom of God. It seems to me that if

we were to accept Liihrmann's conclusion then in effect we could no

longer speak of Jesus ' command. The moment we attach any concrete

meaning to the command, it ceases to be Jesus ' command which, according to Liihrmann's definition, is always tearing itself loose from our exposition. On the other hand, if all interpretations of Jesus' command

are accepted as legitimate, then the possessive noun 'Jesus' ' becomes

meaningless, for with the word 'Jesus" we imply that there is a single

unified intention behind the command 'Love your enemies !'

5. Rudolf Bultmann 's 'Theology of the New Testament '

After discussing these fairly recent statements concerning the relationship between Jesus' love command and the Kingdom of God it is fitting to include here a noteworthy earlier position, the influence of which has

been unmistakable in the works previously cited; the position is that of

Love your enemies

74

Rudolf Bultmann. For Bultmann 'the dominant concept of Jesus' message

is the Reign of God.'16 'Thus Jesus takes over the apocalyptic picture of

the future . . . But what is new and really his own about it all is the certainty

with which he says, "Now the time is come ! God's Reign is breaking in!

The end is here !" ' (p 6). Besides announcing the presence of God's reign

Jesus also called for radical obedience to the will of God. 'What positively

is the will of God? the demand for love

There is no obedience to God

.

.

.

which does not have to prove itself in the concrete situation of meeting

one's neighbor' (p 1 8).

Jesus·' demand for love and his announcement of the presence of God's

reign are not unrelated, for the proclamation of the will of God 'must be

described as an eschatological ethic' (p 1 9}. It is not eschatological in that

it is motivated by reference to the impending end of the world (p 20}. The

expectation of the near end of the world is only the mythological clothing

of the prophetic consciousness 'that man's relation towards God decides

his fate and that the hour of decision is of limited duration . . . The

absoluteness of God's will is so overpowering that before it the world

sinks away and seems to be at an end' (p 22) 1 7 Therefore the proclamation

of the will of God , that is, the demand for love, is eschatological in that it

directs man into the Now of his encounter with his neighbor, a Now which

always has the nature of a final hour of decision : either God or this world

(pp 19, 2 1).18

The demand for love appears, then, to be almost identical with the

announcement of the arrival of the Kingdom. Bultmann puts it this way :

'The unity of the eschatological and ethical message of Jesus may be so

stated: fulftlment of God's will is the condition for participation in the

salvation of his reign' (p 20). However we must not consider the fulftlment of this condition as one thing and the salvation of God's reign as something else added later. They are one : when one exists, so does the

other. The person who fulftls God's will, that is, who loves his neighbor, is

manifesting that he is experiencing the present reign of God, because he is

deciding for God who confronts him in the person of his neighbor. The

eschatological proclamation and the ethical demand of Jesus are really

one. 'Both things . . . direct man to the fact that he is brought before God,

that God stands before him; both direct him into his Now as the hour of

decision for God' (p 2 1 )1 9 The difference between the two is that the

love command makes explicit the fact that this decision for God is always

a decision for the neighbor.

6. Summary

To sum up: For Machovec the 'Kingdom of God', as the title of his book

Jesus ' command in the context of his message

75

already announces, has nothing to do with God. It is an expression of the

'future' which Jesus snatched out of the clouds and made the business of

men. It is thus the challenge to exploit every moment to the full. Jesus'

love command is a 'Vorgriff auf das Konigreich Gottes.' It thus gives

expression to the challenge of the Kingdom to become morally better,

purer, more human. Herbert Braun also sees no place for God in his

discussion of Jesus·' proclamation: 'Der Niichster regiert bereits . . . als

der geheime Konig.' The love command, therefore, has no essential relation

to the Kingdom of God for Jesus; the love command is merely a sharpening

of the call to live responsibly towards one's neighbor. According to

Niederwimmer the Kingdom of God must be understood as 'Objektivierung

eines kollektiven Bewusstseinsprozesses.' The love command is grounded

in our hope for this total alteration of the human psyche and in our

fragmentary experience of it already. Jesus could command love like this

because he was a preliminary appearance of that human toward which all

history is tending. Luhrmann's study is small but would seem to offer an

explanation for all the different conceptions of the relation between

Jesus' love command and the Kingdom of God : Jesus' love command

shows its eschatological horizon 'in seiner Macht gegeniiber aller

Aktualisierung.' This horizon is not to be found by exegetically seeking its

relation to Jesus' �cxatAetil proclamation. But with this assertion we are

reminded of our methodological starting point with Machovec: the only

way to avoid caprice in our interpretation of Jesus' love command is to

investigate its place in the larger structure of Jesus' thought which means

first and foremost an exegetical attempt to determine the role it played in

Jesus' proclamation of the Kingdom of God.2° Finally for Bultmann

Jesus' love command is essentially one with his preaching of the Kingdom

of God because the apocalyptical conception of the coming Kingdom is

only a mythological way of stressing the urgency of the demand for love.

The real manifestation of the reign of God is when a man loves his

neighbor. This is very much like Braun's view, but Bultmann never

explicitly equated God with neighbor love as Braun does (see notes 1 1

and 12).

As this selective survey has shown, the question of the relationship

between Jesus' command of enemy love and the Kingdom of God is

crucial because it is the question of God. L. Goppelt's comment in his

essay 'Das Problem der Bergpredigt' is today still keenly relevant : 'Perhaps

the key question today in the interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount

is, what these instructions which are directed entirely to men (do not kill,

do not lust, do not lie, show only love) have to do with God.'2 1 The most

direct approach to this question as it bears on our study is to pursue now

Love your enemies

76

our own investigation of the relationship between the love command and

the Kingdom of God in Jesus' ministry.

B. Jesus ' Command of Enemy Love and the Coming Kingdom: Condition ?

We have examined briefly Jesus' claim that the one who obeys his love

command will be rewarded (pp 60-1).22 We will now investigate this idea

from the standpoint of our present problem : the relationship between the

love command and the Kingdom of God. Specifically, we may ask the

question : Is Jesus' love command a condition for entrance into the Kingdom

of God, and if so in what way?

In asking this question it is important to make clear what we mean by

'conditio n ' . Depending upon one's theological preconception , the word

'condition' may imply a legalistic view of salvation in which man, by his

native powers, fulfils certain requirements before God performs any

work in his life. But this is not a necessary implication of the word

'condition' (as our discussion of Bultmann's view above shows, p 74),

and our use of the word in the above question should not prejudice the

answer in this direction. All that is meant here by 'condition' is this:

the condition of anything is that without which it does not occur or

exist. Should we determine that the fulfilment of Jesus' command of

enemy love is a condition for entrance into the Kingdom of God in this

sense, then the question would not yet be answered, whether there is an

inner, essential relationship between the two or whether they are only

arbitrarily connected. That is why we must ask: In what way is the love

command a condition? If entering into the Kingdom of God were compared to the enjoyment of a symphony we would have to ask : Is the fulfilment of Jesus' love command a condition in the sense that a

good ear and a high appreciation of music is a condition for enjoying a

symphony? Or is the love command a condition in the sense that buying

a ticket is a condition for enjoying a symphony?

As a result of our analysis of Lk 6 :35/Mt 5 :45 (pp 6 1 f) we determined

that Jesus promised those who loved their enemies that they would

thereby become sons of God because God is kind to his enemies. We concluded also (p 59) that in this same context belong Jesus' rhetorical questions (Lk 6:32f/Mt 5 :46f). In these Jesus says in a negative form

what the promise of sonship declares positively. That is, if you do not

obey the command to love your enemies, you will have no reward at all.

'If you love those who love you, what reward do you have? ' Answer: none.

To love your enemies is to receive the reward of sonship ; not to love your

enemies is to be denied the reward of sonship. The fulf:tlment of Jesus'

love command is a condition for sonship of the heavenly Father.23

To become a son of God and to enter into the Kingdom of God are

closely related events.24 One cannot be a son of God and be excluded

Jesus ' command in the context of his message

77

from his Kingdom, nor can one be included in the Kingdom of God and

be denied sonship.25 Sonship of God is a blessing which all those and only

those enjoy who will enter the Kingdom of God. This is confirmed by the

Matthean form of the beatitudes where to be called the sons of God (5 :9)

is one of the blessings of belonging to the Kingdom of heaven (5 : 3 , 1 0).26

Consequently the reward spoken of in Jesus' rhetorical questions (Mt 5 :46f

par) is nothing less than entering into the Kingdom of God.27 Accordingly

the fulfilment of Jesus' love command is in some sense a condition for

entering into the Kingdom of God.28

The way in which the fulftlment of the love command is a condition

for entrance into the Kingdom is suggested by a seemingly unrelated

saying of Jesus concerning those who are rich, but nevertheless a saying of

which Schniewind says, 'What is spoken here is a key saying for the

entirety of Jesus' moral instructions.'29 In Mk 10 :23-28 Jesus interprets

for the disciples the underlying meaning of his encounter with the rich

young man.30 Jesus told this man the condition he must meet in order to

inherit eternal life : 'What must I do to inherit eternal life?' . . . 'Go, sell

what you have, and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven :

and come, follow me' (Mk 10: 1 7 ,2 1 ). The man refused to meet the

condition and Jesus draws the general conclusion, 'How hard it will be for

those who have riches to enter the Kingdom of God' ( 1 0 :23). As if to confirm the disciples' amazement at this statement, Jesus goes farther and says that it is hard for anybody to enter the Kingdom ( 1 0 : 24). Indeed , as the

disciples rightly conclUde from Jesus' saying about the camel and the needle's

eye, it is humanly impossible for a man to be saved, i.e., enter the Kingdom

of God.31 But on the other hand, 'with God all things are possible' (10:27).

In other words the sine qua non of salvation is the action of God doing the

humanly impossible. An indispensable condition for entrance into the

Kingdom is the power of God.

How is this condition of divine intervention related to the conditions

contained in Jesus' commands, specifically, the command of enemy

love? Jesus was prompted to say that rich men cannot enter the Kingdom

of God when a particular rich man did not obey Jesus' command to sell all

he had, give to the poor and follow him. That is, the rich man's inability to

enter the Kingdom of God was his inability to meet the condition which

Jesus set. A man cannot abandon that which he loves the most (cf Lk

14:26 ,3 2 livvarat). He cannot choose against what he values most highly.

He cannot give his heart to that which he does not treasure (Mt 6 : 2 1 par).

Therefore, as long as a man treasures that which is on earth, whether it be

riches (Mk 10: 1 7-22), family (Lk 14:25f), religious practices (Lk 1 8 :9-14

Mt 6 : l ff33), wisdom (Mt 1 1 :25 par34), political power (Mk 1 0:42ff35)

Love your enemies

78

or his own life (Mk 8 :34f par36), it will be impossible for that man to

inherit the Kingdom of God. Jesus' belief that this impossibility does in

fact exist is based on his conviction that men do in fact naturally set their

hearts on these earthly things rather than on the Kingdom of heaven

(Mt 6 : 3 2 ; cf Jn 5 :44).37

Therefore, if any man is to enter the Kingdom, he must experience a

thoroughgoing inversion of values. Instead of clinging to his riches he must

give them to the poor, instead of loving his family he must hate them,

instead of parading his religiosity he must practice his piety in secret,

instead of depending on his wisdom he must become a baby, instead of

lording it over others he must be the servant of all, instead of saving his

own life he must lose it. Only when a man carries through this radical

reversal of where his treasure is, can he enter the Kingdom of God. Since

no mere human can accomplish this transformation, Jesus pronounces

entrance into the Kingdom impossible.

But then he implies that God, for whom nothing is impossible, has the

power to perform this transformation. Apparently God alone can free a

man so completely that the man can and will fulfd the conditions for

entering the Kingdom.38 If it is not precisely at this point that the

omnipotence of God is at work, namely, the point of enabling men to

fulfd the conditions of entrance into the Kingdom, and if men nevertheless

are to enter the Kingdom, then either the commands and warnings of Jesus

are not what they claim to be (i.e., conditions for participation in the

Kingdom), or a man really can on his own power work his way into the

Kingdom of heaven. But if we take seriously both the commands of Jesus

and his sober pessimism about man's moral ability,39 the only conclusion

we can come to is that, if a man is to enter the Kingdom of heaven, God

must enable him to fulfd the conditions contained in the command. What

God demands he gives.40

Jesus' command of enemy love must be obeyed, we have said, if one

is to enter into the Kingdom of God. Thus, as a condition for entrance

into the Kingdom, it is a part of the scheme we have just sketched. It may,

therefore, be said of Jesus' love command, 'With men it is impossible.'

It is not therefore a condition in the sense that the Kingdom of heaven is

a prize granted to a contestant who by great personal effort has won the

contest. Rather it is a condition which when fulfilled in no way reflects

the superiority or merit of the disciple (cf Lk 1 7 : 104 1). On the contrary,

it reflects the power of God. It is for this reason that when men see the

disciple's good works they glorify not him but his Father in heaven

(Mt 5 : 1642).

Jesus ' command in the context of his message

79

The connection between the commands of Jesus and the enabling

power of God is never made so explicit by Jesus as we have described

it here. Jesus never says, for example, 'You must love your enemies

because God will enable you.' Such a statement would tend to misrepresent Jesus' intention which is to grant the divine enablement through calling men into discipleship to himself (see below, p 85).

Nevertheless this connection is implicit in Jesus' message, for the Kingdom of God is 'good news' (Lk 8 : 1 ; 4 : 1 8 ; Mt 1 1 :5), it is a gift (Mk 1 0 : 1 5 ; Lk 1 2 :3 2) and yet it is conditiona1.43

In saying that one fulflls the love command by the power of God we imply

an even closer relationship between the love command and the Kingdom

of God than we have so far described (and here we begin a transition into

the topic to be discussed in the next section). This power of God to transform a man and enable him to obey his will as Jesus commands is itself the power of the new age, the blessing of the Kingdom of God.44 We are

therefore compelled here to distinguish between the Kingdom of God as

a future, yet to be fully consummated reality45 and as a present already

effective reality46 (Lk 1 1 :20 ; 1 7 : 2 1 ; Mt 1 1 :2-6) . The fulfilment of the

love command is on the one hand that without which one will not enter

the future Kingdom of God when it is consummated, and on the other

hand, that which is impossible if one has not in a sense already entered the

Kingdom, or better, been entered by the powers of that Kingdom.

Therefore the love command, as a condition for entrance into the

Kingdom, is of one piece with that for which it is a condition. Until now

we have treated the connection between Jesus' love command and the

Kingdom of God merely as external, as if there were no essential unity

between the Kingdom of God and this condition for entrance into it. Now

we must stress that there is a unity, and that the love command is not

just accidentally the condition of entrance into the Kingdom of God.47

The earthly fulfilment of the love command does not happen apart from

the powers of the Kingdom, nor will final entrance into the future Kingdom mean that the conditions of entry are left behind. Life in the consummated Kingdom will not, therefore , be essentially different from the action and attitude demanded by the love command. Only that person will

enter the Kingdom whose living has already reflected the life and power of

the Kingdom. That life and power are reflected most clearly when a man

loves his enemy, for in doing this he acts most contrary to the natural

pattern of human relations in this age (cf Lk 6 :32-34. See pp 86ft).

To round out this section we may bring our two conclusions into

association with Jesus' central concern summed up in the thematic

command: 'Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand' (Mt 4 : 1 7 ;

cf Mk 1 : 1 5). First, we saw that obedience to Jesus' love command, which

Love your enemies

80

is a condition for entering the Kingdom, requires a man's transformation.

This transformation, which in fact all of Jesus' commands demand, is what

is meant by repentance, p.er&voux.48 Second, we saw that this transformation, i.e., repentance, which is demanded by the love command is the work of God. Jesus' call to repentance, is therefore a call49 to recognize

one's hopeless situation and to appeal to the omnipotent kindness of God

for present help in making a radically new beginning as a disciple of Jesus. 5°

Jesus' call to repentance, expressed concretely in the love commandment,

is, therefore, not grounded merely in the future and hastening judgment

day. That such a day is coming Jesus taught. In fact, its certainty and

seriousness give Jesus' commands their grave importance. 51 But the prospect of the approaching end of the age cannot of itself effect in man the repentance Jesus was calling for. If the Kingdom is only future and men

are left to themselves to get ready, no one will enter it. Jesus, however,

calls a man to repentance not just because it is important for this future,

but also because it is possible in the present. God is now at work in Jesus'

ministry to effect repentance and thus enable obedience.

Martin Hengel ('Leben in der Veriinderung,' 1 9 70) provides a good

summary statement for this section : 'In the message of Jesus the

demand which is radicalized by the nearness of God's Kingdom is the

consequence of salvation not a condition of it to be achieved by man

(nich t vom Menschen zu leistende 'Bedingung ') . . . Not the imperative

but the indicative is the point of departure and the goal of Jesus' proclamation . The epiphany of the love of God in his person proclaims the

"justification of the godless" . . . Viewed from Jesus' message and work,

the Sermon on the Mount becomes . . . the instructions for a new

existence of "lived faith" (geleb ten Glau bens), which is no less grounded

in God's free grace than the imperative of the pauline paraenesis'

(p 6 5 0f) .

One qualification may b e necessary i n view of our discussion . J esus'

command of enemy love is a condition for entrance into the coming

Kingdom (in the sense developed above) but, as Hengel says, it is not a

'vom Mensch en zu leistende ' condition . Only people who love their

enemies will enter the Kingdom of God but no one who boasts of his

achievements will enter.

C. Jesus ' Command of Enemy Love and the Present Aspect of the

Kingdom : Enablement

In the final paragraphs of the previous section we touched upon a theme

that cannot be passed over because of its importance but also cannot be

handled in detail because of its size : the presence of God's reign in the

ministry of Jesus. The powers of the new age are not randomly present;

they are present in Jesus. All of our talk about the present effect of the

Jesus ' command in the context of his message

81

Kingdom which enables repentance and obedience is qualified by the fact

that this effect is not realized apart from the person52 and work of Jesus.

We will eliminate from discussion the present aspect of the Kingdom

manifest in Jesus' casting out of demons (Lk 1 1 :20) and his healings

(Mt 1 1 :2-4). We focus instead on another aspect of Jesus' ministry by

which men were granted the renewal of heart which Jesus demanded,

namely, Jesus' fellowship with sinners and his forgiveness 53 of their sins.

This facet of Jesus' ministry and the scandal it caused come to

expression in the saying, 'Behold a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax

collectors and sinners ! ' (Mt 1 1 : 19).54 His task which caused many to take

offence (Mt 1 1 :6)55 was the delivering of good news to the poor (Mt 1 1 : 5/

Lk 4 : 1 8 ; cf Lk 7 :22), that is, 'poor' in the prophetic sense of oppressed ,

afflicted, ostracized and helpless. 56 The result o f his bringing good news

to the poor was that Jesus could say to the religious leaders in Jerusalem,

'Tax collectors and harlots go into the Kingdom of God before you'

(Mt 21 :3 1 ).57 In other words, 'Blessed are you poor, for yours is the

Kingdom of God' (Lk 6 :20).

One of the concrete encounters with these 'sinners'58 in which Jesus

brings them the good news is the shared meal. 'The Pharisees and scribes

munnured, saying, "This man receives sinners and eats with them" ' (Lk 1 5 : 2 ;

c f Mk 2 : 1 5 - 1 7 par). 'To understand what Jesus was doing in eating with

"sinners," it is important to realize that in the east, even today , to invite

a man to a meal was an honor. It was an offer of peace, trust, brotherhood

and forgiveness ; in short sharing a table meant sharing life.'59 Jesus did not

eat with sinners because he took pleasure in sin, a fact which the Pharisees

could not grasp ; he was among sinners as a physician among the sick (Mk

2 : 1 7).60 His presence with them at table was an offer of acceptance and

forgiveness and this forgiveness insofar as it was accepted was the healing

of the 'sick' .6 1

The acceptance and forgiveness which Jesus offers tax collectors and

sinners by eating with them is the very acceptance and forgiveness of God

as Lk 15 shows.

A summary of the discussion concerning the unity of the parable of the

prodigal son may be found in the brief debate between E. S chweizer

( ThZ 4, pp 469ff)62 who maintains that vv 2 5 -3 2 did not b elong to

vv 1 1 -24 originally and J. Jeremias ( ThZ 5 , pp 2 2 8 ff) who maintains

that vv 1 1 -3 2 are an origirlhl unit. Judging from the standpoint of the

original in tention of the parable the unity of it may be d enied if one

sees the older brother scene as extraneous to the point about the father's

love in vv 1 1 -24. (On the original intention, see below . ) Judging from

the standpoint of form : 'Vv 2 5-3 2 are not an allegorical fabrication,

but remain completely within the parable' (Bultm ann, History, p 1 96 ) .

Love your enemies

82

As Charles Smith observes, 'The effort to divide the parable into two

seems unnecessary and impossible. The place o f the older son in the

narrative is secured by references in vv 1 1 -1 3 . There would be no point

in this if the older son were to play no part in the story' (Parables,

p 1 00).

Not essentially different from Jiilicher, Bultmann sees the intention of

the parable : 'to m ake plain the fatherly goodness of God, which unconditionally forgives self-condemning remorse.' The second half of the parable is not really different from the first, 'but rather makes plain by

contrast the paradoxical character of divine forgiveness' (History, p 1 96 ;

cf Jiilicher, Gleich nisreden II, p 3 6 3 ) . This interpretation alone , however,

does not do justice to the entreaty of the father to the elder son in which

the p arable culminates. In J esus' situation it is inevitable that the

Pharisees or scribes be seen in the figure of the older brother.63

It would correspond then to Jesus' usual practice of confrontation (as

opposed to merely speaking abou t someone) if we were to assume that

the hearers of this parable included the Pharisees or scribes. This

inference from the content of the parable corresponds in fact with the

Lukan setting for the parable in chapter 1 5 . Here the parable is told in

response to the Pharisees' and scribes' murmuring, 'this man receives

sinners and eats with them .' In keeping with this correspondence it

would seem arbitrary to ignore Lk's setting, according to which the

parable intends to say something about J esus' ministry as it relates both

to sinners and to Pharisees.

Schottroffs contention , 'Lk 1 5 : 1 -3 cannot at all depict the setting in

Jesus' life for the parable of the prodigal son' (ZThK 6 8 , p 5 1 ), is, I

think, inadequately grounded. Her first argument is : 'The Pharisees to

whom Jesus was opposed could not recognize themselves in the figure

of the oldest son, because they could scarcely have reprimanded J esus

that his company with sinners was for them an undeserved gift of God

(or of Jesus ) ; for in that case they would have had to recognize him as

the bringer of salvation' (ZThK 68, p 5 0) . That the Pharisees had to be

able to see themselves in the older son is not a prerequisite for the son's

being an accurate representation of them . Of course the Pharisees do not

admit Jesus is the bringer of salvation but the parabolic form does not

demand that every element of the historical situation have a counterpart in the parable. The parable is here not a descrip tion of what is happening between J esus and the sinners and the Pharisees, but rather

an in terpretation and thereby a summons to the Pharisees to see Jesus

and themselves in the true light of the parable.

Her second argument is : 'The Pharisees could not recognize themselves

in the older son because they do not find here their own theological

conception . . . The self-assurance with which the older brother boasts

in his achievement is not the portrayal of a Pharisee , and the dependence

on the grace of God which the prodigal son accepts would not have

been foreign to a Pharisee' (Z ThK 6 8 , p 50). The argument here against

finding the Sitz im L eben of this parable in Jesus' own situation seems

Jesus ' command in the context of his message

83

to miss one important point. Whether or not the Pharisees were as bad

as the gospels picture them is not the key issue here, but whether, from

what we know of Jesus, he thought they were. In order to strike this

parable from the genuine J esus tradition one cannot simply appeal to

the contemporary witness of the Pharisees (showing they were not so

bad as the parable says) ; one must show that the parable pictures the

Pharisees other than Jesus did (whether he was right or wrong). This I

do not think has been done, for this picture (Karikierung? ) of the Pharisees is the same one Jesus paints everywhere.

L. Goppelt, I think, does greater justice to the parable in the following:

'This parable is not an enlightenment about the love of God , as Liberalism thought . . . Rather in accord with its introduction in Lk 1 5 : 1 f (which in any case is appropriate to the parable's subject matter) it

explains what happens where J esus offers his fellowship to sinners :

acceptance into fellowship with Jesus means forgiving acceptance into

fellowship with God and, indivisibly connected with that, the conversion

to obedience, which becomes visible in the case of Zacchaeus (Lk 1 9 : 8 )

and the sinful woman (Lk 7 : 4 5 ff)' (Christentum , p 5 0).64 This is not

merely a justification of Jesus' questionable practice o f eating with

sinners, but , as 1 5 : 2 5 -3 2 shows, it is also a call for the Pharisees to

repent : 'Jesus invited the Pharisee to leave the courtyard where he serves

like a slave and to come into the father's house, into the fellowship of

saved sinners ( 1 5 :2 8 -3 2 ) . This entrance into joy with those who are

saved . . . is the conversion of the righteous. It means giving up one's

boasting in achievement and reward , giving up the attitude of a slave

toward God , longing for the graciously given fellowship with the father,

and a forgiving love toward the sinful brother ! ' (C,hristen tu m , p 5 1 )65

Goppelt's interpretation does justice both to the p arable taken as an

independent unit and to the Lukan context. This interpretation tallies

with the essential features of Jesus' work which we are here sketching.

Therefore it is justifiable to affirm that the acceptance and forgiveness

which Jesus offers sinners are the very acceptance and forgiveness of God.

It is the recognition of this hidden reality that binds the repentant

sinner to J esus in discipleship.

The forgiveness of sin and acceptance with God which happen in Jesus'

fellowship with repentant sinners are the first rays of the dawn of the new

age. The rejoicing of God over the recovery of the lost in Lk 1 5 : 7,10 could

be seen as the fulfilment of Is 65 : 19 and Zeph 3 : 1 7 .66 Schniewind points

out that the forgiveness Jesus vouchsafed was the highest hope of the

prophets for the new age (Is 33 :24 ; 53 :Sf; Jer 3 1 :34; Ez 36 :25-2 7 ; Zech

13 : 1 ).67 Besides these indirect indications of the presence of the Kingdom

of God in Jesus' ministry, we have the description of his own ministry as

the delivering of good news to the poor (Mt 1 1 :5b)68 - a fulfilment of the

prophetic word for the new era (Is 6 1 : 1 ), albeit, a fulfilment which did

not correspond one-to-one with the Old Testament prophecies.

Love your enemies

84

By granting to a sinner in this way forgiveness and acceptance with the

Father, Jesus was granting what we have called the power of God to transfonn the sinner and enable him to obey his commands (pp 78f above). 69

An excellent quote from Schlatter focuses our attention on Jesus' command

to love as seen through Jesus' forgiveness : 'Jesus saw the power of forgiveness to stand a man upright and to heal him in this: forgiveness produces love. And when he was reproached for forgiving he justified with the fact

that it brings forth not hardening and new guilt but rather love.'70 Jesus

did not think that the forgiveness he imparted had only a negative effect :

the elimination of punishment and the removal of a bad conscience. Surely

he intended that the forgiveness he granted have a positive and visible

effect. It was to be 'the foundation of a new behavior with new norms and

new obedience.'71 It aims at changing the one forgiven into the one who

forgives, that is, who loves, who is merciful as his Father in heaven is merciful. This aim fmds expression in the parable of the unforgiving servant (Mt 1 8 : 23-3 5).

The emphasis of this parable is not first to instruct about the theological

possibility of being a forgiving person but rather to admonish and warn

that it is necessary to be such a person if one is to experience mercy on

the judgment day . Linnemann (Gleichnisse , p 1 1 3 ) sees v 35 as a wrong

interpretation of J esus' parable because it 'lets the parable appear as a

threat which it really is not.' She therefore takes issue (p 1 72 ) with

Bultmann (History, p 1 7 7 ) and Klostermann (Ma tthiius-Evangelium,

p 1 5 3 ) who view v 35 as a correct interpretation of the parable. H owever,

while seeing the whole point of the parable in v 33 ('We should allow

ourselves to enter into the order of mercy with our whole life,' p 1 1 8 ),

she must admit that v 34 is a kind of threat: 'There is such a thing as

too late' (p 1 1 6 ). Further Linnemann disagrees with S chlatter (Matthiius,

p 5 60f) that the parable refers to forgiveness received by the disciples

through Jesus. She argues first that the parable was not addressed

originally to the disciples and second, 'The understanding of the gospel

as a message of forgiveness is an early Christian concept , but may not

be put in the mouth o::.- J esus' (p 1 73 ). To the second point J eremias

(Gleichnisse , p 2 1 0) protests rightly : 'One comes to such mistaken

judgments when one sticks to the concordance (s.v. a¢t€mt) and does

not take into account that Jesus, differently from Paul, preferred to use

not theological vocabulary so much as word pictures, parables, and

parabolic acts, in short, symbol-language .' To the first point one can

only admonish caution since we are dealing here with Sondergut. We

have no control by which to determine how the parable might have

been differently used. Viewing the parable from the subject matter we

may say, however, that if it was directed to the Jewish people as a

whole on the basis of Yahweh's mercy in history , then the principle

would apply a fortiori to the disciples who perceived that precisely in

Jesus' ministry Yahweh was graciously at work .

Jesus ' command in the context of his message

85

That Jesus' own loving reception and forgiveness of sinners is the means

by which they are enabled to fulfil the love command is not a new insight.72

However, the frequency with which scholars make this observation must

not lead us to think that it lies plainly on the surface of Jesus' message. As

we have already mentioned (p 79) Jesus does not openly expound upon

the connection between his love command and his own gracious work of

forgiveness. On the one hand he commands enemy love and makes entrance

into the Kingdom of God dependent on it, and on the other hand he

receives sinners and eats with them, thus offering his forgiving fellowship

unconditionally. He gives no discourse on the connection of these two

sides of his ministry. Such an explication would have apparently contradicted the mystery of his eschatological work.

Our claim that the connection we have described does in fact exist,

rests on an attempt to penetrate beneath the surface of Jesus' message. 73

We have tried to show that Jesus' love command is a call for a man's transformation, a transformation which, however, only God can perform. We have also tried to show that Jesus himself personally granted God's forgiveness and acceptance. And we have fmally drawn the conclusion that Jesus did not view God's work of transforming a man, on the one hand, and his

own impartation of divine forgiveness, on the other hand, as two unrelated

events. Mt 1 8 : 23 ff and Lk 7 : 4 1 ff, as well as the nature of the events

themselves, point in the opposite direction. The transforming work of God

which enables obedience of the love command, and the forgiving fellowship of Jesus with sinners form a unity. In this way we may penetrate beneath the surface of Jesus' teaching and see the fundamental connection

between his love command and his forgiving fellowship with sinners. Jesus

grants what he commands. The conditions for entering the coming Kingdom are enabled by the hidden, powerful presence of that Kingdom in Jesus.

We may take a quick glance back to the question raised by our survey

at the beginning of the chapter (p 75); What does Jesus' command of

enemy love have to do with God? The answer of Machovec, Braun and

Niederwimmer is that the love command can be adequately explained

without reference to God. But in the light of our study we may seriously

doubt whether it is Jesus ' love command which is there being explained. If

the main lines of our study have been correct, then Jesus ' love command is

unintelligible apart from its relation to the heavenly Father. In the first

place it is the nature of God which determines the content of the love

command. Second, the love command aims at repentance - the transformation of a man which sets him in a new relationship to God as well as to men. And finally it is the omnipotent kindness of God which enables the

fulftlment of the love command.

Love your enemies

86

D. Jesus ' Command of Enemy Love as a Sign of the Kingdom

Mter seeing that Jesus' love command is not an accidental condition for

entry into the Kingdom of God, but is determined by the nature of the

Kingdom itself (p 79), and having seen that it is the powers of the new

age in Jesus' ministry of forgiveness which enable the fulfilment of his

commands, it is not surprising to find that in discussions of Jesus' ethic the

love command (along with the rest of Jesus' message and work) and its

fulftlment is frequently called a sign of the Kingdom of God. 74 In this

section we will ask in what sense this designation of Jesus' love command

is appropriate.

It is instructive to broaden our textual base here by drawing into consideration the saying of Jesus which describes the disciples' obligation as

'servants' (Mk 1 0 :43t). 'If anyone would be first, he must be last of all

and servant of all.'

Flender (Botschaft, p 63) states in this context : 'The pre- and post

Easter traditions of the numerous synoptic sayings about service are

not easy to distinguish . For to the early church Jesus was a servant

(Lk 2 2 : 2 7 ) above all through the sacrifice of his life (Mk 1 0 : 4 5 ) . The

sayings about hierarchy (of least and greatest) seem to me m ost clearly

to be attached to the earthly Jesus. With regard to the table regulations

in Lk 1 4 : 7 - 1 4 [he excludes vv 1 2-1 4 from the original] the fact that a

marriage feast is in view , the OT picture of the time of salvation (Mk

2 : 1 9 ; Mt 22 : 2 ), speaks for the originality of the saying. If one takes this

as the basis, then vv 7-1 1 d escribe in a parable (v 7) the eschatological

order which God establishes by the humbling of the proud and the

exalting of the lowly . . . The question of hierarchy is taken up in Mk

9 : 33 -3 7 and reveals there the transition to the concept of service . Thus

it is evident that the church applied the (diesseitige) eschatological

hierarchy of Jesus' proclamation to its own arrangements of serving.'

But if it is granted that Lk 1 4 : 1 1 ('everyone who exalts himself will be

humble d , and everyone who humbles himself will be exalted') is original

(as do also Jeremias, Gleich nisse, p 5 0 ; and Dibelius, From Tradition to

Gospel, p 248 ) , then the subject matter of Mk 1 0 :43 ,44 belongs in the

teaching of J esus. The question is whether Jesus spoke in terms of

'serving' and 'servants ' (o tat<Ovew , o tdKovoc;). First, we note that the

word group applied to Jesus or his disciples is not restricted to any one

level in the tradition (M - Mt 2 5 : 44 ; L - Lk 1 2 : 3 7 ; 1 7 : 8 ; Mk - Mk

1 0 : 4 3 f). Second , we must pose the question to Flender: Where did the

church's Dienstordnung come from? In the early church 'service' is an

esteemed function (I Cor 1 2 : 5 ; Rom 1 2 : 7) and even the apostles know

themselves as 'servants' (I Cor 3 : 5 ) . But this esteem of O taKOVta is not

the attitude of the church's environment (cf TDNT II, p 8 3 ) . Is it not

more probable that Jesus' own teaching on service influenced the

church than vice versa?

Jesus ' command in the context of his message

8 7

I t i s not illegitimate t o view the service referred to here a s a paraphrase

of the love which Jesus commands elsewhere (Mt 5 :43 -48). Both involve

self-renunciation for the sake of another. Both are promised a reward. Love

is related to the love of God (Mt 5 :45,48 ; Lk 6 :36); service is related to

the mission of Jesus (Mk 10 :45). Both set the disciples off from the gentiles

(Mt 5 :47 ; Mk 10 :42). This distinctiveness from the gentiles makes it

possible that love/service could be a sign of the inbreaking Kingdom of

God. 'With those who serve rather than rule, with the disciples of Jesus,

the new order of God's Kingdom appears as a sign (zeichenhaft) in this

world.'75 But how is the sign-quality to be understood?

In the following, when we refer to the behavior of the disciples, we

mean the behavior J esus was aiming at in his love command rather than

the behavior the disciples actually produced during Jesus' earthly days.

We know too little about the disciples' daily lives and what we do know

is not always exemplary (e.g. , Lk 9 : 54-5 6 ). What we are interested in is

whether in Jesus' understanding of his love command there w as that

which justifies the designation of the command of enemy love as a sign

of the Kingdom of God .

The disciple who obeys Jesus' command of enemy love and is thus the

'servant of all' would have already begun to live as he will live in the consummated Kingdom, and therefore his behavior would be now a sign of how it will be then. But according to Jesus the experience of the disciple

who loves and serves now is not the same as it will be in the coming age .

If he is last now, he will be first then (Mt 1 9 :30; 20 : 1 6 ; Mk 1 0 :3 1 ;

Lk 1 3 :30). 76 If he is humbled now, he will then be exalted (Lk 14 : 1 1 ;

1 8 : 14). What he loses through service he will gain back a hundredfold

(Mt 19 : 29 ; Mk 1 0 :30f). That is to say the Kingdom of God will be an age

of glory and gain, not disgrace and loss. In this sense the present experience

of one who obeys Jesus' love command and is thus humiliated and hurt by

a blow on the cheek is anything but the reflection or sign of how it will be

in the coming age of glory . Commenting on Mk 10 :42 Beyer says, 'The

aim of Jesus and his disciples is not to set up human orders in this world.

Their concern is with the Kingdom of God and the age of glory . But the

way to this goal leads through suffering and death.'77 The sign of the age

of glory is apparently, then, not glory. In this sense the breaking in of the

Kingdom is not a breaking in of precisely that which will be. Thus the

question becomes the more urgent. How can obedience to the love

command which is characterized by service, humiliation, suffering be a

sign of the age of glory?

The glory of the new age consists at least in the abolition of all evil. For

the glory of the new age is the glory of God. This glory will mean exaltation

Love your enemies

88

and reward for the followers of Jesus insofar as the glory of their heavenly

Father is their greatest delight (Mt 6 :9b par; cf 5 : 16).78 But where evil has

not yet been abolished, to delight in the glory of the Father does not mean

exaltation and reward but humiliation and suffering; for the essence of evil

and the character of this evil age is that men seek not God's glory but their

own (Mk 10:42 ; Mt 6 : 1 ff; 23 : 12 ; Lk 18 :9-14; Jn 5 :44). Where this fundamental contradiction of life goals exists among men, conflict is inevitable (Lk 1 2 : 5 1-53 par79). 1n this conflict those who follow Jesus' teaching,

that is, those who have their treasure in heaven (Mt 6 :20 par), who trust

their heavenly Father to supply all their needs (Mt 6 :3 0-33 par), and who

desire that their good works give glory to their Father in heaven (Mt 6 :9b

par; 5: 16), will not seek to preserve their own honor, safety or possessions

at the cost of another (Mt 5 : 39-42). They will serve rather than be served,

for in this they set themselves off from the sons of this age and manifest

the sufficiency and willingness of their heavenly Father to give them all

'good things' (Mt 7 : 1 1 ).80

Therefore, when the disciple obeys Jesus' love command, he signifies

that his own hardness ofheart81 with its bondage to evil has been overcome and that the powers of the future age of glory are already effective in him enabling him to renounce earthly esteem and security. To the

degree that one's life goal is determined by his hardness of heart, by the

evil of this age, to this degree will one see such behavior as offensive. On

the other hand, to the extent that one's hardness of heart is overcome, to

this extent will one see clearly that this behavior is a sign of the Kingdom

of God.

The command of Jesus and the fulfilment at which it aimed are thus

seen to be a reflex of Jesus' own mission . While he proclaimed that in

his work the Kingdom of God had come (Lk 1 1 :20 par) yet he did not

assume the role of a king. Although the Kingdom was in the midst of the

people (Lk 1 7 : 2 1 ) and the new age of salvation had dawned (Mt 1 1 :2-6),

the signs of glory which the Jews demanded were missing (Lk 1 7 :20;

cf Mt 12:39/Lk 1 1 :29 ; Mt 1 3 :3 lf). Jesus' ministry was a real sign of the

inbreaking Kingdom of God. But just as Jesus' ministry contradicted the

expectations of the Jews, so also his command of enemy love and its

fulfilment contradict the natural inclinations of the human heart. The

sign may , therefore, be seen and not perceived, heard and not understood.

It may be an offence rather than a revelation.

Jesus ' command in the context of his message

89

III. Jesus' Command of Enemy Love and the Law

A. Non-Resistance (Mt 5:39-42) vs the Lex Talionis (Ex 21 :24)

Jesus' command not to resist evil (Mt 5 :3 9-42) demands the opposite of

the Old Testament legal principle, 'an eye for an eye and a tooth for a

tooth' (Mt 5 :38 ; cf Ex 2 1 :24 ; Lev 24 :20; Dt 1 9 : 2 1 ). If and when Jesus'

word is binding, then the other is not. Jesus makes no effort here to

integrate the two commands into a consistent whole. As the individual

interpretative examples in Mt suggest, Jesus' command applies to both

personal (5 :39b ,42) and legal (5 :4 1 ) affairs, to both physical (5 :39b) and

property (5 :4 1 ) damage. The antithesis between this Old Testament legal

principle and Jesus' command is real. Taken absolutely they exclude each

other; they are contradictory. Jesus was in some sense abolishing the lex

talionis. 82

But on what basis could Jesus lay aside a commandment in the Old

Testament? For he explicitly recognized the divine origin and authority

of the Old Testament (Mk 1 :44; 7 : 1 3 ; 10: 1 8 par; cf Mt 5 : 1 7ff; 23 :3).83

He has harsh words for others who 'reject the commandment of God'

(Mk 7 :984). What makes the difference in this case? In order to answer this

question it will help to take into consideration another text in which Jesus

lays aside another Old Testament commandment but in this instance

justifies his procedure. It is fitting to consider this text here, for as Jeremias

has said it is 'the key to the understanding of all Jesus' ethical demands.'85

I am referring to Mk 1 0 :2-9.86

Here the Pharisees ask Jesus if it is lawful for a man to divorce his wife

(v 2). Jesus asks in tum what Moses had commanded (v 3). They answer

that Moses allowed a man to write a bill of divorcement and put his wife

away (v 4). Jesus' own command, in contrast, is: 'What God has joined

together let not man put asunder' (v 9). Jesus offers a two-fold defense of

his response : he describes Dt 24 : 1 as a 'commandment' made to the people

as a concession on account of the hardness of their hearts (1rpck T?}v

aK AflPOKOLpfJ iotv bp.wv, v 5) and he supports this description by appealing

to two other Old Testament texts (Gen 1 :27; 2 :24) which reveal that

God's original intention in creating male and female was that they become

one in an indissoluble marriage (vv 6-8).

The most important conclusion we can draw from this incident for our

purpose is this: whereas once God made concessions on account of the

hardness of man's heart and thus provided a control of the evil effects of

that hard heart, Jesus now abolishes such concessions.8 7 The explanation

for this action lying nearest at hand is that Jesus presupposes that a change

is taking place so that men no longer have hard hearts.88 His appeal to the

Love your enemies

90

pristine period of hwnan history (Gen 2 : 24) supports this explanation, as

does the conclusion reached earlier (pp 78f) that Jesus' radical commands

aim at the transformation of a man, i.e., at repentance, or we may now say,

at a new heart.89

Does the argUm.ent which Jesus uses here to justify his setting aside an

Old Testament commandment also lie tacitly behind his rejection of the

lex talionis? Let us approach the fifth antithesis (Mt 5 :38f) via the fourth

(Mt 5 :33f). As Jesus abolishes the lex talionis in the fifth antithesis, so he

abolishes the Old Testament rule of swearing to the Lord (Nwn 30:2 ; Dt

23 :2 1 ) in the fourth antithesis. 90 But in M t 5 :3 7 Jesus goes so far as to

say that anything more than 'Yes, yes' and 'No, no' is from evil (€K rov

TrOV'r/PoV). 91 That is, he does not just set aside the Old Testament rule ; he

says that it springs from evil. Schlatter asks: 'How could Jesus have seen a

Satanic element in the law?'92 He finds the answer by relating this saying

of Jesus to the one we have discussed in Mt 1 9 :8 ( Mk 10: 5). Just as

=

there the bill of divorcement was a concession to man's hardness of heart

and a partial control of its evil effects, so here 'The law wrestles with the

sinfulness of man and erects the oath as a dam against lying.'93 But again

this means that Jesus' elimination of all oaths presupposes that the source

of oaths is also being eliminated, namely the evil in men's hearts which

causes lying.

We may, therefore, in the same way, understand Jesus' rejection of the

lex talionis in the fifth antithesis.94 Even more obviously than divorce and

oath-taking is the lex talionis an accommodation to the evil in men's hearts

and a curb on the effects of that evil. 95 The lex talionis stipulates 'life for

life' (Ex 2 1 :23 ; Dt 1 9 : 2 1), but God's will is 'You shall not kill' (Ex 20: 13);

you are your brother's keeper (Gen 4 :9). Due to man's hardness of heart

he injures and kills his fellow man. God therefore gives by concession a

legal regulation as a dam against the river of violence which flows from

man's evil heart. Therefore the abolishing of this legal principle , upon

which the order of society rests (see notes 1 14, 1 1 5), evidently also has in

view the overcoming of man's hardness of heart.

A change of heart which makes superfluous the written law of Moses

is proclaimed by the prophet Jeremiah (3 1 :3 1 -34 ; 32 :3 7ff). It is a part of

the 'new covenant' which Yahweh is to make with his people. Ezekiel

(36 :26 ; cf 1 1 : 19) describes this change as a replacement of a heart of

stone (riw KapoUx.v T�v 1\dJivrw, LXX) with a heart of flesh.96 The sins of

the people would be forgiven (Jer 3 1 :34; Ez 36 :25) and there would be

perfect obedience of God from the heart (Jer 3 1 :33 ; Ez 36 :27). With the

fulf11ment of such a prophecy a new age must begin. We have seen that

Jesus presupposed the elimination of the hardness of men's hearts when he

Jesus ' command in the context of his message

91

made his radical demands. If Jesus saw this change in men's hearts as a

fulftlment (even if partial) of the Old Testament prophecy of Jeremiah

and Ezekiel then he must have seen a new age beginning. More than that,

the beginning of this new age is, therefore, the presupposition of his radical

commands.97

Jesus' command to love your enemy and not to resist evil is thus a call

for a new heart98 - a call grounded in and released by the mysterious dawn

of the new age of salvation. That Jesus took a critical stance toward the

law and eliminated certain aspects of it is a result of the eschatological

situation he was bringing. What he denounced was not the perfect will of

God which he also saw in the Old Testament (Mk 7 :8 ,9), but rather any

compromise of this will of God for the sake of man's hardness of heart.

Insofar as the law was an instrument by which men regulated their lives

in coexistence with evil, it is being abolished in view of the in breaking

Kingdom of God. Jesus' command of enemy love was a summons to

advance this abolition and a call to experience the power and blessing of

the new era which he was bringing.

B. Enemy L ove (Mt 5:44 par Lk) vs Neighbor Love {Lev 19:18)

Turning to the sixth antithesis we may ask whether a similar attitude to

the Torah is expressed by Jesus here. Because of the uncertainty of the

background of the sentence, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your

enemy,'99 we shall proceed not from the stated antithesis of Mt 5 :43f but

rather from an attempt to see Jesus' words in their historical setting. The

situation into which Jesus spoke his command was one in which love was a

very limited affair. Josephus witnesses to the hate the Jews had for the

Romans. 100 Within Judaism, the Pharisees tended to exclude the non

Pharisees.101 In Qumran, hate was commanded for all 'the sons of Darkness' ( l QS 1 : 10). In the synagogue, the Old Testament command 'Love your neighbor as yourself (Lev 1 9 : 18) was interpreted so that neighbor

excluded the non-proselytized non-Israelite (see 4 7t). Thus the widespread attitude of non-love to outsiders was ostensibly grounded in an Old Testament regulation.

The question we must raise is this: when Jesus in this situation demanded, 'Love your enemies,' was he attacking only the scribal interpretation of the Old Testament command in Lev 1 9 : 18, or was he also attacking

the Old Testament command itself? We have seen earlier that Jesus did not

hesitate to oppose parts of the Torah (Mk 1 0 : 5 ; Mt 5 :33f, 38t), so that it

is not impossible that he is in similar fashion here opposing a commandment of the law. The perceptive Jew must have viewed Jesus' love command as an attack on the Torah, first, because it contradicted his understanding

Love your enemies

92

of Lev 19:18 and, second, because it seemed in general to devaluate the

distinction between Jew and gentile - a distinction grounded in the Torah.

Jesus' command to love the enemy as well as the friend contained the seed

for the dissolution of the Jewish distinctive .102

The Jews were not completely mistaken about Jesus' attitude toward

the law. Lev 19: 18 really did refer to neighbor in a limited sense (see

pp 30f). There were other commands relating to love, some more positive,

some less; but it was just this mixed collection of regulations on love and

non-love which provided the soil in which the scribal casuistry flourished.

As long as the Old Testament was seen merely as a collection of varied and

equivocal sayings, the scribes were, in fact, able to ground their limited

love command in Lev 1 9:18. Therefore, when Jesus commanded 'Love

your enemy !', he attacked not only the scribal limitation oflove but also

its ostensible Old Testament support. As a source of a legal regulation in

which men seek a feasible course of action which allows for human

weakness and dilutes the perfect demand of God, Lev 19: 18 must be

contradicted, abolished.

Jesus' attitude to the law in this matter will become clearer if we bring

in the double love command (Mk 12:30f par) alongside the conclusion

we have just come to. All three evangelists record that Jesus combined

(or approved of the combination in Lk) Dt 6 : 5 and Lev 19: 18 , offering

the two commands as the will of God without criticism. After the conclusion we have come to above, is it possible that Jesus could express himself so positively with regard to Lev 19: 18? To answer this question we will enter into a brief discussion with a recent attempt to determine the

origin of the tradition of the double love command.

A recent detailed study of the double command of love is Christoph

Burchard's 'Das doppelte Liebesgebot in der friihen christlichen

Uberlieferung.' His conclusion concerning the authenticity of the double

command : 'The double love command was not created by Jesus and did

not come into the Christian tradition through him.' 103 A brief outline of

his argument runs as follows. Neither Mt nor Lk represent older tradition

than Mk, so that we are dependent on Mk for our probe behind traditions

(pp 5 0f). 104 The question of the scribe in Mk 1 2 : 2 8 , 'Which commandment is the first of all?' and Jesus' answer, which gives a 'first' and

'second' commandment ( 1 2 :29, 3 1 ), do not correspond to the Pales-

tinian view of the law. There were attempts to summarize the law and to

break the commandments down into small and great , but each always retained

absolute validity. 105 'The Rabbis appear never to speak of a first commandment' (p 54). However, while the Palestinian sources do not help, 'There is in the tradition of the Diaspora a series of places which explicitly or substantially combine the attribute "first" with the sentence about one God

[Mk 1 2 : 29 ] , about God as creator, etc.' (p 54). He cites a quote from

Jesus ' command in the context of his message

93

Josephus Against Apion II. l 90, and then concludes that in Mk 1 2 : 2 8, 29

'The question and the answer are/were conceived together. That would

mean that there was no freely circulating double love comm and which

constituted the germ of the tradition' (pp 54 f).

Burchard concedes, however, that the authenticity of at least the mere

double love command 'could nevertheless be right, especially if the

double love command as such or its function with respect to the Torah

were a Novum ' (p 5 5 ). In fact, as Burchard notes, the combination of

quotations from Dt 6 : 5 and Lev 1 9 : 1 8 is unparalleled in the Jewish

sources. Apart from this formal uniqueness, however, he attempts to

show that the substance and function of the double love comm and is

found already in Hellenistic Jewish sources {p 5 5 ). He cites Test. Iss.

5 : 2 ( a),fl.d tx:yomf!aotre TOV Kvpwv KG!t TOV 1fl\'(/OWV 1f'TJVETG! Kat' &a8evfl

eA.ef!aaTe) and Test. Dan 5 : 3 (&:yarrf!aare TOV KVPWV ev rr&av rfl �wfl VJJ.WV

Kat'aii.A.f!A.ovc; ev cXA1J8wfl) as the nearest in formulation to Mk 1 2 : 30f,

3 3 . As he admits, the commands are not called 'first' or 'second' nor do

they provide a sum of all the other commandments. Then he cites Philo ,

De spec. leg. 11 .63 , wherein Philo refers to .S uo Ta lxvwr&rw K ecp&A.ma,

TO re rrpoc; Oeov &' evae{3e!ac: 1wi bawT'TJroc; ,Kai TO rrpoc; i:xv8pwrrovc: .Stlx

¢tfl.av8pwmixc: Kai O LI< G!WOVV'TJC: . As Burchard interprets, 'The cXVWTfrTW

K ecp&A.ata are superscriptions for the two tables of the Decalogue . . .'

(p 56). Here we have , then, something like a summary of the law but

the summary is not expressed in commands nor is there any reference

to love of God or neighbor. On the basis of these parallels Burchard

concludes that the double love command is not new and therefore was

taken up by the early church from Hellenistic Judaism and put in

Jesus' m outh (p 5 7 ) .

Burchard seems to have left out a very significant part o f the demonstration of his contention mentioned above, namely , that the 'Substanz '

of the double love command is �iidisch vorgebildet.' Nowhere does

Burchard probe into what the double love command in itself is

substan tially commanding. The result of this exclusively formalistic

approach is that he can say , 'The double command (like the whole

OT) is to be sure the common possession of Jews and Christians, but

the Jews do not keep it, as the parable of the Samaritan shows' {p 59).

What does he mean that the double love command is the 'common

possession' of Jews and Christians? By his own concessions the formal

divergences are clear (see above). But if we probe into the substantial

mean ing of the two concegtions {which Burchard does not do) the

divergences appear again. 1 If we use the command 'Love your

neighbor as yourself' as a point of reference, is it possible to

describe the double love command merely as a common possession

of Jews and Christians? Did the evangelists understand it thus?

First, Lk is not merely saying in the parable of the good Samaritan that

Christians obey the double love command and the Jews do not . He is

saying also that the lawyer has fundamentally missed the point of his

own command by asking 'Who is my neighbor? ' In other words, the

lawyer's understanding of the double love command and Jesus' under-

Love your enemies

94

standing are not identical. Second, Mt sees the whole law and prophets

hanging on the double love command (22 : 40). But after his severe

criticism of mere neighbor-love in Mt 5 : 43-4 8 , are we to think that, for

Mt, Jesus' double love command is merely a common possession with

Judaism? Does Mt think that Jesus and the scribes meant the same

thing by 'Love your neighbor as yourself'? Third, while in Mk Jesus

does approve of the scribe's response ( 1 2 :34), his own statement, 'You

are not far from the Kingdom of God,' probably means not that there is

something more besides these two commands,107 but rather that the

scribe is on the brink of penetrating to Jesus' real intention in these two

commands. 108

For the evangelists, therefore (at least Mt and Lk), Burchard's statement

does not hold . Jesus' double love command is not for them a mere

common possession between Jews and Christians. For the Christians

'Love your neighbor as yourself' meant far more than it did for the

Jewish contemporaries. For them Jesus abolished the rabbinical

nationalistic interpretation of 'neighbor' (see pp 4 7f). Nor can the

Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs or Philo109 account for the substance of the Christian double command of love (see pp 39, 43ff).

The question of authenticity is whether the evangelists have Christianized

a Jewish double commandment on the basis of what they knew of Jesus'

teaching, e .g., on enemy love; or whether Jesus himself used the double

love command, transforming it in accordance with his other teaching.

In favor of the latter alternative - that Jesus used the double love

command - is, first, that nowhere in the Jewish literature do we find

Dt 6 : 5 and Lev 1 9 : 1 8 j oine·d like this;UO and, second, as Bornkamm

observes, 'The summarizing of the whole Torah in the command to

love God and neighbor may be d esignated . . . as a distinctive of the

proclamation of Jesus.'1 1 1 And we may suggest, third, that the parable

of the good Samaritan (Lk 1 0 : 29-37), although its context in Lk may

not be original, 1 12 nevertheless renders the essence of Jesus' understanding of neighbor love and, therefore , shows that the words 'Love your neighbor as yourself in the double love command would have in

Jesus' mouth constituted the 'Novum' which Burchard says is the sine

q ua non of authenticity.1 13

It is not our purpose to go beyond this to determine the various

redactional usages of Jesus' double love command, nor shall we try to

specify the exact context(s) into which Jesus spoke it. It is sufficient for

our present purpose to conclude merely that it is probable that Jesus did

express himself in the double love command - he did so positively with no

outward criticism of the two elements of the Torah which he was quoting.

In other words, in the double commandment Jesus took up Lev 1 9 : 1 8 and

proclaimed it as the perfect will of God.

In Section liLA, we faced the problem that Jesus, who at times sees

the perfect will of God in the Old Testament commandments, at other

Jesus ' command in the context of his message

95

times sees other Old Testament commandments in one sense as imperfect

compromises of this will. The one he affirms, the other he rejects. Here in

Section B the problem is different: the same Old Testament commandment

is both affirmed and rejected. Lev 1 9 : 1 8 stands in conflict with Jesus'

command of enemy love and yet he announces this Old Testament command

along with Dt 6 : 5 as the unadulterated will of God. What lies behind this

paradoxical attitude toward Lev 19 : 18?

A part of the explanation for Jesus' procedure is his rejection of the

limited meaning of 'neighbor' in Lev 1 9 : 1 8 . In the parable of the good

Samaritan (Lk 1 0 :29-3 7) and in the command of enemy love (Mt 5 :44-

47 par Lk) Jesus denies that it is God's will that the command of love be

limited to friends or countrymen.U4 Therefore, when Jesus commands

enemy love on the one hand and neighbor love on the other, he is not

contradicting himself. But why did Jesus choose to formulate the positive

will of God by attaching to Dt 6 :5 a commandment which was at least

ambiguous, and the accepted meaning of which was contrary to his

intention?

We may suppose that Jesus used the Old Testament commandment, first,

because he does intend for the 'neighbor' in the Old Testament sense, the

fellow Israelite, to be loved; this is the will of God. But he uses it also as

a criticism of the restriction on love which was assumed to be in the

commandment. This criticism could be better accomplished by employing

the command in a new sense than by ignoring it. Jesus could take up this

element of the Torah and make it the expression of the perfect will of God

only because he had abolished it as an equivocal, legal regulation by which

a man, through casuistic application, could justify himself. Jesus' new

usage of the command excluded the possibility of even asking the question

'Who is my neighbor?' (Lk 1 0 :29). Therefore, Jesus' announcement of the

will of God in the double love command was at the same time an implicit

criticism of the contemporary understanding of the apparently equivocal

Old Testament command of neighbor love.

C. Abolition vs Continuation of the Law

I admit from the outset that the question I will try to answer in this

closing section is one which Jesus neither asked nor explicitly answered.

Nevertheless it is a question which any Christian who takes seriously the

contemporary importance of the teaching of his Lord cannot avoid. The

general problem we are dealing with is the abiding validity of the law in

view of Jesus' criticism of it. We will limit ourselves to one small question

which is yielded by the following facts. Jesus' command of enemy love

abolishes the lex talionis on the presupposition that the hardness of men's

Love your enemies

96

hearts is being overcome (pp 90f); the love command is thus no less than a

command that this renewal of heart happen. We saw earlier that this

renewal or conversion is possible because the powers of the Kingdom of

God are already at work in Jesus' ministry. The specific question posed by

these conclusions is: Can or should a disciple of Jesus under the influence

of these powers ever render an eye for an eye or a tooth for a tooth?

We have described the lex talionis (along with the bill of divorcement

and oaths, p 90) as a divine accommodation to the evil in men's hearts

for a curb on the effects of that evil. Looking more closely we see that the

lex talionis exists not merely to restrict retaliation but also to restrict

crime. The evil society that gave rise to the need for this statute was both

the evil that makes a man put out your eye and the evil that makes you

then want to put out both of his. The entire elimination of this legal principle from human society must presuppose that not only those who are injured can return good for evil, but that also no one will do evil in the

first place. In other words its entire elimination presupposes the overcoming

of all hardness of heart in all men. It presupposes the glorious new age, the

consummation of the Kingdom of God. Until that time the complete

elimination of this 'foundation of all civil order'115 would mean the

destruction of human society .116

At this point the problem of Jesus' love command is most acute - at the

point, namely, where we must decide its intention for our action in the

face of the human reality of evil (i.e., in the face of the lex talionis which

is the legal counterpart of this evil). At this point, therefore , the various

interpretations of the feasibility of Jesus' radical demand divide most

clearly .117 An 'interim ethic' takes seriously the heroic, literal fulftlment of

Jesus' command without regard to the societal effects because society for

Jesus is unimportant, the end is so near. A 'Gesinnungsethik' takes seriously

the realistic historical possibilities and tends to reduce fulfJlment of the

love command to the development of a loving disposition. The classic

Catholic view takes sober account of human ability and the effect on society

if all Christians literally followed Jesus' love command, and so it construes

the literal fulfJlment of the command as a special task for a few. Luther

attempts to preserve both society and the strict fulfilment of the love

command by restricting literal fulfllment to those instances where only my

concern is at stake. Visionary literalists see the love command as the standard of all personal, social and national action which should transform all spheres of human life. In this array of opinions no consensus is reached

on whether the disciples of Jesus can or should ever act according to the

lex talionis.

To attempt an answer to this question which will accord with Jesus'

Jesus ' command in the context of his message

9 7

intention (which i s all we can hope t o do, since he did not address the

problem directly) we should state clearly again the two seemingly contradictory elements of his preaching. The one we have already elaborated : Jesus' radical demands abolish certain elements o f the Torah (Mk 1 0:2 9 ;

-

Mt 5 :34 ,39). The other element is Jesus' conviction that th e Torah is valid

in its entirety Y8 In all likelihood the saying (in Q?) behind l.k 1 6 : 1 7 and

Mt 5 : 1 8 goes back to Jesus himself and is intended to stress the enduring

validity of the law down to its smallest details.119 For our study the contrast can be put thus: Jesus said in effect that the law (which includes the lex talionis) has enduring validity, but he also said that, when one strikes

you on the cheek, you are not to strike back, you are to do good to those

who hate you and bless those who curse you. The lex talionis is valid and

it is not valid.

Were this the only such paradox in Jesus' message and ministry we

would be hard put to offer an explanation for it. But it is not the only one.

Jesus' proclamation of the Kingdom of God, as we have seen, involves a

similar paradox: the Kingdom of God is present and active but is also not

yet present (p 79). It is reasonable to expect that the paradox of the

abolition and continuing validity of the law will fmd its solution, if at all,

in relation to this central paradox of the present and yet future Kingdom

of God. In fact, as it appears, the former is an inevitable reflex of the latter.

The present breaking in of the Kingdom in a hidden way begins to overcome evil, thus making all elements of the law which stem from this evil (p 90) unnecessary; the remaining future of the Kingdom means that evil

and historical life are not eliminated and that those same elements of the

law still serve in part the purpose they always did.120

Here we must make two qualifications of this eschatological tension.

(1) Since the Kingdom of God in Jesus' ministry was hidden and partial,

the chronological categories of present and future are not fully adequate

to explain the Kingdom's work. It is true to say the Kingdom is present,

but you have not thereby determined where it is present, or at what

particular moments its powers are being displayed, or how it looks when

it is manifesting itself. (2) Because the Kingdom is hidden and partial we

cannot think of individual people as completely and consistently under

the powers of the age to come such that their behavior would always and

unequivocally be distinguished from the behavior determined by this age.

For these two reasons, which are grounded in Jesus' fundamental

message of the mysterious in breaking of the Kingdom, we cannot say that

a disciple of Jesus, who has come under the powers of the new age, cannot

or should not at times act according to the lex talionis. Since God has

willed to accomplish redemption through a hidden working of his power

Love your enemies

98

without the dissolution of the world and historical life, therefore he must

have_a purpose in preserving the world. To be called into God's Kingdom

can mean nothing less than acknowledging the rightness of God's purposes

and placing oneself at his disposal for their accomplishment. This means

that a disciple of Jesus serves God not merely as a witness to the in breaking

new age through a radically new way of life (free from fear and worry in

dependence on God), but also as an obedient agent of the creation who

contributes to the preservation of this world as long as God wills. Because

the Kingdom of God is now hidden, there are no ethical manifestos that

everyone can consult to determine when to denounce retaliation and when

to execute it. The eschatological tension into which the disciple is placed

by Jesus' love command is thus a continual challenge to become a 'good

tree' which naturally bears good fruit, i.e., it is a challenge to repent and

set one's whole treasure in God alone.

The apparent conflict between non-resistance o f evil on the one

hand and resistance for love's sake on the other has been discussed in

an excellent article by Luise Schottroff, 'Gewaltverzicht und Feindesliebe in der urchristlichen Jesustradition : Mt 5 : 3 8-4 8 ; Lk 6 : 27-36'

( 1 9 7 5 ). She approached the problem differently from me. Instead of

seeing the conflict between the law (lex talionis) and the command of

Jesus (Mt 5 : 38 ) , she sees it between the command not to resist evil

(Mt 5 : 3 8 ) on the one hand and the command for 'active love' (Mt 5 :44)

on the other (pp 202 , 2 1 9). 'If one takes his starting point from Mt 5 :

44f par and an interpretation of enemy love as an active love, then the

demand to put up with injustice becomes a rid dle. Abstaining from

resistance, i.e. a total submission to unjust demands of one's enemy,

cannot be called love' (p 2 1 9) . 'Why is resistance forbidden and next to

it active enemy love commanded? What is the act of love supposed to

be when one simply offers the enemy the other cheek? - His wrong

will only be made greater' (p 203).

Nevertheless Schottroff insists that the context demands that nonresistance and active enemy love be held together. She seeks a solution through a socio-political analysis of the text. Reflection upon the

content of the command of enemy love shows 'the active necessity o f

a sozialgeschich tlichen Fragestellung. The ones who love and the

enemies in Mt 5 :44ff par cannot be viewed as separated from their

social reality' (p 202). Therefore a specific occasion in the social

relations of early Christianity is sought in which the prohibition of

resistance would have concrete significance. The solution of the riddle

must be found in the concrete social relations because 'on the level of

a timelessly valid ethic the riddle is unsolvable' (p 2 1 9).

Following the direction of P. Hoffmann121 and M . Hengel,122 Schottroff

sees a political situation in which zealotism is rejected. 'Mt 5 : 39-4 1

par would then be - directed inwardly - a demand to make no plans for

a rebellion or for violent resistance and - directed outwardly - an

Jesus ' command in the context of his message

99

asseveration of peaceful intentions, a political apologetic : we are not

revolutionaries' (p 2 1 9 ). In other words only 'a definite kind of

resistance' is being rejected but not 'every kind of resistance' (p 220).

In response to Schottroff's argument I would first observe that her

sense for the tension between active enemy love and total non-resistance

to evil is accurate. Also it is wholly appropriate to pose the sociopolitical question so that commands bound to one social relationship are not unthinkingly transferred to another. And it is a needed corrective

that she has laid all the stress on the active practice of love for the sake

of the loved enemy123 as opposed to an over-emphasis on the inner

freedom of the one loving (pp 1 97f, 2 1 6). Finally, that Jesus was no

zealot and rejected that path (Lk 22 : 3 8 , 5 1 ) makes it feasible that his

commands of non-resistance would, at least in part, be understood in

that context as a rejection of political rebellion. But the context of

Mt 5 : 3 8-48 p ar, as well as the paraenetic use of this material in the

epistles, suggest that the political situation does notrrovide the crucial

context into which these commands were spoken. 1 Rather the specific

details of turning the other cheek , being sued for a coat, giving to

beggars, loaning freely, praying for persecutors, greeting the unfriendly ,

etc. reflect a context of ordinary daily life on the one hand and religious

hostility on the other.

The resolution of the tension between active love and non-resistance

lies then not only in recognizing a possible limiting political context but

also in recognizing that even at the most personal level the commands

of non-resistance and acquiescence are not absolute prescriptions with

no exceptions, but rather are pointed, concrete illustrations of how

enemy love may and should often look in the life of a disciple. That

these illustrations are not always the way enemy love acts is clear from

Jesus' own behavior125 and from the nature of love itself as that which

aims at the best life for the beloved.

4

THE USE A N D M E AN IN G O F J E SU S ' C O M M AN D

OF E N E M Y LOVE I N T H E E A RLY C H RISTIAN

PARAE N E S IS

I. Preliminary Remarks

We concluded at the end of Chapter 1 that the tradition behind the

written New Testament paraenesis probably did not consist of fixed codes.

We suggested, rather, that there was a large fund of oral, 1 traditional

material systematized only loosely under different themes (e .g., church

order, behavior toward fellow Christians, behavior toward non-Christians,

personal piety). In these thematic groupings there was apparently much

formal variation. From this fund of paraenetic material the New Testament writers drew out what was useful and, within certain essential limitations, adapted it freely.

Our purpose in this chapter is to investigate the use and meaning of

Jesus' command of enemy love in this paraenetic tradition. We have

touched on this subject already in Chapter 2 (cf Section VI). There we

put forward that the paraenetic teaching of the early church on enemy

love is set apart from its environment by that which it has in common

with Jesus (p 64) and that, therefore , the peculiar character of Jesus' love

command constituted the unique criterion according to which the non

Christian paraenetic elements were taken up into the early Christian

paraenetic tradition. In Chapter 2 (Section VI) this proposition grew out

of our analysis of the history of the tradition of Jesus' sayings on enemy

love and was thus grounded largely in formal and historical observations.

In this chapter the aim will be to test this proposition from the standpoint

of the meaning of the paraenetic love command within its theological

framework. This chapter, therefore, forms the counterpart to Chapter 3

and seeks ultimately to ascertain whether the motivation and content of

the command of enemy love in the paraenetic tradition is essentially the

same as the motivation and content of this command in Jesus' earthly

ministry.

We have seen that it is possible to isolate distinct, small elements in

the pre-written p araenetic tradition on enemy love (see Summary, pp 63f).

But the larger meaning of these elements cannot be determined so long as

Jesus ' command in early Christian paraenesis

101

they are isolated. Only within a larger context and within a theological

framework do they manifest their specific character. Such a context and

framework in the oral paraenetic tradition is not immediately accessible to

us. We must take as our starting point the larger contexts into which the

command of enemy love has been put in Paul's letters and in I Pt. This

does not mean that the New Testament writers were the first to put the

isolated paraenetic elements into a theological framework. That such a

framework existed already in the living tradition has been shown by

Philip Carrington and E. G. Selwyn.2 It means, rather, that as far as our

investigation is concerned, we must deal first with the texts that lie before

us and only then make statements about the larger meaning of the love

command in the oral tradition. If common motifs and patterns emerge

between Paul and I Pt we may then be able to draw conclusions about the

common tradition lying behind them.

II. The Motivation of the Command of Enemy Love

In anticipation of one of our conclusions we propose at the outset that

the decisive motivation for the command of enemy love in the New Testament paraenesis is the kerygma of Jesus Christ, the good news of his death for sins and his resurrection. Before developing our support for this contention we shall take a short look at the history of the pertinent research.

A. A Brief Survey of the Previous Research

Martin Dibelius' criticism of Alfred See berg's Der Catechismus der

Urchristenheit (1 903) provides a provocative starting point: 'Seeberg's

thesis suffers from the fact that he wants to subsume under his hypothetical catechism not only the paraenesis but also the preliminary stages of the confession of faith. But the development of the kerygma and the

paraenesis do not run on the same tracks, which is obvious from the fact

that the kerygma is an original Christian formation but the paraenesis to a

large degree consists of borrowed material.'3 Dibelius, therefore, draws the

conclusion in another place, 'Thus we see that the hortatory sections of

the Pauline epistles have nothing to do with the theoretic foundation of

the ethics of the apostle, and very little with other ideas peculiar to him .

Rather they belong to tradition.'4 Dibelius' work has had a strong influence

on the modern German research into the New Testament paraenetic

tradition.5 The trend has not, however, gone unchallenged. Wolfgang

Schrage, while not using the form critical method, shows the weakness of

Dibelius' standpoint,6 and Ferdinand Hahn has more recently criticized

Dibelius and his followers with these words : 'Important viewpoints, which

Alfred See berg had already observed, have for him fallen fully into the

Love your enemies

1 02

background. The specifically Christian elements are not brought out ; rather

it is stressed how strongly these are leveled out. The total context is judged

negatively and the connection with baptism motifs plays no role.'7

In the English-speaking world, research into the New Testament paraenesis has followed more closely the way pointed by Seeberg which sees a closer connection between kerygma and paraenesis. Philip Carrington

(Catechism, 1940) and E. G. Selwyn after him (/ Peter, 1 947) have

attempted to reconstruct a pattern of teaching behind the New Testament

epistles which includes both unique Christian elements and borrowed

paraenetic material. 8 C. H. Dodd recognized that not all the paraenetic

material is specifically Christian but tried to show how 'ethical ideas are

transformed by being brought into a context which is religious through

and through being defmed by the Gospel itself as it is contained in the

kerygma. '9 In the same vein W. D. Davies says of Paul's hortatory sections,

'All the traditional material has been baptized by Paul into Christ.'10

In the following two sections (B and C) we will focus on the letters of

Paul and on I Pt and we will inquire what the relationship is there between

the command of enemy love and the kerygma. Is the kerygma the decisive

motive for the love command? How is this relationship to be understood?

B. Paul1 1

We may limit ourselves for the sake of brevity to Paul's epistle to the

Romans. To discuss Paul's use of the command of enemy love in I Thess12

would add little to his more developed and programmatic treatment in

Rom 1 2 . The text at the center of our discussion is Rom 1 2 : 14, 1 7-2 1 :

Bless those who curse you,

bless and do not curse.

Do not repay anyone evil for evil ;

take thought for what is good before all men.

If possible, so far � it depends on you live at peace with all men.

Do not avenge yourselves, beloved,

but give place to wrath.

For it is written : Vengeance is mine , I will repay, says the Lord.

But if your enemy hungers, give him food,

and if he thirsts, give him drink ;

for doing this you will heap coals of fire on his head.

Do not be overcome by evil,

but overcome evil with good.

1. The 'Mercies of God' (Rom 12: 1[)

In Der Brief des Jakobus (pp 19-23) Dibelius gives five characteristics of

the literary form paraenesis : (I) eclecticism, (2) the absence of context,

Jesus ' command in early Christian paraenesis

1 03

(3) catchword connections, (4) repetition of the same motif in different

places, (5) the admonitions do not fall within the bounds of one particular

situation. Each of these paraenetic features is found in Rom 1 2 and 1 3 but

the second feature, the absence of an ordered progression of thought, must

be qualified. While it is true that the admonitions of Rom 1 2 :9-2 1 cannot

be grouped perfectly so that 'relations to outsiders' follows 'relations to

fellow-Christians,' 13 nevertheless a rough outline is visible in the paraenesis

if we take into account the larger context of Rom 1 2 :3-13 :7.14 Rom

1 2 :3-8 deals with the functioning of the body of Christ; 1 2 :9-2 1 deals

more generally with the Christian's relation to his brothers and then to

outsiders (although the sequence here is imprecise); and 1 3 : 1 -7 deals with

the Christian's relation to the state . All of the material in these three

sections is grounded in the fundamental admonition of Rom 1 2 : 1 ,2.15

This means that the paraenetic tradition on enemy love (Rom 1 2 : 14,

1 7-2 1) is not treated by Paul in isolation ; it is rather subsumed under the

appeal of Rom 12 : l f. 16 Without going into a detailed exegesis of these two

verses we may make three concise observations. J?irst, the transition to the

paraenetic section is made with the conjunction obv (1 2 : 1 ; cf Eph 4: 1 ;

I Cor 4 : 1 6) which grounds the following admonitions in what has preceded

in the epistle . Paul sums up this preceding ground as 'the mercies of God'

(1 2 : 1 ).17

Since w e are dealing here with the ground o f the love command (Rom

1 2 : 1 4 , 1 7 ff) it is appropriate to specify these 'mercies of God' ( 1 2 : 1 )

as Paul does elsewhere. Parallel to Rom 1 2 : 1 , 'I appeal to you , therefore ,

brothers, through the m ercies of God, ' is Rom 1 5 : 3 0 , 'I appeal to you ,

brothers, through our Lord Jesus Christ and through the love of the

Spirit. ' Here the 'mercies of God' are explained in terms of 'the Lord

Jesus Christ' and 'the love of the Spirit'. That these terms stand for the

mercies of God and , as such, ground the following appeal is suggested

by Rom 5 : 5 ,8 , 'Hope does not put us to shame because the lo ve of God

has been poured out in our hearts through the Holy Spirit which is

given to us . . . God shows his love to us in that while we were still

sinners Christ died for us. ' In view of Rom 5 : 5 it is possible to take 'the

love of the Spirit' in 1 5 : 3 0 to mean essentially the same as 'the love of

God poured out through the Spirit. '18 That is, it is the Spirit who opens

us to the love of God and applies it sensibly to us so that we are assured

of it. But this work of the Spirit is not a merely mystical affair, for that

which he certifies to our hearts is 'shown' in a historical event : the

death of Christ. The 'love of God' which is poured o u t through the

Spirit is dem onstrated in history 'by the death of his Son' (5 : 1 0).

Therefore Paul's appeal 'through the mercies of God' is very appropriately specified as an appeal 'through the Lord Jesus Christ and through the love of the Spirit' ; for those mercies are supremely demonstrated in the person of J esus in his dying for sinners, 19 and those

Love your enemies

1 04

mercies, i.e . , God's love, are poured into o r made sensibly manifest to,

the heart of the believer by the Holy Spirit. On the basis of this objective

and subjective aspect of God's mercies Paul summons believers to obey

the love command.

Moreover, the love o f God which has been shown in the death of Christ

and poured into the heart of the believer is stated clearly to be enemy

love : 'For if wh ile we were enem ies we were reconciled to God by the

death of his son . . .' (Rom 5 : I 0). 'Enemies' is also rendered 'helpless,'

'godless,' 'sinners' (5 : 6 ,8). The point of 5 : 6 ,7 is that God's love surpasses human love at its best (dying for a good man) precisely in this : that it will die for enemies - not converted enemies but those who were

still enemies when Christ died for them (cf ert in vv 6 ,8 and concessive

present participle OVTEc; in v 1 0). In view of this 'the mercies of God'

( 1 2 : I ) take on a new significance as the ground and motive of the

command of enemy love in Rom 1 2 : 1 4 , 1 7 ff. The Christians are being

called upon to let their enemies experience what they experienced

while they were still God's enemies : namely , 'blessing and not cursing'

(Rom 1 2 : 14 ). How can believers do otherwise with the Spirit of God

himself rendering their hearts full of and responsive to God's love?

Second, the admonition 'to present (1Tcxpcxarfwo:t) your bodies as a

living sacrifice to God' ( 1 2 : 1) recalls Rom 6 : 1 3 , 'Do not present

(1rcxpwr&vere) your members to sin as weapons of unrighteousness but

present (1Tcxpo:ar'l}ao:re) yourselves to God as those who are alive from

the dead.' As Michel observes, 'Rom 1 2 , 1 setzt die Mahnungen von Rom

6,13 fort.'20 Rom 6 : 13 is grounded (cf obv, 6: 1 2) in the believer's death

with Christ through baptism. Thus the admonitions of Rom 6 and Rom

1 2 : 1 f presuppose not only 'the mercies of God' but also the appropriation

of this mercy by faith in baptism. Third, the aim of Rom 1 2 :2 is that the

church members be able to determine the will of God. The prerequisite to

this is an experience of God's mercy and consequent transformation

(p.er0!1J.oplj>ova8e) which includes a renewal of the mind ( 1 2 :2). We conclude,

therefore, that, along with the rest of Rom 12, the tradition on enemy

love is addressed to baptized believers who live 'in Christ' and experience

'the mercies of God,' specifically, the unique excellence of God's mercy

in loving his enemies (Rom 5 :5 1 0) The individual commands are given

-

.

on the basis of the eschatological saving work of God in Christ, and are

therefore a summons to live from the powers of the new age which this

saving work has inaugurated.

We may confirm this understanding of the ground of the individual

commands of Rom 1 2 by examining how one of these commands was

developed by Paul in a less traditional context. One of the commands

under the subheading 'Let love be genuine ! ' ( 1 2 : 9)21 is 'Share in the

needs of the saints' ( 1 2 : 1 3 ). Paul's aim in writing II Cor 8 and 9 is to

prepare the Corinthian church to share generously in the needs of the

Jesus ' command in early Christian paraenesis

105

saints when Titus comes to make the collection among them for the

poor saints in J erusalem (8 :4, 1 4 , 1 9f ;9 : 1 ,5 , 1 2 ; cf Rom 1 5 : 2 6-28). As

in Rom 1 2 : 9 he insists that this appeal is merely a proving of 'the

genuineness of your love' (-ril<; VJ.le-repo:c: ara 1T'T/<: rV?]awv, 8 : 8 ; cf 8 : 24).

A careful examination of Paul's argumentation in II Cor 8 and 9 reveals

a number of substantial similarities with Rom 1 2 : 1 ,2 . The following

parallels are based on the essential subject matter and not on linguistic

features. They show that the foundation of the imperative in Rom

1 2 : 1 3 and in II Cor 8 and 9 is essentially the same.

Rom

II Cor

1 2 : 1 Paul appeals 'by the

8 : 9 Paul appeals by 'the grace of

mercies of God .'

our Lord Jesus Christ' and

by 'the grace of God' (8 : 1 ).

1 2 : 1 He calls them to present

8 : 5 B y way o f example for the

their bodies to God.

Corinthians he recalls that

the Macedonians 'gave themselves first to the Lord.'

12 : 1 This sacrifice to God is

9 : 1 2 The Corinthians are to

a 'Aorucrw "ll.o:-rperixv.22

follow the generosity of the

Macedonians in a ot.o:KOVUx

rf/<: 'AeL-rovprio:c:22 which

abounds in thanksgiving to

God.

1 2 : 2 They are to be transformed 8 : 9 They are to recall that through

b y a renewal o f their mind .

Christ's poverty on their

behalf they have been transformed from poor to rich

(cf 9 : 7 ) .

1 2 : 2 The aim is 'to prove the

8 :5

The exemplary Macedonians'

will of God.'

pattern was 'through the will

of God .'

The structure is the same in both : prior and fundamental to all doing of

God's will is the grace ( 'mercies') of God which renews the mind of the

believer. Perhaps the clearest statement in these two passages which

shows that the gracious work of God is that which precedes and enables

any good work of the Christian is II Cor 9 : 8 : 'God is able to cause all

grace to abound unto you in order that .

you might abound in every

.

.

good work.' This is why Paul grounds the entirety of Rom 1 2 : 3 - 1 3 : 7

in 'the mercies of God .' What Paul states in a less personal and more

compact form in Rom 1 2 : 1 f as the ground of the following paraenesis

is precisely that which came to expression spontaneously and functionally in II Cor 8 and 9 as the ground of his appeal for the poor saints in Jerusalem.

Having ascertained that the command of enemy love in its paraenetic

context in Paul is grounded on the one hand in the mercies (or love,

Love your enemies

106

Rom S :S ff) of God manifest in Christ and, on the other hand, in the consequent renewal of the Christian (Rom 12 :2) by faith through baptism (Rom 6 :6), the question- arises: in what sense is it grounded? It is not

immediately obvious why the eschatological work of God in Christ and the

newness of the believer should ground the love command - should it not

rather eliminate the need of such a command? Why must a new creature

be commanded to walk the new way of love? In trying to answer this

question in the following section we are drawn necessarily into wider considerations of Paul's thinking. I acknowledge the risk of spreading myself too thin and touching on areas that would demand more discussion than

I can give them here ; but, in my opinion, apart from these wider considerations the command of enemy love in the paraenetic tradition cannot be properly understood. The view through the microscope is valuable, but

it is often impossible even to know what you are looking at until you pull

out the slide and look at the whole piece.

2. The Necessity of the Command of Enemy Love

The Christian's newness can be described from two different standpoints.

In both cases the question rises: Why is the love command any longer

necessary? First, he can be described as one who has been mastered by a

new power - the Holy Spirit. He is led by the Holy Spirit (Rom 8 : 14;

Gal 5 : 18); he bears the fruit of the Holy Spirit (Gal 5 :22). He is 'taught

by God to love' so that he needs no one to write to him (I Thess 4 :9).

So the question rises : Why does the believer need any 'leading' from men ;

why does he need to be instructed by men to love his enemy? The second

way to describe the newness of the believer is to say that he has been

'washed, sanctified, justified' (I Cor 6 :11) or, in other words, he died with

Christ in baptism (Rom 6 :4) 'in order that the body of sin might be

abolished so that he might no longer serve sin' (Rom 6 :6). He now walks

'in newness of life' (Rom 6:4); sin will have no dominion over him (Rom

6 : 14). The love of God has been poured into his heart (Rom 5 :5). He is

a new creature (II Cor 5 : 17 ; Gal 6 : 15). Why must this man be commanded

to love his enemy? He is enslaved to righteousness (Rom 6 :18); can he do

otherwise?

The newness of the believer in both of these descriptions is essentially

the same : in both cases his newness consists in a new relation to God. This

is obvious in the first case where the Christian is now led by the Holy

Spirit, the Spirit of God. But it is true of the second also, for Paul can

substitute 'you have become slaves of God' (Rom 6 :22) for the phrase

'you have become slaves of righteousness ' (Rom 6 : 18). And in Gal 2 :20

the result of being crucified with Christ is that 'Christ lives in me and the

Jesus ' command in early Christian paraenesis

107

life I now live in the flesh I live by faith . . .' This is essentially the same as

being led by the Holy Spirit (cf Rom 8:9f,14).23 Consequently the basic

thing about the Christian's newness is his living faith in Christ and the

presence of Christ's (Holy) Spirit in him to 'lead' him. Therefore the

question why Paul thought it necessary to address Christians with the

love command is the question how he understood the 'leading' or 'fruitbearing' work of the Holy Spirit.

The standard work which deals with the problem of the individual

commands in Paul is Wolfgang Schrage's Die konkreten Einzelgebote in

der paulinischen Pariinese ( 1961). The work is of immense value and I

am grateful for what I have learned from it - a great deal. In the

50-page Forschungsberich t Schrage gives his critique of the major

attempts to explain the existence of individual commands in Paul's

writings : ( 1) the commands are a result of a de-eschatologizing process ;

(2) they are a compromise between ideal and reality, relapses into

Jewish legalism ; ( 3 ) they are temporarily necessary and valid, but in the

long run superfluous ; ( 4) they are exclusively concrete and situational .

I consider Schrage's critique of these views valid so that it is unnecessary

here to redo his excellent work .

The body of Schrage's work is a descriptive analysis of Paul's paraenesis.

He makes clear that for Paul there can be no thought of eliminating

the individual commands. He sees that there is a tension between viewing

love as a fruit of the Spirit and as a com mand or duty (p 249f) ; neither

side can be done away with. He devotes a sizable section ('Das

Verhiiltnis von Gebot und Geist,' pp 71-9 3 ) to the solution of this

apparent contradiction. His argumentation may be summed up in the

following sentences. 'The Spirit in no way stands . . . in opposition to

authority and tradition' (p 89 , cf I Cor 7 :40). Against Lietzmann, it is

not true that 'Where life m oves in the S pirit , no command has a place'

(p 7 5 ; Lietzmann , Rom er, p 7 1). On the contrary , 'The Spirit . . .

admonishes in, with and under "external" admonition, and precisely

this is a charismatic function. As the Spirit does his work in general

through the apostolic office (II Cor 3 : 8 ) , so he admonishes and

commands through the apostolic paraenesis (cf I Cor 7 :40)' (p 86).

'The Spirit works and leads not directly but rather makes use of the

human understanding as a means' (p 92). But even this spiritual understanding is not an individualistic affair : 'Leading from the Spirit is found only in the sphere of and in relation to the church' (pp 90, 174 ). 24

In a similar vein Anton Grabner-Haider stresses in his book Paraklese

und Eschatologie bei Paulus (1968) that there is no inconsistency

between the work of God in the believer and the need for human

tradition : ' All Paul's tradition receives a completely new stamp through

the fact that he understands his admonition not as man's word but as

God's word' (p 2 9 ) . 'It is actually God himself who speaks' (p 3 7 ) .

'Christ i s the mediator of the paraklesis of God' (p 48 ).

Love your enemies

1 08

This is essentially the line of thinking which I will attempt to develop

in the following pages in a somewhat different manner and with an

application to Jesus' command of enemy love as it was used in the

paraenetic tradition (preserved by Paul).

I have intentionally posed the problem of the individual commands

without reference to the usual indicative-imperative tension.25 Such a

grammatical description of what we find in Paul tends to conceal the fact

that what is here called 'indicative' is in reality the living God. This is what

I meant earlier when I said that the essential newness of the Christian consists in his new relation to God by faith. The personal or relational character of the 'indicative' comes to expression most clearly in Paul's

statements about the work of the Holy Spirit. This is why I have formed

the question as I have : If the almighty Spirit of Christ is leading the

Christians and yielding fruit, why does Paul and the early Christian tradition

with him think it necessary to command them specifically and repeatedly

to love their enemy?

The presupposition underlying this question is that the leading of the

Holy Spirit takes place through a private communion with the divine in

which the Christian is informed of the right and motivated to do it apart

from human influences. This, however, was not Paul's understanding of

the way the Spirit worked. This may be illustrated first from II Cor 5 :20.

Here we fmd the well-known imperative, 'Be reconciled to God !' Nevertheless, it is a clear element of Paul's theology that a man's reconciling himself to God is the work of the Spirit (I Thess 1 :5); it happens only when the creator 'shines in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the

glory of God in the face of Christ' (II Cor 4 :6 ; cf II Cor 4 : 16,1 7 ; Rom

9 : 1 6 ; Eph 2 :8).

From a false preconception of how the Spirit of God works one could

theoretically deny the need for the imperative 'Be reconciled to God !' on

the ground, namely, that God is great enough to accomplish our salvation

without humans stepping in to inform us of our need and God's offer. This

objection fails to see that man does not merely step in ; he is called in,

indeed he is drawn in even before his birth (Gal 1 : 15). He is made an

ambassador of the risen Christ (il1T€p )(flwrov ovv 1Tpea(3eoop.ev, II Cor 5 : 20),

and thus speaks on Christ's behalf (6edp.e8o: inr€p xpwrov). Indeed, it is not

merely man but God who says, 'Be reconciled.' In other words God has

chosen not to do his saving work privately with an individual; rather he

makes his appeal through men (w, rov Oeov 1To:pCXKo:A.ovvro' 6t' fip.wv).

Here we do not see a conflict between a human imperative and God's

work in the heart. Rather we see a single working of God, from one side,

making his appeal through men and, from the other side, enlightening the

Jesus ' command in early Christian paraenesis

109

heart (II Cor 4 :6). The fact that God's speaking is here called 7TCXpcxKcx'Aovvroc;

(II Cor 5 :20) suggests that this same pattern may characterize the

1rcxp&K Af/aLC: in general. 26

Rom 1 2 begins : 7TCXPCXKCXAW obv vpixc; Me'AijJo,;, Parallel with this in 1 2 :3

we read : Mrw rd:p 5 t.d: rf/c; x&ptroc; rijc; 5o8et'af/c; J.J.Ot. The former recalls

the divine 7TCXpCXKcx'Aovvroc; of II Cor 5 :20 ; the latter is a terminus technicus

referring to Paul's apostolic commission (Rom 1 : 5 ; 1 5 : 1 5 ; I Cor 3 : 10 ;

Gal 2 : 9 ; Eph 3 :2,7). Paul therefore considered that the paraenesis which he

addressed to the Roman church was a function of the same ambassadorial

commission which he exercised on Christ's behalf in the kerygma tic appeal :

'Be reconciled to God !' Because he is speaking 'through the grace given to

him' it is not only he who speaks but 'God is admonishing through him.m

As with the gospel, so with the paraenetic tradition of the command of

enemy love ; it is not a mere human influence in tension with the divine

influence in the renewed mind of the believer; the command of enemy

love is an element of the divine renewing word.

The point at which this divine word meets the believer effectively is in

the 'body of Christ.' The paradoxes of Christian ethics fmd their practical

solution in the local community of believers. This is suggested by the

following observations. For the Christian 'all things are permitted.'28 This

does not mean for Paul that the question of sin no longer exists for the

Christian. The question of good and evil still exists but is answered not by

referring the Christian to legal codes or to his own private experience of

the Holy Spirit, but rather by placing him in the body of Christ. 'All things

are permitted but not all things avJ.J.I/Jepet' (I Cor 6 : 1 2). But in the body of

Christ

is given the manifestation of the Spirit 1rpoc; ro avJ.J.IjJepov'

( 1 2 :7). 'All things are permitted but not all oil<ooo!-lei ' (I 0 :23). But in the

body of Christ 'the one who prophesies speaks to men oiKo5oJ.J.1]v' (14 :3),

indeed 'all things are to be done for the oiKo5o!-Lflv' (14:26). In other

words, the ethical question for the completely free man is answered not

with a legal code which specifies what is permitted, nor by mere private

communion with the Spirit, but rather with his incorporation into the

body of Christ in which the Spirit of Christ 'leads' his people through the

apostolic paraenesis, the prophetic utterance29 and the enlightenment of

the heart.

To the body of Christ, Paul says, 'Let the word of Christ dwell in you

richly, teaching and admonishing (vov8erovvrec;) each other in all wisdom'

(Col 3 : 16; cf Rom 1 5 :14). Into such an instructing, admonishing body each

believer was baptized by the Holy Spirit (I Cor 1 2 : 13); this body is also

the temple of God in which God's Spirit dwells (I Cor 3 : 16). The Spirit

creates the body, inhabits the body, indwells the members of the body

Love your enemies

110

(I Cor 6: 19), admonishes the body through the members, and, to the

degree that 'the Lord is the Spirit' (II Cor 3 : 1 7), the body of Christ is also

the body of the Spirit. Therefore, to talk of being led by the Holy Spirit in

the sense of being informed privately on the question of morality stands in

contradiction to Paul's understanding of the Spirit's work. The Christian

is led by the Holy Spirit not only in the renewing of his mind to prove the

will of God but also by being placed into a community of believers where

he hears the paraenetic admonitions which are the voice of the Spirit himself.30 This hearing is not once for all but happens repeatedly in the normal life of the community as the various members 'teach and admonish

each other' (Col 3 : 1 6).31

That this human activity of teaching the paraenetic tradition is not, for

Paul, inconsistent with, but a necessary part of the divine pneumatic

instruction of the believer, is shown further by the command of enemy

love in I Thess. 32 Paul reminds the Thessalonian Christians how he had

handed over (ncxpeA.&[Jere) to them the tradition 'how you are to walk and

to please God' (4 : 1). A part of this tradition was doubtless the command

of enemy love which is alluded to more than once (5 : 1 5 ; 3 : 1 2 ; 4 :9 ; cf 1 :6).

Nevertheless, Paul says, 'You yourselves have been taught by God to love

one another' so that they have no need that he write them (4 :9). Thus the

love command delivered by human means (ultimately from the sayings of

Jesus) is not in conflict with the fact that the Thessalonians are 8eooloaK.TOL.

The tradition of the command of enemy love is rather an essential part of

the means God uses to teach. This is suggested also when Paul says that he

gave his instructions originally 'through the Lord Jesus' (4 :2), that is, as a

divine word. Thus when Paul prays in 3 : 12, 'May the Lord cause you to

increase and abound in love to one another and to all' (cf 5 : 1 5), he is

praying that the living Lord may continue to speak creatively within his

'body' through the paraenetic tradition which is rooted in his earthly teaching.

On the basis of these observations it is not inconsistent to say, on the

one hand, that a Christian is a new man, led by the Spirit of the living

Lord and bearing the fruit of this Spirit, and, on the other hand, to say

that the Christian must be admonished often with the concrete command

to love his enemy. By means of this and other commands the Spirit has

chosen to lead his people, to cultivate his fruit and to bring every man to

maturity in Christ.33 To put it in a picture : the command of enemy love,

as part of the New Testament paraenesis given 'by grace' and 'through the

Lord,' is a seed sown by the Spirit's gifted servants, in the ground of the

renewed heart, which the Spirit himself has created, so that the fruit which

springs up in the attitude and action of the Christian is indeed the fruit of

the Spirit.34

Jesus ' command in early Christian paraenesis

111

3. Implications for the Use of Jesus ' Command of Enemy Love

The saying of Jesus on enemy love was not a curious relic of mere historical

interest in the early church. It was a vivid illustration of the will of the

living Lord who is one with the earthly Jesus. It was inevitable, therefore,

and proper that the paraenetic tradition on enemy love, while having its

roots in the words of the earthly Jesus, should be delivered and applied

as if spoken by the resurrected Lord. This does not mean that the early

church made no distinction at all between a prophetic utterance from the

Spirit of the Lord and the traditional sayings of the earthly Jesus. On the

contrary, the 'words of the Lord' explicitly cited by Paul35 have a unique

character in relation to his other statements. 'While on the one hand he

subjected all his pneumatic judgments and instructions to the Spirit at

work in the church for discussion (I Cor 14:37) the words of the Lord on

the other hand functioned as criteria of the Spirit (I Cor 7 : 1 0).'36 Nevertheless, the historical sayings of Jesus were uniquely authoritative not merely because they were spoken by the earthly Jesus but because the

earthly Jesus who spoke to them is the present living Lord whose will has

not changed?7

But there is a difference between Jesus' command of enemy love as it is

taken up in the paraenetic tradition and the command as it went forth

from Jesus' mouth. This difference is evident first in the form of the

command (see pp 56 f). It is also evident in the intention of the command.

The words had once been spoken by Jesus as a concrete part of his call to

repentance in view of the dawning new age and its radical demands and

promises (see p 80). The Lord Jesus is now risen from the dead and

dwells in and among his people by the Spirit. A new situation in redemptive

history has come. Corresponding to this new situation Jesus' command is

now addressed to believers, to those who have already tasted the powers of

the age to come. It has lost some of its vivid sharpness and aims now to

shed a helping light upon the path that the new man in Christ must follow.38

As Jesus' love command once announced the demand of the inbreaking

Kingdom of God and thus summoned men to faith, so now it is addressed

to those 'who have been transferred into the Kingdom of his beloved Son'

(Coi l : 13) and who accordingly live by faith.

4. The Use of the Old Testament in Explicating and Motivating the

Paraenetic Command of Enemy Love

a. Explication. We shall restrict our attention here to the command of

enemy love as it is motivated and elucidated in Rom 1 2 : 1 7-20. It is

striking that in all of Rom 1 2 : 1-13 :7 Old Testament citations occur only

in the section on enemy love ( 1 2 : 1 7-20),39 and here with an amazing

Love your enemies

1 12

frequency - five different Old Testament references in four verses! They

may be tabularized as follows.

Rom

LXX

Mas

1 2 : 1 7b

Prov 3 :4

Prov 3 :4

:Ji�

1r po voov11 eVOt "a: A.&

"cxi 1r povoov "a:A.d

'?.i?.1 m-N¥�?�

ev wnwv n&.vrwv

evwnwv Kvpwv Kcxt'

e1N, e•ii?N 'l'�:l

T T :

'

·::

' '

' ••

dt.vOpwnwv

dt.vOpwnwv

1 2 : 1 8

Ps 33 : 1 5

Ps 34 : 1 5

eipf/VeVOVTec;

�fiTf/UO'V eip1]Vf7V

ei?� rz!f.'.�

1 2 : 19a

Lev 1 9 : 1 8

Lev 1 9 : 1 8

/1ft fCXVTOVc; eKo tKOVVTec;

1 2 : 1 9b

Dt 32 :35

Dt 32 :35

'E110t' eKOt'Kf/atc; erw

e v i?JlEPrt EICOtKT)aewc;

e?.w1 NR� •7

WTCX1TOO waw

cX'VTCX1TOowaw

1 2 :20

Prov 25 : 2 1 £

Prov 25 : 2 1 f

&.A.Ad Ed:v rretvq b f;x()poc;

e&v neu� b exOpoc;

9�Jtv :�n-e�

aov 1/JW/lt�e cxbrov

aov rpei/Je cxin'ov

-eN, en?

• • T

�i1?':>Ni1

' :

••

' -: -

e&v o tt/1� non� e cxin"ov

eav 0 tt/lci TrOTt� € WTO'V

: e;� 1i1j?.o/tr N�¥

rovro rap not0Jv

roiiTo rap notwv

i11'1i1 ilMN e•?m ·�

lfw()pcxKcxc; rrvpoc;

&vOpCXKcxc; TrVpoc;

... m�·i iw�-1.:::?�

awpevaetc; em' ri!v

awpevaetc; em' ri!v

T

: 1?-e�i7

-

K. e¢a:A.flv cxin"ov.

" e¢a:A.rw cxin"ov

b o e KVpwc; &vrcxnoowaet

UOL a"( a:() &..

How are we to account for this concentration of Old Testament quotes

and allusions precisely in this context?

As we argued in Chapter 1 (pp 1 4f) Paul is not rendering here verbatim

a fixed Jewish code. The following observations point to Paul's compositional freedom. (1) 1 2 : 1 7a is found in other contexts in the tradition (I Thess 5 : 1 5 ; I Pt 3 :9); (2) 1 2 : 17b is quoted elsewhere by Paul in its

longer Old Testament form (II Cor 8 :2 1); (3) the phrases 'if possible' and

'so far as it depends on you' in 12 : 1 8 depart from the absolute form of

the terse traditional paraenesis and sound more occasional ; ( 4) the insertion

of the word 'beloved' ( 1 2 : 19) is probably Paul's own personal touch ; (5)

when Heb 1 0 :30 is compared with Rom 1 2 : 19b it appears that 'says the

Lord' is Paul's own insertion here as in I Cor 14 :2 1 . Thus we cannot

attribute the concentration of Old Testament quotes here to a mechanical

rendering of an already existing Jewish code .

Jesus ' command in early Christian paraenesis

113

This, of course, is not to deny that Paul was indeed using traditional

Jewish material rather than simply relying directly on the Old Testament.

We have shown that 1 2 : 1 7a was already shaped in the Hellenistic - Jewish

paraenetic material as Paul took it over (p 64). Also 1 2 : 1 9 is an element of the

Jewish tradition rather than going back directly to the Old Testament as

its parallels in Heb 1 0 :30 and Targum Onk.40 show. They agree against the

Mas and LXX.

In general, the frequency of Old Testament material in the early

Christian paraenetic tradition can be accounted for on three grounds. ( 1 )

Th e tradition was born o n Jewish soil and shaped b y Jews. They lived out

of the Old Testament and in a thought world formed by the Old Testament.

When they became Christians all this was not overthrown. What did not

conflict with the teachings of their Lord was gathered around and subordinated to his sayings, a critical procedure which Jesus himself had begun.

(2) Corresponding to the conviction that 'all the promises of God are Yes

in Christ' (II Cor 1 : 20), was the conviction that 'whatever was written

beforehand was written for our instruction' (Rom 1 5 :4 ; cf I Cor 9 : 1 0).

This opened the way for a broad-scale typological use of the Old Testament in the early church41 (cf Rom 5 ; I Cor 1 0) by which a theological and redemptive-historical continuity between the Old Testament and the

present eschatological situation could be established. (3) One motive for

the use of Old Testament material on Hellenistic soil which Michel suggests,42

is to confront the charismatically oriented Christians with a sober,

historical dimension of revelation.

These three grounds may account for the paraenetic use of Old Testament material in general by the early church, but they do not yet account for why precisely here in the context of enemy love and nowhere else in

Rom 1 2 : 1 -1 3 :7 the Old Testament quotes are concentrated. It is not

inconceivable that this is due simply to Paul's random selection from the

traditional material available . But perhaps it is not accidental that also in

I Pt the longest Old Testament quote is an expansion and ground of the

command of enemy love (3 : 9- 1 2 ; see p 1 27). In light of this, perhaps we

should hazard a conjecture why Old Testament references were so attracted

to the command of enemy love in the early Christian paraenesis.

The command of enemy love - to bless those who persecute you - is

the hardest command made upon the new community. It is hard, not only

because it demands an end to selfishness, but also because it seems unjust.

The enemy who scorns God, who blasphemes the risen Lord, who abuses

God's people without reason, does not deserve blessing. More than that,

dozens of instances could be cited from the Old Testament to contra-

dict such a non-resistance stance. For Paul, however, to follow Jesus did

Love your enemies

1 14

not mean the abolishing of the Old Testament but rather its establishment

(Rom 3 :3 1 ). When viewed from Christ, who lifts the veil from the 'reading

of Moses' (II Cor 3 : 14), the Old Testament is seen to be 'written for our

instruction' ; it is 1TapckA.'T'Jat<; (Rom 1 5 :4 ; cf 4 :23 ; I Cor 9 : 10 ; II Tim 3 : 16).

Therefore, to lend weight to this hardest of all commands and to deflect

criticism which might be brought against it from the Old Testament, the

command was expanded and applied by the use of the very material by

which it was threatened. In this way the tension in Jesus' own treatment

of the Old Testament is preserved: on the one hand, the command of

enemy love stands over the Old Testament material determining what is

taken over and then providing the key to the proper interpretation of it,

and on the other hand, the love command is the summation of the Old

Testament (Mk 1 2 :28-3 1 par; implied in Rom 1 2 : 14, 1 7-20 ; stated in

Rom 13 : 8-10; Gal 5 : 14 , Ja 2 :8-10) and is explicated by it.

In the previous section (pp 1 1 1 f) we noted that the new situation in

redemptive history occasioned a change in the use of Jesus' command

of enemy love. This insight may also shed some light on our present

problem. In Jesus' situation his command of enemy love was not intended

primarily as a guide for how to get along in the world ; it was in a real

sense a summons to abandon all efforts to get along in this world and to

ready oneself for an impending new world. In the formation of the

paraenetic tradition, the early church, now aware of the new situation

that came with Jesus' resurrection, could not ignore this world and the

need to live in it for an indefinite period of time.43 Jesus' command

became, therefore, a guide to help the Christian orient himself in this

new situation which included a continued historical existence. Thus

while not losing its eschatological sharpness and its function as criterion,

Jesus' command of

love was drawn into the sphere of wisdom

teaching in the traditional sense of offering guidelines for getting along in

the world. For this reason, we may suppose, other Old Testament wisdom

teaching was connected to the love command in the paraenetic tradition

(Rom 1 2 : 1 7b ,20).44 Jesus' command was explicated, and thus made more

useful, more workable , by the use of related and selected Old Testament

wisdom sayings.45

b. Motivation. The Old Testament citations in the paraenetic tradition do

not merely explicate Jesus' command of enemy love, they also ground it.

Rom 1 2 : 19-2046 is not just a description, it is also an argument. The

structure of the passage may become clear if we print it in the following

schematic fashion :

Jesus ' command in early Christian paraenesis

115

( ) 19a Do not avenge yourselves, beloved,

-

19b but give place to wrath ;

1 9c because it is written : Vengeance is mine, I will repay,

says the Lord.

(+) 20a But if your enemy hungers, feed him ;

20b if he thirsts, give him drink;

20c because by doing this you will heap coals of fire

on his head.

The txA.M at the beginning of v 20 shows that v 20ab is the positive

counterpart of v 1 9ab. What v 19ab expresses passively with reference to

the renunciation of vengeance, v 20ab expresses actively with reference to

the doing of good. Both commands are grounded by a following -yap -clause .

This parallel structure suggests very strongly that heaping coals of fire on

the head is referring to the same eschatological vengeance as v 1 9c :

'Vengeance is mine, I will repay.'47 In support o f this view we may observe

with Spicq that, 'In the Old Testament, live coals are invariably a symbol

of divine anger (II Sam 22 :9,13 Ps 1 8 :9,13), of punishment for the

=

wicked (Ps 140: 1 1 ), or of an evil passion (Sir 8 : 1 0 ; 1 1 :32 ; Prov 6 :27-29 ;

cf Job 3 1 : 1 2). It would be very strange if St. Paul were to use the phrase

in a favorable sense.'48 Further, the word 'fire' in Paul's vocabulary always

refers to eschatological judgement. 49 In II Thess 1 :6-8 it is united to

txvn:xrro8ovvcxt and i::K 8 tkqatv, the same words we have in Rom 1 2 : 1 9c.

In spite of these reasons for understanding 'coals of fire' as eschatological

judgment in parallelism with God's 'paying back' in v 1 9c, many commentators still prefer the interpretation in which 'coals of fire' signify the burning pangs of shame and contrition. Cranfield gives a typical example

of the argumentation for this view : 'That as far as Paul's meaning is concerned, this latter interpretation is to be preferred is abundantly clear; for it is congruous with the context in Romans while the former interpretation is quite incompatible with it.'50 More recently Kiisemann goes in the same direction, appealing to Morenz's idea that behind Rom 1 2 : 20 there is

an Egyptian rite of repentance 'in which we have to do with a forced change

of mind.'51 He gives no other arguments.

It may be that the majority of scholars with Cranfield and Kiisemann

are correct in their interpretation of Rom 1 2 : 19f. I cannot offer a different

interpretation which is free from problems. Nevertheless the arguments

for seeing the coals of fire as eschatological judgment are weighty enough

to justify seeking an interpretation which takes these into account and yet

does not damage the command of enemy love. I offer the following

observations as such a search , not as a dogmatic statement or as a certified

Love your enemies

116

conclusion. It is hoped that the line of thought developed will prove

valuable in understanding Paul's ethics even if it does not solve the problem

of Rom 1 2 : 19f.

It is evident in the commentaries that the main argument against

viewing 'coals of fire'52 as eschatological judgment is that this would seem

to contradict the context of the love command. Whether this is the case is,

therefore, our main question. Rom 1 2 : 1 9 is usually considered compatible

with the context and with Paul's theology in general. Supposedly it grounds

the love command merely by reminding the church that all vengeance is

God's business ; we are not in any way to be occupied with it. We are to be

about the business of loving and to leave judging to God. Verse 20, on the

other hand, appears to make wrath the aim of 'loving' action : give water so

the coals will fall ! But is v 1 9 really saying anything different from v 20?

Paul did not just negatively say, 'Don't avenge yourselves!' He went farther

and said positively, 'Give a place to wrath,' or, as Bauer translates it, 'Give

the wrath (of God) an opportunity to work out its purpose .'53 And Paul

grounded this appeal not just in the sovereignty of God to avenge as he

pleases but also in the specific promise , &vrcxrroo waw : 'I will pay back !'

(cf II Thess 1 :6). It seems to me that there is nothing essentially different

between being kind so that fiery coals will fall and behaving so that the

wrath of God will have an opportunity to work out its fiery purpose.

Therefore the difficulty we face is not restricted to v 20; both verses seem

to ground kind actions with an ulterior motive which really desires the

destruction of the enemy. 54

Preisker spares no words in excoriating Paul's apparent relapse into

Judaism:

It is a completely foreign tone when Paul in Rom 1 2 :20 grounds the

command of enemy love with Prov 25 :22 . . . Here a position often

taken in Judaism has struck the Christian attitude at its heart. No

longer does the boundless, God-given power of the obligation of an I to

a Thou compel one to love, but rather a shrewd mind and petty revenge

dictate an attitude which is supposed to look like love but is anything

but love. Obviously a wholly other spirit has penetrated into Christian

love.55

But Paul has posted a clear warning signal against understanding his

in this way. At the head of the whole paragraph on enemy love stands :

'Bless those who persecute you' (Rom 1 2 : 14a). With his usual down-toearth wisdom C. H. Dodd remarks : 'To bless is to wish well and to tum the wish into a prayer.'56 This command excludes every motive that would

desire our neighbor's destruction. It is impossible to desire a person's

Jesus ' command in early Christian paraenesis

1 1 7

damnation and to bless him in this sense. If this word o f the Lord in v 1 4

governs the thought o f the passage, then vv 1 9 and 2 0 probably were not

intended by Paul to mean: do good deeds to your enemy with the hope of

bringing wrath down on him. How else can these words be legitimately

understood?

Preisker sees the proper motive of love in 'the boundless, God given

power of the obligation of an I to a Thou.' What is this 'power' (Gewalt)?

It must be the power of the new man in Christ who is living out of faith.

In what does he have faith? In the God who raised Jesus from the dead

(Rom 4 : 24) and will thus give life to his mortal body also (Rom 8 : 1 1 ).

That is, the preaching of the gospel through which the new man of faith

comes into being (Rom 1 0 : 1 7) is not just a recital of past events but a

promise : it is the power of God unto salvation for everyone who has faith

(Rom 1 .: 16, cf I Cor 1 5 :2). We are saved in hope (Rom 8 :24) of full

redemption (cf Rom 5 : 1 0). Paul says in Col 1 :4f that it is this hope

'which we hear in the word of truth, the gospel' which grounds the

Christian's love. 57 The fulftlment of the command of enemy love hangs

on the surety of the Christian's hope. Therefore, in accordance with what

we said earlier about the Spirit's leading in and through the body of Christ,

it is entirely fitting, indeed indispensable, that the paraenesis be grounded

in part by references to God's future action (cf I Pt 3 :9-12) in which the

Christian hopes.

God's action on the day of salvation in which the Christian hopes will

involve the revelation of this wrath. 58 'For he will render to every man

according to his works : to those who by patience in good work seek

glory and honor and immortality he will give eternal life ; but to those

who are selfishly ambitious and who disobey the truth but obey wickedness he will give wrath and fury' (Rom 2 :6-8). The argumentation of Rom 1 2 : 19,20 suggests that the Christian can love his enemy only if

he is sure that the future will bring wrath upon those enemies whom he

loves. Why?

If God never brings vengeance on those who persist in disobeying the

truth, or destruction on the enemies of the cross (Phil 3 : 1 8f), but rather

continues to grant his people suffering (Phil 1 :29) while his enemies prosper and are blessed (Rom 1 2 : 14 ), then he is an unfaithful God whose covenant is worthless. For he would be saying in effect that it is a

matter of complete indifference whether one trusts in him or not. He

would be discounting the greatness and worthiness of his own name59

by admitting that faith and blasphemy are for him as good as equal. Or

even worse, he would be awarding blasphemy the greater portion. If this

were true, the hope of the gospel which hangs on God's faithfulness,

Love your enemies

118

would be shattered. And if the hope of the gospel is shattered, then the

ground of enemy love, indeed of all Christian ethics, is lost. Therefore,

there is a very real sense in which the Christian's love of his enemy is

grounded in his certainty that God will take vengeance on those who

persist in the state of enmity toward God's people.

But Rom 1 2 :20 ('For, doing this you will heap coals of fire on his

head') seems to lay the stress on the fact that precisely the Christian's

love for the enemy is what brings judgment on him. If the interpretation

which I am developing is to be plausible we must suppose that Paul

intended the unexpressed conditional clause : · 'If the enemy is not moved

to repentance by your love.' So Paul would be saying, 'If the one, who

in spite of his enmity received love, nevertheless remains an enemy he

will not escape the wrath of God. '60 Rom 1 2 : 19f thus reminds the Christian

that, if his enemies spurn his kindness, their guilt will be compounded.

Similarly in Phil 1 :28 Paul says of the Philippians' fearlessness before their

opponents, 'This is a sign to them of destruction but of your salvation and

this is from God.' And of his own apostolic ministry, the goal of which

was to win men (I Cor 9 : 1 9ff), Paul says, 'To one it is the fragrance from

death to death, to the other a fragrance from life to life' (II Cor 2 : 1 6).

And, fmally, the same is said of God's own love : 'Do you not know that

God's kindness is meant to lead you to repentance? But by your hard and

unrepentant heart you are storing up for yourself wrath on the day of wrath

and of the revelation of the righteous judgment of God' (Rom 2 :4£).61 This

'storing up of wrath' is essentially the same as 'heaping up coals of fire.'

How is it then a motivation to love when Paul tells the Christian that

his love, like the apostolic preaching and the love of God, makes the plight

of the enemy worse if it meets an unrepentant heart? We have already concluded on the basis of Rom 1 2 : 14 that Paul does not mean that the aim of the Christian should be the destruction of his enemy. Rather, I would

suggest that the two r&p clauses (Rom 1 2 : 19c, 20c) are intended to give

assurance that God is not unrighteous: 'God will render to every man

according to his works' (Rom 2 :6). Rom 1 2 : 20c does not present the

aim of the believer, but states the framework of justice in which

enemy love becomes possible and good - a framework founded on God's

own righteousness (Rom 2 :4,5). To be aware of this framework will

motivate to genuine enemy love just as much as God's consciousness of

his own righteousness moves him to kindness.

With this complete confidence in the righteousness of God the

Christian is freed to love his enemy . He is freed not only from the fear of

death and of all threats to his ego, but he is now also freed from the

insidious tendency in every man to keep an account of wrongs (I Cor 1 3 :6)

Jesus ' command in early Christian paraenesis

119

in the name of justice. The assurance that God will take vengeance justly

on the evil of unrepentant animosity removes the last hindrance to enemy

love. (Cf I Pt 2 : 23 : 'Although he suffered, he did not threaten but submitted to the one who judges justly.')

The motivation we have been developing here from Rom 1 2 : 19f is subordinate to, but not inconsistent with, the overarching ground of enemy love which is expressed in Rom 1 2 : 1 - 'the mercies of God' (see Section

II.B. 1 ). The mercies of God hold out to the believer the hope of full

redemption in the future (Rom 8 : 24 ; 5 : 10); and the transforming power

of God's mercy in the present is a power flowing from this future redemption. The newness of the believer, appropriated already by faith, is an anticipation of his future consummated newness. The new man, the man

of faith, is thus sustained by hope. Therefore, it is fitting that the paraenetic

command of enemy love be grounded by promises of God's covenantkeeping faithfulness such as Rom 1 2 : 1 9-20.

We may note, fmally, that the foundation for Rom 1 2 : 19f had been

laid already in Jesus' teaching. As Schlatter points out, the problem of

injustice rising out of the command not to resist evil received a solution in

Jesus' teaching not unlike the solution it received in the early Christian

paraenesis: 'In the new word of Jesus [Mt 5 :39) the first word [Mt 5 :22] ,

which assigned to Gehenna one who debases his brother, lives on, and

with that the objection is settled which Josephus had already made,

namely that patience gives birth to injustice.'62 Jesus also said that the

rejection of his call to repentance and the failure to give heed to his

mighty works exacerbated the guilt of his hearers and made them all the

more liable to judgment (Mt 1 1 :20-22 par;63 cf Mt 1 8 :23 -25).64 We need

not hazard any historical, traditional connections in order to see that the

development of the early Christian paraenesis is here not in essential

disagreement with the teaching of Jesus.

C I Peter

1. The General Structure of Kerygma and Paraenesis

There are several conceptual and structural differences between the

paraenesis of I Pt and the paraenesis of Rom. First, the Petrine concept of

new birth (1 :3 ,23) is found nowhere in Rom nor anywhere else in Paul.

'In I Pt regeneration is God's act on man ( 1 :3). It is effected by the resurrection of Jesus ( 1 :3) or by the word of God (1 :23), i.e . the gospel (cf v 25). The result of man's regeneration is a living hope ( 1 :3).'65 The concept, whether stemming originally from the mystery religions66 or not, was widely known in the Christian tradition (cf Jn 3 :3-8 ; Tit 3 :5 ; I Jn 3 : 9 ;

Love your enemies

120

5 :8 ; Ja 1 : 18) and had a distinct and unique Christian meaning.67 It has a

peculiarly eschatological character: the Christians 'have been born anew'

(1 :23), they 'have purified their souls' (1 :22) but this new condition is

not static or complete. The metaphor is carried farther: 'as newborn

babes' the Christians are now to 'grow up unto salvation' (2 :2); salvation

is consistently future ( 1 :5 ,9) and the newborn babe is characterized

essentially by joyful ( 1 :8) and confident (1 :2 1 ) hope (1 :3 , 1 3). This leads

to the second difference between I Pt and Rom.

The significance of hope for the paraenetic admonition is stressed more

heavily by I Pt. The concept of hope dominates

of faith. This does

not mean that faith is neglected ; it means that faith is considered primarily

from the standpoint of hope: Christians are 'guarded by God's power through

faith for a salvation ready to be revealed at the last time . . As the outcome

.

of your faith you obtain the salvation of your souls' (1 :5,9 ; cf 1 : 1 3 ; 5 :9).

Faith and hope are almost identified and this hopeful faith then functions

to ground the paraenesis (cf Aw, 1 : 13).

A third difference is cited by Lohse : 'Especially characteristic of the

paraenesis of our letter is the way in which it is bound together with the

kerygma which like the paraenesis was taken up from the tradition. Here

the imperative is not, as with Paul, deduced from a preceding, unfolded

indicative ; rather the p araenesis stands first and is grounded in the added

reference to the will and act of God.'68 This structural feature of I Pt's

paraenesis is most evident in 2 : 2 1 -25 and 3 : 1 8 where the preceding

admonitions are grounded in references to Christ's death.

These three differences between the paraenesis of I Pt and that of Rom

are superficial and do not reveal the similarities and unity between the two

which are more striking and more essential. First, Lohse's distinction

cannot ·be pressed. In I Pt, the kerygma also precedes the paraenesis :

following 1 :3 - 1 2 comes the paraenetic appeal of 1 : 13ff; and the appeal of

2 : l ff is grounded in the preceding indicative (1 :23-15). Nor does the

indicative in Paul always precede the imperative : Rom 6 : 14 grounds the

foregoing admonitions and I Thess 5 :8 is an indicative in the midst of

imperatives. There is no fixed scheme in I Pt or in Paul. What matters is

that in both the paraenesis is rooted in the accomplished work of Christ,

as Lohse agrees.69

Second, there is a different accent in I Pt's treatment of hope and

faith, but to focus on this accent would be to miss the forest for the

trees. 70 We discussed earlier the importance of hope in Paul's motivation

of the paraenesis (pp 1 1 7f, cf Rom 8 :24; Col 1 :4 ) In I Pt faith is not

.

merely a forward-looking confidence in the 'grace being brought to you'

(1 : 13); it also looks backward to the resurrection (1 :3 ,2 1 ) and death

Jesus ' command in early Christian paraenesis

121

( 1 : 19 ; 2 :24 ; 3 : 18) of Christ. In fact it is best to say that faith is in God

(1 :2 1 ) who is known as 'the one who raised Christ from the dead' ( 1 :2 1 )

and the one who 'keeps us for a salvation ready to b e revealed at the last

time' (1 :5). This is essentially the same as Paul : we 'believe in him who

raised from the dead Jesus our Lord' (Rom 4 :24): 'The one who raised

Christ Jesus from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies also' (Rom

8 : 1 1 ). The shift of accent onto hope in I Pt is probably due to the afflictions71 of the recipients : they needed to be reminded of the bright prospect of the future salvation.

Third, the fact that Paul does not use the concept 'new birth' is a

terminological, not an essential, difference. New birth has its essential

counterpart in the Pauline concepts of the 'new creation' (Gal 6 : 1 5 ;

II Cor 5 : 1 7), the 'new man' (Col 3 : 1 0) and related ideas. Just as in I Pt

1 :3 Christians are 'born anew . . through the resurrection of Jesus

.

Christ from the dead,' so in Rom 6 :4 it is because Christ was raised from

the dead that 'we too might walk in newness of life.' The new reality is

in both cases the work of God (I Pt 1 :3 ; II Cor 5 : 1 8 ; Rom 6 : 1 7 ,13). In

both it is an eschatological reality : those who have already been born

anew must still put away all malice and grow up unto salvation (I Pt

2 : 1 ,2); those who have already died with Christ and already walk in newness of life must still reckon themselves dead to sin and alive to God (Rom 6 :1 1 ). In neither case is the newness a mere state ; it is at the same

time a summons, for it is effected by the word of God, the gospel (I Pt

1 :23 ,25 ; Rom 1 : 1 6 ; II Cor 5 : 18 ,20).

Fourth, both Rom and I Pt ground the paraenetic commands in the

mercies of God shown in the death and resurrection of Christ. Instead

of the word oixnpfJ.WV (Rom 1 2 : 1 ), I Pt uses �Xeo<; ( 1 :3) and XPflUTck

(2 :3). Paul says: 'I appeal to you, brothers, through the mercies of God'

(Rom 1 2 : 1 ) ; I Pt appeals 'because you have tasted the kindness of God'

(2 :3). We saw from Rom 5 :5-8 (pp 1 03f) that the 'mercies of God,' on

the basis of which a man is called to love his enemy (Rom 1 2 : 14 , 1 7ff),

consist primarily in the love of God shown in the death of Christ for

sinners. The same ground of love is prominent in I Pt : servants are to be

submissive to their masters and bear unjust suffering patiently, 'for unto

this you were called because Christ too suffered on behalf of you, leaving

for you a pattern that you might follow in his footsteps' (2 :21 ). Christ's

suffering is ultimately the ground for the paraenesis not because it was

exemplary but because it was substitutionary (inrep VfJ.wv). Such unusual

behavior can be demanded of servants because 'Christ himself bore our sins

in his body on the tree that we might die to sin and live to righteousness'

(2 :24; a similar argument appears in 3 : 1 7f).

Love your enemies

122

Fifth, there are verbal parallels between I Pt and Rom which reveal an

acquaintance with common tradition.72 We may cite two which are taken

from Rom 12.

Rom

! Pt

1 2 : 1 8vathv twaav a-ythv

2 : 5 1TV€VJ1.aTU<Ck 8vathc;

Eixi.peaTov TcfJ Oe<fJ

eimpoaS eK.Tovc; Oe<fJ

1 2 :2 JJ.fl avaxnJJ.wlteaOe

1 : 14 f.l.f/ GVCJX.TJJ1.Wtt6J1.EVOL

TcfJ aiwvt TOVTcfJ

mi(; 1TpoTepov

From these observations it is evident that the general structure of kerygma

and paraenesis in Pt is essentially the same asl the structure we fmd in Rom.

All the paraenetic admonitions are grounded in the 'kindness' (= mercies) of

the Lord revealed in the central events of redemptive history : the death

(I Pt 1 : 1 9 ; 2 :24; 3 : 1 8)

resurrection ( 1 :3) of Christ, and appropriated

in daily life by faith (1 : 5 ,9 ; 5 :9). This structural similarity along with the

verbal parallels suggests that we are dealing here with a structural motif

already present in the early oral paraenetic tradition. 73

2. The Ground of the Command of Enemy Love in I Pt

Turning from general considerations we focus now on the specific command

of enemy love (I Pt 3 :9) with the question: How is it grounded or motivated? The pertinent context is I Pt 3 :9-1 2 .

D o not return evil for evil,

or reviling for reviling,

but bless,

because unto this you were called

in order that you might inherit a blessing.

For he who would love life

and see good days,

let him keep his tongue from evil

and his lips from speaking guile ;

let him tum away from evil and do good;

let him seek peace and pursue it.

For the eyes of the Lord are upon the righteous,

and his ears are open to their prayer.

But the face of the Lord is against those that do evil.

The Old Testament quotation brought in to elucidate and support the

command of enemy love comes from Ps 33 : 13-17a (LXX).

Jesus ' command in early Christian paraenesis

123

/ Pt

LXX

Mas

3 : 10-12

Ps 33 : 1 3-1 7a

Ps 34 : 13-17a

b 'YOtp

n� i:anv av8pwrro<: b

C"�IJ f�IJ\1 !ZN:tv-·�

8e'Awv �wrw Ot:yomciv Kat 8€ >-..wv �wrw Ot:yarrwv

: :Ji� l"liN,? c·�· .:Jl"IN

: •

• T

••

weiv TIJ.J.€pav orya8 d<:

TzJl.EPCl<: weiv otya8Cx<: ;

l71� 'TJ�i!D7 ,l�

rrava&rw rizv 1'Awaaav rrwaov rilv 1'Awaa&.v

: l"l'tl� ,�,� 'TJ".!)�fD!I

lx:rro KClKOV

aov arro KClKOV

:Ji�-nV!'�l l71� ,�o

K at' xet'AT/ rov

Kat xet'AT/ aov rov

: �n�11' ci?� !Dji?.�

JJ.il 'Aa'Af/aat 86>-..ov,

JJ.il 'AaAf/aat 8 6>-..ov.

c•p•·:p�-?� n�;;t� ·�·�

i:K K'Awcirw o€ &.rro KaKou eK K 'Awov &rro KaKou

: Cl"ID,!D- ?N ,"lTN,

T T : -

"

T : T :

K at' rrot'T/a&.rw Ot:ya86v,

Kat' rrot'r/aov /ryo:86v,

l7, •illl7!:1 mn• "lD

T

"

:

T

:

" '

�T/TT/GcirW eip'I11117V

�iJTT/GOV eipiJV11V

K at' 8 tw�&rw cxbriJv.

Kat' o !.W�ov ain"iJv.

on blf>8a'AJJ.ot' KVPWV

blf>8a'AJJ.oi Kvpwv

i:rrt' o tK awv<:

i:m' om awv<: ,

Kelt' c:Jm WTOV ei<: of'Tiaw K ClL �Tel WTOV ei<: of'Tiatv

aiJrwv,

cxbrwv.

rrp6aW7rOV OE K Vp WV

rrp6awrrov OE K VpWV

i:m' 1rOWVVTCl<: K ClK &. .

i:m' 1rOWVVTCl<: KQKQ.

According to 3 :9b, we are to bless those who revile us on ei<: TOVTO

EKAT/OiJTe iro eiJ'Ao'YtaV KAT/POVOJJ.iJa'T/T€. The primary exegetical question

here is: What does the roriro refer to? Does it refer (A) to what precedes,

namely, blessing one's revilers ; or (B) to what follows in the iro -clause,

namely, the hope of inheriting a blessing? The sense of 'A' would be : Bless

those who revile you because you have been called to do this in order that

as a consequence you might inherit a blessing. The sense of 'B' would be :

Bless those who revile you because you know that through God's call74 a

blessing awaits you. 'A' makes the inheritance of the blessing conditional

upon loving one's enemy. 'B' makes the surety of the inheritance the

motive of loving one's enemy. Thus 'A' seems to conflict with the general

structure of the kerygma and paraenesis determined above, according to

which the imperatives are grounded in the finished work of God in Christ

and the surety of the coming salvation.

It is precisely this apparent theological conflict which leads most

commentators to favor interpretation 'B'. 75 Kelly sums up the three

additional arguments for 'B'. (1) According to 'A' there is an awkward

parenthesis : 'Bless those who revile you (for unto this you were called) in

order that you might inherit a blessing.' (2) I Pt 4 :6 offers a parallel which

shows that roriro in this construction can look forward : 76 ei<: roriro 'YOtP

Kat' veKpoii; ein?'Y'Ye'AiaBT/ iva Kpt8wat

(3) 'Freely you have received,

. . •

Love your enemies

124

freely give' is better in tune with the spirit of the passage . A fourth

argument could be that interpretation 'A' fails to take account of the

possibility that iva could imply result instead of purpose . Are these

arguments compelling?

With regard to the first argument it may be said that there need be no

parenthesis at all. The sentence makes good sense if the iva clause is subordinate to €K M8f/r€ : 'Bless those who revile you because you were called to do this and the purpose or aim of this call to love your enemy is that you

might be blessed.' The second argument shows that interpretation 'B' is

grammatically possible, but I Pt 2 : 2 1 provides a more striking parallel

than 4 :6 and points in the opposite direction. 77 Slaves should endure

suffering patiently ei<: ro!rro rap €K Ar/8f/re . . . Here we have almost the

identical wording ( rdt.p instead of on) of 3 :9b and the ro!rro certainly

refers backward. The third argument that interpretation 'B' is better in

tune with the passage is, so far as I can see , not true if one focuses on

3 : 10- 1 2 (see below). To the fourth argument, that iva can have the force

of result as well as purpose, we can only say that the context must determine

which sense is appropriate. To this, therefore , we should now tum.

The decisive thing in favor of interpretation 'A' is the way Ps 34 : 13-1 7

(LXX 3 3 ) has been used in this context. Besides replacing the original

second person of the LXX with third person, there has been added the

rd.p of 3 : 1 0 and the on of v 1 2 . The rd.p introduces the entire Old Testament quote as an expansion and restatement of the argumentation in 3 :9.

Because the Old Testament is authoritative , its confirmation of what has

been said in v 9 functions as a ground ( rdt.p ). The argumentation of the

Old Testament passage is precisely that of interpretation 'A', not 'B'. The

sense is : 'If someone desires to love life and to see good days, 78 then his

tongue must cease from evil.' In the words of v 9 : 'if you desire to inherit

a blessing, then you must bless those who revile you.' That this is the

writer's intention is made clear by the redactional on of 3 : 1 2 ;79 one must

cease from evil and do good precisely because (on) the Lord is for the

righteous and against those who do evil. In the words of v 9 : one must

bless those who revile him because his inheritance from the Lord depends

on it. 80 In view of this conscious redactional treatment of Ps 34 as a support

for the argumentation of 3 :9, interpretation 'A' (that ro!rro refers back

to enemy love) has far more in its favor from the immediate context than

does interpretation 'B' (that ro!rro refers forward to inheriting the blessing).

The implication that without obedience to the paraenetic commands

one will not inherit the future blessing and that salvation is, therefore,

somehow conditional upon obedience is not limited to I Pt 3 :9- 1 2 . In

1 : 17 the Christians are admonished to conduct themselves in fear during

Jesus ' command in early Christian paraenesis

125

the time of their (earthly) exile because the one they call upon as Father

is the one who judges each impartially according to his works. The writer

apparently sees no conflict between pointing the Christians forward toward

the future of God's judgment and backward, as he does in 1 : 18f, to their

redemption through 'the precious blood of Christ.' Another example of

I Pt's future-oriented parae netic motivation is found in 4 : 13 ; 'Insofar as

you share the sufferings of Christ, rejoice in order that (iva) you might

rejoice in gladness at the revelation of his glory' (cf Rom 8 : 1 7). The

sequence of thought is the same as 3 :9 : here the Christian is to rejoice in

suffering so that he might be able to rejoice in Christ's future glory; in

3 :9 he is to bless those who revile him in order that he might inherit a

blessing. Finally, we may cite two proverbial sayings from I Pt 5 which

contain Old Testament wisdom and reflect the sayings of Jesus: 'All of

you clothe yourselves with lowliness toward each other because

(redactional on again) God resists the proud but gives grace to the lowly'

(5 :5b Prov 3 :34 LXX; cf Mt 23 : 12). 'Humble yourselves therefore under

=

the mighty hand of God in order that (Lba) in the proper season he might

exalt you' (5 :6 ; cf Job 22 :29 ; Mt 23 : 1 2 ; Lk 14 : 1 1 ; 1 8 : 14); We see therefore,

that the interpretation 'A' of 3 :9b , which sees enemy love as a condition

for inheriting the blessing, is not an isolated instance in I Pt. How can this

line of evidence be brought into harmony with our earlier conclusion that

the paraenetic imperatives and their fulfilment are grounded in the renewing

mercy of God which is expressed in Christ's death and resurrection and is

appropriated in daily life by faith?

To answer this question we must give closer attention to I Pt 1 :3-9 .

Three statements are made here concerning faith. First, we are guarded by

the power of God through faith for salvation (1 :5), i.e., for an incorruptible

inheritance (1 :4). Second, faith which has been proved and found genuine

will participate in the glory of Christ's revelation (1 :6f), i.e., in the coming

salvation ( 1 :5). Third, as the end of our faith we receive the salvation of

our souls (1 :9). In other words the power of God brings us to salvation

through, or by means of, tested faith. Wherein does this testing (noud>..otc;

netpaaf.loic; 1 :6) consist? In 4 : 12 the netpaaw)c; which the Christians can

expect (J.li, �€Vttea8e ; cf Ei OEOV, 1 :6) is a 'fiery test' (nvpwaet;81 cf OuX

nvpoc; , 1 : 7) which according to the following verses consists in sharing the

sufferings of Christ (4: 13), specifically, being reproached (ovetb{�ea8e

4 : 14) for his name (XPwnavdc; 4 : 16). If one rejoices in this suffering (4 : 13)

and unashamedly gives glory to God (4 : 1 6), then he will participate in

the revelation of Christ's glory (4: 1 3). In other words, as in 1 :6f participation in the glorious revelation of Christ depends on a proved faith, so in 4 : 1 2f participation in the glorious revelation of Christ depends on a certain

Love your enemies

126

kind of response to reproach from non -Christians, namely, a response of

joy, boldness and concern for God's glory. This is none other than the

response of faith (see 1 : 8 , 'you believe and rejoice' [cf Rom 1 5 : 13] ). The

ooK. ,Pwv Til<: TrL'arew<: ( 1 :7) which alone participates in the glory of Christ's

revelation is nothing less than the faith which proves itself by the way it

responds to its enemies.

The implication for the text on enemy love (3 :9) is already evident.

There are three points of contact between I Pt 3 :9 and the two texts we

have just discussed ( 1 :3-9 and 4 : 1 2-16). First, the eschatological goal in

each is the same : in 1 :3-9 it is called an inheritance (1 :4), salvation ( 1 : 5 ,9)

and the revelation of Jesus Christ (1 :7); in 4 : 13 it is called the revelation of

his glory ; and in 3 :9 it is called inheriting a blessing. 82 Second, in 1 :6f the

writer speaks of a faith which must prove itself through being tested. In

4 : 13-16 this testing consists in the reproach of non-Christians and faith

proves itself by its unusual response of joy, boldness and a concern for

God's glory. Similarly in 3 :9 the testing consists in being reviled by hostile

neighbors and (we may assume) faith proves itself by blessing instead of

reviling in return. Third, the approvedness of faith, the response of joy amid

reproach and the response of blessing amid reviling are in each case that

through which the Christian fmally reaches salvation ( cf the i'vo: in 1 :7,

3 :9 and 4 : 13);

Our conclusion, therefore, is that, while enemy love is that without which

one cannot inherit the blessing in 3 :9, this in no way means that the

writer is here calling for the heroic ethical strength of a man to earn his

inheritance. It means rather that he is calling for the response of faith.

There can be no talk of the Christian earning his inheritance,83 for faith

is not a human power, but a reliance upon God's power which guards us

for salvation ( 1 :5). The prospect of inheriting a glorious84 (4: 1 3 ; 1 :4)

blessing should motivate us to put our confidence in him (1 :2 1 ) who can

make us new ( 1 :3 ,23), thus enabling us to respond to persecution with

love (3 :9) and so guarding us for the salvation to come. Nor should we

ever lose sight of the fact that, while in I Pt salvation is future, nevertheless

the epistle stresses over and over the present reality of new life in which

the Christian already shares. 85

3. Implications for the Oral Paraenetic Tradition

The way the command of enemy love is grounded in I Pt 3 :9ff corresponds

to the book's accent on hope (see p 1 20). Insofar as this accent is probably

a reflection of the situation into which the epistle was sent (see especially

5 :9f), so the corresponding ground of enemy love in 3 :9b has occasional

(redactional) rather than traditional character.86 Nevertheless, there is

Jesus ' command in early Christian paraenesis

12 7

reason to think that a good deal of the tenninology as well as, possibly,

the structure of the argument was already at the author's disposal in the

tradition.

First, we have already noted (see note 82) that while 'blessing' and

'inheriting' (I Pt 3 :9) are common eschatological elements of the Old

Testament and Jewish tradition, the combination of the two concepts

as we have it here is not common in that tradition and yet occurs again

in Heb 1 2 : 1 7 . It is probably then a part of the early Christian tradition

and not the formulation of the author. Second, the idea of being 'called'

to bless those who revile you (3 :9) is present also in 2 : 2 1 where one is

'called' to suffer meekly 'in Christ's footsteps'. This may be the author's

own adaptation of a traditional idea of being 'called into the fellowship

of God's Son' (I Cor 1 :9) which is a call to 'suffering' (Phil 3 : 10) and

'holiness' (I Thess 4 :7) and 'peace' (Col 3 : 1 5 ; I Cor 7 : 1 5). That KciA.ew

had a fairly technical sense in the early Christian tradition need not be

doubted.87 That this was in the early tradition a call not only to God's

Kingdom and glory but also to loving service and suffering is likely in view

of the essential parallels between I Pt 2 : 2 1 and 3 :9 and the other New

Testament epistles. Third, we saw in Chapter 1 (pp 1 3f) that Ps 34 which

is quoted here in I Pt 3 : 1 0- 1 2 was both a constituent of the early Christian

paraenetic tradition itselrB8 as well as contributing its particular terminology to the tradition ('do good,' 'pursue peace,' etc., I Pt 3 : 1 1 ). Therefore the raw material with which the command of enemy love is grounded in I Pt 3 :9-1 2 is primarily traditional.

Is it possible that also the structure of the argument here was a feature

of the parae netic tradition on enemy love? We will not be able to reach

certainty here but a comparison with the structure of Rom 1 2 : 19f suggests

a positive answer. In the first place, both Rom 12f and I Pt employ their

longest Old Testament quotes to ground and elucidate the command of

enemy love (see p 1 1 3). Second, in both texts the argument of the Old

Testament quote has reference to the future, although the content of

the argumentis different in both. Third, in both cases the Old Testament

citations are of the proverbial wisdom variety. 89 We have already discussed the theological reason for the use of the Old Testament (specifically proverbial wisdom) in these contexts (see pp 1 1 3f). On the basis of these

general similarities it is not unlikely that the structure of the arguments

in Rom 1 2 : 19f and I Pt 3 : 1 0- 1 2 had a common type in the early Christian

paraenetic tradition. And it is fair to say that the way the command of

enemy love is motivated in I Pt and in Paul is not due entirely to the

peculiarity of the author but also reflects the general early Christian understanding embodied in the paraenetic tradition.

Love your enemies

128

In discussing Jesus ' understanding of the relation between his love

command and the Kingdom of God, I concluded (p 79), on the one

hand, that Jesus' love command must be obeyed if one is to enter into

the Kingdom of God and, on the other hand, that apart from the powers

of that Kingdom the obedience of the love command is impossible.

Only that person will enter the Kingdom whose living has already

reflected the life and power of the Kingdom. That is, in order to participate in the future consummation of redemption a man must be transformed even in his behavior by the 'mysterious' redeeming power of God already at work through Jesus. Obedience to the command of

enemy love is both a condition for entrance into the Kingdom and a

gift of the King. I Pt presents the same basic pattern when it main-

tains on the one hand that the Christian's inheritance depends on his

loving his enemy (3 :9), yet, on the other hand, that it is God's power

which guards us through faith for this inheritance ( 1 :4f). Here we

have an indication that the early church preserved not merely the isolated sayings of Jesus such as the words of Jesus behind the tradition in I Pt 3 : 9 , but also took over the theological structure contained in

Jesus' message.

III. The Content of the Command of Enemy Love

We are concerned in this section with the question : Wherein does obedience

to the command of enemy love consist? Just as in Chapter 3 , far less space

will be given to this question than to the preceding question on motivation.

The reason here is the same as there (p 69): the motivation or ground of

the command of enemy love, as I have described it, is such that, when a

man truly experiences it, the perception of what he ought to do happens

naturally , just as a 'new man' naturally leads a new life . I do

mean that

a man is left alone with his conscience and with no external guidance (see

pp 1 06-1 0),90 but rather that in the New Testament paraenesis the

essential thing is the renewing of the mind so that one can prove 'naturally'

what is good (Rom 1 2 :2). It is appropriate, therefore , that our stress should

fall on the ground of the c ommand of enemy love rather

on its content. There follow , accordingly , some brief observations on the general

features of enemy love and a discussion of the command of enemy love in

relation to the general norm of love and to the institutions of society.

A. General Features of Enemy Love

Nowhere in the New Testament outside the synoptics do we find Jesus'

command ; 'Love your enemies!' As we argued in Chapter 2 (p 56), this

command would have had a discomforting sharpness in Jesus' situation

where nationalistic feelings ran high and scribes discussed , 'Who is my

neighbor?' For the early church, however, neither nationalistic allegiance

nor scribal exegesis formed the immediate b ackdrop of the love command.

Jesus ' command in early Christian paraenesis

129

The question the early church faced was: How shall we act toward the

unbeliever, the hostile townspeople, the ridiculing old friends (cf I Pt 4 :4)?

'Love your enemies' would not strike home here like it did in Jesus'

situation. Therefore the command was paraphrased and the 'enemies' were

specified: persecutors, revilers, those who do evil to you , etc.

When it came to specifying how the Christian should behave toward

these 'enemies,' the paraenesis said very little. There is no comparison to

the large amount of elaboration which love for the brotherhood received.

We fmd a few negative and positive commands: Do not repay evil for evil

or reviling for reviling; Bless those who revile you and curse you, don't

curse them ; Do good to them ; Seek peace ; Do not avenge yourselves; Give

food and water to your needy enemies. Many pages could be used to draw

out the implications of these for daily life but that is properly the role of

the sem10n. Here we may simply observe four things.

First, enemy love is ready and willing to meet the physical needs of the

enemy. 'If your enemy is hungry, feed him ; if he is thirsty, give him drink'

(Rom 1 2 : 20). Enemy love is disposed to do good to the enemy (I Thess

5 : 1 5) and therefore is not content to let him suffer when it has the power

to help. Wherein the 'good' of the enemy consists is perceived by the

'renewed mind' of the believer in the concrete encounter with him and

this will include the good of his body and mind.91

Second, enemy love desires and seeks the spiritual welfare of the enemy.

The most common positive admonition concerning the enemy is that the

Christian 'bless' him (Rom 1 2 : 14; I Pt 3 :9; I Cor 4 : 1 2). Enemy love

desires that the enemy be blessed and not cursed (Rom 1 2 : 14). This desire

would be sheer hypocrisy if it were not dominated by a longing for the

enemy's participation in the 'fullness of Christ's blessing' (Rom 1 5 :29 ;

cf I Pt 2 : 1 2). Enemy love is, therefore, at its heart, a desire and activity

aimed at the conversion of one's unbelieving neighbor.92 Being free from

all, it makes itself the servant of all in order to win the more (I Cor 9 : 1 9).

In this the Christian lacks no zeal : he is aflame with the Spirit and constant in prayer (Rom 1 2 : 1 1 ,1 2).

Third, enemy love in no way implies that one finds evil less abhorrent:

'Let love be genuine : hate the evil (ri:TToarv-yoiivre<: ro 1TOVT/POV) and hold

fast to the good' (Rom 1 2 :9). The existence and seriousness of evil is the

very reason there is such a thing as an enemy. And this evil which is the

source of enmity is hated by enemy love. Hate is not directed at the

person but at his 'works' : 'This you have, you hate the works of the

Nicolaitans which I also hate,' says Jesus to the church at Ephesus (Rev

2 :6). If there is no intense hatred of evil, then there will be no intense love

for one's enemy because the good which love desires for the enemy is

Love your enemies

130

primarily the removal of the cause of enmity which is the evil of unbelief.

Thus if one is ignorant of or insensible to real evil in the world and in his

enemy (and in himself!) then he will not know how to love his enemy

because he will scarcely perceive his enmity. 'Genuine love' hangs on

'abhorring evil and holding to the good' (Rom 12 :9).

The fourth point is implied in what I have said already : since enemy

love is not merely deeds but is also 'blessing' and ixvU1r6Kptro<: (Rom 12 :9),

one cannot achieve it except by becoming a new kind of person. If enemy

love involves blessing then there is no possibility that enemy love can

mean doing what you do not want to. It is impossible to bless the enemy,

i.e., wish (= want) him well, and at the same time not want to. You

cannot desire his welfare and not desire it. Either your heart desires

his good and blesses him or it does not. But we do not immediately determine the desires of our heart. They spring out like fruit on a tree, either good or bad. Therefore, genuine enemy love involves first and foremost

getting a heart that bears the fruit of blessing and not cursing. This was in

fact what the first part of this chapter was all about.

B. Love and the Command of Enemy Love and the Institutions of Society

It is outside the scope of this work to deal fully with the general theme of

love in the New Testament paraenesis. Nor can we develop from the standpoint of our question a New Testament social ethic. It is inevitable , therefore, that in this section questions will be raised that we cannot stop to answer. Nevertheless if we seek to determine the relationships between the

general norm oflove,93 the institution and the specific command of enemy

love, the proper application and limitation of this command will become

more clear.

The Christian is to do every thing ev Cx')'cX1TTI (I Cor 1 6 : 14 ). Love is the

way (ooci<:) of his life (I Cor 1 2 :3 1 ) It is most fully defined in I Cor 13

.

with no reference to the object to which it is directed but rather with a

description of the Christian as he is to feel and act in all relationships.

This means that not only day-to-day personal relationships are governed

by love, but also the relationships within institutions. For example, in

I Thess 5 : 13 Paul beseeches the church to 'esteem very highly' their leaders

in the church because of their work (ot& ro ilprov o:vrwv), and it is to be

done €v cX')'cX1TTI· It is instructive to reflect for a moment that, according to

Paul, esteem can be shown to the church leaders both 'in love' and 'on

account of their work.' We are accustomed to thinking that doing something 'in love' excludes doing it because of a person's position or achievement. Paul, however, apparently understood love in such a way that the person who acted in love did not disregard rank or position. Love, as that

Jesus ' command in early Christian paraenesis

131

which forms the Christian's whole life , does not mean he responds the

same way to every man. Rather, love takes on shape appropriate to the

rank or position of the other person. Love does not ignore, but takes into

account 'the work' of the other and gives him his due.

In I Cor 1 6 : 1 6 , Paul describes this due, which we owe those who labor

(Kotruiw, I Cor 16 : 1 6 ; I Thess 5 : 1 2) in the service of the saints, in terms

of subjection : imor&acrrwee ro'ic; rowlirotc;. 94 That is, subjection is urged

(I Cor 1 6 : 1 5) for certain relationships within the church95 as it is in the

Haustafeln for certain relationships outside the church (e.g., to the state

or to the non-Christian slave owner). But there is little doubt that I Cor

1 6 : 15 f was seen by Paul in the light of the immediately preceding tr&vrcx

VJJ.WV ev <i'YWTI ')'tveaew . Thus from I Thess 5 : 1 3 and I Cor 16 : 14-16 (as

well as I Cor 12 :3 1 - 1 3 : 13) we may say that Paul understood love as the

attitude which should shape the relationships of subjection within the church.

If this is so, then there can be no objection in principle to understanding every command for subjection in the Haustafeln as a call for love to take a particular form in given relationships. For whether love is

an over-arching principle which embraces relationships of subjection does

not depend on whether the objects of love are Christian or not. It depends

on whether acting 'in love' and 'in subjection' are separate and distinct

ways of acting or whether walking 'in love' can include walking 'in

subjection.' The preceding paragraphs have suggested the latter to be the

case : love does subsume subjection as a particular form which love assumes.

As Schrage remarks, 'All relationships and orders of the world become for

the Christian the sphere and framework of loving conduct . . . . Probably

even respect for the orders is itself to be an expression of love.'96

Therefore love must be understood in a very broad way. It cannot, for

example, be defmed so that it necessarily includes non-resistance ; because

subjecting oneself to the state, which 'does not carry the sword in vain'

(Rom 13 : 1 ,4 ), may very well involve one in resistance. As L. Goppelt

says, 'Nowhere is the demonstration of love, whose sign is non-resistance,

made the authoritative guideline for behavior in the orders, as is the case

in the relationship to the neighbor. One can only say that Christians even

in the orders of society should act completely out of love, insofar as one

understands love to be the free offer of help to men which wills their

life (Rom 1 3 :8- 1 0).'97 Goppelt distinguishes here between a Liebeserweis

characterized by non-resistance and a Handeln aus Liebe characterized

more generally as a free act of service which desires life for others.

Some such distinction as this is needed to account for the data. For besides

the wide understanding of love which we have worked out so far, there is

the command of enemy love which is characterized, negatively, by not

Love your enemies

132

resisting evil (I Thess 5 : 1 5 ; Rom 1 2 : 1 7 ; I Pt 3 :9) and, positively, by returning good for evil (I Thess 5 : 1 5), by blessing those who persecute (Rom 1 2 : 14) or revile (I Pt 3 :9 ; I Cor 4 : 1 2) you, and by giving food and water to

your enemy (Rom 1 2 :20). This is certainly an expression of love98 but it

is an expression which does not remain entirely in harmony with the

motif of 'subjection' in the paraenetic tradition. Conflict is inevitable

because a person whose action is based alone on a command to be subject

aims not to do good to another, but to obey.99 He may be commanded by

the subjecting power to punish or kill. So long as he is subjecting himself

to that power he will do it ; this may easily lead one into conflict with the

command of enemy love.

Therefore, it is evident that the love in which all things are to be done

(I Cor 16 : 1 6 ; 1 2 :3 1 ff) is not to be identified with the enemy love which is

the central object of our study. The command of enemy love does not stand

over the other individual commands in the tradition as a unifying norm ; it

stands beside them, indeed, in tension with some of them. Enemy love is

just one manifestation of the over-arching way of love.

For the sake of precision it must be stressed that in the New Testament paraenesis the command of enemy love is not made the norm of behavior in the institutions of theHaustafel. It has its own sphere of

application, namely, the daily encounter with one's hostile neighbor. We

may illustrate this with a chart. Within the structure of I Pt 2 : 13-3 : 1 2

various institutions of society are discussed in turn, three of which have

their parallel in Rom 1 2 and 1 3 .

/Pt

Rom

State

2 : 1 3- 1 7 1 3 : 1 -7

Servants

2 : 1 8-25 -

Wives-husbands 3 : 1 -7

Brotherhood

3 :8

1 2 :9-1 3 , 1 5 - 1 6

Neighborhood 3 :9- 1 2

1 2 : 14, 1 7-2 1

In the first three of these institutions the command is 'be subject' ; in the

last two the command is for brotherly love and enemy love respectively. 100

The command of enemy love (which blesses its persecutors) is never made

the norm for behavior in an institution where the command imoTCiaaea8e

is given.

But this division between the orders does not solve the conflict between

the subjection and non-resistance motifs. Our sister in the Lord may also be

our wife ; our employee may also be our neighbor or fellow church member.

Besides this overlapping of social orders there is, as we noticed earlier,

within the church itself an 'order' of 'subjection'. There is no synthesis of

Jesus ' command in early Christian paraenesis

133

these two commands worked out in the New Testament paraenesis. The

question is never explicitly posed : What should I do when the command

to feed my enemy conflicts with the command to be subject to the state?

Nor was it the intention of the New Testament paraenesis to answer with

a command every such question. Rather it admonished : 'be transformed

by the renewal of your mind so that you can prove what is the will of

God' (Rom 12 :2).

As we said at the beginning, to try to answer all the questions raised by

these remarks is beyond the scope of this work. 101 We may round out

this section by recalling that a similar tension existed in Jesus' own ministry.

Alongside the command 'Love your enemies!' (Mt 5 :44 par) stood the

command 'Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's !' (Mk 1 2 : 1 7). The

tension between the two commands is a reflex of the basic eschatological

tension of the 'already' and 'not yet' of the Kingdom of God which

stamped Jesus' whole ministry (p 97) and is preserved in the New Testament paraenesis. The presence of the new age demands a radically new kind of behavior which draws its strength from the hidden, saving reign of

God and is thus a sign of it - hence the demand for enemy love (cf Chapter

3 , Sections II. C and D). The continuing reality of the present historical age

demands a recognition of and alignment with the fact that God is the

sovereign of history who ordains its institutions for its good - hence the

demand for subjection. As long as the church is still 'in the flesh' (Gal 2 :20)

as long as she walks by faith and not by sight (II Cor 5 : 7) the tension

between enemy love and subjection within human institutions will remain.

The over-arching way of love along which one is always to walk is therefore

not determined merely by the commandments of the paraenesis but

depends also upon the renewed mind of faith (Rom 1 2 :2).

5

TH E G O S P E L T R A D IT IO N O F J E S U S ' C O M M A N D

O F E N E M Y L O V E AN D ITS U S E IN M A T T H E W

AN D L U K E

I. The Gospel Tradition o f Jesus' Command o f Enemy Love before the

Gospels

By 'gospel tradition' I mean that stream of tradition, the written form of

which we have in our synoptic gospels. That this stream of tradition, which

flows from the spring of Jesus' words and deeds, is not identical with the

'paraenetic tradition,' which is also rooted in the words of Jesus, is one of

the central theses of this study . This thesis has been propounded by

L. Goppelt in an article entitled 'Jesus und die "Haustafel" -Tradition.'

He concludes: 'Our analysis has shown that there are . . two traditions,

.

which bear the differing stamps of their own main intention. The gospel

tradition intends to witness to the sayings of-Jesus primarily as proclamation within his own situation / that is , as a summons to repentance in view of the coming Kingdom ; the

tradition passes the sayings

on from the exalted Lord to his community as helpful examples for

behavior. Therefore they are not usually designated here as the words of

Jesus' (p 1 03).

In Chapter 4 our treatment of Jesus' command of enemy love in the

paraenetic tradition confirmed the latter part of Goppelt's conclusion. We

turn now to consider the gospel tradition of Jesus' command of enemy

love, its form, Sitz im Leben, and relation to the paraenetic tradition.

A. Determining the Vorlage

In Chapter 2, pp 49-63 , I tried to determine as precisely as possible what

the teaching of Jesus was behind Mt 5 :38-48/Lk 6 :27-36. As a means to

that end I tried to show which elements in these texts are probably to be

assigned to an earlier level of the tradition. The rigorous work to determine

the Vorlage of Mt and Lk has, therefore, already been done and this

present section will be a summary of the results of that work. Instead of

repeating the arguments for my conclusions I will merely give the page

numbers from Chapter 2 where they are found.

Jesus ' command in the gospel tradition

135

Li.ihrmann has shown that there is a 'gemeinsame Grundstruktur von

Bergpredigt und Feldrede' (see chart, pp 49f). Both Mt and Lk found their

material on enemy love already imbedded in a collection of sayings. It is

impossible, however, to maintain with certainty that Mt and Lk had as

their Vorlage the same form of this basic collection. There are differences

between Mt and Lk which cannot adequately be explained as alterations of

Lk's form by Mt or of Mt's form by Lk. It is thus necessary, with a large

group of scholars (see Chapter 2, note 93), to postulate two distinct forms

of the collection of sayings behind the Sermon on the Mount and the

Sermon on the Plain.2 This means that neither Mt nor Lk can be assumed a

priori to preserve the form of the material which was originally gathered

together into the traditional collection behind Mt 5 :38-48/Lk: 6 :27-36 .

There is here no fixed text of Q against which Mt and Lk can be contrasted.

This makes a reliable determination of redactional elements almost impossible . Nevertheless we can make some defmite statements about what the two Vorlagen had in common ; and, on the basis of the context and the

peculiar habits of the evangelists, learned elsewhere, we may venture some

probable statements about the redaction of these Vorlagen.

In general we may say with a fair degree of certainty that the Vorlagen

of Mt (5 :38-48) and Lk (6 :27-36) had the following common elements :3

the command, 'Love your enemies ! ' (Mt 5 :44a/Lk 6 :27a; see p 56); the

command, 'Pray for your abusers !' (Mt 5 :44b/Lk 6 :27d; see p 57); the

commands about

the other cheek, giving up your shirt, walking the

extra mile, and giving to the one who asks (Mt 5 :39b-42/Lk 6 :29-30; see

p 58); the rhetorical questions (Mt 5 :46,47 /Lk 6 : 32-34; see pp 59f); the

promise of sonship (Mt 5 :45/Lk 6 :35b ; see pp 6 1 f); the command to be like

God (Mt 5 :48/Lk 6:36; see p 63). Possibly the commands to do good to

those who hate you and to bless those who curse you (Lk 6 :27b,c ; see

p 57) should also be included here.

It cannot be established with so much certainty, however, which of the

variations within these common individual elements are to be attributed to

the evangelists and which go back to an intermediate altered form of the

common collection of sayings. First of all the antithetical form of Mt 5 :38

and 43 cannot with certainty be attributed to Mt's redaction (see pp 5 1 -5).

But on the other hand, the arguments for its originality are also not

totally convincing. We have chosen to leave the question open.4 For the

rest of the material we may simply list the possible redactional elements.

One could attribute to Lk: im€p (Lk 6 :27b ; see Chapter 2, note 123);

the elimination of the legal technicalities from Mt 5 :39b-42 including

oe�iav (Mt 5 : 39b), KprfJiJVCXL (Mt 5 :40), and all of Mt 5 :41 (Lk 6 : 29,30;

see p 58); the replacement of 'tax collectors' and 'gentiles' (Mt 5 :46,47)

Love your enemies

136

with 'sinners' (Lk 6 :3 2-34 ; see p 59); the substitution of the abstract

')fJTlOToc; (Lk 6 :3 5 ; see p 62) for the concrete 'he causes the sun to rise . . .

and gives rain . . .' (Mt 5 :45). 5 The examination of Lk's usage of these

terms outside this context reveals that lxp.o:prwA6c; (Mt - 5 times ; Mk - 6

times ; Lk - 1 7 times) is with greater probability due to Lk's own work.

One could attribute to Mt : l h wt<.6vrwv (Mt 5 :44b ; see p 56);:rrepwadv

(Mt 5 :47 ; see p 59); re"Ae toc; (Mt 5 :48 ; see p 63); re"Awmt and €8 vtt<.ot'

(Mt 5 :46f; see p 59).6 The examination of Mt's usage of these words out·

side this context reveals that their presence here could well be his own

work.7

In spite of these terminological variations between Mt and Lk the

argumentation in both is b asically the same. The main point in each is that

one should love his enemies (Mt 5 :44a/Lk 6 :27a). This command is

expanded with illustrations (Mt 5 :39-42,44b ; Lk 6 :27b-3 1 ,3 5 a), and a

positive and negative argument are given why one should act this way.

Positively, loving one's enemies means becoming a son of God because

God loves his enemies (Mt 5 :45/Lk 6 :35b,c). Negatively, failing to love

one's enemies means getting no reward because that is the way the tax

collectors/gentiles/sinners act (Mt 5 :46,4 7/Lk 6 :32-34). Essentially the

same conclusion is then drawn in both gospels : since acting like your

Father means the reward of sonship and failing to be like him means no

reward at all, therefore be (perfect-merciful) like your Father (Mt 5 :48/

Lk 6 :36)! It is thus evident that this basic argument was already found in

the gospel tradition and constituted the basic structure of the Vorlage in

Mt's Sermon on the Mount and Lk's Sermon on the Plain.

B. Determining the Sitz im Leben of the Vorlage

The basic elements of Mt 5 :3 8-48/Lk 6 : 2 7-36 (as described in the preceding

section) go back to a common collection of sayings on enemy love . This

collection is very probably of Palestinian origin as we see from the Jewish

situation preserved in the reference to the blow on the right cheek (Mt

5 :39), 8 and in the reference to one who conscripts you to go with him a

mile (Mt 5 :4 1),9 and in the Semitic turns of phrase and poetic forms

(see p 5 8).

Knowledge of the collection was not, however, restricted to Palestine .

There is good evidence (e.g., p 1 56) that the formal hellenizing tendencies

evident in Lk's version were not first accomplished by him A

.

fairly widespread dissemination of the gospel tradition throughout the early church

is one of the conclusions of the following discussion.

To the question of the Sitz im Leben of this collection of sayings, i.e . ,

for what purpose the sayings were g;lthered in this way, Dibelius gives the

Jesus ' command in the gospel tradition

137

following answer : they were gathered for hortatory purposes.10 That is,

these words of Jesus were apparently put into a unit for the paraenetic

purpose of giving ethical instructions to Christians. If this is correct, the

unit is a part of what Jeremias calls 'eine urchristliche Didache,' the theme

of which is 'the way Christians lead their lives in distinction from their Jewish

contemporaries.'11

However, when we compare this traditional collection of sayings on

enemy love (which we shall now call the 'gospel tradition') with the

paraenetic tradition on enemy love which we discovered behind Rom 1 2 :

14-20 ; I Thess 5 : 1 5 ; and I Pt 3 :9-12, the question arises: I f the gospel

tradition was formed and preserved simply for ethical instruction of the

church, why does it differ so markedly from the paraenetic tradition which

was formed and preserved for the same reason?

This marked difference is brought out clearly by C. H. Dodd. He cites

the following distinctions between the paraenetic tradition of Rom 1 2 : 1 0-

1 6 and the gospel tradition of Mt 5 :39-42. 'The sayings of the Gospels have

an incomparably greater liveliness and pregnancy than the maxims in the

catechesis . . . These two sets of precepts are not conceived on the same

level. The precepts in Romans are perfectly straightforward, general maxims

which you could transfer directly to the field of conduct.' Not so the

gospel commands : 'These precepts are simply not suitable as the precepts

in Romans are for use as a plain guide to conduct, if you take them literally

as they stand. Evidently they were not intended for such use.'12

Floyd Filson formulates the difference between the paraenetic and gospel

traditions as follows. 'During the early decades of the church, when teaching

was a spiritual gift, the teacher used scripture and tradition about Jesus ; but

he was always concerned primarily to drive home a challenge and make the

material apply to the situation at hand. This element of interpretation,

application and direct challenge is not included in our Gospels, which are

remarkably restrained records.' 13 To these distinctions may be added the

fact that the paraenesis is addressed explicitly to baptized believers, but in

the gospel tradition the hearers are ostensibly Jesus' own contemporaries.

These observations call into question the assumption that the sayings of

Jesus lying behind Mt 5 :38-48/Lk 6 :27-36 were collected and used as

such for ethical instruction in the church. 14

The differences between the gospel tradition on enemy love and the

paraenetic tradition on enemy love must not, however, be stressed to the

exclusion of the intimate relation between the two. If the results of our

investigation into the traditional background of the early Christian

paraenesis on enemy love (Chapter 2) are correct, it is impossible to maintain that this paraenesis was formed in isolation from the gospel tradition

Love your enemies

138

of Jesus' sayings.15

these sayings on enemy love were paraphrased,

interpreted and applied. They constituted the criterion according to which

other paraenetic elements were taken up into the tradition (see p 64). That

is, the marked difference between the gospel tradition on enemy love and

the paraenetic tradition is not to be explained by the fact that those who

shaped the paraenetic tradition were ignorant of or indifferent toward the

gospel tradition of Jesus' sayings. 16 The difference must be accounted for

in another way.

Thus, as we have seen, two factors determine the relation between the

gospel tradition on enemy love and the paraenetic tradition on enemy love.

One factor is the gulf that separates the two traditions in form and conception. The other factor is that the paraenetic tradition is built around the sayings of Jesus, paraphrasing, expanding, interpreting and applying them.

The first factor suggests a distinct separation between the gospel tradition

and paraenetic tradition; the second factor suggests an intimate relation

between the two. Any explanation of the historical relationship between

these two traditions must account for both sides of this picture. The difficulty of finding such an explanation is shown by the fact that C. K. Barrett/7

writing in 1968, and E. P. Sanders, 18 writing in 1969, have left the question

open.

Let us try, however, to find at least a tentative explanation. C. H. Dodd

makes a helpful distinction when he maintains that 'the catechetical

instruction of the early Church . . . provided an occasion for preserving the

sayings [of Jesus] rather than the means by which they were preserved.'19

In other words the need for ethical teaching in the church was one (not

the only) motivation for the preserving of Jesus' sayings on enemy love ;

but this does not mean that these sayings were identical with that ethical

teaching; nor does it mean that Jesus' sayings were transmitted in a

hortatory context. As Dodd continues : the catechetical instruction 'does

not appear to be the main channel through which the tradition [of Jesus'

sayings) carne down, but presupposes an independent tradition upon

which it could draw and by which it was influenced while it also exerted a

reciprocal influence.'20

This general understanding of how the gospel tradition on enemy love

and the paraenetic tradition are related stresses the independence of the

gospel tradition and the use of it to form the paraenetic tradition. It thus

takes into account the two factors mentioned above. This position has

been best described and most ardently defended by the Scandinavians

Harald Riesenfeld and Birger Gerhardsson, who have stressed the fact that

the most probable historical analogy for the transmission process of the

gospel tradition is the rabbinical model. 'The Gospel tradition is not to be

Jesus ' command in Mt and Lk

139

regarded as a section within the tradition, but as a focus. We may make a

comparison, though we do so fully aware of the dangers of using such a

terminology, and say that this central corpus is the mishnah to which the

rest of the Apostles' preaching, teaching and "legislation" is the talmud.m

So long as the uniqueness of Jesus and his community22 are kept in view

to balance the picture, I believe this is a fundamentally true insight into

the relation between gospel tradition and paraenetic tradition in the early

church.

Thus the Sitz im Leben of the collection of Jesus' sayings on enemy

love cannot be equated with the Sitz im Leben of the paraenetic tradition

on enemy love. As a foundation and source for the paraenesis it is one step

removed from the actual event of ethical instruction. As such it stands

ready to serve the church in other ways. As Paul Hoffmann has suggested,

for example, these sayings may have been used during the decades following

Jesus' death in the tense situation between Jews and Romans in Palestine

in order to call the insurgent Jews to repentance, i.e. to gather in the 'sons

of peace'. 23 The important point is that the motivation and means for the

collection and transmission of Jesus' sayings should not be identified with

any one of the uses made of these sayings?4 Apparently the tradition of

Jesus' words and deeds was the soil out of which the separate and distinct

paraenetic tradition grew. Whether or not Riesenfeld is entirely right in

calling the gospel tradition 'holy word', he does seem to be right in saying

that 'in its verbal form and in its Sitz im Leben in the community it was

sui generis. 125

II. The Gospel Tradition of Jesus' Command of Enemy Love in the Gospels

A. The Approach and Methodology

It is one of the main aims of this study to discover the way in which Jesus'

love command was passed on and used in the different streams (paraenetic

and gospel) and levels of the tradition in the early church. I have just

examined the gospel tradition of this command prior to the writing of our

gospels. In an earlier chapter I discussed the use of this command in the

paraenetic tradition. We now come to the last level in the transmission

(and interpretative) process in the New Testament: the use of the tradition

of Jesus' command by Mt and Lk.

Since my concern is ultimately with Jesus' love command in the synoptics I will first pose the question : In taking over the tradition on enemy love and incorporating it into their own larger framework, what attitude

did Mt and Lk manifest toward the historicality of that tradition? That is,

what interest do they show in the way this teaching was originally given by

Love your enemies

140

Jesus and how is this interest affected by their desire to address their own

situation? I must stress that in posing this first question, I am not asking

whether the evangelists did in fact preserve the historical words of Jesus

(we have discussed this in Chapter 2, Section VII), rather I am asking

whether the evangelists intended to preserve as historical teaching what

they perceived to be such. I am interested here in the evangelists' attitudes

toward the tradition at their disposal - with how much freedom and to

what end do they use it?

Then in order to penetrate to the heart of Mt's and Lk's understanding

of Jesus' love command, I pose two questions which seem to me to be

theologically and practically the most important : Wherein does obedience

to the command of enemy love consist? and, How is this obedience to be

grounded or motivated? To approach Mt's and Lk's redaction in this way

has the advantage of maintaining consistency with the previous chapter,

for there the same questions were asked in discussing the use of the love

command in the paraenetic tradition. Thus a comparison and contrast of

the ways Jesus' love command is used in the two streams of tradition is

made easier. (Note : I will not try to exhaust the answers Mt and Lk give to

these two questions. I will only trace out some of the particular features

characteristic of each evangelist).

But we also encounter a disadvantage in dealing with the redaction of

the pericope on enemy love, no matter what specific question we pose.

The disadvantage is that the influence of the evangelists on this pericope

can be established with high probability only in a very few instances (see

pp 1 3 5£). How are we to overcome this barrier to finding Mt's and

l.k's understanding of the material in this pericope? My attempt at an

answer may be summed up in the following three reflections on the

redaction-critical method.

( 1 ) It is by no means certain that what distinguishes an author from

others is that which he regards as most important. Thus to focus on an

author's distinctives may be historically legitimate , heuristically help-

ful and in the long run theologically fruitful, but it also runs the risk of

overlooking or underemphasizing what is most important to an author,

only because this is what he has in common with the tradition he takes

over. None of us would like to have our theology described only in terms

of those elements which distinguish us from the traditions out of which we

come . Therefore , I think it proper and fruitful to ask in this section not

merely about the evangelist's distinctives, but also about his understanding

of Jesus' command of enemy love apart from any consideration of

distinctiveness.

(2) To argue that we cannot know what Mt or Lk intended to say except

Jesus ' command in M t and Lk

141

where obvious redactional features are evident is in my judgment hermeneutically untenable :26 it imputes to the evangelist an immense amount of nonchalance in his writing. To be sure one must take into consideration

that Lk more so than Mt seems to be a mere 'Tradent' with little interest

in interpreting some of what he takes over. One is thus admonished to

caution in over-interpreting Lk's own theology. Nevertheless, it is more

courteous and reasonable, I think, to assume that the meaning of a gospel

pericope in its present context is what the evangelist intended to communicate, if there are no redactional clues to the contrary.

(3) This does not mean that we abandon the task of synoptic comparison

and literary analysis. We pursue this wherever possible in order to discover

the evangelist's explicit and distinctive literary habits, topical interests, and

theological ideas. These then function in two ways : (a) they serve as a

corrective in the over-all picture of the evangelist's theology which we have

gained from a judicious consideration of each pericope in its present context (not just from the redactional elements); (b) they offer pointers as to how we should approach a pericope in which significant redactional elements are imperceptible .

Thus our treatment of Mt's and Lk's understanding of the tradition on

enemy love will be governed (a) by the initial assumption that the meaning

of each pericope in its present context is the evangelist's meaning, and (b)

by an effort to subject this assumption to scrutiny through an investigation

of the evangelist's obvious redactional work where this is possible. In view

of the minimal sure redactional elements in Mt 5 :38-48 and Lk 6 :27-36 I

will try to fmd formal or essential points of contact between these texts

and others where redaction is more obvious. If these points of contact

represent a genuine link in the redactor's intention, then the more obviously

redactional texts may shed light on the evangelist's understanding of the

pericope on enemy love .

B. Mt's Use of the Gospel Tradition of Jesus ' Command of Enemy Love

1. What is Mt's Attitude to the Earthly Teaching of Jesus?27

(a) Mt reveals by his composition that he is concerned to set forth the

essential features of Jesus' earthly ministry. The two summary reports of

Jesus' Galilean ministry (4 : 23 ; 9 :35) which open and close Mt 5-9 show

that Mt intends these chapters to depict 'an example of how Jesus came to

"Israel", his "word" to the people (Chap 5 -7 cf 5 : 1 ; 7 :28f) and his "deed"

(Chap 8-9).'28 To be sure these chapters bear the mark of the evangelist

and his contemporary concerns,29 nevertheless his concern with the way it

was in Jesus' lifetime is just as unmistakable.30

Love your enemies

142

(b) The way in which the pericope on enemy love was taken over confirms this. Mt takes over the tradition on enemy love (5 :38-48) without any effort to tone down the absoluteness of the individual commands. No

qualifying phrases are added, the sharpness of the commands is nowhere

blunted, their difficulty nowhere weakened. There is no discourse which

attempts to explain to the reader how he is to use these radical demands as

a guide for everyday behavior. Nowhere, for example, does Mt offer some

practical advice on what to do about the nudity which results when you

give up both your garments.31 This unembellished non-casuistical rendering

of the traditional pericope on enemy love, which in its absoluteness is so

unsuitable for direct implementation in practice, is a clear indication that

Mt's intention here is not first hortatory but historical. He intends to let

Jesus speak as he had spoken decades earlier. Mt's desire to admonish his

church is subordinate to his desire that the original demand of Jesus come

to expression in his gospel. 32

We have no reason to think, however, that Mt's historical concern was

motivated by a detached interest in antiquity ; on the contrary, the great

commission with which Mt concludes his gospel shows that for him contemporary discipleship (or being a Christian3� consists in no less than keeping the commands of the historical Jesus (evem'A&#.t11v, aorist, Mt

28 :20) who now as resurrected Lord has all authority in heaven and on

earth. Thus it is precisely as the formerly spoken words of Jesus that the

tradition on enemy love has hortatory significance now for those who

have been baptized. It is necessary to emphasize the backward-looking

interest of Mt at this point in order to keep in proper perspective the

heavy emphasis his ecclesiastical application of Jesus' sayings has received

in recent study.34

2. Wherein Consists Obedience to Jesus ' Command of Enemy Love?

Here we will focus our attention on two individual commands which are

chosen because they aptly illustrate two contrasting dimensions of

obedience to the command of enemy love which Mt emphasizes. The

first is the command to pray for 'those who persecute you' (5 :44).35 The

second is the implied command to greet even those who are not your

brothers (5 :47). Both commands as they now stand are unique to Mt ;

but they are not entirely his creation (see p 57 and Chapter 2, note 1 45).

My interpretation of Mt's understanding of these two commands is not

based primarily on the minor alterations in them which may be due to

him, but rather, it is based on an attempt to see how these two commands

fit into larger motifs in the Sermon on the Mount and in the gospel as a

whole which are defmitely Mt's concern.

Jesus ' command in Mt and Lk

143

'Pray for those who persecute you!' is parallel with 'Love your enemies !'

(5 :44) and gives a concrete illustration of what that involves in the church's

experience. Nevertheless it is not a deed done to the enemy like giving him

clothing or food or drink or visiting him when he is sick or in prison (cf

25 :35t). Prayer is an act that turns not to the enemy but to God. As Mt

stresses in the following context (Mt 6 : 5 t) it is an act performed in private

where nobody else can see. As such it is a way of love that cannot be motivated by a desire for the praise of men (6 :5). 1fit exists, it exists in obedience to Jesus and in concern for the enemy. This illustration of Jesus' command

to love stands in direct contradiction to those interpretations which claim

that love is only possible in the concrete encounter between men.36

Not only has Mt brought into this context words on how one is to pray

but also on what one is to pray. That the Lord's Prayer (6 :9-13) should

be read in close connection with the preceding commands of M t 5 is shown

by the essential relation between the commands and the petitions.37 For

example :

5 : 16 Live so that men give glory 6 :9 Pray that your Father's name

to your Father in heaven.

be hallowed (by men).

5 :23f Be reconciled to your

6 : 12 Pray for forgiveness as you

brother before you give an

have forgiven (your brother).

offering to God.

5 :39 Do not resist evil.

6 : 13 Pray for deliverance from evil.

Thus if we ask: What in Mt's view should one pray for his persecutors, the

Lord's Prayer is not to be excluded as a distant unrelated example of

prayer. It forms the very heart of the Sermon on the Mount and is a proper

source for Mt's understanding of the sermon's many imperatives.

Since the disciple is to pray, 'Let thy will be done on earth as in heaven,'

and is also to pray for his enemy, we may assume that at least part of his

prayer will be that his enemy do God's will. Moreover the thought that the

prayer for one's enemy which Jesus commands should come short of an

appeal that the enemy come to hallow God's name, would contradict the

priorities of the Lord's Prayer and reduce the prayer for the enemy to

humanistic well-wishing. It would cease to be an expression of love. Here

I would disagree with the view that there is nothing in this pericope (Mt

5 :43-48) about making the enemy into a friend.38 To be sure, the emphasis falls on loving your enemy while he is an enemy, but it does not stop at that. The disciple's prayer that his enemy hallow God's name and do his

will is in effect a prayer that he cease to be an enemy, since, as Mt especially

stresses, the animosity of the enemy for whom we are praying is grounded

Love your enemies

144

in his opposition to God's will.39 That a man should pray for his enemy

and not request that the enmity between them be removed would be a

questionable manifestation of love, to say the least.

The implied command to greet even those who are not your brothers

(v 4 7) reveals another contrasting dimension of love. In 5 :44 love calls

one to the religious act of prayer; here love calls one to an everyday

gesture of kindness.40 There the enemy is defined as an active persecutor;

here he is only a passive outsider.41 From this we see that the command to

love one's enemy refers to more than the dire circumstances of persecution.

The 'enemy' does not cease to exist when he ceases to persecute. He may

just simply be there on the street minding his own business. At this

moment, when the most natural thing to do would be to pass by on the

other side, Jesus summons the disciple to active kindness - to give a

greeting to his enemy.

With these two commands - to pray for those who persecute you and

to greet those who are not your brothers - we see illustrated two dimensions of obedience which Mt stresses. The command to greet accords with Mt's concern that the commands of Jesus actually be obeyed in practice

for others to see. In Mt's view the command of Jesus cannot be reduced to

a call for a new disposition. He entitles, as it were, the imperatives in the

Sermon on the Mount with the command : 'Let your light so shine before

men that they might see your good works and glorify your Father in

heaven' (5 : 1 6). And in the fmal two paragraphs of the sermon the stress

on doing is the tone Mt wants to leave ringing in his readers' ears. To call

Jesus, Lord, and to prophesy, exorcize and do miracles in his name will

amount to nothing 'on that day' if one 'works lawlessness' (7 :23 ; cf 24 : 1 2);

i.e., if one does not 'do the will of my father in heaven' (7 : 2 1 ). And,

fmally, the one who hears 'these42 my words' and does not do them is a

foolish man bound for destruction (7 :26f). The command to love your

enemies is not merely a command to have a loving disposition : Mt emphasizes that it involves specific visible acts like greeting a neighbor.

The command to pray ( 5 :44 ), however, does not aim at a visible act,

but it corresponds to another dimension of obedience which Mt also

stresses. We noted above that the prayer for one's enemies which Jesus

commands cannot be motivated by a desire for the praise of men (6 :5t).

To pray for your enemy means, therefore, to be concerned not about

yourself but about your enemy. Since prayer for the enemy is not a

visible act before men, it is an act which must spring from a heart which

wills the enemy's well-being. It thus illustrates that dimension of obedience

which for Mt consists in a change of heart.

If Mt stresses that obedience to the love command consists in doing, he

Jesus ' command in Mt and Lk

145

is not slack in emphasizing that obedience consists more basically in having

a pure heart (5 : 8). Hearing without doing is foolish (7 :26), but attempts at

doing without being pure in heart are hopeless and result in becoming a

V1TOKpm1c;.43 To such ones Jesus commands : 'First cleanse the inside of the

cup in order that44 the outside of it might become clean' (23 :26}. With

this sentence Mt makes explicit the priority of inner purity and its causal

relation to outward goodness.45 For he has learned from his tradition that

'out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, etc.' (1 5 : 19 =

Mk 7 : 2 1 f); that 'from the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks'

( 1 2 :35 = Lk 6 :45); and that 'a good tree cannot bear evil fruit neither can

a bad tree bear good fruit' (Mt 7 : 1 8).46 Thus, obeying the command of

enemy love means more than mere doing, because as Mt shows (6 :2ff) one

can easily feign deeds of mercy in order to gain men's praise. It means also

getting a pure heart because only from such a treasure can a man really

bring forth love for his enemy .47

But this dimension of inward obedience is not exhausted with these

observations. A heart is not reprehensible merely because it brings forth

evil deeds. As the first two antitheses (Mt 5 : 2 1 f; 27f) show the heart's evil

is real (' . . . he has already commited adultery with her in his heart') and

it is condemned ('Everyone who is angry . . . will be liable to judgment')

even before it gives rise to any evil deed.

Thus the obedience Mt is calling for - and here he is in line with the

message of Jesus which we saw in an earlier chapter - is an obedience

which consists in a radical transformation of the deepest spring of man's

being, even that depth over which he has no control.48 This is ultimately

the reason why Mt has preserved the tradition on enemy love even with

its radical, impracticable commands : they are not intended to provide

instructions for the gradual moral reformation of this world, not even

with the aid of a new heart ; rather, in accord with Jesus' intention, they

are the continuing confrontation of another, perfect world - the Kingdom

of heaven - with this world in order to expose the depth of this world's

fallenness and to summon men to the perfection of heart and action which

exists only in the Kingdom of heaven.

3. How is Jesus ' Command of Enemy Love Motivated?

This question is not answered in Mt 5 :38-48. If Mt reflected on this problem

we will have to find points of contact between Mt 5 :38-48 and the texts

in which this reflection came to expression. In this way there emerges in

Mt (a) a christological and (b) a theological ground for obedience to the

command of enemy love.

Love your enemies

146

(a) One of the most probable redactional elements of Mt 5 :38-48 is the

Te'Aewc: of Mt 5 :48 (against Lk's olxTipJlovec:).49 The only other place the

word occurs in the synoptics is Mt 1 9 : 2 1 where it is very likely intentionally

inserted by Mt. Are we justified in seeing here a point of contact between

Mt 5 :48 and Mt 1 9 : 2 1 which reflects a genuine link in the subject matter

which accords with Mt's intention?50

In order to answer this question we must first determine the function of

the command to be perfect in the context of Mt 5. Mt 5 :48 has its main

function in relation to the immediately preceding verses on enemy love.

The command 51 to be like your heavenly Father follows naturally from the

argument in 5 :45 according to which sonship consists in being like your

Father who makes the sun to rise on the evil and the good. Further, the

emphatic (Matthean) UJlefc: of 5 :48 is in direct contrast to the gentiles and

tax collectors of 5 :46f. Consequently it seems correct to refer the redactional

obv52 of 5 :48 to the argumentation of 5 :45-4 7 : since being like your

Father constitutes your sonship and merely being like the tax collectors

and gentiles brings no reward, therefore be like your Father, be perfect.

Since Mt sees 5 :48 as the specific alternative of acting like tax collectors

who love only those who love them, therefore he must conceive 'perfection'

as consisting primarily in love which goes beyond this limit and includes the

enemy (5 :44).

One cannot, however, escape the impression that Mt 5 :48 is the conclusion not merely of 5 :43-47 but also of the whole complex of antitheses in Mt 5 : 2 1-48.53 In accord with this impression is the fact that Mt's

Te'Aewc: is broader and thus more suitable to sum up all the antitheses than

Lk's olxTtpJlovec: (6 :36). Further, TEAewc: expresses the positive answer

to the question Ti 1Tepwar}v 1TOLet're in 5 :4 7, a question which Mt probably

formulated under the influence of his 1repwaevun in 5 :20 . This would

mean that the antitheses are introduced by a command for a righteousness

which exceeds the scribes and Pharisees and are concluded by a command

for a perfection which exceeds the tax collectors and gentiles. 54 Thus Mt

not only stressed the connection between 5 :48 and the immediately

preceding peri cope on enemy love but he also placed this pericope at the

end of the antitheses so that 5 :48 concludes the whole section and parallels

its introduction (5 :20). This leads us to the conclusion that for Mt the

command to be n!"Aetac: is a summation of all the radical commands of

Jesus which, when obeyed, set a man off from the Pharisees on the one side

and from the gentiles on the other, and finds its clearest expression in the

love of one's enemies. 55

Does TE"Ae wc: in Mt 1 9 : 2 1 have a similar meaning and function so that

we can assume a link in Mt's mind between the teaching of Mt S :43-48

Jesus ' command in Mt and Lk

147

and Mt 1 9 : 1 6-22? Let us take an oveiView of Mt's probable alterations of

Mk. 56 Instead of addressing Jesus as 'good teacher' and asking what he

must do in order to inherit eternal life, the 'youth' (so designated only in

Mt, vv 20,22) addresses Jesus simply as 'teacher' and asks what good he

must do to have eternal life (19: 1 6). This enables Jesus to respond not with

Mk's offensive 'Why do you call me good?' ( 1 0 : 1 8) but with the question

'Why do you ask me concerning the good?' (M t 1 9 : 1 7). Having taken the

focus off Jesus' renunciation of goodness, Mt accordingly rephrases Mk's

'No one is good but one, God' (10: 1 8) into 'One is good' (Mt 1 9 : 1 7). Then

Mt converts Mk's simple 'You know the commandments' (10: 1 9) into an

interchange57 between Jesus and the youth (19: 17f) in which it is made

explicit that precisely those58 Old Testament commandments relating to

human relationships (second table of decalogue) must be kept if one is to

enter into eternal life. Reminiscent of 7 : 1 2 and 22 :37, Mt inserts Lev 1 9 : 1 8

as the positive summary o f these Old Testament commandments (19 : 19).

After the youth claims to have kept all these, according to Mk Jesus informs

him that he lacks one thing (10 :21); according to Mt the youth himself asks,

'What do I still lack?' (19 :20). With this change, Mt paves the way for

Jesus to respond, 'If you desire to be perfect . . .' (19 :2 1 ). This response is

a formal parallel of the earlier one, 'If you desire to enter into life . . .'

(19 : 1 7).

What function does Mt's reference to perfection have in this complex?

If Mt agreed with the youth's claim that he had 'kept all these' (19 :20),

then re"Aewc; would have to be construed as a higher level of morality or

obedience than that required by the Old Testament commandments

listed in 1 9 : 1 8f: now that you have achieved that Old Testament level

there is one more step to take if you want to achieve perfection ! Two

considerations, however, exclude this interpretation of re"Aewc;. First,

the youth's question, 'What do I still lack?' ( 1 9 : 20), refers to the

attainment of eternal life, not to a higher perfection. If Jesus' answer is to

correspond to the question, it must give only that which is required to

enter eternal life. 59 Thus 'perfection' is not something more than what is

needed to enter life. Second, it is apparent from 19: 22-24 that what the

youth refused to do did not merely keep him from perfection, but also

blocked the way to eternal life. From these two considerations we may

conclude that Mt did not think that the youth had in fact kept all the

commandments listed in 1 9 : 1 8f, for Mt explicitly promises life to the one

who keeps the commandments: 'If you desire to enter into life keep the

commandments' (19 : 1 7). In support of this conclusion we may ask fmally

with St Jerome : 'If the commandment : "You will love your neighbor as

yourself" had been carried into act, why then after hearing the words : "Go

Love your enemies

148

and sell your possessions and give the proceeds to the poor," did he depart

sad because he had many possessions?'60

Thus Tl'll.ew� is not a higher level of obedience than that demanded in

1 9 : 18f. Rather it is a restatement in radical form of what Mt really intended

when he added the love command to the list of Old Testament commandments in 19 : 19.61 The love command of Lev 1 9 : 18 is not cited here in the same form as it was in Mt 5 :43 where it was an antithesis to the command

of enemy love. There it was casuistically limited ('and hate your enemies')

and had to be abolished ; here it appears in its unlimited form (as 22:39 ;

cf 7 : 1 2) and is thus the way to eternal life (19 : 1 7).62 That the young man

thought he had fulfilled this absolute command, even though he loved his

possessions so much, shows that he completely misunderstood God's

ultimate intention of the Old Testament commandments. In order to

expose the root problem behind this misunderstanding, Mt lets Jesus

confront the youth with the staggering demand for perfection - perfection

which consists first in selling one's possessions and giving them to the poor,

i.e. in obedience to the love command.

Our answer to the question raised above is, therefore, yes: Tl'll.ewr; in Mt

1 9 : 2 1 has a meaning and function in its context similar to that of the

reA.ewr; in Mt 5 :48, so that we are justified in seeing here a genuine link

between the subject matter of these two contexts which accords with Mt's

intention. We may therefore hope that the context of Mt 1 9 : 2 1 will shed

some light on our question : How is Jesus' command of enemy love (which

is the clearest expression of T€A€tM1'/�) motivated?

Except for the replacement of oaa exetr; (Mk 10:21) with aov Td

vrrd!pxoVTa, Mt's condition for the attainment of perfection is the same as

Mk's statement of the one thing the man lacks: 'Go, sell your possessions

and give to the poor and you will have treasure in heaven, and come

follow me' ( 1 9 : 2 1 ). The expression of perfection which is willing to

renounce one's own rights and possessions for the sake of others we

already saw in Mt 5 :39-42 : 'Give to him who asks from you and do not

refuse him who would borrow from you.' That this behavior secures a

treasure in heaven was also implied in Mt 5 :46 : 'If you love those who

love you what reward do you have?' What we do not find in Mt 5 :38-48 is

a reference to following Jesus which in Mt 1 9 : 2 1 is an element of, or a

means to, perfection : 'If you desire to be perfect . . . come follow me.'

Bomkamm concludes rightly from this text: 'Fulflllment of the commands

and perfection is no longer possible to realize except in following Jesus.'63

With this observation, the realization of the command of enemy love

- the clearest expression of reA.et6T11� - is inextricably united to discipleship. It would take us beyond the scope of this study to develop Mt's

Jesus ' command in Mt and Lk

149

conception of the burden and joy of discipleship.64 It must suffice only

to point out briefly these two dimensions of discipleship in Mt's redaction.

The burden of discipleship is the burden of suffering which obedience to

Jesus brings.65 Mt's interpretation of the saying ' . . . every [disciple] is

like his teacher' (Lk 6 :40) reads : 'If they called the master of the house

Beelzebul, how much more the members of his household!' (Mt 1 0 :25).66

But the disciples are not left to bear the burden of discipleship alone. This

is brought out beautifully by Mt when he inserts the sayings on discipleship from Q (Lk 9 : 57 -60) into the Markan order of miracle stories immediately before the account of the storm stilling (Mt 8 : 18-22, 23-27). As Bomkamm has shown, the threatening storm, the cry of the disciples for

help, and the gracious and powerful response of Jesus in spite of their small

faith 'becomes . . . a typical situation of discipleship in general.'67 Those

who follow Jesus cannot expect a life better than the master's; and the

master has no place to lay his head (Mt 8 : 19f). But if they are willing to

follow him into the boat, they see that he does have a place to lay his

head: 'the boat was being swamped with waves but he was asleep' (Mt

8 :24). And if the disciples have faith in his saving presence they too can

rest in the storm.68 The joy of discipleship is thus the assurance that Jesus

has all authority in heaven and on earth and that he is with the disciples

to the end of the age (Mt 28 : 1 8-20). In this assurance alone can the

burden of discipleship - the burden of the command of enemy love - be

borne.

(b) Besides developing the above christological69 ground for the

realization of enemy love, Mt offers a theological ground.

The commands of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount confront antagonists on two fronts. 70 On the one side they are directed against the legalism (5 :20ff) and hypocritical piety (6 : 1 -6, 16- 1 8) of the Pharisees.

On the other side they are opposed to the faithlessness (6 :7f, 25-34) and

immorality (5 :4 7) of the gentiles. We are concerned now with this second

front.

The reference to gentiles (€0111'/) in Mt 6 :32 ('For all these things the

gentiles seek') is given already in Q . The references, however, in 6 : 7 and

5 :47 are unique to Mt. Moreover the word used in these two texts is not

i!Ovo<: as in 6 : 32 but eOvuuk. The only other place this word is used in

the synoptics is another text unique to Mt ( 1 8 : 1 7), where it forms a

pair with tax collectors as it does here in 5 :46f. This strongly suggests

that the reference to gentiles 1n 5 :47 and 6 :7 is due to Mt's own intention.

That these two references to the gentiles are to be grouped together with

the reference in 6 :32 is seen from the close relation of 6 :8 and 6 :32. In

Love your enemies

150

both texts the reason given (redactional -yap in 6 :32b) why one should

distinguish himself from the gentiles is identical : oloEv -ydtp o 1TCXTi}p VJ.l.WV

. It appears fairly certain, therefore, that Mt consciously developed a

.

.

second front (besides the Pharisees) in the Sermon on the Mount, namely

against the gentiles. Hence we have found in accord with our method

described earlier another point of contact between the command of enemy

love and a broader Matthean motif. What does this motif disclose for our

question concerning the motivation of the command of enemy love?

In each of the three texts concerning gentiles in the Sermon on the

Mount the gentiles are to be surpassed by the disciples. In 5 :4 7 their

limited love must be surpassed by the disciples' love for their enemies. In

6 : 7 the gentiles' babbling and repetitive prayers must be surpassed by the

disciples' prayer according to Jesus' teaching. In 6 :32 in contrast to the

gentiles' search for food, drink and clothing, the disciples must not be

anxious about these things. The reasons given for the command in 6 : 7f

and 6 :3 1 f are essentially the same : Do not be like them in their prayers

'for your Father knows what you have need of before you ask him' (6 :8);

do not be anxious like the gentiles, 'for your heavenly Father knows that

you need all these things' (6 :32).

Because the disciples are anxious about what they will eat and what

they will wear, they are called b"At'Y01TWTOt (which, although it is here found

in Q, cannot be considered unimportant for Mt in view of his wide use of

it 71). That is, they class themselves with the gentiles, for they act as if

their Father were unable or unwilling to supply their needs. Similarly in

6 : 8 the gentiles think that by their many words they can coerce God to

respond, thus showing that they lack faith in his gracious generosity.

The disciples must not pray like this. In both of these instances the ground

for the disciple's different behavior is the fact that he has a Father in heaven

who knows all his needs and who, according to 7 : 1 1 , is more than willing

to give him what he asks. 72

Given the inner unity between M t 5 :4 7 and the other two references to

gentiles discussed above, we may conclude in accord with Mt's intention

that God's fatherly care of the disciples is the ground for the command

of enemy love which sets a man off from the gentiles. The command to

love your enemy entails not defending yourself against physical attack

(5 :39) and giving away your clothing (5 :40) and your money (5 :42). But

the only way a man can obey this command is not to be anxious about

'all these things which the gentiles seek' (6 :32). The disciple can freely

renounce these things for the sake of another person, precisely because

he is not an b"Aqomaroc: (6 :30). He can dare to love like God (5 :45) only

Jesus ' command in Mt and Lk

151

because God is his loving heavenly Father in whom he trusts.73

Three brief observations reveal why it is consistent for Mt to ground the

realization of enemy love both in discipleship to Jesus (christological) and

in faith in the heavenly Father (theological). First, Mt especially stresses

that it is precisely Jesus' disciples who do the will of his Father. When

Jesus' mother and brothers desire to speak to him (Mt 1 2 :46-50/Mk

3 :3 1 -3 5 ) Jesus points 'to his disciples' (against Mk's general 'those who sat

about him,' 3 :34) and calls them his mother and brothers ( 1 2 :49). 'For

(redactional rap) whoever does the will of my father in heaven, this one

is my brother and sister and mother' ( 1 2 : 5 0). To be a disciple of Jesus is

the same as being aligned with the will of God. 74 Second, the context of

Mt 1 1 : 27,28 shows that for Mt the call of Jesus : 'Come to me all who

labor and are heavy laden . . .' is a call grounded in the truth that 'no one

knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son wills to

reveal him.' Thus for Mt true knowledge of God, and consequently faith

in him as Father, happens only in fellowship with the Son, i.e . in discipleship. Finally, the unity of the christological and theological grounds for the Christian's loving behavior is evident in the fact that for Mt Jesus is

Emmanuel 'which is interpreted : God with us' ( 1 :23).

Excursus: The A n titheses and the Command of Enemy L ove

Due to the uncertainty of the redactional origin of the fifth and sixth

antitheses we will not devote a detailed exegesis to Mt 5 : 38f and 5 :43f.

Nevertheless we would be amiss to overlook completely the significance

that the antitheses as a whole have for Mt and the relationship established

by the antitheses between the command of enemy love and the law. Our

theme in this section is not Mt's view of the relation between the love

command and the law; for this reason my comments on this topic are

confined to an excursus and will be in brief, summary form. For a more

detailed treatment I would refer the reader to G. Barth's Das Gesetzes·

verstiindnis des Evangelisten Matthiius (especially pp 70-80, 'Die

Bedeutung des Liebesgebotes') and W. Trilling's Das wahre Israel

(especially pp 1 65-2 1 9, 'Die Tara des wahren Israel').

Whether or not the last two antitheses of Mt 5 are redactional, they

belong to a pattern which for Mt is distinctive and important. Mt heads

the section of antitheses with the demand for a righteousness that

exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees. Each successive

'But I say unto you . . .' thus exemplifies wherein this better righteousness consists. This better righteousness is placed antithetically over against the casuistical formulation of the law. 75

We are thus encouraged by the context to understand the antitheses in

the light of what was said of the law in 5 : 1 7- 1 9 ,76 namely that Jesus

Love your enemies

152

has come to fulfil and not to abolish and that the whole law is still valid .

In the light of 5 : 1 7 it cannot be said that Mt intends in the antitheses

to abolish the law . In the light of the antitheses, on the other hand, it

can only be said that Mt understands 5 : 1 8 , 1 9 (the continuing minute

validity of the law) in a metaphorical sense . Nevertheless the better

righteousness exemplified in the antitheses is not better in the sense of

being a stricter legalism which covers loopholes in the law. Jesus does

not fulfil the law by giving a more rigorous one. What Jesus demands in

the antitheses constitutes for Mt a better righteousness and a fulfilment

of the law, in that it is the accomplishment of that which the law

ultimately wanted but, in its casuistical form, 77 it could never

bring about. Necessarily, therefore, Jesus' demand was antithetical to

th is expression of the law. To fulfil the law as the perfect will of God ,

the law as a casuistical control of evil in society had to be abolished .

�

. •

sequently the command to love your enemies, which forms the

climax of the antitheses, is drawn into the discussion of the law which

is so dominant in Mt's gospel. 78 That this is redactionally no accident

can be shown by a brief glance at the way Mt brings the command

for love (not specifically enemy love) into connection with the law. In

1 9 : 1 9 M t adds the command 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself'

(Lev 1 9 : 1 8) which climaxes the second table of the decalogue replacing

the tenth commandment against coveting. In 22 : 3 9 , only Mt says of

the second command ( 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself') that

it is 'like' the first ('You shall love the Lord . . .' Dt 6 : 5 ) ; and only he

says of these two commandments that 'in these . . . hang the whole law

and the prophets' (22 : 40). In line with this, Mt renders the Golden Rule

with the interpretation : 'for this is the law and the prophets' (7 : 1 2). In

two places Mt inserts another 'love command' taken from the Old Testament to silence the criticism of the Pharisees. When they find fault with his eating with tax collectors and sinners (9 : 1 0- 1 3 ) and when they take

offence at his disciples for plucking grain to eat on a Sabbath ( 1 2 : 1 -8),

Jesus responds with Hos 6 : 6 : 'I desire mercy and not sacrifice. ' If they

understood this, the Pharisees 'would not have condemned the guiltless'

( 1 2 : 7) , i.e. they would have interpreted the law differently. In the same

sense, only Mt shows Jesus criticizing the scribes and Pharisees for

neglectin� 'the weightier matters of the law, justice and mercy and faith'

(23 : 23 ). 7 Finally , one of Mt's unique descriptions of the end-time is

that 'on account of the increase of CxVOJltlx the lx:y&:rrf/ of many will grow

cold' (24 : 1 2) . On the basis of these texts the conclusion has been

drawn - correctly , I think - that for Mt the general love command is the

'Canon of the exposition of the whole Torah.'80

If a proper understanding of the love command yields a correct interpretation of the law , then it follows also that to obey the love command would be to fulfil the law. Hence it is perfectly in accord with Mt's

intention when he places the command of enemy love - the most

radical expression of the love command in his gospel - at the climax of

the antitheses which in the light of 5 : 1 7 aim to fulfil the law .

Jesus ' command in Mt and Lk

153

C. Luke 's Use of the Gospel Tradition of Jesus' Command of Enemy Love

1. What is Lk 's Attitude to the Earthly Teaching of Jesus?81

Lk's attitude to the earthly teaching of Jesus is revealed (a) by the context

of the Sennon on the Plain in which the tradition on enemy love is found,

and (b) by the way this tradition itself was taken over.

(a) Hans Conzelmann drew attention to the fact that Lk, in order to set

the stage for his Sennon on the Plain, reversed the Markan order of the

preceding healing scene (Mk 3 : 7- 1 2/Lk: 6 : 1 7-19) and the appointment of

the twelve (Mk 3 : 13-19/Lk: 6 : 12-1 5).82 Jesus is thus enabled to come

down from the mountain of prayer (6 : 1 2) with the chosen twelve into the

midst of 'great crowd of disciples and a great multitude of the people'

(6 : 1 7) where he then gives his sennon. Hans-Werner Bartsch draws the

following conclusion from Lk's redaction here : 'The mountain is the place

of revelation to the disciples, the church, while the open area is the place

of proclamation to the crowds.'83 Bartsch therefore views Lk's sennon not

as teaching for the disciples, i.e. as paraenesis or catechism, but rather as

an eschatological84 proclamation characteristic of early Christian missionary

preaching. For the three elements of the missionary sennon in Acts kerygma, scripture proof, call to repentance - he fmds parallels in the beatitudes and woes (6 :20-26), the unfolding of the love command (6 :27-45), and the parable of the two builders (6 :46-49). For Bartsch this conftnns that the Sennon on the Plain 'intends not only to render a sennon of Jesus but also with this rendering to prove the continuity between the

early Christian preaching and the preaching of J esus.'85

Baumbach is not persuaded by this argument 'since on the one hand

Luke stresses more strongly than Mt 5 : 1 f that Jesus is talking to the

disciples [6 :20] , and on the other hand verses 27-46 have such a clear

ethical aim that they have little to do with an "eschatological sennon."

Therefore the Sennon on the Plain should be viewed as addressed to the

same circle of hearers as the Sennon on the Mount (Mt 5-7).'86 However,

on the basis of Lk's statement that those from as far away as the coastland of Tyre and Sidon came to hear Jesus (6 : 1 8 different from Mk), Baumbach admits 'that for Lk there is surely also a missionary intention

to be taken account of.'87 He settles for a designation somewhere in

between paraenesis for the apostles and missionary preaching: 'Lk 6 :20-

49 would best be characterized as a Hellenistic Christian catechism, which

is aimed more strongly at a wide circle of beginners in the faith than at a

small circle of apostles. '88

Schunnann, however, will not allow that 'Anfanger im Glauben' are here

Love your enemies

154

being addressed. For him John's 'Taufansprache' already in 3 : 7-1 8 has

reminded the readers of the instruction they received before baptism , and

Jesus' baptism (3 : 2 1 f) has called to mind each Christian's own baptism ,

and the stories from 4 : 1 - 6 : 1 1 have offered instruction and admonition in

various areas of the Christian's life. 89 'If any baptized person has with

interest read Lk 3 : 1 -6 : 1 in this way , he will understand that 6 : 1 2-49, the

"Sermon of Jesus on the mountain," intends to offer to the baptized basic

instruction in Christian living.'90 But he specifies - and here he differs

from Baumbach - that Lk 6 :20-49 'does not intend to give a catechism

for neophytes. The church as a whole is addressed, not neophytes but

veterans who in later days must be reminded afresh of the event of

baptism and the basic demands that spring from it.'91 The Sermon on the

Plain 'is the fundamental post-baptismal instruction to the baptized.'92

This would seem to be the precise opposite of Bartsch's view ; but

Schurmann too takes into account Lk's redactional introduction to the

sermon in 6 : 1 7ff: 'Lk lets the Sermon on the Mount be directed to concentric circles of hearers: first on the crowd of his disciples (v1 7a, cf v 20), and then on "the great crowd of the people" (v 1 7b, cf 7 : 1 ) who are thought

of as listening in and willing to hear (v 1 8 , cf 7 : 1 ). With this description we

can see the post-Easter circumstances shining through: in the crowd of

disciples we see the church and in the crowd of people we see willing

masses ripe for Christian mission.'93 It seems to be Lk's intention therefore

that 'The word of Jesus should resound through the church as living

kerygma.'94 It is not clear to me how Schiirmann conceives the relation

between post-baptismal instruction and kerygma addressed to non

Christians. But be that as it may, the fact that he and Baumbach cannot

reduce Lk's aim to either church instruction or missionary proclamation

points to the uniqueness of the gospel tradition and the characteristic use

of it by the evangelist.

Schurmann is surely correct in seeing in 'the great crowd of disciples'

( 6 : 1 7) a picture of the whole church. 95 This must be set against Degenhardt's idea that Lk 'separates the J.lfJl8Tirat' from the i\a6c: and thus understands the p.a811rat' as a special group among the followers of Jesus. '96

Degenhardt says the redactional aim in this is the 'transference of the

instruction to the disciples onto the church officers of Luke's time.'97 But

this conception does not correspond to the setting of 6 : 1 2-20 in which there

is indeed a 'special group' but it is not the disciples themselves but the

twelve, whom Jesus chose from the disciples and named apostles (6 : 1 3).

Moreover the other 'followers of Jesus,' 'the great multitude of people'

(6 : 1 7) from whom the disciples are distinguished, are not to be identified with the mass of ordinary Christians. To the disciples (against Mk's

Jesus ' command in Mt and Lk

155

oi 1Tep i ain"ov avv TOt(; O WO€KCX, 4 : 1 0) has been given the knowledge of the

'mysteries of the Kingdom of God,' but to everyone else (To ic; o€ A.omo'ic;

Lk 8 : 10) all is in parables 'in order that seeing they might not see' (Lk

8 :9 , 1 0 ; cf 10 : 2 1 -24). Therefore 'the great multitude of people' are not to

be equated with Christians, and the 'disciples,' upon whom Jesus lifts his

eyes and speaks his sermon (6 :20), do not represent a special group within

the church. They are simply a foreshadowing of Christians in general.98

But it is true also that Lk looks beyond the disciples (Christians), for

he makes explicit that Jesus gave his sermon in the presence of a great

multitude of the people who had come 'to hear him' (6 : 1 8) and that he

completed 'all of his sayings in the hearing of the people' (7 : 1 ) Moreover

.

the pronouncement of woes in 6 :24-26 fits more easily into a sermon

directed to the people than it does into teaching for the disciples.99 Thus

Lk has given the Sermon on the Plain a setting similar to that in 20:45

where he introduces the warning against the scribes (from Mk 1 2 :38-40)

with his own words : 'And in the hearing of all the people he said to his

disciples . . ' Or again in

.

1 2 : 1 , Lk sets the stage for the warning against

the leaven of the Pharisees (from Mk 8 : 1 5) with the words : 'After the

thousands of the multitude had gathered . . . he began to say to his

disciples . . .' It thus seems that Lk does not intend to divide the teachings

of Jesus into that which is directed only at the disciples and that which is

directed only at the crowds. Helmut Flender draws from this evidence the

conclusion that for Lk : 'To be a disciple is not a once for all fixed right ;

rather it must be preserved ever anew in obedience. The border between

disciples and people is not absolute , it is constituted ever anew in the

hearing (or not hearing) of the word of Jesus . . . . In the spoken word of

Jesus the division of the two groups occurs.'100

Lk reveals here that his composition is in line with the original proclamation of Jesus. Jesus' public call to repentance consisted in a demand for the kind of behavior that accompanies the repentant heart. The change of

behavior he called for publicly was realized through discipleship. Therefore , there needed to be no esoteric ethical teaching. Ethical instruction for the disciple was a description of the fruits which befit repentance and

was at the same time, therefore, a call to repentance. To this extent in

Jesus' ministry, ethical instruction for the disciples and public proclamation overlapped. For this reason Lk is able to address the Christians of his day101 while faithfully rendering the essential content and context of

Jesus' own proclamation. That Lk's first concern was to give the teaching

of Jesus in its typical original orientation is seen by the fact that no

description of the function of the Sermon on the Plain within the church

can account for all the features of its context in the gospel. This historical

Love your enemies

156

interest of Lk is con finned when we focus on the way he took over the

tradition on enemy love.

(b) Van Unnik gives a representative opinion when he says that Lk 'in

seinem Wortlaut deutlich auf griechische Auffassung Riicksicht genommen

hat, also hellenisiert.'102 From our earlier reflections upon the possible

redactional elements in Lk (see pp 1 35f) I would qualify this statement

and say that it seems clear that there has been hellenization but it is not

clear that Lk has done it. For example, van Unnik is especially concerned

to show that Lk, in changing the rhetorical question rlvcx JJ.ta8ov exere

(Mt 5 :46) into 7Toia VJJ.W xciptf; eariv (Lk 6 :32-34 ), has taken a word

from Greek ethics (x&pt <:) and with it severely criticized that ethic. 'In

this whole context of reciprocity in human relationships the xcipt<: had a

firm place among the Greeks. Therefore this word must have been added

by Lk, because JJ.wOck, which Mt had used (5 :46), would have made no

sense.'103 But although Lk does show a preference for the word group

this does not mean he supplied the word in this context, for as Wrege

points out ' x&ptf; is in this context firmly anchored in the catechetical

usage .'104 It occurs in a closely related context in I Pt 2 :20 and in Did

1 :3 (7Toi.cx 'YelP XQptf;). That either of these documents was dependent on

Lk is unlikely. Therefore, contrary to van Unnik, it is not likely that

x&ptf; is due to Lk's redaction but had found its way into the tradition

before him.

I have cited this one example to show that the evident hellenization

in Lk 6 :27-36 is not necessarily Lk's work. Elsewhere in the text Greek

influence is evident in the removal of the Jewish/Palestinian features of

the 'right cheek' (Mt 5 :39/Lk 6 :29), the legal suit for one's shirt

(Kpt8fwcxt Mt 5 :40/Lk 6 : 29) and the conscription of citizens to go one

mile with a soldier105 (Mt 5 :4 1 ; absent in Lk). The use of 'sinners' (Lk

6 :32-34) instead of 'gentiles' (Mt 5 :47) or 'tax collectors' (Mt 5 :46)

may also have been for the sake of gentile readers. But none of these

changes can with certainty be attributed to Lk; for, among other reasons,

this would mean that the distinctive patterns and the Semitic poetic

structure of the passage in its present fonn would have to be Lk's work.106

Two things are important to notice about the hellenizing redaction.

First, in the changes that were made for the sake of Greek readers whether by Lk or perhaps by an earlier translator out of the Aramaic -

the tendency was never to weaken the radical demand of Jesus. On the

contrary, as Bartsch points out in two instances : 'With regard to one's

coat the issue is not being sued for a garment as in Mt 5 :40 but more

radically it says: whoever takes your coat do not demand it back (6 :29).

Jesus ' command in Mt and Lk

15 7

And the admonition to give to the one who asks is sharpened with an

addition : Give to every one who demands.'107 Thus the redactional changes

were not carried out in order to make the teachings of Jesus more feasible

as practical ethics but were simply intended to make Jesus' original teaching

more comprehensible in a new situation.

The second thing to notice is that even if Lk is not responsible for these

changes, they did not conflict with his purposes. What we said of Mt's use

of the tradition on enemy love holds true for Lk's use as well : he makes

no efforts to tone down the absolute commands of Jesus found in the

tradition, nor does he give casuistical expansions to make the commands

more practicable in daily life. Evidently Lk's main aim is not primarily

catechetical or paraenetic but historical108 - not in a modern disinterested

sense, but with the conviction that this particular history of Jesus is of

paramount significance for his church. Thus the content of the pericope

on enemy love (Lk 6 :27-36) confirms what was intimated in the framework Lk gave to the entire Sermon on the Plain : Lk's desire to address his own situation relevantly did not lead him to abandon his first aim to

render an account of what and how Jesus had taught decades earlier.

2. Wherein Consists Obedience to Jesus ' Command of Enemy Love?

I will not try to exhaust Lk's conception of the content of the command

of enemy love. My intention rather is to examine that aspect of the love

command in Lk 6 :27-36 which Lk chooses to develop at greater length in

the rest of his gospel. In following this development I will try in accordance

with the methodology described earlier to establish between the texts

examined and the pericope on enemy love (Lk 6 : 27-36) points of contact

which reveal a genuine link in Lk's intention and thus shed light on his

understanding of this pericope even though its Lukan features are uncertain.

Lest the treatment of just one line of development in Lk's understanding

of the command of enemy love seem too one-sided, I will, at the end of

this section, pose the question of other possible lines of development and

their relation to the one here treated.

Over against its Matthean parallel, Lk 6 :27-36 has a peculiar stress on

the use of one's possessions. Mt 5 :42a commands, 'Give to the one who asks.

To this Lk 6 :30b adds, 'From the one who takes your things do not demand

them back.' The command to give is taken farther: let go what you have

given or what has been taken ; do not even try to get it back. The word

for 'demand back' (&tralre t ) is unique to Lk's gospel in the New Testament

(found only here and in 1 2 : 20). Further, Mt 5 :42b commands, 'Do not

turn away from the one who desires to borrow from you.' Lk 6 :3 5 again

goes farther: 'Loan, not hoping for anything back.' 'Even sinners loan in

Love your enemies

158

order to receive back' (6 :34). The word for 'hoping back' (aneA.ni�w) is

a hapax legomenon in the New Testament (except for a poorly attested

variant reading in Eph 4 : 1 9) and is used here contrary to contemporary

usage. 109 The word for 'receive back' (daroA.cxJ.1{3&vw) has 5 of its 1 0 New

Testament occurrences110 in Lk. On the basis of these word statistics and

the difference between Mt and Lk, it appears that we have here a peculiar

Lukan stress111 on the way one should use his possessions : never use your

possessions to seek your own earthly aggrandizement. In letting your

riches go, don't hope for more of the same in return. Do not just be liberal,

but be liberal in such a way that your liberality is not calculated to bring

you more earthly treasure. Is it possible to confirm this supposedly Lukan

emphasis from the wider context?

This emphasis on freely letting one's possessions go with no desire to

have them back comes as no surprise after the Lukan form of the beatitudes

(6 : 20-23) and woes (6 :24-26).

It seems impossible to determine whether Lk or his source inserted the

woes at this point so that they correspond to the four beatitudes so

perfectly . According to Grundmann (L u kas, p 1 44) and Hirsch (cited

by him) 'They were probably inserted before Luke.' Bultmann (History ,

p l l l f), however, thinks that while they are not Lk's formulation , they

were probably inserted by him since 6 : 27a 'is manifestly a transition

which again leads us back to a source (Q) passage. ' Another point in

favor of an insertion by Lk would be the nA.rw with which the woes

begin (6 : 24), because this is a favorite word in Lk (once in Mk , 5 times

in Mt, 1 5 in Lk) . It is probably his own suturing word in 6 : 3 5 where he

repeats the love command (see Chapter 2, note 1 1 4) and he probably

uses it against his sources in 1 2 : 3 1 /Mt 6 : 3 3 ; 2 2 : 2 1 /Mk 1 4 : 20 ; 22: 22/

Mk 1 4 : 2 1 . And as we shall see below there is not only essential but also

formal connection between the woes and other more distant material

unique to Lk. But we need not insist that the woes were here inserted

by Lk in order to find in them a clear expression of one of his chief

concerns in the gospel (Kiimmel, In troduction, p 98 ; Rengstorf, L u kas,

p 4). This concern would be no less Lk's if it were also the concern of

one of his sources.

20a Blessed are you poor

24a But woe to you rich

b for yours is the Kingdom

b for you have back your

of God

consolation

2 l a Blessed are you who hunger 25a Woe to you who are filled

now

now

b for you shall be satisfied

b for you shall hunger

The poor112 are blessed and the rich are condemned.113 The condemnation

of the rich (6 :24) is due in essence to the fact that the use of their

Jesus ' command in Mt and Lk

159

possessions does not correspond to Jesus' commands. He commands : care

so little for riches that, when they are given or taken, you do not even hope

to have them back (6 :3 5). The rich on the other hand seek and find their

comfort or 'consolation' precisely in their riches.

Here again a difference in emphasis between Lk and Mt is evident.

Offering a substantial parallel to Lk 6:24f, on &'TrexeTe riw rrcxp&K'ATlatV

vp.wv, is Mt's threefold repetition of lmf)(ovatv114 TOV p.w8ov wn�v

(6 : 3 ,5 , 1 6). Mt warns against seeking reward in the praise of men by

showing off one's alms, prayers and fasting. Lk warns against seeking

consolation in riches by a refusal to give freely without hoping for repayment. When one does not heed the warning, he is given precisely what he seeks: the praise of men (in Mt) and the consolation of riches (in Lk) - but

nothing more ! The way both evangelists use this same kind of argument

shows the unity and distinctiveness of their different emphases. They are

one in their concern that men not seek their happiness and security in the

things at their disposal in this world. But Mt's focus is on the misuse of

Jewish religious practices while Lk's concern is with the misuse of riches115

and for Lk this is a clear failure to obey the command of enemy love.

Comparing the word &'Trexw from Lk 6 :24 which we just discussed with

the words &'TrOltTew, thro'AOIJJ.(ki.vw, and &1re'A1r itw from Lk 6 :30,34f (see

above) we see that both texts, the woes and the love command, not only

address the same issue, the use of possessions, but they do so with a similar

vocabulary as well. As we shall see again below it is characteristic of Lk

to use compound verbs, the prepositional prefixes of which connote

reciprocity. In each of these four verbs the thro prefiX connotes that the

person acting is aiming to get something back for himself. This peculiarity

of Lk's writings is probably not accidental but a conscious effort to combat

what van Unnik calls the Gegenseitigkeitsrege/116 which still regulated the

behavior of Lk's Greek contemporaries even though some Greek moralists

opposed it.117 It seems, therefore, that the aspect of the tradition on

enemy love which Lk has chosen to develop is its denunciation of the rule

of reciprocity in the use of one's possessions. Where else in his gospel can

this development be seen?

If we follow Lk's use of the word group just mentioned we are led to

the parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Lk 1 6 : 19-3 1 ). 118 In this parable

which only Lk records we have a rich man who flaunts his wealth by the

clothes he wears and by his daily feasts ( 1 6 : 19); and we have a poor and

miserable beggar, hungry and full of sores ( 1 6 : 20t). The situation is like

that of the good Samaritan (Lk 1 0 : 29-37) in that the poor, diseased man

lies at the rich man's gate so that the rich man must pass him every day

as he goes in and out. like the priest and the Levite in that parable, so the

Love your enemies

160

rich man here passes by and ignores the need of his poor neighbor. The

poor man dies and is carried to Abraham's bosom ( 1 6 : 22), the rich man

dies and goes to be tormented in Hades ( 1 6 : 23). The rich man pleads to

Abraham for mercy ( 1 6 : 24) and Abraham's response is important for our

theme : 'Child, remember that you received back (llare'Nx[3e�;) your good

things in your life and Lazarus likewise evil things; but now here he is

consoled (rrcxpOII<OL'Aefrm) but you are tormented.'

Why had the rich man not even given Lazarus the crumbs from his

table? Because Lazarus was in no position to pay back any good thing. But

the rich man's life was determined by what he could receive back in all his

dealings. Abraham acknowledged how tragically successful in this the rich

man was. But his success was disobedience to Jesus' command never to use

your possessions with the desire to 'receive back' (Lk 6 : 30,34f). Therefore

Jesus' 'woe' of Lk 6 :24 applies to the rich man, and here the parallel is

striking. 'Woe to you that are rich, for you have back your consolation

(rrcxp&K'A11aw).' The rich man had received back his good things, his

consolation, 'in his life,' but now he has exchanged it for torment. But

Lazarus has exchanged his evil things, his torment, for consolation

(trO!pO!K.OL'AeCrcu ). The emphatic 'now' of 1 6 : 25 recalls the 'now' of 6 :25 ,2 1 :

'Woe to you who are filled now, for you shall hunger.' 'Blessed are you who

hunger now, for you shall be satisfied.' Lk 1 6 : 1 9-3 1 puts in parable form

what, according to Lk , Jesus proclaims to the people in the beatitudes and

woes and command of enemy love .

Like the beatitudes and woes and love command, the parable of the

rich man and Lazarus is in Lk's view not merely instruction for the

disciples but also a call to repentance (see p 1 5 5). Jesus is addressing

'the Pharisees who were lovers of money' ( 1 6 : 1 4f). The parable closes

with a warning to the five brothers of the rich man, who were also sons

of Abraham (cf 1 6 : 2 5 ) , that they needed to repent: 'If someone goes to

them from the dead they will repent' ( 1 6 : 30). The parable is a call to

repentance in that it shows that a failure to bear the fruit worthy of

repentance brings irrevocable ( 1 6 :26) separation from the blessings of

the heavenly banquet!19 As Lk pointed out already in John's preaching,

· �. uits worthy of repentance' (3 :8) are this : 'He who has two coats let

,rim share with him who has none; and he who has food let him do

likewise' (3 : 1 1 ). 120

I mentioned above that it is characteristic of Lk to use compound verbs,

the prepositional prefixes of which connote reciprocity. Besides the verbs

beginning with an-6, lk also seems to favor verbs beginning with aVTi .

Taking into consideration all words in the synoptics and Acts formed with

&V'T{ (not the preposition itself) we fmd the following. 121 Of the 2 1 words

with the &V'Ti prefix which occur in the synoptics and Acts, 20 occur in

Jesus ' command in Mt and Lk

161

Lk./Acts, while only 4 occur in Mt and Mk. Of the 1 7 which do not occur in Mt

and Mk, 10 are unique to Lk/Acts! in the whole New Testament. It is fair to say

therefore that Lk. shows a partiality for words compounded with eom'.

Three of these words cluster together in a text which is important for

Lk.'s denunciation of the rule of reciprocity in the use of one's possessions

(Lk. 14: 1 2-14).

Jesus said also to the one who had invited him : 'Whenever you make

a breakfast or a dinner, do not call your friends or your brothers or

your relatives or your rich neighbors, lest they also invite you back

(&vnKoi'Aeawat v) and you have a repayment (&VT0!1TOOOJ.LO!). But whenever you give a banquet, call the poor, crippled, lame and blind; and you will be blessed because they cannot pay you back (&vrwooovmt).

You will be paid back at the resurrection of the just.

This command (again directed at a Pharisee, 14 : 1) goes beyond the

command not to hope for repayment when you loan or give. It even goes

beyond the parable of the good Samaritan in which we are admonished to

help those in our path. Here we are not merely commanded to be indifferent

to earthly repayment, but more, to actively avoid it. Here we are to go out

of our way and reach out to help those in need. The danger is so great that

our actions will be controlled by the rule of reciprocity that we should

guard against the temptation by making it our aim to give only where

repayment is impossible . With this obvious overstatement, which is similar

to the requirement to hate your relatives (14:26), Lk. drives home how

radical the inversion of values must be in the person who hopes to participate in the resurrection of the just (14: 14 ).

Thus in developing his denunciation of the rule of reciprocity in the use

of possessions, Lk does not abandon that original absoluteness of Jesus'

command which we saw in the pericope on enemy love (cf p 1 56). His

emphasis on the theme shows how important he thinks it is for the church

but he does not give church rules on the use of possessions. 122 He intends

to let the piercing voice of Jesus come through and stab the consciences of

his readers; for it is not with external regulation that Lk. is concerned, but

with the heart. Lk. was perhaps more aware than any of the other evangelists

of how decisive is the sentence : 'Where your treasure is, there will your

heart be also' (Lk 12 :34). To be sure, Lk. emphasizes that obedience to

Jesus' command of enemy love consists in concrete acts of mercy (6 :36)

toward those who may naturally be repulsive to us. But prior to the act

comes that change of heart by which riches become so insignificant to us

that our act of mercy is never calculated to bring back our own material

aggrandizement.

Love your enemies

1 62

To close this section we may now pose the question of other lines of

development of the command of enemy love in Lk. The line that we

have focused on - Lk's denunciation of the rule of reciprocity in the use

of one's possessions (6 : 30,35 ,20f,24 ; 1 6 : 1 9-3 1 ; 1 4 : 1 2-14, etc) - has

surprisingly little to do with enemies . In Lk the 'poor, crippled, lame,

and blind' ( 14 : 1 3 ) are the prime obj ects of love, not because they bear

animosity, but because they are naturally repulsive ( 1 6 :20) and thus,

like enemies, are hard to love. We could have focused on the parable of

the good Samaritan ( 1 0 : 29-3 7) where a stripped and wounded man was

also an 'enemy .'123 This would have brought in the dimension of enmity

which love overcomes. But I have not given attention to this parable,

first, because it has received so much attention in contemporary research,

and, second, because it is not formally connected with the pericope on

enemy love, and , third, because the motif of loving national or political

enemies is not one of Lk's chief interests.

In fact, for Lk the 'enemies' of the Christians are no longer primarily

outside, but inside, the church. They are 'the cares and riches and

pleasures of life' ( 8 : 1 4 ; cf 1 6 : 9 ; 1 2 : 1 5).124 The emphasis on persecution

that we find in Mt (5 : 1 0 , 1 1 , 1 2 ,44 ; 1 0 : 23 ; 23 :34) is missing from Lk. 125

This accords with what has often been noted about his two-volume work :

in his apologetic interests, Lk avoids calling attention to animosity

between the Christians and Romans. 126 He is less interested in stressing

that Christians love their enemies than he is in stressing that Christians

do not make enemies in the first place. For this reason, apparently, Lk

chose to develop the renunciation of reciprocity in using one's

possessions, instead of developing a dimension of enemy love which

calls attention to animosity.

3. How is Jesus ' Command of Enemy Love Motivated?

What did lk conceive to be the motivating power behind the obedience

to Jesus' command? In the texts we have just discussed one aspect of Lk's

conception is most obvious and at the same time most problematical from

the theological standpoint, namely, the idea of reward in the age to come.

To focus our attention anywhere but here would be to avoid a dimension

of Lk's thinking which poses a problem for the average Bible reader who

believes that he is justified by faith and not by works.

Let us recall now how Lk argues in the texts which we looked at above.

The pericope on enemy love climaxes with the words : 'Love your enemy,

do good, loan, not hoping for anything in return ; and your reward will be

great and you will be sons of the Highest' (6 :35). The counterpart to

future reward is future loss, and of this Lk warns in the preceding woes :

'Woe to you who are filled now, for you shall hunger' (6 :25a) 12

.

7 The

parable of the rich man and Lazarus combines a promise of future blessing

and a warning of future destruction : 'Abraham said, "Child, remember that

you received back your good things in your life and Lazarus likewise evil

Jesus ' command in Mt and Lk

1 63

things, but now here he is consoled and you are tormented'" (16 :25).

And, finally, in 14 : 13 f, Jesus warns his host: 'When you give a banquet

invite the poor and crippled and lame and blind and you will be blessed

because they cannot repay you ; for it will be repaid to you in the resurrection of the just.' Each of these texts as it stands is unique to Lk's gospel and we may assume in the light of what follows that they correspond to his intention.

The thought of reward and its counterpart of perdition form not a

minor but a major aspect of Lk's portrayal of Jesus' teaching. In the

following table I have tried to list every instance where future blessing

( +) or perdition (-) is joined together with an explicit or implied

command of Jesus (or John the Baptist) in Lk's gospel. (S = no parallel in

Mt or Mk; Mk = parallel in Mk; Q = parallel only in Mt).

Q-

3 : 9

Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down

and thrown in to the fire ( cf 3 : 1 7).

Q+

6 : 20

Blessed are you poor for yours is the Kingdom of

God .

Q+

6 : 2 1

Blessed are you who hunger now for you shall be

satisfied.

Q+

Blessed are you who weep now for you shall laugh.

Q+

6 : 22f

Blessed are you when men hate you . . . Rej oice in

that day and leap for j oy because your reward is

great in heaven.

S-

6 : 24 f

B u t w o e to you that are rich for you have back your

consolation.

S-

Woe to you that are full now for you shall hunger.

S-

Woe to you who laugh now for you shall mourn

(cf 6 : 2 6).

Q+

6 : 3 5

Love your enemies . . . and your reward will b e great

and you will be sons of the Most High (cf 6 : 3 2-34).

Q+

6 : 3 7 f

Judge n o t and y o u will n o t b e judged ;

s+

condemn not and you will not be condemned ;

S+

forgive and you will be forgiven ;

s+

give and it will be given to you : good measure,

pressed down, shaken

running over, will

be put into your lap .

Mk+

The measure you give will be the measure you get

back .

Q+

6 : 46-49

The one who does my words has an unshakable house,

Q-

but the one who does not - his house will be destroyed.

Mk-

9 : 24

Whoever would save his life will lose it,

Mk+

and whoever loses his life for my sake he will save it.

Love your enemies

1 64

Mk-

9 : 26

Whoever is ashamed of me and my words, of him

will the Son of Man be ashamed when he comes in

his glory (cf 1 2 : 8- 1 0).

Q-

1 0 : 1 3f

Woe to you Chorazin . . . Bethsaida for if the mighty

works done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon

they would have repented long ago . . . but it shall

be m ore tolerable in the judgment for Tyre and Sidon

than for you (cf 1 1 :3 1 f).

s+

1 0 : 2 5 ,2 8

what shall I do to inherit eternal life? (Love

God and neighbor: ) do this and you shall live (cf

1 8 : 1 5ff).

Q+

1 1 : 4

Forgive us our sins for w e ourselves forgive everyone

who is indebted to us.

Q-

1 2 :4f

I tell you, my friends, do not fear those who kill the

body, and after that have no more that they can do.

But I will warn you whom to fear; fear him who after

he has killed has power to cast into hell.

S-

1 2 : 20f

Fool, this night your soul will be required back from

you , . . So is everyone who lays up treasure for him-

self and is not rich toward God.

Q+

1 2 : 3 1

Seek the Kingdom and these things shall be yours as

well (cf 1 2 :6f,22ff).

S+

1 2 : 3 2

Fear not, little flock ; i t i s your Father's good

pleasure to give you the Kingdom.

S+

1 2 : 3 3

Sell your possessions and give alms; provide your-

selves with purses that do not grow old, with a

treasure in the heavens that does not fail. . . for

where your treasure is there will your heart be also.

s+

1 2 : 3 7

Blessed are those servants whom the master finds

awake when he comes, truly I say to you he will

gird himself and have them sit at table and he will

come and serve them.

Q-

1 2 :45f

But if that servant says to himself: 'My master is

delayed in coming,' and begins to beat the men-

servants . . . the master of that servant will come on

a day when he does not expect him . . . and will

punish him and put him with the unfaithful.

S -

1 3 : 5

Unless you repent you will all likewise perish.

Q-

1 3 : 24,27f Strive to enter by the narrow door, for many, I tell

you, will seek to enter and will not be able . . .

Depart from me all you workers of iniquity. There

you will weep and gnash your teeth . . . ( cf 1 4 : 24 ).

Jesus ' command in Mt and Lk

165

S-

1 4 : 1 1

Everyone who exalts himself will be humbled,

s+

and he who humbles himself will be exalted (cf 1 8 : 1 4).

s+

1 4 : 1 3f

When you give a feast, invite the poor . . . and you

will be blessed because they cannot repay you ; you

will be repaid at the resurrection of the just.

Q-

1 4 : 34

Salt is good but if salt has lost its taste how shall its

saltness be restored . . . men throw

away .

s+

1 6 : 9

Make friends for yourselves from unrighteous

mammon in order that, when it fails, they might

receive you into eternal habitations.

S-

1 6 : 1 1 f

If you have not been faithful in unrighteous mammon,

who will entrust to you the true riches? And if you

have not been faithful in what is another's , who will

give you that which is your own?

S-

1 6 : 2 5

Son, remember that you in your lifetime received

your good things and Lazarus likewise evil things ;

but now he is comforted here and you are in anguish.

Mk -

1 7 : 2

I t would be better for him i f a millstone were hung

around his neck and he were cast into the sea than

that he should cause one of these little ones to sin .

Mk+

l 8 : 29f

Truly I say to you there is n o man that has left

house or wife . . . for the sake of the Kingdom of

God who will not receive manifold m ore in this

time, and in the age to come eternal life .

Q+

1 9 : 2 6

I tell you, to everyone w h o has, will more be given ;

Q-

but from him who has not, even what he has will be

taken away (cf 8 : 1 8 ).

S-

1 9 : 2 7

But as for these enemies o f mine , who did not want

me to reign over them , bring them here and slay

them before me.

Mk-

20: 1 5 f

What then will the owner o f the vineyard d o to

them? He will come and destroy those tenants and

give the vineyard to others.

Mk-

2 0 : 46f

Beware of the scribes who like to go about in long

robes . . . they will receive the greater condemnation.

Mk+ 2 1 : 1 7- 1 9 You will be hated by all for my name's sake. But

not a hair of your head will perish. By your endurance

you will gain your lives.

I do not mean to imply a unifonnity of argumentation in each of these

texts, nor that each one is equally representative of Lk's specific conception

of ethical motivation. I have gathered these texts together, rather, to dispel

Love your enemies

166

any notion that the argumentation which Lk develops with regard to the

motivation of enemy love is an isolated phenomenon in his gospel. And I

hope that this accumulation of sayings will cause us to consider seriously

the legitimacy of the role of future blessing or punishment in motivating

ethical behavior. It could be that the frequency with which this legitimacy

is rejected or ignored today inside and outside the theological establishment

is based less on exegesis than on presuppositions that do not accord with

the New Testament. C. S. Lewis, the Oxford scholar of Medieval Literature,

preached a sermon in 1 94 1 in which he tried to expose the fallacy of the

presupposition that hoping for our own future good is a bad thing. (He is

not a New Testament scholar and his comments should be read for the

basic insight, not for his critical use of the sources.)

If you asked twenty good men today what they thought the highest of

the virtues, nineteen of them would reply, Unselfishness. But if you

asked almost any of the great Christians of old he would have replied ,

Love. You see what has happened? A negative term has been substituted

for a positive, and this is of more than philological importance. The

negative ideal of Unselfishness carries with it the suggestion not primarily

of securing good things for others, but of going without them ourselves,

as if our abstinence and not their happiness was the important point. I

do not think this is the Christian virtue of Love. The New Testament

has lots to say about self-denial, but not about self-denial as an end in

itself. We are told to deny ourselves and to take up our crosses in order

that we may follow Christ ; and nearly every description of what we

shall ultimately find if we do so contains an appeal to desire. If there

lurks in most modem minds the notion that to desire our own good and

earnestly to hope for the enjoyment of it is a bad thing, I submit that

this notion has crept in from Kant and the Stoics and is no part of the

Christian faith. Indeed, if we consider the unblushing promises of

reward and the staggering nature of the rewards promised in the

Gospels, it would seem that our Lord fmds our desires, not too strong,

but too weak. We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with our

drink and sex and ambition when infmite joy is offered us, like an

ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because

he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea.

We are far too easily pleased. 128

In my opinion Lewis' insight is indispensable for understanding the way

Lk intends to motivate the command of enemy love - or, more specifically,

to motivate the use of one's possessions for the sake of the poor and

rejected. Applied to Lk, the insight is this : Lk never asks a man to act

Jesus ' command in Mt and Lk

167

against his own best interests. In fact he never tires of reminding his readers

that obedience to Jesus, no matter what it costs, brings ultimate satisfaction

- whether this be described as great reward (6 :35) or laughter (6 :2 1b) or

consolation in Abraham's bosom ( 1 6 :25) or participation in the resurrection of the just ( 1 4 : 14). The appeal to our desire for well-being penetrates the whole gospel. (That is, in fact, ultimately why the early Christians called it eixxyye)\wv.) We should perhaps say in advance that the 'reward'

for which we hope is not conceived as a thing one wants to have ; rather it

is to be a son of God (6 :35), to find his favor (1 8 : 14), to have fellowship

with him.129

With this general groundwork laid we may now move on to the specific

question how Lk understood the motivation of enemy love. The clearest

statement of motivation in the texts we treated in the preceding section is

found in Lk 14 : 1 3 f.

Whenever you give a feast, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame and

the blind, and you will be blessed , because they cannot pay you back,

for it will be paid back to you in the resurrection of the just.

It is not uncommon to read comments like T. W. Manson's on Lk 14 : 14,

'The promise of reward for this kind of life is there as a fact. You do not

live this way for the sake of reward. If you do you are not living in this

way but in the old selfish way .'130 But a great deal of caution is in order

here, for at such crucial points our own theological bias may tend to silence

the voice of the evangelist lest he disturb our system . Manson, I think, has

over-simplified . He is saying in effect that the promise of reward is

mentioned as the result of loving behavior but should not be the aim of

such behavior. However, two texts which are related to our theme and

are found only in Lk make this interpretation problematical .

First, Lk writes in 1 2 :33 ,131 'Sell your possessions, and give alms ,

provide yourselves with purses that d o not grow old, with a treasure in the

heavens that does not fail.' The connection here between giving alms and

having an eternal treasure in heaven is not mere result but aim : 'Make it

your aim to have treasure in heaven and the way to do this is to sell your

possessions and give alms.' Second, Lk concludes the parable of the

unrighteous steward with the command: 'Make friends for yourselves by

means of unrighteous mammon, in order that when it fails they may

receive you into eternal habitations' ( 1 6 : 9).132 Lk thus understands the

parable as instruction for the disciples ( 1 6 : 1), i.e. the church, about the

proper use of material possessions. He does not say that the result of the

proper use of possessions is to receive eternal habitations; he says: Make

it your .aim to secure an eternal habitation by the use of your possessions.133

Love your enemies

1 68

Thus if we are to think like Lk we must express ourselves differently from

T. W. Manson about the relationship between obedience to the love

command and future reward.

It seems to me that one of the most significant questions facing the

non-theologian, Theophilus, as he read Lk's gospel was: Why are there

some fifty promises of reward and warnings of perdition connected with

the commands of Jesus in Lk's gospel if these are not to form part of my

motivation? The idea that the concept of reward is only the accidental

clothing of Jesus' commands which is inherited from Judaism and can

therefore be stripped away with no indecency to these commands is

untenable/34 at least from Lk's point of view. The promises and warnings

are too prevalent and too intentional for us to say that Lk considered

them to be discardable clothing. If the promise of reward to motivate

Christian love is theologically inadmissible, then Lk is on this issue an

inadmissible theologian.

But let us pose the question to Lk again : How should the promise of

reward in heaven function in motivating the command of enemy love? I

see two mutually exclusive possibilities. According to the first possibility ,

Theophilus would view his attainment of the heavenly reward as unsure,

and in order to make it sure he would strive to obey the commands. That

is, he would feel the need to show himself deserving of the reward. According to Conzelmann135 this is, in fact, how Lk I 2 :33 must be understood :

'Sell your possessions and give alms; provide yourselves with purses that do

not grow old and with a treasure in heaven, which does not fail.' But he

says Lk has unwittingly contradicted himself here because in I 7 : 1 0 136 'it

is made quite clear that any claim, any reckoning as to one's desert is

exciuded.' 137 But as we noticed above, Lk 1 2 :33 is not an isolated example

but forms only one tributary of a stream running through the whole

gospel. It is more probable therefore - at least more courteous to assume -

that Lk did not unknowingly contradict himself in two of

main

emphases of his gospel, but that he was aware of what he was saying in

both cases and believed that between them existed an essential unity. This

would mean that 1 2 :33 should be understood in some other way than just

described and this leads us to the second possibility of how the promise of

reward might function in motivating the command of enemy love.

According to this second possibility Theophilus would take note of the

'mercy' of the heavenly Father (6 :3 5b ,36)138 who 'delights' to give his

children the Kingdom ( I 2 :32)139 precisely when they know their own

'unworthiness' to be called sons ( I S :2 1 ; cf 1 7 : I 0). 140 Appealing to this

'mercy' as a 'sinner' ( 1 8 : I 3), 141· Theophilus will trust confidently that he

is fully accepted142 by God and will surely inherit 'eternal life' ( 1 0 :25 ;

Jesus ' command in Mt and Lk

1 69

1 8 : 1 8 ; 1 8 :30). In this assurance of how 'great' his 'reward' will truly be

as a 'son of the Highest' (6 :35)143 he 'rejoices and leaps for joy' (6 :23 )/44

the unspeakable longings of his heart are satisfied in hope, so that he is

freed from all behavior which aims to secure his own happiness at the

expense of another. He acknowledges that the only way he, as a human

being with his overwhelming thirst for fulftlment, can love people

genuinely and not merely use them as means to his own worldly pleasure is

for his thirst to be satisfied in God (6: 2 1 ; cf 1 2 : 2 1 ).145 In this way the

promise of reward may function to motivate love without contradicting

Lk's understanding of undeserved mercy ( 1 5 :2 1 f; 1 7 : 10 ; 18 : 1 3).

But Lk talks as if our loving behavior secures the promise (12 :33 ; 16 :9)

and so in a sense it does. The man whose consolation is not in riches

(6 :24)146 nor in human acclaim (20 :46 ; cf 1 6 : 1 5 ; 14 :7-1 1)147 can only

use his possessions and position to seek the consolation of others. No good

tree bears bad fruit (6 :43). If a man begins to store up possessions for him·

self it is a certain sign that he has ceased to be 'rich toward God' ( 1 2 :2 1)148

and that he has begun to seek his riches (cf 1 6 :25) and his consolation

(6 :24) in this world - but upon such a man Jesus pronounces not beatitudes

but woes. Since the only man who will fmally enjoy the promise is the

man who truly loves his enemy (i.e. in Lk : the man in need who cannot

pay back, p 1 62), therefore it is appropriate for Lk to say that to behave

like this is to provide yourself with a treasure in heaven that does not fail

(12 :33 ). The reader understands that in loving his enemy he is doing that

without which he will not have eternal life and he is thus motivated to

take his behavior very seriously. But he also knows that such love is only

possible if his hope of sonship is sure and he is thus motivated to realize

the full assurance of faith in God's undeserved mercy ( 1 5 :2 1 f; 1 7 : 10 ; 1 8 : 13).

Without this unconditional surety, his efforts at loving behavior would

become abortive attempts to show himself worthy of sonship - which Lk

says is impossible { 1 7 : 1 0).

If we ask why Lk so often couples Jesus' command of 'enemy' love

(along with many other commands) with warnings and promises about our

eternal destiny the most basic answer seems to be that Lk saw the church

in constant need of such reminders. As we saw earlier (p 1 62) the real

danger facing the Christians of Lk's day was, in his opinion, the 'cares and

riches and pleasures of life' which threaten to choke the Christian so that

he does not come to maturity (8 : 14, cf notes 1 1 5 , 1 24 ). But the only way

riches and pleasures can choke a man is to lead him to the absurd conclusion that they are more to be desired than all the wealth in the Kingdom of God. When this happens genuine love ceases, because the goal of riches and pleasures will become so important that other persons will be

Love your enemies

1 70

insignificant except as stepping stones to that goal. Lk's repeated warnings

of destruction (cf 6 :49) and promises of 'true riches' (16 : 1 1 ) aim to preserve the church from this absurd shortsightedness and to open the vision of the church onto the inestimable worth of eternal life at home with the

Father. Only from this vantage point will the church truly know how and

be able to love her enemies.

I should admit in closing that Lk did not make all the c onnections

explicit which I have. Only in one place did he explicitly relate the

undeserved mercy of God to the motivation of the command of enemy

love : 'Be merciful as your Father is merciful' ( 6 : 3 6 ). For the m ost part

he portrayed the m ercy of the Father, on the one hand, and commanded l ove in view of future reward , on the other hand , without drawing the two together. That these two aspects of Lk's gospel do in

fact cohere becomes evident only upon theological reflection of the

sort I have tried to record here. Such reflection is j ustifiable here, I

think , on the same grounds as it was in interpreting Jesus' m essage

(see 'The Validity of Systematizing,' pp 6 7 f).

It is p erhaps no accident that the absence of an explicit systematic

connection between these two aspects of Lk's gospel has its parallel

(as we saw earlier, pp 7 9 , 8 5 ) in the message of Jesus. He offered

his unconditional and merciful forgiving-fellowship to sinners, on the

one hand, and made radical demands in view of the coming Kingdom of

God, on the other hand, without explicitly drawing the two together.

And yet, as we saw there, it was the p ower of the Kingdom that was

experienced through Jesus which enabled the fulfilment of his radical

commands. That this theological coherence w as only implicit in J esus'

message and is still only implicit in Lk's gospel may serve as a confirmation of our earlier conclusion (p 1 5 7 ) that Lk's first concern as an evangelist was to render the teaching of J esus in its typical original

orientation and through this means to address his contemporary readers

with the gospel.

C O N C L U S IO N

The study took its starting point from the observation that there are close

parallels between the command of enemy love in the paraenesis of the

New Testament epistles (cf Rom 1 2 : 14,1 7-20 ; I Thess 5 : 1 5 ; I Pt 3 :9 ;

I Cor 4: 12) and the command of enemy love in the synoptics (Mt 5 :38-

48 and Lk 6 :27-36). These parallels called for an explanation ; so Leonhard

Goppelt suggested that I test his hypothesis, that the paraenetic command

of enemy love and the command of enemy love in the synoptics both rest

on the words of Jesus. It was hoped that such an investigation would shed

some more light on the use of tradition by the early church, and specifically on its use of the tradition of Jesus' sayings.

From this starting point the study developed as an analysis of the

history of Jesus' command of enemy love in the tradition of the early

church, with a conscious emphasis on the meaninl( of this command at the

various levels of the tradition. The two fundamental problems to be solved

by the study (taken as a whole, rather than in its individual parts) were

these : First, if both the paraenetic and synoptic commands of enemy love

somehow rest on Jesus' own command, why are there distinct differences

in form and use? Second, in view of the differences can there be an

essential unity or continuity between Jesus' command and the later

formulations and uses?

In order to make

the initial question (Do the synoptic and

paraenetic commands of enemy love both rest on the command of Jesus?)

was legitimate , Chapter I was devoted to demonstrating three things:

( 1 ) that there was such a thing as an oral paraenetic tradition current

among the earliest Christian churches ; (2) that the command of enemy

love in the New Testament paraenesis was a part of this tradition and

owed its similarities in Rom and I Pt to their use of this common

tradition; (3) as nearly as possible, what form the command of enemy

love had in the paraenetic tradition. (See the fuller summary statements

on pp 1 7f.)

After this, the natural question to pose was: Where did this command

Love your enemies

1 72

of enemy love in the paraenetic tradition come from? Chapter 2 was

devoted to answering this question. I concluded there that, as far as the

raw material used to expand the central command of enemy love is concerned, the paraenetic tradition drew upon both Old Testament and Jewish Hellenistic sources. (See the tabulation of this material on pp 63f )

.

But it did not do so without distinction, so that the raw material taken

over does not merely reflect the character of the sources. It was chosen

for its suitableness to serve Christian purposes and was altered by the context into which it was put ( cf p 64). The kernel of this raw material, however, was Jesus' command of enemy love. This became evident, first, from the formal similarities between Jesus' command and the paraenetic

command (cf Rom 1 2 : 14 and Lk 6 :28), and, second, from the results of

the history-of-religions survey, namely, that what sets the church off from

its environment is that which it has in common with Jesus (cf p 64) . The

remaining chapters have confirmed the conclusion drawn at the end of

Chapter 2: the interpreted, paraphrased and applied command of Jesus

forms the center of the paraenetic teaching on enemy love, and the peculiar

character of his command constituted the unique criterion according to

which the non-Christian paraenetic elements were taken up into the early

Christian paraenetic tradition. 1

The initial hypothesis, that the commands of enemy love in the New

Testament paraenesis and in the synoptics both rest on the words of Jesus,

was thus confirmed. But why then the marked differences between the

commands? The answer which has emerged from our study is that the

paraenetic tradition and the gospel tradition (see defmition, p 1 34) formed

two distinct streams in the early church and had different intentions and

settings. I can do no better than to quote Goppelt again to summarize

my conclusion on this point.2 'Unsere Analyse ergab , dass hier iiber alle

durch die lokale und zeitliche Verkiindigungssituation bedingten Unterschiede hinaus zwei Traditionen vorliegen, die auf Grund ihrer Hauptintention je verschieden gepragt sind . Die Evangelieniiberlieferung will die Logien primar als Verkiindigung in der Situation Jesu, d.h. als Umkehrruf

auf das kommende Reich hin, bezeugen [see my pp 79f] ; die paril'netische

Tradition gibt sie vom erhOhten Herrn her seiner Gemeinde als beispielhafte Verhaltenshilfen weiter [see my pp 1 1 1 , 1 1 4] .' (I have tried to assess the historical relationship between these two streams of tradition

on pp 1 36-9.) This then is the general structure of the tradition which

our study uncovered.

In accord with this structure I investigated the meanin�: of Jesus' love

command in three spheres: in his own earthly ministry (Chapter 3 ), in the

early Christian paraenetic tradition as it came to be deposited in the

Conclusion

1 73

New Testament epistles (Chapter 4 ), and in the gospel tradition as it was

employed by Mt and Lk. 3 Instead of recording the individual conclusions

in each of these spheres, I shall mention four features of the interpretation

of Jesus' love command which all of these areas have in common, and

thereby try to answer the question of continuity or unity between the

meaning of Jesus ' command of enemy love and the various formulations

and uses it later received.

First, the fundamental motivation of Jesus' command of enemy love, or

that which enables its realization in life, is in all three spheres the prevenient

mercy of God, manifest in Jesus. In Jesus ' ministry this mercy is the

mysterious presence of the Kingdom of God manifest in Jesus' forgivingfellowship with sinners. For the paraenesis this mercy is seen in the gospel of Jesus' death and resurrection. For Mt, the mercy of God is seen in Jesus'

call to discipleship, which is a call to trust the almighty Lord who stills

the waves and who has all authority in heaven and on earth and who

promises eternal fellowship to his disciples. For such a disciple , God is a

merciful heavenly Father who knows what his children need before they

ask him. For Lk, the mercy of God is shown in Jesus' acceptance of sinners. In this, God is revealed as the Father who 'delights to give his children the Kingdom' precisely when they know their own unworthiness to be

called sons.

The second feature common to all three spheres is that one's final

eschatological blessing is in some sense dependent upon one's obedience to

the command of enemy love. The prevenient mercy of God does not

exclude this conditional character of the love command, but rather lets

the perfect demand of God stand unweakened, and grants the enablement

needed to obey. Corresponding to this feature, there is in each of the three

spheres additional motivation not only on the basis of the past and present

mercy of God but also on the basis of future blessing. In other words,

since it is only along the path of obedience that one arrives at the fmal

realization of one's hopes, therefore the greatness of that hope is properly

held out as a motivation for obedience.

As a concrete expression of Jesus ' call to repentance in view of the

coming Kingdom, the command of enemy love must be obeyed if one is

to enjoy the blessings of that Kingdom. In the paraenesis, the Christians

are called to return blessing for reviling in order that they might inherit

a blessing (cf I Pt 3 :9). In Mt 'Not every one who says to me, Lord, Lord,

will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, but he who does the will of my

Father in Heaven,' that is, he who 'hears these my words and does them'

(7 : 2 1 ,24 ) In Lk we are told, 'Make friends for yourselves by means of

.

unrighteous mammon so that when it fails they may receive you into

Love your enemies

1 74

eternal habitations' (16 :9) or, in other words, 'Sell your possessions, give

alms, provide yourselves with . . . a treasure in the heavens that does not

fail' (12 :33). It was my conclusion that all of these appeals for obedience

in view of future blessing are properly understood only when they are seen

as integral constituents of the fundamental ground of enemy love in the

already experienced mercy of God.

The third feature common to the understanding of the command of

enemy love in Jesus' teaching, the paraenesis and the synoptics is that the

content of the command of enemy love is determined by the tension of

the eschatological situation which Jesus has brought. The inbreaking of

the powers and blessings and demands of the age to come has created a

situation of ambiguity and stress for the person who knows himself

both grasped by this new inbreaking power and yet bound 'in the flesh' in

this age. He is called, as it were, to live in two worlds whose rules are not

the same .

For Jesus, the command of enemy love in one sense abolishes the lex

talionis as the remnant of the old aeon of sin and suppression. But in

another sense Jesus affirms the institutions essential to historical existence

in this age. Obedience to the command of enemy love, which is the opposite of the lex talionis, is, therefore, only as absolute and unambiguous as is participation now in the age to come. In the paraenesis, the command of

enemy love is not the over-arching norm, but is rather, one command in

tension with others under the norm of love. It stands beside the subjection

motif just as Jesus' love command stands beside his affirmation of the

historical institutions. They cannot be brought into full harmony any

more than those who have been 'transferred into the Kingdom of God's

beloved Son' can feel in harmony with this world. Mt, with his program of

antitheses prefaced by the affirmation of the law's enduring validity ,

brings out more vividly the tension already mentioned in Jesus' own

teaching. While Lk maintains the eschatological tension in the motivation

of the command of enemy love, this is not evident, so far as I can see, in

his treatment of its content. This may be due as much to the particular

content which he has emphasized (use of possessions) as to his peculiar

conception of redemptive history.

The ambiguity of Christian existence leads to the fourth common

feature, namely, the necessity for a renewed mind which can prove the

perfect will of God. Jesus called for a transformation so radical that it left

nothing in a man untouched ( cf pp 77f). The paraenesis summons the

Christian to realize the newness which he has been given 'through the

resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead' (I Pt 1 :3).Mt stresses the need for a

pure heart and a cup that is first clean on the inside so that the outside may

Conclusion

1 75

become clean as well (Mt 23 : 26). And Lk seems to simply let his tradition speak

without any peculiar stress of his own : 'No good tree bears bad fruit, nor

again does a bad tree bear good fruit . . . The good man out of the treasure

of his heart produces good, the evil man out of the evil treasure of his

heart produces evil' (6 :43 ,45). The tacit appeal of the command of enemy

love is, therefore : Become a good tree ! Whether it is described as the

radical transformation of 'metanoia,' or as a 'new birth,' or 'new creation,'

or as becoming pure in heart, or becoming a good tree, the reality intended

is essentially the same, and it is the ground and goal of the command of

enemy love . For the fruit of this tree abounds through Jesus Christ to the

glory and praise of God (Phil 1 : 1 1 ; J n 1 5 :8 ; M t 5 : 1 6 ; I Pt 2 : 1 2).

N O T E S

Introduction

Schlier suggests ('Eigenart' , p 340), 'Actually one should avoid the use of

"paraenesis" as a designation for New Testament admonitions' because the

related Greek word occurs only two times in the New Testament (Acts 27:

9 ,22). 'Properly (sachgemiiss) one would have to say "paraclesis".' Hence

the title of his student's excellent book : Paraklese und Eschatologie bei

Paulus (which contains a concise report of the recent research in New

Testament paraenesis, p 6) by Anton Grabner-Haider. See also Schlink,

'Gesetz,' p 326. I appreciate this desire to be sachgemiiss but have chosen

to retain throughout the work the word 'paraenesis' for two reasons : first,

and most practically, because the word has imbedded itself in the literature

of New Testament studies; second, and more basically, the word 'paraenesis'

communicates distinct ideas about the form of a given text and its intention.

Dibelius (Jakobus, pp 19-23) gave ilve characteristics of the literary form,

paraenesis : '(1 ) eclecticism, (2) the absence of context, (3) catchword connections, (4) repetition of the same motif in different places, (5 ) the admonitions do not fall within the bounds of one particular situation.' In

any given instance these characteristics may have to be qualified, but that

there are such formally distinct units in the New Testament epistles (for

example, I Thess 5 : 1 5-22 and Rom 1 2 : 9-2 1 ) is significant for understanding the traditional background of the epistles. Paraclesis does not focus on this formal side of the admonitions and therefore is not as suitable for our purpose as paraenesis.

2 'Command of enemy love' is a somewhat clumsy English rendering of the

German Gebot der Feindesliebe. The phrase always means: 'command that

one love one's enemies.' I take the freedom to use the phrase because otherwise I would constantly have to use ponderous subordinate clauses to deilne

'command'. It should be noted at the beginning that where I shorten this

phrase simply to 'love command' I always mean 'the command of enemy

love' unless the context indicates otherwise.

3 In place of a formal report on the present state of research, the literature

pertinent to my topic will be assessed at those points within the work

where it substantially relates to a particular issue. An extended bibliography

on works on love in general is found in Spicq, Agape III, pp 24 7ff. William

Klassen ('Love Your Enemy,' pp 15 5 -7) gives a good history of the

research specifically on enemy love including several works not available

to me.

Ch. 1 : In search of the paraenetic tradition

1 77

4 Furnish, Love, p 1 8 .

5 Furnish, Love, p 1 9 .

6 Furnish, Love, p 1 9 .

7 Methodologically the work is thus closely related to David Dungan's Sayings

which, however, treats only sayings of Jesus which are explicitly cited in Paul

as words of the Lord.

8 Furnish, Love, p 1 9 .

9 For a further definition and discussion o f this, see Chapter 5 , p p 1 34ff.

1 0 For a closer designation of this term, see Chapter 1 .

1 1 The 'how' of this transmission is indeed disputed and will be discussed in

Chapter 5 .

1 2 Schlatter , Jesus, p 50.

Chapter I . In Search of the Paraenetic Tradition of a Command of Enemy Love

1 On the Haustafeln in the New Testament see Schrage, NTS 2 1 / 1 , pp 1-21 ;

Goppelt, 'Haustafel'; Petrnsbrief. pp 163-79.

2 Schelkle, Petrnsbriefe, p 93f; Kelly, Peter, p

Selwyn, I Peter, p 189:

'The whole passage, verses 8 and 9 , is a beautiful summary of the ethical

and spiritual qualities required of members of the Church in their relations

one with another and in their attitude to their non-christian and often

hostile neighbors.'

3 Beare, / Peter, p 134. The efforts of E. G. Selwyn 'establish more clearly

than ever the literary dependence of I Peter upon several if not all of the

epistles of the Pauline corpus . . .' (p 195).

4 Dodd, Gospel, pp 19f. 'I do not suppose that in such passages we have

anything like a direct reproduction of an existing document, or even verbal

quotation of an established form transmitted by word of mouth . . . Different writers develop and elaborate the common pattern of the tradition at different points and in characteristically different ways.'

5 Daube, appended note in Selwyn, ! Peter, pp 4 8 1 , 486 . As will be evident

from the following pages, I do not think these imperative participles imply

necessarily a fixed written code behind the New Testament paraenesis.

C. H. Talbert (NTS 16, p 93) cites C. H. Dodd, W. D. Davies and A. M.

Hunter as those who have approved of Daube's contention. E. Lohse (ZNW

4 5 , p 7 5 ) has taken Daube's research farther and confirmed his findings

from Jesus Sirach and the Wisdom of Solomon. From Daube's Rabbinic

Judaism (pp 90-105) I have assembled the following summary of his view.

'There is a post-Biblical form of legislation where the action enjoined,

allowed or prohibited is expressed by a participle' (p 90). 'If we want to

give it a name we should call it, not imperatival participle or participial

imperative, but rather advisory, didactic participle, or perhaps best, the

participle stating the direct practice' (p 92). 'How can a statement of fact

["Women singing dirges but not wailing"] impose a duty or grant a privilege?

The answer is that the teacher or lawgiver employing this form addresses an

elite among whom the right thing, provided only it is known, is done - or

at least is supposed to be done - as a matter of course. There is no need for

exhortation or warning . . . No doubt the form gradually became stereotyped and more and more similar in import to other forms of legislation'

(p 94 ). 'There are at least three points showing that the participle never

Notes

1 78

acquired full imperative force in all connections . . . First, the participle

never occurs in a specific demand on a specific occasion . . . Secondly, even

in rules the participle is never employed where a basic absolute unquestionable principle is to be enunciated . . .' Thirdly , the participle 'is too impersonal, too cold' for personal advice (p 96). 'It occurs not a single time in the Old Testament. Nor, apparently is it to be found in any of the non

Jewish Semitic systems. Yet in the earlier part of the Talmudic literature,

in Mishnah , Tosephta and Baraitha it is more frequent than any other form'

(p 9 0) . 'The distinctive feature of the situation in that period was that . . .

direct revelation no longer took place. It is this setting in life which accounts

for the form under notice, the participles as a means of injunction ,

permission o r prohibition . More precisely the form reflects the rabbinic

view of the secondary, derivative, less absolute nature of post-Biblical

rules' (p 9 1).

In the New Testament paraenesis 'the most probable explanation of

these strange participles . . . is that they are literally taken over from the

Hebrew . . . They appear not in basic injunctions like the prohibition of

murder, but in directions as to the proper behavior of members of the new

Christian society . . . Everything points to the existence of early Christian

codes of duties in Hebrew, from which the participles of the correct

practice crept into the Greek of the epistles' (pp 1 0 2f).

6 This is confirmed by our investigation (Chapter 2, pp 3 7-9) of the

traditional origin of the phrase J.lfl ol1roowdvu;c; KOIKOV lwr! KOIKoiJ.

7 Selwyn (I Peter, p 4 1 3) says of I Pt 3 : 8f, I Thess 5 : 1 3-22 and Rom 1 2 : 9-

1 9 , 'A more probable explanation than literary dependence is surely that

behind all three there lies a common catechetical material.' So Carrington,

Catechism, p 88. Lohse (ZNW 45, p 75) also sees I Pt 3 : 8-12 as 'pariinetisches Traditionsgut' but cautions against Selwyn's effort to reconstruct a five-fold catechism, 'well man sich dabei zu Ieicht auf das Gebiet von nicht

beweisbaren Hypothesen begibt. Die formgeschichtliche Untersuchung der

pariinetischen Stucke wird darum noch behiitsamer gefiihrt werden miissen,

und das Urteil ist in Einzelnen zuriickhaltender und vorsichtiger zu fiillen.

Konnen wir in den Synoptikem mit grosser Wahrscheinlichkeit bis in

Versteilc hinein Markus oder das Logiengut als Vorlage des Matthiius und

Lukas ermitteln, so reichen die Beziehungen, die zwischen der pariinetischen

Teilen der Briefe aufzuweisen sind, nicht aus, urn etwa schriftliche Quellen

als gemeinsame Vorlage herauszuschiilen' (p 72). In addition Kelly (Peter,

p 1 3 5 ) and Schelkle (Petrusbriefe, p 95) see I Pt 3 : 8f as composed of

traditional catechetical m aterial. From the standpoint o f Rom , Michel

(Romer, p 305) finds in Rom 1 2 : 14ff 'feste katechetische Uberlieferung,'

and Cranfield (Rom 1 2-1 3 , p 54) remarks, 'The close similarity between

[ Rom 1 2 ] verse 1 7a, I Thess 5 : 1 5 , I Pt 3 :9 suggests that we have here the

fixed formulation of the catechetical tradition.'

8 Since I Thess and Rom are both written by Paul it is pointless to ask (as we

did with I Pt and Rom) whether there is literary dependence of Rom on I

Thess. We may assume that whatever is the traditional source of Rom

1 2 : 1 7 is also the source behind I Thess 5 : 1 5 .

9 Talbert, NTS 1 6 , p 86.

1 0 Dibelius, Thessalonicher, p 3 1 . He had expressed himself more cautiously

Ch. 1 : In search of the paraenetic tradition

1 79

earlier: 'Allerlei Ermahnungen, offenbar ohne besondere Veranlassung'

(p 3 1 ) .

1 1 Frame (Thessalonians, p 199) maintains that vv 14 and 15 'suggest that,

though the exhortation is general and characteristic of Paul, a specific

situation, namely , that of the friction between workers and idlers within

and chiefly the persecutions from without at the hands of Gentiles directly

and Jews indirectly, had stirred up a spirit of impatience destined to express

itself, if it had not done so already, in revenge.'

1 2 Oepke, 'Thessalonicher,' p 178 'Die eingeschobene Aufforderung [ 5 : 14 ]

zu allgemeiner briiderlicher Seelsorge erinnert noch einmal an die schon

4: 1 1 f geriigten Mangel.' Best (Thessalonians, p 230) agrees cautiously.

13 Should it be admitted with Kiimmel (Introduction, pp 1 88f) that II Thess

was written by Paul shortly after I Thess, then the references to the 'idle'

in II Thess 3 : 6 ,7 , 1 1 would confirm the conclusion I have drawn from I

Thess alone.

14 The remaining two imperatives of I Thess 5 : 14 do not help us in deciding

their traditional or occasional origin. 'AVTexeaO e is found nowhere else in

the New Testament with the meaning 'to help' (Bauer, Lexicon, p 7 2 ; the

only other uses are Tit 1 : 9 ; Mt 6 : 24 par). MDlKpoOvp.ei're occurs only in

I Cor 1 3 :4 where it has no object and is not a command.

15 The traditional character of these verses in Phil is brought out in 4 : 9 where

Paul sums up : 'What you have learned (!:p.&Oere) and received (nDlpe?..&/3ere)

. . . these things do.'

16 Outside Paul only : Mt 8 :4 par ; 9 : 3 0 ; 1 8 : 1 0 ; 24 :4 par; Mk 4 : 24 par ; Heb

3 : 1 2 ; 1 2 : 25 , II Jn 8. In Paul: I Cor 1 : 26 ; 3: 10; 8 : 9 ; 10 : 1 2 ; 16 : 1 0 ; Gal

5 : 1 5 ; Eph 5 : 1 5 ; Col 4 : 1 7 . Paul, however, ordinarily uses (3?..enw instead of

bpdw .

1 7 So Bornemann (Thessalonicherbriefe, p 228). The intention of the command is 'dass die Gemeindevorsteher dariiber wachen sollen.'

18 So Liinemann (Thessalonicher, p 148). Reasons : ( 1 ) the leaders are not

free from feelings of revenge ; (2) the accomplishment of the commandment

belongs to the area of individual life so that it is seldom possible to hinder

revenge in another. Best (Thessalonians, p 229) gives flve arguments for

this view.

19 Dobschiitz, Thessalonicher-Briefe, p 222 'Es ist doch klar, dass bei bp&re

nicht andere gemeint sind als bei ll tWK ere, und dies richtet sich doch an alle.'

20 Compare Col 3 : 1 3 , xapt�op.evot eOlvrot� !:&v n<: npo<; rwDl lfxv p.o!J4n1v.

21 The parallel in Gal 6 : 10 shows, however, the general applicability of the

thought expressed here : !:p-yDl�wp.eOOl ro &-yDlOov npo<; n. &VTOl<: p.&?..wrOl ll e npo<;

rov<; olKelov<; rij<; nwrew<;.

22 Dibelius, Jakobus, p 2 1 .

2 3 Michel (Romer, p 308) thinks Paul has transformed the meaning of this

quote from Prov 3 :4 LXX so that the Semitic evwmov n&VTwv &v6pwnwv

in accordance with the context now means: 'dass die Gemeinde sich dariiber

Gedanken machen soU, wie sie Gutes (als Gegensatz zum Bosen) allen

Menschen zuteil werden lassen kann.' This would bring 1 2 : 1 7 b into essential

harmony with I Thess 5 : 1 5b, but given the lack of systematization in

Rom 1 2 : 14-2 1 , I do not think the context justifies the conclusion that this

Old Testament quote no longer has its original sense. Moreover in II Cor

Notes

180

8 : 2 1 , Paul uses the same quote with the meaning to take thought for what

is good in the eyes of others. This concern for living respectably before

outsiders is also part of Paul's thought elsewhere (I Thess 4 : 1 2 ; Col 4 : 5 ;

I Cor 1 0 : 3 20 and o f Peter's ( I P t 2 : 1 2). Daube (in Selwyn, / Peter, p 4 78)

translates: 'Provide things honest in the sight of all men.'

24 Selwyn (I Peter, p 4 1 3) sees the influence of Ps 33 : 15 LXX in I Thess 5 : 1 5

(6 c.WKe'Tf) and 5 : 21f (e!�ou� 'II'OJJT)pov) and in Rom 1 2 : 9,18. 'Ps 3 4 was so

admirably adapted to the instruction of catechumens as its use in I Pet 2 : 3,4

exemplifies, that it may well have been used at a very early stage, as it stood,

in the teaching of the primitive church, or made the basis of shorter paraenetic forms.'

25 See Lk 6 :33,35; Rom 1 3 : 3 ; I Pt 2 : 1 5 ,20; 3 :6 , 1 7 ; 2: 14; 3 : 1 3 ; 4 : 1 9 ; III Jn 1 1 .

26 Heb 1 2 : 14 ; Rom 1 4 : 19; 1 2 : 1 8 ; I Thess 5 : 1 3 ; Mk 9 : 5 0 ; Mt 5 :9.

27 See note 23.

28 Michel, Romer, p 307.

Chapter 2. The Origin of the Command of Enemy Love in the New Testament

Paraenetic Tradition

1 "foward the end of the first century B.C. the Stoic philosophy through

many devotees penetrated to Alexandria and surely also through individuals

to Palestine, which at the time of Christ had taken up many elements of

hellenistic culture. The so-called via maris, the main trade route, which

connected Damascus and Ptolemais, cut straight through Galilee with all

its pagan travellers. ' (Barth, Stoa, p 243.)

2 Leopold Schmidt (Ethik, p 366) characterizes the personal ethics of the

Greek classical era in this way : 'Even today we recognize that a state must

strive to be sought out as an ally and to be feared as an enem y ; when the

Greeks made the same demand on the individual the reason was largely

a social condition in which the preservation of many interests was left to

the voluntary activity of the individual. Another cause was the . . . basic

inadequacy of the national-Hellenic ethic, an inadequacy which manifested

itself in the possibility of being outlawed and cursed. There was lacking a

clear consciousness of the relationship of man to man as such.'

H. B olkestein (Wohltiitigkeit, p 1 70) concludes his section on 'Die

Motive des Wohltuns' of the Greeks in the Hellenic period: "fhe mainsprings of the e� 'll'otew have been shown to be the following: the joy which the giver gets from his act, the honor which he expects, and the reward or

advantage which he counts on. That these are the mainsprings which are

actually decisive is to be assumed from an expression of !socrates in which

he states his conviction: e-yw J.Lev o3v l-)6ovfic; l\ Kip6ouc; l\ TtJ.Lflc; eveKa ¢11J.Lt

11'&111'01<; 'II'&VTOI 'II'p&TTEtll.

3 Pohlenz, 'Stoa', p 5 3 8.

4 'In Christian times Epicureanism was anathema because it taught that man

is mortal, that the cosmos is a result of accident, that there is no providential

god, and that the criterion of the good life is pleasure' (Oxford Classical

Dictionary, p 390).

5 Bonhoeffer, Epiktet, p 72.

6 Sevenster, Seneca, p 9.

Ch. 2: Origin of the command in the paraenetic tradition

181

7 Sevenster, Seneca, p 14 . Augustine and Jerome knew of the correspondence

so that it was in existence before 392. But 'in view of the fact that Lactantius

was obviously ignorant of such a correspondence, when in 3 25 he wrote

that Seneca would have been a true Christian if he had had someone to

guide him , it is probable that these letters date from between 3 25 and 3 9 2 . '

From the sample which Sevenster quotes one can see i t s 'empty phraseology ,

its meaninglessness, insignificance, and insipid and exaggerated flattery '

(p 1 3 ) .

8 All quotations of Epictetus and Seneca are t aken from the Loeb Classical

Library.

9 The same anecdote is found again in De Constantia 1 4 . 3 .

1 0 Or again the calculating concern n o t to get entangled in useless a n d harmful affairs is seen in the following excerpt from De Ira 11.34.5 : 'Animosity , if abandoned by one side, forthwith dies. It takes two to m ake a fight. But

if anger shall be rife on both sides, if the conflict comes, he is the better

man who first withdraws; the vanquished is the one who wins. If someone

strikes y ou, step back; for by striking back y ou will give him both the

opportunity and the excuse to repeat his blow ; when y ou later wish to

extricate yourself, it will be impossible. ' Or again De Beneficiis VII.28.3 :

'You must pardon if you would win pardon. '

1 1 Compare also De Constantia 2. 1 ,3 : 'For Cato himself I bade you have no

concern, for no wise m an can receive either injuzy or insult . . . Think you

that what the people did to such a m an could have been an injuzy, even if

they tore from him his praetorship or his toga? even if they bespattered

his sacred head with filth from their mouths? The wise man is safe and no

injury or insult can touch him . ' De Constantia 3.3 : 'The invulnerable thing

is not that

is not struck, bu t that which is not hurt; by this m ark I

will show you

wise man . '

1 2 Sevenster, Seneca, p 1 8 3 . Likewise Bultmann ('Niichstenliebe,' p 236):

'Und zwar ist hier die Liebesforderung durch d e n Humanitiitsgedanken

begriindet, durch das Ideal des Menschen, der sich auch durch

fahrenes Unrecht nicht aus der Harm onie seines seelischen Gleichgewichts

bringen liisst, durch das Ideal der Charakterstiirke und menschlichen

Wiirde. '

1 3 Bonhoeffer, Epiktet, p 335 .

14 Similarly in Discourses IV .5 .3 2: 'But if the right kind of moral purpose

and that alone is good , and if the wrong kind of moral purpose and that alone

is bad , where is th ere any longer room for contention, where for reviling?

About what? About the things that mean nothing to us? Against

whom? Against the ignorant, against the unfortunate, against those who

have been deceived in the most important values? ' However in Encheiridion

3 3 . 9 Epictetus speaks from a different standpoint : 'If someone brings you

word that So-and-so is speaking ill of you, do not defend yourself against

what has been said, but answer, "Yes indeed, for he did not know the rest

of the faults that attach to me; if he had these would not have been the only

ones he mentioned". '

1 5 Or again in Encheiridion 1 : 'If you think only what is your own to be your

own, and what is not your own to be, as it really is, not y our own, then no

one will ever be able to exert compulsion upon you, no one will hinder

Notes

182

you, you will blame no one, will find fault with no one, will do absolutely

nothing against your will, you will have no personal enemy, no one will

harm you, for neither is there any harm that can touch you.'

16 Encheiridion 20 : 'Bear in mind that it is not the man who reviles or strikes

you that insults you , but it is your judgment that these men are insulting

you . . . So make it your first endeavor not to be carried away by the

external impression, for if once you gain time and delay, you will more

easily become master of yourself.' See also Discourses IV.5.28.

1 7 The stone metaphor is used of the Cynic in Discourses 111.22.100-103 . In

Discourses 111.22.90-92 the charm and ready wit of the Cynic is essential

and the example given seems to extol the cleverness of the repartee at the

expense of the interlocutor.

18 Bonhoeffer, Epiktet, p 3 80.

1 9 Bonhoeffer, Epiktet, p 3 8 1 .

2 0 I shall discuss the origin o f Rom 1 2 : 1 7a; I Thess 5 : 1 5 a and I P t 3 :9 as a

development from Prov 1 7 : 3 when I examine Joseph and Asenath below.

We may note in advance that this development may have been suggested by

similarly worded Old Testament texts: Prov 20: 22 ; 24 : 29 ; Gen 44 :4. Cf

also 1 QS 1 0 : 1 7f.

2 1 For a discussion of how this psalm influenced the New Testament tradition

see Chapter 1 , pp 1 3f.

22 Quell, TDNT l, pp 2 1-3 5 .

23 Michel, TDNT IV , p p 6 85-8 .

2 4 Schmauch, Matthtiils, p 4 3 .

25 See also J ob 3 1 : 29f; II K g 6 : 2 1-2 3 .

2 6 TDNT VI , p p 3 14f; Jeremias, Theology, p 2 1 3 ; Strack-Billerbeck I, p 353 ;

Seitz, NTS 16, p 48.

27 The '1.� may be circumcised if he wishes (Ex 1 2 :45ff). He participates if he

desires in the sacrificial cult (Lev 2 2 : 1 8 ; 1 7 : 8). He is subject to the death

penalty like the Israelite (Lev 20: 2). He can be 'cut off' from the people

like an Israelite (Lev 1 7 :9,1 0). He is classed with the poor Israelites who

are to be provided for by leavings in the field (Lev 1 9 : 10). An Israelite who

becomes too poor to support himself is to be supported by his brother 'as a

stranger ('1�) and a sojourner ('1:!).' As such, no interest or profit is to be

taken from him (Lev 25 : 3 5 ff). The sojourner may become rich and have

Israelite hired servants (Lev 2 5 : 4 7ff).

28 We may make brief mention here of the lex talionis found in Ex 2 1 : 24 ;

Lev 24 : 10 ; and Dt 1 9 : 2 1 . This i s not a license for personal retaliation but

a legal clause based on the principle of just retribution. Nor is there

necessarily a personal or national enemy involved.

29 Similarly Josh 6 : 1 5 ; 8 : 1 ,1 8 ; 1 0 : 8 , 1 1 , 1 4 , 30,32,42; 1 1 : 8 ; 1 3 : 6 ; 23 : 5 .

30 Another instance where David treats his enemies with kindness i s in the

accession narrative where he spares Saul's life so that Saul says, 'You have

dealt well with me, while I have dealt wickedly with you . . . For if a man

finds his enemy will he let him go away safely?' (I Sam 24 : 1 7-18 cf 25 : 26 ,

3 3 ) . This, however, was not David's only response toward those who hated

him. His fmal charge to his son was that his enemies Joab and Shimei should

be brought down with blood to Sheol (I Kg 2 :5 -9).

31 For God's hate of evildoers see Ps 5 :4-6 ; 1 1 : 5 ; 3 1 : 6 ; Prov 3 : 3 2 ; 6 : 16ff; Hos 9 : 15 .

Ch. 2: Origin of the command in the paraenetic tradition

183

3 2 Montefiore, Rabbinic Literature, p 6 3 : 'If one were to take the Old Testament as a whole, I am not so sure that one can honestly say that its general teaching is very defmite on the love of enemies, even of Israelites. '

3 3 It would not even be correct to say that the Christians gave up the principle : hate what God hates (Ps 1 3 9 : 2 1). But there seems to be a shift of emphasis from the person to the works: 'Yet this you have : you hate the

works of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate' (Rev 2 :6).

34 All English quotations from the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha are taken

from R. H . Charles, Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha.

35 Eissfeldt, Introduction, p 5 84 . Rost (Einleitung, p 46) agrees with this date

but says it could as well have been composed in Egypt.

36 Rost (Einleitung, pp 75f) sets the terminus ad quem of the composition of

Aristeas at 6 3 B .C . since the 'letter' presupposes that the island of Pharos is

populated, but Caesar had removed the population by this date. Most

scholars place the composition at the beginning of the first century B .C. in

Alexandria. Cf Denis, Introduction, pp 1 09f.

3 7 Presupposing the existence of II Mace, the terminus a quo of its composition

is the middle of the first century B .C . Some have dated it as late as A.D. 1 1 7 .

Eissfeldt makes n o decision. Rost thinks the existence of the temple is

assumed and therefore puts the composition in the fust half of the first

century A.D. All agree it was written in either Antioch or Alexandria.

38 Charles, Pseudepigrapha, p 664.

3 9 Unlike the Ethiopian Book of Enoch, Slavonic Enoch was originally written

in Greek which is shown in 30 : 1 3 by an acrostic of the name Adam possible

only in Greek. Individ.ual parts may have existed previously in Hebrew

(Rost, Einleitung, p 83), but it is generally agreed that the book stems

from the Greek-speaking diaspora Judaism probably in Alexandria (Denis,

Introduction, p 29 ; Rost, Einleitung p 84 ; Eissfeldt, Introduction, p 6 2 3 ;

Ploger, RGG III, columns 224f; Michl, Sac Mun I, column 2 1 6). Concerning

the date of composition there is also general agreement: 'Da Sirach, der

athiopische Henoch und die Weisheit Salomos schon vor dem Verfasser

vorlagen, der Tempel aber noch da steht (5 1 : 59, 6 1 , 62, 6 8), ist wohl die

erste Hiilfte des l .Jh.n.Chr. fiir die Entstehung anzusetzen' (Rost, p 84 ).

Concerning the matter of Christian interpolations or authorship there is

not so much agreement. S. Pines (Encycl Jud VI, pp 798f) denies that the

shorter version of Slavonic Enoch which has come d own to us has any

certain echoes of Christian doctrine. Ploger (RGG III, column 224) says

the Christian church received the book 'wenn auch christliche Interpolationen

ausgepragten Stiles unmittelbar nicht zu erkennen sind.' The more

comm only held view is that Slavonic Enoch in its present form is a Christian

production (Rost, Einleitung, p 84 ; Eissfeldt, Introduction, p 6 23 ; Michl,

Sac Mun I, column 2 16). Denis (Introduction, p 29) writes: 'Oeuvre d'un

Juif d'Egypte du Irs. ap. J .C., i1 developpe Ia doctrine syncretiste de Ia

diaspora alexandrine, ou bien !'auteur est peut-etre plu tot un chretien

d 'origine juive.'

40 It is generally agreed that the work was originally written in Greek (Denis,

Introduction, p 46) and is the product of Egyptian Jewry (Philonenko,

Encycl Jud X, column 223 ; Kuhn, 'Lord's Supper,' p 74 ; Burchard, Joseph

und Aseneth , p 142). The date of composition has been set at the end of

Notes

184

the first century B .C. (Burchard, p 1 5 1 ) and at the end of the frrst century

A.D. (Philonenko , p 223). Denis (p 47) leans toward the later date. Earlier

scholarship saw Joseph and Aseneth as a Christian product (Brooks, Joseph

and Aseneth, p xi) or saw it as a Jewish book reworked by Christians

(Bousett, Religion, p 24 ; Schiirer, Geschichte, p 40 1 , note 1 26 ; Batiffol,

Proseuche Aseneth, pp 7f). More recently Kuhn (p 74), Denis (p 46) and

Philonenko (p 223) have denied the existence of Christian interpolations

in the short recension of Joseph and .Aseneth.

4 1 The Greek quotations are taken from Philonenko , Joseph et Aseneth. The

translations are my own.

4 2 Liihrmann, ZThK 69, p 427 : 'Die Aufhebung der talio , die die fiinfte

Anti these bei Mt formuliert, arbeitet also mit einer bereits jiidischen

Tradition. '

43 Best (Thessalonians, p 2 3 3 ) does call attention t o i t i n this connection.

44 Burchard, Joseph und A seneth, p 100.

45 Thomas, 'Aktuelles,' p 96 . See p 49.

46 Burchard (Joseph und Aseneth, p 1 00) cites the use of the phrase in I Thess

5 : 1 5 ; Rom 1 2 : 1 7 ; and I Pt 3 : 9 and comments: 'es ist an allen drei Stellen

bloss negativer Vordersatz zu einer Positiven . . . Hier wird ein jiidischhellenistischer Satz iibernommen und im Fortgang verchristlicht. ' Similarly Thomas, 'Aktuelles,' p 96, note 6 0 : 'Durch Paulus oder die vorpaulinische

Gemeinde wurde sie ein negatives Gegenstiick zum Liebesgebot und

Grundregel fiir das Verhalten gegeniiber nicht Christen (Rom 1 2 : 1 7ff). '

47 Burchard, Joseph und Aseneth, p 1 0 0 : 'Es ist kaum denkbar, dass eine

christliche Ethik nur aus solchen Siitzen bestiinde, denen eigentlich christliches ganz fehlt und die bezeichnenderweise auch aile Verbote sind, wodurch sich diese Ethik bei aller Ahnlichkeit schon formal wenigstens von

der ntl. unterscheidet.' There is a possible exception to this statement. But

at the point of the exception another non-Christian feature appears: a

concern for personal advantage. When Levi refuses to let Benjamin kill

Pharaoh's son he says: 'We want to heal him from this wound and if he

stays alive he will be our friend and Pharaoh his father will be our father'

(23 :4).

48 Barth, Stoa, p 23 7 : 'Am stiirksten ist die stoische Ader bei Philo in seiner

Ethik. Diese wandelt iiberall auf stoischen Wegen nach stoischen Zielen.'

4 9 In De Agricultura 1 1 0 he says the winner of a reviling contest is worse than

the loser.

50 There are now at least nine manuscripts of the original Hebrew of the Book

of Jubilees, two from Cave I, two from Cave Il and fiVe from Cave IV.

Fragments from an Aramaic Testament of Levi and a Hebrew Testament of

Naphtali have been found in Cave I. Cf J . T. Milik, RB 6 2, pp 398-406 .

5 1 The quotations are taken from Dupont-Sommer, Essene Writings.

5 2 See the Damascus Document 6 : 20-2 1 for a further exposition of this love

of the brotherhood.

53 · For a further exposition of divine predestination see the Hymn Scroll 1 5 .

54 The early Christian teachers would probably have disputed that such a

development from these psalms was necessary or proper. B oth Paul (Rom

1 1 : 9 , 1 0 = Ps 6 9 : 22,23) and Luke (Acts 1 : 20 = Ps 6 9 : 25) are able to see in

the imprecatory psalms the decrees of God rather than the mere vindictive-

Ch. 2: Origin of the command in the paraenetic tradition

185

ness of an individual. Cf Murray, Romans II, p 74 ; Dabney, Discussions I ,

p p 7 06-2 1 ; Martin, 'Imprecations'.

55 It is generally agreed that the date of composition is right around 1 00 B .C.

Rost (Einleitung, p 1 00), Eissfeldt (Introduction , pp 607f) and Dupont

Sommer (p 298f) argue successfully that this book derives from the Qumran

(Essene) Community. Also Davenport (Jubilees, p 16 ) argues that 'the conjunction of the use of the Jubilee calendar there, the hostility of the Qumran Community toward the Temple hierarchy, and the similarity of views in the

Temple Scroll and Jubilees as to the future Temple make it a highly probable

location.' The date generally accepted for the final redaction of Jubilees is

about A.D . 100.

5 6 In Abraham's farewell address (20 :2) R. H . Charles' (Pseudepigrapha, p 92)

translation reads: 'and love each his neighbor and act on this manner among

all men.' However in a footnote Charles notes that 'men' (sab 'e) is an emendation from the original 'war' (sab

·

'e).

5 7 Jervell, 'Interpolator,' p 3 1 .

5 8 Jervell, 'Interpolator,' p 30 : 'Fest steht nur, dass die Testamente auch

christliche Auffassungen darbieten.'

5 9 Denis, Introduction, pp 5 8 f.

60 Charles, Pseudepigrapha, pp 290, 288, 282.

61 De Jonge, Testaments, pp 1 1 7 , 1 2 5 . Even if De J onge is right, the Testaments

are not useless for our purpose for, since he says that the author used traditional Jewish material, the task would then be the isolating of Jewish material instead of the isolating of Christian interpolations.

6 2 De Jonge, Studies, pp 209f.

6 3 Rost, Einleitung, p 104 .

6 4 Dupont-Sommer, Essene Writings, p 305 . Similarly Eissfeldt, ln troduction,

p 6 3 5 .

6 5 Philonenko , lnterpolations, p 5 9 : 'Les Testaments des Douze Patriarches

nous ont ete transmis avec une remarquable fidelite et, tels que nous les

connaissons par Ia tradition grecque, ils sont libres de toute interpolation

chretienne de quelque importance. '

6 6 Woude, Messianischen Vorstellungen,

6 7 De Jonge, Studies, pp 1 9 1-246.

6 8 Becker, Zwolf, p 3 7 3 .

6 9 Becker, Zw6lf, p 3 8 3 . He refers t o Jubilees 20 and 36 t o show that a comman

to love in a farewell address is not unusual in the Jewish literature. See our

discussion of the passages above, p. 42.

70 Becker, Zwolf, p 393.

71 Becker, Zw6lf, p 388.

7 2 Becker, Zw6lf, p 395.

73 Becker, Zwolf, p 397.

74 Becker, Zwolf, p 3 94 .

75 Becker, Zw6lf, p 3 9 7 . Conversely evil i s repaid immediately in Levi 6 : 7 and

Gad 5 : 9- 1 1 . Walter Harrelson ('Patient Love,' p 34) disagrees with Becker's

effort to distinguish the teaching on love in the Testaments from the teaching

on love in the New Testament: 'Our author has, I believe, stated with

extraordinary originality and power some of the fundamental dimensions of

"Christian" love in his document from a time two centuries earlier than the

Notes

1 86

establishment of Christian communities in his locality . ' Similarly Thomas,

'Aktuelles,' p 95 .

76 In his more recent work De Jonge confesses that only a beginning has been

on investigations into the ethical

of the Testaments and its

relation to Qumran and Christian tradition ; 'much more will have to be

done' (Studies, p 246).

7 7 Cf Rost, Einleitung, p 50 ; Eissfeldt, Introduction, p 5 9 7 .

78 Contrast how th e argument from the imitation o f G o d is used when good

deeds within the congregation are being considered (4 : 7- 1 0 ; cf 28: 1-7):

Make yourself beloved in the congregation ;

bow your head low to a great m an.

Incline your ear to the poor,

and answer him peaceably and gently .

Deliver him who is wronged from the hand of the wrongdoer,

and do not be fainthearted in judging a case.

Be like a father to orphans,

and instead of a husband to their mother;

you will then be like a son of the Most High.

79 All quotations are taken from the Loeb Classical Library edition of his

works. Schlatter carries on a running discussion with Josephus in his

commentary on Mt. Therefore many pertinent quotations are given in his

treatment of Mt 5 : 3 8-4 8 (Matthiius, pp 1 84-98).

80 In Against Apion II. 145f, Josephus defends the law against the criticisms of

Apollonius Molon and Lysirnachus by claiming it is designed to promote,

among other things, 'humanity towards the world at large' (rrpo� ri)v

IUliii OAOV rj>t"M:vllpwrriotv).

8 1 Strack-Billerbeck I, p 354. Montefiore (Gospels, p 84) gives no support for

his contention: 'Neighbor (rea) had gradually or largely lost its meaning

of fellow Israelite. When a rabbi taught his pupils about the love of neighbor

being the chief injunction of the whole law, he had not the antithesis of Jew

and foreigner in his mind. He m eant fellow being, brother man in a general

sense.'

8 2 Strack·Billerbeck I , p 3 5 4 .

83 Michel, 'Niichstenliebe,' p 6 3 .

8 4 Montefiore, Rabbinic Literature, p 6 8 : 'The truth is that the Rabbis are

not entirely of one mind on the matter of loving or hating the non-Jew.

It would be unjust to sum up the m atter by saying that the Rabbis generally

taught that it is right or permissible to hate the gentiles; on the other hand

it would be hardly less unfair to say that the Rabbis taught that the love

which was to be shown to the Jewish "neighbor" was to be extended equally

to all men, whatever their race or nationality or creed. One can hardly quote

any unequivocal utterance from the Rabbis which goes as far as this.' Pp 50-

1 1 1 of his work offer a very large amount of rabbinic material pertaining to

enemy love.

85 Pesahim 1 13b, cited by Seitz, 'Enemies,' p 48. Also Strack-Billerbeck I,

p 3 6 8 .

8 6 Strack-Billerbeck I, p 369.

87 Around A.D. 90 R. Eliezer disputed with Jehoshua that all the gentiles with·

out exception are forgotten by God and bound for Sheol (T. Sanhedrin 1 3 : 2).

Ch. 2: Origin of the command in the paraenetic tradition

187

Around 1 5 0 , R. Shimeon interpreted E z 34 : 3 1 t o mean that th e Israelites are

called men and the nations are only cattle (Jebamoth 6 0b). Around 260,

R. Shemuel said that, if all the nations came together and wanted to sell

all they possessed and keep the commandments of the Torah, God would turn

them away with a curse (Num . Rabba 2 . 1 3 8b). Cited from Strack-Billerbeck

I, pp 3 5 9f.

88 According to Strack-Billerbeck I, pp 354, 3 5 8 , only since the second century

A.D. do there appear rabbinic instances of commands to love men in general :

'Ben Azzai (um 1 1 0) diirfte der erste Lehrer der alten Synagoge sein, der fiir

das Verhalten gegen Nichtisraeliten dieselbe Norm aufstellt wie fiir das

Verhalten gegen einen israelitischen Volksgenossen. ' For other rabbinic

references see Banks, Jesus and the Law, pp 1 98-20 1, and Nissen, Gott und

der Niichste, pp 308-28.

89 In Redaktion , p 53, and in ZThK 69, pp 4 14f.

90 Liihrmann's criticism of Wrege's Bergpredigt (which traces the two sermons

back to individual independent traditions) strikes home: 'Wrege geht nirgends

auf die doch auffiillige gemeinsame Grundstruktur von Bergpredigt und

Feldrede ein' (ZThK 69 pp 4 22f). As far as Lk 6 : 2 7-36 par Mt is concerned

the following scholars deny that Mt and Lk use a common source: Schmauch,

Matthaus, pp 135 , 144 ; Rengstorf, Lukas, p 89, 'Wir werden auch hier besser

nicht mit einer gemeinsamen Quelle, sondern mit zwei verwandten, von einander abhiingigen Spruchiiberlieferungen rechnen' ; Schlatter, Matthalt8; p 1 9 8 ,

'Die Ableitung des von Matthiius gegeben Textes aus Lukas oder aus einem

beiden bekannten Vorgiinger scheitert . . . an der selbstiindigen sprachlichen

Fassung der einzelnen Siitze . . . '

9 1 Schulz (Q, p 1 2 1) appears to think simply in terms of a common document

Q that Mt and Lk used when dealing with the material on enemy love. So

also Grundmann, Lukas, pp 1 3 9f.

92 This will become clear in the individual analyses below.

93 Those who postulate different forms of Q behind Mt and Lk in our context

include: Liihrmann, ZThK 69, pp 4 1 5ff, 4 20 ; Neuhiiusler, Anspruch , p 45 ;

Knox, Sources II, p 34 ; Glover, NTS 5 , p 14 ; Beare, Records, p 60.

9 4 I do n o t think Schlatter's remarks are too old-fashioned t o b e useful here:

'Von Vermutungen hielt ich mich moglichst frei und verzichtete darum auch

auf die Widerlegung von solchen. lch halte dieses nicht fiir ein fruchtbares

Geschiift. Denn Konjekturen werden nicht dadurch widerlegt, dass m an

andere macht. Sie versinken dann, wenn eingesehen ist, dass die Beobachtung fruchtbarer ist als die Konjektur . . . lch heisse "Wissenschaft" die Beobachtung des Vorhandenen, nicht den Versuch, sich vorzustellen, was

nicht sichtbar ist. Vielleicht entsteht daraus eine Einrede gegen den Wert

einer solchen Darstellung, da die ratende Vermutung anrege und unterhalte,

wiihrend die Beobachtung eine schwierige, harte Arbeit sei. Richtig ist

freilich, dass Spiel leichter als Arbeit ist. Das Evangelium ist aber missverstanden, wenn aus ihm ein Spielzeug wird " (Matthiius, p xi).

95 Bultmarm, History, pp 134ff; Schiirmann, Lukasevangelium, p 346 ; Goppelt,

Christologie, p 29; Flender, Botscha[t, p 6 1 , note 1 6 5 ; Lohse, 'lch aber sage

euch,' p 1 89. More thoroughly on the issue of the antitheses is R. Guelich,

NTS 22/4 , pp 444-5 7 . He concludes that 'The third, ilfth and sixth

Antitheses were redactional, that the fourth Antithesis was traditional,

Notes

188

and that at least the antitheses of the first and second Antitheses were

traditional' (p 455).

96 Jeremias, Theology, pp 25 l ff.

9 7 Bultrnann, History, p 1 3 5 .

98 The imperatives of vv 24f, 29f, 37, and 3 9f are not reckoned as part of the

basic antithetical formulations.

99 I am not sure why Jeremias concludes 'in the first, fourth and sixth antitheses

the O .T. quotation has been expanded by an addition' (Theology, p 253).

The fourth antithesis does not add a non-Old Testament phrase as do the

first and sixth. It is made up entirely of Old Testament material. Cf Num

3 0 : 2f; Dt 23 : 22f; Ps 50: 14.

100 With regard to form, one other observation may be made. One might think

that the third antithesis (5 : 3 lf) is molded on the pattern of the first two

since the antithetical half of each is strikingly similar: €-yw 6 € 71.€-yw

b�iv o'n 7r&� o plus participle. But precisely at this point where the antithetical

halves are almost identical, the thesis halves reveal the strongest differences

(5 : 3 1 is reduced to the mere ' Eppe81) 6€). Why?

1 0 1 Bultmann, History, pp 135f.

102 Bultmann cites Dobschiitz (ZNW 2 7 , p 342) who in fact does conclude that

Mt 5 : 2 1f and 27f are the only original formulations (History, p 136).

103 The first (5 : 2 1 f) has a non-Old Testament addition upon which the antithesis

is based; the second (5 : 27f) has no addition to the Old Testament quote. The

point of the second is that the lustful glance is adultery ; the point of the first

is

that anger is murder, but that both are equally liable to judgement.

104 Liihrmann, ZThK 69 , p 4 1 3 . He uses this, however, as part of his argument

that none of the antitheses is original.

1 05 Bultmann, History, p 1 3 5 ; Goppelt, Christologie, pp 2 8f. Jack Suggs (Wisdom,

p 1 1 0) calls this standard argument into question.

106 Jeremias, Theology, p 252.

107 Hoffmann, BL 1 0, p 265 : 'Erst Mt fasste nlimlich mit dem Leitwort, "Widersteht nicht dem Bosen" die Spruchreihe 5 : 39b-42 zusammen.' He argues that 5 :4 2 , however, 'hat mit dem Widerstand dem Btisen gegeniiber nichts zu

tun. ' Moreover 'diese matthiiische Regel erfasst die Intention Jesu nur zum

geringen Tell' (p 268). It is not clear to me, however, why the discrepancy

between 5 :4 2 and 5 :39a is not an argument against Mt's creation of this

'title' for surely he could have created something more suitable, or simply left

it out.

108 To argue that the command circulated in another context from which Mt

took it is to prefer speculation from silence to the data we have.

109 Nor does 1I'OIJ'I)pcl<; ever appear as that which is to be tolerated; it is always

to be hated (Rom 1 2:9); driven out (I Cor 5 : 1 3 ); abstained from (I Thess

5 : 22); overcome (I Jn 2 : 1 3f). This pervasive attitude toward 11'aiJ'I)pck in the

New Testament makes it even less likely that the command 'Do not resist

1I'OII'IJPcf1' was invented by Mt.

1 1 0 So Percy, Botschaft, pp 148ff; T. w, Manson, Sayings, p 159 ; H. Hubner,

Gesetz , p 23 1 . That the form f)KOVOil<T€ OTt eppe81) - 1:-yw li e l\e-yw v�iv goes

back to Jesus is not to be doubted 'because this has neither Jewish nor early

Christian parallels' (Jeremias, Theology, p 25 1): The attempts of Morton

Smith (Tannaitic Parallels, pp 27-30) and David Daube Rabbinic Judaism,

Ch. 2: Origin of the command in the paraenetic tradition

189

pp 56-60) to explain the antithetical form as a copy of rabbinic forms are

criticized effectively by Jack Suggs (Wisdom, pp 1 1 2f).

1 1 1 The difficulty of ever gaining a consensus on this issue is stated clearly by

Trilling, Christusverkiindigung, p 1 02 : 'Die Fragen werden heute unterschiedlich beurteilt, und eine Einigung ist wohl kaum zu erwarten.'

1 1 2 For the sake of convenience I will designate the form of Q which Lk used as

Q-1 and the form which Mt used as Q-m. For our purposes here it is not

important to distinguish Matthean redaction from that of Q-m or Lukan

redaction from that of Q-1.

1 1 3 Only the broad outlines of the redactional possibilities are discussed here.

See under 'Analysis of the Individual Sayings' (pp 56ff) for the detailed

redactional considerations.

1 1 4 So Bultmann (History , p 96) argues that, because of Lk's reordering of the

sayings, he had to add v 35a in order to make the promise of v 35b depend

on loving one's enemies.

1 1 5 This is essentially the reconstruction Schiirmann (Lukasevangelium, p 3 58)

suggests.

1 1 6 Percy, Botschaft, p 149 : 'Vor allem ist zu beachten, dass schon die Mahnung,

seine Feinde zu lieben, in Lk 6 : 27 wegen seines paradoxen allen iiblichen

Auffassungen widerstreitenden Charakters als Hintergrund den Gedanken der

gegenseitigen Liebe der Freunde und Gesinnungsgenossen zu fordern scheint,

es ist deshalb bezeichnend, dass dieses Gebot bei seiner Wiederholung in

Lk 6 : 35 , als Antithese zu dem in v 3 2-34 geschilderten unter den Menschen

iiblichen Verhalten dargestellt wird ; nur hiitte dies schon bei v 27 geschehen

soil en.'

1 1 7 Jeremias, Theology , p 25 2 ; Gaechter, Matthiius, p 169. Seitz (NTS 16, pp 42,

45) claims that both Lk 6 : 27 and Mt 5 :44 stem from a synagogue setting on

a Sabbath immediately following the reading of the Torah, namely Lev 1 9 : 1 8 .

Jesus said t o those who had been listening t o the Torah : 'But t o you who

give heed (to this command, Love your neighbor) I am now saying (that it

means also) Love your enemies.' Against this argument, however, is the

present tense o f l�<Kovovaw in Lk 6 : 27 and the fact that Lk 6 : 27 does not

stress the contrast between Jesus' words and some other words, but rather it

stresses the contrast between you who hear (emphatic position of vJ.LLV and

absence of €-yw) and those who don't hear. Hasler (AMEN, p 59) and Schulz

(Q, p 1 27) see the forms in Mt and Lk both as redactional variations of the

X€-yw 6 € VJ.L[v of Q.

1 1 8 Liihrmann, ZThK 69, p 4 1 5 . The discrepancy between Mt 5 : 1 1 (6twKew)

and Lk 6 : 22 (J.Lt'aew) is taken up again in Mt 5 :44 and Lk 6 : 2 7 . The 'peacemakers' of Mt 5 : 9a are those who obey the love command of Mt 5 : 44

because eiprw11 is the opposite of f!x1Jp01.. ' E Xe?iJ.Love� of Mt 5 : 7 corresponds

to olKTLPJ.LWV of Lk 6 : 36. S chiirmann, Lukasevangelium, p 346 : 'Das J.Lt'aew

von Lk 6 : 22a wird v 27 wieder aufgenommen; das KOI.TO!.p&aiJOI.t und e11"1jpeaf'ew

v 28b flihrt inhaltlich das bvet6 tf'ew und eK{J&XXew TO lJvOJ.LOI. von v 2 2b fort.

Auch J.Lta!J o� v 22b und Mt 5 :46 konnte ein urspriinglich niiheres Beisammen

dieser Verse verraten.'

1 1 9 Liihrmann, ZThK 69, p 4 15 .

1 20 R. Guelich (NTS 22/4 , p 449) favors this second set o f arguments : 'It would

seem more reasonable that each [ i.e. Mt and Lk ] used a common, composite

Notes

190

tradition and that Matthew separated the two units.' But his argument at the

bottom of p 449 which makes this 'seem unavoidable' is in my judgment too

imaginary to be persuasive.

1 2 1 Besides those listed in note 1 10, see also Davies, Setting, p 4 3 1 .

1 2 2 H . Hiibner (Gesetz, p 235) concludes his discussion o f the antitheses saying,

'dass sich in der antithetischen Form von Mt 5 die antithetische Verkiindigung

Jesu widerspiegelt.' R. Banks (Jesus and the Law, p 186), who thinks it is

'questionable whether the antithetical character of these particular sayings

goes back to Jesus himself,' insists that the Matthean form 'condensed the

impression which the teaching and attitude of Jesus conveyed, and that

formally it was not altogether without .foundation in the manner in which

his own message was at times presented.'

123 Compare Mt's peculiar use of ll ulnwv in 5 : 10,1 1 , 1 2 ; 10: 23. The word is

especially suited to the experience of the early church (Rom 1 2 : 14 ; I Cor

4 : 1 2 ; II Cor 4 : 9 ; Gal 5 : 1 1 ; 6 : 1 2 ; II Tim 3 : 1 2 ; Rev 1 2 : 1 3), although it

occurs nowhere in the paraenesis in connection with prayer as it does here.

According to Schulz (Q, p 128) Mt replaced err11peaNVTwv since Lk doesn't

avoid ll twKew (cf Lk 2 1 : 1 2/Mt 24 : 1 7) but Lk replaced lnrt!p with his more

frequent rrept'.

1 24 Bultmann, History, p 79.

1 25 Seitz, NTS 1 6 , p 5 2.

1 26 Lohrmann (ZThK 69, p 4 16) reasons like this: Lk's command to 'do good

to those who hate you' (6 : 2 7b) can be constructed from the words in

6 : 2 2,26 and his command to 'bless those who curse you' (6 : 28a) has a

parallel in Rom 1 2 : 14 which shows 'that Paul knew these lines as a free

saying.' These reasons do not seem to me to be convincing.

127 The reason for rejecting Mt 5 :44b is this: the rhetorical questions (Mt 5 :46 f)

could never have stood alone but were attached from the time of their for·

mation to the command of Mt 5 :44. But the only correspondence between

the rhetorical questions and the commands is the reference to love. 'Das

llisst den S chluss zu, dass sie zu einer Fassung des Gebotes hinzutraten, die

nur die erste Zeile "Liebet eure Feinde !" enthielt' (Liihrmann, ZThK 69,

pp 42Sf). Against this argument we can set SchUrmann's (Lukasevangelium,

p 354) sharp observation that Mt's &cm&a71a8e (5 :4 7) may well be a

'Griizisierung' of Lk's ebAo-yet"re (6 : 28a) which has been dropped by Mt in

5 :44 and which would then be original.

128 Schulz, Q, p 1 30.

129 Nor does Jesus ever at any time explicitly qualify this command and call for

hate or revenge. See further on love of enemies Mt 1 8 : 2 1 ; Lk 1 0 : 29-3 7 ;

14 : 1 2-14 (23 : 34).

130 Schmauch (Matthiius, p 146) goes too far when he says, 'Hier zum ersten

Male in der Geschichte des Gebetes wird eine Fiirbitte gefordert flir Merischen,

die den Beter deshalb angehen, weil auch sie Menschen, von Gott geschaffen

sind.' Becker (Zwolf, p 3 9 1 ) observes that 'Joseph bittet Testament Benjamin

3 :6 seinen Vater, auch bei Gott urn Verge bung fiir die feindlichen Bruder

einzutreten. ' In Ps 109 :4 ,5 we read: 'In return for my love they accuse me,

even as I make prayer for them. So they reward me evil for good, and

hatred for my love.'

1 3 1 In I Tim 2 : 1 prayers are to be made for all men. The two well-known

Ch. 2: Origin of the command in the paraenetic tradition

191

examples of prayer for one's enemies are Jesus' prayer on the cross (Lk 23 :

34, but a textual problem here) and Stephen's prayer while being stoned

(Acts 7 :60).

1 3 2 lxycxOov· 1Totetv (or /xycx6o1Totei'v) occurs in Rom 1 3 : 3 ; Eph 6 : 8 ; I Pt 2 : 14,

1 5 ,20; 3 :6 , 1 6 , 1 7 ; 4: 1 9 ; Ill J n 1 1 . Two variations which do have (prepositional)

objects are l:p-ycxtwJJ.eOcx ro &-ycxOov (Gal 6 : 1 0 ; cf Rom 2 : 10) and ro

/xya.Oov ot�.:n<ere (I Thess 5 : 15).

1 3 3 S o Barrett, Romans, p 24 1 ; Althaus, Romer, p 1 16 ; Cranfield, Rom 12-13,

p 4 9 ; Dodd, Romans, p 200 ; Ridderbos, Jesus, p 50; S chmidt, Romer, p 2 1 4 .

1 34 Liihrmann, ZThK 16, p 4 1 7 ; T. W . Manson, Sayings, p 1 5 9 . It might b e

questioned , though, whether the nature of the case (striking on the cheek)

might not demand the singular form even in a context where the plural is

dominant.

135 Although, as Schiirmann (Lukasevangelium, p 348) points out, Lk did not

have to omit Mt 5 :4 1 for the sake of his readers (cf only Lk 2 3 : 26 ) , there

is nevertheless reason to think that he did so : ( 1 ) he (or Q-1 ) shows a tendency to eliminate legal technicalities (see below); (2) the poetic form of vv 29,30 allows no place for Mt 5 :4 1 .

1 3 6 S o Rengstorf, Lukas, p 90; J eremias, Theology, p 239; Schulz, Q , p 1 2 2

(who, however, assigns Mt 5 : 4 1 t o Mt's redaction) . Grundmann (Matthiius,

p 1 70) and Gaechter (Matthiius, p 1 88) consider Lk's simpler form to be

original. With regard to the discrepancy between Mt 5 :42b o a.vwcxaOC<t and

Lk 6 : 30b cxl/>oVTo�, Mt is probably more original becau se: ( 1 ) the occurrence

of oaveltw in Lk 6 : 34,35 seems to indicate Lk read Mt's form of

5 :4 2b ; (2) lmo roii ai'poVTo� provides a formal parallel with 6 : 29b

and smoothes the contrast between the content of 6 : 29 and 30. So Liihrmann,

ZThK 1 6 , p 4 1 8, and Schiirmann, Lukasevangelium, p 349.

1 3 7 T . W . Manson, Sayings, p SO; Taylor, Formation, p 96 , appealing t o B . S.

Easton's Christ in the Gospels, 1930; Grundmann, Lukas, p 146. For the

translation into Aramaic see C. F. Burney , Poetry, p 1 6 9 .

1 3 8 I n Mt 5 : 39b,4 1 the sentences begin with /Jar" and ar e each followed b y a

positive imperative. Alternating with these two commands are the two

dative participles (S :40, 42a) followed by positive aorist imperatives. As an

example of Semitic influence Schlatter points to the redundancy of cxlmjl

after T� Oell.ovn in 5 :4 0 : But against the primacy of Mt's poetic form

Schulz (Q, p 1 2 1 ) shows the Matthean character of lfun� (with 5 : 39,40

compare 1 2 : 5 0 ; 1 3 : 1 2 ; 1 9 : 2 9 ; 2 1 : 3 3 ; 2 3 : 1 2 ; 2 7 : 5 5 ) .

1 3 9 Liihrmann, ZThK 1 6 , p 4 1 8 : 'Wie die Q Fassung inhaltlich ausgesehen

hat llisst sich also fiir Lk 6 : 29 /M t 5 : 39b,40 nicht mehr au smachen.'

140 Mt 5 : 42/Lk 6 : 30 may not originally have belonged to the preceding

verses since they do not deal directly with the disciple's response to force

used against him. There seems to be no reason to doubt the original unity

o f M t 5 : 39b-4 1/Lk 6 : 2 9 .

14 1 Dodd, Gospel, p 5 2 . He compares Mt 5 : 39-4 2 with the paraenesis in Rom

12 and concludes: 'The sayings in the Gospels have an incomparably

greater liveliness and pregnancy than the maxims in the catechesis . . .

These two sets of precepts are not conceived on the same level.' See also

Moule, JTS NS 3, pp 75-9 , for examples in the epistles of 'unadorned'

versions of Jesus' picturesque sayings.

Notes

192

142 Bultmann, History, p 1 05 ; Braun, Radikalismus II, p 92, note 1 : 'Urn

dieser andringlichen Radikalitat willen wird man Mt 5 : 39b-4 1 unbedingt als

flir Jesus typisch bezeichnen u nd ihm selber zuschreiben miissen. '

143 Van Unnik, Nov Test 8, p 299: 'In vs 32 und 33 ist das Subjekt ein Mensch

der etwas empfangt und dann zuriickgibt; hier ist cs ein Mann, der selbst

anfiingt etwas zu geben in der Hoffnung etwas zuriick zu bekommen.'

144 So Liihrmann, ZThK 6 9 , p 4 20 . Schiirmann (Lukasevangelium, p 3 54)

uses the same evidence to draw precisely the opposite conclusion: since Lk

did not find or did not preserve li �vt'a�aoan in Lk 6 : 30 he could not have

introduced it in 6 : 34. This kind of contradiction between scholars reveals

the haziness of the criteria by which such stylistic j udgments are made.

145 According to Schulz (Q , p 129) &-y�Oo1rotetv is secondary to &am:iteo8�t

and Lk accordingly replaces M t 's rov� MkA.<Pov� 0/.'WV with rove; &-y�8o1rotoiivmc; Vll&�. That &arraa1)/a0e belongs to Mt's redaction is doubtful because he takes over neither of Mk 's two instances of &am:iteaO�t (Mk 9 : 1 5 ; 1 5 : 1 8).

146 So Neuhiiusler , Anspmch, p 46 ; Liihrmann, ZThK 1 6 , p 420; Schulz, Q,

p 1 29 , who gives three reasons: (1) xclptc; occurs 8 times in Lk's Sondergut

and 17 in Acts; (2) 1roth is redactional in 5: 19; (3) eiv�t with the dative is

expressly Lukan. However, on the other side it must be mentioned that : ( 1 )

x&ptc: in this sense is used only once i n all o f Lk-Acts (Lk 1 7 :9); ( 2 ) L k did

not eliminate !-'ta8 6c; because he wants to avoid it (see !lta06c; 6 : 3 5 b which

is probably redactional) ; (3) xdptc: in this kind of context already has an

anchor in the early Christian paraenetic tradition before Lk (cf I Pt 2 : 1 9 f) .

14 7 Grundmann, Matthti'us, p 1 7 9 , note 146; Schmauch, Matthdus, p 1 4 8 ; Wrege,

Bergpredigt, p 89 : 'Urspriinglich steht xdp" in diesem Zusammenhang

durchaus nicht im Gegensatz zu !ltaOck : vielmehr bedeutet sie zuniichst das

gleiche, namlich "geschuldeter Dank", "Belohnung".' This sense is current

not only in Christian and Jewish literature (I Tim 1 : 1 2 ; II Tim 1 : 3 ; Heb

1 2 : 28 ; Sirach 1 2 : 1 ; Wisdom 3 : 14 ; Ignatius to Polycarp 2 : 1), but also , as

van Unnik (Nov Test 8, pp 295[) shows, in Greek ethics.

148 Lk does not avoid taking over from Q a similar use of l/O V7J in 1 2 : 30 ; nor

does he avoid the use of reA. wv�t as a parallel with &.!!�PrwA.oi (5 : 3 0 ; 7 : 34;

15: 1 ) . Thus the taking over of reA.wv�t and eO vuwt'in the present context

would not have contradicted Lk's usage.

149 According to Lk 's own usage, OtJ.UJ<prwA.oc; can mean the class of people outside Israel who do not give strict attention to the law. Wrege, Bergpredigt, p 9 1 : 'Der Siinder ist hier also der Gottlose, der die Weisung Gottes ("Gesetz")

nicht kennt oder anerkennt.'

1 5 0 Cf Mt's use of 1repwaevew: Mt 1 3 : 1 2/Mk 4 : 2 5 ; Mt 25 : 29/Lk 1 9 : 26 ; Mt 14 :

20/Mk 6 : 4 3 . Wrege , Bergpredigt, p 90.

15 1 Liihrmann, ZThK 6 9 , p 4 26.

152 Cf only Mk 2 : 1 7 par. Schlatter, Matthaus, p 194: 'Der sittliche Unterschied

zwischen den Menschen : oq�Ool und 1roV1)pol, Ot'lcw.ot u nd &'ll U<ot . . . bleibt

bejaht. Das ist das feste Band der Einheit, das Jesus mit dem Pharisaer verband.'

1 5 3 The word e0 vuc6c; occurs only four other times in the New Testament : Mt

6: 7; 1 8 : 1 7 ; III 1 n 7; Gal 2 : 14 (€0 vucwc;). 'There is no question here

national distinction , but of the inner mark of a representative of the €� v1) ,'

TDNT II, p 3 7 2 .

Ch. 2: Origin of the command in the paraenetic tradition

193

154 N. Perrin (Rediscovering, p 148) concludes concerning these verses and their

immediate context (Mt 5 :44-48), 'That Jesus challenged his followers in

these terms is not to be doubted, indeed is never doubted' [ sic] .

155 See Mt 5 : 12/Lk 6 : 2 3 ; Mt 6 : 3 3 ; Mk 1 0 : 30/Mt 1 9 : 29/Lk 1 8 :30; Mt 25 : 3 1-

46 ; Lk 20:28.

156 So Schmauch , Matthiius, p 149: The reward is 'cinzugehen in das Himmelreich.' Schniewind, Matthiius, p 7 3 : 'Der Lohn besteht einfach darin, dass Gott uns bei seinen ewigen Gericht annimmt (Mt 25 :34ff; 20 :8f0, da zeigt es

sich, dass es sich gelohnt hat, Gott zu folgen. '

157 See discussion o f this parable on p 84.

158 Kiimmel, Theologie, p 49 : 'Hier ist ganz deutlich die Erfahrung der Liebe

Gottes in der Begegnung mit Jesus die Voraussetzung und

des Gehorsam s gegen die durch Jesus verkiindete Forderung Gottes.'

159 Similarly Jeremias, Theology, p 2 1 7 : 'Experience of the boundless goodness

of God, his unwearying patience with the wicked and unrighteous is the

source from which love of one's enemies flows.' Also Goppelt, Christologie,

p 3 9 : The Sermon on the Mount 'wird realisierbar, wenn Gott, wie Matthilus

besonders betont, flir die Menschen zum Vater wird . . .' The reciprocity

characterizing the commands of Lk 6 : 3 7f must also be seen from this

vantage point.

160 The non-Pauline character of 'Kingdom of God', plus the phrase that the

warnings had been given before, plus the rrepl rraVTc.;:)l) roliTwv in I Thess

4:6 when only one thing is being considered, indicate that such a warning

was probably a common part of the tradition and not merely a thought of

Paul. So Schlier, Galater, p 255. Other warnings: Rom 8 :4-7 ; 1 1 :22 ; Eph

5 : 5 ; Heb 1 3 : 4 ; Rev 2 1 : 7,8.

16 1 The redactional lin at the beginning of I Pt 3 : 12 shows that the author intends

for the favor and disfavor of the Lord to motivate 'doing good' and 'seeking

peace'. See the discussion of this text below, pp 1 23f.

162 That either Mt's 'YEV'I)aiJ e or Lk's eaeaiJ e is redactional is doubtful since the

discrepancy between the two is exactly reversed in Mt 5 : 4 8/Lk 6 : 36. Schulz

(Q, p 1 28) thinks Lk's Klllt eaeaiJe is secondary, being patterned on the

preceding Klllt earOtt. The scales may be tipped in favor of the originality of

Mt's rrarp1k since IJijJ wro<; as a divine proper name is peculiar to Lk in the

New Testament (Lk 1 : 3 2,35,76 ; 6 : 3 5 ; Acts 7 :48) and rrOtrpo<; fits the idea

of sonship better. However, Liihrmann (ZThK 69, p 4 2 1 ) is justifiably

cautious: 'Die Gottesprildikationen sind bei heiden Evangelisten als redaktionell verdilchtig, so dass ein Riickschluss auf die Q·Formulierung hier nicht moglich ist. •

163 Schulz, Q, p 128. Llihrmann, ZThK 69, p 4 2 1 .

164 The Rabbis spoke often o f the obligation o f sons t o act like the Lord. Qid

36a Bar: 'You are sons of the Lord your God (Dt 1 4 : 1 ). When you behave

like children, you will be called children. But when you do not behave like

children you will not be called children. Those are the words of R. Jehuda

(around A.D. 150). R. Meir (around A.D. 150) said: in either case you will

be called children.' Cf S track-Billerbeck I, pp 371-6.

165 See p 2 1 above for a discussion of this quote in its context.

166 Bultmann (Jesus, p 1 1 1 ) leaves the question of authenticity open : 'One

can scarcely still determine whether and how Jesus used such words.'

Notes

194

167 Compare L. Goppelt, Christologie, p 2 1 2 : 'Jesu Begriindung ist weder ein

rationaler Schluss aus der Naturbeobachtung noch ein Ausdruck SChlichter

"Volksfri:immigkeit" sondern der Reflex seines eschatologischen Heilswirkens:

Jesu schenkt den "Stindern" vor den Gerechten seine helfende Gemeinschaft

(Mk 2 : 1 7 ; Mt 1 1 : 19 ; 2 1 :28-3 1 ; Lk 1 5 ).'

168 Cf also I Jn 3 : 1-3 ; 4 : 7-9; and I Pt 1 : 15 .

169 Schiirmann's objection (Lukasevangelium, p 357) that L k 6 : 36 i s not the

close of 6 : 27ff, 'da es darin nicht urn "Barmherzigkeit" sondem urn Feindesliebe ging,' seems overplayed, since it is surely as merciful to love one's enemies as it is not to judge (Lk 6 : 37). Lk 6 : 35 hasjust said in effect: You

become sons if you act like God. It is very natural then to close with a

command of divine imitation.

170 Mt's command is harder and thus less likely to have been secondarily constructed. Bultmann, Jesus, pp 83f: 'Probably the first wording is older and Luke changed it in order to make a connection with the following words.'

M. Black (Aramaic Approach, p 1 8 1 ) sees behind reXeto<; the Semitic

she lim which creates a word play with the Semitic greeting she/am in�Mt

5 : 4 7 . This word play would certify not only the originality of Mt's form

but also its connection to the preceding unit. He refers also to the Pseudo

Jonathan Targum of Lev 22 : 2 8 , 'as your Father is merciful (raJ:tam) in

heaven, so be ye merciful on earth,' and claims that under the influence of

this Targumic saying Mt's original form was altered. Jeremias (Theology ,

p 2 1 2) refers to the same parallel and draws the opposite conclusion, that

it confirms the originality of Lk's form. Beare (Records, p 60) argues that

Lk changed Mt's reXew.; because his gentile readers would not have understood its original Semitic meaning.

1 7 1 So Schulz , Q, p 130. Liihrmann (ZThK 69, p 421) makes an observation

similar to Bultmann's (preceding note) but draws the opposite conclusion:

'Lk 6 : 36 ist bei Lk die Oberleitung zu 6 :3 7ff wahrend Mt 5 :48 als

Abschlusswendung fungiert, also einer erst von Mt geschaffener Einheit,

weshalb Lk 6 : 36 vermutlich der Q Fassung entspricht.'

1 72 Such direction was not superfluous in Jesus' environment as Sirach 1 2 : 1 -6

shows. We read the commandments:

/j O<; ry evae(jei' KOit !.lfl &vrtNX{j'[l TOV Q!.IOIPTW AOV

e6 1TOt'l\aov TOI1Tetvy KOIL !.lfl /j we; dwe(je{

o'n KOii b IJ!J; Laroe; E!.l{aT)aev &!.!.OIPTW'Aovc;

KOii TOi<; aae{JeaW 00r06 WUet EK6 {K1JUW.

Jesus turns the tables completely: he

both the commands and the

ground. This is a terrible abuse of the concept of imitation which Jesus

rejects as does the church after him (Rom 1 2 : 19, !.lfl e01vrovc; eKiitKovvrec;).

The underlined words form remarkable parallels with the synoptic material

in Mt 5 : 4 2-48/Lk 6 :2 7-36 .

1 7 3 The additional Old Testament material used in the paraenetic tradition to

elucidate the command of enemy love (see Rom 1 2 : 1 9 ,20; I Pt 3 :9-12)

will be discussed in Chapter 4.

1 74 It is no

against this

a saying of Jesus to say that Jesus is not

explicitly cited as in I Cor 9 : 14 and 7 : 10 and that the wording is only

approximate. For, as Selby (Paul, p 306) points out, the wording precisely

in these two texts is less close to their synoptic parallels (Mt 1 0 : 1 0 ; Mk 10 : 1 10

Ch. 3: Jesus ' command in the context of his message

195

than the wording in Rom 1 2 : 1 4 is to Lk 6 : 28 . For a suggested explanation

why the words of Jesus are cited explicitly in I Cor, See Goppelt, 'Haustafel,'

pp 103f.

1 75 Selwyn (I Peter, p 1 76) says I Pt 2: 1 9f 'is surely dependent on the verba

Christi.' Van Unnik's (Nov Test 8, p 296) objection is not convincing.

176 William Klassen, following Hans Haas (Idee und Ideal der Feindesliebe),

rightly rejects the idea that enemy love d istinguishes Jesus' teachings as

unique : 'This study by Hans Haas ( 1 927) gives such a plethora of evidence

in refutation of that claim , that the focus of any comparative study must

now be on the motivation, the scope, and the grounding of this commandment, rather than any supposition that the imperative "love your enemy" is unique to Christianity' ('Love Your Enemy,' p 1 56).

1 7 7 A more detailed discussion of what this peculiar character is and whether

the early Christian paraenesis was faithful to it appears in the following two

chapters.

· 1 7 8

Without intending to equate the views of the following scholars we may

nevertheless cite them as representative of those who see the teaching of the

Jesus playing a major role in shaping the paraenesis of the early

church: Feine, Paulus, pp 3 19 , 328ff; Jesus Christus, p 69; Juncker, Ethik I,

p 192; Moe, Paulus, p 1 3 1 ; Scott, Christianity, p 14 ; Schniewind, 'Botschaft,'

pp

C. H . Dodd, 'Ennomos' p 1 0 7 ; History, p 65 ; Davies, Paul, p 140;

Hunter, Predecessors, pp l l f, 49 ; Goppelt, KuD 4 , p 224 ; Selby, Paul, p 298 ;

Fannon, Scripture 1 6 , p 5 5 ; Ridderbos, Paulus, p 1 94 ; Dungan, Sayings,

p 149 ; /n terpretation 28/ 1 , pp 9 8-1 0 1 ; B . Fjiirstedt, Synoptic Tradition,

pp 3 5 , 1 73 ; J . W. Fraser, Jesus and Paul, pp 90-9.

1 79 We shall discuss this problem further in Chapter 5 . Here we may simply list

some of those who have come to a different conclusion : Schweitzer, Paul,

pp 4 2f; Weiss, Urchristentum, pp 4 3 1 f; Heitmiiller, 'Paulus und Jesus,' p 1 3 0 ;

Bultmann, Theology I , p p 35, 43, 1 8 8 ; 'Bedeutung' p p 188ff; Schoeps, Paul

p 5 7 ; Wilckens, ThLZ 89, p 5 1 9; Schrage, Einzelgebote, pp 2 39ff; Schmithals,

ZNW 5 3, p 142; Neuhiiusler, LZ 1 /2 , p 1 06 ;

pp 66ff; Flender, Botschaft, pp 7 5 , 90; Bornkamm , Paulus, p 1 2 2 ; Kuhn,

ZThK 6 7 , p 3 20.

Chapter 3. Jesus' Command of Enemy Love in the Larger Context of his Message

1 Jeremias, Theology, p 3 7 . See also R. T. France, Jesus and the OT, p 22.

2 Perrin, Rediscovering, p 3 9 .

3 A. Schlatter, 'Theology of the NT and Dogmatics,' p 1 38. Schlatter makes a

good case for the belief that the historical task is not complete until the

interrelations and connections of Jesus' various statements are found. 'We

fail to do them justice if we simply note each one separately . . . Jesus will

be comprehensible to us in proportion as these connections are perceived.'

4 Machovec, Jesus, pp 129f. Similarly T. W. Manson, Teaching, p 286 : 'To

divorce the moral teaching of Jesus from his teaching as a whole is thus to

make it practically useless; it is also to make it theoretically unintelligible.'

5 Thus this section is n o t a Forschungsbericht. The wider spectrum of the

literature will be cited in the notes in the course of the chapter.

Notes

196

6 Perhaps with the exception of Liihrmann whose article is not primarily a

theological statement.

7 Unti1 1 970 Machovec was Professor of Philosophy in the Karls University

in Prague.

8 I am not implying that all of our presuppositions are the same : Macho vee

starts as an atheist, I do not. The important point of agreement is the

conviction that all interpretations of Jesus' love command are arbitrary

when 'they are torn out of the context of the synoptic tradition. '

9 Machovec, Jesus, p 96. The page numbers in the text refer to this book.

10 Braun, Jesus, p 54. The page numbers in the text refer to this book.

1 1 'Jesus does not see God as one before whom you can deserve something

but rather as the process in which the evil and hopeless man receives a

future and a hope' (p 1 70).

1 2 'God is not the ground of this self-acceptance; he is rather the event which

is here coming to pass' (p 169). 'God shows mercy in that men assume the

role of the physician who is there for those who are sick' (p 167).

1 3 Niederwimmer, Jesus, p 58. The page numbers in the text refer to this book.

14 Liihrmann, 'Liebet eure Feinde,' ZThK 69, p 412, footnote 1 .

1 5 Liihrmann, ZThK 69, p 438. It is not clear to m e whether this'conclusion

stems from an inadequate textual basis for exegesis ('Wir haben offenbar

geformte Spitzensiitze vor uns, deren Kontext im Reden Jesu nicht

mitiiberliefert ist,' p 4 3 2), or from a m odem view of meaning as openended ('es [ das Liebesgebot ] bleibt frei und geht nicht auf in seiner Interpretation,' p 43 8).

16 Bultmann, Theology I, p 2. The page numbers in the text refer to this book.

17 On this matter there is no essential difference between Bultmann and his

student Gunther Bornkamm, who asserts with a bit more color: 'The claims

of Jesus carry in themselves "the last things" without having to borrow

validity and urgency from the blaze of the fire in apocalyptic scenes. They

themselves lead to the boundaries of the world but do not paint a picture

of its end ' (Jesus, p 1 09).

18 Bultmann, Jesus, p 3 8.

19 Bultmann, Jesus, p 38. So also Bornkamm (Jesus, p 108) : 'Jesus' message

of the Kingdom of Heaven and his preaching of the will of God become

completely one. Both show forth the pure and unveiled will of God. Both

witness to his reign and both are the judgments upon a life which exists

solely on an earthly diet and its supposed realities and standards.'

20 Similarly Schnackenburg, Gottes Herrschaft, p 7 2 : 'Die sittliche Haltung die

Jesus verlangt . . . liisst sich nur im Zusammenhang einer Basileia Botschaft

begreifen.' So also Batdorf, JBR 2 7 , p 2 16 .

2 1 Goppelt, Christologie, p 3 6 .

22 On Jesus' use of the concept o f reward see chiefly Pesch, Lohngedanke

(literature, pp 147ff); also Michel, ZSTh 9, pp 4 7-5 4 ; Bornkamm ,

'Lohngedanke. '

23 Ridderbos (Kingdom, p 250) denies that this conditional element is here and

sees good works only as a manifestation of sonship. Our interpretation has

the advantage of taking seriously the li7rw<; -yel>fja8e while not ruling out

Ridderbos' theological concern, as will be shown below.

24 This assertation is not at fust glance obvious for it seems to wed a Jewish

Ch. 3: Jesus ' command in the context of his message

1 9 7

wisdom saying (Mt 5 :4 5 , see Chapter 2, note 164) to the eschatological

message of Jesus - a marriage not without problems. Hans Windisch

(Bergpredigt, pp 5-24) has stressed the distinction between Jesus'

'Weisheitslehre' and his 'eschatologische Hells- und Gerichtsverkundigung'

and cautioned against sacrificing the one to the other or seeking a modernizing synthesis. More recently Heinz Schiirmann ('Liebesdienst,' p 2 1 9 ) has warned against sacrificing the 'theologische' t o the 'eschatologischer

Motivation' in Jesus' ethical demands : 'Without doubt both series of

sayings interpenetrate each other; the message of the nearing Kingdom

and the revelation of God as Lord

Father . . . Nevertheless one must

resist the attempt to dissolve this lively tension in favor of one series or

the other.' We may note first that the seeking of a synthesis here need not

be 'modern' for Mt surely sought one when he

the promise of

sonship (which in 5 :45 is part of a wisdom saying) between two eschatological promises of the Kingdom of God (Mt 5 : 9 between 3 and 10). That this synthesis was essentially present in Jesus' preaching need not be doubted:

it is 'our Father in heaven' who sends the rain, feeds the birds, answers

prayer, to whom we pray 'Thy Kingdom come.' God does not cease to be

the gracious sovereign over creation and history just because the consummation of his Kingdom is yet future. Jesus' 'theocentric' and 'eschatological' ethics find a synthesis in the fact that it is precisely the heavenly Father whose Kingdom is coming, indeed has come. The 'Gegenwartseschatologie' is nothing less than 'the finger of God' (Lk 1 1 : 20) : Jesus' eschatology is theocentric (which poses the

question most sharply ; cf. Lk

17 : 21). It is thus unthinkable that one's relation to the God of creation

(Mt 5 :45) as son is not essentially connected to one's entrance into or

rejection from his Kingdom.

25 0. Bayer (Ev Th 3 5 /4 , p 3 13 ), commenting on Mt 5 :44f, equates the two :

'Aus Teilhabern jener Welt, die als Bruderliebe durch Feindeshass besteht,

sollen sie zu "Sohnen des himmleschen Vaters" werden, d.h. zur nahen und

Vertrauen schaffenden Herrschaft Gottes gehoren. '

2 6 I do not mean that M t o ffers the original form of the beatitudes. I mean

rather that his conscious enclosure of 5 :4-9 between two promises of the

Kingdom of heaven (5 : 3 , 10) is an interpretation of the meaning of the

Kingdom which corresponds essentially to Jesus' intention. Cf Goppelt,

TDNT VI, p 18; Schniewind, Matthiius, pp 4 1 , 49.

27 So Schmauch, Matthiius, p 149; Schniewind, Matthiius, p 7 3 . See Chapter 2,

note 156.

28 L. Goppelt, Christologie, p 49. We are not to think this principle or reward

foreign to Jesus, for it appears throughout the synoptics; nor should we

think that it contradicts the sovereign prevenient work of God in salvation.

Schiirmann ('Liebesdienst,' p 2 1 1 ) cites the following texts as representatives of this principle in Jesus' message for the motivation of loving service : Mt 5 : 7, 23 f; 6 : 14f; 1 8 : 3 5 ; 25 :40,45 ; Mk 9 : 3 5 ; 1 0 : 2 1 ; 1 1 : 25 ; Lk 6 : 3 7 ; 1 2 : 3 3 ,

5 7 ff; 1 6 : 1-8. Against Braun's rejection of this principle i n Jesus' message he

says (p 225, note 3 2), 'Dass dieBindung .des gottlichen Vergebens an das menschliche Vergeben spiitjudisch und fiir Jesus "untypisch" sei (H. Braun, Radicalismus, II, p 87, Anm. 4), kann angesichts der angefiihrten Stellen nur

ein Vorurteil behaupten.' Cf also Kiimmel, Theologie, p 4 1 .

Notes

198

29 Schniewind, Markus, p 134.

3 0 Lohmeyer (Markus, p 2 1 3 ) rejects the suggestion that Mk 1 0 : 23-27 is a

later formulation around a genuine saying of Jesus (Bultmann), and he

argues for its unity with the preceding Mk 1 0 : 1 7-22. So also Taylor,

Mark, p 4 3 0 : 'The account of the conversation 1 0 : 23-27 is not an independent narrative. There can be little doubt that the story rests on authentic tradition, ultimately that of an eyewitness, for it is lifelike and contains

teaching on wealth that transcends that of Judaism. '

3 1 Lohmeyer, Markus, p p 2 14f: 'Der Fall des Reichen ist also nur besonders

schwierig, aber grundsiitzlich besteht fiir aile eine iihnliche Schwierigkeit . . .

Das Wort "gerettet werden" meint ohne Zweifel das Gleiche wie das

"Eingehen in das Gottesreich".' Likewise on both points Schniewind, Markus,

pp 134f.

3 2 Bultmann (History, p 163) calls the authenticity of this saying into question

- but without reason. That the long list of relatives in Lk 14 : 26 is an expansion

of a shorter list may be granted. But that this severe saying (hate father and

mother) should be created by the church is unlikely. It fits in well with Jesus'

radical call to discipleship. So Grundmann, Lukas, p 302. Mt's 'love less'

( 1 0 : 3 7) is a proper interpretation of 'hate' in this

cf Michel, TDNT

IV, p 6 90, note 24.

33 Lk 1 8 : 9-14 (the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector) is unique to

Lk. Its Palestinian origin is evident from the 'sprach!ichem Charakter der

Erziihlung.' 'Kein anderes Gleichnis bei Lukas enthiilt so viele semitisierende

Asyndeta wie dieses' (Grundmann, Lukas, p 349). Cf Jeremias, Gleichnisse,

p 1 3 9 ; Black, Aramaic Approach, pp 59f. Mt 6 : 1 ff belongs to the same

sphere of thought: self-exaltation in religion separates one from God.

34 Against the stream of opinions that Mt 1 1 : 25-27/Lk 1 0 : 2 1 ,22 is a construction of the Hellenistic church, Manson (Sayings, p 79) says 'The passage is full of Semitic turns of phrase, and certainly Palestinian in origin. There is

no good reason for doubting its authenticity. ' Similarly Knox, Hellenistic

Elements, p 7 ; Jeremias, Theology, pp 56-6 1 . For our purpose it is only

important that wisdom can be a stumbling block which separates a man from

Jesus and God.

35 See discussion of this text on p 86.

36 Of Mk 8 : 3 5 Taylor (Mark, p 3 82) says, ' Few sayings of Jesus are so well

attested as this, for the saying stood in Q (Lk 1 7 : 3 3 /Mt 1 0 : 3 9) and is

found also in Jn 1 2 : 25 . ' Cf Manson, Sayings, p 145.

3 7 This assertion rests less on specific sayings of Jesus than it does on the

over-all tendency of his ministry. His call to repentance, his radical commands,

his conflict with the religious leaders and consequent death all show that

Jesus knew that men do not naturally love the Kingdom of God more than

they love this world.

38 Schniewind (Markus, p 135) comments on Mk 1 0 : 1 7 : 'Gott schafft die neue

Welt, er schafft, in Jesu Wort, den neuen Menschen.' Pesch, Lohngedanke,

p 1 2 9 : 'Sogar die Umkehr selbst wiire ohne gottliche Hilfe nicht moglich,

denn sie setzt ausser dem Bussruf auch die Hilfe Gottes voraus . . . Auch

Umkehr und Glaube kommen von Gott her, sind Gnade.'

3 9 Biichsel, Theologie, p 3 0 : 'Jesu Urteil tiber die Leistungsfiihigkeit des

Menschen ist also genau dassel be wie die des Paulus und der kirchlichen

Ch. 3: Jesus ' command in the context of his message

1 99

Erbsiindenlehre, wenn Jesus auch dies Urteil nicht zu einer Lehre vom

Menschen (oder vom Gesetz) ausgebaut noch als solche vorgetragen hat.'

So Schlatter, Jesus, p 53.

40 Wendland, Eschatologie, p 130: 'Die Leistung ist, wie treffend gesagt

worden ist, nicht Voraussetzung, sondern Wirkung der Gabe Gottes. '

Soiron, Bergpredigt, p 465 : The Sermon on the Mount sets conditions for

entering the Kingdom but also offers the confidence 'dass Gott selbst

durch seine Gnade diese Bedingungen zu schaffen bereit ist. ' Similarly

Liechtenhahn, Gebot, p 3 7 ; Schnackenburg, Gottes Herrschaft, p 73 ;

Sittliche Botschaft, p 6 3 ; Grundmann, Matthiius, p 1 7 3 ; Percy, Botschaft,

p 1 1 5 : 'Der Gott Jesu fordert alles, well er zuerst selbst alles gibt.' Cf

Augustine, Confessions, p 1 9 7 .

4 1 It is not crucial to our point whether, as Jeremias supposes (Gleichnisse,

p 1 9 2), these words were originally spoken to the opponents of Jesus or to

his disciples. The point remains the same: totally loyal service results in

no merit for the servant.

4 2 Even if this verse is a Matthean formulation (Grundmann, Matthiius p 140)

on the basis of 5 : 1 3 - 1 5 , it is a formulation which is in line with other

sayings of Jesus: Mt 7 : 1 7 (good tree - good fruit) ; Mt 6 : 3 (seek no

glory from men); Mk 1 0 : 2 1 ,27 (God makes discipleship possible). The

saying in Mt 5 : 16 means 'dass niemand auf den Gedanken kommen kann,

diese Werke seien die eigenen Taten der Christen: sie sind vielmehr offensichtlich nur von Gott gewirkt und weisen unmittelbar auf ihn als ihren Ursprung' (Schniewind, Matthaus, p 5 2) .

43 Percy, Botschaft, p 1 14 : 'Das Primiire ist aber bei Jesus das Reich Gottes als

eine Gabe an die dafiir Empfanglichen ; erst die Annahme dieser Gabe

ermoglicht den Gehorsam gegen die Forderungen Gottes. Allerdings wird dies

nicht ausdriicklich gesagt. ' So Ridderbos, Kingdom, pp 1 86 ,25 1 .

4 4 Ladd, Jesus, p 294 : 'The righteousness o f the Kingdom can be experienced

only by the man who has submitted to the reign of God which has been

manifested in Jesus, and who has therefore experienced the powers of God's

Kingdom. ' Wilder, Eschatology and Ethics, p 1 6 0 : Jesus demands a righteousness which is 'the righteousness of those living in the days of the new covenant and empowered and qualified by the reconciliation and redemption of that

age.' Similarly Wendland, Ethik, p 28 ; cf also Dibelius, Jesus, p 98 ('die jetzt

schon wirkenden Kriifte des Reiches').

45 The 'consistent eschatology' of A. Schweitzer (Leidensgeheimnis; Leben

Jesu Forschung) and J. Weiss (Reich Gottes) excluded any present aspect

of the Kingdom of God from Jesus' preaching. Besides those who still hold

this kind of view (e.g., M. Werner, Die Entstehung des christlichen Dogmas),

those who interpret Jesus' message existentially also show their indebtedness

to consistent eschatology, for here the eschaton is consistently future but it

is existentially interpreted so as to confront man in the Now with the demand

for decision for God against the world. For such a view consult R. Bultm ann,

Theology I, pp 1 3-32 ; E. Grasser, Parusieverzogerung; R. H. Fuller, Mission

and Achievement, pp 20-49; G. Bornkamm, Jesus, pp 82-7.

46 At the other end of the spectrum from the consistent eschatology is the

realized eschatology of C. H. Dodd (Parables) which can find no future

element in Jesus' preaching of the Kingdom (cf also E. Stauffer, Jesus :

Notes

200

Gestalt, pp 1 1 7-20). There has been however increasing recognition that

the one-sidedness of both consistent and realized eschatology does not do

justice to Jesus' preaching and work. Rather than excluding the expectation

of a coming Kingdom, the presence of the Kingdom grounded it. 'In diesem

hochgemiiteten Wissen der Erfiillungszeit wiinelt letztlich auch die "Naherwartung" das Wissen, dass Gott, der mit seinem letzten grossen Werk begonnen hat, dieses nun auch "bald" zu Ende fiihren wird' (Schiirmann, 'Liebesdienst,'

p 226, note 3 9) . Others who recognize a tension of the already and not yet

in Jesus' preaching of the Kingdom include G. Delling (Zeitverstiindnis) ;

0. Cullmann (Christ and Time) ; R. Morgenthaler (Kommendes Reich); W. G.

Kiimmel (Promise) ; G. Ladd, Jesus.

4 7 Bultmann ( Theology I, p 20) although he starts from a completely different

standpoint, also says, 'Fulfilment of God's will is the condition for partici-

pation in the salvation of his reign' (God's will is 'the demand for love,' p 1 8) ,

and stresses that ' "condition" i n that statement must n o t b e taken i n the external

sense of an arbitrarily set task, in place of which some other could have been

set. '

4 8 The actual verb IJ.ETOtvoew i s found i n Jesus' mouth i n the synoptics o n only

two occasions in an imperative sense : Mt 4 : 1 7/Mk 1 : 1 5 ; Lk 1 3 : 3 f. The other

occasions of its use by Jesus are indicative : Mt 1 1 : 2 1 /Lk 1 0 : 1 3 ; Mt 1 2 :4 1 ;

Lk 1 1 : 3 2 ; 1 5 : 7 , 1 0 ; 16 : 3 0, 1 7 : 3 . Flender (Botschaft, p 5 8 ) doubts that Jesus

used the word. For our purposes it does not matter if the word was on his

lips. That he called for the transformation which is called IJ.eT&voi.OI is clear

(cf p 78). The whole proclamation of Jesus with its categorical demands

. . . is a proclamation of IJ.eTavoi.Oi even when the term is not used' (Behm,

TDNT IV, p 1002).

49 The Lord's Prayer, especially Mt 6 : 13 , constitutes one such call.

50 Schnackenburg, Gottes Herrschaft, p 70 : 'Umkehr im Sinne Jesu ist . . .

eine tiefgreifende Wandlung des Herzens, ein Zuriickfinden zu Gott, ein

viilliges Sich- Ausliefern an seine Barmherzigkeit, ein dank barer Neubeginn. '

5 1 My emphasis here falls o n the 'certainty and seriousness' of the coming day ,

not on its nearness i n contrast, for example, t o Wilder's emphasis (Eschatology

and Ethics, p 1 3 3 ) : 'The nearness of the Kingdom of Heaven, viewed both

as promise and menace is the dominant sanction for righteousness' (my

italics) . For one who reckons with the inevitability of judgment both of the

dead (Mt 1 1 : 20-24 ; 1 2 : 4 lf) and of the living (Mt 25 :3 1 f) and who reckons

realistically with the uncertainty of earthly life (Mt 6 : 2 7 ; Lk 1 2 : 20f), the

indefinite nearness of the Kingdom of God will not place man in a more

urgent situation than the indefinite nearness of death. B arrett ('Stephen and

the Son of Man,' p 3 5 f) makes a similar observation in another context:

'for the individual Christian death was truly an eschaton (though not the

eschaton . . . ) marked by what we may term a private and personal parousia

of the Son of Man [ cf Acts 7 : 5 6 ] . That which was to happen in a universal

sense at the last day , happened in individual terms [ at death] . ' The coming

of the Son of Man in glory to judge and the coming of death are for the

ethical sanction the same event. As far as ethical motivation is concerned

the Kingdom always comes within one generation. Cf on the relation of the

nearness of the Kingdom and Jesus' demands, Kiimmel, Theologie, p. 4 3 ;

Schnackenburg, Sittliche Botschaft, p 6 3 ; Grant, JR 22, p 3 6 7 .

Ch. 3: Jesus ' command in the context of his message

201

52 'Gott, der dem Menschen im Aufruf zur Liebe versprochen wird, begegnet

ihm in der konkreten Gestalt, eines Liebe verschenkenden Menschen. Insofern miisste man sagen : Jesu Person gehi:irt zu seiner Verkiindigung unabdingbar dazu' (Luz, 'Erwiigungen,' p 1 3 0).

5 3 In the following discussion I do not mean to imply that it was Jesus' custom

verbally to pronounce forgiveness upon the 'sinners' with whom he fellowshipped. The forgiveness referred to is grounded in the meaning of tablefellowship itself. See below.

54 Augstein's (Jesus, p 1 5 9) protest here is not based on historical reasoning :

'Im ersten, dem Markus-Evangelium , tafelt Jesus nicht mit Heiden und

Huren [ but cf Mk 2: 15-17 ) . Auch isst und trinkt er dort nicht derart, dass

die Leute, wie bei dem offenbar sinnenfreudigen Matthiius, sagen : "Siebe,

wie ist der Mensch ein Fresser und ein Weinsiiufer, der Zollner und der

Siinder Gesselle ! " Der richtige Jesus war das offenbar gar nicht, was die

Evangelisten spiiter in ihn hinein gedichtet haben . . . ' Cf Braun, Jesus,

pp 73f: 'Das gegen J esus verwendete Schimpfwort, er sei ein Freund von

Zi:illnern und Siindern (Mt 1 1 : 1 9) stellt es ausser Frage : Jesus hatte Umgang

mit den religii:is Deklassierten.'

5 5 Cf Jeremias ( Theology, p 1 09) on the relation of Mt 1 1 : 6 .to the preceding

verses.

56 As the context of Is 6 1 : 1-3, as well as the rest of the prophetic literature

and the psalms, shows, the significance of 'the poor' is not exhausted by

financial condition. In the Old Testament ·�� comes to mean the one who

in his real affliction and need appeals to the help of Yahweh and is the

object of his special care. It comes to mean even 'humble' or 'pious' (cf Ps

1 8 : 2 7 , T<X1Tew<k). Cf TDNT VI, p 888; Ridderbos, Kingdom, pp 1 8 8-92.

57 Those whom Jesus designated 'poor' included the tax collectors, harlots, 'the

disreputable, the 'amme hii-'are�, the uneducated, the ignorant, whose

religious ignorance and moral behavior stood in the way of their access to

salvation, according to the convictions of the time' (Jeremias, Theology , p 1 1 2).

58 aJ.Lc.prwA.oiwere not only those who led a flagrantly immoral life but also

those who followed certain dishonorable vocations. Beyond this the term

included all those who either out of ignorance or unwillingness did not

subject themselves to the Pharisaic ordinances (TDNT I, p 3 28). B oth the

tax collectors (Lk 1 9 : 7 ) and harlots (Lk 7 : 3 7) were called sinners. In our

discussion of Jesus' table-fellowship we will use the word in its most

inclusive sense.

59 Jeremias, Theology, p 1 15 . Cf Michel, TDNT VIII, p 1 0 5 , note 15 2.

6 0 Bultmann (History, p 18) sees Mk 2 : 1 7 as an independent saying of which

the second half is a secondary explanation of the first (p 92). The first

half, he admits, may have been taken up by Jesus from the secular wisdom

of his day 'and used to defend his own way of going to work' {p 1 05).

Lohmeyer (Markus, p 5 8) says that the right question is not 'secondary or

genuine saying?' but, Does Mk 2 : 1 7 correspond in language and essence to

Jesus' whole proclamation? He answers affirmatively, as does Taylor (Mark,

p 207). In the light of Mk 1 : 3 8 and 6 : 20 , i?AOov and llt.'K<Xw� do not point

to the later church perspective. If the originality of v 17 is granted, the

question may be asked : In what other context could it be materially more

at home than in connection with Jesus' eating with sinners?

Notes

202

6 1 Schlatter, Matthaus, p 304 : 'Durch die Gewiihrung der Tischgemeinschaft

handelt Jesus als der Vergebende. Was beim Tiiufer das Bad war, das die

Unreinheit wegnimmt, das war bei Jesus das gemeinsame Mahl. Die

Verge bung stiftete die Gemeinschaft, wie die Anrechnung der Schuld die

Gemeinschaft aufhebt. Indem J esus die Verschuldeten an seinem Mahl

teilnehmen liess, hob er j ede Trennung zwischen sich und ihnen auf. ' However, Jesus' presence at table with sinners does not mean automatic renewal on the part of the guests any more than mere water baptism accomplishes

repentance . Jesus also eats with Pharisees (Lk 7: 30ff). The forgiving fellowship Jesus offers must be personally accepted.

62 Also against the unity is Wellhausen. See his argument in Jiingel, Paulus und

Jesus, p 160, note 1 .

6 3 Even though Linnemann will not iden tify the Pharisees with the elder brother,

she does admit : 'Gewiss spielt Jesus in der Figur des iiltesten Bruders auf die

Pharisiier an' (Gleichni!/se, p 86). Cf especially 1 5 :29.

64 Similarly Gutbrod, TDNT IV, p 1 06 0 : 'The publicans and sinners are with

Jesus and he extends to them his fellowship even to the point of eating

with them. This means that the lost sheep and the lost coin are found, that

the prodigal son comes home again . . . If the sinner is received into pardoning fellowship with Jesus he is at home in the father's house.'

6 5 Linnemann (Gleichnisse, p 1 5 4 , note 24) cites Schlatter and Schniewind as

proponents of this interpretation. Her own objection (p 86) that the

Pharisees' complaint was not that of the elder brother does not seem to me

to carry much weight. Jiingel's (Paulus und Jesus, p 1 62) view of the parable

as a language event (following E. Fuchs), in which 'die Gottesherrschaft als

die sich erreignende Liebe zur Sprache kommt,' rightly brings out the power

of J esus' word, but does not go far enough to do justice to the second half

of the parable and the Lukan setting. In attempting to avoid a 'Sicher

Stellung' (p 1 39) of the parable, the concrete intention of the parable seems

to get lost in generalization.

66 Jeremias, Theology , pp 1 1 7f.

67 Schniewind, Markus, p 24 , cf p 42.

68 'In der Verklammerung des Kommens des Konigtums Gottes mit der Verkiindigung und dem Handeln Jesu (in Mt 1 1 : 5f) ergibt sich eine Schau der Reichsgottesbotschaft die weder in der Apokalyptik noch in Qumran noch

bei den Rabbinen eine vergleichbare Aussage besitzt' (Grundmann, Matthaus,

p 3 04 ). Therefore Braun (Radikalismus II, p 5 1), Bultmann (History, p 1 5 1 ;

Theology II, p 7), Schniewind (Matthaus, p 1 4 1 ) , and Jeremias ( Theology,

pp 1 03f) regard the saying as original. 'Even now the consummation of the

world is dawning ' (Jeremias, p 105).

6 9 The problem must be faced, however, that not all were changed by Jesus'

personal fellowship (Lk 7 : 3 7ff, the Pharisee) and not all accepted J esus'

personal call to discipleship (Mk 1 0 : 1 7ff, the rich young man). Why? The

divine prevenient grace referred to in Mk 1 0 : 2 7 f'mds explicit expression in

Jn 6 :44,65 : 'No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws

him . . . No one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father. '

Similarly in Mt 1 1 : 25 it is the Father who reveals and hides the mystery of

Jesus' work according to his gracious will. This does not diminish the

necessity of Jesus' concrete personal work in granting forgiveness, but it

Ch. 3: Jesus ' command in the context of his message

203

does mean that one cannot adequately explain Jesus' ministry apart from

the transcendent work of God. Machovec's explanation of

as one

who swept men into discipleship because he lived and embodied the program

he preached (Jesus, pp 93,103) does not adequately account for why some

were 'mitgerissen' and others were not.

70 Schlatter, Christus, p 20 1 . 'Jesus schenkt die der totalen Gehorsamsforderung

entsprechende totale Vergebung ohne Bedingung einer menschlichen Leistung

(Lk 1 9 : 1-7) und doch so dass sie nie ohne die to tale Umkehr des Mensch en

real wird ' (Goppelt, Christentum, p 53).

71 Schlatter, Matthaus, p 307.

72 On Mt 5 : 3 8-42 Soiron (Bergpredigt, p 294) says 'Es zu erfiillen gelingt nicht

dem Menschen, der sich auf die Kriifte seiner Natur verliisst. Es fliesst eben

aus der Gemeinschaft mit Jesus und liisst sich nur dort verwirklichen, wo

sich die Menschen Gemeinschaft in Jesus gefunden haben. Kiimmel, Theologie,

p 49, on Mt 1 8 : 23ff: 'hier ist ganz deutlich die Erfahrung der Liebe Gottes

in der Begegnung mit Jesus die Voraussetzung und Ermoglichung des

Gehorsams gegen die durch Jesus verkiindete Forderung Gottes.' Similarly

Bi.ichsel, Theologie, p 3 0 ; Dibelius, Jesus, p 101 ; Ladd, Jesus, p 294 ;

Liechtenhahn, Gebot, p 3 7 ; Neuhiiusler, LZ 1/2, pp 91-102; Wendland,

Eschatologie, p 1 3 1 .

73 See Section I. B. above, 'The Validity of Systematizing,' p p 67f.

74 Dibelius, Jesus, p 102: 'Von diesen Forderungen gilt es: sie sollen wi:irtlich

erfiillt werden, wo die Erfi.illung nicht als Aberwitz, nicht als asketische

Leistung, sondern als Zeichen des Gottesreiches zu Wirken vermag' (my

italics). Preisker (Ethos, p 49) comments similarly : 'dass die Bergpredigt

nicht nur die Schwelle vom Alten ins Neue Testament, sondern Willensund Lebenszeichen des neuen Reiches, "nicht von dieser Welt" ist' (my italics). Cf also Goppelt, Christologie, p 3 9.

75 Wendland, Ethik, p 26 (my italics).

76 We do not need to go into a detailed history-of-traditions analysis of these

sayings and those immediately following. On p 86 above the authenticity

of Mk 1 0 :4 3 ,44 and Lk 14 : 1 1 has been discussed and these sayings here

follow the same essential line. Thus by the 'criterion of coherence' (cf

Perrin, Rediscovering, p 43) we may reasonably apply the sense of these

sayings to Jesus.

77 Beyer, TDNT II, p 85.

78 Schlatter, Christus, p 204 : 'Im Verkehr mit den Jiingern war es Jesu

sie dahin zu bringen, dass sie auf das bedacht seien, was Gottes ist, im

Gegensatz zu dem, was des Menschen ist. "Gebt Gott, was Gottes ist"; aus

diesem Begehren erwuchs sein ganzer B ussruf. Als "Gerechtigkeit" wertete

er in der Bergpredigt dass, was die Ji.inger fiir Gott tun ; dem gab er aber

die reine Art der vollendeten Liebe, die einzig Gott vor Augen hatte. Fi.ir

den Dienst an den Menschen, zu dem die Ji.inger als das Licht der Welt und

das Salz der Erde verpflichtet sind, bleibt es das letzte Ziel. dass die Mensch en

ihretwegen ihren Vater preisen. Jesus rich tete ihren Biick nicht nur auf die

Bediirftigkeit derer, die an ihren Dienst gewiesen waren, auch nicht nur auf

den Wert der Gabe, die sie ihnen boten, sondern legte das ganze Gewicht des

Vaternamens in ihren Dienst hinein' (my italics).

79 With all the other 'I have come' sayings of Jesus, Bultmann (History, pp 1 5 2-

Notes

204

5) rejects the authenticity of these words from Q. Against Bultmann see

Grundmann, Lukas, p 269. It is unlikely that the early Christians looking

back from their present understanding of Jesus' victory would have put into

his mouth : 'I have not come to bring peace, but a sword ' (Mt 1 0 : 34). We

have no evidence from the epistles that the early Christians created such

vivid, sharp sayings. They were rather a problem for the church (see Lk's

softening). To see that the whole of Jesus' ministry is marked by division

(cf Mt 6 : 24,3 2 ; 8 : 2 2 ; 1 0 : 3 7, etc) and that this division happened precisely

at the point where Jesus revealed the Father (Mt 1 1 : 25-27 par) is as important as the authenticity of these particular sayings.

80 In this regard we may notice that it is no accident that Mt connected the

Golden Rule ( 7 : 1 2) to the preceding saying on the Father's generosity

with the word oi'iv. This follows from an essential fact in Jesus' message. We

are called to fulfil the love command precisely because the Father is

generous and will give us the necessary resources. This understanding of

Mt's perceptive redaction is preferable to Furnish's comment (following

G. Barth) that the only way to understand ovv in 7 : 1 2 is as the introduction to a p aragraph summarizing all the commandments in 5 : 2 1 - 7 : 1 1

(Love, p 5 7). O f thirteen instances of ovv in the Sermon on the Mount

(5 : 1 9,23,4 8 ; 6 : 2,8,9,22,23 ,3 1 ,34 ; 7 : 1 1 , 1 2,24) none is used to introduce

summaries and all but five introduce imperatives which follow logically

from immediately preceding indicatives.

81 On the 'hardness of heart' in Jesus' message see below, pp 89ff.

82 So also Lohse, 'lch aber sage euch,' p 200 : 'Tatsiichlich wird in der dritten,

fl.inften und sechsten Antithese eine Aufuebung im Gesetz enthaltener

Bestimmung ausgesprochen.' Wendland, Eschatologie, p 1 22 : 'Nun setzt

aber Jesus seine Antithesen in derselben Form den Geboten des Gesetzes

entgegen.' So Goppelt, Christologie, pp 1 94f. The alternative view is that

Jesus is here opposing not the old Testament regulation but a Jewish

misuse of it. So Bultmann, Existence, p 204 : 'His criticism was not directed

against what was in the Old Testament as such, but against the practice of

justice by the scribes.' Similarly : Spicq, Agape I, p 6 ; Schweizer, NTS 16/3 ,

p 2 15 (who ascribes this view to Mt). This latter interpretation, which goes

against the natural sense of the words, fails to take account of the real

tension that doubtlessly existed between Jesus and the statutory aspect of

the Old Testament (see below, especially Mk 1 0 :2ff, p89). So Guelich,

Annul, p 192. Should it be the case that the fifth antithesis is Mt's construction (see pp 5 1-5), the following treatment should nevertheless show that it coincides essentially with Jesus' intention.

83 Jesus' position with regard to the Jaw is regularly summed up in four statements (cf Wendland, Ethik, pp 9-1 2 ; Jeremias, Theology. pp 204-8). ( 1 ) H e acknowledged the validity of the law and the oral tradition (Lk 1 0 : 26 ;

M k 1 : 2 1 ,44 ; M t 23 : l ff). (2) H e criticized the traditions where they contradicted the will of God (Mk 2 : 1 8-3 :6 ; 7 :5 ,1 3 ). (3) He 'radicalized' Old Testament commandments (Mt 5 : 2 l f; 27f). (4) He abolished Old Testament

commandments (Mk10 : 5 ; Mt 5 :3 2,34,38[). Our m ain concern here will be

with the last of these statements since it is most closely connected to the

command of enemy love. The discussion should, however, offer an explanation of the apparent contradictions in these four statements.

Ch. 3: Jesus ' command in the context of his message

205

84 It is doubtful that Mk 7 : 9- 1 3 represents the 'polemical equipment of the

church' which was only later put in the mouth of Jesus (suggested by

Bultmann, History, p 49). The controversy over the 'Corban' was not an

issue for Mk's readers (he had to explain the term 's meaning ! 7 : 1 1 ) and

could originate only in the area of the Temple. But if the saying has its

home so close to the soil of Jesus, 'there can be no reasonable doubt that

the words were spoken by Jesus and illustrate his attitude to the oral law'

(Taylor, Mark, p 3 39).

85 Quoted by Flender, Botschaft, p 54, from Jeremias' Jesus, pp 6 8f.

86 Bultmann (History, p 2 7) says of this pericope: 'The debate here certainly

derives from the Church ; it is set out in a unified way, though use is made

of material from the polemics of the Church. The awkwardness of the

construction shows its artificiality . ' But then on p 49 he writes, 'It is

probable that the way in which Mk 1 0 : 2-9 sets one quotation of scripture

against the other actually goes back to Jesus. For, so far as I know, this was

unheard of among the Rabbis. ' In line with this second observation

Jeremias (Theology, p 224) defends the genuineness of the debate 'because

Jesus ventures to set himself up against the Torah. ' Cf Taylor, Mark, p 4 15 .

Banks (Jesus and the Law, p 1 5 9) concludes that the versions o f this

pericope in Mt and Mk 'preserve the fundamental tenor of Christ's attitude

to the law.'

8 7 Against Ridderbos, Kingdom , pp 3 2 5 f: 'We find a very positive appreciation

of justice, of the ordinances that have been from the beginning or that have

been instituted on account of sin. Jesus does not abolish or devaluate all of

this' (my italics).

88 Gutbrod, TDNT IV, p 1 064 : 'The law as it is presupposes the sin of man as

a given factor which cannot be altered. With relationship to Jesus and

membership of the (JOlatXet'a Toil Oeov, however, there is restored the order

of creation which does not accept sin as a given factor.' An attempt to

explain Jesus' new radical command as a call for extraordinary moral

effort in the short time before the world ends, is contradicted by Jesus'

own argument: he does not show any sign that the institution of marriage

is now insignificant (nor can this be deduced from Lk 14 : 26), which we

would expect if the end were determining his thought; rather, he appeals

to the original will of the creator with the aim of making marriage what it

ought to be.

89 Similarly Goppelt, 'Hau stafel,' p 1 00. Jesus' concern with the heart, with

the 'inside of the cup,' is a motif running throughout the gospel and tallies

with the whole picture of his ministry which we have been developing. See,

e.g. , Mt 5 : 8 , 2 8 ; 6 : 2 1 ; 9 :4 ; 1 2 : 3 4 ; 1 3 : 15 ; 15 : 8 , 1 9 ; 1 8 : 3 5 ; 2 2 : 3 7 ; 23 : 25 -28 ;

24 :48.

90 Against Bultmann, (History, p 1 3 5 ) and R. Guelich (NTS 2 2/4, p 4 5 5 ) who

do not see an abrogation of the thesis in Mt 5 : 3 3 but rather a 'surpassing'

or 'transcending' of it. Their position can only be sustained by arguing (as

Guelich does, p 454) that 5 : 3 3 b ('render to the Lord your oaths') 'was

secondary to the original complex . ' For if it is not secondary then the

command 'Do not swear at all' (5 :34a) does in fact abrogate verse 3 3 . In

my opinion Guelich has introduced unnecessary complexity into the text

seeing 'awkwardness' (p 45 1) and tension (p 452) where a more sympa-

Notes

206

thetic reading need not see any. I see nothing awkward in the following :

'You have been told : negatively, never fail t o keep your oath, and p ositively,

always keep your oaths to God. But I tell you be done with oaths entirely . '

(Similarly Dietzfelbinger, Antithesen, p 3 2.) Insofar as 5 : 33 presupposes

the rightness of oath-taking to that degree is 5 : 34 an abrogation and not a

mere surpassing as in 5 : 2 1f and 5 : 27f. The authenticity of the basic antithesis in Mt 5 : 33-3 7 is defended by J. Jeremias ( Theology, pp 220, 25 1 ff) and R. Guelich (NTS 22/4) while C. Dietzfelbinger (Antithesen, pp 3 2 , 35),

M. J. Suggs ('Antitheses') and I. Broer (BZ 1 9/ 1 , pp 5 0-6 3 ) deny that Jesus

spoke these words in an antithetical way . The arguments brought against

originality are to a large extent valid only i( one assumes (as Suggs and

Dietzfelbinger apparently do) that a redactional or traditional origin is to

be assumed until strong arguments are produced that make it impossible.

Against this tendency see

Cullrnann, 'Out o f Season Remarks, ' p 2 74 .

9 1 Guelich (NTS 22/4, p 454) refers t o M t 5 : 3 7b ('but what is m ore than

these is from evil ') as 'clearly redactional. ' For support he cites G. Strecker

(Weg, p 1 3 3). Strecker gives one sentence : 'Die zweite Satzhiilfte wird

durch 11'ep taaclv (vgl 5 :4 7) und 1I'OV1JP<k (vgl 5 : 3 9 u.o.) fiir Matthiius sprachlich ausgewiesen.' This is scarcely a 'demonstration.' In the one other place where 1Teptaaclv may be redactional (5 :4 7 reflecting the 11'epwaevaTI of

5 : 20), the usage is precisely the opposite from here. There : m ore is

righteous; here : m ore is evil. Nor is it clear that 1I'OV1JPO� signals Matthean

redaction. Of its 26 occurrences in M t only 4 are clearly redactional over

against Mk and/or Lk (9 :4 ; 1 3 : 9 ; 1 5 : 1 9 ; 2 2 : 1 0) and 9 come from Q (5 : 1 1,

45 ; 6 : 23 ; 7 : 1 1 ; 1 2 : 3 5 ; 1 2 : 39, 45 ; 1 6 : 4 ; 25 : 26). The remaining 1 1

instances have no parallel. Moreover the closest analogy to Mt 5 : 3 7b is Mt

1 2 : 3 5 which is traditional (par Lk 6 :45), not redactional. It seems to me

that a stronger argument against the originality o f 5 : 3 7b will be needed

especially in view of the more significant substantial connections between

the idea of 5 : 3 7b and other teachings of Jesus. (Cf The 'criterion of

coherence' developed by Perrin, Rediscovering, p 4 3 .)

92 Schlatter, Matthaus, p 1 84 .

9 3 Schlatter, Matthaus, p 1 84. C f Goppelt, Christologie, p 3 2 : over against

Jesus' demand for wholeness (Mt 5 :48) 'reden die Anti these den Menschen

an, der sich mit Hilfe der alttestamentlichen Weisungen in der unvermeidlichen Koexistenz mit dem Bosen einrichtet.'

94 Gutbrod, TDNT IV, p 1 064 : 'This is implied . . . especially clearly in [Mt

5) vv 38ff where the Law limits unrestrained vengeance but

frees

disciples from the whole spirit of revenge. Inasmuch as the Law presupposes

the sin of man it is set aside by Jesus, since he establishes the obedience of

love which foregoes itself and its own rights and relies wholly and utterly

on God.'

95 Liechtenhahn, Gebot, p 3 1 : 'Das Gesetz schriinkt die Vergeltungssucht, die

zur natiirlichen Herzenshiirtigkeit gehort, auf den Grundsatz Auge urn

Auge, Zahn urn Zahn, d .h. Gleiches mit Gleichem ein, Gott aber will gar

nichts von ihr wissen.'

96 Von Rad, Theology II: 'The content of the passage [Ez 36: 22ff] shows it

to be closely parallel, feature by feature, to J ererniah 's pericope on the

new covenant (Jer 3 1 : 3 1 ff) . . . The fact that the word covenant is not

Ch. 3: Jesus ' command in the context of his message

20 7

here mentioned means nothing - there are other passages where he did

designate the saving event as covenant (Ez 34 : 25 ; 3 7 : 26)' (p 235).

'Ezekiel's ideas are so much his own that it is unlikely that his pericope

about Israel's spiritual renewal was taken directly from J er 3 1 : 3 1 ff. It is

therefore all the more significant that the climax of his forecasts in

Ez 3 6 : 25ff should correspond almost exactly to Jeremiah' (p 270). 'In

this matter Jeremiah and Ezekiel were, of course, far from being lone

voices crying in the wilderness' (p 267). For example, a similar idea

occurs in Dt. While Dt is looking back toward the old covenant and Jer

is looking forward toward the new, nevertheless, the new covenant was not

materially different from the old so that 'Here his view of the fulfilment of

the Sinai covenant is exactly the same as Deuteronomy's. The new thing

lies in the human sphere, in a change in the hearts of men ' (p 270, my

italics). Cf especially Dt 5 : 26a; 1 1 : 16 .

9 7 C f Goppelt, Jesus, Paul and Judaism, p 73. Discussing M k 1 0 : 2-9, h e

remarks, 'Jesus' injunction against divorce will not become a n actual

p ossibility until the "hardness of heart" is removed. As the prophets

predicted, this would not occur until the era of salvation (Ez 36 : 26).

Consequently Jesus' commands would be meaningless if he himself did not

produce that renewal of the heart promised for the time of salvation.'

98 L. Schottroff (Gewaltverzicht, pp 1 97f, 2 16 ) raises strong objection

against the way R. Bultmann, H. Braun and D. Lfihrmann in their treat�

ments of the command of enemy love allow the emphasis to fall on 'dem

Geschehen beim Liebenden,' his overcoming of selfishness and selfrighteousness etc. Her objection is basically 'das die Selbstliebe und die Hal tung des natiirlichen Menschen ftir den Text gar kein Thema sind'

(p 1 98). Schottroff has a good point in her emphasis on the act of love

and the change of the enemy (p 2 1 5 ) but I think she overstates her case.

There is a concern in the text with the one who loves - he is to become

a son of God and be rell.ew�. Moreover the full meaning of a command

cannot be determined merely by restricting oneself to a single pericope.

One must, as I am here attempting, relate these commands to the wider

context of Jesus' message - which Schottroff does not do. See below

pp 98f and Chapter 5 , note 3 8 , for a fuller treatment of Schottroffs

views.

99 Strack-Billerbeck I, p 3 5 3 , postulate that Mt 5 :43 is a popular maxim

among the Jews in Jesus' day. Jeremias (Gleichnisse, p 201) agrees but

translates the maxim , 'You shall love your fellow-Israelite, only your

enemy you do not have to love.' So also Gaechter, Matthiius, p 1 9 2 .

0. J. Seitz (NTS 16 , p 5 1) sees it from a political standpoint as a

'partisan rallying cry.' Braun (Radikalismus II, p 58) and Grundmann

(Matthiius, p 1 77) see the verse as Mt's conscious reference to Qumran ;

so also a long list of scholars in Braun, ThR 28, p 1 13 . Strecker (Weg,

p 25) and Guelich (Annul, p 1 95) reject Qumran reference. Guelich

(Annul, p 1 98), Goppelt (Christologie, p 3 2) and Hoffmann (BL 10,

p 270) see Mt 5 :43b as 'the compositional element of Mt in order to place

the limited nature of the Old Testament love command (5 :43a) and its

casuistic consequences (5 :43b) clearly in antithesis to that of Jesus'

demand' (Guelich). Similarly Schlatter (Matthaus, p 1 9 1 ) , Percy

Notes

208

p 1 5 5 ) and Schniewind (Matthiius, p 70) who, however, attribute the

interpretation to Jesus.

100 Jewish War 111. 10. Referring to the Jews' attack on Ascalon : 'This is an

ancient city 5 20 furlongs from Jerusalem , but the hatred with which the

Jews had always regarded it made the distance . . . seem less. ' Tacitus

(Histories V. 5 ) also writes, 'The Jews are extremely loyal toward one

another, and always ready to show compassion, but toward every other

people they feel only hate and enmity. '

1 0 1 Strack-Billerbeck I I , p p 5 15 ff. C f Jeremias, Gleichnisse, p 200.

102 Peter Noll (Jesus, p 17) has stated this 'destructive' function of Jesus' love

command well : 'Das Gebot der Feindesliebe mag als Radikalisierung des

Gebotes der Nachstenliebe von Jesus gemeint gewesen sein ; durch die

Universalisierung wird aber das Gebot der Niichstenliebe zugleich begrenzt,

relativiert und teilweise aufgehoben. Die Identifikation mit Familie,

Freundenkreis, Vaterland, Kulturkreis uzw. wird fragwiirdig. Die Norm der

Feindesliebe hat zunachst desintegrierende, "zersetzende" Funktion. Ihr

Adressat muss sich von der Gruppe und den Trieben, die ihn an sie binden,

distanzieren; er wird sich so fort den V orwurf eines Verraters zuziehen,

weil er auch der gegnerischen Gruppe Verstandnis entgegenzubringen

bemiiht sein muss. '

103 Burchard, 'Das doppelte Liebesgebot,' p 6 1 . Page numbers in the text refer

to this work.

104 A. Hultgren, CBQ 36/ 3 , p 3 7 3 , and others cited by him in footnote 2 argue

for a form of the double command in Q because of the agreements of M t

and Lk against Mk.

105 A. Nissen's investigation, Gott und der Niichste, has confirmed this,

pp 237-44, 4 1 5 f.

106 A. Nissen (Gott und der Niichste, p 4 1 6 ) after an enormous analysis of the

substance of the Jewish double love commands concludes, 'Doppelgebote

als Summe der Tora sind mithin unmoglich, ein Doppelgebot der Liebe ist,

ware es mehr als eine Koppelung zweier grosser Gebote, nicht jiidisch. ' He

goes on then to ask suggestively (pointing in a different direction from

Burchard), 'Sollte aber J esu Doppelgebot der Liebe Summe und M ass des

Gotteswillens gewesen sein - was bedeutet es dann, wenn es heisst: Jesus

war Jude? '

107 Burchard ('Das doppelte Liebesgebot,' p 59) says: The double command

is 'bei Markus ausgesprochenermassen Teil des jiidischen Erbes, das zu

iibemehmen notwendige, aber nicht hinreichende Bedingung ist.' Lohmeyer

(Markus, p 259), on the other hand, maintains that the scribe's summation

of what Jesus said ( 1 2 : 3 2-3 3 ) breaks out beyond the 'jiidischen Erbe. '

'Nur in solchem Verstiindnis, dass schon von dem gegebenen jiidischen

Grundlagen sich zu losen anschickt, scheint auch das letzte Wort Jesu

gerech tfertigt. '

108 Michel, 'Niichstenliebe,' p 6 9 : 'Es ist fraglich, ob das Wort des Schriftgelehrten Mk 1 2 : 3 3 ganz der Meinung Jesu entspricht. '

109 Similarly A. Nissen, Gott und der Niichste, p 502.

110 Nissen, Gott und der Niichste, p 24 1 : 'Eine Verkniipfung von Dt 6 ,5 und

Lev 1 9 , 1 8 ist iibrigens in der gesam ten antik-jiidischen Literatur zumindest

bis ins Mittelalter nirgendwo belegt ! '

Ch. 3: Jesus ' command in the context of his message

209

1 1 1 Bornkamm, 'Doppelgebot,' p 3 8. Burchard's quote from Philo (p 56)

is too distant. Furthermore his insistence that the 'lust' and 'second' in

Jesus' answer in Mk's version could not belong to a Palestinian situation

may be pressing the detalls too hard. With Burchard, denying that Jesus

used the double command, is Braun, Jems, pp 1 14 , 1 6 3 . For the authenticity of the double command : Lohmeyer, Markus, pp 260f; Taylor, Mark, pp 485ff; Michel, 'Nachstenliebe,' p 5 7 ; Ernst, Th G1 60, p 6 : 'Was

fur Jesus kennzeichnend ist, das ist die bewusste Konzentration des

gesamten sittlichen Verhaltens auf dieses Eine, Ganze und damit dann auch

die betonte ldentifikation von Gottesliebe und Nachstenliebe. ' Schnackenburg, 'Mitmenschlichkeit,' p 8 1 : 'Diese unlosliche Verbindung und Verklammerung der beiden grundlegenden Forderungen ist zweifellos eine

entscheidende und in dieser entschiedenen Weise originale Tat Jesu.'

1 1 2 Bultmann, History, p 1 7 8 : ' . . . artificially blended into its context by

Luke.' Against this, Rengstorf (Lukas, p 1 3 9 ) maintains that 'Gesprach und

Gleichnis . . . der Sonderiiberlieferung des dritten Evangeliums zugehort.'

Braun (Jems, p 1 3 0) says of its authenticity, 'Die Beispielerzahlung vom

barmherzigen Samariter . . . stanunt von Jesus selber oder ist, als Gemein·

deblldung, vollig von seinem und nicht von jiidischreligiosem Denken

bestimmt.'

1 1 3 R. Fuller ('Das Doppelgebot der Liebe') has undertaken a careful attempt

to reconstruct the earliest form of the double love command in the Christian

tradition (pp 3 1 7-24) and then, with the application of the criteria of dis·

similarity and consistency, to determine its genuineness (pp 3 24-9). His con·

elusion is that the double love command was probably a genuine part of

Jesus' wisdom teaching (p 329).

1 14 Schniewind, Matthaus, p 70 ; Jeremias, GleichniBBe, p 203 ; Greeven, TDNT

IV, pp 3 16 f.

1 1 5 Goppelt, Christologie, p 1 94 : 'Die fiinfte Antithese der Bergpredigt hebt

die Grundlage jeder staatlichen Ordnung, das Strafrecht, aur (my italics).

1 16 Soiron, Bergpredigt, p 283 : 'Wehrlosigkeit als Prinzip des weltlichen

Lebens ist gottlose Zerstorung der von Gott gnadig erhaltene Ordnung

der Welt.'

1 1 7 A detaned survey of the various attempts to solve this problem is found

in Soiron, Bergpredigt, pp 1-90, or Thielicke, Ethics I, pp 333-63. Other

shorter surveys include Wendland, Ethik, pp 1 7-20 ; Grundmann, Matthiius,

pp 1 8 1-9 ; Goppelt, Christologie, pp 33-36 ; W. S. Kissenger, The Sermon on

the Mount. Due to the thorough and numerous treatments available we

shall only mention the options here.

1 1 8 The solution to this paradoxical attitude to the law should not be attempted

by bringing in the cultic-ethic distinction. 'Denn Jesu Konservatismus

bezieht sich auf Kultisches (Mk 1 :44) und seine Gesetzesaufhebung geht

auch auf Ethisches ( l O : l fO. Er scheint das Gesetz ganz zu bejahen und

ganz zu vemeinen' (Schniewind, Markus, p 97).

1 1 9 Starting from the generally accepted view that M t's ew<; &v w&vrcx 'Yfiii'ITCX!

is redactional, Schulz (Q, p 1 14) argues that Mt's ew<; QV 'II"CJtPe'l\8'[1 b obpcxvd<;

• . . is more original than Lk 's FbKow<.:m:pov lie eonv Tov obpwo�· . . •

wOtPeMew because Mt would not have constructed such an awkward sen·

tence; therefore, the lust ew<; lli> he found in the tradition. Moreover Lk

Notes

210

16 : 1 7 is structured exactly like Lk 1 8 : 25 and could be influenced by this text.

Bultmann, 'Sermon,' p 204 : 'Even if the famous sayings that he has not

come to abolish the law and that not a letter of the law shall perish

(Mt 5 : 1 7- 1 9) are words that were subsequently put into his m outh by the

church, they still correctly convey his total attitude . . . ' This is not to say

that J esus shared the Jewish view that the Mosaic law is eternal (B ar 4 : 1 ;

Tobit 1 :6 ; IV Ezra 9 :3 7 ; Apoc Bar 7 7 : 1 5 ) . For a detailed excursus of

Mt 5 : 1 8/Lk 1 6 : 1 7 see Guelich, Annul, pp 294 ff; Trilling, Geschichtlichkeit

p 8 7 ; Banks, Jesus and the Law, pp 2 1 3-20.

1 20 Instead of dealing here with the important controversy over the tribute to

Caesar (Mk 12: 17) I merely cite the excellent treatment by Goppelt,

'Kaisersteuer,' Christologie, pp 208-20. In the same work ('D as Problem

der Bergpredigt,' p 40) he sums up : 'That means: The person who follows

the new demand of Jesus, that is, the person who believes and whose conduct springs from this belief, "renders to God the things that arc God's"

namely, everything. Therefore he has the freedom "to render to Caesar the

things that are Caesar's." So whoever has found the freedom not to resist

[Mt 5 : 3 8 ] can also in this freedom resist wrong for the sake of order and his

neighbor. He will resist in a different way from the man who , full of anxiety

and greed, wants to make his life secure. The person who is freed by faith

does not hate ; he suffers under the necessity that he must resist. Even this

new way of resisting is a behavior that accords with the Serm on on the

Mount.' See also Piper, 'Deciding What We Deserve.'

1 2 1 Hoffmann, Studien zur Theologie der Logienquelle, p 76.

1 2 2 Hengel, War Jesus Revolutioniir? p 22.

1 2 3 See note 98 and Chapter 5 , note 3 8 .

1 24 Schottroff's observation ( p 220) that these commands are found i n the

paraenesis near political texts (Rom 1 3 : 1 -7 ; I Pet 2 : 1 3ff) is not helpful

because no essential connection between them is shown.

1 25 Cf Mk 1 1 : 15 - 1 8 ; compare Mt 5 :2 2 and 23 : 1 7 .

Chapter 4 . The Use and Meaning o f Jesus' Command o f Enemy Love in the Early

Christian Paraenesis

1 There may well have been written notes which certain bearers of the tradition

used (II Tim 4 : 1 3?) but the formal variations in the various traditional

elements in the New Testament (cf Chapter 1) argue against the widespread

use of common writings. Sanders (Tendencies, p 296) cites a letter from

B. Gerhardsson in which he suggests that written notes gradually replaced

the oral tradition.

2 Carrington, Catechism ; Selwyn, / Peter, Essay II. See below, p 1 02 .

3 Dibelius, ThR NS 3 , p p 2 1 2f.

4 Dibelius, From Tradition to Gospel, p 239.

5 Following his lead and going farther are the works of Karl Weidinger

(Haustafeln, 1928); Anton Vogtle ( Tugend- und Lasterkataloge, 1936) ;

Siegfried Wibbing ( Tugend- und Lasterkataloge, 1959); Ehrhard Kamiah

(Form der katalogischen Partinese, 1964) ; and Albrecht Dihle (Die goldene

Regel, 196 2). In Britain, A. M . Hunter (Predecessors, p 53) uses the same

words Dibelius does to describe the relation of Paul's ethics and his theology .

Ch. 4: Jesus ' command in early Christian paraenesis

211

6 Schrage, Einzelgebote, p p 1 5ff.

7 In the introduction to the 1966 printing of See berg's Der Katechismus der

Urchristenheit, p xxvii.

8 Carrington (Catechism, p 3 1 ) outlines the content of this catechism under

five recurrent headings: ( 1 ) new creation/birth ; (2) wherefore putting off all

evil ; (3) submit yourselves; (4) watch and pray ; (5 ) resist the devil.

Col

Eph

I Pt (A) I Pt (B)

Ja

Heb

( 1 ) 3 :9f

4 : 22f

1 : 22,25 -

1 : 1 8f

(2) 3 : 8

4 : 25

2 : 1

1 : 2 1

1 2 : 1

(3) 3 : 1 8

5 : 2 1

2 : 1 3

5 : 5

4 :7

1 2 : 9

(4) 4 : 2

6 : 1 8

4 : 7

5 : 8

1 3 : 1 7

(5) 4 : 12

6 : 1 1

5 : 9

4 :7

9 Dodd, Gospel, p 25. He cites four specifically Christian sanctions which govern

the paraenetic material: ( 1 ) Christian eschatology (p 30), (2) the body of

Christ (p 34); (3) the imitation of Christ (p 4 1 ) ; and (4) the primacy of love

(p 42).

10 Davies, Paul, p 1 3 6 . He is opposing A. M. Hunter's view here, which rests on

Dibelius'.

1 1 Paul was not only the great theologian of the early church ; he was also one

of the chief bearers and formers of the traditions (cf II Thess 2 : 1 5 ; 3 :6 ;

I Cor 1 1 : 2,23 ; 1 5 : 3 ; I Thess 2 : 1 3 ; Phi1 4 :9). On the question o f tradition in

the New Testament, especially in Paul, see : J . P. Brown, NTS 10, pp 27-3 8 ;

Cerfaux, Catholica 9, p p 94-1 04 ; Cullmann, Tradition ; Dungan, Sayings ;

P. Fannon, Scripture 1 6 , pp 4 7-56 ; Filson, JBL 60, pp 3 1 7-29 ; Gerhardsson,

Memory, pp 193-3 3 6 ; Tradition ; Goppe!t, KuD 4 , pp 2 1 3 -3 3 ; Hanson,

Tradition ; Hunter, Predecessors ; Riesenfeld, Gospel Tradition, pp 1 -3 1 ;

Wegenast, Verstiindnis; Fraser, Jesus and Paul; Fjiirstedt, Synoptic Tradition.

1 2 Note the parallel between the love command in I Thess 5 : 1 5 and Paul's

prayer in 3 : 1 2 . From this, one can conclude that it is the Lord who enables

and effects the realization of the love command. This corresponds to the

fact that the Thessalonians received the gospel eagerly (1 :4) and that through

their faith this 'word of God' is 'at work in them' (2 : 1 3). In other words it

is through their faith in the gospel that the Lord effects in them an abundance

of love 'to each other and to all' (3 : 1 2 ; 5 : 1 5 ) .

1 3 Cranfield (Rom 12-13, p 49), Dodd (Romans, p 1 9 8 ) and others (e.g. Kiihl

and Lagrange) see a division between 1 2 : 9- 1 3 and 14-2 1 . Michel (Romer,

p 3 0 1 ) rejects such a division because 'V 14 gehort zu dem Gedankenkreis

von V 1 7-2 1 . V. 15-16 dagegen lassen sich auch auf das Verhiiltnis der

Gemeindeglieder untereinander beziehen.' Cranfield, however, refers v 1 5

t o outsiders and Daube (Rabbinic Judaism, p 3 4 5 ) refers both v 15 and v 16

to outsiders. But it is not u sually noticed that v 1 2, 'be patient in tribulation, '

has reference to one's response to outsiders. The division is there but it is

not at all strict.

14 Just where the boundaries of the individual pieces of the tradition behind

Rom 12 and 13 are to be drawn is debatable. Rom 1 3 : 8- 1 0 and 1 1-14 may

well belong to the foregoing in a traditional connection but such precision

is not important for our purposes here.

Notes

212

15 Wendland, Ethik, p 60: 'Die ganze Pariinese von Rom 12 und 13 wird mit

dem Hinweis auf die Barmherzigkeit Gottes eingeleitet und begriindet

( 1 2 : 1 ) ; in diesem Zusammenhang folgt dann auch die . . . Auslegung des

Liebesgebotes. ' So Sanday and Headlam, Romans, p 35 1 ; Furnish, Love,

p 103 ; Michel, Romer, p 288 : 'Schon dem Stil nach fiillt Rom 1 2 : 1-2

besonders auf; die heiden Verse sind offenbar als eine Art Uberschrift

und Bestimmung des christlichen Lebens gedacht.'

16 The recurrence of the thematic word 'good' ( 1 2 : 2,9 , 1 7 ,2 1 ; 1 3 :3 ,4) and

its counterpart 'evil' ( 1 2 :9, 1 7 ; 1 3 : 3 , 10) supports the unity of the paraenesis

under 1 2 : 2 , 'prove what is good.'

1 7 For the theological significance of Paul's use of 1fDlPDlKOlll.ew see Schlier,

Besinnung II, pp 340-4 . He concludes : 'Gottes Erbarmen in der Milde

und Sanftmut Christi durch die Liebe des Geistes ist es, das in dem mahnenden Zuruf des Apostels spricht und ihn zur eindringlichen Bitte und driingenden Ermunterung eines Vaters oder Bruders werden liisst.' But

see Carl Bjerkelund 's history-of-religions analysis of the parakalo sentences

(Parakalo, p 1 90) : 'Die Bedeutung der p. Siitze liegt nicht auf der theologischen sondern auf der Ebene der persiinlichen, briiderlichen Begegnung.'

1 8 Against Barrett, Romans, p 279 and Sanday and Headlam, Romans, p 4 1 5 , who

limit 'the love of the Spirit' to mean brotherly love worked by the Spirit, Paul

would probably not press the distinction here since it is through the Spirit's

love of us (or God's love of us through him) that any genuine brotherly love can

arise in our hearts (see Gal 5 : 2 2 ; cf II Cor 3 : 1 7 and Gal 5 : 1 3).

1 9 That the reference to 'our Lord Jesus Christ' in 1 5 : 3 0 has in view the mercy

shown in his saving deeds is suggested ( 1 ) by the close similarity in form to

1 2 : 1 , (2) bY Paul's similar appeals elsewhere (cf ll Cor 1 0 : 1 , 'I appeal to you

through the meekness and gentleness of Christ'; cf Phil 1 : 1f), (3) by the fact

that from the subject matter it is fitting to ground an appeal for help (by

prayer, 1 5 : 3 0) in help that has been received, namely, through Christ.

20 Michel, Romer, p 292.

21 Selwyn (/ Peter, p 407) sees 1 2 : 9a as the heading for the rest of the chapter:

'Love's Sincerity'. Michel (Romer, p 288) sees &-y&n-17 as 'das Stich wort, das

den ganzen Abschnitt 1 2 :9-2 1 beherrscht.'

22 The words ADITPeta and ll.m·ovp-yta appear to be synonymous in the LXX,

both almost always translating the cultic l'I1!:1P, • Cf Phil 2 : 1 7 where Ovui.Ol

( cf Rom 1 2 : 1) and ll.etTovp-yta are combined.

23 So Bultmann, Theology I, p 3 3 5 .

2 4 See Schrage, Einzelgebote, p 72, note 7, for literature o n the relation o f the

Holy Spirit and ethics.

25 See especially Bultmann, ZNW 23 ; also in Rengstorf, Paulusbild, pp 1 79ff;

H. Windisch, ZNW 23 ; Schlier, Galater, pp 1 94ff; Oepke, Galater, Exkursus.

26 Grabner-Haider (Paraklese, pp 33-44) points in this direction : on the basis of

I Thess 2 : 2-3 , 9-1 4 ; II Cor 5: 1 9-20; Rom 1 : 1 1-14, etc., he concludes :

'Paraklese ist eine Weise des Evangeliums' (pp 39f). 'Im Wort des Apostels ist

der Kyrios selbst am Werk' (p 36). 'Es ist Gott selber der zur Versiihnung

aufruft in der Weise der Paraklese' (p 3 8). This raises the question : How do

the work of the Kyrios in the word of the apostle, on the one hand, and the

work of the Spirit (of the Kyrios) 'in the believer,' on the other hand, relate

to each other?

Ch. 4: Jesus ' command in early Christian paraenesis

213

27 See Schlier in note 1 7 .

28 Conzelmann, Korinther, p 1 3 1 : 'Die Art, wie e r die sen Satz einfiihrt, liisst

annehmen, dass er in Korinth bekannt war und gebraucht wurde, vgl. die

Wiederholung 1 0 : 2 3 . ' Paul does not deny the validity of the slogan - only

its misuse.

29 At the head of the list of x01pt'a�ouxm in Rom 1 2 :6 Paul puts 'prophecy' and

says that one possesses the gift of prophecy KOITCx r�w x&p w rT)v lio1Jeia01v.

To this degree its origin parallels Paul's apostolic office (cf Rom 1 2 : 3). Like

the apostle, the prophet is 'appointed by God' (I Cor 1 2 : 27). In I Cor 14 : 1

prophecy is one of the 11'VEVJ.&OinK&; thus one who prophesies speaks

ev 11'vevJ.�D�n IJeov (cf l Cor 12: 3). The purpose of this speaking by the Spirit

of God is, according to I Cor 1 4 : 3 , to address men with 11'01p&KXrtat� (as well

as olKolioJ.&-r? and 11'01POIJ.&V1Jlcx) . Therefore, the Spirit speaks words of admonition

to the members of the body not only through the gospel and paraenesis of

the apostle (as we showed above) but also through its gifted members.

30 While W. D. Davies (Paul, p 226) may go too far in labeling the Spirit as 'a

kind of Torah,' yet I think he has seen something very important for understanding Paul: 'The obedience of the Christian man is loyalty to the promptings of the Spirit, but since this Spirit derives his character from a

person and is rooted in the words, life, death and resurrection of Christ, it

is also for Paul a kind of Torah.'

31 I have found C. H. Dodd consistently perceptive in this whole area. To quote

him at length concerning the supposed tension between ethical imperatives

and spiritual guidance : 'The apparent tension between the two ways of

regarding Christian behavior is lessened if we no longer think (as too much

modern interpretation of Paul has thought) of the Christian 11'JJEVJ.IOITtK6� as

a solitary individual taking his stand upon the guidance he receives from the

Spirit as "inner light" over against the tradition and authority of the community,

and think of him rather as one who lives and moves within the Body which

the Spirit inhabits. The Body is constituted by the act and the word of Christ,

proclaimed in the Gospel and witnessed by his apostles. Each member by

virtue of the Kowwvta rov 11'VEVJ.IOITO� is offered the guidance and help of

the Spirit to understand the law of Christ, to apply it, to discern its relevance

to fresh situations, and finally to fulfil it; but he is not promised (at least by

Paul) independent knowledge of the law of God, unrelated to the teaching

which Jesus delivered to his people' ('Ennomos,' p 1 09).

3 2 Another text showing the same thing is Rom 6 : 1 7 : 'You were once slaves of

sin but have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to

which you were committed.' The parallel to this verse in 6 : 22 reads : 'You

have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God.' Thus to be a

slave of God and to be obedient to the tradition are in Paul's mind not

conflicting ways of Christian existence. They are rather two parts of the same

work of God. It is God who speaks in the tradition and it is God who takes

us personally captive so that we obey the tradition 'from the heart,' that is,

freely with j oy.

33 Col 1 : 28 : 'We proclaim Christ, admonishing every man and teaching every

man in all wisdom in order that we might present every man mature in

Christ. '

34 C. H. D odd's comments bring out beautifully how the concrete words of

Notes

214

Christ (which he calls the law of Christ) function practically in our experience

to shape our m inds: 'The law of Christ works by setting up a process within

us which is itself ethical activity. His precepts stir the imagination, arouse

the conscience, challenge thought, and give an impetus to the will, issuing in

action. Insofar as we respond, holding the commandments steadily in view,

reflecting upon them, and yet treating them not m erely as objects for contemplation, but as spurs to action, there gradually comes to be built up in us a certain outlook on life, a bias of mind, a standard of m oral j udgment.

The precepts cannot be directly transferred from the

page to action.

They must become through reflection and through effort, increasingly a part

of our total outlook on life, of the total bias of our minds. Then they will

find expression in action appropriate to the changing situations in which

we find ourselves. That is what I take to be the meaning of the "law written

on the heart" ' (Gospel, p 77).

3 5 I Cor 7: 10; 9: 14 ; 1 1 :23 ff; I Thess 4 : 15 . That Paul gives imperatives explicitly

from the Lord only in I Cor 7 : 1 0 and 9 : 14 does not necessarily mean he

knew no more commands of the Lord. The explicit citation in I Cor may

result from the specific need of that church. L. Goppelt ( 'Haustafel,' p 104)

suggests that they were so cited, 'urn die Ausserungen des Pneuma wieder

der Orientierung an dem irdischen Jesus (I Kor 1 2,3) zu unterwerfen - nicht

deshalb weil sich vielleicht Gegner auf ihn berufen. ' This last phrase is

directed against the hypothesis developed in Robinson and Koster, Trajectories, pp 1 5 8-204. Nor should the fact that only four d ominical sayings are cited lead to the conclusion that Paul knew no more, because this lack of

citation is present in Acts and I Jn whose authors we know were acquainted

with the gospel tradition. In fact, as Gop pelt points out ('Haustafel,' p 1 04 ) .

'Logien in der Evangelienform fehlen nicht nur bei Paulus sondern in der

gesamten friihchristlichen Briefliteratur bis zum 2. Klemensbrief so gut wie

durchweg . . .' Why this is so we will attempt to answer in Chapter 5. C f

Neugebauer, ZNW 5 3 .

36 Goppelt, Theologie II, p 367.

3 7 Schlatter, Apostel, pp 3 89-97.

3 8 Gop pelt, 'Haustafel, ' p 1 03 : 'Die Evangelieniiberlieferung will die Logien

primiir als Verkiindigung in der Situation J esu [rightly so in the case of our

command ) , d.h. als Umkehrruf auf das kommende Reich hin, bezeugen; die

pariinetische Tradition gibt sie vom erhohten Herrn her seiner Gemeinde als

beispielhafte Verhaltenshilfen weiter.'

39 In the rest of Rom 1 3 , Old Testament citations occur

in the context of

the command of neighbor love ( 1 3 : 9).

40 Strack-Billerbeck 111, p 300.

41 See especially Goppelt, Typos.

42 Michel, Romer, p 289.

43 I am not saying that the formation of the paraenesis was only begun after the

expectation of the near-parousia and thus represented a de-eschatologizing

process. See Schrage's criticism of this idea (Einzelgebote, pp 13-26) and

the literature there. The

tradition was already well formed before

I Thess (20 years after Jesus' death and resurrection) and we tried in Chapter

3 to show that a kind of 'de-eschatologizing' was already begun by Jesus

him self; i.e., he did not disregard life in this age entirely but rather placed his

Ch. 4: Jesus ' command in early Christian paraenesis

215

followers into the tension of having to live for him in two worlds, two ages

at once.

44 I owe this insight to L. Goppelt (Theologie II, p 3 7 1). who observes that

Jesus' command of enemy love in the paraenetic tradition 'wird Orientierungshilfe fur den Vollzug eschatologischer Existenz in der Geschichte und daher mit geschichtserfahrener Spruchweisheit verbunden, aber so, dass es Auswahlkriterium bleibt.'

45 Cf p 30 above on the takeover of Prov 25 : 2 1f.

46 M. Dahood, CBQ 1 7 ; E. Smothers, CBQ 6; J. Steele, ET 44 ; J. Young, The

Expositor 3rd series 2 ; F. Zyro, ThStKr 1 8 ; W. Klassen, NTS 9 ; K . Stendahl,

HTR 5 5 ; others in Michel, Romer, p 3 1 1 , note 1 .

4 7 It should not be objected that such an eschatological conception could not

have been intended by the ancient wise man. More than once we find

proverbial material taken up into a new eschatological situation and thus

given a new dimension of meaning. See I Pt 4 : 1 8 = Prov 1 1 : 3 1 LXX ; I Pt

3 : 1 0- 1 2 = Ps 34 : 1 2-16 . K. Stendahl (HTR 55) argues for an eschatological

interpretation of Rom 1 2 : 1 9-2 1 not unlike the one I am suggesting, but some

of his inferences are unacceptable : e.g., the assertion that 'Neither Qumran

nor Paul speaks about love for the enemies. The issue is rather how to act

when all attempts to avoid conflict with the enemies of God and of his

Church have failed (vv. 170' (p 354 ). He even says of Jesus' love command

in Mt 5 :44 'that there is no intimation that such an attitude is envisaged as

a means to cause repentance or toward overcoming enmity' (p 355). But

both Jesus (Mt 5 :44 ; Lk 6 : 28) and Paul (Rom 1 2 : 14 ; 9 : 3 ; 10 : 1) admonish

believers to bless and pray for religious outsiders (i.e. God's enemies). To

what is this blessing and prayer directed if not their conversion? See below,

Chapter 5, note 38.

4 8 Spicq, Agape II, p 208.

49 TDNT VI, p 944.

5 0 Cranfield, Romans 12, 1 3, p 57. So also Nieder, Motive, p 7 1 ; Sevenster,

Seneca, p 1 84 ; Althaus, Romer, p 1 1 7.

51 Kasemann, Romer, p 3 3 3 ; M orenz, 'Feurige Kohlen,' pp 1 87-92.

5 2 Michel, Romer, p 3 1 1 , gives an array of analogies outside the New Testament.

These present the possibilities for the meaning of 'coals of fire' but none can

be shown to have determined Paul's intention here. We are dependent on the

context. I Pt 2 : 1 5 and 3 : 1 6 , where good behavior puts an opponent to shame,

are related to Rom 1 2 : 20 only if one assumes this meaning for 1 2 :20; there

are no close language similarities. At any rate the command of enemy love

in I Pt 3 :9 is supported by an Old Testament quote whose meaning includes

eschatological judgment (3 : 1 2 = Ps 3 3 : 16 LXX) not pangs of shame.

53 Bauer, Lexicon, p 83 1 . Cf Michel, Romer, p 3 0 1 : "'Anlass" oder "Gelegenheit geben", "Platz machen" oder "das Feld vor jemandem riiumen" '.

54 Such an attitude would correspond with that of the 'perfect' Qumran sectary who must hate the men of the Pit (IQS 1 : 1 0 ; 9 : 2 1 ) and yet do them good :

To no man will I render the reward of evil,

with goodness will I pursue each one ;

for judgment of all the living is with God,

Notes

216

and He it is who will repay to each man his reward.

I will not envy from a spirit of wickedness

and my soul shall not covet the riches of violence.

As for the multitude of the m en of the Pit,

I will not lay hands on them till the Day of Vengeance ;

But I will not withdraw my anger far from perverse men,

I will not be content till He begins the Judgment. ( 1QS 1 0 : 1 8-20)

55 Preisker, Ethos, p 1 84.

56 Dodd, Romans, p 200. Similarly Schelkle, Petrusbriefe, p 94 : ei!P.o-yei'v

'bedeutet in der LXX und im Neuen Testament segnen, indem man Gottes

Gnade auf jem and herabruft.'

5 7 See especially A. Grabner-Haider, Paraklese, p 90, for the development of

the .fUture ground of Paul's paraklesis. So also Lohse, Kolosser, p 4 7 .

58 In the Old Testament th e demonstration o f God's righteousness, his 'saving

acts in history' (von Rad, Theology l, p 3 7 2) , always involved the destruction

of the enemies of his people. It was a part of the salvation and thus a part of

his righteousness (Ps 9 : 8 , 16 ; 7 2 :4).

For thy name's sake, 0 Lord, preserve my life!

In thy righteousness ( ":JJ;l�\�1 ) bring me out of trouble!

And in thy steadfast love ( i19tt�� ) cut off my enemies,

and destroy all my adversaries (Ps 143 : l lf).

It is because Paul saw wrath and salvation as one eschatological event that

the revelation of wrath in Rom 1 : 1 8 is a ground (-y&p) for the revelation

of God's righteousness in salvation (Rom 1 : 16 f). The appearance of one is

evidence for the presence of the other. So Barrett, Romans, p 34.

59 From Ps 143 : 1 1 (cited in previous note) and from Dan 9 : 16-19 etc., we see

that for God to be righteous and to act for his own name's sake are the same.

60 Schlatter, Gerechtigkeit, p 349 ; so also Lang, TDNT VI, p 94 5 .

6 1 A similar understanding o f the incarnation i s found in J n 3 : 17-2 1 . 'God did

not send the Son into the world iil order to judge the world . . . This is the

judgment : that the light has come into the world and men loved darkness

more than light for their deeds were evil.'

6 2 Schlatter, Matthaus, p 1 87 .

6 3 Bultmann's (History , p 1 12) judgment that here we have ' a community formulation since the sayings look back on Jesus' activity as something already completed and presuppose the failure of the Christian preaching in Capernaum.'

is rightly disputed by Grundmann (Lukas, p 2 1 1) : 'Die se Worte tragen

prophetischen Charakter und haben apokalyptischen Einschlag; sie konnen,

da die Uberlieferung durch sie nicht entscheidend bestimmt ist, auf Jesus

Selbst zuriickgehen. ' Why would the church invent a saying about a city

(Chorazin) that plays no role in the tradition at all? 'Wir erfahren also

iiber die Wirksamkeit Jesu Genaueres als sonst' (Schniewind, Matthaus,

p 1 4 7).

64 One could note further in the parable of the tares (Mt 1 3 : 24-3 0) how the

farmer forbade his servants from gathering out the tares of the enemy

because at the harvest time the reapers (= divine judgment) would gather

and burn them. See too the purpose clauses in Mt 23 :35 /Lk 1 1 :50 and cf

Hummel, Matthiiusevangelium, p 88.

Ch. 4: Jesus ' command in early Christian paraenesis

21 7

65 Biichsel, TDNT I, p 6 73.

66 See concise discussions of the religious history of the concept in Selwyn,

I Peter, pp 3 05-9 ; Schelkle, Petrusbriefe, pp 28-3 1 ; Biichsel and Rengstorf, TDNT I, pp 665-70; and the literature mentioned in these.

6 7 Biichsel, TDNT I, p 674 : 'There is a profound gulf between the religion

of the Mysteries, in which man is deified by magical rites, and this religion

of faith {2 : 6 ; 1 : 5 ,9 , 2 1 ; 5 : 9), of hope { 1 : 3 ; 3 : 1 5 ) and of the fear of God { 1 : 1 7 ; 2 : 1 8 ;

3 : 2 , 1 5 ).' Schelkie,Petrusbriefe, p 3 1: 'Den Mysterien steht er so fern, dass.er das

Wort nicht unmittelbar und absichtlich von dort entlehnt hat.'

68 Lohse, ZNW 45, p 85.

69 Lohse, ZNW 45, p 87: 'So findet die Pariinese ihre eigentliche Verankerung,

indem sie auf das Kerygma zuriickgefiihrt wird.'

70 The importance of faith for I Pt can hardly be overstressed. The genuineness

of faith is more precious than gold {1 : 7) because only through faith does

God's power come into play to guard us for salvation {1 : 5 ,9). Only he who

has faith in Christ will not be put to shame {2:6). It is by faith that we are

to resist our adversary the devil {5 : 9), and it is only because faith unleashes

the power of God that a mere man can withstand that 'roaring lion. '

7 1 The net.pOtaiJ.ol {1 : 6 ; 4 : 1 2) which the Christians are enduring are not

apparently an organized, official persecution. The words 6 t.W'YIJ.O� and 8?-il/i '�

do not occur. They are bearing the reproach of their former companions

{2 : 1 2 ; 4 :4 ). 'Wohl ist die Offen tlichkeit schon missgiinstig oder feindselig.

Die Behtlrden aber scheinen bislang hochstens vereinzelt einzugreifen.

Allenfalls mag da und dort die Polizei Untersuchungen und Verhore, auch

Verhaftungen vomehmen. Aber noch gibt es kein allgemeines, rechtliches

Verbot der christlichen Religion und kein Gesetz der Verfolgung. Vielmehr

hat der Brief zur Stadt und den BehOrden noch das Vertrauen, dass sie das

Recht wahren werden (2 : 14 ; 3 : 150' (Schelkle, Petrusbriefe, p 8). Similarly

Selwyn, / Peter, pp 5 2-6 : 'The qualifying words el 6eov eaTl make it plain

that these trials were of a local and haphazard kind' (p 53). Also Goppelt,

Apostolic Times, pp 1 09ff, who points out that according to 5 : 9 the

current suffering is typical for 'your brotherhood throughout the world.'

72 Since Selwyn's ! Peter appeared it has been increasingly recognized that the

extensive formal and substantial parallels in the New Testament epistles are

due not to literary interdependence but to mutual dependence on common

tradition. We came to a similar conclusion in Chapter 1 {pp 5-8).

73 See note 8.

74 For God's call see i Pt 1 : 15 ; 2 : 9 ; 5 : 1 0.

75 Bigg, Peter, p 156 : Kelly, Peter, p 1 3 7 ; Selwyn, / Peter, p 190 ; Schelkle,

Petrusbriefe, p 94 ; Reicke, Peter, p 105.

76 Robertson (Grammar, p 699) cites I Pt 3 :9 along with Acts 9 : 2 1 ; Rom

1 4 : 9 ; II Cor 2 : 9 ; I Jn 3 : 8 as examples of texts in which1el� Toih"o is followed

by a i.Pa clause in apposition.

77 So Schenk, Segen, p 6 2 : 'Vom eschatologischen Ziel der Berufung spricht

nicht unsere Stelle, sondem 5 : 10.'

7 8 Schelkle, Petrusbriefe, p 95 : 'Im Brief sind Leben und gute Tage eschatologisch verstanden vom ewigen Leben.' So also Schenk, Segen , p 6 3 . See I Pt 4 : 1 8 = Prov 1 1 : 3 1 (LXX) for a similar eschatologizing of an Old Testament

quotation.

Notes

218

79 Lohse, ZNW 45, p 86 : 'Durch die Einfiigung eines <>n in v 1 2 . . . ist die

theologische Begriindung, die im Psaim den vorangegangenen lmperativen

unverbunden folgte, unterstrichen worden.'

80 Windisch, Katholischen Briefe, p 6 9 : 'Die Motivierung wiirde einem Logion

ev:l.o'Yeire i.Va ev:l.o'Y1Jeiire entsprechen.' Furnish, Love, p 168, agrees that

e!<: roih'o looks backward, in opposition to Kelly, but he does not discuss

the significance of the 'tVa clause.

81 llvpwaet should not be taken to refer to severe persecution or conflagration

(such as that which devours B abylon, Rev 1 8 : 9 , 1 8), but to the testings of

faith brought on by hostile countrymen. The suffering is typical for 'your

brotherhood throughout the world ' (5 : 9 ) . Cf note 7 1 .

8 2 Schenk, Segen, p 63 : ' "Segen erben" (= Heb 1 2 : 1 7) ist eine Formulierung

zur Besuchung der kiinftigen Heilsvollendung, die ihre heiden Elem ente aus

der alttestamentlichen und friih jiidischen Tradition hat (eschatologischer

"Segen", z.B. 4 Esra 5 :4 1 ; Syr.Bar. 5 5 : 8 ; Hen. 45 :4f; eschatologisches

"Erben", z.B. 4 Esra 7 : 9, 16 ; 8 : 58). Sie ist aber in dieser Verbindung dart

anscheinend nich t belegt. '

83 It should be noted that the idea of 'inheritance' is inimical to any thought

of earning, as J ohn Calvin pointed out long ago : 'And hence in those very

passages in which the Holy Spirit promises eternal glory as the reward of

works, by expressly calling it an inheritance, he demonstrates that it

comes to us from some other quarter' (Institutes 111. 1 3 .2).

84 Merkel, Georgi and Baltzer, Meditationen, p 2 3 3 : 'Auf die Frage wie das

Giite doch zum Ziel kommt, antwortet das Henochbuch damit, dass der

giittliche Ausgleich in Jenseits erfolgt, wo die Gerechten iiber ihre Peiniger

triumphieren werden (Hen. 94- 105). In I Petr. dagegen folgt aus der

Erwartung des verheissenen Segens der Aufruf zu segnen . Well der Gegenstand

der Hoffnung so herrlich ist, lebt der Glaubende nicht aus der Verdammung

der Biisen sondern er weiss sich aufgerufen dem Biisen durch Frieden zu

wehren. '

85 'We have been born anew' (1 : 3,23); 'You were ransomed' ( 1 : 1 8) ; 'Having

purified your souls . . .

' ( 1 : 22); 'You are a royal priesthood, a holy nation'

(2 : 9) ; 'He bore our sins in his body on the tree' (2 : 24); 'Christ died for sins

once for all ' (3 : 1 8).

86 Schenk, Segen, p 62 : 'Die antithetische Mahnung zum Verzicht auf Vergeltung V 9a . . . ist wohl hinsich tlich der Begrifflichkeit wie hinsichtlich der antithetischen Formung, gepriigte urchristliche Pariinese. Die darauffolgende doppelte theologische Motivierung dieser Mahnung (V 9b) ist die besondere Stilisierung dieses Briefverfassers. '

87 Schmidt, TDNT III, p 4 89.

8 8 Selwyn, I Pe ter, p 4 1 4 : 'Ps xxxiv was so admirably adapted to the instruction

of catechumens, as its use in I Pet ii.3 ,4 exemplifies, that it m ay well have

been used at a very early stage, as it stood, in the preaching of the primitive

Church, or made the basis of shorter paraenetic forms. '

89 Selwyn (/ Peter, p 1 90) quotes Kirkpatrick in agreement that in Ps 34

'Thought and style are those of the book of Proverbs.' So Weiser, Psalmen,

p 200 : 'Sein Verfasser hat . . . die Neigung seine Erfahrungen in allgemeingiiltige Wahrheiten umzupriigen unter Anlehnung an die Formen der Spruchweisheit, die von V 12 ab sein Gedicht beherrschen. '

Ch. 4: Jesus ' command in early Christian paraenesis

219

90 It must be remembered that I included in the motivation of enemy love the

use of concrete individual commands as the Spirit's means of leading his

people. Thus I am not saying that no external guidance is needed for the

Christian at all as Bultmann ('Nachstenliebe,' p 235) implies: 'Nirgends ist

ein Was des Handelns angegeben . . . Es bleibt also die Frage : Was soil ich

tun? dem Einzelnen, niimlich seinem jeweiligen Verstandnis seiner jeweiligen

Verbundenheit mit den Du iiberlassen.'

9 1 I do not mean that the good is determined only in the concrete encounter

between men. The 'new man' will also reflect on what is good in view of

the New Testament paraenetic admonitions, and will develop out of his

faith and his view of the world, attitudes and principles by which he can

live daily and according to which he can seek to influence his society.

92 The notion that genuine love involves a respect for another person's

unbelief and a consequent renunciation of any desire or activity aimed at

his change is utterly foreign to the New Testament and totally unintelligible in view of the ultimate realities involved !

93 On the norm of love in relation to other norms in the Pauline paraenesis,

see especially Schrage, Einzelgebote, pp 249-7 1 .

94 Similarly see Phil 2 : 29 ; I Tim 5 : 1 7 ; Heb 1 3 : 1 7 .

95 Goppelt, Christologie, p 1 26 : When w e look a t the situation of the church

in Paul's letters it is evident, 'dass es auch in ihr ein Noch-Nicht gibt. Sie

existiert als die Schar der Glaubenden "im Fleische" (vgl Gal 2 : 20). Daher

ist innerhalb der Gemeinde neben dem "Dienen", das der Basileia des

Kyrios entspricht (I Cor 1 2 : 5 ; Mk 1 0 :43) auch noch ein Ordnen und sich

unterordnen notig.' So also Schrage, Einzelgebote, p 264.

96 Schrage , Einzelgebote, pp 260f. He points out further that the J..L-1? rrtKpOtivea8e

and J..L-1? €peelren of Col 3 : 19 ,20, where Paul is discussing husbands-wives and

children-parents, are a way of commanding love (cf I Cor 1 3 : 5 ) . Col 3 : 1 8 f

combine love, and subjection together i n the marriage relation. Lohse,

Kolosser, p 226 : 'Die Forderung J..L-1? mKpOttvwee ist Ausdruck des Liebesgebotes.'

9 7 Goppelt, Christologie, pp 1 3 0ff, cf p 1 2 1 . I think Schrage (NTS 2 1 / 1 , p 1 3 )

i s unfair t o Goppelt when he says, 'Nichts berechtigt nun aber dabei z u der

Annahme, das bri 1r&aw lie rotirot� r-l)v &'Y&1Tr/V von Kol 3 : 14 gelte nur im

Raum der Gemeinde und nicht fiir das Verha1ten im den Strukturen der Welt.

Ich kann darum L. Goppelt an diesem Punkt nur widersprechen, wenn er

erklart, nirgends werde der Liebeserweis zur massgeblichen Richtschnur des

Handelns in den Standen gemacht . . .' Schrage has misquoted Goppelt who

carefully said that non·resistan t love is not the guideline for society' s

institutions. Gop pelt says very plainly that 'die Christen auch i n den Standen

durchweg aus Liebe handeln sollen. ' I think Goppelt would agree when

Schrage says, with H. D. Wendland ('Sozialethik,' p 76 ), 'da nach den Haustafeln die Liebe auch in die profane Strukturen der Gesellschaft eindringt, die mitmenschlichen Beziehungen dadurch ihrer Eigengesetzlichkeit entrissen

und zum Ort liebenden Dienstes und Daseins fiir den anderen werden'

(NTS 2 1 / 1 , p 14).

98 'Doing good' to one's neighbor (I Thess 5: 1 5 ; Gal 6 : 1 0) is what one does

when one 'does no wrong to his neighbor'; and this according to Rom 1 3 : 1 0

is love.

Notes

220

99 Delling ( TDNT VIII) makes the following observations on the meaning of

V1TOT�aao).lat: 'Y 1Torciaao).lat does not mean so much "to obey" - though this

may result from self-subordination - or to do the will of someone, but

rather "to Jove or surrender one's own rights or will" ' (p 40). 'In the New

Testament the verb does not immediately carry with it the thought of

obedience . . . To obey or to have to obey, with no emphasis, is a sign of

subjection or subordination. The latter is decisive as regards the content

of the word' (p 4 1 ). 'In ii1Torciaaea0at the supremacy of the lmepcixwv is

acknowledged to be legitimate' (p 43). While Delling takes the emphasis

off obedience he does not, so far as I can tell, remove obedience as a

necessary part of the concept, for if subj ection involves surrendering your

own will and acknowledging the legitimacy of the superior, then obedience

must result. This is evident too if we note that it would make little sense to

Paul for a Christian to say : I am subordinate to you but I will not obey you.

Obedience is a necessary part of lmor&aaeaOat (assuming one's superior is

making any demands) even if this is not his primary focus. Similarly

Schroeder, Haustafeln , p 1 2 1 .

1 0 0 S o Kelly, ! Peter, p 1 36 ; Selwyn, ! Peter, p 1 89.

1 0 1 On the general problem area see especially Goppelt, Christologie, pp 102, 1 3 6 ,

1 90-206, 208-1 9 and the literature there mentioned.

Chapter 5 . The Gospel Tradition of Jesus' Command of Enemy Love and its Use in

Matthew and Luke

1 For a development of this view of the gospel tradition, see Roloff, Kerygma.

2 It is possible, as Jeremias (Bergpredigt, p 1 7) observes, that m any of the

variations in the Serm on on the Mount and the Senn on on the Plain are

due to different translations of one Aramaic tradition . Were this the case ,

our remarks on the difficulty of detennining what is redactional and what

is traditional would still hold because we do not know at what level in the

tradition the Aramaic was translated. That is, we do not know how much

alteration may have occurred between translation and the final redaction.

3 What arrangement these elements were in depends on the answer one gives

to the question of the originality of Mt's antithesis (p 5 1 ff).

4 It does not follow from this uncertainty that the antitheses will have no

redactional significance.

5 Whether one accepts as primary Lk 's 'ungrateful and evil' (6 : 3 6 ) or M t's

'evil and good . . . just and unjust' (5 :45) will depend again on whether

one thinks the sixth antithesis is original in which M t's 'good and evil' is

paralleled by 'neighbor and enemy.'

6 Note that this would mean that neither M t nor Lk gives the original Vorlage

at this point.

7 Compare Mt 5 :44b with 5 : !Off; 5 :4 7 with 5 : 20 ; and 5 :48 with 1 9 : 2 1 .

8 C f Jeremias, Bergpredigt, p 26 : 'Der Schlag auf die rechte Wange, der

Schlag mit dem Handriicken , ist noch heute im Orient der entehrende

Schlag.'

9 See note 105 . Each of these Jewish elements has been changed or omitted

in the Hellenistically oriented Lukan tex t.

10 Dibelius, From Tradition to Gospel, p 246 .

1 1 Jeremias, Bergpredigt, p p 2 1 f.

Ch. 5: Jesus ' command in the gospel tradition

221

12 Dodd, Gospel, pp S2f. Similarly Brown (NTS 10, p 46) who sees the use of

Q behind the New Testament epistles: 'If we agree that the epistles (or the

catechism ) drew from Q, it is clear they used it very selectively. They chose

the abstract formula rather than the image : or if they take the image, they

treat it merely literally . . . '

1 3 Filson , JBL 60, p 328. Even though this statement does not take explicit

cognizance of the interpretive element in the gospel records, it still brings

out a valid distinction, because the interpretation in the gospel records is

performed on a different level than that of the paraenetic tradition. All is

couched in terms of the history of Jesus.

14 Coming at the problem from the sociological side, Gerd Theissen (ZThK 70)

writes: 'Ethischer Radikalismus macht die Worte Jesu absolut untauglich

zur Regelung alltiiglichen Verhaltens. Urn so mehr stellt sich das Problem :

Wer hat solche Worte 30 Jahre und liinger mundlich tradiert? Wer hat sie

ernst genommen? Wer hat sie ernst nehmen konnen?' (p 248). He is dealing

specifically with commands like Lk 14: 26 (hate relatives) rather than the

command of enemy love, but he seems to draw generalizing conclusions.

The answer he gives to the question he just asked is : 'wandernde Charismatiker, die Apostel, Propheten und Missionaren,' as we see e.g. in Did XI.

S f (p 253). 'Der ethischer Radikalismus der Wortuberlieferung ist Wanderradikalismus. Er liisst sich nur unter extrem en Lebensbedingungen praktizieren und tradieren' (p 252). It seems to me unjustified to conclude that only those homeless wandering preachers who literally followed Jesus'

commands could have handed down these commands. Theissen

acknowledges that we owe the preservation of these commands to the

gospels where they remain within 'Darstellungen des Lebens Jesu , die ausnahmslos auf eine vergangene Epoche zuruckschauen' (p 270). Is it not possible that the historical interest which m otivated the evangelists to

preserve these impractical commands was also present at an earlier stage, so

that the apostles may have preserved the sayings from the first at least

partly out of such an interest? The picture of Peter, for example, before

(Mk 2 : 1 9 ) imd after (I Cor 9 : 5 ) the resurrection is not one of a man who

followed the radical commands literally, but he was surely involved in their

transmission (Acts 2 : 4 2 ; 6 :4 , cf Gerhardsson, Memory, pp 24 0f).

1 5 One work in this area which draws the same general conclusion is David

Dungan's Sayings; see especially pp 144-150. See Larsson , Vorbild, p 2 7 :

'Fur uns genugt hervorzuheben, dass wir dank der neueren Forschungsresultate auf diesem Gebiet berechtigter sind als vorher, anzunehmen, dass Paulus bedeutungsvolle Elemente des Materials kannte und verwendete, das

nun unsere Evangelien enthalten. ' For exemplary study see Riesenfeld,

'Schiitzesammeln,' pp 4 7-5 8 : 'Der unabkommliche Schluss-satz ist, dass die

Evangelientradition in ihren noch nicht ftxierten Formen schon friih den

lokalen Gemeinden bekannt war und bei ihnen vorausgesetzt werden

konnte' (p 50).

16 It would be beyond the scope of this study to enter into the detailed

discussion of the general problem : Jesus and Paul. This discussion has,

however, been the larger background against which I have carried on my

own investigation. I hope that my observations will shed some m ore light

on the whole question of Paul 's relation to the historical Jesus and

Notes

222

specifically to the gospel tradition. For a list of those who think the

teaching of Jesus played a maj or role in shaping the paraenetic tradition of

the early church, see Chapter 2 , note 1 78 . For the opposite view , see note

1 7 9 of the same chapter.

1 7 Barrett, Gospel Tradition , p 1 2 : 'It is still true that we are confronted in

primitive Christianity with two traditions [in Paul and in the Gospels] . . .

and we have so far been able neither to identify them , nor to explain the

relation between them. '

1 8 Sanders, Tendencies, p 296 : 'Just what the method of transmission in

Christianity was remains an open question. ' More recently B. Fjiirstedt still

writes concerning the period of oral tradition between Jesus and Mark, 'We

have the bud and the full blossom , so to speak, but cannot find out what

happened in between' (Synoptic Tradition, pp 14, 38).

19 Dodd, 'Catechism,' p 1 16 (my italics).

20 Dodd, 'Catechism , ' p 1 16 (my italics). Similarly Filson , JBL 60, p 328.

2 1 Gerhardsson, Memory, p 295.

2 2 Gerhardsson, in his subsequent work, Tradition, emphasized the singularity

of Jesus as a teacher without contemporary analogy (p 4 1 ); and he stressed

that 'the early church regarded its work on the Word as a charismatic work

. . . It would of course be a grave mistake if we were to regard the work

carried out on the Word by the first Christians as a purely intellectual

activity of the m odern secularized academic type. But we should be alm ost

equally mistaken if we were to underestimate the rational mechanisms

which were obviously operative in the activity of the early Church' (p 46).

2 3 Hoffmann, 'Anfiinge der Theologie,' pp 149f. The opposite of Hoffmann's

view of Q may be found in Bammel, NTS 18, p 105 : 'Q is not interested in

the world outside the community, for it lacks all missionary features and

certainly social impetus and political activity. '

2 4 Gerhardsson, Memory, p 3 3 5 ; 'We must distinguish in principle between

this transmission in the strict meaning of the word, and the many uses to

which the transmitted oral texts were put. ' I. H. Marshall (Luke, p 48)

writes: 'The epistles of J ohn are free from the type of historical material

found in the Gospel of John. This is a compelling indication that the two

types of m aterial were deliberately kept separate . . . It would seem

legitimate to conclude that the Gospel tradition was a distinct stream in

the early church with its own special channel of transmission.' Cf similarly

Goppelt, Apostolic Times, pp 154ff; 'Haustafel,' p 1 04 . In Jesus of Nazareth

G. N . Stanton argues successfully 'that the early church was interested in

the past of Jesus' (p 186) and 'that the church referred to the past of Jesus

as part of its preaching, especially its missionary preaching' (p 1 8 8 ). His

concern is to show that 'there is no dichotomy between the gospel tradition's concern with the life and character of Jesus and their use in preaching' (p 1 8 3 ), and that 'the resurrection faith of the church did not

obscure the past of Jesus. On the contrary the resurrection acted as a

catalyst which encouraged the retention of traditions which told about the

past of Jesus . . .' (p 1 9 1 ). While I find his argument persuasive, I see some

ambiguity in his presentation of the Sitz im Leben of the gospel tradition.

Although stressing {with Dibelius) the primacy of missionary preaching as

the Sitz im L eben of the gospel tradition, he does admit that 'many parts

Ch. 5: Jesus • command in Mt and Lk

223

of the traditions could have been used effectively in a variety of settings in

the early church' (p 1 8 1 ). This seems to suggest, as I have, that there was a

gospel tradition preserved distinct from the various forms of teaching and

preaching in which it was used. Yet Stanton does not discuss the existence

of such a stream of tradition. It is unclear to me therefore how he conceives

the handing d own of the gospel tradition.

25 Riesenfeld, The Gospel Tradition, p 2 3 . See W. D. Davies' critique of the

Scandinavian approach in 'Reflections,' pp 14-3 4 . He doubts that the

tradition was so fixed as Gerhardsson's 'Holy Word' implies (p 1 9 ) but

agrees that the gospel tradition 'must be understood in the light of Pharisaic

usage in dealing with oral tradition' (p 16).

26 Cf Schutz , Der leidende Christus, p 19: 'Die redaktionsgeschichtliche Forschung hat . . . d ie Freiheit der Evangelisten bei der Aktualisierung ubernommener Tradition deutlich gemacht. So kann von einer Aktualisierung der Tradition durch den Evangelisten auf seine theologische Intention

geschlossen werden. Fur den Exegeten kann eine solche Tradition jedoch

auch dann fUr das Anliegen der Evangelisten transparent werden, wenn sich

keine redaktionellen Eingriffe feststellen lassen. Tradition kann in sich

aktuell sein, so dass sie ohne Veranderungen ubernommen werden kann. '

Similarly Marshall, Luke, p p 19f.

27 The primary concern here is with what Mt perceived to be the historical

teaching of Jesus, not with what contemporary critical scholarship has

determined it to have actually been. See 'Approach and Methodology,'

pp 1 39-4 1 .

2 8 Walker, Heilsgeschichte, p 34 . Similarly Ziener, 'Synoptische Frage,' p 1 76 ;

Eichholz , Bergpredigt, p 16 ; Jeremias, Bergpredigt, p 1 6 .

29 See for example E. Schweizer, NTS 16/3, p p 2 24ff; Held, Wundergeschich ten,

pp 234ff.

30 I view the following comment by Perrin (Rediscovering, p 16), therefore,

as far too one-sided : 'So far as we can tell today there is no single pericope

anywhere in the gospels, the present purpose of which is to preserve a

historical reminiscence of the earthly Jesus, although there m ay be som e

which do i n fact come near to doing so because a reminiscence, especially

of an aspect of teaching, such as a parable, could be used to serve the

purpose of the Church or the evangelist. ' Against this view is the betterbalanced one of L. Goppelt: 'Matthaus hat einerseits die Sachzusammenhiinge gesehen, in denen die Gebote Jesu gegeben wurden und in denen sie allein sinnvoll sind. Er stellt die Bergpredigt zuniichst nicht wie im Sinne

der klassischen Formgeschichte oft behauptet wurde, als Gemeindekatechismus

zusammen , sondern bewusst berich tend als Zusammenfassung der offentlichen Predigt Jesu' (Christologie, p 4 1 ).

3 1 Manson, Teaching, p 5 1 : 'In either case [M t or Lk] the issue would be

nudism , a sufficient indication that it is a certain spirit that is being com mended to o u r notice not a regulation th a t is to be slavishly carried out.'

So Rengstorf, Lukas, p 8 9 .

3 2 W e do not mean t o say here that M t always renders the tradition of Jesus'

words without casuistical alteration. Mt 5 : 3 2/Lk 16 : 1 8 and Mt 1 9 : 9/Mk

1 0 : 1 1 , for example, show the contrary. Cf Strecker, Weg, p 1 3 2 : 'In Form

einer Ausnahmeregel hat Mt den Gemeindebedurfnissen Rechnung getragen

Notes

224

und den urspriinglichen Radikalismus zugunsten eines praktikablen Gesetzes

aufgegeben.' For other examples in Strecker, see pp 134ff, 180ff, 222ff.

3 3 Cf Trilling, Wahre Israel, p 3 1 : 'So gilt fiir Matthiius die Gleichung Junger

= Christ, zum Junger machen = zum Christ machen. '

3 4 Strecker, Weg, p 134 : 'Dass ein Grossteil der Reden des Evangeliums

unmittelbar den Gemeindeverhiiltnissen angepasst ist, so dass er geradezu

als Gemeindeordnung bezeichnet werden kann . . . ist bekannt und braucht

an dieser Stelle nicht ausgefiihrt zu werden. ' Trilling, Wahre Israel, p 2 13 :

'Der tradierte Stoff wird so umgestaltet, das seine Aussage transparent und

unmittelbar auf die Situation der Kirche anwendbar wird. '

3 5 Mt's 6twKovrwv may well b e his own (against Lk's E11'1"/PeO<�ov!l'wv 6 : 2 8) in

view of the three-fold use of 6 twKw in 5 : 10-1 2 against Lk. This would

mean that Mt is not mechanically taking over this command, but is conscious of its intention which he makes clear by equating the object of prayer precisely with those who persecute on account of Jesus (5 : 1 1 ).

36 Bultmann, Jesus, p 80: 'Es gibt also keinen Gehorsam gegen Gott im luftleeren Raume, keinen Gehorsam losgelost von der konkreten Situation , in der ich als Mensch unter Menschen stehe, keinen Gehorsam, der sich direkt

auf Gott rich tet ' (my italics). See similarly Bornkamm, Jesus, p

On

the other side see Schnackenburg, 'Mitmenschlichkeit,' p 8 3 , who, in

opposition to H. Braun, states : 'Wer nur nach Mitmenschlichkeit strebt

braucht nicht nach der Bergpredigt zu greifen, sie ist nur dem verstandlich

der an Gott glaubt und sich ihm konfrontiert.'

37 The Lord's Prayer is the center and heart of the Sermon on the M ount

because it offers that without which all of the commands of the Sermon

would be lifeless. If the Father's will could be done without dependence

on the Father in prayer, there would be no need for the prayer : 'Let thy

will be done ! ' Thus the prayer should be related to each command as the

heart is related to all the parts of a living body. Besides the parallels noted

above, we may cite further:

6 : 3 3 Seek first the Kingdom .

6 : 10 Pray that the Kingdom come.

7 : 2 1 Only the one who does the

6 : 10 Pray that the Father might

will of the Father will enter

let his will be done.

the Kingdom.

6 : 25 D on't be anxious about what 6 : 1 1 Pray that the Father give you

you shall eat.

your daily bread.

7 : 15 Beware of false prophets who 6 : 13 Pray that you not be led

come to you in sheep's

into temptation.

clothing.

38 Furnish, Love, p 6 7 : 'There is nothing here about "making the enemy into

a friend".' He gives literature on both sides in note 1 3 9 . L. Schottroff

('Gewaltverzicht,' p 2 1 5 ) has argued forcefully that 'Die Feindesliebeforderung ist Appell zu einer missionarischen Hal tung gegeniiber den Verfol-gern . . . Dieser Anspruch diirfte den Feinden durchaus nicht gefallen

haben . . . Feindesliebe ist Inhalt christlicher Verkiindigung, aber auch

missionarisches Mittel . . . . "Besiege das Bose durch das Gute" (Rom 1 2 ,

2 1 ) trifft die Feindesliebeforderung voll. E s geht u rn einen Sieg tiber die

Ch. 5: Jesus ' command in Mt and Lk

225

Feinde , nicht urn " Selbstauslieferung ans Bose" [cf I Pt 3: 1 ] . . . Der

Feind soli gewonnen werden , er soli iiberzeugt werden , ein anderes Leben

zu fiihren und an der christlichen Hoffnung Anteil zu haben . '

3 9 M t's li tw KoVTwv (5 :44b) parallels his threefold use o f 6 t.WKw in

where i t i s a persecution o f the disciples for Jesus'/righteousness' sake.

Thus he stresses that those for

we are to pray are precisely those

who oppose us and God most violently.

40 While it is true that the greeting in the Orient had a greater significance

than for us (Strack-Billerbeck I, p 3 80), and certain Rabbis laid great

stress on greeting all men (Klostermann, MatthiiUsevangelium, p 5 1 ),

nevertheless we probably should not see in the greeting here an eschatological blessing such as Lk 1 0 :5 (Schmauch , Matthtius, p 1 5 0). This is forbidden by the sentence: 'The gentiles do the same.'

41 The term 'brother' in 5 :4 7 probably means nothing m ore than the member

of a mutual admiration society since, on the one hand , it is parallel with

'those who love you' (v 46) and, on the other hand, the gentiles are said to

do the same, namely to greet their brothers (which means that 'brothers'

cannot mean simply disciples or Israelites).

4 2 With the addition of rotlrou� (7 : 24 ,26 ; contrast Lk 6 :4 7 ,49), Mt focuses

attention on the words just spoken in the Sermon on the M ount.

43 Occurs in Lk 3 times; Mk once ; Mt 1 0 times, only 2 of which are already

given in Mk or Q (7 :5 ; 1 5 : 7 ) ; cf 6 : 2,5 , 1 6 ; 2 2 : 8 ; 23 : 1 3 , 14 , 1 5 ; 24 : 5 1 .

4 4 The differences between Lk 1 1 : 3 9-4 1 and M t 23 : 25-26 are s o great that

we cannot say certainly that they were using a common source. It is not

possible therefore to determine how much of M t 23 : 26 is due to M t's

redaction. In view of M t's tendency to make logical connections explicit

(see note 5 2 ) , Strecker (Weg, p 3 1 ) may be right when he claims : 'Jedenfalls wird das interpretierende l.'va! (gegen Lk 1 1 :4 1 ; vgl. 26 : 4 , 1 6 u.i:i.) mattbiiisch sein.'

45 Mt 23 : 25 refers to ceremonial purity and thus grants to the 'hypocrites'

that they have cleansed the outside. When 23 : 26 then has external purity

for its aim (iva) this can only refer to ethical behavior in general. So

Strecker, Weg, p 3 2 .

46 Mt 7 : 1 8 i s unique t o Mt, but was possibly taken over b y him from the

tradition.

4 7 Insofar as forgiveness is a necessary element of enemy love, the heart is

the source of this love ; for, as Mt 1 8 : 3 5 says, true forgiveness must come

'from y our heart.'

4 8 Thielicke, Ethics I , p 355 . Discussing the inadequacy of the view which

sees the Sermon on the Mount as advocating merely a new disposition he

insists rightly that the demands probe much deeper : 'Now it is precisely

here, in this innermost part over which I have no control, that I am called

into question. This can only mean that what is innermost is imputed to

me; I am responsible for it and must acknowledge it as "mine".'

4 9 Even if Tfi"Aew� in Mt 5 :48 is original, 19 : 2 1 shows that it took on a special

significance for Mt. See p 6 3 .

5 0 S e e m y methodological reflections o n p 1 4 1 .

5 1 ' Eaea8 e is an imperatival future ; Dana and Mantey, Grammar, p 192. This

usage corresponds to that of 5 : 2 1 ,27,3 3 ,4 3 . An indicative statement

Notes

226

introduced by 'therefore' would, moreover, in this context m ake no sense.

52 M t tends to make logical connections explicit. Cf M t 7 : 1 2/Lk 6 : 3 1 ; M t

8 : 34/Mk 5 : 1 7 . Of the 13 instances of obv in the Sermon on the Mount

(5 : 19 ,23 ,4 8 ; 6 : 2 ,8 ,9 ,22,3 1 ,34 ; 7: 1 1 , 1 2 ,24 ), eight introduce imperatives

which follow logically from immediately preceding indicatives.

53 Trilling, Wahre Israel, p 195 : '5 :48 greift auf 5 : 20 zuriick und schliesst die

Antithesen ab . '

54 The appeal t o tax collectors and gentiles i s i n a sense inconsistent with the

theme of surpassing the most rigid law keepers (scribes and Pharisees,

5 : 20). Nevertheless the motif of doing more is obvious in both texts as in

6 : 7 ,3 2 . The inconsistency is probably due to M t's intention to juxtapose

Jesus' command to both a legalistic and libertine front (see pp 1490.

Moreover, the argument of the rhetorical questions (5 :46f) w ould collapse

if tax collectors and gentiles were replaced by scribes and Pharisees.

55 G. Barth, Gesetzesverstiindnis, p 9 1 : Tl:ll.er.o� is 'das Mehr, das die Tater der

Lehre Jesu von anderen unterscheidet, es ist das Merkmal der Gemeinde. '

56 That M t i s probably dependent o n M k i s shown from the following. ( 1 )

The story occurs i n the same series o f events i n Mt and Mk : departure t o

Judea Mt 1 9 : 1 /Mk 1 0 : 1 ; o n divorce and celibacy M t 1 9 : 3 -1 2 /Mk 1 0 : 2- 1 2 ;

Jesus blesses the children Mt 1 9 : 1 3-15/M k 1 0 : 1 3-16 ; the rich young m an

Mt 1 9 : 16-22/Mk 1 0 : 1 7-22 ; on riches and the rewards of discipleship

Mt 1 9 : 23-30/Mk 1 0 : 23-3 1 . (2) The basic line of conversation is the same

in both gospels. (3) The alterations by M t can be explained from his

redactional interests.

57 Cf Held , Wundergeschichten, p 224, where he shows 'wie sehr der Evangelist

Matthaus in der Form des Gespraches denkt und schreibt.'

5 8 I take this to be the intention behind having the youth ask, 'Which?' (M t

1 9 : 1 8).

5 9 This and the following argument are found in G. B arth, Gesetzesverstiindnis,

pp 8 9f.

60 St Jerome, Commentarium in Evangelium Matthaei, PL 26 : 142, quoted in

Spicq, Agape I , p 24 . Spicq also quotes a similar interpretation from the

Gospel according to the Hebrews (according to the Latin pseudo-Origen,

PG 1 3 : 1 393-94): 'and the Lord said to him : "How sayest thou: I have kept

the law and the prophets? For it is written in the law : Thou shalt love thy

neighbor as thyself, and lo, many of thy brethren, sons of Abraham, are

clad in filth, dying for hunger, and thine house is full of many good things,

and nought at all goeth out of it unto them . " '

6 1 Similarly Trilling, Wahre Israel, p 193 ; Stonehouse, Origins, p 9 8 : Bornkamm , 'Enderwartung,' p 26 ; Barth, 'Gesetzesverstandnis,' p 9 3 . B anks (Jesus and the Law, p 1 6 3 ) concludes to the contrary, that 'what Jesus

requires here is something altogether new, more a surpassing of the Law

than a radicalization. ' But his arguments do not take into account the

p ossibility that the young man 's conviction that he had 'kept all these' may

not have been true.

6 2 I disagree with Guelich (Annul) at this p oint because he says the love

command is inserted here (Mt 1 9 : 1 9 ) for the same reason as in Mt 5 :4 3 ,

namely t o represent the Old Testament commandments 'in terms of

their legal implications' (p 1 0 1 ) which are then 'countered by Jesus'

Ch. 5: Jesus ' command in Mt and Lk

22 7

radical demand' (p 1 00). But as Goppelt (Christologie, p 32) says, 'In

Mt 1 9 : 1 7-2 1 nennt Jesus dem reichen Jiingling gegeniiber die Gebote

der zweiten Tafel des Dekalogs samt dem Liebesgebot nicht, wie in den

Antithesen als rechtlich begrenzte Bestimmungen, sondern als apodiktische

Gebote.' For this reason Jesus does not 'counter' the commandments but

says 'If you would enter into life keep the commandments ! ' ( 1 9 : 1 7). Thus

it is inappropriate to say that in this text Jesus demanded 'a conduct which

exceeded by far the Law 's requirements' (Guelich, p 9 3 ). What Jesus does

'counter' and does 'exceed' is the young man's idea of his own obedience

to the will of God. Perhaps we can paraphrase Jesus' response following

the pattern of Mt 1 2 : 7 (cf 9 : 1 3 ) : 'If you knew what this really means:

"Love your neighbor as yourself," you would not have excused yourself so

easily, saying, "I have kept this commandment" even though you love your

riches more than the poor. I will show you what

wills : perfection.

Therefore sell your goods, give to the poor and follow me.'

6 3 Bornkamm , 'Enderwartung. ' p 26 . Cf G. Barth, Gesetzesverstiindnis, p 9 3 :

'Die Vollkommenheit besteht in der Nachfolge. '

64 Cf Strecker, Weg, pp 1 9 1 ff, 230ff, Trilling, Wahre Israel, pp 28ff; Bornkamm,

'Enderwartung' pp 26ff; G. Barth, Gesetzesverstiindnis, pp 88-1 16 ; Held,

Wundergeschichten, pp 1 7 l ff, 1 89ff.

6 5 Cf 'for my sake,' 'for my name's sake': M t 5 : 1 1 ; 1 0 : 1 8 ,22,39 ( 1 6 : 25 ;

1 9 : 2 9 ; 24 : 9 taken from Mk).

6 6 Other texts where Mt stresses the suffering of the disciples : 5: !Off; 1 0 : 1 7ff;

1 6 : 24ff; 2 3 : 3 2 ff.

6 7 Bornkamm , 'Sturmstillung,' p 5 2 . Cf Mt's insertion of l]Ko;\ov87Jacw (8 : 2 3 )

and the cry of the disciples: KVPLE awaov (8: 25).

6 8 Mt develops the same motif in 1 4 : 28-3 3 : Peter wants to come to Jesus; he

sees the waves and

he calls to Jesus for help ; Jesus saves him and

rebukes his 'little faith.'

6 9 See G. Barth, Gesetzesverstiindnis, pp 1 1 7ff for the relation of Christology

and ethic in Mt. 'Die Annahme erscheint daher berechtigt, dass iiberhaupt

die Christologie der Grund ist, der M t zu der obengezeigten Auslegung des

Gesetzes durch Liebesgebot und Nachfolge gefiihrt hat.'

7 0 Trilling, Wahre Israel, p 1 1 5 : 'Im Matthaus geht es eben urn die rechte

Gottesverehrung iiberhaupt; sie kann gegen pharisaische Scheinheiligkeit

wie auch gegen heidnische Unsitte abgegrenzt werden.'

7 1 Bornkamm , 'Sturmstillung,' p 5 2 : 'Es fmdet sich ausser Lk 1 2 : 1 8 nur bei

ihm . . . und zwar immer zur Bezeichnung eines schwachen Glaubens, der

in Sturm (8 :26 ; 14 : 3 1 ) und Sorge (6 : 3 0 ; 1 6 : 8 ) erlahmt und damit sich

als Scheinglaube erweist ( 1 7 : 20), der dem Ansturm damonischer Gewalten

nicht gewachsen ist.'

7 2 Similarly in 1 0 : 2 0 the reason the disciples are not to b e anxious abou t how

to speak is that 'the spirit of your Father (against Lk's 'Holy Spirit') is

speaking in you.' In 1 0 : 29 it is your Father

Lk's 'God') who is

concerned even for the sparrows. Therefore (redactional obv 10 : 3 1 ) you

should not fear since you are of more

than the sparrows. Cf 1 8 : 14 .

7 3 Similarly Goppelt, Christologie, p 3 9 : the commands o f the Sermon o n the

Mount 'werden realisierbar, wenn Gott, wie Matthaus besonders betont, fiir

die Menschen zum Vater wird . . .' Also Jeremias, Theology, p 2 1 7 . It is

No tes

228

probably no accident that M t connected the Golden Rule (7 : 1 2 ) to the

preceding saying on the Father's generosity with obv. This accords with

Mt's conception of God's fatherhood and ethics. We are called to fulftl the

love command precisely because the Father is generous and will give us the

necessary resources. It is thus unnecessary, with Furnish (Love, p 5 7), to

ascribe to Mt's obv a mere summary function.

74 Trilling, Wahre Israel, p 3 0 : 'Nur von [Jiingern] kann gesagt werden, dass sie

den Willen Gottes tun. Doch auch das Umgekehrte gilt: ein JUnger ist

(nur) der, der den Willen des Vaters tut' (cf p 1 89). See also Barth ,

'Gesetzesverstandnis,' p 9 5 .

7 5 Goppelt, Christologie, p 3 1 : 'Die Antithesen kennzeichnen die vom Alten

Testament herkommenden Weisungen Gottes als von M enschen zu vollstreckenden Rechtssatze, die das Zusammenleben der M enschen ermoglichen wenn das Bose eine nicht zu beseitigende, nur einzuschrankende Gegebenheit ist. ' Guelich , Annul, p 200 : The premises designate 'neither the Old Testament law as such nor the specific scribal interpretation of the law,

but rather the legal ramifications of the law's demands.' Bornkamm,

'Enderwartung,' p 22: 'Ihr [ die Antithesenreihe ] durchgangiges M otiv ist der

Durchstoss durch ein in formale Rechtssatze verkehrtes Gesetz, hinter

dessen Ordnung das ungehorsame Herz des M enschen sich in Ordnung

wiihnt . . .'

76 Trilling, Christusverkiindigung, p 100 : 'Nur dann wenn man die Antithesen

zusammen und jede einzelne in dem durch 5 : 1 7-19 bereiteten Verstiindnis

auslegt, handelt man entsprechend der Intention des Evangelisten. '

7 7 For a concise description of the distinction between apodictic and casuistic

law , see Mendenhall, Law and Covenant, pp 6-1 1 .

7 8 This i s one o f the clearest distinctions between M t's use o f the sayings on

enemy love and Lk's use of them : for Lk the problem of the law is, by

comparison, of minor significance; KUmmel, /ntroductior., p 1 05 .

7 9 Strecker (Weg, p 1 3 6 ) considers (with Haenchen, ZThK 4 8 , p 4 9 ) that M t's

form is primary to Lk 1 1 :4 2 , but thinks (with Bornkamm , 'Enderwartung,'

pp 23f) that it is to be understood within M t's own larger conception.

80 Bornkam m , 'Doppelgebot,' p 4 5 . So also G. Barth, Gesetzesverstiindnis,

p 74 ; and E. Schweizer, NTS 16/3 , p 2 16 : 'The commandment to love

one's neighbor is for Mt the key that opens the new understanding of the

law . ' Cf Strecker, Weg, pp 1 36 , 147.

81 Again the primary concern here is with what Lk perceived to be the

historical teaching of Jesus, not with what contemporary critical scholarship has determined it to have actually been. See 'Approach and Methodology,' p 140.

8 2 Conzelmann, Luke, p 45.

83 Bartsch, Wachet, p 6 7 . See also ThZ 1 6 , pp 5 - 1 8 .

8 4 Bartsch, Wachet, p 75 : 'Als wesentliches Ergebnis des Vergleichs der

Fe1drede mit der Bergpredigt, dass die eschatologische Ausrichtung das

Wesensmerkmal der Feldrede ist, demgegenUber die Bergpredigt bereits

starker von der Paranese bestimmt ist, ohne die eschatologische Ausrichtung

damit zu verlieren. '

85 Bartsch, Wachet, p 76.

86 Baumbach, Bosen, p 1 26 .

Ch. 5: Jesus ' command in Mt and Lk

229

87 Baumbach , Bosen, p 1 2 7 .

88 Baumbach, Bosen, p 1 2 7 .

89 Schiirmann, BZ NS 1 0 , p 5 7 .

90 Schiirmann, B Z N S 1 0 , p 5 8 .

9 1 Schiirmann , BZ N S 1 0, p 5 8 .

92 Schiirmann, B Z NS 1 0, p 80.

93 Schiirm ann , BZ NS 10, pp 60f.

94 Schiirmann, BZ NS 1 0, p 60.

95 Schiirmann, BZ NS 1 0 , p 59 : 'Lukas sieht in ihn das Vor- und Urbild der

christlichen Gemeinde. '

9 6 Degenhardt, Lukas, p 2 1 5 .

97 Degenhardt, Lukas, p 2 1 5 .

9 8 Schiirmann (BZ NS 1 0, p 5 9 ) observes that only one other place besides

6: 1 7 does the group of disciples swell to a 'multitude,' namely at the

triumphal entry into Jerusalem ( 1 9 : 3 7 ): 'man mi:ichte wiederum meinen

zeichenhaftprophetisch . ' Thus in these two places Lk probably envisions

proleptically the involvement of the whole church.

99 The fact that the beatitudes and woes (6 : 20-26 ) as well as the final parable

(cf 6 :46) are in the second person form of direct address (different from

Mt) also shows that we have here public proclam ation.

100 Flender, Heil, pp 28f. He points out further that in Lk the same saying

can be addressed once to the disciples (8 : 1 6 ) and once to the people

( 1 1 : 3 3).

1 0 1 Since we are not concerned primarily with the whole Sermon on the Plain

we cannot discuss the question how all the elements of Lk's composition

are relevant for his situation. Schiirmann (BZ NS 1 0 , pp 6 l f) has attempted

to answer this question in some detail. He divides the main section of the

sermon into two halves : 'Unverkennbar handelt . . . 6 : 27-45 in unreflektiert

positiver Darlegung (V 2 7-3 8 ) und in reflektierter Abhebung (V 39-45)

vom neuen Gebot Jesu . ' He describes the situation behind the second half

as follows : 'Es gibt in d en Gemeinden bzw. in ihren Umkreis Lehrer, die

sich als FUhrer anbieten (V 3 9 ) und die oben (V 2 7-3 8 ) dargelegte Lehre

des einzigen Lehrers hinaus wollen (vgl V 40); die mehr fordern als J esus

das tat, und die von diesem "Mehr" her sich Kritik am christlichen Gemeindcleben erlauben, dabei aber Jesu Liebesgebot selbst nicht Ieben (V 4 1 ) und deren "Reden" (V 4 5 ) schlechten Friichten (V 4 3 f) gleichen . ' He cites

the commentaries of Zahn, Schlatter, Rengstorf and Grundmann as those

who similarly see in 6 :39-4 5 an address to the 'Lehrstand' in Lk 's church .

102 Van Unnik, NovTest 8, p 298.

103 Van Unnik, Nov Test 8 , p 299.

1 04 Wrege, Bergpredigt, p 89.

105 Although the custom was not unique to Palestine (Epictetus, Discourses

IV. l . 7 9 : 'You ought to treat your whole body like a poor loaded-down

donkey . . . and if it be commandeered and a soldier lay hold of it, let it

go, do not resist nor grumble.'), it would have been especially onerous

there (cf M t 2 7 : 3 2 ) because of the hated foreign occupation. To the

Greeks it may not have been the burden it was to the Jews.

106 Cf Taylor, Formation, p 96 'We can hardly trace the S emitic parallelism

to the hand of the Gentile Evangelist. ' See also note 1 3 7 of Chapter 2. The

Notes

230

'distinctive pattern' referred to can be seen in Lk 6 : 29-3 0 : the sequence

dative participle - present p ositive imperative - lmo and participle -

negative imperative in 6 : 29 is duplicated in the following verse. For Mt's

different form principle see note 1 3 8 of Chapter 2 .

107 Bartsch, Wachet, p 69. Note : Mt's order o f xtrwva and iJJ.&nov i s reversed in

Lk 6 : 29 apparently to show that a theft is in view (so that the outer

garment is grabbed first) instead of a legal claim of the shirt. In addition,

instead of M t's command to loan (5 :4 2b ), Lk has the command not to

demand back what has been taken from you (6 : 30b).

108 I would agree therefore with the conclusion reached by J. Roloff (Kerygma,

p 2 70) that we must be more careful than the classical form critics in

determining 'aktualisierende Tendenzen ' in the gospel tradition and 'dass

historisierende Motive innerhalb des von uns iiberschaubaren Gestaltungsund Tradierungsprozesses der Jesusgeschichten von den Anfiingen an eine weit grossere Rolle gespielt haben, als vielfach angenommen worden ist. '

Similarly , G. Stanton, Jesus of Nazareth, p 1 7 1 .

1 09 The normal meaning o f &rreXrrl�w is 'to give up hope' or 'to desp air' of

something. Thus it is used in Josephus (Wars 4, 397 ; 5, 354); Eth. Enoch

103 : 1 0 ; Is 29 : 19 (LXX); I Clement 5 9 : 3 et a! . W. Bauer (Lexicon, p 83)

argues that the word here i n L k 6 : 3 5 , 'because of the contrast with rrap •

i:.Jv €Xm�ere Xa(Jeiv vs. 34, demands the meaning . . . expecting nothing in

return. ' The variant reading fJ.Tllleva &rreXm�ovre� ('despairing of no one,' K

W X* et a!) is rejected by the editorial committee of the BSGNT because

the reading 'which introduces into the context an alien m otive, appears to

have arisen in transcription, the result of dittography' (Metzger, Textual

Commentary , p 14 1). Perhaps Lk 's unique usage of &rreXrrl�w is influenced

by its close association with three other words compounded with the &rro

prefix which connote receiving something back: &rrexere , 6 : 24 ; lmatrei, 6 : 30 ;

&rroXa(Jwaw, 6 : 34 .

1 1 0 L k 1 5 : 2 7 ; 16 : 2 5 ; 1 8 : 30 ; 2 3 : 4 1 ; Mk 7 : 3 3 ; Rom 1 : 2 7 ; Gal 4 : 5 ; Col 3 : 24 ;

II Jn 8 .

1 1 1 Even i f some o r all of these differences from M t were pre-Lukan (which is

very hard to determine) we will see that they fit into a m otif of reciprocity

which Lk is especially concerned to combat.

1 1 2 That Lk is thinking of those who are poor in this world's goods will be

shown from the remainder of our discussion. But that he was referring

merely to the external circumstances is not likely (see notes 5 6 , 5 7 of

Chapter 3 ).

1 1 3 That 'woe' has this meaning is shown by Lk 1 0 : 1 3 f (woe to Chorazin) and

Lk 1 7 : 1f (woe to the one by whom temptations come); both meet destruction.

1 14 The occurrence of &rr€xw in Lk 6 : 24b and M t 6 : 3 ,5 , 1 6 is an even m ore

striking parallel because the word has the meaning 'receive back' only here

in the synoptics. Elsewhere it means 'be at a distance. '

1 1 5 Cf Degenhardt, Lukas, p 185 : 'Der Gegensatz zur pharisiiischen Hal tung ist

fiir ihn und seine Gemeinde nicht mehr aktuell ; im Vordergrund steht

stattdessen "der Gegensatz des Glaubens zur Besitzgebundenheit". ' Cf

Grundmann, Lukas, p 140 ; Rengstorf, Lukas, p 4 .

1 16 Van Unnik , Nov Test 8, p p 293f. Having cited texts from Dio Chrysostomus,

Ch. 5: Jesus ' command in Mt and Lk

231

Epictetus, and Lucian, he concludes, 'Dass man auch in der ntl. Zeit die

alte Praxis handhabte; dass man auch damals bestimmten Leuten Freundlichkeit bewies, i.e. reich bewirtete, urn von ihnen etwas zuriick zu empfangen.'

1 1 7 Bolkestein (Wohltiitigkeit, pp 4 7 1 f) tries to show (from Seneca and

Plutarch) how the Gegenseitigkeitsregel was overcome.

1 1 8 The parable has no parallel in the other synoptics but Jeremias shows that

the parable is not Lk's formation (Gleichnisse, p 1 82). It contains two

historical presents (op�, v 23 ; A.€-ytt, v 29) but of the 90 historical presents

in the Markan material which Lk tllkes over only one is preserved. Moreover

the story has a long prehistory and has its parallels in the rabbinic tradition.

Since we have no synoptic parallel we cannot determine where Lk may

have altered the tradition. It is possible that the vocabulary with which we

are concerned was Lk's way of providing a link between this parable and

other sayings on riches in his gospel.

1 1 9 Jeremias, Gleichnisse, p 1 8 3 : in the bosom of Abraham 'ist Bezeichnung

des Ehrenplatzes beim himmlischen Gastmahl zur Rechten (vgl. Joh 1 3 :23)

des Hausvaters Abraham. '

1 20 See also the story of Zacchaeus (Lk 1 9 : 1-10): 'Behold, Lord, th e half of

my goods I give to the poor . . . ' 'Today salvation has come to this house. '

1 2 1 The reference work consulted was Moulton and Geden, Concordance.

12 2 Nor is the selling of possessions in Acts 2 :44f; 4 : 32-3 7 meant as a pattern

to be imposed on the church of Lk's day (Conzelmann, Luke, p 233). Mary

the mother of John Mark still possessed her house (Acts 1 2 : 12) and Peter

says to Ananias of the piece of property he had sold: 'While it remained

unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold was it not in

your authority?' However the free sacrifice of many in the early Jerusalem

community for those in need must have seemed to Lk an exemplary ,

concrete fulfilment of Jesus' commands (cf Lk 12 : 3 3 ).

1 2 3 The implication of 1 0 : 3 0 is that the robbed man is a Jew . The lesson in

love comes from a Samaritan and, as Jeremias (Gleichnisse, p 202) points

out, in the time of Jesus 'es beherrschte beiderseits unversohnlicher Hass.'

1 24 Rengstorf, Lukas, p 4: 'Jesu Kampf gilt bei Lukas vor allem der allgemein

menschlichen Gefiihrdung durch den Mammon. '

1 25 He refers twice ( 1 1 :49 Q ; 2 1 : 1 2) to persecutions of Christians b y the Jews.

Note also that the reference to (Roman) conscription in Mt 5 :4 1 is missing

in Lk. Only in Lk does Jesus pray for his (Roman) executioners (23 : 34 ;

note textual uncertainty). Lk apparently weakens the original, 'I have not

come to bring peace but a sword' (Mt 1 0 : 34 ) and uses

,

'division ' instead of

'sword' (Lk 1 2 : 5 1).

1 26 It is the Jews who bear the primary blame for Jesus' death (Lk 20: 20,26 ;

23 : 2,5 , 1 8f,23 ,25 ) and Pilate and Herod are shown struggling for justice

(23 : 1 3-16 ; contrast 23 : 25 with Mk 1 5 : 1 5 and Mt 2 7 : 26). In Acts there are

no serious clashes between Christians and Romans (in 1 6 : 1 9ff and 1 9 : 23

the trouble is started by personal property interests but ends with Paul's

vindication) and it is stressed that the Romans can find no fault in this new

religion worthy of imprisonment (13 : 7 , 1 2 ; 1 6 : 3 9 ; 1 8 : 15-1 7 ; 1 9 : 35-4 1 ;

23 : 29 ; 25 :25 ; 26 : 3 2 ; 28 : 30f). C f Bruce, Acts, p 2 3 ; Kiimmel, Introduction,

p 1 14 .

Notes

232

1 2 7 See p 1 5 8 for the Lukan character of the woes .

1 2 8 Lewis, The Weight of Glory, pp l f (my italics).

1 2 9 Bornkamm, 'Lohngedanke,' p 78: 'Der Schatz im Himmel ist die Gottesherrschaft selbst. ' Cf Lk 1 2 : 3 3 ff.

1 3 0 Manson, Sayings, p 280.

1 3 1 Riesenfeld ('Schiitzesammeln,' p 4 7 ) argues that, since the texts on anxiety

(Lk 1 2 : 22-3 2/Mt 6 : 25 -3 3 ) and treasure in heaven (Lk 1 2 : 3 3 f/M t 6 : 19-2 1 )

are juxtaposed i n M t and Lk , therefore M t and L k probably found the two

texts already j oined in their sources. But this does not establish that they

had identical Vorlagen : why are M t and Lk so similar in the pericope on

anxiety and yet so different in the pericope on treasure in heaven? Manson

would assign Mt 6 : 19-20 to M and Lk 1 2 : 3 2f to Q (Sayings, pp 1 14 , 1 72).

Grundmann (Lukas, p 262) on the other hand (following Schlatter) would

see Lk 6 : 3 2f as originally attached to the parable of the rich fool (Lk 1 2 :

1 3 -2 1 ) and thus belonging to S-Lk. I t seems t o m e that the situation is

such that we cannot with certainty determine what Lk himself has added

or changed. What is plain is that in saying 'Provide yourselves with a

treasure in the heavens, ' he departs from the Matthean parallel.

1 3 2 Jeremias (Gleichnisse, p 4 3 ) points out the break between 16 : 1-8 and

1 6 : 9 and the turn the meaning takes in 1 6 : 9 . There is disagreement however

whether the interpretative saying of v 9 was added by Lk (Bultmann,

History, p 1 76 ) or whether it is 'die Stimme eines urchristlichen Predigers

. . . , der bemiiht ist, dem Gleichnis eine Lektion fiir seine Gemeinde zu

entnehmen ' (Jeremias, Gleichnisse, p 43). Compare I Tim 6 : 1 7 - 1 9 : 'As

for the rich in this world, charge them not to be haughty, nor to set their

hopes on uncertain riches but on God who richly furnishes us with everything to enjoy. They are to do good, to be rich in good deeds, liberal and generous, thus laying up for themselves a good foundation for the future,

so that they may take hold of life which is life indeed. ' Cf also Heb 1 0 : 34 ;

I Cor 9 : 24 : 'Run in order that you may obtain .'

1 3 3 There is no contradiction between this statement and Lk's emphasis that

we are to give or loan not hoping for anything back (6 : 34f; 14 : 1 3 f)

because it is clear in each text that he means we are not to calculate in

order to get back the riches of this age . He never implies that we should

not hope for 'repayment' ( 1 4 : 14) in the age to come.

134 Bultmann (History, p 103) for example, says of Lk 14 : 1 2-14, 'The saying

is much more akin to the grudging spirit of the last chapter of Eth . Enoch

than to the preaching of Jesus.' Cf also J osephus, Bellum 2.1 5 7 . In his

Theology (p 1 5 ) , Bultmann says that Jesus appealed to the motive· of

recompense and that this is a self-contradiction in his preaching. Bultmann's

attempted solution of this contradiction applies to the general problem of

reward in the gospels and will thus be instructive to cite here with a short

critique: 'The motive of reward is only a primitive expression of the idea

that in what a man does his own real being is at stake - that self which he

not already is, but is to become. To achieve that self is the legitimate

motive of ethical dealing and his true obedience, in which he becomes

aware of the paradoxical truth that in order to arrive at himself he must

surrender to the demand of God - or, in other words, that in such surrender

he wins himself' (my italics).

Conclusion

233

Bultmann is so hesitant to allow man to have an objective motive outside

himself like the reward of God, that he makes man the

and man's

becoming himself the only legitimate ethical motivation. Man cannot be

motivated by a hope for God but he may be motivated by the hope for a

complete self! It is wrong to surrender yourself in order to win God but

perfectly fine to surrender yourself in order to win self. Bultmann still lets

a man act for a reward which is future, but that thi� reward should be God

is 'primitive '; it must rather be myself1 In all this, Bultmann has left behind

the New Testament in which God in all his transcendent glory stands at

the center, not m an. Lk stresses the glory of God more than the other

synoptics : cf 2 : 9 , 14,20 ; 5 : 25f; 7 : 16 ; 9 : 26 ; 1 3 : 1 3 ; 1 7 : 15, 1 8 ; 1 8 : 4 3 ; 1 9 : 3 8 ;

2 3 : 4 7 .

1 3 5 Conzelmann, Luke, p 234.

1 3 6 'So you also when you have done all that is commanded you , say, "We are

unworthy servants; we have only done what was our duty" ' (unique to Lk).

137 Conzelmann, Luke, p 234.

1 3 8 ' . . . he is kind to the ungrateful and evil. Be merciful therefore as your

Father is m erciful' (unique to Lk).

1 3 9 'Fear not, little flock, it is your Father's good pleasure to give you

Kingdom ' (unique to Lk).

140 'And the son said to him, "Father, I have sinned against heaven and before

you ; I am no longer worthy to be called your son " ' (unique to Lk).

14 1 'But the tax collector standing afar off would not even lift up his eyes to

heaven bu t beat his breast, saying, "God be merciful to me a sinner! " I tell

you this man went down to his house justified' (unique to Lk ).

142 This would be the essential meaning of liElitKClltWJ.Levo� in 1 8 : 14. Jeremias

(Gleichnisse, p 140) cites IV Ezra 1 2 : 7 where we find the parallel : 'If I have

found favor in thy sight, if I am justified with thee . . . '

143 'Your reward wiii be great and y ou wiii be sons of the Highest. '

144 'Rejoice in that day and leap for joy for behold your reward is great in

heaven.'

145 'Blessed are you who hunger, for you shall be satisfied. ' That this 'eschatological satisfaction' is experienced already in this age is shown by ( 1 ) the presence of the Kingdom (6 : 20) and (2) the great rej oicing of the disciples

(6 : 23).

146 'Woe to you who are rich , for you have received your consolation. '

14 7 'Beware of the scribes who like to go around i n long robes and love

salutations in the market places and the best seats in the synagogues and

the places of honor at the feasts.'

148 The man is a 'fool . . . who lays up treasure for himself and is not rich

toward God. '

Conclusion

1 This function of Jesus' command of enemy Jove should not be misunderstood as an academic or bookish procedure as if the church made detailed comparisons between Jesus' saying and the sources available to them.

Rather, we should probably think of the consciousness of the early Christians being shaped and molded by their new faith in the gospel of Christ

Notes

234

and its ethical implications expressed in the words of Jesus. These words

then , as practical expressions of the gospel, functioned naturally to determine what might suitably be used to expand and apply them in the building of the paraenetic tradition.

2 The quote is taken from Goppelt's last published essay before his death :

'Jesus und die "Haustafel" -Tradition,' p 103 . For a translation of the

quote see p 1 34 .

3 Here in the conclusion I will not attempt t o distinguish between the interpretation of Jesus' command of enemy love in the written paraenesis of the New Testament and its interpretation in the oral paraenetic tradition,

nor will I attempt to discuss the interpretation of Jesus' command in the

(oral? ) gospel tradition prior to and independent of its deposit in Mt and

Lk. I tried to keep these levels of the tradition in view in the body of the

work. But it has been my general conclusion that our knowledge of the

context of the love command in these dark periods is so meager and

uncertain that it would be presumptuous to assert what the meaning of

Jesus' command was for these anonymous guardians of the tradition. On

the basis of common features in the synoptics and in the epistles it m ay be

possible to make assumptions about the underlying oral traditions. See, for

example, pp 1 26ff.

B IBLIOG RAPHY

From all the works cited in the text only certain well-known reference works have

been omitted from the bibliography. Some works are included which were not cited

but are considered pertinent to the subject. The abbreviations used in the footnotes

for the various works cited are a sufficient guide for finding the works here in the

bibliography .

Althaus, P., Der Brief an die Romer, NTD 6 , 3rd edn, Gottingen 1 9 6 3 .

Aschermann, P . H . , Die pariinetischen Formen der 12 Patriarchen und ihr Nachwirken

in der friihchristlichen Mahnung, Dissertation, Berlin 1 9 5 5 .

Augstein, R., Jesus Menschensohn, Giitersloh 1 9 7 2 .

Augustine, The Confessions of S t Augustine, translated b y E. B. Pusey, New Y ork

1 9 6 2 .

E., lJie Feindesliebe nach dem natiirlichen und dem ii.bernatii.rlichen Gesetz,

Kempten 1 9 1 3 .

Halcomb, R . E . , The Written Sources of Paul 's Knowledge of Jesus, Dissertation,

Boston 1 9 5 1 .

Bammel, E . , 'The Baptist in the Early Christian Tradition,' NTS 1 8 , October 1 9 7 1 ,

p p 95-1 2 8 .

Banks, R . , Jesus and the Law in the Synoptic Tradition, SNTS M onograph Series 2 8 ,

Cambridge 1 9 7 5 .

Barrett, C . K . , The Epistle to the Romans, London 1 9 5 7 .

Barrett, C . K . , The New Testament Background: Selected Documents, New Y ork 1 96 1 .

Barrett, C . K . 'Stephen and the Son o f Man ,' in : Apophoreta: Festschrift fiir Ernst

Haenchen , W. Schneimelcher (ed.), BZNW 3 0 , Berlin 1 964.

B arrett, C. K. , Jesus and the Gospel Tradition, Philadelphia 1968.

Barth, G . , 'Das G esetzesverstiindnis des Evangelisten M atthiius,' in : Uberlieferung und

Auslegung im .Matthiiusevangelium, G. B ornkamm , G. Barth and H. J. Held,

6 th edn, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1 9 7 0 , pp 54-154.

Barth, P., Dia Stoa, 5 th edn, Stuttgart 1 94 1 .

Bartsch, H-W . , 'Feld-Rede und Bergpredigt: Redaktionsarbeit in Luk. 6 ,' ThZ 1 6 ,

1960, p p 5 - 1 8 .

B artsch, H-W . , Wachet aber z u jeder Zeit (Entwurf einer Auslegung des Lukasevangeliums), Hamburg 1 9 6 3 .

Batdorf, E . W., 'How Shall W e Interpret the Sermon o n the M ount?' JBR 2 7 , 1 9 5 9 ,

pp 2 1 1 - 1 7 .

B atiffol, P. , Proseuch e Aseneth, Studia Patristica, Paris 1 8 89 .

Bauer, W., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Cambridge 1 9 5 7 .

Bibliography

236

B auer, W., 'Das Gebot der Feindesliebe und die alten Christen ,' in: Aufttitze und

kleine Schriften, G. S trecker (ed.), Tiibingen 1 96 7 , pp 235-5 2 .

Baumbach, G., Das Verstiindnis des Bosen in den synoptischen Evangelien, Berlin 1963.

Bayer, 0. 'Sprachbewegung und Weltveranderung, Ein systematischer Versuch als

Auslegung von M t 5 :4 3 -4 8 ,' EvTh 35/4 , 1 9 7 5 , pp 309-2 1 .

Beare, F . W . , Th e First Epistle of Peter, 2nd edn, Oxford 1 958.

Beare, F. W., The Earliest Records of Jesus, Oxford 1 964 .

Becker, J . , Untersuchungen zur Entstehungsgeschichte der Testamente der Zwolf

Patriarchen, Leiden 1970.

Berger, K . , Die Gesetzespredigt Jesu, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1972.

Best, The 1st and 2nd Epistles to the Thessalonians, BNTC, London, 1972.

Bigg, C . , Epistles of St Peter and St Jude, ICC, Edinburgh 190 1 .

Bjerkelund, C. J . , ParakalO: Form, Funktion und Sinn der Parakalo-Siitze in den

paulinischen Briefen, Bibliotheca Theologica Norwegica, Oslo 1 96 7 .

Black, M . , An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts, 3rd edn, Oxford 1 96 7 .

Bolkestein, H . , Wohltiitigkeit und Armenpjlege im vorchristlichen Altertum , Utrecht

1 9 3 9 .

Boman, T., Jesus- Uberlieferung im Lichte der neueren Volkskunde, Gottingen 1 96 7 .

Bonhoeffer, A . , Epiktet und das Neue Testament, Giessen 1 9 1 1 .

Bornemann, W., Die Thessalonicherbriefe, MK, G<>ttingen 1 894 .

B ornkamm, G . , Jesus of Nazareth, New York E.T. 1960.

Bomkamm , G., 'Das Doppelgebot der Liebe,' in : Geschichte und Glaube, Part 1

(Gesammelte Aufsiitze III), Mtlnchen 1968, pp 3 7 -4 5 .

Bornkamm, G . , Paulus, Stuttgart, 1 9 6 9 .

Bornkarnm, G . , 'Der Lohngedanke i m Neuen Testament,' in : Studien z u Antike und

Urchristentum (Gesammelte Aufsiitze II), MUnchen 1 9 70 , pp 69-9 2 .

Bornkamm, G . , 'Enderwartung u n d Kirche im Matthausevangelium ,' in: Uberlieferung

und Auslegung im Matthiiusevangelium, G. Bornkamm , G. Barth and H. J .

Held, 6th edn, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1 9 70, p p 1 3-4 7 .

Bornkamm, G., 'Die Sturmstillung im M atthausevangelium ,' in : Uberlieferung und

Auslegung im Matthiiusevangelium, G . Bornkamm , G. Barth and H. J. Held ,

6 th edn, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1 9 70, pp 48-5 3 .

Bousset, W . , Der Religion des Judentums in spiithellenistischen Zeitalter, Tiibingen

1966.

Branscomb , B . H., Jesus and the Law of Moses, New Y ork 1930.

Braun, H . , SpiitjUdisch-hiiretischer und friihchristlicher Radikalismus II, Ttlbingen

195 7 .

Braun, H . , 'Qumran und das Neue Testament, Ein B ericht tiber 1 0 J ahre Forschung

( 1 9 5 0-1959),' ThR 28, 1 962, pp 95-233.

Braun, H . , Jesus, Stuttgart 1 96 9 .

Broadus, J . A., Gospel of Matthew, Valley Forge, Pa. 1 886 .

Broer, 1., 'Die Antithesen und der Evangelist Matthaus. Versuch, eine alte These zu

revidieren,' BZ 1 9/ 1 , 1 9 75 , pp 5 0-6 3 .

Brooks, E . W ., The Book of Joseph and Asenath, Translations o f Early Documents

II, 6, New York 1 9 1 8 .

Brown, F . , Driver, S . R. and Briggs, C . A. , Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old

Testament, Oxford 1 96 2 .

Brown, J . P., 'Synoptic Parallels i n the Epistles and Form-history ,' N TS 10 , 1 96 3-64 ,

p p 27-48.

Bibliography

23 7

Bruce, F. F . , Commentary on the Book of Acts, Grand Rapids, Mich. 1 954 .

Bruce, F. F. , Jesus and Paul, Grand Rapids, Mich. 1 9 74 .

Brun, L . , Segen und F7uch im Urchristentum, Oslo 1 9 3 3 .

Bruppacher, H . , 'Was sagte J esus i n Matthaus 5 ,4 8 ? ' ZNW 5 8 , 1 9 6 7 , p 1 4 5 .

Bryant, H . E . , 'Matthew 5 : 38,39,' E T 48, 1 9 36-3 7, p p 236-7 .

Biichsel, F. , Theo/ogie des Neuen Testaments, Giitersloh 1 9 3 5 .

Bultmann, R., Der Stil der paulinischen Predigt und die kynisch-stoische Diatribe,

FRLANT 1 3 , Gottingen 1 9 10.

Bultmann, R . , 'Das religiose M oment in der Unterweisung des Epiktet und das N eue

Testament,' ZNW 1 3 , 1 9 1 2 , pp 9 7-1 1 0 , 1 7 7-9 1 .

Bultmann , R. , 'Das Problem der E thik bei Paulus,' ZNW 23, 1 924.

Bultmann, R., Theology of the New Testament, 2 vols, New York E .T. (I) 1 95 1 , (II)

1 9 5 5 .

Bultmann, R . , 'The Sermon o n the M ount and the Justice of the S tate' in : Existence

and Faith, selected essays translated by S. Ogden, Cleveland

Bultmann , R . , The History of the Synoptic Tradition, Oxford E.T. 1 968.

Bultmann, R . , Jesus, Miinchen 1970.

Bultmann, R . , 'Die Bedeutung des geschichtlichen Jesus fiir die Theologie des Paulus,'

in : Glauben und Verstehen I, 7 th edn, Tiibingen 1972, pp 188-2 1 3 .

Bultmann, R . , 'Das christliche Gebot der Niichstenliebe,' in: Glauben und Verstehen I,

7 th edn, Tiibingen 1972, pp 229-44.

Burchard, C., Untersuchungen zu Joseph und Aseneth, WUNT 8,

1 965 .

Burchard, C . , 'Das doppelte Liebesgebot in der friihen christlichen Uberlieferung,' in:

Der Ruf Jesu und die Antwort der Gemeinde. Festschrift fur J. Jeremias,

E. Lohse (ed. ), Gottingen 1 9 7 0 , pp 3 9-6 2 .

Burney , C . F . , The Poetry of our Lord, Oxford 1 9 2 5 .

Campenhausen, H . von , 'Die Christen u n d d a s bUrgerliche Leben, nach den Aussagen

des Neuen Testaments,' in : Tradition und Leben, Kriifte der

Tiibingen 1960, pp 1 80-202.

Carrington, P ., The Primitive Christian Catechism, Cambridge 1940.

Cerfaux, L., 'Die Tradition bei Paulus,' Catholica 9, 1953, pp 94-1 04.

Charles, R. H . (ed.) The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament I, II,

Oxford 1 9 1 3 .

Charles, R . H . , Religious Development between the Old and New Testaments,

London 1 9 14 .

Christ, W . von, Geschichte der griechischen Literatur, Part 2, 1 st half, 6th edn,

Miinchen 1 9 5 9 .

Conzelmann, H . , The Th eology ofSt Luke, London E . T. 1 96 1 .

Conzelmann, H ., Der erste Brief a n die Korinther, MK, 1 1th edn, Gottingen 1969.

C onzelmann, H ., An Outline of the Theology of the New Testament, New Y ork E .T.

1969.

Cranfield, C. E . B . , A Commentary on Rom 12-13, Scottish J ournal of Theology

Occasional Papers 1 2 , Edinburgh 1965.

Cullmann, 0., Christ and Time, Philadelphia E.T. 1950.

Cullmann , 0., Die Tradition als exegetische, historisches und theo/ogisches Problem,

Zurich 1 95 4 .

Cullmann, O . , Salvation in History, London E . T . 1 9 6 7 .

Cullmann, 0., 'Out of Season Remarks o n the "Historical Jesus" o f the Bultmann

School,' in : In Search of the Historical Jesus, H. K . McArthur (ed.), London 1 970.

Bibliography

238

Dabney, R. L., Discussions: Evangelical and Theological I, London 1 96 7.

Dahood, M . J . , 'Two Pauline Quotations from the Old Testament,' CBQ 1 7 , 1955,

pp 1 9-24 .

Dalman, G., Die Worte Jesu, Leipzig 1930.

Dana, H . E. and Mantey, J. R., A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament,

New York 1 9 2 7 .

Daube, D., The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism, London 1 9 5 6 .

Daube, D., 'Participle and Imperative in I Peter,' appended note in : The First Epistle

of Peter, E. G. Selwyn, London 1969.

Davenport, Gene L., The Eschatology of the Book of Jubilees, Leiden 1 9 7 1 .

Davies, W . D., Paul and Rabbinic Judairmz, London 1 948.

Davies, W. D. 'Reflections on a Scandinavian Approach to "the Gospel Tradition",'

in : Neotestamentica et Patristica. Freundesgabe fUr 0. Cullmann, W. C. van

Unnik (ed.), Leiden 1962, pp 14-34.

Davies, W. D., The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount, Cambridge 1 96 6 .

Degenhardt, H-J . , Lukas, Evangelist der Arm en, Stuttgart 196 5 .

Delling, G., Das Zeitverstiindnis des Neuen Testaments, Giitersloh 1 940.

Denis, A-M ., Introduction aux Pseudepigraphes Grecs de /'ancien Testament, Leiden

1 9 7 0 .

Derrett, J . D . M . , Law in the New Testament, London 1970.

Dibelius, M . , Geschichte der urchristlichen Literatur II, Berlin 1 9 26 .

Dibelius, M . , 'Zur Formgeschichte des Neuen Testaments ausserhalb der Evangelien,'

ThR NS 3 , Tiibingen 1 9 3 1 , pp 207-4 2 .

Dibelius, M ., An die Thessalonicher I, II, an die Philipper, HNT 1 1 , Tubingen 1 9 3 7 .

Dibelius, M . , Der Brief des Jacobus, MK, Gottingen 1 964.

Dibelius, M., Jesus, 4th edn, Berlin 1966.

Dibelius, M . , From Tradition to Gospel, New York E.T. n.d.

Dietzfelbinger, C., 'Das Gleichnis vom erlassenen Schuld. Eine theologische Untersuchung von Mt 1 8 : 23-3 5 , ' EvTh 32, 1 9 7 2 , pp 437ff.

Dietzfelbinger, C . , Die Antithesen der Bergpredigt, Munchen 1 9 7 5 .

Dihle, A. , Die goldene Regel. Eine Einfiihrung in die Geschichte der antiken und

friJhchristlichen Vulgarethik, Studienhefte zur Altertumswissenschaft 7 ,

Gottingen 1 9 6 2 .

Dobschutz, E., Thessalonicher-Briefe, MK, Gottingen 1 909.

Dobschutz, E . , 'Matthiius als Rabbi und Katechet,' ZNW 27, 1928, pp 3 38-48.

Dodd, C. H . , The Epistle of Paul to the Romans, London 1 9 3 2 .

Dodd, C . H . , The Parables of the Kingdom, London 1 9 3 5 .

Dodd, C. H . , Gospel and Law: The Relation of Faith and Ethics in Early Christianity,

Cambridge 1 95 1 .

Dodd, C . H . , 'ENNOMOS CHRISTOU,' in : Studia Paulina. In Honorem Johannis de

Zwaan, J. N. Sevenster and W. C. van Unnik (eds.), Haarlem 1 95 3 , pp 96-1 10.

Dodd, C . H., 'The Primitive Catechism and the Sayings of Jesus,' in : New Testament

Essays, Studies in Memory of T. W. Manson , A. J . B . Higgins (ed.), Manchester

195 9 , pp 1 06 -1 8 .

Dodd, C. H . , History and the Gospel, Digswell Place, England, 1960.

Dodd, C. H . , 'Matthew and Paul,' in : New Testament Studies, Manchester 1 9 6 7 ,

p p 5 3 -6 6 .

Downey, G. , 'Who i s my Neighbor? The Greek and Roman Answer,' A TR 47/ 1 ,

1 9 6 5 , pp 3-1 5 .

Bibliography

239

Dungan, D. L . , The Sayings of Jesus in the Churches of Paul, Oxford 1 9 7 1 .

Dungan, D . L . , 'Early Christianity minus Jesus,' Interpretation 28/ 1 , 1974, p p 98-1 0 1 .

Dupont-8ommer, A. , The Essene Writings from Qumran, Oxford 1 96 1 .

Easton, B . S., Christ in the Gospels, New York 1 9 3 0.

Easton , B . S . , 'The New Testament Ethical Lists,' JBL 5 1 , 1 9 3 2 , pp 1 - 1 2 .

Edwards, P . , 'Christian Hate,' Way 7/4 , 1 9 6 7 , pp 300-8.

Eichholz, G ., Auslegung der Bergpredigt, B St, 2nd edn, Neukirchen·V�uyn 1970.

Eissfeldt, 0., The Old Testament: an Introduction, New York E .T. 1965.

Ernst, J . , 'Die Einheit von Gottes und Niichstenliebe in der Verkiindigung Jesu , '

Th G1 60, 1 9 7 0 , pp 3-14.

Fannon, P., 'Paul and Tradition in the Primitive Church,' Scripture 1 6 , 1 964, pp 47-5 6 .

Feine, P . , Jesus Christus und Paulus, Leipzig 1902.

Feine, P., Der Apostel Paulus, BFChTh 2nd series, Vol 1 2 , Giitersloh 1927.

Fenton, J . C., The Gospel of St Matthew, Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England.

1 9 6 3 .

Fichtner, J ., 'Der Begriff des Niichsten i m Alten Testament,' Wort und Dienst, Jahrbuch

der Theologie Schule Bethel NS 4, 1 9 5 5 , pp 23-5 2 .

Fiebig, P ., 'Jesu Worte iiber die Feindesliebe i m Zusammenhang mit den wichtigsten

rabbinischen Parallelen eliiutert,' ThStKr 9 1 , 1 9 1 8 , pp 30-64.

Filson, F. V. , 'The Christian Teacher in the Frrst Century, ' JBL 60, 1 94 1 , pp 3 1 7-29 .

Filson, F. V . , The Gospel According to St Matthew, London 1 960.

Fjiirstedt, B . , Synoptic Tradition in I Corinthians. Themes and Clusters of Theme

Words in I Cor. 1-4 and 9, Uppsala 1974.

Flender, H . , Heil und Geschichte in der Theologie des Lukas, BEvTh 4 1 , Miinchen

1965.

Flender, H . , Die Botschaft Jesu von der Herrschaft Gottes, Miinchen 1 968.

Frame, J . E., The Epistles of Paul to the Thessalonians, ICC, Edinburgh 1 9 1 2.

France, R. T. , Jesus and the Old Testament, London 1 9 7 1 .

Fraser, J . W., Jesus and Paul. Paul as Interpreter of Jesus from Harnack to Kammel,

Appleford 1 9 74 .

Fuchs E . , 'Was heisst? "Du sollst deinen Nachsten lieben wie dich selbst," ' in:

Zur Frage nach dem historischen Jesus, 2nd edn, Tiibingen 1 965 , pp 1 -20.

Fuller, R. The Mission and Achievement of Jesus, London 1 956.

Fuller, R. 'Das Doppelgebot der Liebe,' in : Jesus Christus in Historie und Theologie,

G. Strecker (ed.), Tiibingen 1 9 7 5 , pp 3 1 7-29.

Furnish, V . P . 'The Jesus -Paul Debate : From Bauer to Bultrnann ,' Bulletin of the

John Rylands L ibrary 4 7 , 1965 , pp 342-8 1 .

Furnish, V. P . , Th e Love Command in the New Testament, Nashville, Tenn., 1977.

Gaechter, P., Das Matthiius-Evangelium, Innsbruck 1963.

Gerhardsson, B. , Memory and Manuscript: Oral Tradition and Written Transmission

in Rabbinic Judaism and Early Christianity, Copenhagen 1964.

Gerhardsson, B ., Tradition and Transmission in Early Christianity, Lund 1 964 .

Gesenius, F. H. W., Hebrew Grammar, 2nd edn, Oxford 1 9 1 0.

Gloege, G., AUer Tage Tag, Stuttgart 1960.

Glover, R., 'The Didache's Quotations and the Synoptic Gospels,' NTS 5, 1 9 5 8 ,

pp 1 2-29 .

Goldschmidt, L . , (ed .), Der babylonische Talmud, Berlin 1 9 6 7 .

Goppelt, L . , Christentum u n d Judentum im ersten u n d zweiten Jahrhundert, Giitersloh

1954.

Bibliography

240

Goppelt, L . , 'Tradition nach Paulus,' KuD 4 , 1 9 5 8 , pp 2 1 3-3 3 .

Goppelt, L . , Jesus, Paul and Judaism, New York E.T. 1964.

Goppelt, L., Christologie und Ethik: Aufsiitze zum Neuen Testament, Gottingen 1 9 6 8 .

Goppelt, L. , Typos, Darmstadt 1 9 6 9 .

Goppelt, L., Apostolic and Post-Apostolic Times, New York E .T. 1970.

Goppelt, L . , 'Jesus und die "Haustafel"-Tradition,' in : Orientierung an Jesus. Fiir

Joseph Schmid, P. Hoffmann (ed.), Freiburg 1 9 7 3 , pp 93-106.

Goppelt, L. , Theologie des Neuen Testaments: I Jesu Wirken in seiner theologischen

Bedeutung, II Vielfalt und Einheit des apostolischen Christuszeugnisses,

Gottingen, 1 9 75 , 1 9 76 .

Goppelt, L . , Der erste Petrusbrief, MK 1 2 , Gottingen 1 9 7 8 .

Grabner-Haider, A . , Paraklese und Eschatologie bei Paulus. Mensch und Welt im

Anspruch der Zukunft, NTA NS 4 , Munster 1968.

Grant, F. C . , 'Ethics and Eschatology in the Teaching of Jesus,' JR 22, 194 2 , pp 359-70.

Grant, F. C. , 'The Impracticability of the Gospels' Ethics,' in: Aux sources de Ia tradition chretienne, 0. Cullmann and P. Menoud (eds.), Paris 1 9 5 0 , pp 86 -94 .

Grasser, E ., Das Problem der Parusieverzogerung in den synoptischen Evangelien und

in der Apostelgeschichte, Berlin 1 9 5 7 .

Grundmann, W . , Das Evangelium nach Matthiius, THNT 1 , 2nd edn, Berlin 1 9 7 1 .

Grundmann, W., Das Evangelium nach Markus, THNT 2 , 5th edn, Berlin 1 9 7 1 .

Grundmann, W . , Das Evangelium nach Lukas, THNT 3 , 6 th edn, Berlin 1 97 1 .

Guelich, R. , Not to Annul the Law, Rather to Fulfill the Law and the Prophets,

Dissertation, Hamburg 1 96 7 .

Guelich, R . , 'The Antitheses of Matthew 5 : 2 1 -4 8 : Traditional and/or Redactional? '

NTS 22/4 , July 1 9 76 , pp 444-5 7 .

Haas, H . , Idee und Ideal der Feindesliebe in der ausserchristlichen Welt, Leipzig 1927.

Haenchen, E. , 'Matthiius 2 3 , Z ThK 48, 1 95 1 , pp 38-6 3 .

Haenchen, E . , Die Apostelgeschichte, M K , 1 5 th edn, Gottingen 1 968.

Hammond, N. G. L . and Scullard, H . H. (eds.), The Oxford Classical Dictionary, 2nd

edn, Oxford 1970.

Hanson, R. P. C . , Tradition in the Early Church, London 1962.

Haring, B . , 'The Normative Value of the Sermon on the M ount,' CBQ 29/3 , 1 96 7 ,

pp 375-85 .

Harrelson, Walter, 'Patient Love in the Testament of Joseph,' in : Studies on the

Testamen t of Joseph, George W. E. Nickels burg (ed.), Missoula, M ontana

1 9 7 5 , pp 29-36 .

Hasler, V. , AMEN, S tuttgart 1 969 .

Heinemann, J . , 'Nochmals Matt. 5 ,42ff,' BZ 24 , 1 9 3 8-3 9 , pp 1 36-8.

Heitmiiller, W . , 'Zum Problem Paulus und Jesus,' in : Das Paulusbild in der neuren

deutschen Forschung, K . H. Rengstorf (ed.), Darmstadt 1 96 9 , pp 1 24 -4 3 .

Held, H . J . , 'Matthaus als Interpret der Wundergeschichten,' in : Uberlieferung und

Auslegung im Ma tthiiusevangelium , G. Bornkamm, G. Barth and H. J . Held,

6th edn , Neukirchen-Vluyn 1 970, pp 1 5 5 -284 .

Hengel, M . , 'Leben i n der Veranderung,' EK 3 , 1 9 7 0 , p p 64 7-5 1 .

Hengel, M . , War Jesus Revolutioniir?, Stu ttgart 1 9 70.

Hoffmann, P . , 'Die S tellung der Bergpredigt im Mtevangelium = Auslesung der

Bergpredigt 1,' BL 1 0, 1969 , pp 5 7-65 .

Hoffmann , P . , 'Die bessere Gerechtigkeit,' BL 1 0, 1969, pp 264-7 5 .

Hoffmann , P. , 'Die Anfiinge der Theologie i n der Logienquelle, ' in : Gestalt und An-

Bibliography

241

spruch des neuen Testaments, I. Schreirer (ed.), Wiirzburg 1 969, pp 1 34-5 2 .

Hoffmann , P. , Studien zur Theologie der Logienquelle, Munster 1 9 7 2 .

Holtzmann, H . J ., Lehrbuch der neutestamen tlichen Theologie II, T il bingen 19 1 1 .

Holzmeister, U. 'Vom Schlagen auf die rechte Wange (Mt. 5 ,39),' ZKT 4 5 , 1 92 1 ,

pp 3 34-6 .

Hiibner, Hans, Das Gesetz in der synoptischen Tradition, Witten 1 9 7 3 .

Hultgren, A. , 'The Double Commandment of Love i n Mt. 2 2 : 34-40, I t s Sources and

Compositions,' CBQ 36/3, 1 9 74 , pp 3 73-8.

Hummel, R., Die Auseinandersetzung zwischen Kirche und Judentum im Matthiius-

evangelium, BEvTh 3 3 , Miinchen 1963.

Hunter, A. M . , Paul and His Predecessors, rev edn, Philadelphia 1 96 1 .

Jeremias, J. , Jesus als Weltvollender, Giitersloh 1 9 3 0 .

Jeremias, J . , 'Zur Hypothese einer schriftlichen Logienquelle Q,' ZNW 29, 1930,

pp 147-9.

Jeremias, J., 'Zum Gleichnis zum verlorenen Sohn, Lk 1 5 , 1 1 -3 2 , ' ThZ 5 , 1 949,

pp 228ff.

Jeremias, 1., Die Bergpredigt, Calwer Heft 27, Stuttgart 1970.

Jeremias, J., Die Gleichnisse Jesu, 8th edn, Gtittingen 1970.

Jeremias, J ., Neutestamentliche Theologie, Part 1, Giitersloh 1 97 1 .

Jeremias, J., New Testament Theology: The Proclamation of Jesus, New York

E.T. 1 97 1 .

Jervell, J . , 'Ein Interpolator interpretiert,' in : Studien z u den Testamenten der

Zwolf Patriarch en, W. Eltester (ed.), Berlin 1 969, pp 30-6 1 .

Jonge, M. De, The Testaments o[ the Twelve Patriarchs, New York E.T. 1953.

(Testaments).

Jonge , M. De , Studies on the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, Leiden 1 975

(Studies).

Jiilicher, A., Die Gleichnisreden Jesu, 2 vols , Iii bingen 1 9 10.

Jiingel, E. , Paulus und Jesus, Tiibingen 1 9 6 2 .

Juncker, A., Die Ethik des Apostels Paulus, 2 vols, Halle ( I ) 1 904, (II) 1 909.

Kiisemann, E., Exegetische Versuche und Besinnungen l, Gottingen 1 960.

Kiisemann, E., 'Gottesdienst im Alltag der Welt (zu Rm 1 2) ,' Beiheft ZNW 26 ,

1960, pp 165-7 1 .

Kiisemann, E., A n die Romer, HNT Sa, 2nd edn, Tiibingen 1 9 74 .

Kamiah, E., Die Form der katalogischen Pariinese im Neuen Testament, WUNT

7 , Tiibingen 1 964.

Kattenbusch, F. , 'Uber die Feindesliebe im Sinne des Christentums,' ThStKr 89,

1 9 1 6 , pp 1-70.

Kelly, J. N. D . , The Epistles o[Peter and Jude, New Y ork 1969.

Kissenger, Warren S., The Sermon on the Mount: A History of Interpretations and

Bibliography, ATLA Bibliography Series, No 3, Metuchen, New Jersey 1 975.

Kittel, G. and Friedrich, G., Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 9 vols,

Grand Rapids 1964-7 3 .

Klassen, W . , 'Coals o f Fire: Sign o f Repentance o r Revenge?' NTS 9, 1963 , p p 3 3 7 -5 0 .

Klassen, W . , 'Love Y our Enemy : A Study o f New Testament Teaching o n Coping

with an Enemy,' in: Biblical Realism Confronts the Nation, Paul Reachey (ed.)

Scottsdale, Pa., 1963, pp 1 5 3-83 .

Klassen, W . , 'Love in the New Testament,' in : /DB Supplementary Volume, pp 5 5 7f.

Klausner, J . , Jesus of Nazareth, London 1 9 2 5 .

Bibliography

242

Klostermann, E . , The Sources of the Synoptic Gospels, 2 vols, Cambridge 1 9 5 7 .

Klostermann, E . , Das Matthausevangelium, HNT 4 , 4th edn, Tiibingen 197 1 .

Knox, W . L., Some Hellenistic Elements in Primitive Christianity, London 1 944.

Knox, W. L . , The Sources of the Synoptic Gospels: II St Luke and St Matthew,

Cambridge 1 9 5 7 .

Koster, H., Synoptische Uberlieferung bei den apostolischen Vti"tem, TU 65 , Berlin

1 9 5 7 .

Kiimmel, W. G. , 'Jesus u n d die Rabbinen,' in : Heilsgeschehen und Geschichte,

Marburg 1 9 3 3 , pp 1 -14 .

Kiimmel, W. G., Promise and Fulfilment, London E.T. 1 96 1 .

Kiimmel, W . G. , 'Jesus und Paulus,' in : Heilsgeschehen und Geschichte, Marburg

1965, pp 439-56.

Kiimmel, W. G., Introduction to the New Testament, New York E.T. 1 966.

Kiimmel, W. G., Die Theologie des Neuen Testaments nach seinen Hauptzeugen

Jesus, Paulus. Johannes III, Gottingen 1 969.

Kuhn, H-W., 'Der irdische Jesus bei Paulus,' ZThK 67, 1 970, pp 295-320.

Kuhn, K . G. , 'The Lord's Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumran,' in: The

SeroUs and the New Testament, K . Stendahl (ed.), New Y ork 1 9 5 7 , pp 65-9 3 .

Kuss, 0., Die Briefe a n die Romer, Korinther und Galater, Regensburg 1 940.

Ladd, G. E . , Jesus and the Kingdom, New Y ork 1964.

Larsson, E., Christus als Vorbild, Uppsala 1962.

Lewis, C. S., The Weight of Glory, Grand Rapids 1 965 .

Liechtenhahn, R . , Gottes Gebot im Neuen Testament, Basel 1942.

Lietzmann, H . , The Beginnings of the Christian Church, London 1949.

Lilly, J. L., 'Missal Epistles from Romans,' CBQ 6 , 1 944, pp 94-8.

Linnemann, E., Gleichnisse Jesu, Gottingen 1 96 1 .

Linton, 0 . , 'St. Matthew 5 :4 3 ,' StTh 1 8 / 1 , 1 964 , p p 66-7 9 .

Lohmeyer, E. , Das Evangelium des Markus, MK, 1 7 th edn, Gottingen 1 9 6 7 .

Lohse, E. , 'Lukas als Theologe der Heilsgeschichte,' EvTh 14, 1 954, p p 256ff.

Lohse, E . , 'Paranese und Kerygma im ersten Petrusbrief,' ZNW 45, 1 954 , pp 68-89.

Lohse, E. , Die Briefe an die Kolosser und an Philemon, MK, 14th edn, Gottingen

1968.

Lohse, E . , 'lch aber sage euch,' in: Der Ruf Jesu und die Antwort der Gemeinde.

Festschrift for J. Jeremias, E. Lohse (ed.), Gottingen 1 9 70 , pp 1 89-203 .

Luck, U. , 'Kerygma, Tradition und Geschichte Jesu bei Lk,' ZThK 5 1 , 1960, p p 5 1ff.

Liihrmann, D ., Die Redaktion der Logienquelle, WMANT 3 3 , 1969.

Liihrmann, D . , 'Erwagungen zur Geschichte des Urchristentums,' EvTh 3 2 , 1 9 7 2 ,

p p 452-6 7 .

Liihrmann, D . , 'Liebet eure Feinde,' ZThK 69, 1972, p p 4 12-3 8 .

Liinemann, G., Briefe an die Thessalonicher, M K , GOttingen 1 87 8 .

Liitgert, W. , Ethik der Liebe, Giitersloh 1 9 3 8 .

Luz, U. , 'Einige Erwagungen zur Auslegung Gottes in der ethischen Verkiindigung

Jesu,' in : Evangelisch-Katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament, Vorarbeiten II, E. Schweizer (ed.), Zurich 1 9 70 , pp 1 1 9-30 .

Machen, J . G. , The Origin of Paul's Religion , Grand Rapids 1 96 5 .

Machovec, M . , Jesus ft1 r Atheisten, Berlin 1 9 7 2 .

Manek, J . , 'On the M ount - On the Plain (M t v,1 - L k vi, 1 7),' Nov Test 9 / 2 , 1 9 6 7,

pp 1 24-3 1 .

Manson, T . W., The Sayings ofJesus, London 1 94 9 .

Biblio'g,.aphy

243

Manson, T. W . , The Teaching of Jesus, 2nd edn, Cambridge 1 96 7 .

Marshall, I. H . , Luke: Historian and Theologian, Devon 1 9 7 0 .

Martin, C. , 'Imprecations i n the Psalms,' PTR 1 ( 1903) p p 5 37-5 3.

Marxsen, W., Mark the Evangelist, E.T. Nashville 1969.

Mendenhall, G. , Law and Covenant, Pittsburg 1 9 5 5 .

Merkel, F., Georgi, D. and Baltzer , K . , 'I Pet. 3 ,8f,' Gottinger Predigt Meditationen

1 6 , 1 96 1/6 2 , pp 2 3 1 ff.

Metzger, B. M . , A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, London 1 9 7 1 .

Michel, 0 . , 'Der Lohngedanke i n der Verkiindigung Jesu, ' ZSTh 9 , 1 93 2 , pp 4 7-54.

Michel, 0., 'Das Gebot der Nachstenliebe in der Verkiindigung Jesu,' in : Zur sozialen

En tscheidung: Vier Vortriige, Tiibingen 1 94 7 , pp 5 3 -1 0 1 .

Michel, O., Der Brief an die Romer, M K , 1 3 th edn, Gottingen 1966.

Michl, J., 'Apokalypse/ Apokryphe,' in : Sacramentum Mundi I, K . Rahner (ed.),

Freiburg 1967, columns 2 14-2 3 .

Milik, J. T . 'Le Testament de Levi e n Arameen,' RB 6 2 , 1955 , pp 398-406 .

Moe, O . , Paulus und die evangelische Geschichte, Leipzig 1 9 1 2 .

Moffatt, J . , Love in the New Testament, London 1 9 2 1 .

Molin, G . , 'Matthaus 5 ,4 3 und das Schrifttum von Qumran,' in : Bibel und Qumran,

S. Wagner (ed.), Berlin 1968, pp 1 5 0-3 .

Montefiore, C. G. , The Synoptic Gospels II, 2nd edn, New York 1968.

Montefiore, C . G., Rabbinic Literature and Gospel Teachings, New Y ork 1 9 70.

Moore, G. F., Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era, Cambridge 1927.

Morenz , S . , 'Feurige Kohlen auf dem Haupt,' ThLZ 78, 1 9 5 3 , pp 18 7-92.

Morgenthaler, R., Kommendes Reich, Zurich 1 95 1 .

Moule, C . F . D . 'The Use o f Parables and Sayings as Illustrative Material in Early

Christian Catechesis,' JTS NS 3 , 1 9 5 2 , pp 75-9.

M oule, C . F. D ., 'Obligation in the Ethic of P.ml,' in: Christian History and Interpretation: Studies Presented to John Knox, W. R. Farmer, C . F. D. Moule and R. R. Niebuhr (eds.), Cambridge 1 9 6 7 , pp 389- 406 .

Moulton, W. F. and Geden, A. S. , A Concordance to the Greek New Testament,

Edinburgh 1 9 6 3 .

Murray, J., The Epistle to the Romans, 2 vols, Grand Rapids 1 959, 1 9 6 5 .

Nauck, W., ' Freude i m Leiden,' ZNW 46, 1 9 5 5 , pp 68-80.

Neil, W. , The Epistle of Paul to the Thessalonians, MNTC, London 1950.

Neugebauer, F., 'Geistesspriiche und Jesuslogien. Erwiigungen zu der von der form-

geschichtlichen Betrachtungsweise R. Bultmanns angenommenen grundsiitzlichen

Moglichkeit einer Identitiit von prophetischen Geistesspriiche mit Logien des

irdischen J esus,' ZNW 5 3 , 1 96 2 , pp 2 1 8-28.

Neuhiiusler, E., Anspruch und Antwort Gottes, DUsseldorf 1962.

Neuhiiusler, E . , 'Beobachtungen zur Form der synoptischen Jesusethik, ' LZ 1/2,

1 96 5 , pp 9 1 -102.

Nieder, L. , Die Motive der religios-sittlichen Pariinese in den paulinischen Gemeindebriefen, Miinchen 1956.

Niederwirnmer, K . , Jesus, Gottingen 1 9 6 8 .

Nissen, Andreas, Gott u nd der Niichste i m antiken Judentum. Untersuchungen zum

Doppelgebot der L iebe, WUNT 1 5 , Tiibingen 1 974.

Noll, P., Jesus und das Gesetz, Ti.ibingen 1968.

Norquist, N. L., The Transmission of the Ethical Tradition in the Synoptic Gospels

and the Writings of Paul, Dissertation , Hartford Seminary Foundation 1 9 5 6 .

Oepke, A. , Der Brief d e s Paulus an die Galater, THNT 9 , 2 n d edn, Berlin 1 9 5 7 .

Bibliography

244

Oepke, A., 'Die Briefe an die Thessalonicher ,' in : Die kleineren Briefe des Apostel

Paulus, NTD 8 , G. Friedrich (ed.), Gottingen 1972, pp 162-8 1 .

Oyen, H . v . , Botschaft u nd Gebot, Giitersloh 1 962.

Percy, E. , Die Botschaft Jesu, Lund 1 95 3 .

Perrin , N., Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus, London 1 9 6 7 .

Pesch, W. , Der Lohngedanke in der Lehre Jesu,

1955.

Pesch, W., Matthiius der Seelsorger, Stuttgart 1 966.

Philonenko, M., Les Interpolations chretiennes des Testaments des Douze Patriarches

et les Manuscrits de Qoumrdn, Paris 1 960.

Philonenko, M., Joseph et Asenath, Leiden 1 968.

Philonenko , M., 'Joseph and Asenath ,' in : Encyclopaedia Judaica X, Jerusalem 1 9 7 1 ,

columns 223f.

Pines, S. , 'Slavonic Book of Enoch,' in : Encyclopaedia Judaica VI, Jerusalem 1 9 7 1 ,

columns 798f.

Piper, J., "Deciding What We Deserve," Christianity Today 22/2, Oct. 2 1 , 1 977, pp 1 2-1 5.

Ploger, 0., 'Henochbiicher,' in RGG III, K. Galling (ed.), 3rd edn , Tiibingen 1957ff,

columns 224f.

Plummer, A., The Gospel According to Saint Luke, Edinburgh 1922.

Pohlenz, M., 'Paulus und die Stoa,' in : Das Paulusbild in der neueren deutschen

Forschung, Darmstadt 1969.

Preisker, H . , Das Ethos des Urchristentums, 2nd edn, Darmstadt 1968.

Rad , G. von, Old Testament Theology, 2 vols, New York E.T. 1962, 1965.

Radlinger, S., Die Fiendesliebe nach dem naturlichen und positive Sittengesetz,

Paderborn, 1 906.

Ratschow,C. H., 'Agape, Niichstenliebe, und Briiderliebe,' ZSTh 2 1 , 1950, pp 160-82.

Rausch, J . , 'The Principle of Non-Resistance and Love of the Enemy in Mt 5 :38-48,'

CBQ 28, 1 96 6 , pp 3 1-4 1 .

Reicke, B . , The Epistles of James, Peter and Jude, The Anchor Bible, New York 1 964.

Rengstorf, K. H., Das Evangelium Lukas, NTD 3, Gottingen 1969.

Rengstorf, K. H. (ed.), Das Paulusbild der neuren deutschen Forschung, Darmstadt 1 969.

Ridderbos, H. , Paul and Jesus, Philadelphia E.T. 1958.

Ridderbos, H . , The Coming of the Kingdom, Philadelphia E.T. 1962.

Ridderbos, H . , Paulus, Wupperta1 1 9 70.

Riesenfeld, H., The Gospel Tradition and its Beginnings, London 1957.

Riesenfeld, H., 'Vom Schiitzesammeln und Sorgen - ein Thema urchristlicher

nese,' in: Neotestamentica et Patristica. Eine Freundesgabe fiir 0. Cullmann,

W. C. van Unnik (ed.), Leiden 1962, pp 4 7-58.

Riessler, P., Altjiidisches Schrifttum ausserhalb der Bibel, Darmstadt 1 966.

Riessler, P., 'Joseph und Aseneth,' ThQ 103, 1922, pp 1-22, 145-83.

Rieu, E., The Four Gospels: A New Translation from the Greek, London 1 9 5 3 .

Robertson, A . T., A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of

Historical Research, Nashville, Tenn., 1934 .

Robinson, J . M. and Koster, H., Trajectories through Early Christianity, Philadelphia

Robinson, W. C., Der Weg des He"n. Studien zur Geschichte und Eschatologie im

Lukas-Evangelium, Hamburg 1 964.

Roloff, J., Das Kerygma und der irdische Jesus, Gottingen 1970.

Rost, L., Einleitung in die alttestamentlichen Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen einschliesslich der grossen Qumran Handschriften, Heidelberg 1 97 1 .

Sanday, W . and Headlam A., Th e Epistle

the Romans, ICC , Edinburgh 1 902 .

Sander, Reinhold, Furcht und Liebe im paliistinischen Judentum, Stuttgart 1935.

Bibliography

245

Sanders, E. P., The Tendencies of the Synoptic Tradition, Cambridge 1 969.

Sanders. J., 'Ethics in the Synoptic Gospels,' BR 14, 1969 , pp 19-32.

Schelkle, K. H., Die Petrusbriefe. Der Judasbrief, HThK 1 3 , 3rd edn, Freiburg 1970.

Schelkle, K. H. , Theologie des Neuen Testaments: III Ethos, Dusseldorf 1 970.

Schenk, W., Der Segen im Neuen Testament, Berlin 1967.

Schlatter, A., Die Geschichte des Christus, Stuttgart 1 9 2 1 .

Schlatter, A , Die Theologie der Apostel, 2nd edn, Stuttgart 1 922.

Schlatter, A., Gottes Gerechtigkeit, Stuttgart 1 9 3 5 .

Schlatter, A., Jesus and Paulus, 3rd edn, Stuttgart 196 1 .

Schlatter, A., Der Evangelist Matthiius, 6th edn, Stuttgart 1963.

Schlatter, A., 'The Theology of the New Testament and Dogmatics,' in : The Nature

of New Testament Theology, Robert Morgan (ed .), SBT 2nd series 25 , Naperville 1973 , pp 1 1 7-66.

Schlier, H., 'Die Eigenart der christlichen Mahnung nach dem Apostel Paulus,' in :

Besinnung auf das Neue Testament.

Aufsiitze und Vortriige II,

Freiburg 1 964, pp 340-5 7 .

Schlier, H . , Der Brief a n die Galater, MK , 14th edn, Gottingen 1 9 7 1 .

Schlink, E. , 'Gesetz und Paraklese,' in : Antwort. Karl Barth zum 70. Geburtstag,

E. Wolf, Ch. von Kirshbaum and R. Frey (eds.), Ziirich 1956, pp 3 23-335.

Schmauch, W., Das Evangelium des Matthiius, MK, 4th edn, Gottingen 1 96 7 .

Schmidt, H. W. , Der Brief des Paulus a n die Romer, THNT 6 , Berlin 1963.

Schmidt, L., Die Ethik der alten Griechen II, Stuttgart 1964.

Schmithals, W., 'Paulus und der historische Jesus,' ZNW 53, 1962, pp 145�0.

Schnackenburg, R., Die Sittliche Botschaft des Neuen Testaments, 2nd edn, Miinchen

1962.

Schnackenburg, R., Gottes Herrschaft und Reich, 4th edn , Freiburg 1 965.

Schnackenburg, R., 'Mitmenschlichkeit im Horizont des N. T.' in: Die Zeit Jesu.

Festschrift fur Heinrich Schlier, G. Bornkamm and K. Rahner (eds.), Freiburg

1970, pp 70-9 1 .

Schniewind, J., 'Zur Synoptiker-Exegese,' ThR NS 2, 1930, p p 1 27-89.

Schniewind, J . , 'Die Botschaft Jesu und die Theologie des Paulus,' in : Nachgelassene

Reden und Aufsatze, E. Kiihler (ed .), Berlin 1952, pp 16-3 7 .

Schniewind, J . , Das Evangelium nach Matthiius, NTD 2 , Gottingen 1 964.

Schniewind, J., Das Evangelium nach Markus, Miinchen 1 968.

Schoeps, H. P., Paul, The Theology of the Apostle in the Light of Jewish Religious

History, Philadelphia E.T. 1 96 1 .

Schottroff, L., 'Das Gleichnis vom verlorenen Sohn,' ZThK 6 8 , 1 97 1 , p p 27-52.

Schottroff, L . , 'Gewaltverzicht und Feindesliebe in der urchristlichen J esustradition

Mt 5 ,3 8-4 8 ; Lk 6 ,27-36,' in: Jesus Christus in Historie und Theologie,

G. Strecker (ed.), Tiibingen 1 9 7 5 , pp 197-2 2 1 .

Schrage, W . , 'Zur formalethischen Deutung der paulinischen Pariinese,' ZEE 4 , 1960,

pp 207-3 3 .

Schrage, W. , Die konkreten Einzelgebote in der paulinischen Pariinese, Giitersloh

196 1 .

Schrage, W . , 'Zur Ethik der neutestamentlichen Haustafeln,' NTS 2 1 / 1 , 1974, pp 1 -2 1 .

Schroeder, D . , Die Haustafeln des Neuen Testaments, Dissertation, Hamburg 1959.

Schuller, B., 'Zur Rede von der radikalen sittlichen Forderung,' ThP 146, 197 1 ,

pp 3 2 1-339.

Schiirer, E., Geschichte des jiidischen Volkes Ill, 4 th edn, Leipzig 1 909.

Bibliography

246

Schiirmann, H . , 'Die voriisterlichen Anfange der Logientradition,' in : Der historische

Jesus und der kerygmatische Christus, H . Ristow and K . Matthiae (eds.), 2nd

edn , Berlin 1 960, pp 342-70.

Schiirmann, H . , 'Eschatologie und Liebesdienst in der Verkiindigung Jesu,' in : Vom

Messias zum Christus. K. Schubert (ed.), Wien 1 964 , pp 203-3 2 .

Schiirmann, H . , 'Die Warnung des Lukas vor der Falschlehre, i n der "Predigt am

Berge" Lk 6 ,20-49,' BZ NS 1 0 , 1 966, pp 5 7-8 1 .

Schiirmann, H . , Das Lukasevangelium, Part 1 , HThK 1 3 , Freiburg 1 969.

Schurmann, H . , Ursprung und Gestalt, Dusseldorf 1 9 70.

Schutz , F . , Der leidende Christus, Stuttgart 1969.

Schulz , S . , Q, Die Spruchquelle der Evangelien, Zurich 1 9 72 .

Schweitzer, A . , Das Messianitiits- und Leidensgeheimnis, Tubingen/Leipzig 1 90 1 .

Schweitzer, A . , Paul and his In terpreters, London E.T. 1 9 1 2.

Schweitzer, A., Geschichte der Leben.Jesu Forschung, 6 th edn, Tubingen 1 95 1 .

Schweizer, E., 'Zur Frage der Lukasquellen, Analyse von Lk 1 5 , 1 1-32,' ThZ 4,

1948, pp 469ff.

Schweizer, E . , 'Observance of the Law and Charismatic Activity in Matthew ,' NTS

16/ 3 , April 1 9 70 , pp 2 1 3-30.

Scott, C. A. A., Christianity According to St Paul, Cambridge 1 92 7 .

See berg, A., Der Katechismus der Urchristenheit, 1 903 , reprinted Munchen 1 966 .

Seitz , 0. J . F., 'Love Your Enemies,' NTS 1 6 , October 1 969, pp 3 9-54.

Selby, D. J . , Toward the Understanding of St Paul, Englewood Cliffs, N . J . , 1962.

Selwyn, E . G . , The First Epistle of Peter, London 1 96 9 .

Sevenster, J . N . , Paul and Seneca, Leiden 1 96 1 .

Smith, C . W . F. , Th e Jesus of the Parables, Philadelphia 1 94 8 .

Smith , M . , Tannaitic Parallels t o the Gospels, Philadelphia 1 95 1 .

Smith, M . , 'Mt 5 :4 3 : Hate thine Enemy,' HTR 45, 1952, pp 7 1-3 .

Smothers, E. R., 'Give Place to Wrath,' CBQ 6 , 1 944, pp 205 - 1 5 .

Soiron , T., Die Bergpredigt Jesu, Freiburg 1 94 1 .

Spicq, C . , 'Die Liebe als Gestaltungsprinzip der Moral in den synoptischen Evangelien,'

FZTP 1 , 1 95 4 , pp 394-4 1 0 .

Spicq, C., Agape in the New Testament, 3 vols, St Louis E.T. 1 9 6 6 .

Stahlin , H . , 'Die Fruchte der Umkehr,' StTh I , 1 94 7 , pp 54-6 8 .

Stanley, D. M . , 'Become Imitators of Me : the Pauline Conception o f Apostolic

Tradition,' Biblica 40, 1 9 5 9 , pp 859-7 7 .

Stanley, D . M . , 'Pauline Allusions t o the Sayings o f Jesus,' CBQ 2 3 , 1 96 1 , p p 26-3 9 .

Stanton, Jesus of Nazareth in New Testament Preaching, SNTS Monograph Series

2 7 , Cambridge 1 9 74.

Stauffer, E . , Jesus: Gestalt und Geschichte, Bern 1 9 5 7 .

Steele, J . , 'Heaping Coals on the Head (Pr 25 : 2 2 ; Ro 1 2 : 20),' E T 44 , 1 932-3 3 ,

p 1 4 1 .

Stendahl, K., 'Hate, Non-Retaliation and Love : 1QS 1 0 : 1 7-20 and Rom 1 2 : 19-2 1 ,'

HTR 5 5 , 1 96 2 , pp 343-5 5 .

Stendahl, K. , The School of S t Matthew, 2nd

Lund , n.d.

Stem, J. B., 'Jesus' Citation of Dt 6 : 5 and Lv 1 9 : 1 8 in the Light of Jewish Tradition,'

CBQ 2 8 , 1966, pp 3 1 2-16.

Stonehouse, N . B . , Origins of the Synoptic Gospels, Grand Rapids 1 96 3 .

Strack, H . L. and Billerbeck, P . , Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und

Midrasch, Munchen 1969.

Bibliography

24 7

Strecker, G . , Der Weg der Gerechtigkeit. Un tersuchung zur Theologie des MtEvangeliums, FRLANT 8 2 , Gottingen 1 96 2 .

Strecker, G., 'Die historische, theologische Problematik der Jesusfrage,' EvTh 29,

1969, pp 453-76.

Streeter, B . H . , The Four Gospels, London 1 9 24.

Stuhlmacher, P., 'Kritische Marginalien zum gegenwiirtigen Stand der Frage nach

Jesus,' in: Fides et Communicatio. Festschrift [ilr Martin Doerne, Gottingen

1 9 70.

Suggs, M . J. , Wisdom, Christology and Law in Matthew 's Gospel, Cambridge, Mass.,

1 9 70.

Suggs, M . J . , 'The Antitheses as Redactional Products,' in Jesus Christus in Historie

und Theologie, G. Strecker (ed.), Tubingen 1975.

Sutcliffe, E. F., 'Not to Resist Evil (M t 5 : 39).' Scripture 5 , 1 9 5 2 , pp 3 3-5 .

Talbert, C. H., 'Tradition and Redaction in Romans 1 2 : 9-2 1 ,' NTS 16, October

1 969, pp 83-9 3 .

Taylor, V., The Formation of the Gospel Tradition, London 1964.

Taylor, V. , The Gospel According to Mark, 2nd edn, New York 1 966.

Theissen, G., 'Wanderradikalismus,' ZThK 70, September 1973, pp 245-7 1 .

Thielicke, H. , Theological Ethics I , London E .T. 1 968.

Thomas, J., 'Aktuelles im Zeugnis der Zwolf Viiter,' in : Studien zu den Testa-

menten der Zwolf Patriarchen, W. Eltester (ed.), Berlin 1 969, pp 62-150.

Traub, F., 'Das Problem der Bergpredigt,' ZThK 17, 1936, pp 193-2 1 8 .

Trilling, W . , Das wahre Israel, 3rd edn, Munchen 1 964.

Trilling, W., 'Weisung und Anspruch (Mt 2 2 ,34-46),' Am Tisch des Wortes 5, 1 965 ,

pp 26-3 7 .

Trilling, W . , Fragen zur Geschichtlichkeit Jesu, Dusseldorf 1 96 7 .

Trilling, W . , Christusverkilndigung in den synoptischen Evangelien, Leipzig 1 968.

Unnik, W. C. van , 'Die Motivierung der Feindesliebe i n Lukas v i , 3 2-35,' NovTest

8, 1 966, pp 2 84-300.

V ogtle, A., Die Tugend· und Lasterkataloge im Neuen Testament, NTA 14 (4/5 ),

Munster 1 9 3 6 .

Volkl, R . , Die Selbstliebe in der Heiligen Schrift, Munchen 1 956.

Waldmann, M., Die Feindesliebe in der antiken Welt und im Christen tum, Wien 1902.

Walker, R. , Die Heilsgeschichte im ersten Evangelium, FRLANT 91, Gottingen 1 9 6 7 .

Warnach, V., A GAPE: Die Liebe als Grundmotiv der neutestamentlichen Theologie,

Dusseldorf 1 9 5 1 .

Wegenast, K., Das Verstiindnis der Tradition bei Paulus und in den Deuteropaulinen,

WMANT 8, Neukirchen 1962.

Weidinger, K. , Die Haustafeln, Ein Stuck urchristlicher Pariinese, UNT 1 4 , Leipzig

1 9 2 8 .

Weiser, A. , Die Psalmen, ATD 14/ 1 5 , Gottingen 1 9 6 6 .

Weiss, B . , Die paulinischen Briefe und der Hebriierbrie[, Das Neue Testament 2 , 2nd

edn, Leipzig 1902.

Weiss, J . , Predigt Jesu vom Reich Gottes, Gottingen 1 900.

Weiss, J., Das Urchristen tum, Gottingen 1 9 1 7 .

Wendland , H. D . , Die Eschatologie des Reiches Gottes bei Jesus, Gutersloh 1 9 3 1 .

Wendland, H . D., 'Gibt es eine Sozialethik im NT?' in : Botschaft an die soziale

Welt, Hamburg 1 9 5 9 , pp 6 8-84 .

Wendland, H. D . , Ethik des Neuen Testaments, NTD Ergiinzungsreihe 4, Gottingen 1 970.

Bibliography

248

Werner, M . , Die Entstehung des christlichen Dogmas, Bern 1 94 1 .

Wibbing, S . , Die Tugend - und Lasterkataloge im Neuen Testament, BZNW 25 ,

Berlin 1959.

Wilckens, U., 'Hellenistische-christliche Missionsiiberlieferung und Jesustradition,'

ThLZ 89, 1964, pp 5 1 7-20.

Wilder, A. N., Eschatology and Ethics in the Teaching of Jesus, New York 1 950.

Windisch, H . , 'Das Problem d e s paulinischen lmperativs,' ZNW 2 3 , 1 924.

Windisch, H., 'Die Spriiche von Eingehen in das Reich Gottes,' ZNW 2 7 , 1 9 2 8 ,

pp 1 6 3 -9 2 .

Windisch, H. , Der Sinn der Bergpredigt, Leipzig 1 9 2 9 .

Windisch, H . , Die katholischen Briefe, Tiibingen 195 1 .

Wohlenburg, D . G. , Der erste und zweite Thessalonischerbrief, 2nd edn, Leipzig 1909.

Woude, A. S. van der, Die messianischen Vorstellungen der Gemeinde von Qumran,

Assen 1 95 7 .

Wrege, H . T. , Die ilberlieferungsgeschichte der Bergpredigt, Tiibingen 1 96 8 .

Yoder, J . H . , Th e Politics of Jesus, Grand Rapids 1 9 7 2 .

Young, J. E., 'Heaping Coals of Fire on the Head,' Th e Expositor 3 r d series 2 ,

1 88 5 , pp 1 5 8-9 .

Ziener, G., 'Synoptische Frage,' in: Gestalt und Anspruch des Neuen Testaments,

Wiirzburg 1969, pp 1 73 -85 .

Zyro, F. , ' Uber Rom 1 2 , 1 9 : dote topon te orge, ' ThStKr 1 8 , 1 945 , pp 887-92.

IN D E X OF P A S S A G E S CITED

I . The Old Testament

Deuteronomy

Genesis

4:42

28

1 : 27

89

5 : 1 0

27

2 : 24

89, 90

5 : 26

207n96

4 : 9

9 0

6 : 4

94

29: 3 1ff

28

6 : 5

2 8 , 92, 93, 95 , 1 5 2,

44 :4

1 8 2n20

208n1 10

Exodus

7 : 1

3 2

1 2 : 19

3 1

7 : 2

3 2

1 2 :45ff

1 82n27

7 : 7

3 1

20: 6

2 7

7 : 8

3 1

20: 1 3

90

7 : 9

2 7

2 1 : 23

90

1 0 : 1 2

27

21 : 24

68, 89, 182n28

10: 15ff

3 1

23 : 4f

34, 48

1 0 : 1 8

28, 3 1 , 34

23 : 4

28

1 0 : 1 9

28, 3 1 , 34

23 : 5

28, 39

1 1 : 1

27

23 : 22

28

1 1 : 1 3

27

23 : 27

28

1 1 : 16

207n96

34 : 1 2

3 2

1 1 : 22

27

Leviticus

14 : 1

1 93n164

1 7 : 8

182n27

1 8 : 1 2

3 2

1 7:9

1 8 2n27

1 9 : 9

2 8

1 7 : 10

1 8 2n27

1 9 : 2 1

89, 90, 1 82n28

1 9

3 1, 3 2

1 9 : 3 0

28

1 9 : 1 0

1 82n27

20: 1 8

3 2

1 9 : 1 6- 1 8

3 0

2 1 : 1 5-1 7

28

1 9 : 1 7

28, 3 2

22: 1 3

28

1 9 : 1 8

30, 3 1 , 3 2, 3 7 , 47,

23 : 3-6

3 2

68, 9 1 , 92, 93, 94 ,

23 : 2 1

90

95, 1 1 2, 147, 148,

23: 22f

1 88n99

1 5 2, 1 89n1 1 7 ,

24 : 1-3

28

208n 1 1 0

24 : 1

89

1 9 : 34

3 1 , 3 2, 4 8

25 : 1 7-19

32

2 2 : 1 8

1 8 2n27

3 2 : 3 5

2 7 , 37, 1 1 2

24: 10

1 8 2n28

Joshua

24 : 20

89

6 : 15

1 82n29

23 : 3 5ff

1 8 2n27

8 : 1

1 82n29

25 :47ff

1 8 2n27

8 : 1 8

1 8 2n29

Numbers

1 0 : 8

1 8 2n29

3 0 : 2f

1 88n99

1 0 : 1 1

1 8 2n29

30: 2

90

10: 1 4

1 82n29

Index of passages cited

250

Joshua (cont.)

Psalms (cont.)

1 0 : 30

1 8 2n29

34 : 1 2

2 1 8n89

1 0 : 3 2

1 8 2n29

34: 15

1 1 2

10:42

182n29

34 : 1 3-17

1 23, 1 24

1 1 : 8

182n29

35

34

1 3 : 6

1 8 2n29

35 : 1

34

22: 5

28

35 : 1 2-14

34

23 : 5

1 8 2n29

4 1 : 7

28

23 : 1 0

1 0, 3 2

50: 14

1 8 8n99

23 : 1 1

28

6 9 : 2 1-28

4 1 , 1 80n24

I Samuel

6 9 : 2 2

1 84n54

24: 1 7- 1 8

1 8 2n30

6 9 : 23

1 84n54

25 : 26

182n30

69 : 25

1 84n54

25 : 3 3

1 8 2n30

72:4

2 1 6n5 8

I I Samuel

109

33, 4 1

1 : 26

28

109:4

3 3 , 190n 1 3 0

1 3 : 1 5

28

1 0 9 : 5

3 3 , 1 90n1 3 0

1 9 : 6

3 2

1 09 : 2 1

3 3

22: 9

1 15

109 : 22

3 3

22 : 1 3

1 1 5

1 3 9 : 3

33

I Kings

1 3 9 : 4

33

2 : 5-9

1 8 2n30

1 3 9 : 1 7

33

3 : 3

27

1 3 9 : 1 8

33

3 : 1 0ff

29, 34

1 3 9 : 1 9-22

28, 3 3 , 4 1

II Chronicles

1 3 9 : 2 1

1 83n33

1 9 : 2

3 2

1 3 9 : 23

33

Ezra

1 3 9 : 24

33

5 : 4 1

2 1 8n82

140: 1 1

1 1 5

7 : 9

2 1 8n82

143 : 1 1f

21 6n5 8

7 : 1 6

2 1 8n82

143 : 1 1

2 1 6n5 9

8 : 5 8

2 1 8n82

Proverbs

Nehemiah

3 :4 LXX

6, 27, 1 1 2, 1 79n23

1 : 5

27

3 : 7

27

Job

3 : 32

1 8 2n3 1

1 : 1

38

3 : 34LXX

1 25

2 2 : 29

1 25

6 : 16ff

1 8 2n3 1

3 1 : 1 2

1 15

6 : 27-29

1 1 5

Psalms

1 1 : 3 1 LXX

2 15n47, 2 1 7n78

5 : 4-6

1 8 2n3 1

1 7 : 3

1 82n20

9 : 8

2 1 6n5 8

1 7 : 1 3

27, 34, 49, 64

9 : 1 6

2 1 6n5 8

20 : 22

1 82n20

1 1 : 5

1 82n3 1

24 : 1 7

29:34

1 8 : 9

1 1 5

24 : 1 8

29, 34

1 8 : 1 3

1 1 5

24 : 29

28, 34, 1 8 2n20

1 8 : 27

201n56

25 : 2 1f

27, 30, 34, 1 1 2,

3 1 : 6

1 82n3 1

2 15n45

3 3 : 8 LXX

64

25 : 2 1

48, 6 1

3 3 : 1 3- 1 7 LXX 1 22, 1 23

25 : 22

1 16

33 : 1 5LXX

1 3 , 14, 5 7 , 64, 1 1 2,

Song of Solomon

1 8 0n24

8 : 6f

28

3 3 : 1 6LXX

215n52

Isaiah

34

5 , 63, 1 24, 127,

5 : 2 1

27

2 1 8n88, 2 1 8n89

29 : 1 9LXX

230n 1 09

34 : 1 2- 1 6

3 3 : 24

83

(LXX33)

27, 34, 2 15n47

5 3 : 5f

83

Index of passages cited

251

Isaiah (cont.)

Matthew (cont. )

5 6 : 6

2 7

5 : 1 0ff

220n27, 227n66

6 1 : 1 -3

201 n5 6

5 : 1 0- 1 2

224n3 5 , 225n39

6 1 : 1

83

5 : 1 0

77, 1 6 2 , 1 90n 1 23,

65 : 1 9

83

1 9 7n24, 1 97n26

Jeremiah

5 : 1 1

1 6 2, 1 8 9n 1 18,

2 : 2

2 8

190n 1 23 , 206n9 1 ,

3 1 : 3 1 ff

206n96, 207n96

224n35, 227n65

3 1 : 3 1-34

90

5 : 1 2

60, 1 6 2,

3 1 : 3 3

28, 9 0

1 9 3 n 1 5 5

3 1 : 34

83, 90

5 : 1 3- 1 5

1 99n4 2

3 2 : 3 7ff

90

5 : 1 6

7 8 , 88, 143, 144,

Ezekiel

1 99n4 2

1 1 : 1 9

28, 90

5 : 1 7 ff

89

34 : 25

207n96

5 : 1 7-1 9

1 5 1 , 2 1 0n 1 1 9,

34 : 3 1

1 8 7n87

228n76

3 6 : 22ff

206n96

5 : 1 7

1 5 2

3 6 : 25ff

207n96

5 : 1 8

152, 2 1 0n 1 1 9

3 6 : 25-27

83

5 : 1 9

1 5 2, 204n80,

36 : 25

90

226n5 2

3 6 : 26

90, 207n97

5 : 20ff

149

36 : 27

90

5 : 20

55, 5 9 , 146, 206n9 1 ,

3 7 : 26

207n96

220n7, 226n54

Daniel

5 : 21-7 : 1 1

204n80

9 : 4

2 7

5 : 21-48

146

9 : 16-19

2 16n59

5 : 2 1 f

5 1 , 1 4 5 , 1 8 8n 1 02,

Hosea

1 88n103, 204n83 ,

6 : 6

1 5 2

206n90

9 : 15

1 82n3 1

5 : 21

5 2 , 225n5 1

Jonah

34

5 : 22

62, 1 1 9, 2 1 0n l 25

4 : 2

29

5 : 23f

143, 197n28

4:4

29

5 : 23

204n80, 2 26n5 2

Zephaniah

5 : 24f

1 88n98

3 : 1 7

8 3

5 : 27f

51, 145, 1 8 8n 1 02,

Zechariah

1 88nl03 , 204n83,

1 3 : 1

83

206n90

Malachi

5 : 27

5 2, 225n5 1

1 : 3

2 8

5 : 28

205n89

5 : 29f

62, 1 88n9 8

II . The New Testament

5 : 3 1 f

1 88n100

Matthew

5 : 3 1

5 1 , 5 2 , 1 88n100

1 : 23

1 5 1

5 : 32

5 1 , 204n83 , 223n32

4 : 1 7

7 1 , 79, 200n4 8

5 : 33ff

90

4 : 23

1 4 1

5 : 33-37

5 1 , 206n90

5-9

1 4 1

5 : 33f

91

5-7

1 4 1 , 1 5 3

5 : 33

5 2, 205n90, 206n90,

5 : 1

1 4 1

225n5 1

5 : 1f

1 5 3

5 : 34

5 1 , 5 2, 5 3 , 97,

5 : 3- 1 2

4 9

204n8 3 , 205n90,

5 : 3

60, 7 7, 1 9 7n24,

206n90

1 97n26

5 : 37f

90

5 : 4-9

1 97n26

5 : 37

1 80n98

5 : 7

1 89n l l 8, 1 97n28

5 : 37b

206n9 1

5 : 8

145, 205n89

5 : 38ff

206n94

5 : 9

6 0 , 6 4 , 7 7 , 1 8 0n26 ,

5 : 38-48

49, 5 0, 54, 98, 99,

1 89nl l 8, 197n24

1 34, 1 3 5 , 1 36, 1 3 7 '

Index of passages cited

252

Matthew (cont. )

Matthew (cont. )

1 4 1 , 142, 145, 146,

5 :45

26, 54, 60, 6 1 , 62,

148, 1 7 1 , 1 86n79

76, 87' 135, 1 3 6 ,

5 : 3 8f

3 8 , 5 1 , 90, 9 1 , 1 5 1 ,

146, 150, 197n24,

204n83

2 20n5

5 : 3 8

5 1 , 5 2, 5 3 , 56, 89,

5 :46f

76, 7 7 , 1 36, 146,

9 7 , 98, 1 3 5 , 2 1 0n1 20

149, 190n 1 27 ,

5 : 3 8b

89

226n54

5 : 3 9-4 2

88, 89, 1 36 , 1 3 7 , 148,

5 : 46

54, 59, 1 3 5 , 1 36,

1 9 1 n 1 4 1

1 4 8 , 1 5 6 , 1 89nl 1 8 ,

5 : 39-4 1

9 8

225n4 1

5 : 39f

1 88n9 8, 1 9 1 n 1 3 8

5 :47

59, 87, 135, 1 36, 142,

5 : 39

5 1 , 5 2, 5 3 , 56, 5 8,

144, 146, 149, 150,

1 1 9, 1 3 6 , 143, 1 50,

156, 1 90n1 27,

1 56 , 1 88n1 0 7 ,

1 94n170, 206n9 1 ,

206n9 1

220n7, 225n4 1

5 : 3 9bff

5 8

5 :48

26, 50, 6 3 , 87' 1 3 5 ,

5 : 39b-4 7

5 0

1 3 6 , 146, 148,

5 : 3 9b-4 2

5 2 , 54, 5 5 , 56, 5 8 ,

193n1 62, 1 94n 1 7 1 ,

1 3 5 , 1 88n107

206n93 , 204n80,

5 : 39b-4 1

1 9 1 n 140, 1 92n1 4 2

220n7, 225n49,

5 : 39b

1 3 5 , 1 9 1 n 1 3 8

226n5 2

5 :4 0

5 8 , 1 3 5 , 150, 1 5 6 ,

6 : 1ff

7 7, 88

1 9 1 n 1 3 8

6 : 1-6

149

5 :4 1

5 8, 89, 1 35 , 1 3 6 ,

6 : 2ff

145

156, 1 9 1 n 1 3 5 ,

6 : 2

204n80, 225n4 3 , 2 26n5 2

1 9 1 n 1 36, 1 9 1n l 3 8 ,

6 : 3

199n42

2 3 1 n 1 25

6 : 5f

143, 144

5 :4 2-48

1 94n 1 7 2

6 : 5

225n43

5 :4 2

5 8 , 89, 1 50, 1 5 7 ,

6 : 7 f

149

1 88n107, 1 9 1n 1 3 8,

6 : 7

5 9, 149, 1 5 0, 1 92n1 5 3 ,

1 9 1 n 140

226n54

5 : 4 2b

59, 1 5 7 , 1 9 1 n 1 3 6 ,

6 : 8

149, 150, 204n80,

230n107

226n5 2

5 :43-48

5 1 , 68, 72, 87, 94,

6 : 9- 1 3

143

143, 146

6 : 9

1 4 3 , 204n80, 2 26n5 2

5 :43-47

146

6 : 9b par

88

5 :4 3-44

5 1

6 : 10

224n37

5 :43f

91, 1 5 1

6 : 1 1

224n37

5 :4 3

5 1 , 5 3 , 5 4 , 5 5 , 1 3 5 ,

6 : 1 2

143

148, 207n99, 225n5 1 ,

6 : 1 3

143, 200n49, 224n37

226n62

6 : 14f

1 97n28

5 :44-4 8

54, 193n154

6 : 1 6- 1 8

149

5 : 44-47 par

9 5

6 : 1 6

225n43

5 : 44 par

1 3 3

6 : 1 9-2 1

232n 1 3 1

5: 44f

46, 1 9 7 n25

6 : 1 9-20

232n 1 3 1

5 :44

25, 5 1 , 5 3 , 54, 5 5 ,

6 : 20 par

88

5 6 , 9 1 , 98, 1 3 5 , 1 3 6 ,

6 : 2 1 par

7 7

142, 1 4 3 , 144, 146,

6 : 2 1

205n89

162, 1 89n 1 1 7 ,

6 : 22

204n80, 226n5 2

1 89n l l 8, 2 1 5 n4 7

6 : 23

204n80, 206n9 1

5 : 44b

1 35 , 1 36 , 1 90n1 27

6 : 24 par

1 79n14

220n7, 225n3 9

6 : 25ff

60

5 :44b-48

5 6

6 : 25-33

2 3 2n 1 3 1

5 : 45-41

146

6 : 25

224n37

Index of passages cited

253

Matthew (cont. )

Matthew (cont. )

6 : 27

200n5 1

10: 34

204n79, 2 3 1 n 1 25

6 : 3 0-33

88

10: 37

1 98n32

6 : 30

1 5 0

1 0 : 3 9

198n36, 227n65

6 : 3 1f

150

1 1 : 2ff

79

6 : 3 1

204n80, 226n5 2

1 1 : 2-6

88

6 : 3 2

7 8 , 149, 1 5 0,

1 1 : 2-4

8 1

226n54

1 1 : 5f

202n68

6 : 32b

150

1 1 : 5

79, 8 1

6 : 33

1 S 8, 193n1S5,

1 1 : Sb

83

224n37

1 1 : 6

8 1

6 : 34

204n80, 226n5 2

1 1 : 1 9

8 1 , 1 94n167,

7 : 1-5

so

201n54

7 : 5

225n43

1 1 : 20-24

200nS 1

7 : 1 1

88, 150, 204n80,

1 1 : 2Q-2 2 par

1 19

206n9 1 , 226nS 2

1 1 : 2 1

200n48

7 : 1 2

147, 148, 1S2,

1 1 : 2S-27

198n34

204n80, 226n5 2,

1 1 : 2S par

77

228n73

1 1 : 2S

202n69

7 : 1 3

204n80

1 1 : 27

1 S 1

7: 1S-20

5 0

1 1 : 2 8

1 5 1

7 : 15

224n37

1 2 : 1-8

1 S 2

7 : 1 7

1 99n42

1 2 : 7

1 S 2, 227n62

7 : 1 8

6 1 , 14S, 225n46

1 2 : 1 2

5 7

7 : 2 1-27

s o

1 2 : 34

20Sn89

7 : 2 1

144, 1 7 3 , 224n3 7

1 2 : 3 S

206n9 1

7 : 23

144

1 2 : 39

88, 206n9 1

7 : 24

1 7 3 , 204n80, 225n42,

1 2 : 4 1 f

200n5 1

226nS 2

1 2 : 4 1

200n4 8

7 : 26f

144

1 2 :45

206n9 1

7 : 26

14S, 22Sn42

1 2:46-SO

1 S 1

7 : 28f

141

1 2 :49

1 S 1

8-9

1 4 1

1 2 : S O

1 S 1 , 1 9 1 n 1 3 8

8 : 4 par

1 79n16

1 3 : 9

206n9 1

8: 1 8-22

149

1 3 : 1 2

1 9 1 n 1 3 8, 192n 1 5 0

8 : 1 9f

149

1 3 : 1 S

205n89

8: 23-27

149

1 3 : 24-30

2 1 6n64

8 : 23

227n67

1 3 : 3 0

34

8 : 24

149

1 3 : 3 2f

88

8 : 2S

227n67

14 : 20

192n 1 5 0

8 : 34

226n5 2

14: 28-3 3

227n68

9:4

20Sn89, 206n9 1

1 S : 7

22Sn4S

9 : 1 Q-13

1S2

1 S : 8

20Sn89

9 : 1 3

227n62

1 S : 1 9

14S, 20Sn89, 206n9 1

9 : 3S

1 4 1

1 6 : 4

206n9 1

10 : 1 0

1 94n174

1 6 : 24ff

227n66

10: 1 7 ff

227n66

1 6 : 2S

227n6S

1 0 : 1 8

227n6S

1 8 : 3

6 0

1 0 : 20

227n72

1 8 : 1 0

1 79n1 6

1 0 : 2 2

227n6S

1 8 : 14

227n72

10: 23

162, 190n1 23

1 8 : 1 7

S9, 149, 192n1S3

1 0 : 2S

149

1 8 : 2 1

1 90n1 29

1 0 : 28

62

1 8 : 23ff

8S, 203n72

1 0 : 29

227n72

1 8 : 23-3S

84

10: 3 1

227n72

1 8 : 23-2S

60, 1 1 9

Index of passages cited

254

Matthew (cont. )

Matthew (cont. )

1 8 : 3 3

84

24 :4 par

1 79n 1 6

1 8 : 34

84

24 : 9

227n65

1 8 : 35

84, 1 9 7n28, 205n89,

24 : 1 2f

6 1

225n4 7

24 : 1 2

144, 1 5 2

1 9 : 1

2 26n56

24 : 1 7

190n 1 23

1 9 : 3- 1 2

226n56

24 :48

205n89

1 9 : 8

9 0

24 : 5 1

205n43

1 9 : 1 3- 1 5

226n56

25 : 26

206n9 1

1 9 : 1 6-22

147, 226n5 6

2 5 : 29

1 92n 1 5 0

1 9 : 1 6

147

25 : 3 1-46

1 93n155

1 9 : 1 7-21

227n6 2

25 : 3 1f

200n5 1

1 9 : 1 7f

147

25 : 34ff

1 93n156

1 9 : 1 7

147, 148, 227n62

25 : 3 5f

143

1 9 : 1 8f

147, 1 4 8

25 :40

1 97n28

1 9 : 1 8

226n5 8

25 :44

86

1 9 : 1 9

147, 148, 1 5 2 ,

25 :45

1 97n28

223n32, 226n6 2

27 : 26

23 1 n 1 26

1 9 : 20

147

27 : 3 2

229n 1 05

1 9 : 2 1

6 3 , 146, 147, 148,

27 : 5 5

1 9 1 n 1 3 8

2 20n7 , 225n49

28: 1 8-20

149

1 9 : 22-24

147

28:20

142

1 9 : 22

147

Mark

1 9 : 23-30

226n56

1 : 15

79, 200n48

1 9 : 29

87, 1 9 3 n 1 5 5 ,

1 : 2 1

204n83

1 9 1 n 1 3 8 , 227n65

1 : 3 8

201n60

1 9 : 3 0

8 7

1 : 44

89, 204n83,

20: 8ff

193n156

209n l 1 8

20: 1 6

8 7

2 : 15-1 7 par

8 1

2 1 : 28-3 1

1 94n 1 6 7

2 : 1 5- 1 7

201n54

2 1 : 3 1

8 1

2 : 1 7

8 1 , 1 92n 1 5 2,

2 1 : 3 3

1 9 1 n 1 3 8

1 94n 1 6 7 , 201n6 0

22: 2

86

2 : 1 8-3 : 6

204n83

2 2 : 8

2 25n43

2 : 1 9

22: 1 0

206n9 1

3 : 4

5 7

22: 2 1

1 5 8

3 : 7- 1 2

1 5 3

22 : 3 7

1 4 7 , 205n89

3 : 13-19

1 5 3

22: 3 9

1 4 8 , 1 5 2

3 : 3 1-3 5

1 5 1

22:40

94, 1 5 2

3 : 34

15 1

2 3 : l ff

204n83

4 : 1 0

23 : 3

8 9

4 : 24 par

1 79n 1 6

23 : 1 2

88, 1 25 , 1 9 1 n 1 3 8

4 : 25

1 92n145

23 : 1 3

225n43

5 : 1 7

226n5 2

23: 1 4

5 : 1 8

97

23 : 1 5

225n4 3

6 : 20

20 1 n60

23 : 1 7

2 1 0n125

6 : 4 3

192n150

23 : 23

1 5 2

7 : 5

204n83

23 : 25-28

205n89

7 : 8

9 1

2 3 : 25 -2 6

225n44

7 : 9-13

204n83

23 : 25

225n4 5

7 : 9

89, 9 1

23 : 26

145 , 225n44,

7 : 1 1

205n84

225n4 5

7 : 1 3

89, 205n84

23 : 3 2

227n66

7 : 2 1 f

1 4 5

23 : 34

1 6 2

7 : 33

230n 1 10

23 : 3 5

2 16n64

8 : 1 5

1 5 5

Index of passages cited

255

Mark (cont.)

Mark (cont.)

8 : 34f par

78

1 2 : 3 2-3 3

208n 107

8 : 35

1 98n36

1 2 : 3 3

93, 208n 1 0 8

9 : 15

1 9 2n145

1 2 : 34

94

9 : 33-37

86

1 2 : 35

145

9 : 35

1 97n28

1 2 : 3 8-40

155

9 : 5 0

6 4 , 1 80n26

14 : 20

1 5 8

1 0 : 1 ff

208nl 1 8

14 : 2 1

1 5 8

10: 1

226n56

15: 15

23 1 n 1 26

1 0 : 2ff

204n82

1 5 : 1 8

192n145

1 0 : 2- 1 2

89, 9 7 , 20Sn86 ,

20: 3 0f

8 7

207n97

22: 22

1 5 8

10: 2-9

89, 9 7 , 205n86,

Luke

207n97

1 : 32

1 93n162

1 0 : 2

8 9

1 : 3 5

1 93n162

1 0 : 3

8 9

1 : 76

1 93n162

10:4

89

2 : 9

233n134

1 0 : 5

89, 90, 9 1 , 204n83

2 : 14

233n134

1 0 : 6-8

89

2 : 20

233n134

1 0 : 9

89

3 : 1-6

154

1 0 : 1 1f

1 94n174

3 : 7-18

154

1 0 : 1 1

223n32

3 : 8

1 60

1 0 : 1 3-16

226n56

3 : 9

1 6 3

1 0 : 1 5

7 9

3 : 1 1

160

1 0 : 1 7ff

202n69

3 : 1 7

1 6 3

1 0 : 1 7-22

77, 1 98n30, 226n56

3 : 2 1 f

1 54

1 0 : 1 7

77, 198n38

4 : 1-6 : 1 1

1 54

1 0 : 1 8 par

89

4 : 1 8

79, 8 1

1 0 : 1 8

147

S : 2S f

233n1 34

1 0 : 2 1

7 7 , 1 4 7 , 148,

5 : 25

162

1 97n28, 199n4 2

5 : 30

42, 192n148

1 0 : 23-3 1

226n56

6 : 3ff

1 59

1 0 : 23-28

7 7

6 : 3

1 5 9 , 230n1 14

10: 23-27

1 98n3 0

6 : 5

159, 230n 1 14

1 0 : 23

7 7

6 : 9

5 7

1 0 : 24

7 7

6 : 1 2-4 9

154

1 0 : 2 7

77, 1 99n42,

6 : 1 2 : 20

1 54

202n69

6 : 1 2- 1 5

1 5 3

1 0 : 3 0

1 93n155

6 : 1 2

153

1 0 : 3 1

87

6 : 1 3

154

1 0 : 4 2ff

7 7

6 : 1 5

6 0

1 0 :4 2

8 7 , 88

6 : 16

1 5 9 , 230n1 14

1 0 :4 3 f

8 6

6 : 1 7-35

so

1 0 : 4 3

86, 203n76, 2 1 9n95

6 : 1 7-1 9

1 5 3

1 0 :44

86, 203n76

6 : 1 7

1 5 3 , 154, 229n98

1 0 :4 5

86, 87

6 : 17b

1 54

1 1 : 15-18

2 1 0n 1 25

6 : 1 8

1 5 3 , 155

1 1 : 25

1 97n28

6 : 20-4 9

1 5 3 , 1 54

1 2: 1 7

1 3 3 , 2 1 0n 1 20

6 : 20-26

1 5 3 , 229n99

1 2 : 2 8-3 1

1 14

6 : 20-23

49, 1 5 8

1 2 : 28

9 2, 93

6 : 20f

1 62

1 2 : 29

92, 93

6 : 20

60, 8 1 , 1 5 3 , 1 54 , 1 5 5 ,

1 2 : 3 0f par

92

158, 1 6 3 , 233n145

1 2 : 3 0f

93

6 : 20b

1 5 8

1 2 : 3 1

92

6 : 2 1

1 5 8 , 160, 1 6 3 , 169

Index of passages cited

256

Luke (cont.)

Luke (cont.)

6 : 2 1 b

1 5 8 , 1 6 7

6 : 34f

160

6 : 22f

163

6 : 34

59, 1 5 8 , 1 9 1n 1 36,

6 : 22

1 89nl 1 8, 190n126

1 92n144, 230n109,

6 : 22b

1 89nl 1 8

232n 1 3 3

6 : 23

60, 169, 193n155,

6 : 3 5

25 , 5 4 , 55 , 5 7 ' 59,

233n145

63, 76, 136, 1 5 7 '

6 : 24-26

50, 1 5 5 , 15 8

1 5 8 , 159, 162, 1 6 3 ,

6 : 24f

159, 163

1 6 7 , 169, 1 80n25 ,

6 : 24

160, 162, 1 69,

1 89nl 14,

230n109

1 9 1 n 1 3 6 , 193n162,

6 : 24b

230n 1 1 4

1 94n169, 230n109

6 : 25

160

6 :35b

61, 135, 1 3 6 , 168,

6 : 26

1 6 3 , 190n1 26

1 89n l 14, 192n146

6 : 27-46

1 3 6 , 1 5 3

6 : 35c

60, 1 36

6 : 27-45

1 5 3 , 229n 1 0 1

6 : 36-42

50

6 : 27-38

229n 1 0 1

6 : 3 6

6 3 , 8 7 , 1 3 5 , 1 3 6 ,

6 : 27-36 par

1 87n90

146, 1 6 1 , 168, 170,

6 : 27-36

49, 50, 5 1 , 52, 54,

1 89n l 1 8, 193n162,

5 6, 98, 1 34, 1 3 5 ,

1 94n169, 1 94n17 1 ,

1 36 , 14 1 , 1 5 6 , 1 5 7 ,

220n5

1 7 1 , 1 94n172

6 : 37ff

1 94n 1 7 1

6 : 27ff

1 94n169

6 : 37f

163, 1 93 n 1 5 9

6 : 27

1 7 , 5 3 , 54, 5 5 , 5 6 ,

6 : 3 7

1 94n169, 197n28

5 8, 63, 1 3 5 , 1 36,

6 : 39-45

229n1 0 1

158, 1 89nl 16,

6 : 39

229n 1 0 1

1 89n1 1 7, 1 89n 1 1 8

6 :40

149, 229n1 0 1

6 : 27b-3 1

1 3 6

6 : 4 1

229n 1 0 1

6 : 27b

57, 1 3 5 , 1 9 0n 1 26

6 : 4 3-45

5 0

6 : 27c

135

6 :43f

229n l 0 1

6 : 27d

135

6 :43

169, 175

6 : 28

25, 5 6 , 5 7 , 58, 1 72,

6 :45

145 , 175, 206n9 1 ,

190n 1 26 , 1 90n 1 2 7 ,

229n 1 0 1

195n174, 2 15n4 7 ,

6 :46-49

50, 1 5 3 , 163

224n3 5

6 :46

229n99

6 : 28b

1 89n1 1 8

6 : 4 7

225n4 2

6 : 29f

5 8, 1 3 5 , 230n 1 06

6 : 4 9

1 70, 225n4 2

6 : 29

52, 54, 5 5 , 1 3 5 , 1 5 6 ,

7 : 1

154, 1 5 5

1 91n140, 230n106 ,

7 : 1 6

2 3 3 n 1 34

230n1 07

7 : 22

8 1

6 : 29b

1 9 1 n 1 3 6

7 : 30ff

202n6 1

6 : 30

5 2 , 54, 55 , 13 5 , 1 5 9 ,

7 : 34

1 92n148

160 , 1 6 2 , 1 91 n 140,

7 : 3 7ff

202n69

1 92n144, 227n71 ,

7 : 3 7

201n5 8

230n109

7 : 4 1ff

85

6 : 30b

59, 1 5 7 , 1 9 1n136,

7 :45ff

8 3

230n 1 07

8 : 1

79

6 : 3 1

54, 226n52

8 : 9

1 5 5

6 : 3 2-36

68

8 : 1 0

1 5 5

6 : 3 2-34

54, 55, 59, 79, 1 3 5 ,

8 : 14

1 6 2, 169

136, 156 , 163 ,

8 : 1 6

2 29nl00

1 89n 1 16

8 : 1 8

165

6 : 32f

76, 2 3 2n 1 3 1

8 : 26

227n71

6 : 3 2

5 9 , 1 92n143

9 : 24

1 6 3

6 : 3 3

5 9 , 6 3 , 1 80n25,

9 : 26

164, 233n1 34

1 92n 143

9 : 54-56

87

Index of passages cited

25 7

Luke (cont.)

Luke (cont.)

9 : 5 7-69

149

1 3 : 3f

200n48

1 0 : 5

225n40

1 3 : 5

164

1 0 : 1 3f

1 64, 230n1 13

1 3 : 1 3

233n134

10: 1 3

200n48

1 3 : 24

1 64

1 0 : 1 9

47

1 3 : 27f

1 64

1 0 : 2 1-24

155

1 3 : 3 0

8 7

1 0 : 2 1

198n34

14: 1

1 6 1

1 0 : 22

1 98n34

1 4 : 7-14

86

1 0 : 25

164, 168

14 : 7-1 1

86, 169

1 0 : 26

204n83

14 : 7

86

1 0 : 2 8

164

1 4 : 1 1

86, 87, 1 2 5 , 165,

1 0 : 29-3 7

93, 94, 95 , 1 5 9 ,

203n76

162, 190n 1 29

1 4 : 1 2- 14

86, 1 6 1 , 1 6 2,

10: 29

5 6 , 95

190n129, 232n134

1 0 : 3 0

2 3 1 n 1 23

14 : 1 3f

1 6 3 , 1 6 5 , 167,

1 1 :4

164

232n 1 3 3

1 1 : 20 par

88

14 : 1 3

1 6 2

1 1 : 20

79, 8 1 , 197n24

1 4 : 14

1 6 1 , 1 6 7 , 232n 1 3 3

1 1 : 29

8 8

14 : 24

164

1 1 : 3 1f

164

14 : 25

77

1 1 : 3 2

200n48

14 : 26

77, 1 6 1 , 1 98n3 2,

1 1 : 3 3

229n 1 00

205n88, 221n14

1 1 : 3 9-4 1

225n44

14 : 3 1

227n7 1

1 1 :4 1

225n44

14: 34

165

1 1 :4 2

228n79

15

8 1 , 82, 194n167

1 1 :49

23 1 n 1 25

1 5 : 1-3

82

1 1 : 5 0

2 16n64

1 5 : 1f

83

1 2 : 1

155

1 5 : 1

1 92n 148

1 2 : 4f

164

1 5 : 2

42, 8 1

1 2 : 5

62

1 5 : 7

8 3 , 200n48

1 2 : 6f

164

1 5 : 1 0

83, 200n48

1 2 : 8-10

164

1 5 : 1 1- 1 3

82

1 2 : 1 3-2 1

232n 1 3 1

1 5 : 1 1-24

8 1

1 2 : 1 5

1 6 2

1 5 : 2 1 f

169

1 2 : 1 8

227n7 1

1 5 : 2 1

168

1 2 : 20f

164, 200n5 1

1 5 : 25-3 2

8 1 , 8 3

1 2 : 20

1 5 7

1 5 : 27

230n l 1 0

1 2 : 2 1

1 69

1 5 : 2 8-3 2

83

1 2 : 2 2ff

1 64

1 5 : 29

202n63

1 2 : 22-3 2

232n1 3 1

1 6 : 1-8

197n 1 3 2

1 2 : 3 0

192n148

1 6 : 1

167

1 2 : 3 1

158, 1 64

1 6 : 8

227n7

1 2 : 3 2f

232n 1 3 1

1 6 : 9

1 6 2 , 1 6 5 , 1 6 7 , 169,

1 2 : 3 2

7 9 , 1 64, 1 6 8

174, 23 2n1 3 2

1 2 : 3 3f

232n 1 3 1

1 6 : 1 1f

1 6 5

1 2 : 3 3

164, 1 6 7 ' 1 6 8, 169,

1 6 : 1 1

1 7 0

1 7 4 , 1 97n28,

16: 14f

160

2 3 1 n 1 22

1 6 : 15

169

1 2 : 34

1 6 1

16 : 1 7

97, 2 1 0n 1 1 9

1 2 : 3 7

8 6 , 164

16 : 1 8

223n32

1 2 :45f

164

1 6 : 1 9-3 1

159, 160, 1 6 2

1 2 : 5 1-5 3

88

1 6 : 1 9

159

1 2 : 5 1

23 1 n 1 25

1 6 : 20f

1 5 9

1 2 : 57ff

1 97n28

1 6 : 20

1 6 2

Index of passages cited

258

Luke (cont.)

Luke (cont.)

1 6 : 22

160

23 : 3 0

1 9 1 n 1 3 5

16 : 23

160, 23 1nl l 8

23 : 34

1 90n1 29, 1 9 1n1 3 1 ,

1 6 : 24

160

23 1 n 1 25

1 6 : 25

160, 1 6 3 , 1 6 5 , 167 '

23 : 3 6

1 9 1 n 1 3 5

169, 230n1 10

23 : 4 1

230n l 1 0

1 6 : 26

160

23 :47

233n134

1 6 : 29

23 1n1 1 8

John

1 6 : 30

1 60, 200n48

3 : 3-8

1 1 9

1 7 : 1f

230n l 1 3

3 : 1 7-21

2 16n6 1

1 7 : 2

165

5 :44

78, 88

1 7 : 3

200n48

6 : 44

202n69

1 7 : 8

86

6 :45

202n69

1 7 : 9

1 92n146

9 : 3 1

3 8

1 7 : 1 0

7 8 , 168, 169

1 2 : 25

198n36

1 7 : 1 5

233n134

1 3 : 2 3

23 1n1 1 9

1 7 : 1 8

233n1 34

Acts

1 7 : 20

88, 227n71

1 : 20

1 84n54

1 7 : 2 1

79, 88, 1 97n24

2:42

221n14

1 7 : 33

198n36

2:44f

23 1n122

1 8 : 9-14

77, 88, 1 98n33

4 : S2-37

23 1n122

1 8 : 3 3

1 6 8, 1 6 9

6 : 4

221n14

1 8 : 14

87, 125, 165, 167,

7:48

193n162

233n142

7 : 5 6

200n5 1

1 8 : 1 8

169

7 : 60

1 9 1 n 1 3 1

1 8 : 25

2 1 0n 1 1 9

9 : 2 1

2 1 7n76

1 8 : 29f

165

1 2 : 1 2

23 1 n 1 2 2

1 8 : 3 0

1 69, 193n1 5 5 , 230n1 10

1 3 : 7

23 1 n 1 26

1 8 : 4 3

233n1 34

1 3 : 1 2

23 1 n 1 26

1 9 : 1-10

23 1 n 1 20

1 6 : 16ff

23 1 n 1 26

1 9 : 7

42, 201n5 8

1 6 : 3 9

23 1 n 1 26

1 9 : 8

8 3

1 8 : 1 5- 1 7

23 1 n 1 26

1 9 : 26

165, 192n 1 5 0

1 9 : 23

23 1 n 1 26

1 9 : 27

165

1 9 : 35-4 1

231n1 26

1 9 : 3 7

229n98

23 : 29

23 1n126

1 9 : 3 8

233n 1 34

25 : 25

2 3 1 n 1 26

20 : 15f

165

26 : 3 2

23 1 n 1 26

20: 20

2 3 ln 1 26

27 : 9

176nl

20: 26

23 l n 1 2 6

27 : 22

1 76nl

20 : 28

193n155

28: 30f

23 1 n 1 26

20:45

155

Romans

20:46f

165

1 : 1

34

20:46

169

1 : 2

34

2 1 : 1 2

190n 1 23 , 23 1 n 1 25

1 : 5

1 09

2 1 : 1 7-19

165

1 : 1 1-14

2 1 2n26

22: 27

86

1 : 16f

216n5 8

22: 3 8

99

1 : 16

1 1 7, 1 2 1

22 : 5 1

99

1 : 1 8

25, 21 6n5 8

23 : 2

23 1 n 1 26

1 : 27

230n 1 1 0

2 3 : 5

2 3 1 n 1 26

2:4f

1 18

23 : 1 3- 1 6

23 1 n 1 26

2 : 4

1 1 8

23 : 1 8f

23 1 n 1 26

2 : 5

1 1 8

23 : 23

2 3 1 n 1 26

2 : 6-8

1 17

23 : 25

23 1 n 1 26

2 : 6

1 1 8

23 : 29

1 9 1 n 1 3 5

2 : 8

3 4

Index of passages cited

259

Romans (cont.)

Romans (cont.)

2 : 1 0

6 3 , 1 9 1 n 1 3 2

1 2 : 3-8

5, 103

3 : 3 1

1 14

1 2 : 3

1 09 , 2 13n29

4 : 4

1 06

1 2 : 6

2 1 3n29

4 : 23

1 14

1 2 : 7

86, 1 09

4 : 24

1 1 7 , 1 2 1

1 2 : 9-2 1

5 , 8, 103, 1 76n1 ,

5

1 1 3

2 1 2n21

5 : 5ff

106

1 2 : 9- 1 9

178n7

5 : 5- 1 0

1 04

1 2 : 9- 1 3

8, 1 3 2, 2 1 1n1 3

5 : 5-8

1 2 1

1 2 : 9

1 1 , 1 5 , 34, 104 , 105,

5 :5

1 03 , 106

1 29, 130, 1 80n24 ,

5 : 6-8

6 1

1 88n109, 2 1 2n16,

5 :6

104

2 1 2n21

5 : 7

1 04

1 2 : 9b

9

5 : 8

103, 1 04

1 2 : 10-16

137

5 : 1 0

103, 1 04 , 1 1 7 , 1 1 9

1 2 : 1 0

7 , 1 3

6

1 04

1 2 : 1 1

129

6:4

1 06, 1 2 1

1 2 : 1 1b

9

6 : 6

106

1 2 : 1 2f

1 27

6 : 1 1

1 2 1

1 2 : 1 2

9 , 1 1 , 1 29, 2 1 1 n 1 3

6 : 1 2

1 04

1 2 : 1 2c

9, 1 1

6 : 1 3

1 04 , 1 2 1

1 2 : 1 3

1 7 , 1 04, 105

6 : 14

1 06 , 1 20

1 2 : 14ff

1 7 8n7

6 : 1 7

1 21 , 21 3n3 2

1 2 : 14-2 1

14, 1 5 , 1 79n23 , 2 1 1n13

6 : 1 8

106

1 2 : 14-20

1 3 7

6 : 22

1 06 , 2 1 3n3 2

1 2 : 14- 1 7

1 6

8 : 4-7

1 93n160

1 2 : 14

4, 5 , 6, 7 , 1 5 , 1 6 , 1 7 , 25 ,

8 : 9f

107

4 1 , 5 7 , 6 3 , 1 02, 103,

8 : 1 1

1 1 7 , 1 2 1

1 04, 1 14, 1 16, 1 1 7,

8 : 1 7

1 25

1 1 8, 1 2 1 , 1 29, 1 3 2,

8 : 24

1 1 7 , 1 1 9, 1 20

1 7 1 , 1 72, 1 90n123 ,

9-1 1

4 1

190n 1 26, 1 9Sn1 74,

9 : 2

4 1

215n47

9 : 3

4 1 , 2 1 5 n4 7

1 2 : 15-1 6

1 3 2, 2 l l n 1 3

9 : 1 3

4 1

1 2 : 1 5

1 5 , 24, 2 1 1n13

9 : 1 6

1 08

1 2 : 1 6-2 1

15

1 0 : 1

4 1 , 2 1 5 n4 7

1 2 : 16-19

24

1 0 : 1 7

4 1 , 1 1 7

1 2 : 1 6

8, 1 3 , 1 5 , 1 6 , 24,

1 0 : 23

1 09

2 1 1 n 1 3

1 1 : 9

1 84n54

1 2 : 1 6b

7 , 27

1 1 : 10

1 84n54

1 2 : 1 7ff

1 04, 1 2 1

1 1 : 2Z

193n160

1 2 : 1 7-21

16, 1 7, 1 02, 1 03,

12

8 , 9 , 1 0 3 , 1 04 , 1 09 ,

1 32, 2 1 l n l 3

1 9 1 n 14 1 , 21 1 n 1 4 ,

1 2 : 1 7-20

4, 1 1 1 , 1 14, 1 7 1

2 1 2n l 5

1 2 : 1 7f

215n4 7

1 2 : 1 -1 3 : 7

1 1 1 , 1 1 3

1 2 : 1 7

5 , 6, 7 , 8 , 9 , 1 1 , 1 3 ,

1 2 : 1 f

4 1 , 2 1 2n 1 5

14 , 1 5 , 1 6 , 1 7 , 27,

1 2 : 1

24, 1 02, 1 0 3 , 1 04 ,

3 4 , 38, 39, 49, 53,

1 05 , 1 1 9, 1 2 1 ,

5 7 , 64, 1 1 2, 1 1 3 , 1 3 2,

2 1 2n 1 5 , 2 1 2n 1 9 ,

1 78n7, 1 78n8 , 1 82n20,

2 1 2n22

1 84n46, 2 1 2n 1 6

12: 2

24 , 39, 1 03 , 1 04 ,

1 2 : 1 7b

13, 1 5 , 27' 1 1 2 ,

1 0 5 , 1 0 6 , 1 2 2 , 1 2 8 ,

1 14 , 1 7 9n23

1 3 3 , 2 1 2n16

1 2 : 1 8

7 , 9, 1 3 , 1 5 , 1 7 , 64 ,

1 03 , 105

1 12, 1 80n24,

Index of passages cited

260

Romans (cont.)

I Corinthians (cont.)

1 8 0n26

6 : 1 1

1 06

1 2 : 1 9-2 1

2 15 n47

6 : 1 2

1 09

1 2 : 1 9f

1 5 , 1 14, 1 1 6, 1 1 8,

6 : 1 9

1 1 0

1 27

7 : 1 0

1 1 1 , 1 94n1 74 , 2 14n35

1 2 : 1 9

6 , 8 , 34, 3 6 , 4 6 , 5 9 ,

7 : 15

1 27

6 2, 1 1 2, 1 1 3 , 1 1 5 ,

7 : 4 0

1 0 7

1 1 7 , 1 94 n 1 7 2 ,

8 : 9

1 2 , 1 79pJ6

1 94n 1 7 3

9 : 5

221n14

1 2 : 1 9b

27, 1 1 2, 1 1 5

9 : 9

1 29

1 2 : 20

27, 30, 34, 6 1 , 1 1 2,

9 : 10

1 1 3 , 1 1 4

1 14 , 1 1 5 , 1 16 , 1 1 7,

9 : 14

1 94n 1 74 , 2 14n35

l l 8 , 1 2 9 , 1 3 2,

9 : 19ff

1 1 8

1 94n1 7 3 , 2 15n5 2

9 : 24

1 2 : 20b

1 1 5

1 0

1 1 3

1 2 : 2 1

1 5 , 2 1 2n 1 6 , 2 24n38

1 0 : 2

1 2

1 3

103, 2 1 1n 1 4 , 2 1 2n 1 5

1 0 : 1 2

179n16

2 14n39

10: 23

2 1 3n28

1 3 : 1 -7

5 , 103, 1 3 2, 2 1 0n 1 24

1 0 : 27

42

1 3 : 1

1 3 1

1 0 : 3 2f

1 80n23

1 3 : 3

6 3 , 1 80n25, 1 9 1 n 1 3 2,

1 1 : 1

6 2

2 1 2n 1 6

1 1 : 2

2 1 1 n1 1

1 3 :4

1 3 1 , 2 1 2n 1 6

1 1 : 23ff

2 1 4n35

1 3 : 8- 1 0

1 14 , 1 3 1 , 2 1 1 n 14

1 1 : 23

2 1 1 n 1 1

1 3 : 8

1 3

1 2 : 3

2 1 3n29, 214n35

1 3 : 9

2 14n39

1 2 : 5

86, 2 1 9n95

1 3 : 1 0

2 1 1 n 1 6 , 2 1 9n98

1 2 : 1 3

109

1 3 : 1 1-14

2 1 1n14

1 2 : 27

2 1 3n29

1 4 : 3

1 09

1 2 : 3 1 ff

1 3 2

14 : 9

2 1 7n76

1 2 : 3 1- 1 3 : 1 3

1 3 1

14 : 1 9

64, 1 80n26

1 2: 3 1

1 3 0

14 : 26

109

13

1 3 0

1 5 : 3

6 2

1 3 : 4

2 4 , 1 79n14

1 5 : 4

1 1 3 , 1 14

1 3 : 5

2 1 9n96

1 5 : 7

6 2

1 3 : 6

1 1 8

1 5 : 1 3

1 26

14 : 1

2 1 3n29

1 5 : 14

1 09

14 : 3

2 1 3n29

1 5 : 15

109

14 : 20

6 3

1 5 : 26-28

1 05

14 : 2 1

1 1 2

1 5 : 29

1 29

14 : 3 7

1 1 1

1 5 : 3 0

1 0 3 , 2 1 2n 1 9

1 5 : 2

1 1 7

1 6 : 1 7

4 2

1 5 : 3

2 1 1 n 1 1

I Corinthians

1 6 : 1 0

179n16

1 : 9

1 27

1 6 : 1 4-16

1 3 1

1 : 26

1 79n16

1 6 : 1 4

1 30

3 : 5

86

1 6 : 1 5

1 3 1

3 : 1 0

1 09 , 179n16

1 6 : 1 6

1 3 1 , 1 3 2

3 : 1 6

109

II Corinthians

4 : 1 2

1 6 , 1 7 , 5 7 , 6 3 , 1 29 ,

1 : 20

1 1 3

1 32 , 1 7 1 , 1 90n l 23

2 : 9

2 1 7n76

4 : 14

1 6

2 : 1 6

1 1 8

4 : 1 6

1 6 , 103

3 : 8

1 07

4 : 1 7

1 6

3 : 14

1 14

5 : 1 3

1 88n109

3 : 1 7

1 1 0, 2 1 2n l 8

6 : 7

5 9

4 : 6

108, 109

Index of passages cited

261

II Corinthians (cont.)

Ephesians (cont.)

4 : 9

6 3 , 1 90n 1 23

5 : 7

4 2

4 : 16

1 08

5 : 15

1 79n1 6

4 : 1 7

1 0 8

5 : 2 1

2 1 1n8

5 : 7

1 3 3

6 : 8

6 3 , 1 9 1 n 1 3 2

5 : 1 7

106, 1 2 1

6 : 1 1

2 1 1n8

5 : 1 8

1 2 1

6 : 1 3

53

5 : 1 9-20

2 1 2n26

6 : 1 8

2 1 1n8

5 : 20

108, 1 09, 1 2 1

Philippians

6 : 14- 1 8

42

1: 1f

2 1 2n19

8

104, 105

1 : 28

1 1 8

8 : 4

1 05

1 : 29

1 1 7

8 : 5

105

2 : 1

6 3

8 : 8

1 05

2 : 5ff

6 2

8 : 9

105

2 : 1 7

2 1 2n22

8 : 19f

105

2: 29

2 19n94

8 : 2 1

1 1 2, 1 7 9n23

3 : 1 0

1 27

8 : 24

105

3 : 15

6 3

9

1 04, 105

3: 1 8f

1 17

9 : 1

105

4 : 4

1 1

9 : 5

105

4 : 5-8

1 1

9 : 8

105

4 : 5

1 1 , 1 3

9 : 1 2

105

4 : 6

1 1

1 0 : 1

2 1 2n 1 9

4 : 8

1 1

Galatians

4 : 9

1 79n1 5 , 2 1 1n1 1

1 : 15

108

Colossians

2 : 9

1 09

1 :4f

1 1 7

2 : 1 1

5 3

1 : 4

1 20

2 : 14

1 9 2n5 3

1 : 1 3

1 1 1

2 : 20

106, 1 3 3 , 2 1 9n95

1 : 28

63, 2 1 3n33

3 : 2

4 1

3 : 8

2 1 1 n8

4 : 5

230n1 1 0

3 : 9f

2 1 1n8

5 : 5b

6 1

3 : 10

1 2 1

5 : 1 1

6 3 , 190n 1 23

3 : 1 2

6 3

5 : 1 3

2 1 2n 1 8

3 : 1 3

1 79n20

5 : 14

1 14

3 : 14

2 1 9n97

5 : 15

1 2, 179n16

3 : 1 5

1 27

5 : 1 8

1 06

3 : 16

109, 1 1 0

5 : 2 1

6 1

3 : 1 8 f

2 1 9n96

5 : 22

106, 2 1 2n 1 8

3 : 1 8

2 1 1n8

6 : 10

42, 63, 1 7 9n2 1 ,

3 : 19

2 19n96

1 9 1n 1 3 2 , 2 1 9n98

3 : 20

2 1 9n96

6 : 1 2

6 3 , 190n 1 23

3 : 24

230n 1 1 0

6 : 15

1 06, 1 2 1

4 : 2

2 1 1n8

Ephesians

4 : 5

1 80n23

2 : 8

108

4 : 1 2

6 3 , 2 1 1n8

3 : 2

109

4 : 1 7

1 79n16

3 : 7

1 09

I Thessalonians

4 : 1

103

1 : 3

6 1

4 : 19

158

1 :4

2 1 1 n 1 2

4 : 22f

2 1 1n8

1 : 5

108

4 : 25

2 1 1n8

1 : 6

62, 1 10

4 : 3 2-5 : 2

6 2

2 : 2-3

2 1 2n26

4 : 3 2

6 3

2 : 9-14

2 1 2n26

5 : 5

193n160

2 : 9

1 0

Index of passages cited

262

I Thessalonians (cont.)

II Thessalonians (cont.)

2 : 1 2

10, 6 1

3 : 7

9, 1 7 9n 1 3

2 : 1 3

39, 6 1 , 2 1 1n1 1 ,

3 : 1 1

9 , 1 7 9n 1 3

2 1 1n 1 2

I Timothy

3 : 1 2

1 3 , 4 2 , 6 1 , 1 10

1 : 1 2

1 92n147

3 : 1 3

2 1 1 n 1 2

2 : 1

190n 1 3 1

4 : 1

1 1 0

5 : 1 7

2 1 9n94

4 : 2

1 10

6 : 1 7-1 9

232n1 3 2

4 : 6

6 1 , 193n160

II Timothy

4 : 7

1 27

1 : 3

1 92n147

4 : 9

106, 1 1 0

3 : 1 2

63, 1 90n 1 2 3

4 : 1 1f

179n12

3 : 16

1 14

4 : 1 1

10, 1 2

4 : 1 3

2 10nl

4 : 1 2

1 80n23

Titus

4 : 15

2 14n35

1 : 9

1 79n14

5

8, 9, 1 2

3 : 5

1 19

5 : 1-10

34

3 : 10

4 2

5 : 8

1 20

Hebrews

5 : 1 2-22

8

3 : 1 2

1 79n 1 6

5 : 1 2

1 2 , 1 3 1

5 : 14

63

5 : 13-22

1 7 8n7

10: 30

1 1 2, 1 1 3

5 : 1 3

9, 1 7 , 64, 1 30, 1 3 1 ,

1 0 : 34

2 3 2n 1 3 2

1 80n26

1 2 : 1

2 1 1n8

5 : 14-22

1 0

1 2 : 9

2 1 1n8

5 : 14-21

1 1

1 2 : 14

64, 1 80n26

5 : 14- 1 8

8, 9

1 2 : 1 7

1 2 7 , 2 1 8n82

5 : 14

9, 10, 1 2, 1 3 , 1 79n1 1 ,

1 2 : 25

179n16

179n12, 179n14

1 2 : 28

1 92n 147

5 : 14d

1 1

1 3 : 1-3

8

5 : 15-22

176n1

1 3 :4

193n160

5 : 1 5

5 , 6, 8, 9, 10, 1 1 , 1 2 ,

1 3 : 1 7

2 1 1n8, 2 19n94

15, 1 7 . 25, 38, 39,

James

4 2, 49, 5 3 , 5 7 , 6 3 ,

1 : 4

6 3

6 4 , 1 10, 1 1 2, 1 29,

1 : 1 8f

2 1 1n8

1 3 2, 1 3 7 , 1 7 1 , 1 7 8n7 ,

1 : 1 8

1 1 9

1 7 8n8, 1 79n1 1 ,

1 : 2 1

2 1 1n8

180n24, 1 8 2n20,

2 : 8-10

1 14

1 84n46, 1 9 1 n 1 32,

3 : 2

6 3

2 1 1n12, 2 1 9n98

3 : 9- 1 2

57

5 : 15b

1 3 , 1 7 9n23

4 : 7

5 3 , 2 1 1n8

5 : 16ff

5 , 1 0

5 : 6

5 3

5 : 1 6-22

1 1

I Peter

5 : 1 6-2 1

1 1

1 : 3ff

1 20

5 : 16

9, 1 1 , 1 3

1 : 3- 1 2

1 2 0

5 : 1 7

9; 1 1 , 1 3

1 : 3-9

1 2 5 , 1 26

5 : 1 8

1 1 , 1 3

1 : 3-5

6 1

5 : 1 9

9

1 : 3

39, 1 19, 1 20, 1 2 1 ,

5 : 2 1 f

1 80n24

1 22, 1 26 , 2 1 7n67,

5 : 2 1

9, 1 1 , 1 3

2 1 81185

5 : 22

1 3 , 1 88n109

1 :4f

1 28

II Thessalonians

1 :4

1 25 , 1 26

1 : 6-8

1 15

1 : 5

1 20, 1 2 1 , 1 22, 1 25 ,

1 : 6

1 16

1 26, 2 1 7n67,

2 : 15

2 1 1n 1 1

2 1 7n70

3 : 6

9, 4 2 , 1 7 9n 1 3 ,

1 : 6f

1 2 5 , 1 26

2 1 1n1 1

1 : 6

2 1 7n71

Index of passages cited

263

I Peter (cont.)

I Peter (cont.)

1 : 7

1 25 , 1 26 , 2 1 7n70

3 : 8f

8, 1 7 8n7

1 : 9

1 20, 1 22 , 1 25 , 126,

3 : 8

5 , 7 , 1 3 2

2 1 7n67 , 2 1 7n70

3 : 9- 1 2

1 1 3 , 1 1 7 , 1 22, 1 24 ,

1 : 1 3

34, 120

1 2 7 ' 1 3 2 , 137'

1 : 14f

26

1 94n173

1 : 14

122

3 : 9

5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 1 1 , 1 3 , 14,

1 : 1 5

1 94n168, 2 1 7n74

1 5 , 16, 1 7 , 25 , 38, 39,

1 : 1 7

1 24, 2 1 7n67

49, 5 3 , 5 7 , 6 1 , 64, 1 1 2,

1 : 1 8-21

6 1

122, 125 , 1 26 , 1 2 7 ,

1 : 1 8f

1 25

1 28, 1 29 , 1 3 2, 1 7 1 ,

1 : 1 8

2 1 8n85

1 7 3 , 1 7 8n7, 1 82n20,

1 : 1 9

1 2 1 , 1 2 2

1 84n46, 2 1 Sn52,

1 : 21

1 20, 1 2 1 , 1 26 ,

2 1 7n76

2 1 7n67

3 : 9b

1 2 3 , 1 24

1 : 22

1 20, 2 1 1n8, 2 1 8n85

3 : 10-1 2

2 7 , 34, 5 7 , 6 1 , 64,

1 : 23-25

1 20

1 2 3 , 1 24, 1 2 7 ,

1 : 23

39, 6 1 , 1 19 , 1 20 ,

2 1 5n47

1 2 1 , 1 26 , 2 1 8n85

3 : 10

6 1, 1 24

1 : 25

1 19 , 1 2 1 , 2 1 1n8

3 : 1 1

7 , 1 3 , 1 7 , 6 3 , 64,

2 : 1ff

1 20

1 27

2 : 1

1 2 1 , 2 1 1 n8

3 : 1 2

6 1 , 1 24 , 193n16 1 ,

2 : 2

1 20, 1 2 1

2 1 Sn52, 2 1 8n79

2 : 3

64, 1 2 1 , 1 8 0n24,

3 : 1 3

6 3 , 1 80n25

21 8n88

3 : 15

2 1 7n67 , 2 1 7n 7 1

2 : 4

1 80n24 , 2 1 8n88

3 : 1 6

5 7 , 1 9 1 n 1 32,

2:5

1 22

21Sn52

2 : 6

2 1 7 n67, 2 1 7n70

3: 1 7 f

1 2 1

2 : 9f

34

3 : 1 7

6 3 , 1 8 0n25 , 1 9 1 n 1 3 2

2 : 9

2 1 7n74 , 2 1 8n85

3 : 1 8

6 1 , 1 20, 1 2 1 ,

2 : 1 2

1 29 , 1 80n23 , 2 1 7n7 1

2 1 8n85

2 : 1 3-3 : 1 2

1 3 2

4 : 4

1 29 , 2 1 7n7 1

2 : 1 3 ff

2 1 0n 1 24

4 : 6

1 2 3 , 1 24

2 : 13-17

5 , 1 3 2

4 : 7

2 1 1n8

2 : 1 3

2 1 1n8

4 : 9

1 3

2 : 14f

63

4 : 1 2-16

1 26

2 : 1 4

1 80n25, 19 1 n 1 3 2 ,

4 : 12

1 25 , 21 7n7 1

2 1 7n7 1

4 : 13-16

1 26

2 : 15

1 80n25, 1 9 1n 1 32,

4 : 1 3

1 2 5 , 1 26

2 15n52

4 : 14

1 25

2 : 1 8-25

5 , 1 3 2

4 : 1 6

1 25

2 : 1 8

2 1 7n67

4 : 1 8

21 5n47 , 2 1 7n78

2 : 1 9f

1 92n146, 195n17S

4 : 1 9

6 1 , 6 3 , 1 80n25 ,

2 : 20

5 9 , 6 3 , 1 5 6 , 1 80n25 ,

1 9 1 n 1 3 2

1 9 1 n 1 3 2

5

1 25

2: 21-25

1 20

5 : 5

1 3 , 2 1 ln8

2 : 2 1

6 2 , 1 2 1 , 1 24 , 127

S : S b

1 25

2 : 23

1 19

5 : 6

1 25

2 : 24

6 1 , 1 2 1 , 1 22 ,

5 : 8

2 1 ln8

2 1 8n85

5 : 9f

1 26

3 : 1-7

5 , 1 3 2

5 : 9

5 3 , 1 20 , 1 22,

3 : 1

8 , 225n3 8

2 1 1n8 , 2 1 7n6 7 ,

3 : 2

2 1 7n67

2 1 7n70,

3 : 6

6 3 , 1 80n2S , 1 9 1n1 32

5 : 10

2 1 7n71 , 2 1 8n81

3 : 8-1 2

1 7 8n7

2 17 n74

Index of passages cited

264

I John

II Enoch (Slavonic) (cont.)

2 : 1 3 f

1 8 8n 1 09

5 1 : 62

1 83n39

3 : 1-3

1 94n168

5 1 : 6 8

1 83n39

3 : 8

2 1 7n76

60: 1

36

3 : 9

1 1 9

6 1 : 1

3 7

4 : 7-9

1 94n168

IV Ezra

5 : 8

1 1 9

9 : 3 7

2 1 0n 1 1 9

I I John

1 2 : 7

233n142

8

1 79n16, 2 3 0n1 1 0

Joseph and Asenath

1 0

4 2

23-29

3 7

1 1

6 3 , 1 80n25

23 : 9

37

III John

28:4

16, 37, 38, 64

7

1 9 2n15 3

28: 1 2

3 8

1 1

1 9 1 n 1 3 2

28 : 14

3 8

Revelation

29: 3

3 8

2 : 6

1 29, 1 8 3 n3 3

Josephus

1 2 : 1 3

6 3 , 1 90n123

Against Apion

1 8 : 9

2 1 8n8 1

II, 1 2 3

46

1 8 : 1 8

2 1 8n81

II, 145f

1 86n80

20: 9

34

II, 1 83

4 7

20: 1 5

34

11, 1 90

9 3

2 1 : 7

193n160

II, 209f

4 7

2 1 : 8

193n160

II, 2 1 1f

4 7

I I , 26 1

4 7

Ill. Extra-Biblical Literature o f Antiquity

The Jewish War

A. Jewish (alphabetically)

II, 1 5 7

2 3 2n 1 3 4

Aristeas

III, 1 0

208n1 0 0

1 87-294

35

IV, 3 9 7

230n109

200

3 5

V , 354

230n109

207

36

Jubilees

2 1 1

3 5

2 0

1 85 n69

220

35

20: 2

1 85n56

222

35

22 : 1 6

42

225

3 6

36

1 8 5 n69

227

36

IV Maccabees

2 3 2

36

2 : 9

3 6

235

35

2 : 1 0-1 2

3 6

256

35

2 : 1 3

3 6

Baruch

2 : 14

36

4 : 1

2 1 0n l 1 9

Qumran Documents

II Baruch (= Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch)

Damascus Document (CD)

55 : 8

2 1 8n82

6 : 20-2 1

1 84n5 2

7 7 : 1 5

2 1 0n 1 1 9

Hymn Scroll ( l QH)

I Enoch (Ethiopic)

1 5

1 84n53

45:4f

2 1 8n82

Manual of Discipline ( 1QS)

1 03 : 10

230n 1 09

1 : 2

40

II Enoch (Slavonic)

1 :4

4 0

3 0 : 1 3

1 83n39

1 : 9

3 2, 4 0

44:4

37

1 : 10

3 2, 40, 4 1 , 9 1 ,

44 : 5

3 7

2 1 5n54

5 0 : 3

. 3 6

1 : 1 1

4 1

5 1 : 2

3 7

3 : 25

4 1

5 1 : 3

3 6

4 : 1

4 1

5 1 : 5 9

1 83n39

9 : 2 1

2 1 5 n54

5 1 : 6 1

1 83n39

1 0 : 9-13

32

Index of passages cited

265

Manual of Discipline ( lQS) (cont.)

Gad

10: 1 7-19

40, 182n20

5 : 9-1 1

1 85n75

10: 1 8-20

2 1 6n54

6 : 7

45

1 1 : 9-10

40

lssachar

1 1 : 1 0

4 1

5 : 2

93

Philo

7 : 6

44

De agricultura

Joseph

1 1 0

1 84n49

1 8 : 1-4

45

De migratione A brahami

1 8: 2

44, 45

1 28

3 9

Levi

43

De plantatione

6 : 7

1 85n75

49

3 9

Naphtali

43

De specialibus legibus

Reuben

11,63

93

69

44, 45

De virtutibus

Zebulun

1 1 6-18

39

6 :6

45

Rabbinic Literature

7 : 2-4

44

Aboth de Rabbi Nathan

8 : 3

45

1 6 : 7

4 8

8 : 5-9 : 2

44, 45

Babylonian Talmud

Tobit

Kiddushim

1 : 6

2 1 0n l l 9

36a

193n164

4 : 14-17

3 5

Wisdom o f Solomon

1 1 3b

1 86n85

3 : 14

192n147

Yebamoth

60b

1 8 7n87

B. Christian

Midrashim

Didache

Num bers Rabbah

1 : 3

156

2.138b

187n85

1 1 :5f

221n14

Mishnah

I Clcment

A both

1 7 : 3

38

1 : 12

4 8

59:3

230n 109

2 : 1 1

4 8

Gospel according to the Hebrews

Targums

1 3 : 1 393-4

226n60

Onkelos

1 1 3

Ignatius to Polycarp

Pseudo Jonathan

2: 1

192n147

Lev. 22: 28

1 94n1 7 0

Polycarp to the Philippians

Tosephta

2 : 2

1 7

Sanhedrin

1 3 : 2

1 86n87

C . Greek and Roman

Sirach (Ecclesiasticus)

Epictetus

4: 7-10

1 86n78

Discourses

8 : 1 0

1 15

1.22

25

1 1 : 3 2

1 1 5

1.25

26

1 2 : 1-7

45

1.29

26

1 2: 1-6

1 94n172

1.36

25

1 2 : 1

192n147

III.4

25

12:6f

46

III.9

25

28: 1-7

1 86n78

III. l 3. 1 1

26

Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs

111. 1 3 . 1 3

26

Benjamin

111.20.9

25

3 : 6

1 90nl30

111.22.54

26

4 : 2f

44

111.22.8 1

26

Dan

111.22.82

26

5 : 3

93

III.22.82

26

Index of passages cited

266

Epictetus (cont.)

Seneca (cont.)

Discourses (cont.)

De constan tia (cont. )

III.22. 90-2

5 :4

·

1 8 2n 1 7

23

III.22 . 1 00-3 182n 1 7

7 : 2

23

IV. 1 .7 9

229n1 05

1 2 : 3

24

IV.5 .28

1 82n 1 6

1 3 : 1

24

IV.5 . 3 2

1 8 1n14

14: 3

1 8 1n9

Encheiridion

De ira

1

1 8 1n 1 5

11.32

22

20

1 82n1 6

11.34.5

1 8 1 n 1 0

3 3.9

1 8 1n14

III.5 . 8

2 3

42

25

III.25.3

23

Seneca

III.39.4

24

De beneficiis

III.40.5

24

IV.26

21

III.4 2.3

22

IV.26. 1

6 2

III.4 2.4

22

VII.28.3

1 8 1 n 1 0

III.4 3 . 1

22

VII.30. 2

2 1

III.4 3 . 2

22

VII.30.5

2 1

De otio

De constantia

1 : 4

2 1

2 : 1

1 8 1 n l l

Tacitus

2 : 3

1 8 1n l l

Histories

3 : 3

1 81nl l

V.5

208n100

4 : 1

23

IN D E X O F M O D E R N A U T H O R S

Althaus, P., 1 9 1 n 1 3 3 , 21 5n50

B ultmann, R., 5 1 , 5 2, 5 3 , 54 , 56 , 70, 7 3 ,

Augstein, R., 201n54

74 , 75 , 76 , 81 , 82, 84 , 1 5 8, 1 8 l n l 2,

Augustine, 199n40

1 87n95 , 1 8 8n l 02, nl05, 1 89nl 14,

1 9 2nl42, 193nl66, 1 94n l70,

Baltzer, K., 21 8n84

1 95n179, 196n 1 7 , 1 9 8n30, n32,

Bamme1, E., 222n23

199n45 , 200n47, 20ln60, 202n6 8,

Banks, R., 1 87n88, 190n122, 205n86,

203n79 , 204n82, 205n84, n86, n90,

2 10n 1 1 9 , 226n6 1

207n9 8, 209nl l 2 , 2 1 0nl l9,

Barrett, C. K., 1 3 8 , 1 9 1 n 1 3 3 , 200n5 1 ,

2 1 6n63 , 2 1 9n90, 224n3 6 , 232n 1 3 2 ,

2 1 2n 1 8 , 2 16n5 8, 222n 1 7

n 1 34

Barth, G., 15 1 , 204n80, 226n5 5 , n59,

Burchard, C., 92, 9 3 , 94, 1 83n40,

227n63 , n69, 228n75 , n80

1 84n46 , n4 7 , 208n 1 06 , n107, 209n1 1 1

Barth, P., 1 80n1 , 1 84n4 8

Burney, C. F., 1 9 1 n l 3 7

Bartsch, H. W., 1 5 3 , 154, 1 5 6 , 228n84

Batiffol, P., 1 84n40

Calvin, J., 2 1 8n83

Bauer, W., 1 1 6

Carrington, P., 1 0 1 , 102, 1 7 8n7 , 2 l ln8

Baumbach, G., 1 5 3 , 1 5 4

Cervaux, L. 2 l ln l l

Bayer, 0., 1 97n25

Charles, R . H., 4 3 , 1 8 3n38, 1 85n56

Beare, F. W., 7 , 1 77n3, 1 87n9 3 , 1 94n1 70 Conzelmann, H., 1 5 3 , 168, 2 1 3n28

Becker, J., 4 3 , 44, 45, 1 85n75 , 1 90n 1 3 0

Cranfield, C. E. B., 1 15 , 1 78n7 , 1 9 1 n 1 3 3 ,

Behm, J., 200n48

2 l l n 1 3 , 2 1 5n5 0

Best, E., 1 7 9n 1 8 , 1 84n4 3

Cullmann, 0., 200n46, 206n90, 2 1 1n1 1

Beyer, H . , 87

Bjerkelund, C., 2 1 2n 1 7

Dabney, R. L., 1 85n54

Black , M., 1 94n l 70, 1 98n33

Daube, D., 8, 14, 1 77n5, 1 80n23, 1 8 8

Bolkestein, H., 1 80n2, 2 3 l n l l 7

n l l O, 2 l ln 1 3

Boman, T., 195nl79

Davenport, G . L . , 1 85n55

Bonhoeffer, A., 25, 27, 180n5

Davies, W. D., 102, 177n5 , 1 90n1 2 1 ,

Bornemann, W., 1 79n l7

1 95n 1 7 8 , 2 1 3n30, 223n25

Bornkamm, G., 94, 148, 149, 1 95n179,

Degenhardt, H. J . , 154, 230n l l 5

1 96nl 7, n 1 9 , n22, 199n45 , 224n36,

De Jonge, M . , 4 3 , 44, 4 5 , 1 86n76

227n7 1 , 228n75 , n79, 2 3 2n 1 29

Delling, G. , 200n46, 220n99

Bonsett, W., 1 84n40

Denis, A. M., 43, 1 83n36, n39, n40

Braun, H., 70, 7 1 , 75 , 85 , 1 9 2nl42,

Dibelius, M., 9, 1 1 , 86, 1 0 1 , 102, 1 36,

197n28, 201n54, 202n68 , 207n98,

1 76n1 , 1 7 8n 1 0, 1 79n22, 1 99n44 ,

n99, 209nl l l , nl 1 2, 224n36

203n7 2, n74, 2 1 1n10, 224n24

Broer, 1., 206n90

Dietzfelbinger, C., 206n90

Brooks, E. W., 1 84n40

Dihle, A., 2 1 0n5

Brown, J. P. , 2 1 ln l l , 2 2 l n l 2

Dobshiitz, E., 1 79n1 9 , 1 8 8n102

Bruce, F. F . , 2 3 1 n 1 26

Dodd, C. H., 8, 102, 1 1 6, 1 3 7 , 1 3 8 ,

Biichsel, F., 1 9 8n39, 203n7 2, 2 1 7n67

1 7 7n4, n5 , 1 9 1 n 1 3 3 , n 1 4 1 , 195n 1 7 8 ,

Index of modem authors

268

199n46 , 2 l ln9, n l 3 , 2 1 3n3 1 , n34

Hafemann, S., xi

Dungan, D., 1 77n7 , 1 95 n 1 7 8 , 21 1nl l ,

Hahn, F., 1 0 1

2 2 1 n 1 5

Hanson, R. P. C . , 2 1 l n l l

Dupont-Sommer, A. , 43 , 1 85 n5 5

Harrelson, W., 1 85n75

Hasler, V., 1 89n1 1 7

Easton, B . S . , 1 9 1 n 1 3 7

Headlarn, A . , 2 1 2n 1 5 , n 1 8

Eissfeldt, 0 . , 35 , 1 83n37, n 3 9 , 1 85n55 ,

Heitmiiller, W., 195n1 7 9

1 86n77

Held, H. J., 226n5 7

Ernst, J., 290n l l l

Hengel, M., 80, 98

Hirsch, E., 1 5 8

Fannon, P., 1 9 5 n 1 7 8 , 2 1 l n l l

Hoffmann, P . , 98, 1 3 9 , 1 88n 1 0 7 ,

Feine, P., 1 9 5 n l 7 8

207n99

Filson, F., 1 3 7 , 21 l n l l , 221 n 1 3

HUbner, H., 1 8 8n 1 1 0, 190n 1 22

Fjorstedt, B . , 1 95n 1 7 8, 2 1 l n l l ,

Hultgen, A., 208n 1 04

222n 1 8

Hummel, R., 2 1 6n64

Flender, H . , 8 6 , 1 5 5 , 1 87n95 ,

Hunter, A. M., 1 7 7n5 , 1 9 8n 1 7 8 ,

1 95 n 1 7 9 , 200n48, 229n1 00

2 1 0n5 , 2 1 1 n l 0 , nl l

Frame, J. F., 1 7 9n l l

France, R. T., 1 95 nl

Jeremias, J . , 5 1 , 5 2 , 5 5 , 66, 8 1 , 84, 86,

Fraser, J. W., 195n 1 7 8 , 2 1 1 n l l

89, 1 3 7 , 1 82n26, 1 88n99, n 1 1 0 ,

Fuchs, E., 202n65

1 9 1 n 1 36, 1 93n159, 1 94n l 70,

Fuller, R. H., 1 99n45, 209n 1 1 3

1 98n33 , n34, 1 99n4 1 , 20ln5 5 , n5 7 ,

FurnUh, V., 1 , 2, 204n80, 2 1 2n 1 5 ,

n59, 202n68 , 204n83, 205n86,

2 1 8n80, 224n38, 228n7 3

206n90, 207n99, 220n2, n8, 227n7 3 ,

2 3 l n 1 1 8 , n l 1 9 , n l 2 3 , 232n l 32,

Gaechter, P., 5 5 , 1 9 1n1 36, 207n99

233n142

Georgi, D., 2 1 8n84

Jervell, J., 4 3 , 1 85n58

Gerhardsson, B., 1 38 , 2 1 0nl, 2 1 l n l l ,

Jiilicher, A., 82

221n14, 222n24, 223n25

Juncker, A., 195n1 7 8

Glover, R., 1 87n93

Jiingel, E . , 202n62, 202n65

Goppelt, L., 67, 75, 83, 1 3 1 , 1 34 , 1 7 1 ,

1 7 2, 1 7 7n 1 , 1 87n95 , 1 88n 1 05 ,

Kamiah, E., 2 1 0n5

193n159, 1 94n167, 1 95n174, n 1 7 8 ,

Kiisemann, E., 1 15

1 97n26, n28, 203n70, n74, 204n82,

Kelly, J . N. D., 1 2 3, 1 77n2, 1 7 8n7

205n89, 206n93 , 207n97 , n99,

Kirkpatrick, 2 1 8n89

209n1 1 5 , n 1 1 7, 2 1 0n 1 20, 2 1 1 n1 1 ,

Kissenger, S., 209n l 1 7

2 14n35 , n36, n38, 2 1 5n44, 2 1 7n7 1 ,

Klassen, W., 1 7 6n3, 195n176

2 1 9n95 , 220n99, 222n24 , 223n30,

Klostermann, E., 84

227n62, n 7 3 , 228n75, 234n2

Knox, W. L., 1 8 7n93, 1 9 8n34

Grabner-Haider, A., 1 07 , 1 76n 1 , 21 2n26 ,

Koster, H., 2 14n35

2 1 6n5 7

Kiihl, E., 2 1 1n1 3

Grant, F. C., 200n5 1

Kiimmel, W. G. , 1 5 8 , 1 7 9n 1 3 , 193n158,

Grasser, E., 1 9 9n45

1 9 7n28, 200n4 6 , 200n5 1 , 203n7 2 ,

Grundmann, W., 1 5 8 , 1 87n9 1 , 1 9 1 n 1 36,

228n 7 8 , 23 1 n l 26

n137, 1 92n147 , 1 98n32, n33,

Kuhn, K. G., 1 8 3n40, 1 84n40, 1 95 n 1 7 9

1 99n40, n42, 202n68, 204n79 ,

207n99, 209n 1 1 7 , 2 1 6n63,

Ladd, G. E . , 1 9 9n44, 203n7 2

229n 1 0 1 , 230n 1 15 , 232n 1 3 1

Lagrange, M. J., 2 1 l n 1 3

Guelich, R., 1 87n95, 1 89nl 20, 204n82,

Lang, F., 2 1 6n60

205n90, 206n90, n9 1 , 207n99,

Larsson, E., 2 2 1 n 1 5

226n62 , 228n75

Lewis, C. S . , 1 6 6

Gut!Jrod, W., 205n88, 206n94

Liechtenhahn, R., 199n40, 203n72 ,

206n95

Haas, H., 195n176

Lietzmann, H., 107

Haenchen, E., 228n79

Linnemann, E., 84, 202n65

Index of modem authors

269

Lohmeyer, E., 198n30, n3 1 , 201n60,

Pohlenz, M., 20

208n107, 209n1 1 1

Preisker, H., 1 1 6, 1 1 7 , 203n74

Lohse, E., 120, 1 7 7n5 , 1 7 8n7, 1 87n95 ,

204n82, 2 1 6n5 7 , 2 17n69, 2 1 8n78

Quell, G., 27, 28

Liihrmann, D., 38, 49, 5 2, 5 5 , 56, 59,

60, 70, 7 3 , 7 5 , 1 3 5 , 1 84n4 2 , 1 87n90,

Rad, G. v., 206n96, 2 1 6n5 8

n93 , 190n1 26 , n 1 2 7 , 1 9 1 n 1 34, n 1 3 6 ,

Rengstorf, K. H., 1 5 8 , 1 87n90, 1 9 1 n l 36 ,

n 1 39, 192n144, n146, 1 93n162, n 1 6 3 ,

209n1 12, 2 1 7n66, 223n3 1 , 229n1 0 1 ,

1 94n 1 7 1 , 196n6, n 1 5 , 207n98

230n l l5 , 2 3 1 n l 24

Liinemann, G., 1 79n 1 8

Ridderbos, H., 1 9 1 n 1 3 3 , 195n1 7 8 ,

Luz, U . , 201n5 2

1 96n2 3 , 199n4 3 , 201n5 6 , 205n87

221n15 , 232n1 3 1

Machovevc, M . , 6 9 , 7 0 , 7 1 , 74, 7 5 , 85,

Riesenfeld, H., 1 3 8 , 1 39 , 2 1 1n1 1

1 96n7 , n8, 203n69

Robertson, A. T., 2 1 7n76

Manson, T. W., 167 , 168, 1 88n1 10,

Robinson, J. M. 214n35

1 9 1 n 1 34, n 1 3 7 , 1 95n4, 1 98n34, n36,

Roloff, J., 220n 1 , 230n 1 08

223n3 1 , 232n1 3 1

Rost, L., 4 3 , 1 83n35 , n36, n37, n39 ,

Marshall, I . H., 222n24, 223n26

1 85n5 5 , 1 86n7 7

Martin, C., 1 85n54

Mendenhall, G., 228n7 7

Sanday , W., 2 1 2n 1 5 , n 1 8

Merkel, F., 2 1 8n84

Sanders, E. P., 1 3 8 , 2 1 0nl, 222n18

Michel, 0., 16, 27, 28, 1 04, 1 1 3 , 1 7 9n23, Schelkle, K. H., 1 7 7n2, 1 7 8n7, 21 6n5 6 ,

1 96n22, 1 98n3 2, 201n59, 208n 108,

217n7 1 , n78

209n1 1 1 , 2 1 1n 1 3 , 2 1 2n 1 5 , n2 1 ,

Schenk, W., 2 1 7n77, 2 1 8n82, n86

2 15n5 2, n5 3

Schlatter, A., 3, 84, 90, 1 19, 1 86n7 9,

Michl, J . , 1 83n39

1 87n90, n94, 1 9 1 n 1 38, 1 92n1 52,

Milik, J . T., 1 84n5 0

195n3, 202n6 1 , n65 , 203n7 8 , 207n99,

Moe, 0., 195n 1 7 8

2 14n37 , 2 1 6n60, 229n 1 0 1 , 232n 1 3 1

Moffatt, J ., 1

Schlier, H . , 1 76n1 , 1 93n160, 2 1 2n 1 7

Montefiore, C. G., 1 8 3n32, 1 86n8 1 , n84

Schlink, E . , 1 76nl

Morenz, S., 1 15

Schmauch, W., 28, 1 87n90, 1 90n l 30,

Morgenthaler, R., 200n46

1 92n 147, 193n156, 225n40

Maule, C. F. D., 1 9 1 n 1 4 1

Schmidt, L., 180n2, 1 9 1 n l 3 3

Murray, J., 1 85n54

Schmithals, W., 195n179

Schnackenburg, R., 1 96n20, 1 99n40,

Neugebauer, F., 2 1 4n35

200n50, n5 1 , 209n 1 1 1 , 224n36

Neuhaiisler, E., 1 8 7n9 3 , 1 92n 146,

Schniewind, J., 77, 8 3 , 1 93n 156,

195n179, 203n7 2

195n 1 7 8 , 1 97n27 , 198n3 1 , n38,

Nieder, L., 215n5 0

1 99n42, 202n65 , n68, 208n99,

Niederwimmer, K., 70, 72, 75, 8 5

209nl 1 8 , 2 1 6n63

Nissen, A., 187n8 8 , 208n 1 05 , n106, nl lO Schoeps, H. P., 195n 1 7 9

Noll, P., 208n102

Schottroff, L., 82, 98, 99, 207n98,

2 1 0n l 24, 224n88

Oepke, A., 179n12

Schrage, W., 1 0 1 , 107, 1 3 1 , 1 77n l ,

1 95n 1 7 9 , 2 1 2n24, 214n4 3, 2 1 9n93 ,

Percy, E., 5 5 , 1 88nl l0, 1 89nl l 6 , 1 99n4 3 ,

n96, n97

207n99

Schroeder, D., 220n99

Perrin, N., 1 93n1 54, 203n76, 206n91 ,

Schulz, S., 56, 1 8 1 n9 1 , 1 89n1 1 7 ,

223n30

190n 1 2 3 , n128, 1 9 1n 1 3 6 , n 1 3 8 ,

Pesch, W., 1 96n22

1 9 2nl45 , nl46, 193n162, n 1 6 3 ,

Philonenko, M., 4 3 , 44, 1 83n40, 1 85n65

1 94n l 7 1 , 209n l l 9

Pines, S., 1 8 3n39

Schiirer, E., 1 84n40

Piper, J., 2 1 0n 1 20

Schiirmann, H., 5 5 , 1 5 3 , 154, 1 87n95 ,

Ploger, 0., 1 83n39

1 89n1 1 5 , n 1 1 8 , 190n 1 2 7 , 1 9 1 n 1 3 5 ,

of modern authors

2 70

n 1 3 6 , 1 92n144, 1 94n 1 6 9 , 1 97n24,

201n60, 205n84, n86, 209n1 1 1 ,

n28, 200n46, 229n95 , n98, n101

229n106

Schiitz, F., 223n26

Theissen, G., 22 ln14

Schweitzer, A., 195n 1 7 9 , 199n45

Thielicke, H., 209n 1 1 7 , 225n48

Schweizer, E., 8 1 , 204n8 2, 228n80

Thomas, J., 39, 49, 1 86n75

Scott, C. A. A., 1 9 5 n 1 7 8

Trilling, W., 151 , 1 89nl 1 1 , 2 1 0n1 19,

Seeberg, A . , 1 0 1 , 1 0 2

223n3 3 , 224n34, 226n5 3 , 227n70,

Seitz, 0. J . F., 5 6 , 1 8 2n26 , 1 89n1 1 7 ,

228n74 , n76

207n99

Unnik, W. C. van, 1 5 6 , 159, 1 92n143,

Selby, D. J ., 194n 1 74 , 195n 1 7 8

n147, 1 95 n 1 75 , 230n l 1 6

Selwyn, E . G., 1 0 1 , 1 0 2 , 1 7 7n2, 1 7 8n7,

1 80n23, n24, 195n175 , 2 1 2n2 1 ,

Vogtle, A . , 2 1 0n5

2 1 7n66, n7 1 , n72, 2 1 8n88 , n89

Sevenster, J. N., 1 80n6, 1 8 1 n7 , n 1 2 ,

Warnach, J ., 1

2 1 5 n5 0

Wegenast, K., 2 1 1nl l

Smith, C . , 82

Weidinger, K., 2 1 0n5

Smith, M., 1 8 8n 1 1 0

Weiser, A., 21 8n89

Soiron T . , 1 99n40, 203n7 2, 209nl l 6 ,

Weiss, J., 195n 1 7 9 , 199n45

n 1 1 7

Wellhausen, J., 202n62

Spicq, C . , 1 , 1 15 , 176n3, 204n82,

Wendland, H. D., 1 9 9n40, n44, 203n7 2,

226n60

204n82, n83, 209n1 1 7 , 2 1 2n 1 5 ,

Stanton, �. N., 222n24, 230n108

2 1 9n97

Stauffer, E., 1 99n46

Werner, M., 199n45

Stendahl, K., 2 15n47

Wibbing, S., 2 1 0n5

Strecker, G., 206n91 , 207n99, 223n32,

Wilckens, U., 1 95 n 1 7 9

224n34, 225n44, n45 , 228n79, n80

Wilder, A. N . , 1 99n44, 200n5 1

Suggs, M. J., 1 8 8n105, 1 8 9n 1 10, 206n90 Windisch, H., 1 97n24 , 2 1 8n80

Woude, A. S. van der, 43

Talbert, C., 9, 14, 1 5 , 1 8 , 1 7 7n5

Wrege , H. T., 156, 1 8 7n90, 1 92n147,

Taylor, V., 1 9 1 n 1 3 7 , 1 98n30, n36,

n149, n 1 5 0

IN DEX O F S U B J E C T S

Antitheses, 5 1-5

Faithfulness of God, 1 1 7f, 149-5 1

and the law in Mt, 1 5 1 f

Forgiveness

Atheism , 7 0-2

as part of enemy Jove, 225n47

Authenticity of synoptic tradition, 66f;

of tax collectors and sinners, 8 1 -5

see also historicity

not automatic, 202n6 1 , n69

Beatitudes in Lk, 1 5 8

Generosity, 1 04f

Body o f Christ and ethics, 109f, 2 1 3 n3 1

Gesinnungsethik, 96

God

Catechism, early Christian structure,

his faithfulness, 1 1 7f

2 1 1n8

his hate of evildoers, 1 82n3 1

Condition

his judgment, 1 14-19, 2 1 7n5 8, n64

for entering Kingdom, 76-80, 203n70

his love, 103f, 203n70

for inheritance of blessing, 1 22-6

his mercy, 1 02-6

for perfection, 148f

his righteousness, 1 1 8, 2 1 6n5 8, n5 9

for salvation, 1 7 3

his vengeance, 1 14-19

Conversion o f enemy, 98f, 143f, 2 1 5 n4 7

his wrath, 2 1 6n5 8, n64

imitation of, 2 1 , 3 1 , 4 1 , 46, 49, 6 2

Discipleship in Mt, 148f

in relation t o Jesus' commands, 7 5 , 8 5

Double love command, 92-5

Golden ruJe, 3 5 , 3 7

Gospel tradition

Enablement of love command; see motidefmition, 1 34

vation

how it differs from paraenetic tradition,

in Jesus' teaching, 6 0f, 7 7-85 ,

1 37

2 02n69 , 203n72, 204n80

of enem y love, 1 3 4-6

in paraenesis, 2 1 1n 1 2, 2 1 3n32

relation to paraenetic tradition, 1 36-9

through love of God, 203n70

Sitz im Leben, 1 36-9

Enemy love

transmission, 221n14, 222n 1 8

and blessing, 13 0

and society's institutions, 1 30-3

Hardness o f heart, 89-9 1 , 206n95 , n96 ,

'command of', 1 7 6n2

n97

involving hate, 129

Hatred

practical features in Lk, 1 5 7-6 2

God's, of evildoers, 1 8 2n3 1

practical features in Mt, 142-5

hating what God hates, 1 83n33

practical features in paraenesis, 1 2 8-30

in Psalms, 3 3 f, 4 1

see also love command

meanings in OT, 27f

Eschatological tension, 97, 1 3 3 , 1 74 ,

of Jews for others, 208n 1 00

199n46

Haustafel, 5 , 1 3 1-3 , 1 77n1

Eschatology

Hellenizing of love command tradition,

and wisdom, 1 96n24

1 5 6

consistent, 1 99n45

Hermeneutical problems, 66f

realized, 1 9 9n46

Historicity of gospel tradition; see authen-

Index of subjects

272

ticity

meanings in OT, 27f

Mt's attitude toward, 14lf

of God 103f, 149-5 1 , 203n70

Lk's attitude toward, 1 5 3-7, 170

Love command

Holy Spirit, 103f, 1 06-10, 2 1 2n24 ,

and service, 86f

2 1 3n29 , n30

as canon of OT interpretation in MT,

Hope, 1 20 ; see also reward

1 5 2

a s condition o f salvation, 76-80, 1 22-6 ,

Imitation

148f

of God, 2 1 , 3 1 , 4 1 , 46, 49 , 62

as criterion of paraenesis, 64, 1 00,

of Christ, 6 2

1 38, 172, 233n1

Imperative participle, 8, 177n5

as sign of the Kingdom, 86-8, 203n74

Indicative-imperative tension, 108

as summons to transformation, 85

Institutions of society and enemy love,

authenticity, 5 6-6 3

1 3 0-3

common features of interpretation,

Interim ethic, 96

1 7 3-5

destructive function of, 208n102

Jesus' teaching

not absolute prescription, 99

as criterion of paraenesis, 64, 1 3 8 ,

phrase 'command of enemy love,'

1 7 2, 233n1

1 76n2

authenticity , 66-8

practical features of obedience,

authoritative for Paul, 1 1 1

1 28-30, 142-5 , 1 5 7-62

in paraenetic tradition, 5 8 , 64f

why Christians need the command,

relation to Paul, 1 95n 1 7 8 , n179,

1 06-10

2 14n35

theological structure preserved in

Marxists, 69-7 1

paraenesis, 128

Motivation of love; see enablement

Judgment of God, 1 14-19, 2 1 7 n5 8 , n64

by rewards in Lk, 162-70

christological in Mt, 145-9

Kerygma and paraenesis, 1 0 1 f, 1 20-2

in paraenesis, 1 0 1-26

Kingdom of God

role of Holy Spirit, 1 06-10

condition of entering, 76-80

role of imperatives, 1 06-10, 2 1 3n34,

future, 76-80

2 1 9n90

in recent studies, 69

role of OT, 1 14-1 9, 1 22-6

its sign in love command, 86-8,

theological in Mt, 149-5 1 , 204n80

203n74

Mystery religions, 1 1 9

love command as a sign of, 86-8

present, 79-85

Neighbor love, 30-2, 47f, 9 1 -5 , 148

present-future tension and lex

New birth, 1 19f

talionis, 97

New covenant, 206n96

Non-resistance, 95-9, 1 3 1, 209nl 16,

Law

2 1 0n 1 20, 21 9n97

abolition or abiding validity of, 89,

95-8

Old Testament

and love command, 89-99

as background of paraenesis, 27-35

and the antitheses in Mt, 15 1 f

use in explicating love command,

Jesus' attitude toward, 264n83

1 1 1-14

Law of Christ, 2 1 3n34

use in motivating love command,

Lex talionis

1 14-1 9

abolished? , 95-8

Oral tradition, 8, 1 8 , 1 00, 1 22, 1 26f

dam against violence, 90, 206n95

two streams, 1 34

foundation of civil order, 96, 209n1 15

in OT, 1 82n28

Paraenesis; see paraenetic tradition

vs. non-resistance, 89

and parousia, 107, 2 14n43

Lord's prayer, 143, 224n37

defmition, 102f, 1 7 6

Love ; see enemy love, love command

relation t o kerygma, 1 0 l f, 1 20-2

Index of subjects

2 73

style, 8

Jesus' call to, 1 5 5, 1 7 3

Paraenetic tradition of love command

vocabulary of, 200n4 8

contents, 1 7 f, 63f

Rewards

existence of ?, 7-8

as motive in Lk, 1 6 2-70

relation to gospel tradition, 1 36-9

as motive in paraenesis, 1 22-6,

relation to Jesus' words, 5 8 , 64f

2 1 6n5 7

Parakfesis, 109, 176n 1 , 2 1 2n 1 7

existential interpretation of, 232n 1 34

Parousia and Paraenesis, 1 07 , 2 14n4 3

in Jesus' teaching, 60f, 7 6f, 80,

Paul

1 96n22, 1 97n28

as bearer of tradition, 2 l l n l l

Righteousness of God, 1 14-1 9 , 2 1 6n5 8,

motivation of love command, 102- 1 8

n59

relation to Jesus' teaching, 195nl78,

Rules in guiding behavior, 2 1 9n90, n9 1

n 1 79, 214n35

Perfection, 146-9

Sermon on the Mt in Q, 49f

Persecutions in I Pt, 2 17n7 1

in Lukan setting, 1 5 3-5

Possessions, use of in Lk, 1 5 7-62

in Q, 49f

Prayer for enemies, 142-5

Service and the love command, 87f

Psalms

'Sinners', 201n58

use of in paraenetic tradition, 1 3 f

Sitz im Leben of gospel tradition, 1 3 6-9

imprecatory 3 3 f, 4 1 , 185n54

Sojourner, 3 1 , 48, 1 8 2n27

Stoicism, 20-7 , 35f, 39

Q, Sermon on the Mt, 49f

difference from NT paraenesis, 24-7

Qumran, 39-4 1

Subjection, 1 3 1-3 , 220n99

Systematizing, validity of, 6 7 f

Reciprocity, denunciation o f in Lk,

Tradition

1 5 9-6 1

in NT, 2 1 1 n l l

Redaction; see redaction criticism

oral, 8, 1 8 , 1 00, 1 22, 1 26f

in I Thess, 8-1 3

two streams, 134, 222n24

in Rom, 14-17

written, 21 On1

Lk's use of love command, 15 3-70

Mt's use of love command, 14 1-5 2

Vengeance of God, 1 14-1 9

Redaction criticism

Lk's attitude to historicity of

Wisdom and eschatology, 1 96n24

tradition, 1 53-7, 1 7 0

Wissenschaft defined, 1 87n94

M t 's attitude t o historicity of tradition, Woes in Lk, 1 5 8

1 4 1 f

Wrath o f God, 1 14-1 9, 2 1 6n58, n64

our approach, 1 3 9-4 1

Repentance, 79f

Zealots, 98f