ARTICLE NAVIGATION: You are presently looking at Part 2.2
PREVIOUS | NEXT
For a comprehensive index of each extract in this series go to: www.catholica.com.au/specials/first500-2/index.php
Acknowledgements | Bibliography

Being an extract from a larger work, the commentary today might be approached as a sort of "unfinished symphony". Many readers will be excited by the insights Tom Lee brings to this examination of the radical insights Jesus was driving at in what is perhaps his most acclaimed body of teaching — the Sermon on the Mount…

The radical insights at the core of the Beatitudes
Part 2.2
by Tom Lee
Jesus' self perception of his role and the perceptions of those around him…

Stating the goal…

The Sermon on the Mount has often been incorrectly interpreted as an endorsement of passivity, but instead calls for creative nonviolent action. Jesus knew that it is as difficult to forgive forgiveness as it is to forgive those whom we have injured. For many it can be a provocation. Subservience breeds vengefulness. But as Martin Luther King taught, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere". The goal is to lead an opponent to a change of heart and win him over to nonviolence. Jesus gave concrete examples about how to do this.

First, "If anyone hits you on your right cheek, offer him the other as well." As Walter Wink pointed out in his book Engaging the Powers, (Fortress Press, 1992), a right-handed blow lands on the left cheek. To strike the right cheek with a fist would require the left hand, but the left hand was only used for unclean work; you could be punished for using your left hand. The only way to strike someone's right cheek with your right hand would have been with the back of the hand, an intended insult not a fistfight. Jesus is describing the typical humiliation of the oppressed people of Galilee inflicted by a slave owner or Roman soldier, where violent retaliation would invite even worse retribution. Turning the other cheek in the face of such humiliation asserts one's dignity, equality and humanity. Jesus did not want passive suffering; he wanted the oppressed to nonviolently resist injustice. He wanted the oppressed to risk nonviolent action for their liberation. As Gandhi said, "The first principle of nonviolent action is non-cooperation with humiliation."

Jesus continues: "If a man takes you to law and would have your tunic, let him have your cloak as well." People then wore outer and inner garments and they were sometimes hauled to court and sued even for the clothes on their backs. Only the poorest among those whom Jesus addressed, would have had nothing but an outer garment, so, when they demanded the person's outer garment, Jesus said, give them your inner garment as well. Thus, the plaintiff would find himself naked before the court, which was not only taboo in Judaism, but criminal. It was illegal to look upon a naked person. Jesus' audience knew that such exposure would place the judge and soldiers in violation of the law. Jesus was saying, don't be oppressed or awed by power, but respond creatively to disarm your opponents.

"And if anyone orders you to go one mile, go two miles with him." Roman soldiers forced the poor to carry their heavy packs for them. By law, however, the soldiers were not permitted to force anyone to walk more than one mile with their packs. Oppressed and terrorized by the Roman occupiers, the Galileans (much like the Iraqi people today) were urged by Jesus to nonviolently resist the soldiers, rather than taking up arms. His audience understood that soldiers could be arrested and imprisoned for permitting them to go the extra mile.

"Give to anyone who asks, and if anyone wants to borrow, do not turn away." Jesus is asking his hearers to lend without expecting interest or even a return of the principal. The poor would obviously have little or nothing to give, but Jesus wanted them to treat everyone with respect and dignity, and his examples of unarmed direct action certainly originated with him.

For three centuries, the early church more or less observed Jesus' instruction to utilize nonviolent resistance to injustice. But nowhere in the early church, to say nothing of the early fathers, do we find statements similar to or anywhere near as radical as Jesus' injunctions. Indeed, the implications were soon lost as the radical background to these statements was forgotten.

The emergence of an institution…

Christianity only became a separate and distinct religion under the pressure of circumstances, when the mother church at Jerusalem disappeared with the destruction of Judea in 70 CE. Not long afterward, adherents of Jewish Christianity who believed Jesus was the Messiah were forced out of Judaism and found no succor amongst Gentile Christians whose self-protective rejection of Jewish narrowness of view seemed divinely confirmed by the destruction of Jerusalem and Judea. The Gentile Christians soon felt compelled to repudiate Judaism entirely and to regard themselves as adherents of a new religion, in need of its own hierarchy, liturgy, Sabbath and administrative system.

After the initial popularity of his preaching Jesus seems to have encountered opposition. His message was rejected by many. As John's Gospel records: "Many of his disciples left him and stopped going with him." Maybe the militant element left him because he did not conform to their idea of a conquering Messiah. Or perhaps they just had to return to their rural labors at the end of the Sabbatical Year.

Whatever the reason, Jesus' mission in Galilee faltered and he knew very well that he had alienated many of the Scribes and Pharisees who disagreed with his rather free emphasis on the spirit rather than the letter of the Law. He opposed the God of love and mercy to the God of the Law, and thus appeared to the guardians of law and order as the servant of sin and sinners. Moreover he had raised the ire of Herod Antipas. The king had received reports that Jesus was one of the prophets returned to earth, and even that he was John the Baptist raised from the dead.

Coptic icon of John the Baptist

Jesus' strict views on divorce could well be regarded as a revival of the Baptist's criticism of the king's matrimonial misconduct. Polygamy was still common and accepted by Judaism, but Jesus, like the Essenes seems to have regarded legitimate marriage as the union of one man and one woman. However, Jesus' words in Mark 10, "The man who divorces his wife and marries another is guilty of adultery against her," may have less to do with Jesus' view of divorce than with his reaction to the social injustice that divorce often caused for women. The eastern orthodox churches, quoting Mark, have always permitted divorce, generally for adultery or a circumstance that has caused a complete breakdown of a marriage. Catholicism has also broadened the acceptable reasons for annulment in recent years.

Encouraged by Jesus' waning popularity Herod Antipas prepared to act against him. But, warned by some friendly Pharisees, Jesus removed himself across the Sea of Galilee to Bethsaida in the loosely governed territory of King Philip, the recently deceased brother of Antipas.

Jesus' mission seems to have lasted less than two years when the birds of ill-omen led him to flee from Galilee. But then he proposed to carry the same message to Jerusalem where hostility was certain to be much stronger. With the decrease in his following he became more vulnerable, more expendable, and the Sadducees could dare to act against him. His death was almost certain from the moment he set out for the Jewish religious capital. He conscientiously persisted, believing himself to be the Suffering Servant foreseen by the Second Isaiah, who would bring God's purpose to completion.

His disciples, whom the Gospels so often depict as confused and bewildered, could not understand or appreciate Jesus' readiness to go to his death, nor how that death could be accomplished. Since they believed he had raised others from death they apparently could not believe that anyone could kill him unless he willed it.

If Judas was a real person and not a gospel writer's construct at a later date, as many biblical scholars believe, he may have acted as he did in the belief that he could force Jesus' hand. Like the majority of their fellow Jews the disciples expected their liberator to be a Royal Messiah, a worldly conqueror, which Jesus apparently had never intended to be. `Messiah' means one who saves, viewed at the time as a purely political being, a ruler who would expel the brutal foreign oppressors and reestablish Jewish hegemony.

ARTICLE NAVIGATION: You are presently looking at Part 2.2
PREVIOUS | NEXT
For a comprehensive index of each extract in this series go to: www.catholica.com.au/specials/first500-2/index.php
Acknowledgements | Bibliography

Tom Lee is an Australian, now semi-retired in Phoenix, Arizona, who has had an illustrious international career as an actor, writer, and broadcast commentator. He does not claim to be a professional theologian, nor an historian, but he undertook this study because, like many of the people who are attracted to what we're doing here at Catholica Australia, he was simply inquisitive about the history of Christianity and trying to better understand what he had been brought up to believe. In a sense, his book is a one-man journey seeking to better understand who Jesus was and what his own faith was about.

What are your thoughts on this commentary? You can contribute to the discussion in our forum.

©2009 Tom Lee (Star Concepts LLC) 15633 N. 17* Drive, Phoenix, AZ 85023-3409

[Index of Commentaries by Tom Lee]