4

The Good News of Jesus’ Sermon on the Mountis that law as covenant love

moves decisively from concept to fulfillment in Jesus. This is fulfillment of the intent of

Sinai law. This intent is indicated by the principles stated in the petitions of the Lord’s

prayer (Matt. 6:9-13), andby the practical commands of his six antitheses (Matt. 5:21-

48). With the fifth antithesis I will discuss especially the traditional interpretations ofthe

“Noahic law” (Gen. 9:6) and Paul’s statement onsubjection to the governing authorities

(Rom. 13:1-7). I will attempt to show that these are levels of proverb and law below

which society is not to fall. As such, they are to be drawn into tension with the forward

movement of divine grace as defined by covenant law.

Clarence Bauman, a New Testament scholar and theologian, says of the

relationship between Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount and Sinai law: “The pentateuchal

motifs in Matthew present Jesus in a positive relation to Moses. The parallels in setting

and content between the Sermon on the Mount and the Decalogue portray Jesus as the

messianic fulfillment of the Mosaic prototype. The ‘new Moses’ is not opposed to his

forerunner and his demands are not antithetical to the commandments from Sinai. This

Mosaic typology is meant to confirm the mountain teaching of Jesus from the perspective

of Sinai. Mosaic categories are transcended in that the Messianic Torah reflects the

personal authority of the Lord Messiah (Matt. 7:24,28), whose call to faith is at once an

invitation to Nachfolge Christi[to emulate Christ] and whose instruction in

righteousness is training in imitatio Christi [to imitate Christ]”(Bauman:384).

Independently of Bauman, I have come to a similar conclusion: that there is a

positive relationship between Sinai law and Jesus’ Sermon, the Bible moving on the

human plane, chaotically but organically, from Sinai to the Sermon. This positive relation

is not forced or contrived: the Sermon on the Mount fulfils the intentof Sinai law. While

the intent of the Sermon is Nachfolge Christi, to emulate God in Christ, the intent of

5

Sinai law is Nachfolge Jahwe: that in its own interhuman relationships, Israel is to

emulate God’s saving action from state slavery (Exod. 19:4; 20:2; 22:21-22; 23:9). I

intend to show how God’s saving action for Israel (and through Israel for the world)

extremely limits and then rejects the principle of retribution ofNE kingship law (Exod.

20:5). It extends to infinity the principles of mercy and forgiveness to those who love

God and who are committed to keep the divine commandment (Exod. 20:6). These two

principles, rather than retribution, Israel is to emulate.1

There are of course other reasons which weigh against capital punishment. But

followers of Jesus are not called to promote idolatry. It is mainly these two principles,

basic to covenant law, which I propose to trace from Moses to Elijah to Jesus.2After all,

I oppose capital punishment because from the perspective of the God revealed in the

Bible, capital punishment is wrong. Perceptive readers will note that I use the modern

American problem of capital punishment as a case study for the relationship ofbiblical

ethics to theology, both of which are of prime importance to our 21stcentury problems.

My method of interpretation is holistic, that is, I interpret the details of the present

text within the context of the main themes of each book. Though I am conversant with

historical and form critical exegesis, these must contribute to an understanding of the

present text.3Since I am not writing primarily for biblical specialists, I will include

relatively few footnotes.

I owe a debt of gratitude to many authors, but especially to Ulrich Luz, Matthew

1—7, A Continental Commentary;Hans Dieter Betz, The Sermon on the Mount

(Hermeneia); and Robert Leicht in 2000 Jahre in Widerspruch, a series of eight articles

in Die Zeit, March 31, 1999 to May 20, 1999. I have special feelings of gratitude to

Clarence Bauman, my former colleague at the Associated Mennonite Biblical Seminary,

for his book, The Sermon on the Mount, The Modern Quest for its Meaning.

6

For the shape of this essay, I am indebted to Miriam Sieber Lind who made

innumerable suggestions for its readability. Other readers who made helpful comments

from the perspective of their various disciplines are Beulah Hostetler, Elizabeth Wenger,

John Fisher, and Dale Weaver. Tim Stair, Outreach Pastor of the College Mennonite

Church, functioned as a consultant, off of whom I bounced my ideas as I wrote the

manuscript. Matthew Lind, my son, helped me to understand my computer. J.B. Shenk,

executive secretary of Seniors for Peace, is responsible for publishing the manuscript on

The Web, which was quite an uncharted experience for me.

It is my hope that this essay will contribute toward the abolition of the death

penalty in America.

INTRODUCTION: The Story of the Church Against the Death Penalty

Felix Manz, the first Anabaptist martyr, was executed in Switzerland in 1527 AD.

One of his several indictments is that he challenges the states’ right to inflict capital

punishment.4A few years later—but still two centuries before the

Enlightenment—Menno Simons, a Holland Anabaptist who lived under threat of

execution for most of his ministry, says of the death penalty, “If the transgressor should

truly repent ... for such a one to be hanged would look strange and unbecoming .... If he

remained impenitent, and his life be taken, one would unmercifully rob him of the time of

repentance.”5

James J. Megivern notes in The Death Penalty: An Historical and Theological

Survey, (1997), that these early modern “heretics” are not alone in Western history to

oppose the death penalty. Sketching the responses of the Western church from biblical