40

in the modern instance of homosexuality. But can one be sure that Matthew demands

circumcision for Gentiles, since he mentions it nowhere in his book? Only Luke gives

the example of the circumcision of baby Jesus (Luke 1:59); in Matthew, Jesus sends forth

his disciples to baptize, not to circumcise. Paul calls himself the least of the apostles, not

because of what he taught, but because he had persecuted the church of God (cf. 1 Cor.

15:9). In any event,Jesus does not excommunicate those who practice and teach

freedom from a lesser law; they are indeed called least in the kingdom of heaven—but

they do get in!

The repeated phrase For ... I tell you, Matt. 5:18 and 20, introduces the discussion

on the least and greater commandments. As v. 18 introduces the neglect of the least

which the Pharisees kept--which neglect still leaves one in the kingdom--so v. 20

introduces the neglect of the righteousness that exceeds, which the Pharisees did not

keep--but which neglect excludes one from the kingdom (cf. Matt. 23:23). These greater

commandments Jesus exposits in his six antitheses: murder (5:21-26), adultery (5:27-30),

divorce (5:31-32), oaths (5:33-37), retaliation (5:38-42), love for the enemy (5:43-47).

We will discuss briefly the first, second, third, fifth and sixth antitheses, as these may be

relevant to the issue of capital punishment. The fifth antithesis is the most relevant and

therefore demands the longest discussion.

The Antitheses and Greater Covenant Laws (Matt. 5:21-47)

The first antithesis engages the sixth commandment of the Decalogue, taking of

human life. Jesus speaks to the inner rage which incites to murder, warning the disciple

that the same judgment as for murder will be meted out. He gives notice against insulting

a brother or sister with words which fuel the quarrel. The opposite polarity of murder is

reconciliation:be reconciled to your brother. This impulse for reconciliation arises in a

41

moment of corporate worship, a moment to remember: to remember one’s thwarted

relationship, to remember this word of Jesus, his communal prayer (Matt. 6:12); and,

from the later perspective of the community to which Matthew wrote, to remember the

reconciling death of Jesus (Matt. 18:23-34). Then, remembering, one is to act

immediately upon what worship demands: to rid oneself of this incongruity between

worship and life. In biblical faith, communal worship of Yahweh is the basis for ethics.

Worship without reconciliation is hypocrisy.

Jesus contrasts this disciple way of handling disputes to the worldly Greek-

Roman court system, a system of judge(s), guard(s), and prison(s), leading not to

reconciliation but to retribution. “Settle out of court,” Jesus says, or you will never get

out until you have paid the last penny (Matt. 5:25-26). Can the example of the Jesus’

community change such courts? Certainly never entirely. Only by a constant example of

the “congregational court,” reconciliation based upon worship, can such a witness be

effective. Only by participation in the “congregational court” can disciples who use state

courts maintain their awareness of the inadequacy of secular courts, and therefore of their

limited usefulness. Samuel hewed Agag in pieces in a worship service at Gilgal(1 Sam.

15:34). But the long history of the incompatibility of such technique law with the

intention of Yahweh’s saving, covenant relationship announced at Sinai, fulfilled by

Jesus on the Galilean mountain, excludes such activity from worship, the Congregational

Court.

The second and third antitheses deal with the only social institution in the series,

the inviolability of the family: adultery and divorce. These are concerns of the seventh

and tenth commandments of the Decalogue. And Jesus’ solution may be directly related

to the Nachfolge Jahwe as experienced by the prophet Hosea (1—3). As in the first

antithesis, Jesus penetrates to the inner motive, this time to the look of lust, adultery

42

committed in the heart or mind (cf. Exod. 20:17). Here if anywhere in his antitheses,

Matthew might appropriately have referred to circumcision, the sign of covenant, the

least of these commandments (5:19; cf. Luke 2:21); but he represents Jesus as dealing

only with the greater commandment, circumcision of the heart(cf. Jer.4:4; 9:26;

Ezek.44:7, 9; Rom. 2:29).

Besides concern for the integrity of the married couple in their relation to

creation, Jesus may have been concerned about the child whom, in Matthew 18, he

blesses immediately after his discussion on divorce. Blessing, not curse and retribution,

is the emphasis of the Sermon (Matt. 5:3-11;esp. v. 8). The inviolability of covenant

marriage--as demonstrated by Hosea’s rejection of retribution on the basis of God’s

redemption of rebellious Israel—is here affirmed by Jesus (cf. Hos. 1-3).

The Fifth Antithesis: the Law of Retaliation

The fifth antithesis deals specifically with the law of retaliation, An eye for an eye,

and a tooth for a tooth. This statement is found once in each of the three major

pentateuchal law codes, in the technique segment of law (Exod. 21:23-24; Lev. 24:20;

Deut. 19:21). The concept is found also in the earlier Hammurabi Code (18thcentury BC,

ANET, 1969:175); in this code, as in modern insurance practice,a fixed money sum may

be substituted for the loss of a body member. This biblical lex talion limits redress of an

injury to its equivalent. Conversely, the Song of Lamech contrasts Cain’s avenging ,

seven times, with that of Lamech, 77 times—numbers which in turn Peter and Jesus use

as a wordplay for the measure of forgiveness, the opposite of retaliation! (Gen. 4:23-24;

Matt. 18:21-22).