46

Paul is a realist. He likely would have agreed with Winston Churchill’s statement

as to how it is: “The Sermon on the Mount is the last word in Christian ethics.... Still, it

is not on these terms that ministers [i.e., statesman] assume their responsibilities of

guiding states” (Clarke:63). The Roman emperor at the time of Paul’s writing of the

book of Romans is Nero, who later proclaims himself as divine, and is noted for

persecuting Christians. Like Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount, Paul insists that

Christians are not to resist evil with violence, but are to be subject to even this kind of

“anti-Christ” authority: for authorities that exist have been instituted by God(13:1-2; cf.

Jer. 27:6). But Paul marches to a different drummer. Tthough subject to these

authorities, he does not necessarily obey them. On his missionary travels he suffers

imprisonments, countless floggings, lashings, andbeatingsfrom various governments

who punish him for his actions against “the empire’s interest” (2 Cor. 11:23-24).

The contrast between Paul’s readers and the governing authoritiescan hardly be

stated more forcefully. Which way then does Paul assume that the influence will flow?

Who is salt and light to whom?

The book of Romans is Paul’s systematic statement of the gospel as the power of

God for salvation (Rom. 1:16-17), and what this means for the vocation and life of the

disciple in the church (12:1ff.). In Romans 12:1, Paul exhorts the Roman Christians that

they are not to let themselves be pressed into the world’s mold. He envelops his

description of the retributive justice of the governing authorities with exhortations from

Jesus like those in the Sermon on the Mount,suggesting that gospel pressure, the power

of God for salvation, is placed upon these authorities. Instead of disciples permitting

their behavior to be pressed into the mold of the governing powers (Constantinianism),

the disciples by living examples of the Sermon on the Mount are to influence as salt and

47

light the governing authorities of the Empire. The disciples are not to be overcome by

evil, but to overcome evil with good (Rom. 12:21).

Jesus contrasts these two kinds of authorities: You know that among the nations

those whom they recognize as their rulers lord it over them, and their great ones are

tyrants over them. But it is not so among you; but whoever wishes to become great

among you must be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you must be slave

of all. For the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a

ransom for many (Mark 10:42). This is the meaning of the Sermon in relation to the

state: Because of that ransom, one can expect that, like the six stories of the book of

Daniel, state authorities at least at times will acknowledge the authority of the God of

Jesus (Dan. 1—6). For as Paul or his disciple later wrote, On that cross he [Christ]

discarded the cosmic powers and authorities like a garment; he made a public spectacle

of them and led them as captives in his triumphal procession(Col. 2:15, NEB). The

myth of the machiavellian state is broken! After nearly two millennia of Christianity it is

time for the church to proclaim that the right of the state to take human life is long since

over.

It is from Matthew 5:39 that the term “nonresistance” comes, Do not resist evil

(KJV). As Jesus uses this phrase, it should not be equated with “ peacemaking” as this

word is found in the seventh beatitude (peacemakers,Matt. 5:9).

Peacemakers is a more

general term; “nonresistance” is more specific, specifying how disciples are to react when

someone attacks or abuses them, perhaps when they are about their work as peacemakers.

In this instance, disciples are not to demand their rights. Jesus gives four examples: a

slap on the cheek, a legal suit; a demand to go one mile (probably to carry the equipment

of a Roman soldier); a beggar’s request. All of these are to be interpreted as examples of

48

the disciples’ response, illustrating behaviors which are the opposite of the demand for

retaliation and retribution (Matt. 5:39-42).

The Sixth Antithesis: Love for the Enemy

The sixth antithesis is not in the OT, but is likely a popular interpretation. Here

Jesus replaces hatred with love for the enemy. Although OT law does not include love

for the enemy (but cf. Exod. 23:4), yet love for the alienis so important that it is stated

twice in the Exodus covenant code, and these two are the only laws in the code to which

the exodus motive clause is attached (Exod. 22:21; 23:9). In the Levitical law, this alien

is to be treated as a citizen: You shall love the alien as yourself, for you were an alien in

the land of Egypt (Lev. 19:34).

This love for the alien is stretched to its limit in the book of Jonah where the

Decalogue’s creedal statement of God’s steadfast love is extended even to Nineveh,

Israel’s traditional national enemy (Jonah 4:2; cf. Exod. 20:6; 34:6-7). As the prophet

Jonah rejects this love as his own paradigm, so many Christians reject the model of the

heavenly Father’s impartial love: God sends sunshine and rainon both righteousand

unrighteous. Does this paradigm refer to God’s providence as experienced in the repeated

acts of nature? Or is it a reversal of “Yahweh is a warrior,”that is, instead of sending

hailstones on the evil doer who attacks God’s people (Josh. 10:11; Ezek. 38:22), Yahweh

sends good things upon both the evil attacker and the righteous? (cf. Neufeld:174).

Whichever, Jesus uses this statement of God’s impartial love as model for his disciples,

and rejects thereby the “law” of discrimination between neighbor and enemy (foreigner?)

which some evidently were quoting in his day.

RETROSPECT AND PROSPECT: From Law as Retribution to Law as Covenant

Love