I just read some commentaries by four Christian Theologians who agree on what is not the normal explanation of the sermon on the mount.

C. F. Andrews - Charles Freer Andrews (1871 ? 1940) was an English priest, educator and Indian freedom fighter,  John Howard Yoder (December 29, 1927 ? December 30, 1997) was a Christian theologian, ethicist, and Biblical scholar., German Redemptorist Fr. Bernard Haring, the foremost Catholic moral theologian of the 20th century and a leading advocate for church reform before, during and after the Second Vatican Council,, Walter Wink (born 1935) is professor emeritus at Auburn Theological Seminary in New York City. His faculty discipline is biblical interpretation.

They all look at Jesus and the sermon as a radical non-violent movement with political consequences.  They found that Jesus had a fundamental belief in the oneness of humanity, that Jesus was deeply offended by racial and religious exclusiveness and that it called forth his severest condemnations. A. Paul says of Jesus, and the teaching of oneness of humanity as "In Him, there is neither Greek no Jew . . barbarian, Scythian, bond or free: but Christ is all and in all." Jesus taught the role of Non-violence, with the point of view of resistance to injustice and oppression. That "turn the other cheek" was not to be humble but to be resistant.  For in the first century to be struck on the right cheek by someone meant that they had to use the back of their right hand. It was common punishment for slaves, wives, children, lower status people to be struck with disdain in this matter. The moral they all agree was that Jesus was saying not to be humble and submit meekly to the insult  but to look back at the person eye to eye with a disdain that you are not going to submit to them. At the same time, you will not strike them back.
The go the extra mile, was to undo the humility of forced labor by a soldier into a counter attack that lets the person gain advantage over the soldier in dignity and fear. The custom was that a soldier could by law have someone carry their pack. But to reduce the amount of resentment in the occupied lands, a soldier could only have the person carry it for one mile. Anything over that was in infraction of the military code and could incur punishment of that soldier by his superior. By going the extra mile, Jesus is reinforcing the non-violent resistance of an injustice and also making a satirical comment- imagine a soldier pleading with a Jew to give back his pack so that he would not get reprimanded. 

The love of one's enemies will hold a central place in the teachings. That the question today should no longer be "How can I find a gracious God?" but rather, "How can we find God in our enemies?" Matthew 5:48 - Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect. They all feel that the proper interpretation should mean "be all inclusive in your love as the heavenly parent is all inclusive." That the enemy is a gift to us, forcing us to recognize the log in our own eyes. We see in ourselves the mix of just and unjust."   

Jesus taught that we must never accept evil, even if we cannot change it. Accepting evil, no matter how entrenched, serves to deaden moral sensitivity. Calling evil by its name - even to naming as evil what others regard as custom (wife beating) or natural (homophobia) or even moral (executing political critics, or religious heretics) maintains the moral nerve even in circumstances where change seems impossible.

That the love of human and their oneness declares that you be willing to sacrifice, endure hardship, even death to right an injustice to another. That Jesus walk to the Cross was his declaration to his followers that even he was willing to make a political statement about injustices for the common person in Israel and that he would not ask more of his followers then he would be willing to do himself.

They all agree that up to Pope Constantine the role of the Church was to be representatives for the downtrodden, to have a non-violent resistance along with non-cooperation to force radical political change for the welfare of their fellow citizens.  They did not believe in being soldiers, fighting back physically, up until Pope Constantine changed the theology and started to support wars as being Holy and changed the original theology of the church.

They also felt that it was more important to live the teachings of Jesus then the resurrection theology.

Interesting, these are all main clergies from Catholicism, methodist, German Reformist, scholars. They feel that the church has deviated from the original purpose and would like to see it move back. 

Comments?

Another Ironic twist is that these theologians also review Gandhi's view of Jesus.  Gandhi fashioned some of his thoughts and actions after reading the Sermon on the Mount with the same conclusions they have done. Yet, he was a Hindu.  Yet, Jesus teaching influenced him even in his own religion.

It was only after Gandhi wrote what he thought the Sermon on the Mount really meant that theologians started to look at it from a different perspective.  Sometimes, an outsider can offer input that enhances and changes for the better on a thought.

And what do these theologians says about Matthew 5:29-30 where Jesus says, " So if your eye?even your good eye*?causes you to lust, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30 And if your hand?even your right hand?causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell."  Was this "political" also? 

By the way, I agree that some of Jesus' teaching was a radical non-violent movement, and I agree that Jesus was inclusive in his invitation to the "Kingdom of God."  I disagree that his teaching was primarily about world politics, but was more about bringing to reality the presence and relationship with the Father.

But as for Jesus' "oneness of humanity", I believe that is derived by selecting only a few verses, taking out of context, and then making them what they want.  Jesus was specific in that in the Kingdom of God all are the same, but outside the Kingdom it is not.  One verse as an example:

Matthew 25:31-34;41,46.  ?But when the Son of Man* comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit upon his glorious throne. 32 All the nations* will be gathered in his presence, and he will separate the people as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will place the sheep at his right hand and the goats at his left.  34 ?Then the King will say to those on his right, ?Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you from the creation of the world.  ...  41 ?Then the King will turn to those on the left and say, ?Away with you, you cursed ones, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his demons.  ...  46 ?And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous will go into eternal life.?

Doesn't sound like "oneness of humanity" to me.  The three theologians you mentioned were all known for their passion for social justice, and I agree with their passion.  But that was not their whole theology.

His method of correction was to have the person placed in hell.  How does that correct the situation in this lifetime?


Define this term for me.  I don't I understand what you mean (or are thinking) when you use it.  To me, if one of humanity is one, it means that they are all seen the same way and treated the same way.  Even if what you said about Matthew 25 was true (and I'm far from agreeing with that yet), it says that Jesus doesn't see all the same way, but the way they are seen depends on their actions.  If by oneness, you mean irregardless of race, ethnicity, gender, etc., then I can agree that in those things we are all one.  Can you help me out here?

First, I need to snicker at Bruce's use of Mtt 25. I apologize to everyone else for the use of an inside joke.

Now, as for the view of the theologians of choice. I am reminded of a rabinical jewish teaching when it comes to analyzing the writteb Torah. Rabinical jidaism makes 2 claims about scripture. The first is that no two verses say the same thing, but that every verse uniquely adds to the full understanding. The second, abd one I find more important in this case, is that no verse has a single meaning.

For the most part, I would say that I agree with these theologians. I also make a claim that these theologians would agree the the second claim of rabinical judaism. The sermon on the mount has many implications. To say that one is correct and the others wrong would be to grosely underestimate the claims of Christ.

I would like to pull another scripture to make my point.Mt 19:24, Mk 10:25, and Lk 18:25.

In these versus Jesus claims that it is easier for camel to go through the eye of a needle then for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. This verse can be translated 3 different ways:

The first is that the verse is taken for exactly as it is... A literal camel through a literal eye of a needle.

The second is in linguistic approach in which one notes that the words 'camel' and 'corse thread' are spelt and probably pronounced very similarly.

The third is through an analysis of the time abd place. In Jerusalem at that time there was a gate into the city known as 'The eye of a needle.' This gate was very short and narrow. In order for a camel to get through it, the camel would have to take all of its burdens off and crawl on its knees.

I persoanly believe that Jesus used this ambiguity on purpose and that all three interpretations are true. The first teaches us that it takes the power of God for a rich man to enter. The second teaches us that, like threading a needle with a corse thread, it takes much patients and persevence for a rich man to enter heaven. The third teaches us that a man must let go of all his burdens and humbly come on his knees to enter heaven.

In this same way, I believe that the sermon on the mount was tlaking about problems of that period, overlying social commentary, the necessary humility of a man's heart and more.

Another interpretation of the camel and the needle is that the rich man has to be willing to sacrifice everything - including all his worldly possessions in the betterment of society.  That is asking a HUGE commitment on the part of someone who is used to having everything go their way, and always having money in their pocket.  It is when you make that commitment of total sacrifice and what that entails is the basis of a non-violent method of changing the world.

Ok, gotta go with your thought this time, Bruce. 

You're welcome.