Joan of Bark

By "enemy" are you sure Jesus wasn't referring only to enemies within Judaism?

Matthew 10 (NIV)


Matthew 15

ChandraRama

[QUOTE=Joan of Bark;5283006]Brilliant.
When the whole gospel narrative is taken in whole, (rather than the individual verses), the only meaning would be yours.

HaRaAYaH

[QUOTE=ChandraRama;5283274]Whenever you discuss a text, you need to look at it in it's totality and not pull isolated verses out of the text to prove a certain point. It's no so much the text it's what the specific tradition says about the text.

Gamera

It would be an unusual gloss, since he doesn't say enemies "within Judaism." One would expect him to qualify the word, if that what he meant, because of course Jews were used to having lots of enemies outside of Judaism.

Here's the context. Seems applicable to all enemies, gentile or Jew:


Mat 5: 43 - "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' 39 But I say to you, Do not resist one who is evil. But if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also; 40 and if any one would sue you and take your coat, let him have your cloak as well; 41 and if any one forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42 Give to him who begs from you, and do not refuse him who would borrow from you. 43 "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' 44 But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.

Further the references to being told to hate your enemy is usually seen as a reference to Deut 23:6, in which God (after discussing crushed testicals) goes on to tell the Hebrews not seek peace with various enemies of Israel (all of course non-Jews) though the Egyptians and Edomites are excempted.

Further, Paul certainly didn't take it the way you suggest, but rather expansively, and he is clearly referencing Jesus' admonition.

Romans 12: Live in harmony with one another; do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly; never be conceited. 17 Repay no one evil for evil, but take thought for what is noble in the sight of all. 18 If possible, so far as it depends upon you, live peaceably with all. 19 Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God; for it is written, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord." 20 No, "if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals upon his head." 21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

Gamera

See below: you in fact failed to see the narrative as a whole. I have restored the context.

ChandraRama

Yes I understand. But the point remains. He is assuming his group as the jews. And he addresses his group as the jews. That has not changed

Joan of Bark

If he was preaching in a Jewish context, Jews would assume that he was referring only to Jews.

Of course Paul wouldn't have interpreted it as a command solely for Jews, since Paul was actively recruiting gentiles into this new sect. Paul interpreted everything Jesus said as applying universally.

Besides, you still haven't explained Matthew 10 and 15.

Gamera

Well Matthew 10 and 15 have been amply discussed by commentaries in the context of historical Christianity for hundreds of years, so it's not like these passages are crying out for explication from me.

The usual commentary is messianic (Jesus' role in Judaism as fulfiling prophesy) and doesn't interest me. However, it hardly takes a deep reading of the gospels to see where even Jesus found the role rather too prescriptive and contradicted it at various time. Hence, the believing centurion passage in Matthew 8, the healing of the Garesene demoniac, the Samaritan woman at the well in John 4, etc. etc.

Leaving that aside, I fail to see how the passages you mention contradict or rather limit (as you seem to be claiming) Jesus's teachings about loving your enemy. Jesus seemed quite capable of making universalist statements while playing the role of the Jewish messiah.

As to Paul, well, yeah, that makes my point. Since the passages were arguably written long after Paul, it suggests they don't have the construction you put on it.

Gamera

Except the passages at issue are written long after Paul, who assumed otherwise, and arguably the passage were written under his influence, however indirect it may have been.

While a timeline of historicity puts Jesus first, Paul second. A timeline of mss usually puts Paul's epistles first, and Matthew and the other gospels afterwards.

Joan of Bark

Citations?

I agree, the centurion doesn't seem to be Jewish, and the Samaritan woman obviously wasn't. (However, I notice He doesn't apologize for the highly derogatory remarks He makes about gentiles in this passage; and the woman had to talk Him into curing her daughter -- He was initially very callous toward her).

But I admit I don't have a strong case here. I'm still not sure, though, that it was clear that Jesus was preaching universal truths. Perhaps He changed His thinking during the course of His ministry.