To remind everyone, this is a never-for-profit venture. It will be the most exhaustive and detailed Gospel study ever by the time it is complete. I am writing this because I believe that a shroud has been pulled down over the visage of Jesus Christ by history - a shroud which has obscured his true nature and his true message from almost everyone who claims to follow him. I believe that this obscurity has prevented humanity from receiving the infinite potential benefit of the doctrine of Jesus Christ. I believe that humanity, standing now as it does on the brink of its own self destruction, is in desperate need of said infinite benefit.
Believe me when I say that I believe that the doctrine of Jesus Christ is the only thing that will save humanity now from its own deadly machinations.
Last we met, we finished up our study of Jesus' "Teaching About Oaths." We now approach the end of Chapter Five of the Gospel According to Matthew. I confess that the verses we have immediately before us are some of my favorite verses out of the entire Gospel. I agree with my spiritual mentor, Leo Tolstoy, in that I think the next few verses are probably the most important verses ascribed to Jesus Christ in the entirety of the Gospel. I agree with his assessment that, in addition to these verses being the most important, they are also the least observed of the words of Christ.
There exists a sad contradiction, which Tolstoy has pointed out to us in his late works: the most important and most revelatory words of Jesus are also those that are most often ignored, mitigated, or rationalized against by his own "followers."
These beautiful verses constitute the fifth of the "Six Antitheses." I know that I'm embracing my inner-broken-record when I explain that the Antitheses are six highly structured sayings of Jesus that do away with specific parts of the old Law of Moses and replace them with augmented, stricter versions of the law.
Today, we're going to try to follow our basic pattern: we'll look at some Greek vocabulary, we'll learn a little about the ancient context for these verses, and we'll try to divine the actual meaning of Christ from the words themselves. There is a tremendous amount to be said about these two verses, and we will not have the opportunity to fully express it all today. As I said, you may rest assured that we will be talking about these verses over and over again over the coming years.
Without further ado, here's some Greek.
Let's start with the human anatomy we see represented in these two verses. The first body part we have mention of is the "eye." We arrive at the English "eye" from the Greek "ophthalmos," which can mean, in addition to "eye," "sight," "understanding," "that which is best," or "the bud of a plant." As in most cases, this translation is unambiguous.
The second body-part we'll learn the Greek name of is "tooth." This translation is coming from the Greek "odous," which can alternatively be translated as "tusk." It can also refer to anything pointed, like a "spike" or a "prong." Interestingly, to me at least, odous also denoted the second human vertebra, because that particular vertebra looks a lot like a big tooth.
The third body-part vocabulary here is "cheek." We come to the word "cheek" via the Koine Greek "siagón" which actually translates more closely as "jaw," "jawbone," or "maxilla," "maxilla" being the Latin and modern medical term for "jawbone." The word "siagón" implied the side of the face to ancient Greek speakers, so "cheek," while somewhat imprecise, is not necessarily inaccurate. The difference between being struck on the cheek or on the jaw seems, to me at least, to be very little.
The next word of importance here is "resistance." We come to "resistance" by the Greek word "anthistémi." "Ant," in the ancient Greek, meant "against," "anti," or "opposite." "Histémi" meant "to make a stand," "to stand," "to set," or "to stand still." Thus "anthistémi" meant "to stand against" or "to oppose."
The next word of interest here is one we've already recently discussed. We arrive at "one who is evil" here from the Greek "ponéros" which means "evil" or "wicked." From what I can ascertain, "evil" might, alone, be as accurate a translation as is "one who is evil." It seems there is some ambiguity as to whether or not this phrasing initially meant "evil" or "an evil person," but the words that follow seem to clear the ambiguity right up, so there is not much to be gained by trying to parse it out here.
The last word we'll learn about here is the one from which we have arrived at "strikes." The word is "rhapizó." This is another straightforward one. Alternative translations include "to strike with a stick," "to slap," "to cudgel," or "to thrash."
As usual, I feel that understanding the Greek phrasing offers a higher dimension of comprehension. Learning some of the ancient language really seems to ground the study.
In 1901 AD, in a place called Susa, Iran, an archaeologist named Gustave Jéquier, working for the Jacques de Morgan expedition, discovered something amazing. His discovery has fascinated historians for over a century now, and has informed the study of ancient human history, government, law, and philosophy in ways few other single artifact discoveries ever have. Jéquier, in the sand and dirt of Susa, discovered a stele* of relatively enormous proportions. This stele was carved out of black diorite - a kind of granite - and stood stunningly at over seven feet tall. To the joy of the archaeologists on the project, small cuneiform** writing appeared all over the stele. The language, they recognized, was Akkadian.*** Akkadian had been deciphered by scholars during the 19th century, so translation of the stele discovered at Susa was able to begin immediately. The product of that translation would prove to be Earth-shaking for historians around the world.
The product of the translation is, as some of you may have guessed, what we call today The Law Code of Hammurabi, perhaps the best known extant ancient human law-code. The Law Code of Hammurabi, written by a Babylonian king living in the 18th Century BC, claims to be a divinely inspired document meant to "bring about the rule of righteousness in the land, to destroy the wicked and the evil-doers; so that the strong should not harm the weak," to "enlighten the land," and "to further the well-being of mankind." It is significant in many ways to many fields of study. For our purposes, it is significant because it serves as part of the ancient context for Jesus' words in Matt 5:38.
The Law Code of Hammurabi, you see, was based in large part on the principle that Jesus referenced in Matthew 5:38: "an eye for an eye." "An eye for an eye," generally speaking, means that if a person harms another person, then the harmed party has the right to inflict a similar harm back upon the first person. "An eye for an eye" is also known as "The Law of Retaliation." The Code of Hammurabi consists of 282 laws, the vast majority of which prescribe some kind of retaliatory punishment for wrongdoing. The most pertinent of those laws for our study is law #196, which reads roughly as follows:
Now that we understand what is meant by the ancients when they say "an eye for an eye," let's look at the specific context of Jewish Law to see what exactly Jesus was referring to when he referenced this law.
"An eye for an eye" appears in the Old Testament on three occasions, and was definitely part of the Law of Moses. All three mentions of this retaliative code appear in the Pentateuch. Let's take a look at each instance.
The first occurs in Exodus 21:24. Exodus 21:12-32 are subtitled "Personal Injury," and they list Moses' laws about personal injury. These laws describe what to do with a kidnapper, (put him to death,) what to do with someone who curses their father or mother, (put him to death,) what to do with someone who strikes his slave with a rod, (nothing if the slave doesn't die from the blow,) and what to do with an ox who gores a man or a woman to death, (put the ox to death.) The portion wherein "eye for an eye" is mentioned reads as follows:
The second mention of "an eye for an eye" occurs in Leviticus, Chapter 24. This instance occurs in a section subtitled "Punishment of Blasphemy." The first part of this section describes a man who, in an argument, uttered the Lord's name in a curse. The people who heard this were shocked, and took the man to Moses. Old-Testament-God tells Moses, roughly, "you need to take that boy out to the edge of town and whip stones at him until he is good and dead," which they did. Old-Testament-God then continues on offering laws that don't seem exactly relevant to the situation at hand. He tells Moses the following:
The third mention of "eye for an eye" law in the Old Testament occurs in Deuteronomy, Chapter 19. In Deuteronomy 19, Moses is relaying more of Old-Testament-God's law to the Israelites. He offers a law regarding people who lie in court:
After a period of imprisonment, Perpetua and a handful of her Christian friends were brought from the prison into a public amphitheater for execution. Before a crowd, wild animals were set upon Perpetua and her friends. Having sustained massive injuries by the animals, the victims were herded back to a central area of the amphitheater so that everyone in the crowd could see their final execution.
Here. Read for yourself.
"No, no. Like this," she tells him, as she pulls his wrist toward her, plunging the sword definitively into her neck, ending her life.
Wow.
It was stories like these of non-resistant martyrs - true followers of Christ - that caused Christianity to explode in popularity and size in the first few centuries of its existence. The early church martyrs abandoned the Law of Retaliation. They left "an eye for an eye" with their ancestors. They embraced Jesus' doctrine whole-heartedly, and, in doing so, were responsible for perhaps the most profound shift in religious and philosophical thought that this world has ever seen. It was because of the martyrdom of the early Christian pacifists that Greco-Roman paganism was eventually lost to the dust-bin of history.
Ask a modern "Christian," though, and they'll tell you that Perpetua was crazy. Ask an American "Christian" and they'll tell you: "Jesus didn't mean what he said. Perpetua should have grabbed that sword and cut the gladiator down."
We'll see you next time. Please share this writing.
Love.
-------------------------
* A "stele" is an upright standing commemorative stone slab that frequently has inscriptions on it. Since they frequently contain written language informing us about ancient peoples, steles are the things archaeologists dream about discovering.
Last we met, we finished up our study of Jesus' "Teaching About Oaths." We now approach the end of Chapter Five of the Gospel According to Matthew. I confess that the verses we have immediately before us are some of my favorite verses out of the entire Gospel. I agree with my spiritual mentor, Leo Tolstoy, in that I think the next few verses are probably the most important verses ascribed to Jesus Christ in the entirety of the Gospel. I agree with his assessment that, in addition to these verses being the most important, they are also the least observed of the words of Christ.
There exists a sad contradiction, which Tolstoy has pointed out to us in his late works: the most important and most revelatory words of Jesus are also those that are most often ignored, mitigated, or rationalized against by his own "followers."
The study of the verses we have immediately before us will, in the long run, prove to be the most important study we ever do here at The Moral Vision. Our study of today's verses begins here, but will not end for many years. Today is huge for us. Let's see, then, what we can say about Matthew 5:38-39. We'll start with the reading itself.
Just read that a couple of times, if you would. No more humble law has ever been written, I assure you.
------------------------------
Matthew 5:38 through 5:39
38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’
39 But I say to you, offer no resistance to one who is evil. When someone strikes you on [your] right cheek, turn the other one to him as well.
------------------------------
These beautiful verses constitute the fifth of the "Six Antitheses." I know that I'm embracing my inner-broken-record when I explain that the Antitheses are six highly structured sayings of Jesus that do away with specific parts of the old Law of Moses and replace them with augmented, stricter versions of the law.
Today, we're going to try to follow our basic pattern: we'll look at some Greek vocabulary, we'll learn a little about the ancient context for these verses, and we'll try to divine the actual meaning of Christ from the words themselves. There is a tremendous amount to be said about these two verses, and we will not have the opportunity to fully express it all today. As I said, you may rest assured that we will be talking about these verses over and over again over the coming years.
Without further ado, here's some Greek.
Some Koine Greek
Let's start with the human anatomy we see represented in these two verses. The first body part we have mention of is the "eye." We arrive at the English "eye" from the Greek "ophthalmos," which can mean, in addition to "eye," "sight," "understanding," "that which is best," or "the bud of a plant." As in most cases, this translation is unambiguous.
The second body-part we'll learn the Greek name of is "tooth." This translation is coming from the Greek "odous," which can alternatively be translated as "tusk." It can also refer to anything pointed, like a "spike" or a "prong." Interestingly, to me at least, odous also denoted the second human vertebra, because that particular vertebra looks a lot like a big tooth.
The third body-part vocabulary here is "cheek." We come to the word "cheek" via the Koine Greek "siagón" which actually translates more closely as "jaw," "jawbone," or "maxilla," "maxilla" being the Latin and modern medical term for "jawbone." The word "siagón" implied the side of the face to ancient Greek speakers, so "cheek," while somewhat imprecise, is not necessarily inaccurate. The difference between being struck on the cheek or on the jaw seems, to me at least, to be very little.
The next word of importance here is "resistance." We come to "resistance" by the Greek word "anthistémi." "Ant," in the ancient Greek, meant "against," "anti," or "opposite." "Histémi" meant "to make a stand," "to stand," "to set," or "to stand still." Thus "anthistémi" meant "to stand against" or "to oppose."
The next word of interest here is one we've already recently discussed. We arrive at "one who is evil" here from the Greek "ponéros" which means "evil" or "wicked." From what I can ascertain, "evil" might, alone, be as accurate a translation as is "one who is evil." It seems there is some ambiguity as to whether or not this phrasing initially meant "evil" or "an evil person," but the words that follow seem to clear the ambiguity right up, so there is not much to be gained by trying to parse it out here.
The last word we'll learn about here is the one from which we have arrived at "strikes." The word is "rhapizó." This is another straightforward one. Alternative translations include "to strike with a stick," "to slap," "to cudgel," or "to thrash."
As usual, I feel that understanding the Greek phrasing offers a higher dimension of comprehension. Learning some of the ancient language really seems to ground the study.
Now, let's look at context.
"Eye for an Eye" in the Ancient World
The product of the translation is, as some of you may have guessed, what we call today The Law Code of Hammurabi, perhaps the best known extant ancient human law-code. The Law Code of Hammurabi, written by a Babylonian king living in the 18th Century BC, claims to be a divinely inspired document meant to "bring about the rule of righteousness in the land, to destroy the wicked and the evil-doers; so that the strong should not harm the weak," to "enlighten the land," and "to further the well-being of mankind." It is significant in many ways to many fields of study. For our purposes, it is significant because it serves as part of the ancient context for Jesus' words in Matt 5:38.
The Law Code of Hammurabi, you see, was based in large part on the principle that Jesus referenced in Matthew 5:38: "an eye for an eye." "An eye for an eye," generally speaking, means that if a person harms another person, then the harmed party has the right to inflict a similar harm back upon the first person. "An eye for an eye" is also known as "The Law of Retaliation." The Code of Hammurabi consists of 282 laws, the vast majority of which prescribe some kind of retaliatory punishment for wrongdoing. The most pertinent of those laws for our study is law #196, which reads roughly as follows:
"If a man destroy the eye of another man, they shall destroy his eye. If one break a man's bone, they shall break his bone. If one destroy the eye of a freeman or break the bone of a freeman he shall pay one gold mina. If one destroy the eye of a man's slave or break a bone of a man's slave he shall pay one-half his price."This is the kind of law Jesus is referring to when he says "You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’" This kind of law was common in the ancient world over a thousand years before Christ's Galilean Ministry. The Law Code of Hammurabi is only the best known example of myriad ancient law codes that centered around The Law of Retaliation.
Now that we understand what is meant by the ancients when they say "an eye for an eye," let's look at the specific context of Jewish Law to see what exactly Jesus was referring to when he referenced this law.
"An eye for an eye" appears in the Old Testament on three occasions, and was definitely part of the Law of Moses. All three mentions of this retaliative code appear in the Pentateuch. Let's take a look at each instance.
The first occurs in Exodus 21:24. Exodus 21:12-32 are subtitled "Personal Injury," and they list Moses' laws about personal injury. These laws describe what to do with a kidnapper, (put him to death,) what to do with someone who curses their father or mother, (put him to death,) what to do with someone who strikes his slave with a rod, (nothing if the slave doesn't die from the blow,) and what to do with an ox who gores a man or a woman to death, (put the ox to death.) The portion wherein "eye for an eye" is mentioned reads as follows:
22 When men have a fight and hurt a pregnant woman, so that she suffers a miscarriage, but no further injury, the guilty one shall be fined as much as the woman’s husband demands of him, and he shall pay in the presence of the judges.This paragraph is very specific. How often is a pregnant woman harmed because two fighting men accidentally hurt her? This would seem like a rare occurrence. Is the pregnant lady drinking in the rowdiest bar in town? I jest, of course, but I have always gotten a little bit of a chuckle from these verses. It really just seems like it wouldn't happen often...
23 But if injury ensues, you shall give life for life,
24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
The second mention of "an eye for an eye" occurs in Leviticus, Chapter 24. This instance occurs in a section subtitled "Punishment of Blasphemy." The first part of this section describes a man who, in an argument, uttered the Lord's name in a curse. The people who heard this were shocked, and took the man to Moses. Old-Testament-God tells Moses, roughly, "you need to take that boy out to the edge of town and whip stones at him until he is good and dead," which they did. Old-Testament-God then continues on offering laws that don't seem exactly relevant to the situation at hand. He tells Moses the following:
17 Whoever takes the life of any human being shall be put to death;This law, as laid out by Old-Testament-God, is very much like parts of Hammurabi's Law Code. The Israelites certainly would have been familiar with Babylonian Law when they were putting the Book of Leviticus to paper for the first time, so it is safe to say that they adopted some of their law system from the Babylonians, and perhaps from the Hammurabi Law Code itself.
18 whoever takes the life of an animal shall make restitution of another animal, life for a life.
19 Anyone who inflicts a permanent injury on his or her neighbor shall receive the same in return:
20 fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. The same injury that one gives another shall be inflicted in return.
21 Whoever takes the life of an animal shall make restitution, but whoever takes a human life shall be put to death.
The third mention of "eye for an eye" law in the Old Testament occurs in Deuteronomy, Chapter 19. In Deuteronomy 19, Moses is relaying more of Old-Testament-God's law to the Israelites. He offers a law regarding people who lie in court:
16 If a hostile witness rises against someone to accuse that person of wrongdoing,Like our first instance, this instance is quite specific, but still speaks to the retaliatory nature of the Law of Moses. Suffice it to say, then, that the law Jesus grew up learning about had much in common with the Law Code of Hammurabi. The Law of Moses, as far as it deals with humans who wrong other humans, is The Law of Retaliation. It wouldn't be hard to believe that Jesus grew up witnessing public executions that occurred based on the ancient law of his people. If he did witness such a thing, it wouldn't be hard to believe that he found it absolutely repugnant.
17 the two parties in the dispute shall appear in the presence of the LORD, in the presence of the priests and judges in office at that time,
18 and the judges must investigate it thoroughly. If the witness is a false witness and has falsely accused the other,
19 you shall do to the false witness just as that false witness planned to do to the other. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst.
20 The rest shall hear and be afraid, and never again do such an evil thing as this in your midst.
21 Do not show pity. Life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, and foot for foot!
But you heard Old-Testament-God: "whip stones at that dude until he is good and dead!"
I've spoken to countless modern "Christians" about today's verses. I've asked countless modern "Christians" how war or violence of any kind is justifiable in light of Jesus' teaching to "resist not evil." Almost every "Christian" I've engaged on this issue has responded stutteringly that Jesus simply didn't mean what he said. Some search their minds for Bible verses that might contradict Jesus' doctrine. Some mention that Old-Testament-God says "an eye for an eye" and "whip stones at him until he's dead." Almost invariably, though, the response of the modern "Christian," when confronted with the words from Matthew 5:39, is that Jesus didn't mean exactly what he said. This seems preposterous to me, especially when the doctrine of the modern "Christian" says that Jesus is God incarnate. Why would God come down and offer moral prescriptions that he didn't believe in or actually want followed!?
I'm afraid that so-called Christians have held this perverted view of the words of their savior for a long, long time. The idea that Jesus didn't mean what he is recorded to have said in the most significant moral teaching of his Galilean Ministry has been pervasive through Christianity for centuries, and has followed Christianity wherever it went. We can know this by listing the number of battles and wars and corporal punishments that have been perpetrated by "Christian" nations since the 4th Century AD. That list is nearly endless.
Jesus' meaning in the Sermon on the Mount is, in fact, inescapable. His teaching to "resist not evil" does not appear as anomalous within the context of the Sermon. Rather, it fits perfectly among the other teachings of the Sermon. Jesus is asking his follows to forget the old Law of Moses, and replace it with a new law of meekness, peace, forgiveness, honesty and simplicity. What does Jesus mean when he speaks in the Gospel According to Matthew, Chapter Five, Verses Thirty-Eight and Thirty-Nine? He means "the people who have come before us have lived by the Law of Retaliation. I am replacing that law with a new and superior law: the Law of Peace. I tell you now: resist not evil. If you are attacked, invite further attack and do not defend yourself." He doesn't immediately give a list of exceptions to this rule, the way modern "Christians" will. In fact, he doesn't ever give any exception to this rule. He literally wants his followers to adopt complete and total pacifism. It is inescapable, and it happens to be perhaps the most powerful thing he ever taught his followers.
What Did Jesus Mean in Matthew 5:38-39?
I've spoken to countless modern "Christians" about today's verses. I've asked countless modern "Christians" how war or violence of any kind is justifiable in light of Jesus' teaching to "resist not evil." Almost every "Christian" I've engaged on this issue has responded stutteringly that Jesus simply didn't mean what he said. Some search their minds for Bible verses that might contradict Jesus' doctrine. Some mention that Old-Testament-God says "an eye for an eye" and "whip stones at him until he's dead." Almost invariably, though, the response of the modern "Christian," when confronted with the words from Matthew 5:39, is that Jesus didn't mean exactly what he said. This seems preposterous to me, especially when the doctrine of the modern "Christian" says that Jesus is God incarnate. Why would God come down and offer moral prescriptions that he didn't believe in or actually want followed!?
I'm afraid that so-called Christians have held this perverted view of the words of their savior for a long, long time. The idea that Jesus didn't mean what he is recorded to have said in the most significant moral teaching of his Galilean Ministry has been pervasive through Christianity for centuries, and has followed Christianity wherever it went. We can know this by listing the number of battles and wars and corporal punishments that have been perpetrated by "Christian" nations since the 4th Century AD. That list is nearly endless.
Jesus' meaning in the Sermon on the Mount is, in fact, inescapable. His teaching to "resist not evil" does not appear as anomalous within the context of the Sermon. Rather, it fits perfectly among the other teachings of the Sermon. Jesus is asking his follows to forget the old Law of Moses, and replace it with a new law of meekness, peace, forgiveness, honesty and simplicity. What does Jesus mean when he speaks in the Gospel According to Matthew, Chapter Five, Verses Thirty-Eight and Thirty-Nine? He means "the people who have come before us have lived by the Law of Retaliation. I am replacing that law with a new and superior law: the Law of Peace. I tell you now: resist not evil. If you are attacked, invite further attack and do not defend yourself." He doesn't immediately give a list of exceptions to this rule, the way modern "Christians" will. In fact, he doesn't ever give any exception to this rule. He literally wants his followers to adopt complete and total pacifism. It is inescapable, and it happens to be perhaps the most powerful thing he ever taught his followers.
This teaching is what I would call the crux.
Let's let Tolstoy get a piece of this, with these words from the introduction to his book "The Kingdom of God is Within You:"
I could repeat myself all day, saying over and over again that Jesus literally meant for his followers to "resist not evil," and that this teaching is the most critical of any of Jesus' teachings, but you don't have to take it from me. Instead, let me quote just a few more ancient texts to help drive the point home. You see, it wasn't immediately that the followers of Christ threw out the teaching of Christ. We can know this by, for instance, reading the following from Paul's Letter to the Romans, Chapter 12:
Let's let Tolstoy get a piece of this, with these words from the introduction to his book "The Kingdom of God is Within You:"
"In the year 1884 I wrote a book under the title "What I believe," in which I did in fact make a sincere statement of my beliefs.Beautiful. "The perversion of Christ's teaching by the teaching of the Church is more clearly apparent in this than in any other point of difference." Honestly, when I first read these words many years ago, I felt like I'd just met the only person who understood the world.
In affirming my belief in Christ's teaching, I could not help explaining why I do not believe, and consider as mistaken, the Church's doctrine, which is usually called Christianity.
Among the many points in which this doctrine falls short of the doctrine of Christ I pointed out as the principal one the absence of any commandment of nonresistance to evil by force. The perversion of Christ's teaching by the teaching of the Church is more clearly apparent in this than in any other point of difference."
I could repeat myself all day, saying over and over again that Jesus literally meant for his followers to "resist not evil," and that this teaching is the most critical of any of Jesus' teachings, but you don't have to take it from me. Instead, let me quote just a few more ancient texts to help drive the point home. You see, it wasn't immediately that the followers of Christ threw out the teaching of Christ. We can know this by, for instance, reading the following from Paul's Letter to the Romans, Chapter 12:
19 Beloved, do not look for revenge but leave room for the wrath; for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.”See? Paul gets it. Evil is conquered by good. Evil is conquered by turning the other cheek to it. Evil, when resisted by evil acts, is only evil doubled.
20 Rather, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals upon his head.”
21 Do not be conquered by evil but conquer evil with good.
Then we have the following, from the very beginning of the "Didache," a first century Christian document considered by many scholars to be the very first example of "Church orders:"****
Finally, we'll come to a close on a bit of text from a very ancient diary known as the "Passion of Saint Perpetua, Saint Felicitas, and their Companions." The Passion is a diary written by a Christian girl named Perpetua living in Carthage in the late 2nd Century AD. The Passion is a prison diary, and was written while Perpetua was imprisoned by the local Roman authorities for her professed Christianity. The bulk of the text is believed to have actually been written by Perpetua, while the ending is believed to have been written by a witness to the events described.
There are two ways, one of life and one of death, and there is a great difference between the two ways.
The way of life is this. First of all, you shall love the God who made you. Second, love your neighbor as yourself. And all things you would not want done to you, do not do to another person.
Now the teaching of these words is this. Bless those who curse you, and pray for your enemies, and fast for those who persecute you. For what credit is it to you, if you love those who love you? Do the people of the nations not do the same? But you should love those who hate you, and you will not have an enemy.
Abstain from the desires of the flesh and of the body.
If anyone strikes you on your right cheek, turn the other cheek to him also, and you will be perfect.
If anyone compels you to go one mile, go with him for two miles.
If anyone takes away your coat, give him your shirt also.
If anyone takes away what is yours, do not demand its return, for you cannot.As we can see here, the anonymous authors of the Didache, one of the earliest foundational church documents, understood Christ's commandment well. They didn't believe, as modern "Christians" believe, that Jesus said a bunch of things that he had never meant.
To anyone who asks something of you, give it to him, and do not ask for it back, for the Father desires that gifts be given to all from His own riches.
Finally, we'll come to a close on a bit of text from a very ancient diary known as the "Passion of Saint Perpetua, Saint Felicitas, and their Companions." The Passion is a diary written by a Christian girl named Perpetua living in Carthage in the late 2nd Century AD. The Passion is a prison diary, and was written while Perpetua was imprisoned by the local Roman authorities for her professed Christianity. The bulk of the text is believed to have actually been written by Perpetua, while the ending is believed to have been written by a witness to the events described.
After a period of imprisonment, Perpetua and a handful of her Christian friends were brought from the prison into a public amphitheater for execution. Before a crowd, wild animals were set upon Perpetua and her friends. Having sustained massive injuries by the animals, the victims were herded back to a central area of the amphitheater so that everyone in the crowd could see their final execution.
Here. Read for yourself.
But the crowd demanded that they be brought back to the middle of the arena, so that as the sword penetrated the bodies of the martyrs their eyes might be accomplices to the murder. The martyrs got up unaided and moved to where the crowd wished them to be. First they kissed each other so that the ritual of peace would seal their martyrdom. The others, in silence and without moving, received the sword’s thrust, and particularly Saturus, who had first climbed up the ladder, was the first to give up his spirit. For once again he was waiting for Perpetua. Perpetua, however—so that she might taste something of the pain—screamed out in agony as she was pierced between the bones. And when the right hand of the novice gladiator wavered, she herself guided it to her throat. Perhaps such a woman, feared as she was by the unclean spirit, could not have been killed unless she herself had willed it.Wow. Talk about non-resistance to evil. I've played this scene over and over in my mind. Perpetua stands there looking at the gladiator who is to strike her down. He swings his sword back and chops down at her neck, but, due to weakness, hesitation, or bad aim, his sword glances off of her collar-bone, tearing her flesh open painfully, exposing bone and sending blood spraying. She screams out in agony, and the gladiator stands looking at her in shock, perhaps uncertain how to remedy the situation. Perpetua takes a step towards him, composing herself, and grabs ahold of his sword with her bare hands. She raises the tip of the sword up to her own throat and reaches out to grasp the gladiator's wrist, where he still holds onto the sword.
"No, no. Like this," she tells him, as she pulls his wrist toward her, plunging the sword definitively into her neck, ending her life.
Wow.
It was stories like these of non-resistant martyrs - true followers of Christ - that caused Christianity to explode in popularity and size in the first few centuries of its existence. The early church martyrs abandoned the Law of Retaliation. They left "an eye for an eye" with their ancestors. They embraced Jesus' doctrine whole-heartedly, and, in doing so, were responsible for perhaps the most profound shift in religious and philosophical thought that this world has ever seen. It was because of the martyrdom of the early Christian pacifists that Greco-Roman paganism was eventually lost to the dust-bin of history.
Ask a modern "Christian," though, and they'll tell you that Perpetua was crazy. Ask an American "Christian" and they'll tell you: "Jesus didn't mean what he said. Perpetua should have grabbed that sword and cut the gladiator down."
We'll see you next time. Please share this writing.
Love.
-------------------------
* A "stele" is an upright standing commemorative stone slab that frequently has inscriptions on it. Since they frequently contain written language informing us about ancient peoples, steles are the things archaeologists dream about discovering.
** Cuneiform was an ancient form of writing named after the wedge shape markings that formed its letters.
*** Akkadian is a dead Semitic language from Mesopotamia that was used by Babylonians, Assyrians, Akkadians, and others.
**** "Church Orders" refers to ancient texts that clarified Christian morality, explained apostolic prescriptions, offered standardized liturgies of worship, and layed out ancient Church organizational structures.
-------------------------
To read what came prior to this, click here.
*** Akkadian is a dead Semitic language from Mesopotamia that was used by Babylonians, Assyrians, Akkadians, and others.
**** "Church Orders" refers to ancient texts that clarified Christian morality, explained apostolic prescriptions, offered standardized liturgies of worship, and layed out ancient Church organizational structures.
-------------------------
To read what came prior to this, click here.
