When we discussed Nazareth I mentioned that, though it such a small
hamlet, it lay close to a mountain from which one had marvellous views. (1) I
am sure that Jesus, the village handyman, often sat on that mountain top and
gazed at the wider world. There he must have prayed to God the Creator, his
Father and his King. There he must have reflected on the wider implications of
his Father's kingship.
The Gospels record more than one incident that happened on top of a mountain. Some of these may have theological significance for the evangelists, but there can be little doubt about their preserving at the same time a historical trait of Jesus' personality. He liked tops of mountains. That is where he preferred to pray. That is where the Father communicated to him the width and breadth of his vision.
* He went up the mountain to pray by himself. (2)
* Jesus went to the mountain to pray and he spent the whole night there praying to God. (3)
* Taking Peter, John and James with him, Jesus went up the mountain to pray. And while he was praying his face was transformed and his clothing became brilliant 1. See page 67 above. 2. Matthew 14,23. 3. Luke 6,12. as lightning .... A cloud came and overshadowed them, and a voice from the cloud said: 'This is my Son, whom I have chosen. Listen to him. (4)
Sometimes Jesus also taught on the top of a hill. It gave Matthew the idea to put many of Jesus' special teachings to- gether in one sermon which he makes Jesus deliver on top of a o mountain: the sermon on the mount. (5) Matthew has his own theological reason for doing this. As the old covenant was proclaimed on Mount Sinai, so Jesus proclaims the Father's new covenant from another Sinai. The ten commandments of o Sinai are updated with the eight beatitudes of Jesus. (6) But there was another good reason for putting this teaching of Jesus on a mountain. For here Matthew has brought together many sayings of Jesus that speak of'the extra', of'what is more', of how relationships in the kingdom should transcend and excel.
Whatever failings the Pharisees and scribes might have, everyone knew they were anxious to fulfil the Law to the dot. They strove with all their might to attain 'justice', perfect sanctity, as demanded by God. What then to make of this extraordinary statement?
'I tell you, if your sanctity does not excel that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter the Kingdom of Heaven.'(7)
As if to reply to the question of what this extra sanctity means, Matthew gives us a number of examples.
* One of the ten commandments says: 'You shall not kill'. The scribes had worked out in detail who should be brought to trial on the charge of murder. But Jesus said we should not even be angry with someone else or insult the other with offensive names. Rather, we should take the initiative of making peace. (8)
* Another of the commandments forbade adultery. Jesus pointed out that chastity is not only violated by deeds. Chastity begins in our mind and in our attitude. (9)
* Old Testament Law allowed divorce and the scribes debated what constituted a sufficient ground for divorce. Jesus upheld the principle of the indissolubility of marriage. (10)
* The scribes argued about the obligations resulting from vows and oaths. Jesus maintained that there was something wrong in us having to swear an oath at all. (11)
* The scribes stuck to the rule of equal revenge. An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. Jesus declared that we must outdo others in tolerance and forbearance. We should turn the other cheek, give our cloak? as well if someone takes our tunic, go an extra mile if we are forced to carry a pack. (12)
In all these examples we notice that the extra consists in doing more than is required by the Law because we care about what is at stake. We do not observe the minimum. We give more than is strictly required. We obey the Father, not according to the letter, but according to the spirit of what he desires. We go beyond mutuality because we want to give generously.
God himself always gives generously. Sometimes we have to push him, to insist - like the friend who needs a loaf of bread in the middle of the night (see illustration). (13) Eventually God will give because creation means giving.
The hallmark of the kingdom is generosity. Paul records Jesus' principle that there is more happiness in giving than in receiving. (14) But, remarkably enough, if we give generously, generously we will receive.
'Give to others, and God will give to you.
A full measure, pressed down,
shaken together and running over,
he will pour into your lap.
The measure you use for others is the measure God will use for you.'(15)
To grasp Jesus' way of thinking we should, perhaps, look at its concrete application to human relationships. Here too, Jesus tells us, we should go beyond a quid pro quo, beyond mutuality. We should forgive rather than retaliate. We should give more than we receive.
Jesus' ideal of charity has frequently been badly misinterpreted, both inside and outside the Christian Churches. The American philosopher Ayn Rand has attacked it in her many publications. According to her, Christian charity degrades people because it treats others with patronising condescension. Rather than speak of love and generosity, we should reaffirm every person's dignity. The only real love is self-love. When we do something for someone else, we do it because we receive an equivalent gift in return. That is the only sound basis for human relationships. (16)
Rand has a point. There have been Christians, and perhaps there are still, who call 'charity' what is no more than their duty; or who by so-called 'charity' disguise their lack of doing justice; or who 'dispense charity' in a patronising and condescending manner. But this was not Jesus' idea.
Leaving ninety-nine sheep to look for one stray one is the logic of the kingdom. God is happier about one sinner who converts than about ninety-nine respectable people who do not need conversion, Jesus said (see Luke 15,4-7)!
As we saw in the previous chapter, relationships in the kingdom are first and foremost based on mutuality. If mutual rights and obligations are not granted, the 'extra' gift makes no sense. And mutual justice implies full respect for the other person and acknowledgement of what he or she gives to us.
It is also clear that there are situations when we will have to act on strict principles of mutual justice. The penal system, even in a Christian society, will need to incorporate punitive measures to deter criminals. Civil laws will uphold people's right to restitution for damages. In certain circumstances we will have to stand up for our rights and claim what is ours. Jesus too realised this. In spite of his principle of 'turning the other cheek', he challenged the soldier who slapped him on the face in his hearing before Annas. (17) And, not withstanding his aversion from oaths, he responded in court when he was put on oath by the high priest. (18)
Where Rand goes wrong is in not seeing that a higher principle can be at work which does not contradict mutuality but supplements and surpasses it. Suppose that some enmity has arisen between two persons. Both have reason to complain about the other's behaviour. Well, if they keep on paying each other in kind, there will never be an end to their fight. In order to get out of their impasse, they must rise above mutuality and make peace.
This is the higher principle Jesus advocated. He believed so strongly in it that he repeated it in different forms. The world will never realise true peace and harmony unless people can adopt an attitude that transcends their immediate, narrow horizons.
The following text is an absolute classic:
'Love your enemies.
Do good to those who hate you.
Bless those who curse you and pray for those who treat you badly ....
If you love those who love you, what blessing is in it?
Even sinners love those who love them.
And if you do good only to those who do good to you,
what blessing is in that? Even sinners do that much.
And if you lend only to those from whom you hope they can pay you back,
what blessing is in that?
Even sinners lend to sinners, to get back the same amount.
No, love your enemies and do good to them;
lend and expect nothing in return.
You will then have a great reward
for you will prove to be children of the Most High God.
.He himself is kind to the ungrateful and the wicked.' Luke 6,27 - 35
According to Jesus, there is no 'blessing' in just giving quid pro quo. If we truly are children of God who live under his kingship, we will transcend a short-term view of things and? decide to be patient, kind, forgiving, never mind how people respond. We will be loving on principle; not because others are patient, kind and forgiving to us, but because our goodness will eventually, in the long term, win the upper hand. There is blessing and reward in such an attitude, not only in the sense of us finding favour with God, but in our improving the overall situation itself. This is a higher logic. It is God's logic, Jesus saw. He does not abandon his kindness even if people oppose him. God provides rain and sunshine to good and bad alike. (19)
This unshakable inner goodness of God derives from God's wholeness. The word Jesus used was thamîm. In translations it is often rendered by 'perfect' (via the Greek). But thamîm means 'whole'. (20) Jesus saw that we too should have this inner wholeness in us, as God has it in himself.
'If you greet only your relatives, what extra is it you are doing?
Don't the pagans do the same?
No, you must be whole as your Father in heaven is whole.'(21)
'What extra is it you are doing?'
'This sentence is the key to this whole chapter of Matthew. It is the answer to the question: How does the disciple differ from a pagan? What makes him a Christian? This key sentence sums up all the rest: the truly Christian element is what is extraordinary, extra, more than normal, different from the usual, the not so obvious. This is the justice that transcends the justice of the Pharisees, that excels, that goes beyond, that towers over it ... . That is why a Christian can never totally conform to the world. He has to hold on to the extra'. (22)
The higher principle Jesus advocated has its repercussions in politics too. This also is an area where Christians have often neglected their duty. As all other citizens, Christians are responsible for the welfare of their society. They should take an active part in politics to ensure that justice is done to all.
What happens if a particular society is governed by an oppressive regime?
Can Christians resort to arms to defend their rights and bring about a political revolution?
If the principles of self defence and the defence of one's property are accepted, why are poor people who are deprived of their rights not allowed to rise up in self defence?
In previous centuries many Christians were confused about the correct response. Some were mesmerised by scriptural texts that state that political authority comes from God. (23)
Some maintained that the division between social classes was willed by God and should not be disturbed. Others again held that oppression and suffering in this world would be offset by rewards in the hereafter. There was a real need for a complete rejection of such totally inadequate and crippling views and the formulation of a more realistic Christian response. This has now been offered especially in the liberation theology worked out by the Churches of Latin America.(24)
If we may summarise liberation theology in a nutshell, it derives from three major insights, each leading to a commitment: (25)
1. The true meaning of biblical salvation includes liberation in every aspect. Christian theology should be committed to full human liberation.
2. Complete biblical salvation has to be achieved in the actual, historical world. Christian theology is bound to view everything from a concrete, functional point of view.
3. Theological language and social structures are politically and mentally interdependent. Christian theology is committed to a praxis which is both biblically inspired and realistic.
From a Scriptural point of view, the new perspective made scholars look again at the Gospels with new eyes. What was the social condition of the society in which Jesus lived? In what ways did Jesus himself engage in the process of social liberation? What can we learn from him about the dialectical tension found in present-day liberating praxis: the tension between a Utopian dream and concrete action within a histor cal, conflictive process? It led to new studies on Jesus and Christology. (26)
The Brazilian Leonardo Boff tells us that for Jesus Christ 'the Liberator', the kingdom of God possesses two meanings, one negative, the other positive. The negative meaning, he says, implies rejection of this world as it is now. The kingdom is against poverty, hunger, hatred, the exploitation of fellow human beings, legalism, pharisaism, false religion, sin, and death. In its positive meaning, the kingdom promotes love, justice, healing, the fullness of life and the total transformation of this world according to the plan of God.
Establishing the kingdom exacts a price.
'The concrete steps of historical liberation are always conflictive and burdensome. All true liberation rests upon a covenant of blood and death. All the prophets, both of yesterday and today, know this; the prophet cannot be worried about his own neck. No prophet ever died in his bed. It is the same with Jesus, the Liberator par excellence.(27)
In practical terms, a programme of liberation entails a decisive option for the poor, the promotion of conscientisation at all levels, (28) adopting critical techniques of economic analysis, using all available democratic means to expose injustice and defend the poor.
As Boff pointed out, people who opt for the poor often find themselves arrayed against powerful oppressors. Jesus himself experienced this. He came up against the brute force of the Roman army which, for political reasons, sided with Jesus' religious accusers. Not counting the persecution of innumerable lay leaders, during the last ten years alone more than 400 priests and religious were killed in Latin American countries by right- wing para-military groups.
The crucial question remains: can the institutional violence of repressive political systems be overthrown with counter-violence?
Camilo Torres, born in Bogotà in 1929, was ordained a priest, studied sociology at Louvain in Belgium and returned to Colombia in 1958. He dedicated himself heart and soul to the liberation of the poor. In June 1965 he reached the conclusion that justice for the poor could only be obtained through vio- lence. Laicised by the Church, he joined a guerrilla force, the Army of National Liberation. One year later his detachment ambushed a military patrol and Camilo was killed.
Camilo justified violence on the principle that love should be effective. The old-style 'charity' - alms, a few tuition- free schools, a few housing projects - had not succeeded in feeding the hungry majority, clothing the naked, or teaching the unschooled masses. Since power was held by the ruling elite, who refused to share it equitably, such power must be taken from the privileged minorities and given to the poor majorities. Thus revolution was unavoidable.
'Revolution is the way to obtain a government that will feed the hungry,
clothe the naked and teach the unschooled.
Revolution will produce a
government that will carry out works of charity, of love for one's neighbours -
not for only a few but for the majority of our neighbours.
This is why
revolution is not only permissible, but obligatory for those Christians
who see it as the only effective and far-reaching way to make the love of all
people a reality.' (29)
I believe we have to respect the testimony of Camilo Torres and many others who have followed his path. There are historical situations that demand from Christians that they take up arms and meet violence with counter-violence. This may well involve joining a guerrilla force and promoting an armed revolution. The actual conditions and one's own informed Christian conscience will justify and prompt this response. Nothing I will say in subsequent paragraphs should obscure this clear statement.
However, the preferred option for Christians should be a peaceful one.
In the context of Jesus' vision of God's kingship it should be recognised that Jesus advocated non-violence as the ordinary Christian response. It is interesting to note that this also seems to be the almost universal stand of those involved in the Latin-American Christian struggle for liberation. Helder Camara, Archbishop of Recife in Brazil, put it in words.
'I respect those who feel obliged in conscience to opt for violence - not the all too easy violence of armchair guerrillas - but those who have proved their sincerity by the sacrifice of their lives ....
My personal vocation is that of a pilgrim of peace. Personally I would prefer a thousand times to be killed than to kill.' (30)
Jesus advocated the use of non-violence as an example of the higher logic of the kingdom. Again, we can reflect on this with the help of a practical example.
The Catholic community of Northern Ireland bears deep scars inflicted by centuries of Protestant oppression. Some members of the community resort to acts of terrorism as a means of furthering what they believe is the solution: political unification of the North to the predominantly Catholic Republic of Ireland. Protestant para-military groups retaliate with counter acts of violence. Even without entering the claims and counter-claims made by either side, one can see that the way out is not only establishing complete justice. Love will have to enter, to heal and to make both communities discover the true value of the other. A spiral of violence that has begun will not stop unless both parties forgive and forget.
A disturbing finding by sociologists is that in quite a few countries Christians justify violent means more easily than non- Christians. The cause of this astounding fact seems to lie in a distorted image of God.
In some forms of Christian spirituality, God is credited with a 'liking' for suffering. God the Father is seen as a hard God who insisted that his own Son suffer and die: he would not grant redemption without seeing blood. The same hardness is then translated into an inclination towards authoritarian solutions, towards militarism and the violent suppression of opponents. (31)
I have refuted this horrendous misunderstanding in other publications, trying to show that God is truly a God of love and that Jesus' sacrifice was not due to the Father's cruelty. (32) I have also written a novel about the same topic. It explores the extent to which misguided Christian spirituality can go. (33)
Jesus recommended the radical love that overcomes evil by good. As we have seen above, we should show love to our enemies and do good to those who hate us. In Jesus' time, violence was felt most by the heavy hand of the Roman occupation. Jesus too must have resented the injustices and hardships inflicted on his people. He must have endorsed the valid aspirations of those who wanted to restore Jewish independence.
But Jesus did not himself want to enter the scene as a political liberator. He refused to be made king by the people. (34) Also, he did not want the image of 'the kingdom of heaven' to be narrowly interpreted as a political reform. The prayer 'Thy kingdom come' does not mean: 'Thou wilt establish a new Israelite State', but: 'Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.' (35) Jesus knew that his option for the poor and his demands of radical justice would have political and social consequences. But he saw it as his own task to introduce the values of the kingdom from which these consequences were to flow.
Jesus was also non-violent on principle.
'I tell you: Do not oppose who does you evil.
If someone slaps you
on the right cheek, present the other cheek too.
If someone takes you to
court and demands your tunic, give him your coat as well.
And if anyone
orders you to go one mile, go with him an extra mile. (36)
This last example may well refer to the practice by the occupying Roman soldiers of commandeering passers-by to carry their luggage. (37)
When Jesus entered Jerusalem shortly before his passion, he deliberately chose to enter the city seated on a donkey. He knew that the horse was the symbol of wealth, military force and political power (see the Roman officer in the illustration). He did not want his mission to be construed in such terms.
The greatest example of Jesus' non-violent approach is his own passion and death. Although he knew he was innocent, he forbade his disciples to defend him with the force of arms. (38) Jesus saw himself as the non-violent, suffering Servant of Yahweh who offered his life as a vicarious sacrifice for 'the many', that is: the whole of humanity. (39) In his own case the higher principle produced undreamed of results. The same kind of'productivity' will result from the sacrifices of Jesus' followers.
'Amen, Amen, I tell you,
unless a grain of wheat falls on the soil and dies,
it remains only a single grain.
But if it dies, it bears abundant fruit.'(40)
'Deny self, take up the cross and walk in my steps . . .
Anyone who loses life for the Gospel will save it.' (41)
Throughout this book we have shown that Jesus loved his own people, the Galileans. His own immediate pastoral ministry was directed to them. (42) After his death and resurrection which took place in Jerusalem, Jesus returned to Galilee, as it were to put his seal on his own people and his own country. (43)
But the higher principles of the kingdom made Jesus transcend these narrow boundaries. Even during his ministry itself, he never excluded those who belonged to other nations.
* Jesus healed the slave of the Roman centurion stationed in Capernaum. (44)
* Jesus cured the daughter of the Canaanite woman in the region of Tyre and Sidon. (45)
* Jesus was tolerant towards the Samaritan village that refused him hospitality. (46)
* He healed a Samaritan leper and praised him for his gratitude. (47)
* He made a Samaritan the model of true neighbourly love. (48)
* Jesus stayed and preached in the Samaritan village of Sychar.' (49)
The Gospels record these incidents precisely because they were exceptions. Jesus could limit himself to his ministry among his own people because the message of the kingdom would be carried by his disciples to other nations throughout the world. To the man he cured in the Gerasene country Jesus said:
'Go home to your own people.
Tell them all that the Lord in his mercy has done for you.' (50)
It is Christ's injunction that is still with us today. He calls on us go out 'to make disciples of all peoples (51) and to be his witnesses to the ends of the earth. (52) But, wherever we are, he wants us to bring the kingdom to those we meet. Jesus wants us to give ourselves totally to our people or the people we have adopted as our own.
'Amen, Amen, I tell you,
those who believe in me will do the same
things I am doing.
Yes, even greater things than I have done will they do,
for I am going to the Father.' (53)
1. Many people struggle to make ends meet. They cannot help worrying about how to stay alive. Are the values of the kingdom realistic?
'Don't be upset, worrying all the time about what to eat and what to drink.
It is the pagans of this world who keep worrying about these things. Your Father knows that you need them.
No, be concerned with his kingdom, and he will provide you with the other things.' Luke 12,29 - 31
2. In a world so full of injustice, how can we fail to notice and condemn what is wrong? But Jesus tells us (Matthew 7,1-2):
'Do not judge, and God will not judge you.
For God will mete out the same judgment to you which you mete out to others.
The norm you apply is the norm he will apply to you?'
What higher principle is at stake here?
3. Reflect on the implications of this statement in Vatican II:
'The Lord also desires that lay believers spread his kingdom: a kingdom of truth and life, a kingdom of holiness and grace, a kingdom of justice, love and peace. In this kingdom creation itself will be set free from its slavery to corruption, to receive the freedom of the glory of the children of God ....
Believers must learn the deepest meaning and the value of all creation, and how it leads to the praise of God. Believers must assist one another, even in their daily occupations to live holier lives. Then the world will be permeated with the Spirit of Christ and realise its goal of justice, love and peace.' The Church, no 36.
3. Matthew 8,5 -13; Luke 7,1 - 10. 4. Mark 7,24 - 30; Matthew 15,21 - 28. 5. Luke 9,51 - 56. 6. Luke 17,11 - 19. 7. Luke 10,29 - 37. 1. John 4,1 - 42. 2. Mark 5,19. 3. Matthew 28,19. 4. Acts 1,8; see Luke 24,47 - 48. 5. John 14,12.
1. See page 67 above.
| 2. Matthew 14,23. | 3. Luke 6,12. | 4. Luke 9,28-36. | 5. Matthew 5,1; 8,1. |
6. Compare Exodus 19,2 - 20,21 and Matthew 5,1-12.
| 7. Matthew 5,20. | 8. Matthew 5,21 - 26. | 9. Matthew 5,27 - 30. |
10. Matthew 5,31 - 32; 19,3 - 9. See also the discussion above.
| 11. Matthew 5,33 - 37. | 12. Matthew 5,38 - 42. | 13. Luke 11,5 - 8. | 14. Acts 20,35. |
15. Luke 6,38. Literally: 'Give and it will be given to you'. This is a so-called theophoric passive, a passive form that implies God. The Jews would use this passive form to avoid mentioning God by name.
16. A.RAND, 'The Virtue of Selfishness' in For the New Intellectual, New York 1961. She expresses the same ideas in her novel, The Fountainhead, New York 1962.
| 17. John 18,22 - 23. | 18. Matthew 26,62 - 64. | 19. Matthew 5,45. |
20. In the Old Testament it is applied to Noah, Abraham and the people of Israel; see Genesis 6,9; 17,1; Deuteronomy 18,13.
21. Matthew 5,47 - 48.
22. D.BONHOEFFER, Navolging, Amsterdam 1964, p.135. See also: F.BOERWINKEL, Meer dan het gewone, Baarn 1977, esp. pp.58 - 70.
23. John 19,11; Romans 13,1 - 5.
24. Some classical works available in English are: G.GUTIERREZ, A Theology of Liberation, New York 1976; HASSMANN, Theology for a Nomad Church, New York 1976; J.L.SEGUNDO, Theology for Artisans of a New Humanity, New York 1973, and The Liberation of Theology, New York 1976; J.M.BONINO, Doing Theology in a Revolutionary Situation, Philadelphia 1975; E.DUSSEL, History and the Theology of Liberation, New York 1976. The statements of the Latin American Bishops' Confer- ences gathered in Medellln in 1968 and Puebla in 1979 made the thrust of a programme of Christian liberation the official policy of the Church for the continent; The Church in the Present-Day Transformation of Latin America in the Light of the Council, Bogota 1968.
25. J.L.SEGUNDO, 'What is common in all theology of liberation?', in Theology for the Americas, New York 1976, pp. 280 - 283.
26. 1. J.SOBRINO, Christology at the Crossroads, New York 1978; J.L.SEGUNDO, The Historical Jesus of the Synoptics, New York 1985.
27. L.BOFF, Jesus Christ Liberator. A Critical Christology for our Time, New York 1978.
28. See page 117 above.
29. C.TORRES, Frente Unido, 2 September 1965; Revolutionary Priest. The Complete Writings of Camilo Torres, ed. J.GERASSI, Penguin 1971, p. 374.
30. From a lecture given in Paris, 25 April 1968; S.CASSIDY, Audacity to Believe, London 1978, p. 317. Cassidy gives an excellent picture of the institutional violence in Chile of the 1970s. See also: A.MORELLI, Libera a mi pueblo, Buenos Aires 1971.
31. R.FRIEDLI, Attitudes to Peace, Address at the Inauguration of the RC Lectureship, Selly Oak College, Birmingham 1980.
32. 2. J.WIJNGAARDS, 'Escape from the Cannibal God', Inheriting the Master's Cloak, Ave Maria Press, Notre Dame 1985, pp. 21 - 30; 'The Father is a God of Love', The Gospel of John, Michael Glazier, Wilmington 1986, pp. 145 - 155; 'The True Sacrifice', The Tablet, 25 March 1989, pp. 342 - 343.
33. J.WIJNGAARDS, For the Sake of His People, McCrimmons, Great Wakering 1990.
| 34. John 6,15. | 35. Matthew 6,9 -10; see also page 91 above. | 36. Matthew 5,39 - 42. |
37. This is what happened to Simon of Cyrene; Mark 15,21.
38. Matthew 26,51 - 53.
39. This has been worked out well by J.JEREMIAS, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus, London 1966, esp. pp. 225 - 231; New Testament Theology, London 1971, pp. 276 - 299.
| 40. John 12,24. | 41. Mark 8,34 - 35. | 42. Matthew 10,5 - 6; 15,26. | 43. See page 13 above. |
| 44. Matthew 8,5 -13; Luke 7,1 - 10. | 45. Mark 7,24 - 30; Matthew 15,21 - 28. | ||
| 46. Luke 9,51 - 56. | 47. Luke 17,11 - 19. | 48. Luke 10,29 - 37. | 49. John 4,1 - 42. |
| 50. Mark 5,19. | 51. Matthew 28,19. | 52. Acts 1,8; see Luke 24,47 - 48. | 53. John 14,12. |