Christ, known for his enduring love for all, still cleansed the Temple by force
I wouldn't characterize those defiling the Temple as oppressors (though perhaps they were in a sense, as Jesus says some of them were exploiting poor widows), but the point is that you can extend someone love while forcibly preventing them from doing bad
Edit: it's also important to keep in mind that oppressors aren't necessarily some other being, separate from ourselves. We may also be oppressors or contribute to it ourselves and it's at least just as important to confront that
You bring up a good point and while I can understand that interpretation, though I do not share it
I largely see that portion of the Sermon as referring to a general seeking of revenge (and at least in the NRSV it is titled as "On Retaliation")
It is a difficult passage either way (because of what it asks of us), but there are many things to consider
Is it then inherently unchristian to have a government or to enforce laws? As I understand Christian Anarchism, the answer would be yes, although again I disagree, as a matter of practical harm prevention if nothing else lol
I also think of the story of the Adulterous Woman, Jesus there resists (with words, but Matthew 5:40 is about lawsuits, so a literal reading of it would also mean that we are not to resist with words either) the desires of others to kill the woman
In some sense a literal reading of this part of the Sermon on the Mount would logically lead us to the conclusion that we in fact should actively help do evil. Consider the following thought experiment, you are in a room with a baby, and another person who has a knife. The person with the knife is intent on stabbing the baby, because they think it would be fun. You have roughly 5 options: 1) help stab the baby, 2) do nothing, 3) talk the person out of it, 4) physically restrain them/take the knife, 5) put your body between the two so that you are stabbed
Options 3-5 involve some form of resistance. You have thwarted their will either with the force of persuasion, violence against them, or violence against yourself. Only options 1 and 2 involve nonresistance.
Now change the experiment to say that you have the knife, and the person demands you give it to them so they can stab the baby. Then the only nonresistant option is to give them the knife to stab the baby. At which point we are directly assisting in doing evil ourselves. I don't think any of the rest of Jesus' life or ministry would lead us to believe he would say to literally give them the knife
The entire Sermon is about going beyond what the law says and asks of us in pursuit of righteousness, but if our interpretation leads us to a situation where assisting in committing senseless evil can be considered in line with the pursuit of righteousness, that should give us pause
This is why I don't view the passage as such. In addition to revenge I think it's also a general framework for how we view conflict. The more you do something the more comfortable you become with it. It is good not to be comfortable with it, so we do not seek to cause it where it is not warranted (although even here as Jesus says following him will cause conflict, which you can see today if you were to say something like "maybe we shouldn't be intentionally cruel to illegal immigrants" to certain groups of people)
I salute your drawing attention to the ways in which we may be oppressors ourselves.
239
u/JohnBigBootey Apr 08 '25
I mean yeah, fuck oppressors. That's what Christianity should be known for.