1

Matt 5:39 - But I tell you not to resist an evil person. If someone slaps you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also;

Numerous online sources echo an idea that some of Jesus' most famous teachings from the 'Sermon on the Mount' are a response to unjust Roman laws that were used to miserably oppress the people of Judea:

  • A Roman citizen could strike a Roman subject (ie a Judean) in the face without consequence
  • A Roman citizen could compel a Roman subject to carry his burden for him, but only for one Roman mile
  • A Roman citizen could sue for or even seize the personal property of a Roman subject

Different teachers have different takes on the proper interpretation of Jesus' teachings on these (this one is my favorite). Some of these are not reconcilable with each other. It would be nice to consult historical sources in order to form an opinion on which of these are more/less correct, but none of the many places I see this discussed offer any actual sources for the Roman laws. I have to wonder if this could all be based on somebody's supposition.

What are the best and most original sources for these claimed Roman laws (or maybe they are just customs not codified laws)? I am specifically looking for documentation of these Roman laws or customs themselves, or ancient attestation of their existence. For example, if one of the anti-Nicene 'church fathers' discussed this, I would consider that good enough, as it appears that no complete Roman law books from before the time of Justinian I have survived to our time.

Or can this theory of the teaching be traced to a specific theologian or author in the modern era?

Dottard
  • 104,076
  • 4
  • 44
  • 149
wberry
  • 661
  • 6
  • 12

1 Answers1

1

The answer to this question is explicitly stated in the context of the previous verse, viz:

Matt 5:38 - You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye and tooth for tooth.’

Jesus here quotes at least three sources in the Torah:

  • Ex 21:223-25 - But if a serious injury results, then you must require a life for a life— eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, and stripe for stripe.
  • Lev 24:19, 20 - If anyone injures his neighbor, whatever he has done must be done to him: fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. Just as he injured the other person, the same must be inflicted on him.
  • Deut 19:21 - You must show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, and foot for foot.

Thus, Jesus is commenting, primarily, on the Torah law and not Roman law (at least not directly). A similar analysis can be done for many other parts of the same sermon. (I will resist the temptation to list these as most modern Bibles will foot-note the references to the relevant passages in the Torah.)

Now, the Torah law was applicable to a wide range of situations and some of these had applications to Roman law as well. However, this does not change the theme of Jesus sermon stated in Matt 5:17-19 about keeping the commandments.

Dottard
  • 104,076
  • 4
  • 44
  • 149
  • Just so I'm clear, are you saying that the many teachings out there are wrong, that Jesus was not referencing Roman laws at all, but rather raising the standard set in Torah? – wberry Nov 27 '23 at 00:56
  • 1
    @wberry - I will not comment on non-Biblical material. Nor am I suggesting that Jesus did NOT have Roman law in a few of his remarks. However, it is clear that His primary focus was "raising the standard set in Torah" as you suggest, precisely because He quotes the Torah and NOT Roman law. – Dottard Nov 27 '23 at 04:55
  • But that's exactly my question! When Jesus said, "And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, ..." was he in fact quoting Roman law? He might have been! And if he was, it tends to change how we look at these teachings, doesn't it? – wberry Nov 27 '23 at 23:05
  • @wberry - "what might have been" is not recorded in the Bible and so we cannot comment. In any case, it does not change one scintilla, the way we read the instruction of Jesus. – Dottard Nov 28 '23 at 09:50