Jesus of Nazareth: What He Wanted, Who He Was

21. Cf. Georg Fischer and Dominik Markl, Das Buch Exodus, NSKAT 2 (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2009), 261–62, and especially Gianni Barbiero, L’asino del nemico. Rinuncia alla vendetta e amore del nemico nella legislazione dell’ Antico Testamento (Es 23,4-5; Dt 22,1-4; Lv 19,17-18), AnBib 128 (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1991).

22. Thus correctly Erich Zenger, A God of Vengeance? Understanding the Psalms of Divine Wrath, trans. Linda M. Maloney (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996), 31–32.

23. Following Theissen and Merz, The Historical Jesus, 393.

24. Among the six antitheses in Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount, the antithetical form is secondary to the third (divorce), fifth (revenge), and sixth (love of enemies). Was Matthew also the one who introduced the antithetical form in the first (murder), second (adultery), and fourth (swearing)? It cannot be excluded. Even if he did so, everything favors the idea that he precisely reflected Jesus’ language act and intention. There are many indicators of this: for example, Jesus’ prohibition of divorce already in the Sayings Source, in the form of a legal decree, cf. Matt 5:32 // Luke 16:18. This already showed an affinity to the antithesis form.

25. That anger here does not refer to insults or blows to someone’s honor that could be pursued through the justice system is signaled by the continuation of the discourse in v. 22bc. Apparently it is about insults in common use, such as “you dummy.” I have deliberately omitted the continuation of the discourse in v. 22bc because it is very much disputed among exegetes. They have discussed whether v. 22bc was part of the original antithesis at all and also whether this is an intensification or not. If it is an intensification, then certainly the anger in v. 22a must be a purely internal act. For the problem of v. 22bc, see Ulrich Luz, Matthew 1–7: A Commentary, trans. Wilhelm C. Linss (Minneapolis: Augsburg Press, 1989), 282–86.

26. Author’s translation.

27. Cf. n. 24 above.

28. Luke 16:18 reads: “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and whoever marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.” The phrase “and marries another” probably comes from Mark 10:11. If we eliminate that phrase and the adultery clause from Matt 5:32 the difference between Matt 5:32 and Luke 16:18 is limited. I have chosen the Matthean version as closer to the original. For what follows, cf. Gerhard Lohfink, “Jesus und die Ehescheidung. Zur Gattung und Sprachintention von Mt 5,32,” 207–17, in Biblische Randbemerkungen. Schülerfestschrift für Rudolf Schnackenburg zum 60. Geburtstag (Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1974).

29. Cf. Hos 2:4 and ThWAT 7, 834.

30. For this whole complex, cf. Frank Crüsemann, The Torah: Theology and Social History of Old Testament Law, trans. Allan W. Mahnke (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996), 292–94. On the content of the fourth commandment, cf. Rainer Albertz, “Hintergrund und Bedeutung des Elterngebots im Dekalog,” ZAW 90 (1978): 348–74.

31. Martin Hengel, The Charismatic Leader and His Followers, trans. John Riches (Edinburgh: T & T Clark; New York: Continuum, 1981), 14.

32. This is about people who use the corban formula against their parents: “’Whatever support you might have had from me is Corban’ (that is, an offering to God).” They thus take from their parents part of the support due to them by declaring it to be a temple offering.

33. Cf. the interpretation by Michael Wolter, Das Lukasevangelium, 483–84.

34. Ernst Käsemann, “The Problem of the Historical Jesus,” first published as “Das Problem des historischen Jesus,” ZTK 51 (1954): 125–53; reprinted in idem, Essays on New Testament Themes, trans. W. J. Montague, SBT 41 (London: SCM Press, 1964), 15–47, at 39.

35. Ibid., 37.