4. “New lawgiver”: Dial. 14, 3; 18, 3; cf. 12, 2; “new law”: Dial. 11, 4; 12, 3; “eternal law”: Dial. 122, 5. For Tertullian (see De praescriptione haereticorum 13, 4) the “preaching of the new law” by Jesus is even considered the rule of faith.
5. The New Testament does not yet speak of a “new people of God,” but the expression appears already in the Letter of Barnabas and then in many of the Fathers. Cf., e.g., Barn. 7.5; Justin, Dial. 119, 3; Clement of Alexandria, Paidagogos I, 14.5; 58.1; Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. I, 4.2; Augustine, John, 65.1; Zeno of Verona, Tractates II, 14.4. The expression “new people of God” achieved renewed popularity in twentieth-century theology. The documents of Vatican II use it unquestioningly. Cf. Lumen gentium 10.13.26; Nostra aetate 4.
6. We find the pericope with the question about the highest commandment in Mark 12:28-34; Matt 22:34-40; and (in a different context) Luke 10:25-28. In this particular case (because of a number of minor agreements between Matthew and Luke), there is dispute about whether Mark or Matthew contains the oldest tradition. For the sake of simplicity, I will base my analysis on Matthew’s version.
7. Already in the Pentateuch the commandment to worship YHWH alone is the crystallizing core and the focus of meaning for all the law collections. Cf. Gerhard Lohfink, Does God Need the Church? Toward a Theology of the People of God, trans. Linda M. Maloney (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1999), 78–79.
8. For what follows, cf. Norbert Lohfink, “Love: The Ethos of the New Testament: More Sublime Than That of the Old?,” 239–54, in idem, Great Themes from the Old Testament, trans. Ronald Walls (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1982).
9. Cf. the collection of Jewish texts on this subject in Gerd Theissen and Annette Merz, The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide, trans. John Bowden (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998), 381–87.
10. The parallel in Matthew is 5:38-48, though its antithetical form there is probably secondary.
11. The entire problem is treated in detail in Gerhard Lohfink, Wem gilt die Bergpredigt? Beiträge zu einer christlichen Ethik (Freiburg: Herder, 1988).
12. For the following sections on love and hatred in the Greek and Roman world I am much indebted to Marius Reiser’s essay, “Love of Enemies in the Context of Antiquity,” NTS 47 (2001): 411–27.
13. Mary Whitlock Blundell, Helping Friends and Harming Enemies: A Study in Sophocles and Greek Ethics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 26.
14. Hesiod, Works and Days, ll. 353-54.
15. The extent to which the “Golden Rule” (Luke 6:31) also fits quite naturally in the Lukan context has been demonstrated by Michael Wolter: cf. Wolter, Das Lukasevangelium, HNT 5 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 258.
16. Plato, Great Dialogues of Plato, trans. W. H. D. Rouse (New York: Signet Classic, 1999), Meno 71E.
17. Archilochos, Fragment 23, 14 (West) = POxy 2310. Translation in Guy Davenport, Archilochos, Sappho, Alkman: Three Lyric Poets of the Seventh Century B.C. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1980), 30.
18. Plato, The Republic I, 332A–336A.
19. Plato, Crito 48E–49E.
20. Seneca, On Benefits, trans. Aubrey Stewart (London: George Bell and Sons, 1905), IV, 26.1; VII, 31.1.
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.
36. Cf. the study by Ulrich Kellermann, Messias und Gesetz. Grundlinien einer alttestamentlichen Heilserwartung. Eine traditionsgeschichtliche Einführung, BibS(N) 61 (Neukirchen–Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1971). The clearest tie between Messiah and Torah is established in PsSol 17, and there the Messiah calls for the strictest observance of the Torah; cf. esp. PsSol 17:27, 32. The two passages in Midrash cited in Hermann L. Strack and Paul Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch (Munich: Beck, 1922–61), 4/1, 2 for a “new Torah” and a “Torah of the Messiah” are late and are completely downplayed by Billerbeck himself.