"But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust." (Matt. 5:44-45)
The remarkable passage may lead us to inquire to what extent Christianity enjoins forbearance, under injuries and insults of every kind and degree? Although the language of the New Testament, on this topic, here and elsewhere, is so explicit, yet there are many who think proper to put such a construction upon it, as to abate much of its force.
If we may judge from the history of Christian nations so called, yes, and Christian denominations, too, long suffering is a grace they have very rarely thought fit to exercise, whenever they have deemed it practicable to retaliate their wrongs.
Who would infer, from the conduct of Christians generally, that we are forbidden by our master ever to return evil for evil? "An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth" is the maxim, by which too many govern themselves, though they profess to be followers of the humble Jesus. Retaliation, in one way or another, is still a matter of course in most instances, where an injury or insult has been received. The quarrels of greater or less magnitude, in which individuals, families, neighborhoods, parties and sects are often embroiled, sustain the assertion.
Indeed, Christians in general, so far from showing a due regard to the specific precepts of their master, openly maintain that retaliation is in many instances not entirely lawful, but commendable, yea, necessary. “What, say they," “love our enemies! bless them that curse us! do good to them that hate us! Our Creator instead gave us a passion of resentment, which would be of no use, if we are to obey these precepts of our Lord literally."
Somewhat in this manner Christians (yes, even some teachers of Christianity) argue respecting these precepts of Jesus. They seem to think the conclusion to be inevitable, that a considerable change must be made from the literal meaning of our Lord's language - that there must be some way of qualifying the injunctions he has given, so that they may be more in line with the customs of society, with what is alleged to be the nature of humanity.
But not only the exceeding plainness of the words in the text, but how frequently the same precepts are elsewhere inculcated by the author of our faith, and reiterated by his apostles; I confess it seems to me, that it becomes us to be very cautious how we venture to take aught from them.
Something may indeed be said, to show, that we cannot feel the same kind of love for our enemies, as for our friends. There are degrees in our attachment even to those, who may be equally friendly to us; so, very naturally, there will be a still wider difference in our regard for those, who have proved themselves inimical.
But the most essential part of love, that is, kind treatment, we may show even towards these; and our religion expressly enjoins it upon us to do so.
We may not cherish any malevolence towards an enemy; but ought to hold ourselves in readiness, at any moment, to do them a favor, to give and receive from him the common kindnesses of life, in the hope that we shall thus overcome evil with good - change their feelings towards us - and melt the hardness of their hearts.
Did the founder of the religion of Christendom, or any of his accredited ministers, any where intimate, that these precepts were to be obeyed in their full import only for a certain time; and that so soon as the followers of Jesus became numerous on earth, and powerful by reason of their numbers, they might relax their forbearance under injuries, and avenge themselves?
Certain it is that the author of Christianity, and those preachers who were instructed immediately by him, enjoined a measure of abstinence from resentment, never before thought of by any other teachers of religion.
It is certain also that the first converts they made, and indeed the members of Christ's Church for more than two hundred years, clearly understood the precepts of the Gospel.
Unless, therefore, from the same authority who commanded them, we can find some warrant for changing the force of his precepts, it seems that it would be high presumption in the teachers of Christianity, of this or any other age, to sanction the avenging of injuries, or the indulgence of resentful passions, in any measure, under any circumstances.
And what part of Jesus' character has gained for him so much admiration as his long suffering and kindness under injury? If he had acted towards his enemies, as many of his professed disciples, at the present day, insist that it would be right for them to act towards their enemies, would not the brightest illustration of the divinity of his character have been lacking? Wouldn't the internal evidence of his Faith be much less than it now is?
That this teaching of Jesus' is to be considered a necessary part of his conduct, we may infer from the fact that the Disciples did the same as he did, in deference to his example.
If we would be the faithful followers of the Son of God, and help to advance the cause of Righteousness, Peace and Joy, we too must repress our resentful feelings—never give way to anger - never withhold kindness even from those, who have done us the greatest injuries.
Such temperament, such a demeanor, would not only prove us to be the true disciples of Jesus,and the true children of our heavenly Father; but would most assuredly make our foes our friends. For love is irresistible.
(Adapted from a sermon by Samuel J. May, ca 1830)
No comments:
Post a Comment