3

Mtt 5:41 is presented in different phraseology across various versions , for instance:

English Standard Version: And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.

Weymouth New Testament: And whoever shall compel you to convey his goods one mile, go with him two.

King James Bible: And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.

New Living Translation: If a soldier demands that you carry his gear for a mile, carry it two miles.

While the words' compel' and 'force' are interchanged and used across all versions, the words ' soldier demanding of you to carry his gear' are used in just a few versions like NLT. Is it possible that certain translators took a cue from the word ' force' to interpret that only a soldier would be mandated to force a passerby to accompany him with (or without) the former's load, and accordingly supplanted ' anyone' with ' a soldier' ?
My question is : How does the Greek/ Hebrew text of Mtt 5:41 go ? In other words, whom did Jesus ask his followers to accompany for twice the distance demanded-- a soldier or a civilian ?

2
  • The word for a person who is not a soldier is "civilian", not "layman". Commented Sep 14 at 14:14
  • Thanks DJClayworth. I have since edited the question. Commented Sep 15 at 1:30

2 Answers 2

9

Matt 5:41 reads:

καὶ ὅστις σε ἀγγαρεύσει μίλιον ἕν, ὕπαγε μετ’ αὐτοῦ δύο. = Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two.

[The text is undisputed.] Note that there is no mention of any military association in the language used here. "Soldier" does not exist in the original.

However: Jesus' statement cannot be fully divorced from it cultural and legal context. It is well-known that Roman law, in the first century, provided that a Roman soldier could demand any local to carry his baggage one mile. It is almost certain that Jesus is alluding to this law.

Again, however, if Jesus had said, "if a soldier asks you to carry his luggage ...", subsequent pedants may have said that this instruction of Jesus did not apply if a Roman soldier were not giving the command.

Rather, Jesus said, "anyone", or, "whoever"; thus, His instruction is to apply in any situation.

6
  • 1
    Thanks, Dottard . I like to see it this way: if a request is made to you to accompany someone and to carry his burden, you are free to deny; but when force is made you feel helpless and offended. Soldiers and highway robbers were not requesting, but forcing , thereby hurting the ego of the other person. By obliging for double the service demanded, you win over your hurt ego ! And if the force is from a civilian, the gain is much more ! Commented Sep 14 at 10:32
  • Dottard, I am not questioning your wisdom, but am just being curious. library.biblicalarchaeology.org/article/… Hebrew states that the Gospel according to Matthew was originally written in Hebrew. If that be right, the Greek text we have is a translated version. How do we know that the Greek Verse you have quoted in the Answer in undisputed ? Commented Sep 14 at 12:34
  • 1
    @KadalikattJosephSibichan - first you are welcome to question my "wisdom" such as it is. Second, there is almost no evidence that Matthew was originally in Hebrew. Third, among the almost 5000 Greek MSS the text of Matthew's gospel shows no variation at this point.
    – Dottard
    Commented Sep 14 at 21:27
  • Thanks, Dottard. I stand corrected . Commented Sep 15 at 1:33
  • "However: Jesus' statement cannot be fully divorced from it cultural and legal context. It is well-known that Roman law, in the first century, provided that a Roman soldier could demand any local to carry his baggage one mile. It is almost certain that Jesus is alluding to this law." - this means that a Bible translation should not use the word "soldier" in the text, as that would change the text, but it could (or maybe even should) have it as a footnote.
    – vsz
    Commented Sep 16 at 4:32
6

Matthew 5:41 - The Greek text reads: καὶ ὅστις σε ἀγγαρεύσει μίλιον ἕν, ὕπαγε μετ’ αὐτοῦ δύο.

ἀγγαρεύσει” (angareusei) translated as “compels” or “forces,” alone obviously does not specify whether the person is a soldier or a layman. That being said, the context of the verse is that it could be anyone who has the authority or ability to compel another person to go a certain distance.

The original Greek does not mention a soldier. Instead, it uses "ὅστις" (hostis) meaning "whoever." So, clearly the text uses a more general term that could apply to any individual with such authority. However, who would have such authority?

compel thee to go one mile in A. V[32] and R. V[33] Hatch (Essays in Biblical Greek, p. 37) thinks it means compel thee to carry his baggage, a very probable rendering in view of the history of the word as he gives it. A Persian word, originally, introduced into the Greek, Latin, and Rabbinic languages, it denoted first to requisition men, beasts, or conveyances for the courier system described in Herod. (Expositor's Greek Testament)

If it refers to a soldier, the idea likely comes from the historical context of Roman occupation. Roman soldiers had the legal right to compel civilians to carry their gear for a mile. This was known as “angaria”. So, this might have influenced some translators to specify “soldier” in order to grasp the historical context more accurately.

next in post-classical use under the successors of the Persians in the East, and under the Roman Empire, it was applied to the forced transport of military baggage by the inhabitants of a country through which troops were passing. Hatch remarks: “The extent to which this system prevailed is seen in the elaborate provisions of the later Roman law: angariae came to be one of those modes of taxing property which, under the vicious system of the empire, ruined both individuals and communities”. (Expositor's Greek Testament)

We see an example of this elsewhere in scripture as well:

An instance in N. T. of the use of the word in this later sense occurs in Matthew 27:32, Mark 15:21, in reference to Simon compelled to carry Christ’s cross. We may conceive the compulsion in the present case to proceed from a military man.—μίλιον, a Roman mile, about 1600 yards, a late word.—δύο, in point of time, the additional mile = two, there and back, with proportional fatigue, a decided climax of hardship. (Expositor's Greek Testament)

To conclude, the text does not specify whether it is a soldier or a layman, but the historical context suggests that it could be referring to a soldier.

1
  • Also worth noting that Paul, a Roman citizen with rights over and above those of the average Israelite of the day routinely asserted those rights. So the passage does seem to imply being in a situation where you have limited rights and you respond in love not begrudgingly.
    – bob
    Commented Sep 14 at 14:51

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.