by Vesa Hautala.

“Shrewd as snakes and innocents as doves” is a Biblical saying that seems instantly relevant to Effective Altruism if shrewdness is understood as a calculating, impact-oriented mindset. Yet in its immediate context, the verse is instruction to the twelve Apostles on how to carry out a mission among hostile people. Is it also applicable in a wider set of circumstances in a way that is relevant to EA?

Context

In Matthew Chapter 10, Jesus sends out the 12 apostles to the Jews. (10:5–6) The Twelve leave and later return to Jesus, but the mission to the Jews continues both during the ministry of Jesus (he sends the 70 in Luke 10) and after his Ascension (Acts).

The first part of Jesus’ speech to the apostles in Matthew 10 gives practical instruction on how they should carry out their mission. The second part, beginning with verse 16, deals with the persecution the Apostles will face. The persecution Jesus talks about refers specifically to Jewish persecution.

The exhortation to be shrewd like snakes and innocent as doves is motivated by what Jesus says just before it: “I am sending you out like sheep into the midst of wolves”. The Apostles are about to enter a very dangerous situation. They will be like defenceless animals amidst predators.

The expression “innocent as doves” relates to doves being ritually clean sacrificial animals that also represent helplessness in some passages (Hos. 11:11, Isa. 38:14). Sometimes the disciples must let themselves be exposed to danger in their mission like innocent and helpless doves. Other commentators understand the “innocent as doves” part of the verse to be speaking about guilelessness1 or specifically “the sort of guilelessness that characterized Jesus”2.

When explaining the expression “shrewd as snakes”, several early interpreters such as John Chrysostom3 and Augustine4 appeal to beliefs about snakes held at the time: snakes would presumably avoid being wounded in the head and even sacrifice other parts of their bodies to protect it, because they could regrow their bodies as long as the head remained intact. Based on this, these commentators interpreted snakelike shrewdness to mean protecting one’s faith above everything else or as clinging tightly to Christ, who is the Head of the Church (Eph. 1:22). I do not know if this idea about snakes was around in 1st century Judea and Galilee, so I cannot comment on the historical plausibility of the interpretation. If this interpretation of shrewdness is correct, the passage would be relevant to Christian EA in the sense of being “Christians first, EA second”, but not in the sense of an impact-oriented mindset. Other ancient interpreters present applications of the passage that speak more generally about a proper combination of innocence or simplicity and prudence.

Modern commentators present an interpretation more in line with the second ancient interpretation. They understand “shrewdness” as awareness of circumstances and dangers. In this view, being innocent as doves and shrewd as snakes means the disciples should avoid unnecessary provocation of opponents because they are defenceless against them5 or that they should “combine a wise and sober realism with naïve and trusting willingness".6 The thrust of Matthew 10:16 would then be comparable to Romans 16:19: “I want you to be wise in what is good and guileless in what is evil”.7 The Apostles should maintain the right kind of vulnerability and trusting innocence even in face of the grim realities of persecution but at the same time remain prudent. This line of interpretation could perhaps be extended into a wider sense of wisely navigating complicated circumstances while maintaining innocence.

Broader application

Jesus’ speech to the Twelve contains general teaching about how God works that is clearly applicable outside the specific situation (see verses 28-33). This opens the possibility that verse 16 also is applicable outside the immediate context.

Such application would depend on which interpretation we choose as a starting point. If Chrysostom and the others are right, the verse would mostly be relevant as a general exhortation to protect one’s faith – not an unimportant reminder for Christians in a largely secular movement. 

A general application of the modern interpretation could be being a shrewd realist but not losing one’s innocence and a trusting helplessness before God. A combination of “grim realism” with “trusting willingness” is also relevant to effective altruism (though we are now moving rather far from the original context of Matthew 10:16). When we seriously attempt to have an impact in the world, we must realize how complicated and uncertain things often are. We have estimates and probabilities, but often no certainty that our pursuits are the best thing to do, or even all that helpful in the big picture. This can be disheartening. Yet we take the risk.

God’s care emphasized in the speech in Matthew 10 is very generally applicable and I believe it is useful for Christians engaged in EA as a corrective to anxiety and worry about “saving the world”. As Christians, we can trust that God is at work behind everything. This provides Christians with a unique kind of safety. Rather than serve as a cause for laziness, trust in God helps us to relinquish anxiety over the world’s fate and frees up mental energy to do even more good. Our actions still matter, and the future still comes about through our decisions. But this security I have described can be a powerful change of perspective. 

Another relevant application could be the emphasis on being shrewd yet innocent. Someone who is a shrewd realist (perhaps especially with the use of money and other limited resources) may need reminders not to fall into dishonesty or other immoral behaviour. The emphasis on innocence could help steer Christians away from the temptations to succumb into dishonesty in the name of a supposed greater good. Even from a secular utilitarian standpoint it is usually the case that such strategies should not be used. They may backfire spectacularly and tarnish the reputation of individuals and organisations in the process. I would also think their use is often based on rationalization instead of actual rationality: we like shortcuts and immediate rewards, which dishonesty usually offers.

Seeing that Jesus’ speech to the Twelve also contains general principles that are widely applicable, it is plausible to apply it to a variety of different situations. If we understand Matthew 10:16 as recommending a shrewd awareness of complex and dangerous circumstances while maintaining innocence and moral purity in a general sense, we can take it as an important reminder in situations where doing good is complicated and we are tempted to use ends to justify dishonest means.

1 Craig S. Keener: Matthew. IVP New Testament Commentary Series 1. Published online here.

2 Donald A. Hagner: Matthew 1–13. Word Biblical Commentary 33A.

3 Homily XXXIII on Matthew. A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church. Edited by Philip Schaff. Volume X. St. Chrysostom: Homilies on the Gospel of Saint Matthew. T&T Clark: Edinburgh. Page 215. Available online here.

4 Sermon XIV. A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church. Edited by Philip Schaff. Volume VI. Sermon on the mount; Harmony of the Gospels; Homilies on the Gospels. T&T Clark: Edinburgh. Pages 305–306. Available online here.

5 Keener.

6 Jeffrey A. Gibbs, Concordia Commentary. Matthew 1:1–11:1. Page 518.

7 Donald A. Hagner: Matthew 1–13. Word Biblical Commentary 33A.