Rather than be the mercy givers and peacemakers who are meekly conscious of their own sins toward God and others that Jesus had commended back in the beginning of His sermon in the Beatitudes, they had become the kind of people who would go out of their way to make sure they "got even" in every case. They were hateful, vengeful men who were strangers to grace and mercy. They took these phrases from the Law of Moses, intended to govern in a court of law, as guiding principles for their everyday lives. They became judge, jury, and executioner for every little perceived infraction of their personal "rights."

This morning we continue our series from The Sermon on the Mount called Learning from the World’s Most Famous Sermon. Today we’ll study Matthew 5:38-42 – a passage that has caused no shortage of questions among those who are God’s people and those who are not. I’ve called today’s message, "Jesus and Resisting Evil."

Please open your Bibles to Matthew 5:38-42 and follow along as I read…

Probably no part of the Sermon on the Mount has been as consistently misapplied as this passage. It has been interpreted to mean that Christians should function as the doormats of society. It’s been used to promote pacifism, conscientious objection to military service, condemnation of law enforcement, tolerance of criminal behavior, anarchy, and other things.

Perhaps you, too, are confused by Jesus’ teaching here. For instance, does Jesus’ instruction to "turn the other cheek" mean that you cannot protect your family from harm?

Again let me remind you as I have in previous messages of the context of this part of Jesus’ sermon. The Lord has told the people in His audience that their righteousness must exceed that of their religious leaders or they won’t enter His kingdom. "For I say to you, that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven," He said in verse 20.

The Lord then set about comparing the twisted traditions of the scribes and Pharisees with what the Law of Moses actually taught, using the contrast to help people understand the high standards of His soon-to-come kingdom.

To better understand today’s text we’ll look first at what the Law of Moses actually taught about dealing with evil, then we’ll consider how once again the scribes and Pharisees had perverted the meaning. Finally we’ll look at how Jesus corrected them.

Jesus’ words challenging their teaching were brief on this issue as He brought them up in His sermon. He said in verse 38: "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.'

The phrase "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth" was quoted straight out of three places in the Law of Moses: Exodus 21:22-25; Leviticus 24:19-20; Deuteronomy 19:15-21. Let’s look at each one.

Exodus 21:22-25:

22 If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. 23 But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise. (NASU)(1)

Note the judicial setting for this passage. The last phrase of verse 22 says, "...He shall pay as the judges decide." This instruction was given for settling matters in court.

Leviticus 24:19-20:

In this passage two men had fought each other and one of them had blasphemed God. These words were spoken by Moses as he adjudicated the case. Again this instruction was given for settling matters in a judicial setting.

Deuteronomy 19:15-21:

Again notice that this instruction was given in the context of cases tried before a judge. Verse 18 says, "the judges shall investigate thoroughly."

I have made a special effort to point out to you that the context in which this "eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" phrase appeared in Moses’ law always had to do with fair and equitable retribution meted out by a court of law. It did not authorize individuals to take their own revenge or to, as we might say today, "take the law into their own hands." Even in those cases where the law required that punishment be carried out by the victim or relatives of the victim, it was done only after it had been properly adjudicated before the recognized civil authority.

By the way, in a day like ours where justice is frequently watered down and is inconsistent, we would do well to more clearly understand the significance of Moses’ law which required repayment or punishment in kind – this "eye for an eye" civil justice.

First, it was fair in that the punishment matched the crime. There was no vagueness in the standard.

Second, it was merciful in that it limited man’s propensity to overreact and get retribution beyond what the offense deserved. Man’s natural tendency is often to extract a little more than equal vengeance - "Payback with interest" so to speak, which has been the source of numerous blood feuds down through history. The "eye for an eye" standard did not allow this to happen.

Third, it served as a deterrent to further crime and thus, protected society from the escalation of lawlessness. Yes, I know that some of our "brightest bulbs" today tell us that such "harsh" punishment does not deter crime – and a lot of people believe them. But such people need to know that their view differs from God’s view. In Leviticus 19:19-20 that I just read were these words: "Thus you shall purge the evil from among you. 20 And the rest will hear and be afraid, and will never again do such an evil thing among you."

Fair and just punishment, administered by a legitimate court of law, deters crime. It always has. It always will. God said so.

But what about cases of injustice outside the court of law? Were those who lived under Moses’ Law supposed to apply this "eye for an eye" standard to everyday life? The answer to that is "no."

Exodus 23:4 says, "If you meet your enemy’s ox or his donkey wandering away, you shall surely return it to him."

Proverbs 25:21 says, "If your enemy is hungry, give him food to eat; and if he is thirsty, give him water to drink…."

Proverbs 24:28-29 says, "Do not be a witness against your neighbor without cause, and do not deceive with your lips. Do not say, ‘Thus I shall do to him as he has done to me;

Personal vengeance and punishment was forbidden by Moses’ law. In court, justice was blind. Punishment was meted out to wrongdoers in kind. In private affairs there was to be some grace and mercy given.

So what was Jesus correcting in His sermon? How had the scribes and Pharisees perverted God’s intent? We’ll consider next:

Apparently what the leaders of the Jews had done was to bring this "eye for an eye" standard of civil justice over into their private lives and conduct so as to make it a rule for taking personal vengeance whenever wronged.

Rather than be the mercy givers and peacemakers who are meekly conscious of their own sins toward God and others that Jesus had commended back in the beginning of His sermon in the Beatitudes, they had become the kind of people who would go out of their way to make sure they "got even" in every case. They were hateful, vengeful men who were strangers to grace and mercy. They took these phrases from the Law of Moses, intended to govern in a court of law, as guiding principles for their everyday lives. They became judge, jury, and executioner for every little perceived infraction of their personal "rights."

Before we go any further, let me speak to you a little more personally about this matter. As Christians, we are to be like God in all our behavior. Peter teaches us in 1 Peter 1:14-15: "As obedient children, do not be conformed to the former lusts which were yours in your ignorance, but like the Holy One who called you, be holy yourselves also in all your behavior…."

So for those of us who are Christians – people who have been forgiven totally for our wrongs rather than receiving "eye for an eye" treatment which would have sent us instantly to hell, what kind of people are we to be? Are we to give no ground when someone wrongs us? Are we to be unwilling to overlook at least some of the trampling of our so-called "rights?" No! God calls us to be like Him so that we can model His mercy and His grace to all mankind! Yes, judgment is coming – a day when the extension of grace will be over – but for now it is with us and we must do things like God does.

But such an attitude of grace wasn’t in the teaching or practice of the scribes and Pharisees. They practiced only "an eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth" and you’d better not cross them or you wouldn’t hear the end of it until you had fully repaid the wrong perceived.

Let’s now examine how Jesus corrected their perversion of Moses’ Law and laid out His expectations for those who would be in His kingdom.

Look again at verses 39-42:

The first thing to notice about the examples Jesus used here is that none of them is life threatening. In fact, none of them is a really serious issue when you think about it - so to apply this teaching to cases where life is threatened or someone invades our home and tries to murder our families or to issues of national security is a misapplication. A slap on the cheek, someone suing you for your underwear, being compelled to walk a mile, or lending to someone in need who would like to borrow from you – these are not issues of life and death. Neither are they issues that should rile us up – that is, unless we’re obsessed with every little "right" we think we have. If that’s the case, we’re no different than the scribes and Pharisees.

A second thing to consider is that even though Jesus said these things in our text, we don’t find Him dismantling the courts of law in His day or denouncing just law enforcement. He submitted to both and instructed us to pay our taxes to support both.

But let’s look a little deeper. Jesus spoke of someone hitting you on the right cheek. Why the "right" cheek? Why not the "left" cheek? Or why didn’t He just say, "If someone hits you in the face or some other part of your body," or even, "If someone assaults you"? The answer to that may relate to the use of a common first century idiom.

The majority of people then and now are right handed. In order for a right handed person to strike you on your right cheek, he or she would have to hit you with the back of their hand. In that day, hitting someone with the back of the hand was considered to be a very forceful and intentional insult. Consequently it is very possible that Jesus is saying here that "If someone intentionally insults you, don’t retaliate. Turn the other cheek."

We use similar idioms in our language today. Someone says, "I tried and tried to please him and every time I did he just slapped me down." Do we mean literally that someone slapped us? Probably not. It’s an idiom. It means that someone didn’t allow us to improve or make progress. We say, "She always puts me down." Do we mean that she literally slams us to the ground? Again, probably not. It’s an idiom. I don’t believe Jesus means here that if someone assaults you and threatens your life or the life of another, that you must necessarily stand still and let it happen. Such an application stretches this far beyond the magnitude of Jesus’ words.

In the example the Lord used about someone taking you to court to sue you for your shirt (the Greek word there actually refers to the "tunic" which was an undergarment worn next to the skin) Jesus says rather than fight it in court, give in and show your forbearing spirit by offering your coat also. The "coat" or "cloak" as some translations render it was a larger, outer garment. It was big enough so that when it was fully expanded and not tied down a person could sleep under it at night. Of course if Jesus had in mind only something that happened among the Jews, the Law of Moses required that the cloak be returned before sunset so that a person didn’t have to go to bed cold. But even if He didn’t have in mind only infractions done by other Jews, for the sake of the kingdom and modeling the grace of God to others, it didn’t make sense to go to law over your underwear!

The third example Jesus used, about someone who forced you to go a mile, had a far more specific meaning in that day than in ours. The land of the Jews in that day was occupied by the Romans, whose rule was often brutal and merciless. One law in effect was that, in time of war or distress, a Roman soldier could force a citizen of the occupied country to carry his pack a thousand paces, which was a Roman mile. Since many of the Jews hated the Romans and the feeling was mutual on the part of the Romans, the soldiers who had to deal with the Jews everyday took advantage of this law and used it to torment them. This riled the Jews tremendously. They hated it! It wasn’t the mile that was the issue. It was, as we say, "the principle of the thing." That compulsive mile represented every wrong thing the Romans had ever done to the Jews. They hated it because they hated the Romans! (That would be a great Christian attitude, wouldn’t it?) So what was Jesus’ answer? When compelled to go one mile, go two! Rather than let the situation control you, seize control of the situation and use the occasion to model the gracious nature of God! No one could quarrel with such a willing spirit. And hey, if you’re doing it for the much higher cause of the kingdom, even the second mile is no big thing, is it? The exercise might even do you some good!

I think that by now the fourth example Jesus used shouldn’t be that hard for us to understand. Someone wants to borrow something, so he asks you. Jesus says, "Lend to him!" This wasn’t new teaching, by the way. The Law of Moses covered it as well, and put it into a similar context as we have here.

Deuteronomy 15:7-8 says:

The stingy, tightwad scribes and Pharisees, who were ever conscious of every tiny seed of mint, dill, and cumin with God, weren’t the kind of people a needy person would ask for help!

Paul’s words to affluent Christians in 1 Timothy 6:18-19 come to mind:

Do Jesus’ words on this subject in the Sermon on the Mount mean that if some freeloader comes and asks to borrow my house for the next two years so that I and my wife have to move outside into the snow, or my car so that I have to walk everywhere, that I have to give it to him? To conclude that Jesus wanted to enable such irresponsible behavior would be a wrong use of this passage. In fact, Paul said in 2 Thessalonians 3:10-12 regarding such freeloaders:

Does this mean that the guy across the street who has borrowed a dozen of my tools already and not returned them can simply waltz into my house and borrow whatever else he wants? No! Again, Jesus was not promoting irresponsible behavior here. Psalm 37:21 says, "The wicked borrows and does not pay back,

Jesus is not enabling indolence here. He is commending what God has always expected from His people - a generous spirit – one that is willing to help when there is a need.

I leave you with three admonitions:

Footnotes: Please use your back button to return to your place.

1. Note: I have intentionally quoted this passage from the New American Standard 1995 Update Edition as the earlier edition I usually preach from contained a most unfortunate rendition in verse 22: "…so that she has a miscarriage," which makes it sound as thought the unborn baby is killed. However the text does not justify this translation and the later edition of the NASU has corrected it to read, "…that she give birth prematurely."

Dave Redick is Minister of the Hwy 20 Church of Christ in Sweet Home, Oregon and Editor of The Preacher's Study. He may be reached at pstudysupport@comcast.net.

Copyright © 1996-2008 by The Preacher's Study. Permission is granted to subscribers to use this document in total or in sermon preparation in the context of the local congregation only. Publishing it in a book, on the Internet, or anyplace beyond the local congregation is prohibited.

All Scripture quotations and references are from the New American Standard Version unless otherwise stated.

[Archive]    [Home]   [Comments]   [Search]