Sermon On The Mount Part 17 Text: Matthew 5:33-37 Intro:
We now come to one of the most perplexing sections in Christ’s Sermon on the Mount.
Here’s what I mean: “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.” Matthew 5:38-42
Let take the first point—an eye for an eye. Once again Jesus is challenging the Rabbis’ application of these following verses from the Mosaic Law:
“Anyone who injures their neighbor is to be injured in the same manner: fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. The one who has inflicted the injury must suffer the same injury.” Leviticus 24:19-20
“Show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.” Deuteronomy 19:21
“If there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.” Exodus 21:23-25
I imagine that you’ve heard it said: “An eye-for-eye and tooth-for-tooth would lead to a world of the blind and toothless.” This saying, Has been attributed to Mohandas Gandhi, however, there is no record that he ever said it; one of his biographers used the phrase to sum up what he thought was Gandhi’s philosophy.
Nevertheless, It goes to show that once again moderns have misinterpreted the O.T. Law even as the Rabbis did in Jesus day—of course the two misconstrued applications are different, but what they have in common is they are both misplaced understanding.
To begin with, Let us examine the original intent and purpose of the law.
I. The Original Intent To sum it up in a phrase you could say its purpose was: “To limit revenge.” “To avoid over-kill.” “Make the punishment fit the crime.” “In a word, to promote fairness in judgment.”
However, The Rabbis of Jesus day saw it as a requirement & viewed it as valid for personal retaliation.
The contemporary view is a bit different—it is seen as uncivilized, barbaric and savage and belonging to a primitive age and therefore unfit for a modern world—both miss the point. First of all, Let me say, God never intended it to be a prescription for personal revenge.
This is clear, From what is said elsewhere in the Mosaic Law. There we discover that it is the civil magistrate, not the individual, who is responsible to see that the appropriate justice is carried out:
“If the guilty person deserves to be beaten, the judge shall make them lie down and have them flogged in his presence with the number of lashes the crime deserves.” Deuteronomy 25:2
We see 2 things here:
1. The punishment had to fit the crime: “The number of lashes the crime deserves.” (giving someone a black eye certainly didn’t deserve the same penalty as killing them).
2. Secondly, by assigning a court official to carry out the sentence, it was intended that he would be objective and unbiased since he is not emotionally involved in the crime—something which can’t be said about personal revenge.
Moreover, God’s guidelines for judges speak for themselves: “Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly.” Leviticus 19:15
Therefore, What we have here is in the ‘eye for an eye’ is civil and criminal legislation. It kept people from paying more than the offense warranted. It required the sentence and the crime had to match. Keep in mind, Jesus is not setting aside the Law, remember His earlier statement: “ Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. “ Matthew 5:17
Meaning, There is no contradicting the Law here. He isn’t taking issue with what Moses prescribed. Instead He’s teaching His followers to live far above the Law just as He did!
A key aspect to understanding this entire issue is to discern the purpose of the Law in the first place—the Law was introduced to restrain evil.
\ “Why then was the law given? It was added because of transgressions.” Galatians 3:19
So then, Who is the Law targeting? The apostle answers this question in no uncertain terms:
“We know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers— and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God.” I Timothy 1:9-11
However, In the Sermon, who is Jesus directing His comments to—lawbreakers? The answer is found at the very beginning of the Sermon: “Now when Jesus saw the crowds, He went up on a mountainside and sat down. His disciples came to Him, and He began to teach them.” Matthew 5:1
So, Christ is outlining the spiritual life not the legal life of those who wish to follow Him.
They are called to a much higher standard that mere Law, the standard is the one Jesus lived out Himself.
For instance, Remember when the hypocritical leaders brought a sinful woman to Him?
Well, here’s how it went down:
“Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing Him.
But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with His finger. When they kept on questioning Him, He straightened up and said to them, ‘Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.’
Again He stooped down and wrote on the ground. At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there.
Jesus straightened up and asked her, ‘Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?’ ‘No one, sir,’ she said. Then neither do I condemn you,’ Jesus declared. ‘Go now and leave your life of sin’.” John 8:4-11
Again, Was Jesus over-ruling Moses? Pulling rank? Or vetoing the courts? Not at all, Actually He was upholding the Law while showing mercy.
First of all, where is the man—it smells of a set up to me.
Secondly, to carry out the punishment, you can’t be guilty of the same crime. Ezekiel makes this clear:
“But righteous men will judge them the way adulteresses and those who shed blood are judged.” Ezekiel 23:45
The woman’s accusers were actually attempting to circumvent the Law in order to trip up Jesus.
Besides, This time around, Christ isn’t wearing a ‘black robe,’ that comes later, for we are told: “God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through Him.” John 3:17
Now, It’s right here that we have the secret of understanding this otherwise perplexing dilemma.
It’s salvation and not condemnation that’s behind Christ’s command. It’s “Whoever claims to live in Him must walk as Jesus did.” I John 2:6
It’s the calling to exhibit grace! To go beyond Law and Justice to demonstrate mercy, grace and forgiveness.
It has nothing to do with the courthouse—that’s a different subject altogether. This is about softening hearts and winning souls!
So, Evidence that Jesus’ non ‘eye for an eye’ response was about personal Christian ethics and not an abrogation of civil or criminal legislation, can be seen by recognizing two different biblical positions at the same time.
First of all, The government, which has received a God-given responsibility of carry out justice, must never ever give up the ‘eye for an eye’ principle.
II. Eye For An Eye Still Valid
For instance, consider these verses focused on Law and Order:
“When justice is done, it brings joy to the righteous but terror to evildoers.” Proverbs 21:15
“By justice a king gives a country stability, but those who are greedy for bribes tear it down.” Proverbs 29:4
“The wicked accept bribes in secret to pervert the course of justice.” Proverbs 17:23
“The righteous care about justice for the poor, but the wicked have no such concern.” Proverbs 29:7
“It is not good to be partial to the wicked and so deprive the innocent of justice.” Proverbs 18:5
“Acquitting the guilty and condemning the innocent—the LORD detests them both.” Proverbs 17:15
And, Finally in a N.T. book written after Jesus preached the Sermon on the Mount we find this injunction: “The one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.” Romans 13:4
Swords are not dinner knives. They are not for cutting your steak—they are weapons of death!
Moreover, do you see who the police serve—God, they are ‘God’s Servants,’ not just agents of the State!
Now that sure doesn’t sound like they are deputized to ‘turn the other cheek.’ Or disavowed, “an eye for an eye!”
However, What Jesus is advocating with His inner circle, you and me, is something totally different—He is calling us to exhibit saving grace!
II. The Calling To Exhibit Saving Grace
The proof that He is addressing ambassadors of grace can be seen in what He says next: “And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles.” Matthew 5:40
Notice, This isn’t a focus on exacting ‘eye for an eye’ justice! Instead the believer is receiving injustice, nevertheless, Christ tell him to overcome evil with good—give more than required.
This is a ‘second mile-er’ effect infused with 2 powerful intentions:
1. Preventing bitterness on the part of the Christian—by giving what you don’t have to it totally reorients one’s attitude.
2. Secondly, it is intended to softening the heart of your oppressor.
For, The things Jesus mentions were harsh legal decisions against His people.
*Some court-imposed declaration that you must give up your shirt in repayment or fine to the plaintiff—maybe related to your Christian faith.
*And when forced by the Roman Law to carry a soldiers pack for him 1 mile down the road, Jesus instructs: take it 2.
Ill. A Cambodian Christian by the name of Ta Hum was the victim of a scam to cheat him out of a significant part of his property. Some neighbors bribed a surveyor to alter a property line so they could claim ½ acre of his land.
Understandably, at first he was exceedingly angry. Determined that they would not get any of his trees or banana plants, he went out one night with a machete to cut down everything of value!
But when it came to it, he couldn’t carry out his plan for he knew that Christ wouldn’t approve of his behavior, so he asked the LORD to forgive him and help him return good for evil.
The next morning he went to his neighbors and said, “You have taken my land. I’ll give you my house too, if you want it. I’ll go to where the pastor lived and help him spread the Good News of Jesus.”
Ta Hum’s surprising reaction quickly became the talk of the town and the chief was so greatly impressed that he decided to look into the matter. After learning the truth, he declared that the property belonged to the original owner and anyone who caused him trouble would be thrown on jail.
And, In the same spirit of grace we’ve all heard this instruction as well: “If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.” Matthew 5:39 Of course, The thrust is not a matter of violence per se, for it wouldn’t be a mere ‘slap.’ The fact that it’s a slap indicates that it was intended as an ‘insult,’ or even a challenge like that of duel.
Jesus is not advocating the toleration of abuse. Even the Apostle Paul challenged his tormentors with the Law: “As they stretched him out to flog him, Paul said to the centurion standing there, ‘Is it legal for you to flog a Roman citizen who hasn’t even been found guilty’? Those who were about to interrogate him withdrew immediately. The commander himself was alarmed when he realized that he had put Paul, a Roman citizen, in chains.” Acts 22:25,29
Paul didn’t hesitate to use the Law and Courts to prevent unnecessary suffer. We shouldn’t either.
Nevertheless….
Ill. Richard Weaver worked in the mines but his greatest endeavor was to win his fellow miners to Christ. While most of the men were indifferent, one became offended by his witness and finally exclaimed:
“I’m sick of your constant preaching. I’ve a good mind to smack you in the face!”
“Go ahead if it will make you feel better.”
The minor immediately struck him a stinging blow. Weaver did not retaliate but turned the other cheek. Again the unbeliever smacked him in the face and turned and walked away, cursing under his breath.
Richard called after him, “I forgive you, and still pray that the Lord will save you.”
The next morning his assailant was waiting for him when he came to work. “Oh Dick,” he said, his voice filled with emotion, “do you really forgive me for what I did yesterday?”
“Certainly,” extending his hand as he told him again the message of salvation.
Well, God opened his heart and the man received Christ.
\ So, You can see, Jesus’ teaching had nothing to do with legal matters.
Instead, He was calling His serious disciples to imitate Him in an effort to bring attention to the gospel and break down resistance to its message through unexpected and kind-hearted response.
Therefore, In conclusion, How are we ever are we ever going to get the world’s attention if we act just as they do?
How are we ever going to convince them that Christianity is superior to all other lifestyles if it doesn’t stand out in brilliant contrast?
How are we going to persuade them that God is a patient, kind and merciful Lord if we don’t show them with our actions?