“Retaliation Vs. Grace”
Matthew 5:38-42
As most of you know, I am very fond of the area of faith referred to as apologetics.
Apologetics comes from the word “apologia” and it means to “give a defense” for a position or an action.
The english word “apology” comes from this word, but it is often misunderstood.
People often think an apology is a show of remorse or regret, and they equate it with saying “I’m sorry.”
But an apology is not necessarily saying “I’m sorry”, but instead it is providing an explanation or justification for something.
I believe in my faith, and I believe it is worth defending; likewise, I believe all Christians should be able to defend what they believe.
I mention the subject of apologetics because one of the first arguments I ever heard against the Bible’s truthfulness dealt with the passage which we are going to be examining today.
This morning, we are looking at the passage wherein Jesus discusses the old testament concept of “an eye for an eye” and His command to “turn the other cheek.”
For some people - especially those who oppose the Bible - this verse is one of the first they cite to demonstrate that there are “contradictions” in the text of Scripture.
I mean, it does seem like an absolute contradiction:
One one hand, we are told that if someone injures us, we are to return the injury in kind... “an eye for an eye”.
On the other hand, we are told that if someone slaps our cheek, we are to “turn the other cheek also”.
I have even had conversations with people who say this demonstrates that God is inconsistent with his commands and thus the Bible’s message is untrue.
Beloved, I obviously believe that the Bible’s message is consistent throughout.
Likewise, I believe that to see these as contradictory is the result of nothing more than a misunderstanding of the context of both passages.
The contradiction is in our understanding, not in the text itself.
As we examine it together, I pray that we will all see the consistency between the two commands, and how they actually complement each other within the Word of God.
READ: Matthew 5:38-42
We are continuing our verse-by-verse study of the Sermon on the Mount.
Over the past few weeks, we have seen how Jesus is demonstrating the false teachings of the Jewish leaders with His own interpretation of the Law of God.
Something important to remember is that Jesus has not changed the Law; instead He is simply giving its right understanding.
He is using the formula of “You have heard it said... but I say to you...”
And in each case, He is describing an Old Covenant Law which has been misinterpreted and misapplied by the Jewish leaders.
Murder is wrong; but so is unjust anger, and words intended to harm.
Adultery is wrong; but so is looking with lustful intent.
Divorce is an abomination of God’s original intent for marriage.
Oaths are unnecessary, since our yes should be yes and our no should be no.
In no way has Jesus abrogated or overridden any Old Covenant Law.
This is especially important to understand in our text this morning.
Because in this one it would seem like Jesus is saying the former command is wrong, but He is actually not.
Jesus would not contradict the Law, as it is His Law; He is God-incarnate; the Law ultimately came from Him.
This puts Him in a two-fold position - (1) He wouldn’t contradict it because that would mean He is contradicting Himself and (2) He would be the best person to give the right interpretation of it.
He is not repudiating the old covenant law of an eye for eye, but rather He is challenging the Pharisee’s wrong interpretation of it.
Today we are going to examine three questions regarding this text:
1. What is the Old Covenant teaching on this subject?
2. How had the Jewish leaders distorted it?
3. How does Jesus remedy this distortion?
What is the Old Covenant teaching on this subject?
Matthew 5:38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.”
This is clearly a combined quote from various OT passages.
Exodus 21:22-24 “When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman's husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23 But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.”
Leviticus 24:17-20 “Whoever takes a human life shall surely be put to death.18 Whoever takes an animal's life shall make it good, life for life. 19 If anyone injures his neighbor, as he has done it shall be done to him,20 fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; whatever injury he has given a person shall be given to him.”
Deuteronomy 19:15-21 “A single witness shall not suffice against a person for any crime or for any wrong in connection with any offense that he has committed.Only on the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses shall a charge be established. 16 If a malicious witness arises to accuse a person of wrongdoing, 17 then both parties to the dispute shall appear before the Lord, before the priests and the judges who are in office in those days.18 The judges shall inquire diligently, and if the witness is a false witness and has accused his brother falsely, 19 then you shall do to him as he had meant to do to his brother. So you shall purge the evil from your midst.20 And the rest shall hear and fear, and shall never again commit any such evil among you. 21 Your eye shall not pity. It shall be life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.”
These verses are all based on a principle called “Lex Talionis”
Lex Talionis is Latin for “The Law of Retaliation”.
In fact, the english word Retaliate comes from the word Talionis.
Unfortunately, the modern usage of this word has somewhat distorted its original meaning.
Much like apology once mean to “justify” and now means to say “sorry”, so too did retaliate once have a different meaning than it does today.
Retaliate, as it is used today, normally means to “get revenge”
But in its original meaning, retaliate simply meant to “return in kind” and could be applied to both evil and good.
So, retaliate originally meant both a proper and measured response.
The Lex Talionis, then, was the idea that Law and Punishment should be “just” and “proper.”
If a person commits a crime, he should be punished for that crime.
And the punishment should “fit the crime” in that he is not to be overly nor underly punished.
An “eye for an eye” is a demonstration of equity in judgment.
It expands and limits the punishment only as far as the crime.
If an eye was taken, the person who lost his eye may wish that the life of the person taking it be taken as a result; but this law limited the response.
Furthermore, this law was NOT something which was meant for individuals to decide or carry out.
The Lex Talionis was a principle which was meant to be used within a system of law and justice.
The Deuteronomy 19 passage clearly says this is to be taken before the priests and the judges (v.17) who were the legal authority in Israel.
They were charged with investigating witnesses and determining guilt and then also assigning penalties when they were due.
These penalties were to be in accord with the Lex Talinois, which ensured a proper and equitable judgment.
They were supposed to ensure that punishment fit the crime which was committed.
The principles in these passages are there to establish equity within a court of law.
Beloved, mankind NEEDS laws and NEEDS a system to punish those who break those laws.
If we did not have a system for Law and order, we would not survive as a society for very long.
In fact, one of the saddest things which we witness in our society is when a just punishment for a crime is not given, as it demonstrates that corruption has taken hold of a people.
It is obvious that there are great injustices happening even in our own justice system. People commit small crimes and receive large penalties, and likewise people commit large crimes and plead their cases down to minimal punishments.
But the Bible sets a different standard for law and order - it tells us that the court is there to enact fitting judgment.
Beloved, it is essential that we understand that Jesus is not repudiating this principle of Law from the Old Covenant.
We need courts, and we need fitting judgment for crime.
QUOTE: Lt. Col. Dave Grossman “People can survive weeks without food and days without water. But people could not survive one day without justice. If only for one day a people were allowed to commit crime without fear of punishment, it would create such a disaster that the pieces would never be able to be put back together.”
Jesus is not repudiating the need for law and just punishment for crime...
Instead, He is repudiating a very prevalent false teaching which was common among the Jewish leadership.
How had the Jewish leaders distorted it?
The Lex Talionis (an eye for an eye) was intended to be the principle wherein law and justice would find its balance.
However, it was never intended to be a way for individuals to settle personal disputes.
That which is designed for the civil magistrate to justly govern cannot necessarily be applied to the individual to establish and become a “law unto himself”.
Such a thing would create vendettas and inspire attempts at vigilante justice.
Yet, this is what the Rabbis had done.
They had allowed the Lex Talionis to be become the standard for resolving individual conflict.
This resulted in lawlessness, fear and unending familial conflicts.
It also produced a type of racial discrimination.
The Lex Talionis demanded equity in the law for everyone, even the non-Jewish person.
Premeditated murder was supposed to bring the Death Penalty in every case (Numbers 35:31), but the Jews had limited this only to those who killed other Jews.
If he killed a foreigner, or a heathen, then the death penalty was not required.
“If an Israelite kills a resident alien, he does not suffer capital punishment at the hands of the court, because Scripture says, And if a man come presumptuously upon his neighbor (Exodus 21:12). Needless to say, one is not put to death if he kills a heathen.” [[Moses Maimonides, The Book of Torts (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, [188-] 1954), 11:201.]]
So, not only had the Jews misapplied the Lex Talionis by allowing it as proper in the solving of individual disputes, they also rejected the equity in it for a very discriminatory version of the law.
God had given this Law for the courts to judge with equity.
But it had been misapplied and misinterpreted into something far removed from what God originally ordained.
In short, they had distorted God’s original command.
How does Jesus remedy this distortion?
The first thing we need to understand is that Jesus is not denying the Lex Talionis as a principle for Law and Order - He is denying it as a principle for revolving personal conflict.
And the interesting thing is that this is NOT really a new principle; The Old Testament also says that in personal matters of injury, we need to learn to demonstrate grace and not seek vengeance.
Proverbs 20:22 “Do not say, “I will repay evil”; wait for the Lord, and he will deliver you.”
Proverbs 25:21-22 which reads, “If your enemy is hungry, give him bread to eat; and if he is thirsty, give him water to drink; for so you will heap coals of fire on his head, and the LORD will reward you.”
Note: Paul quotes this in Romans 12:20
Proverbs 24:29 “Do not say, “I will do to him as he has done to me;
I will pay the man back for what he has done.”
Leviticus 19:18 “You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord.”
QUOTE: B. Schwertely “Personal retaliation is forbidden in every administration of the covenant of grace.” <<<
Jesus gives us four circumstances wherein personal retaliation would be forbidden.
NOTE: These four act as principles for other circumstances as well.
1. The Person Who Insults Us
v.39b “But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.”
Something important to note is that this is not a blow to cause INJURY, but a blow to cause INSULT.
This is made clear with Jesus’s reference to the “right” cheek.
If a typically right-handed person slaps with the palm of the hand, the slap would land on the left cheek.
For this person to slap the right cheek, he would be using the back of his hand.
This type of strike was indicative of an insulting slap.
In our modern day, we might equate it to a spit in the face.
Jesus is teaching here about escalation.
If a person insults us, and we insult back, then we are building the situation and making it worse.
If we, instead, are willing to ignore the insult or to demonstrate grace to those who insult us, we will not give them a way to escalate the confrontation.
Note: I actually teach this as part of conflict resolution to our kids in our karate program. It takes “two to tango” and it also takes “two to tangle”.
We need to have the confidence not to respond to insults with insults of our own.
2. The Person Who Sues Us Over Something Trivial
v.40 “And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well.”
The tunic was a garment which was worn close to the body, and it was a relatively inexpensive piece of clothing.
As such, Jesus is referring here to something of very little consequence.
His point is that if someone is willing to contend with us over something little, we should be able to simply let go of it.
Some people are very petty - and we are not supposed to mimic them, but instead be a contrast to them.
When they fight us over something petty, be willing to give it up is that satisfies the argument.
Jesus even goes further to say, even be willing to go further.
The cloak was a more expensive outer garment, and Jesus says we need to be willing to part with that if necessary.
If this helps put the matter to rest, do it.
Note: Some people have taken this to a ridiculous extreme, in that they say if someone requests your house, you should give it and your car as well.
But that is a misunderstanding of Jesus’s point.
He specifically points to things of little consequence which should not bind us; we need to hold these things with a loose hand.
Again, his focus is our willingness to FIGHT with others; do we fight over things which are really inconsequential in the grand scheme?
3. The Person Who Compels Our Service
v.41 “And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.”
This is interesting because the same language here is used of Simon of Cyrene when he was “forced” to carry the cross of Jesus.
Like the two before this one, this is something which would naturally rise our anger level.
If someone insults us, we get angry.
If someone sues us, we get angry.
And if someone demands that we do something that we really do not want to do, we typically get angry.
Yet, that is the point.
We are supposed to be agents of grace.
It’s hard, its not the natural response to these things.
In fact, it is the supernatural response - which is what makes it the godly response.
If compelled to do something, I have a burden.
Not to the person, but to God.
God commands that rather than hate this person for their demand, that I try to fulfill it, and even do more than is requested.
I believe this is why A.W. Pink said the following:
QUOTE: A.W. Pink “The law of love is not expounded more spiritually in any single precept either by Christ or His apostles than in this exhortation.”
This has to come from our love for God and our love for our neighbor, because it would NEVER come from our NATURAL impulse.
4. The Person Who Begs or Borrows From Us
v.42 “Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.”
This one may at first seem out of order with the rest.
We have been dealing with the issue of personal retaliation.
First, it was the person who insults us (slap on the cheek), then it was the person who sues us over something trivial (our tunic), then it was the person who compels us to do something we do not what (forcing us to go a mile).
These all could be understood as having an evil intent against us, and we are learning not to retaliate against them.
So how does the person who begs and seeks to borrow fit within this group?
This moves a bit from the intent of the person asking to the heart of our response.
Sometimes our refusal to give to someone is retaliatory in nature; especially in cases wherein we are angry with the person or we feel like the person “does not deserve our help” and this causes us to refuse to help them with their need.
Other times our refusal to give may be based on selfishness or greed.
In either event, our refusal to aid another person demonstrates at best an apathy or worse an antipathy toward the situation of a person who is in need.
NOTE: It is important that Jesus is not here requiring that we give indiscriminately and without discernment.
If a believer gave to every single person who asks of him, he himself would soon be in poverty and thus unable to help anyone.
Quote: B. Schwertely “As with all these illustrations, it is important that we interpret them within the broader teaching of Scripture. If we do not do this, then this passage could be used as a proof text for indiscriminate giving and the subsidizing of wickedness. It would be immoral for a Christian to hand money over to a drunkard or drug addict so he could feed his wicked addiction. Paul says that if a man is not willing to work, then he should not eat (2 Thess. 3:10). He instructs younger widows to be cared for by their families so they will not be a burden to the church (1 Tim. 5:16).”
NOTE: Years ago we had to make a rule within the leadership of the church that we do not give out cash from the office. It encourages people to see the church as an ATM. We offer help with food and even fuel, but we do not give cash.
It is not because we do not want to help, but because we are charged with being good stewards of God’s money, and stewardship requires a certain level of discernment.
Ultimately, Jesus is building the idea that believers are supposed to be generous and cheerful givers.
We do not hold back our help of others out of spite or anger or some feeling of superiority.
Such a thing is a demonstration of the sin of pride.
The best rule for giving is simple: Be discerning, but when in doubt, give generously.
“It is better to be taken advantage of 100 times than to refuse even once to help a person with a legitimate need.”
So, Christ has established four situations for us to understand the principle of refusing to enact personal retaliation.
The person who insults us.
The person who sues us over something trivial.
The person who compels us to service.
The person who begs and borrows from us.
All of these could, in some way, cause us to have desires for retaliation and vengeance.
And Christ tells us that this is NOT how His followers are to behave.
IMPORTANT NOTE: When Jesus says, “Do not resist the evil person” this is in a very specific context.
Those who espouse the doctrine of absolute pacifism use these verses as “proof texts” for their position.
Some even go as far as to say any person defense at all is inherently sinful, and we should never stand against evil in any form.
The proponents of such teachings usually will not serve in the military or in law enforcement because of their conviction.
QUOTE: B. Schwertely “Perhaps the most famous advocate of this position was the great novelist Leo Tolstoy, who believed that to have soldiers, or police, or even magistrates is unchristian. Evil, he maintained, is not to be resisted; for Christ’s way is not to resist evil in any sense.”
It is important to remember that no verse of Scripture exists by itself.
All Scripture is God-breathed, and thus must be taken as a cohesive unit.
As such, on this subject, we must understand that the words of Christ are in the context of rebuffing the false teachings of the Pharisees, not in the context of “All evil in general”.
Christ commands his followers to not follow the ways of the Pharisees, because their ways ENCOURAGE personal retaliation.
But this does not mean that it is absolutely forbidden that any Christian person stand up against evil.
To say such a thing is to misunderstand Christ’s teaching, and to deny other Scriptures which also address this subject.
We must compare Scripture with Scripture to find answers like these.
1. Scripture gives the government power to judge wickedness and enact punishment.
Romans 13 says the government “does not bear the sword in vain”
To say a Christian person could never resist evil would be to say a Christian could not serve in any civil government position.
There could be no Christian politicians, no Christian police, no Christian soldiers.
This would be absurd considering our responsibility to be “salt and light” in the world.
2. Scripture gives the church the right to enact discipline on its members.
Matthew 18, Jesus Himself says that is there is a person in the church who is continuing in sin and impenitence, that the church is to remove that person.
This is an obvious “resistance” to an evil person.
How could we practice church discipline if we NEVER resisted an evil person?
3. Scripture tells us Jesus Himself resisted evil people.
Jesus never “retaliated” or sought “revenge”, but He did “resist evil people” in His ministry.
He made a whip of cords and overturned tables in Temple court because people were behaving sinfully there.
He constantly taught against the evil of the Scribes and the Pharisees in His ministry.
If Jesus is condemning ANY and ALL instances of standing against evil people, then He is actually condemning Himself - which we know He is not doing!
Jesus was not a pacifist, as some claim.
He was willing to stand against evil when it was necessary.
4. In this Scripture, Jesus is denouncing PERSONAL RETALIATION not PERSONAL PRESERVATION.
There is a difference between allowing people to insult us, and laying down and allowing a person to kill us, without trying to preserve our own lives.
The Apostle Paul attempted on several occasions to save his own life by running and hiding from his attackers.
Jesus also hid Himself on certain occasions to preserve Himself until His time to go to the cross came.
I teach people self-defense classes - but our goal is never retaliation, it is preservation.
We train to save ourselves and our families from people who are attempting to injure us or take our lives, because we believe in the inherent sanctity of life - Life is worth being preserved.
In this sense, self-defense is NOT being denounced by Christ; He is denouncing the RETALIATORY HEART.
My point, beloved, is simple.
When Jesus says, “Do not resist the evil person” He has a very specific context in His mind.
He is dealing specifically with the false teaching of the Jewish leaders who were saying that revenge and retaliation were proper ways to settle personal disputes.
He rejects that teaching, and says that instead we are supposed to settle our disputes with grace and mercy - and even a willingness to lose if that is what it takes to bring peace.
Paul says the same thing a bit differently:
Romans 12:19-21 “Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” 20 To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.” 21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.”
CONCLUSION: Most of what we have learned in this message can be summed up in a quote by A.W. Pink...
QUOTE: A.W. Pink “Nothing more surely unfits us for the pursuit of holiness than a heart which is resentful at and contentious with others. Angry passions and the workings of a spirit of revenge disqualify us for the worship of God. Meekness and lowliness of heart are the graces which we particularly need to learn of Christ.”
Beloved, do you claim to follow Christ, and yet harbor a heart filled with resentment and anger toward others?
Do you live your life constantly feeling like you have to “pay people back” or “tell people off” who have wrong you in some way?
Do you feel like you can’t be satisfied until you “give someone a piece of your mind?” or “get what’s coming to you?”
Beloved, these are the world’s ways... they should not be our ways.
Our ways are supposed to be Christ’s ways.
He who gave the greatest act of sacrifice on our behalf now commands us to be willing to sacrifice our own pride in our pursuit of following Him.
It is a hard call... in fact, it is an otherworldly call.
But it is, beloved, the call of Christ.
