A. Introduction
1. What could be more natural in our relationships with others than the principle of retaliation? In its finest sense, this concept is understood to mean "If you are nice to me, then I will be nice to you;" or "If you'll scratch my back, I'll scratch yours." It is the very essence of what has come to be known as The Golden Rule: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
2. Of course, the principle of retaliation also has a darker side. It is expressed most simply in the contemporary context as "What goes around comes around." When a person is wronged by another, it is fully expected that he or she will "get back" at the offender, especially when the offense is considered to be arbitrary, uncalled for, or particularly vicious. In such cases the retaliation is seen as understandable -- even necessary -- and is referred to as "justice."
3. Primitive communities sometimes lived in virtual states of escalating retaliation wherein the settling of each score led to yet another response from one's adversary or his family and friends. These "blood feuds" or "vendettas" could become the central point of reference for generations of descendants. In some cases entire families were wiped out long after the origin of the feud was forgotten. The societal development of entire civilizations could be retarded -- if not paralyzed -- by the cruel prevalence of the rule of personal vengeance.
a. According to our history books the earliest attempt by a civilization to limit retaliation to that which is "just" was established under Hammurabi, who ruled Babylon from B.C. 2285 - 2242. Part of "Hammurabi's Code" is called in Latin lex talionis -- the law of "tit for tat" or quid pro quo.
(1) Lex talionis specified the maximum punishment allowable. It was, in fact, a merciful law, at least in the context of the barbaric nature of primitive civilizations.
(2) It is still in effect in some Middle Eastern countries
b. The same law was given by God to His nation Israel, and it contains the same "eye for eye, tooth for tooth" specific references found in Hammurabi's Code.
(1) Leviticus 24:19-20 [ NKVJ ]
If a man causes disfigurement of his neighbor, as he has done, so shall it be done to him -- fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; as he has caused disfigurement of a man, so shall it be done to him.
(2) ref: Exodus 21:23-24
Deuteronomy 19:15-21
Judges 1:1-7
(3) "The original intent was to restrict unlimited revenge: it was understood as [only] eye for eye and [only] tooth for a tooth. Further, it was never intended as an excuse for individual retaliation; it belonged in the law court and was allowed by a judge." - Robert H Mounce: Matthew ( Volume 1, New International Biblical Commentary )
ref: Leviticus 19:18 [ NIV ]
Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the Lord.
(4) William Barclay reminds us that lex talionis was rarely carried out literally, and soon gave way to the award of financial damages in the place of exact retribution. There were five counts of liability in such cases.
- I __ __ __ __ __, compensated in the amount of the injured person's "value" when compared to his value before the injury;
- p __ __ __, compensated in an amount agreed upon in the courts;
- h __ __ __ __ __ __, compensated in the amount of the cost of all treatment and rehabilitation;
- l __ __ __ of t __ __ __, compensated in the amount of lost wages; and
- I __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __, compensated in an amount agreed upon in the courts.
Clearly, lex talionis, by the time of Christ, had become very much like our contemporary legal atmosphere of civil litigation! Jesus addresses this understanding of one's legal right to just compensation in our text passage this morning.
B. Text: MATTHEW 5:38-42 [ NKJV ]
"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,' but I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also. And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two. Give to him who asks you, and from him who wants to borrow from you do not turn away.
1. The Life Application Bible comments on these verses:
"When we are wronged, often our first reaction is to get even. Instead, Jesus said we should do good to those who wrong us. Our desire should not be to keep score, but to love and forgive. This is not natural -- it is supernatural. Only God can give us the strength to love as He does. Instead of planning vengeance, pray for those who hurt you."
2. "The original law was a fair one; it kept people from forcing the offender to pay a greater price than the offense deserved. It also prevented people from taking personal revenge. Jesus replaced the law with an attitude: Be willing to suffer loss to yourself rather than cause another to suffer." - Warren W. Wiersbe: Be Loyal
3. "Few passages of the New Testament have more of the essence of the Christian ethic in them than this one. Here is the characteristic ethic of the Christian life, and the conduct which should distinguish the Christian from other men." - William Barclay: The Gospel of Matthew
4. The most popular misconception regarding this passage asserts that what our Lord is teaching here is the principle of non-violent resistance. An honest reading reveals that, in fact, Jesus is teaching an even more radical concept: the principle of non-resistance, even to the point of "willing compliance" with the offender.
a. The KJV rendering, "...not to resist..." in v.39 is a translation of the Greek term anthistemi, which means in one sense "to take legal action against." History's great civil pacifists -- Tolstoy, Ghandi, Martin Luther King -- invoked Christ's teaching here, but were content -- even eager -- to let their cases be settled in the courts of their lands, so confident were they that the law would win their battles for them.
b. The use of anthistemi seems to preclude any action taken against one's offender, even an "evil" one.
c. "A willingness to forgo one's personal rights, and to allow oneself to be insulted and imposed upon, is not incompatible with a firm stand for matters of principle and for the rights of others. Indeed the principle of just retribution is not so much abrogated here as bypassed, in favour of an attitude which refuses to insist on one's rights, however legitimate. Jesus is not reforming the legal code, but demanding an attitude which sits loose to personal rights." - R.T. France: Matthew (Volume 1, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries )
ref: John 18:19-23
Acts 16:25-40
Acts 22:22-29
Acts 25:1-12
5. Civil law had moved civilization from retribution ( v __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ ) to limited retaliation ( j __ __ __ __ __ __ ). Jesus moves His disciples from limited retaliation to non-retaliation ( m __ __ __ __ ) and then to ministry ( g __ __ __ __ ).
a. Our prototype, of course, is C __ __ __ __ __ Himself.
b. 1 Peter 2:21-23 [ NIV ]
To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps.
"He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth."
When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly.
6. In our passage Christ provides four arenas for the exercise of this most godly discipline.
a. I __ __ __ __ __ (v.39)
(1) The term "slaps you on the right cheek" refers not to the painful blow delivered in an assault, but to the intentionally insulting backhanded slap, designed to "express the greatest possible contempt and extreme abuse." ( Jerochim Jeremias ) This unique verb appears only here in all the New Testament.
(2) The kind of blow which is not an insulting "slap" but a painful "smack" was felt by both our Lord and the apostle Paul. The reactions of both to such "smiting" is intriguing and informative.
ref: John 18:19-24
Acts 23:1-5
b. l __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (v.40)
(1) The word translated most often as tunic refers to the sack-like inner garment worn by men. It could be long- or short-sleeved, depending on the season, and reached from the shoulders to the knee, much like what we call long underwear. Even the poorest man owned more than a single tunic.
(2) The word translated as cloak was the heavy, blanket-thick outer garment. It was much more expensive to purchase than a tunic, and only wealthy men owned more than one. When traveling, men often slept under their cloaks. It served as both tent and bedroll. So important to a man was the possession of his cloak that the law strictly forbade its being taken from him.
ref: Exodus 22:25-27 [ TLB ]
If you lend money to a needy fellow-Hebrew, you are not to handle the transaction in an ordinary way, with interest. If you take his clothing as a pledge of his repayment, you must let him have it back at night. For it is probably his only warmth; how can he sleep without it? If you don't return it, and he cries to me for help, I will hear and be very gracious to him [at your expense], for I am very compassionate.
(3) The literal limit to Christ's teaching here can surely be appreciated. If one followed His instructions explicitly, he would leave the courtroom either completely naked or, at the very most, wearing only a loincloth!
(4) "The principle here is not primarily the avoidance of lawsuits, but a radically unselfish attitude to one's rights and property."
- R.T. France: Op. cit.
c. compulsory r __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (v.41)
(1) As a conquered and occupied people, Jews living under Roman rule could be conscripted without notice to perform any number of tasks. The most common circumstance saw a Roman soldier requiring a passing Hebrew to carry his heavy armour for a "Roman Mile" (1,000 paces), but nearly anything within Roman law could be abruptly commanded and the locals had no recourse but to obey immediately. This was just such the case for Simon of Cyrene on the Via de la Rosa, when he was ordered to carry the cross of our Lord ( Matthew 27:32 ).
(2) Certainly lawsuits and impressment evoke outrage, but the attitude of Jesus' disciples under such circumstances must not be spiteful or vengeful -- but helpful. Rather than resisting, or even resenting, the disciple should volunteer for a further mile! How the zealots must have hated Christ for teaching such a thing!
d. b __ __ __ __ __ __ and l __ __ __ __ (v.42)
(1) Christ's call for absolute unselfishness must not be seen as a "legal" prescription for the disciple's being an ignorant and careless "easy mark."
ref: Proverbs 11:15
Proverbs 22:26-27
(2) "Literal application of this verse as a rule of life would be self-defeating: 'there would soon be a class of saintly paupers, owning nothing, and another of prosperous idlers and thieves.'" - R.T. France (quoting L. Morris): Op. cit.
(3) What is called upon here is a truly radical change of heart toward one's financial resources and possessions. They are to mean so little to us personally that to give them away to one who is in need does not represent so great a sacrifice that we would grieve over no longer having them. This free and unselfish attitude extends in Christ's teaching to our r __ __ __ __ __ as well as our p __ __ __ __ __ __ __, and its primary exercise should occur first -- but not be strictly limited to -- in the fellowship of believers: the local c __ __ __ __ __.
ref: Acts 2:41-47
C. Application
1. "Christ's injunctions are not intended to be applied mechanically...or with foolish blindness which loses sight of the true purposes of love. Love is not to foster crime in others or to expose our loved ones to disaster and perhaps death....Christ never told me not to restrain the murderer's hand, not to check the thief and robber, not to oppose the tyrant, or by my gifts to foster shiftlessness, dishonesty and greed." - Howard F. Vos: Matthew
2. What great strength is displayed by such actions! I refer not to some "hidden fortitude" of my own person, but the mighty power of the God in whom we trust by such an unselfish attitude. Our Lord has called each believer to be not a d __ __ __ __ __ __, but an a __ __ __ __! Even as I refuse to insist upon my own personal rights, I will fight for the cause of justice for others and I will extend both the m __ __ __ __ and the g __ __ __ __ of God to those in need whom God sets before me. It is the Great Commandment in praxis.
3. Even more important than my actions are my a __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ in this exercise of faith.
Deuteronomy 15:7-11 [ NIV ]
If there is a poor man among your brothers in any of the towns of the land that the Lord your God is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward your poor brother. Rather be openhanded and freely lend him whatever he needs. Give generously to him and do so without a grudging heart; then because of this the Lord your God will bless you in all your work and in everything you put your hand to.
4. A free and unselfish attitude toward material possessions is indicative of a strong trust in God. It is the sort of freedom our Lord referred to when He spoke these words to Pharisees who held their privileged place and cherished traditions high above all else. ref: John 8:31-36
5. We must not make the mistake of limiting our understanding of Christ's principles of non- retaliation and generosity to specific incidents spaced throughout our lifetimes and involving unique circumstances and a few particular people.
a. How often do we "retaliate" in our families? Parental correction of their children must have nothing whatever to do with either "vengeance" or "retaliation. Loving discipline is the responsibility of parents. It must be firm, but it should always be tempered with mercy and grace.
b. How often do we "retaliate" against our spouses? Do you hold your husband a grudge? Are you in the process of "paying back" your wife for an indiscretion or shortcoming? The only goal in a marriage which cannot be blocked by another is the goal to minister. The ministry of every Christian begins and remains firmly grounded in the family.
c. Examine your relationships in the local church. Are you on "speaking terms" with every congregant? Why? Have any of your relationships been affected by perceived or actual slights? Are you estranged from a former friend because of something he or she said, or by something you heard that person might have said? Either way, according to the teaching of Christ on the Galilean mountainside, you stand outside His commandments for life in the kingdom of God. Harmony in the local church is not the result of members' being nice to each other; it is the Spiritual by-product of individual believers' exercising selfless love to others -- whether or not they "deserve" it -- and remaining unselfish with their time, their possessions, and their financial resources.
d. Finally, in the local church, which is more important: meeting our budget or meeting people at the point of their needs? Which is more precious to us: our Building Fund or our Benevolence Fund? Is our financial support of the needy exercised in an atmosphere of "retaliation," where only the "deserving" get the help they need and the "problem families" are subject to qualifications, limitations and documentation? Of course we are required to exercise responsible stewardship of our resources. But only those who are willing to trust in the promises of God will make unselfish -- and seemingly "unwise" -- choices in ministry. Only those who trust God completely are willing to be Fools for Christ. If we err, let us ever do so on the side of the love of Christ, extending to others the mercy and grace shown to us on the cross at Calvary, where "even while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us."
D I S C U S S I O N G U I D E
1. Read this morning's text passage, Matthew 5:38-42 in several translations.
a. Jesus clearly forbids personal revenge. But how would you answer someone who went further and claimed that, on the basis of this passage, a Christian should never use force against anyone?
b. What does the term "a fool for Christ" mean? How does it apply to what our Lord teaches in this passage?
2. Read Acts 23:1-5.
a. How does the blow Paul receives here differ from the kind Jesus described in the text, v.39?
b. Is Paul's response to the blow consistent with Christ's teaching? ________ Why, or why not?
c. What can we learn from Paul's apology in v.5?
3. Read 1 Corinthians 6:1-8.
a. Is Paul's strict teaching here in conflict with Jesus in Matthew 5:40? ________ Why, or why not?
b. If there exists a disagreement between Christians regarding "judgments concerning things pertaining to this life," how should they be settled?
c. In what way might a Christian be "cheated" (v.7) in a court of law under such circumstances?
4. Read Acts 16:25-40.
a. Paul seems in v.35-39 to go out of his way to insist on his rights as a Roman citizen. Is he guilty of ignoring Christ's teaching? ________ Why, or why not?
b. Explain one lesson we can learn from Paul's firm stand in this instance.
5. Regarding the matter of giving liberally to beggars and extending loans to those in need, where does one who is trying to obey Christ and, at the same time desiring not become an "enabler," draw the line? Defend your answer.
6. What is our church's policy regarding providing financial assistance to those in the congregation who need it and to "strangers" who need it?
7. Explain how a Christian parent can effectively correct and discipline a child without reverting to "retaliation" and/or "vengeance."
