REVIEW
FLIP CHART: SOM’S KEY VERSE, GOAL, MOTTO
“But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness ….” (Mt. 6:33a).
The law sends us to Christ for justification; Christ sends us back to the law for sanctification.
FLIP CHART: Show new “Perfect Righteousness” chart explaining steps to coming to Christ (As a worm, mourning, meek, spiritual hunger/thirst with the result of legal righteousness). Explain moral righteousness, immediate moral change at conversion, gradual change through life’s challenges and speeding up moral change via CCRC (Concentration, Choice, Reflection and Confession/Thanksgiving). Repeat the verse, “By one sacrifice He has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.” (Heb. 10:14) HAVE SOMEONE COME FORWARD AND EXPLAIN THE CHART.)
“The Beatitudes, carefully examined, descend upon us with eight successively humiliating blows. Perhaps they even make us question the genuineness of our faith. Next come the stunning metaphors of salt and light. Who can say he has fulfilled such a dynamic witness? And if that is not enough, then comes the statement, “Unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven” (vs. 20), followed by six stringent illustrations of what our righteousness should be like, each of them incredibly demanding, each impossible in our own strength. Almost every line of the Sermon on the Mount, taken to heart, will flatten us! It seems impossible!” (Hughes, 139)
FLIP CHART: John Stott’s outline of SOM.
INTRODUCTION
“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 someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.” (Mt. 5:38-42).
Matthew 5:38-42 is about non-retaliation. The text includes four cameos, four mini-illustrations introducing a person who is in some way ‘evil.’ These cameos illustrate how far a kingdom citizen will go to avoid retaliating, what a citizen of God’s kingdom will do to overcome an evil person, to show Christian love of neighbor to such a person.
These four cameos are not detailed regulations but illustrations of the principle of love …. The selfless love of a person, who, when injured, refuses to satisfy himself by taking revenge, but studies instead the highest welfare of the other person and of society, and determines his reactions accordingly (Stott, 107).
REVIEW:
Lex Talionis, ‘eye for eye’ was “the beginning of mercy.’ As a civil and not a religious law it was administered by judges and thus limited revenge (it took retaliation out of the hands of the injured party), protected the weak and made sure the punishment fit the crime. It is the foundation of all international jurisprudence.
Although Tolstoy, Ghandi and MLK, as pacifists wrongly interpreted and based their non-violent resistance on this text, they were successful because they lived and protested against countries that had a Christian conscience.
The NT supports the concept of “resisting the evil person.’ Note the life of Jesus, the Acts of the Apostles and the teaching of Paul. The New Testament does not support pacifism. In certain scenarios resistance of evil can be a more loving reaction than non-resistance.
The idea of vengeance is right and supported in the Bible. But it is God’s prerogative and he has delegated it into the hands of the state, that is, the police and court system. By interpreting our text in the light of the whole Word of God we can see that Jesus is not advocating the dispensing of the judicial system.
“Resist the evil person” cannot be used as a basis for rejecting war. Yet it does seem that only a defensive war or a war to protect innocents can be justified since it would be immoral for a country to not protect its own citizens.
Christians are to be free from personal revenge. The Pharisees were using Lex Talionis as an excuse for personal revenge. Kingdom citizens are not ‘tit for tat’ people. Instead we are to be people full of mercy; peacemakers. Taking revenge cannot be reconciled with the Second Commandment to love our neighbor.
OUTLINE FOR TODAY:
1. Responding when someone strikes our face.
2. What to do if someone wants to sue us and take us to court
3. Going the second mile
4. Giving / lending when asked.
HOW FAR DO YOU GO FOR THE SAKE OF PEACE?
I. INTRODUCTION TO MATTHEW 5:39b-43
In Gen. 4:23-24 we have a statement that Lamech made to his wives Adah and Zillah, “Listen to me wives of Lamech, hear my words. I have killed a man for wounding me, a young man for injuring me. If Cain is avenged seven times, the Lamech seventy-seven times.”
Lex Talionis, given by God as a civil law to Israel, was to stop this kind of revenge and thus was “The beginning of mercy.”
The Pharisees were making this law (eye for eye) into personal permission for revenge. Jesus takes it out of their hands by giving four extreme illustrations to show that God’s goal is for mercy and not payback in relationships.
Jesus is saying that kingdom citizens base all of their relationships upon love from the heart and not law.
A good commentary on this text would be the following verses:
As far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone (Rom. 12:18)
Do not be overcome by evil, overcome evil with good (Rom. 12:21)
Love your neighbor as yourself (Mt. 22:39).
Do to others what you would have them do to your (Mt. 7:12).
Our text asks the following questions:
(1) How far am I willing to go in avoiding resisting an evil person?
(2) How far am I willing to go to promote a peaceful relationship with another person?
(3) How far am I willing to go in an effort to overcome evil?
(4) How far am I willing to go in order to love my neighbor as myself?
(5) How far am I willing to go to treat another person as I would want to be treated?
Each one of these mini-illustrations or cameos (pictures) tells us how far we have to go!!!!
IT IS WRONG FOR SOMEONE TO INSULT ME, BUT AM I WILLING TO GO SO FAR AS TO SURRENDER MY DIGNITY?
If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also (Mt. 5:39b).
What Turning the Other Cheek Doesn’t Mean
Tolstoy saw the phrase ‘turn the other cheek’ as a justification for pacifism, nonviolence and non-resistance.
Yancey in his book “Soul Survivor” tells about trying to live like Jesus, not retaliating, and being beaten up at a bus stop.
If we translate this literally, after we allow a person to strike us on both the right and the left cheeks are we allowed to hit back? Or do we have to sacrifice our nose too?
There is no question that turning the other cheek can whet and increase the malice and anger of an evil person.
This cameo/illustration does not teach us to be doormats. This does not make a virtue of low self-esteem or a lack of self-confidence. Jesus did go to the cross but no one should accuse him of being a doormat. He said, “No one takes my life from me. I law it down of my own accord” (John 10:18).
Remember that Jesus did not “turn the other cheek” as his trial before the Sanhedrin. Instead he challenged them.
“Meanwhile, the high priest questioned Jesus about his disciples and his teaching.
‘I have spoken openly to the world,’ Jesus replied. ‘I always taught in synagogues or at the temple, where all the Jews come together. I said nothing in secret. Why question me? Ask those who heard me. Surely they know what I said.’
When Jesus said this, one of the officials nearby struck him in the face. ‘Is this the way you answer the high priest?’ he demanded.
‘If I said something wrong,’ Jesus replied, ‘testify as to what is wrong. But if I spoke the truth, why did you strike me?’
Then Annas sent him, still bound, to Caiaphas the high priest. (John 18:19-24).
So ‘turning the other cheek’ is not being a doormat. It also does not mean that we cannot protect ourselves or others from physical abuse.
What Turning the Other Cheek Does Mean.
ILL: Have two people come to the front and stand facing each other. Have one strike the right cheek of the other with his right hand. How would you describe this “striking of the cheek?”
QUESTION: Jesus could have very easily said “if someone strikes you on the left cheek” or just “cheek” but he specifically said “right cheek.” Why?
In the ancient world (and even today in the Middle East) striking someone on the right cheek was the biggest insult possible against a person. According to Rabbinic law to hit a man with the back of the hand was twice as insulting as to hit him with the flat of the hand. Hitting with the back of the hand is not an “assault” but is the greatest of insults. It was calculated contempt, a way of saying that a person was no more than pond scum, a rat, a mouse, a flea, a piece of dirt. It was totally dehumanizing. John MacArthur in his commentary (p. 333) says that even a slave would prefer to be struck across the back with a whip rather than be struck with the back of a hand. So hitting with the back of the hand is a grave insult and not a physical attack.
“Men open their mouths to jeer at me; they strike my cheek in scorn and unite together against me” (Job 16:10).
“Let him offer his cheek to one who would strike him, and let him be filled with disgrace” (Lamentations 3:3).
According to “The Bible Background Commentary” (IVP) a “blow on the right cheek was the most grievous insult possible in the ancient world …” and “both Jewish and Roman law permitted prosecution for this offense” (p. 60).
Jesus bore shame and insult. In the Old Testament it says that “I gave my back to the smiters, and my cheeks to those who pulled out the beard; I hid not my face from shame and spitting” (Isaiah 50:6).
“First, the Jewish police spat on him, blindfolded him, struck him in the face, and then the Roman soldiers followed suit. They crowned him with thorns, clothed him in the imperial purple, invested him with a scepter of a reed, jeered at him saying, ‘Hail King of the Jews;’ knelt before him in mock homage, spat in his face and struck him with their hands. Jesus, with the infinite dignity of self-control and love, held his peace. He demonstrated his total refusal to retaliate by allowing them to continue their cruel mockery until they had finished.” (Stott, 106).
ILL: Read Tom Skinner, the black evangelist, about not retaliating when abused by a white boy. (Boice, 136-7).
ILL: “Regarding the unjust suffering endured by Martin Luther King, Dr. Benjamin Mays listed some of them at his funeral. Mays said, ‘If any man knew the meaning of suffering, King knew. House bombed; living day by day for thirteen years under constant threats of death; maliciously accused of being a Communist; falsely accused of being insincere …; stabbed by a member of his own race; slugged in a hotel lobby; jailed over twenty times; deeply hurt when friends betrayed him…and yet this man had no bitterness in his heart, no rancor in his soul, no revenge in his mind. Instead, he went up and down the length and breadth of this world preaching non-violence and the redemptive power of love.’” (Stott, 114).
QUESTION: What are some ways a person can insult us, attack our dignity apart from slapping our face?
Answer: name calling, ignoring us, not acknowledging our presence, being impolite, not offering us a seat, not greeting us, making us feel unwelcome, talking or slandering us behind our backs, etc.
Handling Insults, Attacks on Our Dignity
True internal righteousness begins with being poor in spirit and includes showing mercy and being a peacemaker. The Beatitudes show us the foundation for our response to insults.
-
We do not repay ‘insult with insult, but with blessing’ (I Pt. 3:9).
-
We follow in the steps of Christ who, “When they hurled their insults at him he did not retaliate …” (I Pt. 2:21, 23),” and who told us to “…forgive men when they sin against you” (Mt. 6:15).
When we turn the other cheek and accept insults, we focus on the other person and make his/her well-being our priority.
Are we secure and mature enough in Christ to withstand looking like a loser and to bear up under insults and attacks upon our dignity as an individual?
APPLICATION
How do we apply the following verses in the light of the Scripture that tells us to turn the other cheek if someone strikes us?
-
Do not resist an evil person (Mt. 5:39)
Am I willing to bear the insult from an evil person without retaliating?
-
As far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone (Rom. 12:18)
Am I willing to bear an attack on my dignity so that I can live at peace with another individual?
-
Do not be overcome by evil, overcome evil with good (Rom. 12:21)
Am I willing to overcome an insult to my person by responding with a sincere blessing from my heart?
-
Love your neighbor as yourself (Mt. 22:39).
Will an insult and a demeaning word from my neighbor keep me from loving them as myself?
-
Do to others what you would have them do to you (Mt. 7:12).
How far am I willing to go to treat someone well who has insulted, demeaned and disgraced me? Someone who has attacked my dignity as a person?
Jesus said, “Go all the way, turn the other cheek, accept a second and third and fourth insult. Be willing to surrender your dignity. Keep on loving that individual.” The Message.
II. IT IS WRONG FOR SOMEONE TO STRIP ME OF MY SECURITY, BUT AM I WILLING TO GENEROUSLY SETTLE A FINANCIAL CONFLICT?
And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well (Mt. 5:40).
QUESTION: Is the court system a valid system scripturally?
Scriptural Validation of the Court System
Jesus seems to support courts in 5:25-26, “Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to court. Do it while you are still with him in the way, or he may hand you over to the judge, and the judge may hand you over to the officer, and you may be thrown into prison. I tell you the truth, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny.”
It seems that I Corinthians 6:1-6 is about rejecting the idea of taking trivial cases to a secular court, rather than a repudiation of the court system. Note, “…. are you not competent to judge trivial cases?” (I Cor. 6:2).
Public redress through a judge is commanded by God in Rom. 13:1-9.
If it is alright for me to bring an offending party before the church, how can it be wrong to bring an evil person before the court for the sake of the community?
The Significance of Tunic and Cloak.
“The Tunic, chiton, was the long, sack-line inner garment made of cotton or of linen. The poorest man would have a change of tunics. The cloak was the great, blanket-like outer garment which a man wore as a robe by day, and used as a blanket at night. Of such garments the Jew would have only one. Now it was actually the Jewish law that a man’s tunic might be taken as a pledge, but not his cloak. “If ever you take your neighbor’s garment in pledge (his cloak), you shall restore it to him before the sun goes down; for that is his only covering, it is his mantle for his body; in what else shall he sleep?” (Exodus 22:26, 27; See also Deut. 24:10-14). (Barclay, 167)
It appears that the court could not demand the cloak, however it could be given as a payment for debt.
Is Jesus advocating “naked justice?” Think of this, the man takes off his inner garment, hands it over to the court, and then he hands over his cloak as well. He is naked. Nakedness is taboo in Judaism (e.g. story of Noah). Is this not the language of rhetorical overstatement, an extreme illustration to show that we as Kingdom Citizens go beyond the bounds of normality to live at peace with all men?
APPLICATION
Christ is not forbidding us to use the court system for redress. He is simply showing us a better and higher way that will enable us to cultivate a loving relationship with “the evil person” who is suing us.
This is not about the seizure of our property but about going to court over trifles, about sacrificing the possibility of a heart relationship with a greedy evil person for a minor victory over an inner garment in a court battle. Conflicts in court almost never produce good and lasting personal relationships.
ILL: Leon, my brother-in-law, told me a story about my dad. He would not collect on a crack made on his windshield because it was a freak accident.
ILL: Ken Pittam had an employee who stole $100,000 from him back in the 80’s. He said that he could not take the guy to court and put him in jail because the fellow had four children. Ken thought, “ How terrible it would be for those four children to grow up with a father.”
QUESTION: How do we apply the following verses in the light of the Scriptural illustration that says to give our cloak if someone asks for our tunic?
-
Do not resist an evil person (Mt. 5:39)
Am I willing to bear a minor loss to my security in order to satisfy a person who has a case against me?
-
As far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone (Rom. 12:18)
Am I willing to pay a person more than I own him in order to cultivate a peaceful relationship with him?
-
Do not be overcome by evil, overcome evil with good (Rom. 12:21)
Am I willing to overcome a person’s rightful charges against me by giving more than he is demanding?
-
Love your neighbor as yourself (Mt. 22:39).
Am I willing to settle a conflict with my neighbor from his perspective because I love him?
-
Do to others what you would have them do to your (Mt. 7:12).
In a conflict of interest am I willing to treat my adversary the same way I would want him to treat me, even if I lose some of my security?
Jesus said, “Avoid resisting the evil person. Give him your cloak also.” Be willing to sacrifice your own well-being, your own security for the sake of hopefully cultivating a heart relationship with your adversary.
III. AM I WILLING TO SACRIFICE MY LIBERTY TO SHOW MY LOVE FOR AN “EVIL PERSON?”
“If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.” (Mt. 5:41).
Going the “Second Mile” in the Ancient World.
[This refers to] any kind of forced labor by the occupying power. [Under Rome] in an occupied country citizens could be compelled to supply food, to provide housing, to carry baggage. Sometimes the occupying power exercised this right of compulsion in the most tyrannical and unsympathetic way. Always this threat of compulsion hung over the citizens. Palestine was an occupied country. At any moment a Jew might feel the touch of the flat of a Roman spear on his shoulder, and know that he was compelled to serve the Romans perhaps in the most menial way.” (Barclay, 168)
Roman law gave a soldier the right to force a civilian to carry his pack for a million, a Roman mile, which was slightly shorter than our modern mile. The law, designed to relieve the soldier, not only caused great inconvenience to civilians but was made even more despicable by the fact that the oppressed were made to carry the weapons of their oppressors. Outside of combat the roman solider was probably never more hated than when he forced someone to carry his pack (MacArthur, 335).
The zealots, a political movement in the first century that wanted to expel the Romans and set up a theocracy, especially hated the Roman law forcing citizens to carry a soldier’s pack.
ILL: Simon of Cyrene was forced to help Jesus carry the cross: As they led him away, they seized Simon from Cyrene, who was on his way in from the country, and put the cross on him and made him carry it behind Jesus” (Luke 23:26).
QUESTION: Do we have anything similar in our society to the law to carry goods for a mile?
ILL: How would you feel if on your way home after a busy day a soldier of an occupying power stopped you and demanded you drive him 20 miles to his home?
The demand to go one mile is a demand on my freedom. It is not too different from the demand to pay taxes which is our duty according to Romans 13. The government does not make us perform at gunpoint a service for the state …but the IRS does threaten us with financial penalties etc. if we do not pay up! So our time is not requisitioned but our money is.
Jesus is not even challenging the “first mile.” He is supporting that as a given. He is teaching that we should go the second mile of our own free will.
APPLICATION:
QUESTION: How do we apply the following verses in the light of the illustration to go the second mile?
Do not resist an evil person. (Mt. 5:39)
Am I willing to sacrifice my liberty in order to avoid resisting a person who is putting unwarranted demands on me? Or do I respond, “I am not going to help him. He can’t expect that of me.”
As far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone.(Rom. 12:18)
Am I willing to not only do what a person requests but more than they are requesting in order to cultivate a peaceful relationship with them? Am I willing to err on the side of being manipulated?
Do not be overcome by evil, overcome evil with good. (Rom. 12:21)
Am I willing to overcome unwarranted demands on my time by giving more time than was expected?
Love your neighbor as yourself. (Mt. 22:39)
Am I willing to sacrifice my personal liberty and go beyond what would be naturally expected of me to help my neighbor?
Do to others what you would have them do to you. (Mt. 7:12)
I would certainly appreciate a person going beyond what was required to help me. Am I willing to go beyond what is required or expected to help them?
Being a “Second Mile” Christian
Jesus is saying, “When imposed upon with unwarranted demands, don’t pout, don’t be bitter. Do more than is requested. Do it with a happy heart and a smile.”
The Jewish citizen was a slave the first mile but a master the second. The second mile is the character mile and it moves us from slaves to masters.
The first mile is the trial mile, the second mile is the smile mile (Bill Bright).
The first mile is the service mile, the second mile is the witnessing mile.
ILL: Two examples:
-
A Jewish laborer carried the baggage one mile grumbling all the way and with rage and bitterness in his heart. At the end of the mile he threw down the burden and stalked away.
-
A Jewish laborer carried the burden happily, chating with the solider, and after one mile asks, “If you don’t mind, I would like to carry your burden another mile.” During the second mile he witnesses about what Christ has done for him.
Bill Bright: “I have been working with people long enough to observe that all successful people live by the second mile principle. The first mile is crowded but the second mile is not busy at all.”
ILL: As a young man I worked a bit for a farmer. They also hired a young woman to help the farmer’s wife, who was not well, with chores around the house and with the children. One day the farmer came into the yard and found the young woman washing the car. He asked her why she was doing this. She said that all the work in the house was done and since she had a little extra free time, she decided to wash the car. The farmer was so amazed and impressed that he mentioned this to me.
ILL: K-4 (Korps Kristen Kilometer Kedua), merit badges awarded to children in India, encourages young people to go home and do more than their parents ask.
IV. REQUESTING ME TO GIVE / LEND WHAT IS MINE IS ‘EVIL,’ BUT AM I WILLING TO GIVE AWAY MY PROPERTY TO AVOID RESISTING “AN EVIL PERSON?”
Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.” (Mt. 5:42).
The Bible emphasizes the Need to Give
Do not be hard-hearted or tight-fisted towards your poor brother – rather be open handed and freely lend him whatever he needs … give generously to him and without a grudging heart. (Deut. 15:7,8,10).
The righteous give generously … they are always generous and lend freely … (Ps. 37:21, 26).
Don’t tell your neighbor to return tomorrow when you could give it to him now. (Prov. 3:28)
He who is kind to the poor lends to the Lord (Prov. 19:17).
If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity, how can the love of God be in him? (I John 3:17)
Do we take the above verse literally?
ILL: A Cambridge research student who thought the verse above was to be taken literally ended up bankrupt as he went without in order to supply half a dozen men with money for alcohol they would have been better off without (Hughes, 135).
MacArthur writes, “The implication is that the person who asks has a genuine need. We are not required to respond to every foolish, selfish request made of us. Sometimes to give a person what he does not need is a disservice, doing him more harm than good” (MacArthur, 335)
What does the Bible say about irresponsibility / laziness?
“I went past the field of the sluggard, past the vineyard of the man who lacked judgment; thorns had come up everywhere, the ground was covered with weeds, and the stone wall was in ruins. I applied my heart to what I observed and learned a lesson from what I saw: A little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of he hands to rest – and poverty will come on you like a bandit and scarcity like an armed man” (Prov. 24:30-34).
“For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: If a man will not work, he will not eat” (II Thes. 3:10).
So, when should we give?
A general rule is that we should err on the side of generosity.
Remember we are to be merciful as God is merciful “Be merciful just as your Father is merciful” (Lk. 6:36) and “He causes the sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and unrighteous” (Mt. 5:45).
APPLICATION:
QUESTION: How do we apply the following verses in the light of the illustration to give to the one that asks of us?
Do not resist an evil person (Mt. 5:39)
Am I willing to sacrifice what belongs to me in order to avoid a conflict with an “evil person,” a person who may be a lazy spend-thrift who does not deserve my help? Or will I say, “The guy is lazy. I am not going to help him!”
As far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone (Rom. 12:18)
Am I willing to give to a person in need, even when it stretches me financially, in order to maintain a harmonious relationship with him?
Do not be overcome by evil, overcome evil with good (Rom. 12:21)
Am I willing to give to a person who has done something that has been hurtful to me? Am I willing to overcome their evil by my generosity?
Love your neighbor as yourself (Mt. 22:39)
Am I willing to give to a neighbor who has not been neighborly towards me, a neighbor who is in need?
Do to others what you would have them do to your (Mt. 7:12).
I would certainly appreciate a person helping me out in a time of need. Am I willing to help out a person who has ill-treated me in the time of need?
V. SOME THOUGHTS ABOUT “MY RIGHTS”
Jesus challenges us to make every effort to avoid resisting an evil person by showing this evil person kingdom love and kindness.
To show “kingdom love”:
We are willing to sacrifice the basic human right to dignity and take an insult.
We are willing to forego our human right to security and give in to a person who is suing us.
We are willing to forego our basic human right to liberty and give in to another’s demands for our service.
We are willing to forego our basic human right to property and surrender it to meet another’s needs.
Jesus is saying that we are to go to extremes to avoid resisting a person even though he may act with evil towards us.
“One element of the great American philosophy of life is that we have certain inalienable rights. Among the most important privileges that our Declaration of Independence espouses are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In our days the number of rights claimed has greatly expanded. Movements have developed for civil rights, women’s rights, children’s rights, workers’ rights, prisoners’ rights, gay rights, illegal alien’s rights, and so on. Never has a society been more concerned about rights” (MacArthur, 327).
Churches are full of Christians who “demand” their rights.
“To one who asked him the secret of service, George Muller replied: There was a day when I died, utterly died to George Muller” — and, as he spoke, he bent lower and lower until he almost touched the floor — to my opinions, preferences, tastes and will. I died to the world, its approval or censure, I died to the approval or blame of even my brethren and friends. Since then I have studied to show myself approved only unto God.” (Streams in the Desert, 26)
QUESTION: How is a person who has true internal goodness, the righteousness of Christ, the righteousness that surpasses that of the scribes and the Pharisees, supposed to respond in the midst of personal offense that might involve an insult, a lawsuit, an unwarranted demand on time or money?
We are to forgo revenge and permit the person to double the injury. (Stott, 106)
The goal is to love that person as perfectly as God loves him, “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly father is perfect.” (Mt. 5:48).
SO WHAT???
1. Cultivating a personal, heart relationship with a person who has insulted me is far more important that protecting my personal dignity.
2. Developing a good relationship with a person who is seeking to get the best of me in a financial transaction is far more important than protecting my security.
3. There are times when letting a person I do not like manipulate and take advantage of me is more important than demanding my rights and my freedom.
4. We need to be willing to give to those whom we don’t like or who have offended us in order to cultivate a relationship with them and avoid a conflict.
5. How far am I willing to go to avoid resisting an evil person, to live at peace with a person who has not been kind to me or does not like me, to overcome evil with good, to love my unattractive neighbor as myself, to treat a person who is being mean or has been mean to me as I would want to be treated? Am I willing to accept an insult without retaliating? Am I willing to sacrifice my personal well-being without being bitter and revengeful?