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)
FLIP CHART: Go over John Stott’s outline of SOM. Show that 5:17-20 was an introduction to a Christian’s righteousness.
ILL: Late one summer evening in Broken Bow, Nebraska, a weary truck driver pulled his rig into an all-night truck stop. He was tired and hungry. The waitress had just served him when three tough looking, members of the Hell’s Angels motorcycle gang pulled into the diner and decided to give him a hard time. They verbally abused him, then one gang member grabbed the hamburger off his plate while another took handful of his french fries. Then the third gang member picked up his coffee and began to drink it.
How the truck driver responded is legendary. He calmly rose, picked up his check, walked to the front of the room, put the check and his money on the cash register, and went out the door. The waitress placed the money in the cash register, followed after him, and stood watching out the door as the trucker drove away into the night. When she returned, one of the cyclists said to her, “Well, he’s not much of a man, is he?” To which she replied, “I don’t know about that, but he sure isn’t a very good truck driver. He just ran over three motorcycles on his way out of the parking lot.”
INTRODUCTION TO SIX ANTI-THESES (Mt. 5:21-48):
These six anti-thesis (anti-concepts, anti-statements) — SHOW THE 6 ANTI-THESES CHART — are Christ’s true interpretation of the law over against the scribal misinterpretations. Thus we have a comparison between Christian righteousness and pharisaic righteousness, as is anticipated in vs. 20 (Stott, 78-79).
In 5:20 we are challenged to a ‘greater righteousness’ than that of the Pharisees and Scribes. The summons is to a deep inward righteousness of the heart. It is new fruit coming forth from a new nature. Christians do not dodge the law (a pharisaic hobby) but exhibit a keen appetite for true inner goodness, and righteousness which they hunger and thirst after continuously.
The key to understanding the six anti-theses is to always think “form and content.” The Pharisees focused on form (ceremony, the right way to worship) whereas Jesus focused on meaning and heart attitude. Jesus is saying that correct attitudes precede correct actions. Our attitudes and intentions are key to actions. Remember the key to a beautiful wedding is love and not ceremony – SHOW THE WEDDING FLIP-CHART.
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).
“Probably no part of the Sermon on the Mount has been so misinterpreted and misapplied as 5:38-42. It has been interpreted to mean that Christians are to be sanctimonious doormats. It has been used to promote pacifism, conscientious objection to military service, lawlessness, anarchy, and a host of other positions that it does not support.” (MacArthur, 329).
Matthew 5:38-42 is about non-retaliation. John Stott summarizes it like this: The four mini-illustrations … all apply the principle of Christian non-retaliation, and indicate the lengths to which it must go. They are vivid little cameos drawn from different life-situations. Each introduces a person (in the context a person who in some sense is ‘evil’) who seeks to do us an injury, one by hitting us in the face, another by prosecuting us at law, a third by commandeering our service and a fourth by begging money from us.” (Stott, 106).
So the theme is “non-retaliation” with four one sentence illustrations on what it means to ‘not resist an evil person’ (Hughes, 133).
These four 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).
OUTLINE FOR TODAY
- Lex Talionis (Eye for an Eye)
- Pacifism & “Do Not Resist an Evil Person
- The Bible and Resisting an Evil Person
DON’T RESIST AN EVIL PERSON
I. LEX TALIONIS (EYE FOR AN EYE)
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person.
“Lex” is the Latin word for “law” and from “talionis” we get the words “retaliate, retaliation.”
Lex Talionis in ancient history
The “Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth” was included in the Code of Hammurabi. He was the first king of the Babylonian Empire and lived about 2,000 years before Christ. He is credited as one of the first people to codify law. The Code of Hammurabi consisted of 282 laws written on 12 stone tablets.
“Lex Talionis” could be called “the law of tit for tat.” (this for that)
Lex Talionis in the Old Testament Law:
“But 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 21:23-24).
“If anyone injures his neighbor, whatever he has done must be done to him: fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. As he has injured the other, so he is to be injured” (Lev. 24:19-20).
It is important to note that “eye for eye” was a “civil” and not a “moral” law. The Ten Commandments are “moral” laws. In the following chapters after Exodus 20 you have explanation about property laws, injuries, servants etc. Civil laws dealt with protecting property and social intercourse, e.g. traffic, taxes, building codes etc.
“Civil Laws” were administered by judges
If a malicious witness takes the stand to accuse a man of a crime, the two men involved in the dispute must stand in the presence of the LORD before the priests and the judges who are in office at the time. The judges must make a thorough investigation, and if the witness proves to be a liar, giving false testimony against his brother, then do to him as he intended to do to his brother (Deut. 19:16-19).
QUESTION: Lex Talionis (an eye for an eye) has been called “The beginning of mercy.” Why would someone call such a violent law, “The beginning of mercy?”
(1) Protected the weak against the strong; (2) Was a warning to evil-doers and thus curtailed crime; (3) Prevented the judge from inflicting too harsh, excessive punishment; (4) Stopped acts of vengeance and put punishment in the hands of neutrals, the judges; (5) Made sure the punishment matched the crime.
This law helped ancient tribal societies avoid physical abuse and excessive punishment for a crime.
With “Eye for Eye” God is seeking to preserve human life, prevent physical abuse.
It is interesting that “Cities of Refuge” were established to protect innocent individuals who accidentally killed or injured someone.
Lex Talionis (eye for eye) is the foundation for all law in seeking to make sure that the punishment matches the crime; that there is fitting counter-punishment for an offense.
It also appears that the “eye for eye” was a guideline and did not always mean literal retaliation. For example a slave injured by his master could technically injure the master in an “eye of eye” scenario. Yet the law stipulated that the slave could go free.
If a man hits a manservant or maidservant in the eye and destroys it, he must let the servant go free to compensate for the eye. And if he knocks out the tooth of a manservant or maidservant, he must let the servant go free to compensate for the tooth (Exodus 21:26-27).
“Today we recognize Lex Talionis as foundational to all justice. The whole system of civil, penal, and international law is based on the idea of reparation and equity that has its roots in Lex Talionis.” (Hughes, 132).
So the Lex Talionis, as stated in the Old Testament was not for personal revenge and retaliation. If fact the purpose was just the opposite. It was taking retaliation out of the hand of the injured party and putting it in the hands of the civil authorities. “Eye for Eye” is not a mandate for vengeance.
II. PACIFISM & “RESIST NOT THE EVIL PERSON”
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person” (Matthew 5:39a).
Do not resist the man who wrongs you (NEB); Do not take revenge on someone who wrongs you (GNB); Don’t hit back at all (The Message); Do not try to get even with a person (Contemporary English Version).
Tolstoy (1828-1910) one of Russia’s most famous novelists (Anna Karina, War and Peace, The Resurrection etc) had a thirst for a rational and moral justification of life. At 50 during his mid-life crisis he said that he could not go on living and would commit suicide if he could not find the meaning of life. While searching he read the Sermon on the Mount and concluded that Matthew 5:39a “Do not resist an evil person” was the key for unlocking the meaning of life and was the principle out of which all moral teaching followed. He wrote one of his most important books, The Kingdom of God is Within You to explain this thesis. Thus Tolstoy developed the theory of “non-resistance to evil” based on Mt. 5:39a.
Ghandi, as a young man in South Africa, read Tolstoy’s book, The Kingdom of God is within You. He was also influenced by Ahimsa (refraining from harming others), which Buddhists consider a cardinal virtue; and “satyagraha” which means “positive action of the force of love of truth.” Ghandi corresponded with Tolstoy from 1909-1910 and was greatly influenced by him. In fact Tolstoy made such an impact on Ghandi that Ghandi named his second Indian ashram “Tolstoy Colony.” Ghandi eventually led the liberation of India from British colonial domination without doing so by force of arms.
Martin Luther King, during his time in seminary read both Tolstoy and Ghandi’s books and writings. He also focused on Mt. 5:39a, “Do not resist and evil person.” He concluded that true pacifism was not passive resistance to evil but non-violent resistance to evil. He led the American civil rights movement establishing legal equality with the rest of the American population without violence or use of arms.
Hughes writes thus about Tolstoy, “Leo Tolstoy, the great Russian novelist, in his book What I Believe tells how in an intense time of soul-searching he read and reread the Sermon on the Mount and then in one life-changing moment came to understand that Christ meant exactly what he said in his command, “Do not resist an evil person.” On the basis of this understanding he came to believe that no Christian should be involved in the army, the police force, or the courts of law. Christ’s way, he argued, is not to resist evil in any way. And, he said, that Christ’s teaching here is absolute and unconditional.” (Hughes, 132).
Tolstoy writes, “It is impossible at one and the same time to confess Christ as God, the basis of whose teaching is non-resistance to him that is evil, and consciously and calmly to work for the establishment of property, law courts, government and military forces . . . . “ (Stott, 108)
So both Tolstoy and Ghandi using “Do not resist an evil person” claimed that the state represents violence in a concentrated and organized form. In fact, because of his position on this matter, Tolstoy is called a “Christian anarchist.”
Both Ghandi and Martin Luther king used “non-violent resistance” theories that were successful. Many people in the world think that “non-violent resistance” is the key to solving the world’s problems and are also convinced that “non-violent resistance” is based on the teaching of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount.
But what if Tolstoy had lived in Nazi Germany? What if Ghandi had lived in communist China? What if Martin Luther King had tried his non-violent strategy in communist Russia or Fascist Japan prior to WW II? (Ghandi said he would have met the Japanese forces with a “truth brigade” if Japanese troops had reached India) It could be said that Ghandi and MLK were successful only because they were resisting against Christian Britain or Christian America, both with a Christian conscience.
“I personally believe that this verse does not have anything to do with pacifism as it relates to the killing and taking of life, for that is not what this passage is about. The question of pacifism must be settled, one way or another, on other Biblical ground.” (Hughes, 132).
QUESTION: What can we learn from Tolstoy, Ghandi, and Martin Luther King as they used of this verse from the Sermon on the Mount?
(1) When a person takes a verse out of context he can get off track;
(2) We need to interpret every verse in context with the whole Bible {The Bible is the best commentary on the Bible};
(3) Also, one cannot interpret any verse without remembering the total corruption of human nature.
III. THE BIBLE AND “RESISTING THE EVIL PERSON”
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person” (Matthew 5:39a).
The big question is, “Should we ever resist an evil person?”
Some translations state “do not resist evil” so one crazy saint, as described by Martin Luther ‘let the lice nibble at him and refused to kill any of them on account of this text, maintaining that he had to suffer and could not resist evil.” (Stott, 108).
QUESTION: Does the New Testament give us any justification for resisting evil and the evil person?
We have accounts of soldiers in the New Testament who were not told to quit being soldiers: (1) John the Baptist (Luke 3:14) didn’t tell soldiers to get out of the military. He did tell them to quit complaining about their wages; (2) After Jesus healed the Centurion’s servant he did not tell the Centurion to leave the Roman army; (3) Cornelius was saved under the ministry of Peter and continued in the army (Acts 10).
Jesus did not forbid Peter to carry a sword.
Jesus resisted the evil of the Pharisees with a blistering attack on them in Matthew 23. He resisted and protested when he was wrongly struck as His trial. He did not turn the other cheek!!!!
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).
Examples of Resistance to Evil in the New Testament
In Acts 13:8 Paul withstood Elymas, the sorcerer, who was smote with blindness.
Paul withstood (resisted- same word) Peter in Antioch when Peter acted hypocritical in his relationship to the Gentile Christians (Gal. 2:1).
Jesus resisted the money changers in the temple (John 2:14-16).
Paul resisted wrongful arrest in Philippi (Acts 16:37).
Paul resisted the evil person by having them excommunicated, removed from the church (I Cor. 5:13; I Timothy 1:20).
Paul said that Christians living in sin should be rebuked before the whole church (I Tim. 5:20).
We are told to resist the devil (Eph. 6:13l James 4:7).
We are called to support government, which is appointed by God to resist evil (Romans 13:3-4).
Resistance to Evil Can Be More Loving than Non-Resistance
Alexander Maclaren wrote, “If turning the cheek would make the assaulter more angry, or if yielding the cloak would make the legal robber more greedy, of going the second mile would make the press gang more severe and exacting, resistance becomes a form of love and duty for the sake of the wrongdoer” (Hughes, 136).
What if a man attacks or kidnaps your daughter? Non-resistance would be totally unloving to both your daughter and also the attacker.
To resist the evil man by reporting a crime is an act of love …. To our neighbor, that is our community and also to the evil man. If he is arrested he will be hindered from committing a further crime.
“To belittle, excuse, or hide the wrongdoing of others is not an act of love but an act of wickedness, because it undermines civil justice and divine righteousness.” (MacArthur, 331).
If I corner a thief in my house am I duty bound to release him on society in order to obey the command, “Do not resist the evil person”?
ILL: In a job application for a prison guard, the question was asked, “Would you shoot a convict that is escaping?” If so, Why? Answer: It would be wrong to turn such a person lose upon society.
ILL: R. Kent Hughes tells of a young couple that was attacked by some thugs while the father stood by and did nothing to help them because he was trying to live by “Do not resist the evil person.”
ILL: So was the driver of the semi-truck in the right? Re-read the illustration I started with.
Late one summer evening in Broken Bow, Nebraska, a weary truck driver pulled his rig into an all-night truck stop. He was tired and hungry. The waitress had just served him when three tough looking, members of the Hell’s Angels motorcycle gang pulled into the diner and decided to give him a hard time. They verbally abused him, then one gang member grabbed the hamburger off his plate while another took handful of his french fries. Then the third gang member picked up his coffee and began to drink it.
How the truck driver responded is legendary. He calmly rose, picked up his check, walked to the front of the room, put the check and his money on the cash register, and went out the door. The waitress placed the money in the cash register, followed after him, and stood watching out the door as the trucker drove away into the night. When she returned, one of the cyclists said to her, “Well, he’s not much of a man, is he?” To which she replied, “I don’t know about that, but he sure isn’t a very good truck driver. He just ran over three motorcycles on his way out of the parking lot.”
SO WHAT???
1. Lex Talionis, an eye for an eye, was established to prevent revenge and keep people from taking justice into their own hands.
2. Taking a verse out of context you can get off track.
3. Interpret every Bible verse in context with the whole Bible
{The Bible is the best commentary on the Bible}.
4. When interpreting Scripture verses always keep in mind the depravity of mankind. It will keep you from being naïve.
5. There are examples of Jesus and other NT personalities resisting evil.