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: John Stott’s outline of SOM.
INTRODUCTION
ILL: While driving her car, Jamie Brooks, a dental student, was hit by another driver. Jamie was able to identify the man however he immediately drove away. The repairs on her damaged car placed a considerable financial burden on Jamie. The motorist never identified himself, nor did he apologize or pay for the damage done. Ten years later Jamie is now a dentist. Guess who came to her office needing a tooth pulled? The man did not recognize her but she recognized him. She told him it wouldn’t hurt; she lied.”
ILL: From the Business Farmer News, Scottsbluff, Nebraska: In the column under “For Sale or Trade,” it read, “Will trade one white wedding gown size 16 – never worn. Will trade for 38 caliber revolver.”
“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. John Stott summarizes it like this: The four mini-illustrations … all apply to the principle of Christian non-retaliation, and indicate the lengths to which we 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).
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). We are not looking at a set of new laws.
OUTLINE LAST WEEK:
1. Lex Talionis (Eye for an Eye)
2. Pacifism & “Do Not Resist an Evil Person
3. The Bible and Resisting an Evil Person
DON’T RESIST AN EVIL PERSON (Part 2)
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.” . . . “the law of tit for tat.”
It is important to note that “eye for eye” was a civil not a moral law. It was administered by judges and its intent was to limit retaliation. Thus it has been called “The beginning of mercy.”
It: (1) Protected the weak against the strong
(2) Was a warning to evil-doers and thus curtailed crime
(3) Stopped acts of vengeance and put punishment in the hands of
neutrals, the judges
(4) Made sure the punishment matched the crime
It also appears that “eye for eye” was a guideline and did not always mean literal retaliation.
“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).
Lex Talionis, as stated in the Old Testament, was not for personal revenge and retaliation. In fact the purpose was just the opposite. It was took retaliation out of the hand of the injured party and put it into 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).
Tolstoy, Ghandi, and Martin Luther King based their non-violent resistance theories on Mt. 5:39a. They were successful because they protested in countries and against governments that were democratic and had a Christian conscience. Tolstoy actually became a “Christian anarchist” saying that it was wrong to support police and courts and that all state institutions were established to perpetuate violence.
(1) When you take a verse out of context you can get off track
(2) You need to interpret every verse in context with the whole Bible {The Bible is the best commentary on the Bible}
(3) Remember the corruption of human nature when you interpret any Bible verse
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).
We have accounts of soldiers in the New Testament who were never told to quit being soldiers.
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!!!!
Examples of Resistance to Evil in the New Testament
Paul withstood Elymas, the sorcerer in Acts 13:8.
Paul withstood (resisted, same word) Peter in Antioch when Peter acted hypocritically 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 him removed from the church (I Cor. 5:13, I Timothy 1:20).
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
What if a man attacks or kidnaps your daughter? Non-resistance would be 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 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”?
OUTLINE THIS WEEK:
1. Lex Talionis (Eye for an Eye)
2. Pacifism & “Do Not Resist an Evil Person”
3. Does The New Testament Defend Resisting an Evil Person?
4. Is Vengeance Supported in the Scriptures?
5. Christians are to be Free from Personal Revenge
IV. IS VENGEANCE SUPPORTED IN THE BIBLE?
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person.
Paul, echoing Matthew 5:39, writes in Romans 12:17 and 19, “Do not repay anyone evil for evil … do not take revenge”
“… Paul’s prohibition of vengeance is not because retribution is in itself wrong, but because it is the prerogative of God, not man to avenge. ‘Vengeance is mine,’ says the Lord. God’s purpose is to express his wrath or vengeance through the law courts (as Paul goes on to write in Romans 13) and finally on the day of judgment” (Stott, 111).
“[The person in authority] is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer” (Romans 13:4).
State institutions (police, courts) are God’s servants.
This verse should not be twisted to support “institutional violence” because the same state (Rome) that is here called the ‘servant of God’ is in Revelation 13 pictured as an ally of the devil wielding his authority. “The fact that the state has been instituted by God does not preserve it from abusing its power and becoming a tool of Satan” (Stott, 110).
The fact is, as argued in the book The Birth of Plenty, that a good justice system is a key to producing a prosperous society, and that the first thing needed to make a prosperous nation state is a good judiciary and honest police force.
It is clear in the OT that God accepted both capital punishment and war.
So retribution, revenge and retaliation are right. That is why we have jails. However, revenge, retaliation and retribution is not our prerogative as Christians. We are to avoid vengeance. “Resist not the evil person” in our text simply means “Don’t take the law into your own hands,” no private revenge.
The Christian as a citizen of the state must be fully free from revenge, but if he is functioning as an officer of the state (and of the church), he must resist evil and in fact exact revenge, punish evil.
So Jesus is not prohibiting the administration of justice; he is simply forbidding us to take the law into our own hands.
QUESTION: IN THE LIGHT OF THE PHRASE “RESIST NOT THE EVIL PERSON,” CAN WAR BE JUSTIFIED?
Could war be God’s means of exacting justice / revenge on an international scale?
Theorists have spent much time deliberating the “just war theory” proposed by Augustine.
It is difficult for a Christian to accept all the wars America has been involved in were “just wars.” One cannot justify all of the wars America has been involved in throughout its short history.
ILL: Revolutionary War, War of 1812, Mexican-American War, Spanish-American War.
When attacked a state is immoral if it does not protect its citizens. And it could be argued that to avoid war when it is used to defend the innocent would be wrong.
If it is immoral to take a human life, is it moral to stand by and let someone else take a human life?
Is it moral for a country to stand by and let hundreds of thousands of innocent people be killed by an invading force or as happened in Rwanda?
Should I seek to protect my neighbor, ward off or even kill, if necessary, an intruder who seeks to kill him or his family. In our society such a person would be called a hero.
Should one nation seek to protect a weaker nation from being destroyed? If so there would be an argument for the Korean War, the Vietnamese Conflict, Desert Storm, WW I and WWII?
John Stott writes: “No slick or easy answer either for or against war seems possible, although all Christians will surely agree that in its very nature war is brutalizing and horrible. . . . I would want to argue on the one hand that war cannot be absolutely repudiated on the basis of “Resist not evil” any more than police and prisons can, and on the other that war’s only possible justification (from a biblical viewpoint) would be as a kind of glorified police action.” (Stott, 111)
SO WHAT?
Retribution and revenge for evil is Biblical.
God has established governments as an authority to take revenge on the evil-doer.
Revenge and retribution is taken out of the hands of the individual.
Retribution on a country perpetrating evil on innocents is probably the only justification for any war.
V. CHRISTIANS ARE TO BE FREE FROM PERSONAL REVENGE.
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. . . . “Do not repay anyone evil for evil. . . . Do not take revenge, my friends . . . If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. . . . Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.” (Matthew 5:39; Romans 12:17-21)
“Do not take revenge on someone who wrongs you” (Mt. 5:39a, GNB)
QUESTION: Has anyone had an experience of seeking personal revenge? Do you know of anyone who has sought / is seeking personal revenge for a wrong done?
It seems that the Pharisees were taking the Lex Talionis out of the law courts and using it as a means of exacting personal revenge. They were saying “an eye for an eye” was a duty, that revenge was something the law required.
Perhaps they used phrases like: We need to even the score; give the other guy what he deserves; fair play; he’s getting what is coming to him; this is payback time.
It is interesting that even Socrates believed revenge was wrong. It is written of him that he said, “one ought not retaliate or rend evil for evil to anyone, whatever we may have suffered from him.”
In the Pentateuch where “eye for eye” is given, there is also Lev. 19:18 which says, “Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself.” So we have ‘an eye for an eye’, and ‘love your neighbor as yourself’ and ‘do not seek revenge.’
Proverbs 20:22 reinforces the fact that personal revenge was forbidden in the OT: Do not say, “I’ll pay you back for this wrong!” Wait for the LORD, and he will deliver you.” Proverbs 24:29: Do not say, “I’ll do to him as he has done to me; I’ll pay that man back for what he did.”
How can you love your neighbor as yourself and retaliate?
How can you reconcile retaliation and loving your neighbor?
How can you reconcile with your enemy if you are retaliating?
It might be argued that an ‘eye for an eye” should break the heart of the one who has been injured. If he loved his neighbor how could he be happy if his neighbor is punished?
QUESTION: What are some other verses in the Sermon on the Mount that make it impossible for a Christian to seek personal revenge?
“So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you …” (Mt. 7:12).
“Blessed are the merciful”
“Blessed are the peacemakers…” (Mt. 5:7, 9)
An “eye for an eye” keeps things even but it never helps heal relationships. Personal relationships are based on love, not justice.
The Christians responsibility is to love his neighbor and his enemies; the state is responsible for justice. The civil law orders legal relationships based on justice; the moral law orders personal relationships based on love.
The four cameos / illustrations show how far a Christian will go to avoid revenge – He is willing to sacrifice his body / honor, his clothing, his liberty and his money.
SO WHAT?
Christians are to be free from personal revenge.
We can not reconcile loving our neighbors as ourselves and practicing payback.
Relationships are never healed by retaliation.
We are to be the merciful, the peacemakers.
QUESTION / TABLE ACTIVITY: In light of what we have studied, how should the truck driver, if he were a Christian, have responded to the three motorcyclists who tormented him?
ILL Repeated from Lsn 33: 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.”
ANSWER: Why not leave the table, pay the cashier and give her $40 to purchase a meal for each of the motorcyclists. Then, when he leaves the truck stop, phone the police, report the harassment and ask them to go to the diner and reprimand the three men for their behavior that the waitress witnessed. He should make sure the police know that it was not the waitress that reported them but the truck driver.
John Stott suggests that if he caught a burglar he would need to corral him, call the police and offer him a sandwich while they were waiting.
SO WHAT???
1. Revenge is necessary and right but is the responsibility of the state and not the individual. God has appointed the state to exact revenge through the judicial system.
2. War in some unique situations where one country is defending the massacre of innocent civilians in another could be justified as a just war. Truly defensive wars can be justified as just wars.
3. Christians should take personal revenge. Instead they should make every effort to love their enemy or the person that has hurt or wounded them.