Sermon Tone Analysis

We are continuing in the Sermon on the mount, and in Jesus’ examples of what True, heart righteousness looks like.

From murder, to adultery, to divorce, to truth-telling, Jesus has over and over again revealed that we cannot think we are righteous simply because we skate by according to the letter of the law.

He has also been repudiating the common misinterpretations of the laws that He addresses along the way.

Warning: this is one of those Long introduction kind of messages.

The example that we come to today begins with a common principle that has become known in history as Lex Talionis, that is, the law of retribution.

Some form of the law of retribution, or “punishment fitting the crime” has been part of many societies throughout history.

We first read the “eye for an eye” principle in the Hammurabi Code, which was written around 1800 years before Christ.

The principle existed in Babylonian culture as well - where equal retribution was to guard against abusive or sever revenge.

By the time it came into Roman culture, “eye for an eye” was interpreted more loosely to include monetary payments for physical or material harm done.

By Jesus day, In the Jewish Mishnah, there were certain prescriptions similar to the Roman concept of monetary payments that should be made for harming someone else.

For instance, on example states, “He who boxes the ear of his fellow pays him a sela” or two shekels.

“if he smacks him, two hundred zuz or denarai.”

These were all cultural interpretations of the original version of “an eye for an eye.”

Because of Jesus’ words here in Matthew 5, many people repudiate the concept of “an eye for an eye” in any way, shape, or form.

But again, Jesus was not repudiating the law, and this concept was clearly in the Law of Moses.

And although it was written in the Hammurabi code before the Law of Moses, the fact that it exists in the Old Testament indicates that it existed in the economy of God’s order before Hammurabi wrote it down.

In order to understand Jesus’ explanation, we need to understand the Mosaic use of this principle.

It is found in three different places, in Exodus, Leviticus, and deuteronomy.

Here, the “eye for an eye” principle is seen in the case of a physical altercation between men that affects the wellbeing of a pregnant woman.

There is a judgment of a fine imposed if there is no physical harm to the baby, that fine is determined by a judge.

If there is harm, the repayment should be “life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, etc...”

So we see this principle here, in a judicial context, to enact a worthy punitive measure for a crime of physical nature.

Here, the principal puts the onus on the guilty party to make their wrong right by an “eye for eye” type repayment.

This is in the context of society, and again stresses the importance of a measure that fits the crime.

Here, in another example of eye-for-eye retribution, we find an example that really qualifies all three of the examples.

All of these societal, punitive actions must be on the basis of multiple witnesses, and they are always in judicial context.

In fact, the severity of punishment against a false witness only strengthens the idea that this kind of punishment and judgment is only to be undertaken in the context of a legitimate, legal proceeding.

There was no room for these principles to be put forth in personal disputes in Israel’s society.

By God’s standard, every accusation and repayment had to be well-established an ordered.

So, “an eye for an eye” in God’s law was legitimate, and protective in two ways.

It protected the victim by prescribing an appropriate legal punishment for the perpetrator, and it also protected perpetrators of minor crimes from receiving undue punishments from an overreacting victim.

Why, then, does Jesus address this principle here?

Well, “lex talionis,” or retributive action, always becomes more than a judicial action in human society.

We always tend toward personal retribution, personal repayment.

We are eager to stand up for our personal property, personal belongings, personal space, and personal rights.

This is especially true in our culture.

Now, it is true and legitimate that our founding documents in America grant us these freedoms, and there is nothing evil in that - it is good insofar as it is not placed as a priority so high that it promotes individualistic selfish responses, and repudiates the love of neighbor that is at the heart of God’s law.

Jesus is not repudiating the Old Testament law, or the legitimate use of “an eye for an eye.”

He is not negating the original intent of the principal, nor is He calling for political pacifism, nor is He teaching the abolishment of judicial sentencing.

There are two legitimate uses of the “eye for an eye” principal that we see in scripture.

Firstly, we see God’s Ultimate revenge.

And secondly, we see the Government’s Just Dealings

So the government still bears the sword as God’s agent for good, and our government is no more or less corrupt than the Roman government in Paul’s day.

And ultimately, God as the righteous Judge will enact due justice on all evildoers - so we are called to not avenge.

Jesus, then, is speaking in this passage of our personal attitude in the case of disputes, punishment, conscription, and requests for help.

He is pointing us away from being hyper-focused our personal rights, and pointing us to the righteous act of dealing graciously and with mercy.

We see several of the beatitudes played out here, namely, Meekness, Mercy, and Peacemaking.

Christ’s true righteousness compels us to take an open-handed approach to life while trusting the One who judges justly.

1. Retaliation - Revenge is the Lord’s - Vs. 39

We are all incredibly familiar with the principle here - usually shortened to the phrase, “Turn the other cheek.”

This is one of the timeless sayings of Jesus, (although I suppose they are all timeless) - the classics.

Many have taken this statement to build ethical principles and to take a stand against wars, and disputes on an international or national level.

That is part of a bigger conversation, but I don’t think Jesus is addressing those issues in this passage.

As we have already noted, there is a distinct purpose in the government “bearing the sword” as part of God’s ordination of that institution, and it is not in vain so long as it suppresses evil and promotes good.

We must view Jesus’ words here as they were intended.

Jesus wasn’t addressing the congress of the united states or the parliament of England or the Cabinet of North Korea.

He was addressing individuals, addressing the individual desire for retaliation, retribution, revenge.

“Turn the other cheek” is certainly a principle that is easier said than done.

We have been calling Jesus’ teachings “radical” in this section - and they certainly were and are radical compared to the common understanding of these principles, but Jesus didn’t introduce new teaching here - he simply reinforced the heart of God in all of scriptures.

The principle of “an eye for an eye” as we have seen it in the Old Testament was and is a good and right principle in the context of a public, legitimate legal proceeding to protect both parties and allow justice to be served - but it is never a personal principle.

That is what Jesus is teaching here, and that is what was taught in the Old Testament as well, like in those proverbs we just read.

Jesus says “don’t resist the one who is evil.”

That is, don’t resist in a hostile way, don’t oppose them in the way that they have injured you.

Don’t be known as a fighter, a brawler, as explosive or reactive or retributive.

Whenever “an eye for an eye” crosses from public, due process justice into the personal sphere, we have crossed over the lines that God has drawn in His wisdom.

Now, what does “an eye for an eye” look like in a personal, non-legal context?

If you were part of our “anger” study a few weeks back at Collide, you will remember that we saw that one of the clear marks distinguishing righteous anger and sinful anger is the mark of retribution.

Personal retribution is simply not commended in scripture, and in fact its spoken against quite regularly.

As soon as we say, “I am hurt, so I will hurt” we have crossed that line.

As soon as we say, “I was mistreated, so I will mistreat” we have taken matters into our own hands.

As soon as we say, “I just want to get even” then we have missed the mark of God’s ethical righteousness in this regard.

Now, revenge and retribution are not always played out in physical violence.

There are cases where one person commits adultery in marriage, and the other person in their pain and betrayal goes out and does the same to “get even.”

This is the “eye for an eye” principle applied in an unrighteous way.

There are disputes and disagreements in relationship, where one person might just totally shut down for a number of days and refuse to communicate - this is often a wall of protection, but it is also a kind of “eye for an eye” retribution.

There are cases where a discussion turns to a disagreement which turns to an argument, and one person might belittle and criticize the other person’s character because they feel they are being disrespected because of the disagreement - this is totally psychological, but it is “eye for an eye” retribution applied in an unrighteous way.

There are cases where, driving down the road, you being tailgated by a person, and when they finally pass you, you speed up so they can’t get by, or tailgate them when they are ahead of you - that is road rage, and it is a form of “eye for an eye” retribution.

We could go on and on, but do you see how we all struggle with this in one way or another?

Its not normally the big things like physical attack or harm that we are wanting to avenge, it is usually the small things.

But small instances of personal revenge reveal a bigger problem.

Now, those are negative examples - but what about a big, positive example?

Do you see that phrase in the middle?

“he continued trusting himself to him who judges justly.”

Jesus calls his followers to not avenge themselves, because He was the kind of righteous man that did not avenge himself.

Why did Jesus say the meek are blessed?

Because He Himself is meek.

Righteous Meekness in this area is not a “lay down and die” meekness, it is a “trust yourself to the one who judges justly” meekness.

Whenever we are in a dispute, or a disagreement, or feel hurt, or betrayed, or wronged - and it is ok to feel those emotions.

It is ok to cry out to God in those emotions, they may be very valid and represent the situation well - but as soon as we turn to “an eye for an eye” attitude, we have missed the likeness of Christ that we are all being formed into as the body of Christ.

Now, that takes a lot of faith - faith to not act out.

Faith to not have a mental breakdown.

Faith to not curse someone under your breath.

Faith to take the next step forward in life even though you can’t get over the pain.

It takes an immense amount of faith, but it is not just blind faith - it is faith in the faithful and just God.

He will avenge all evil in His way, in His time.

We can even recognize that in our prayer - “Lord, You know how betrayed or hurt I am feeling - and I know you are a God of justice - so please take the burden of vengeance from my heart, and give me instead the burden of love and trust.”

As we go through the rest of the examples, we see that it all comes down to this same principle - faith in the Lord who deals justly.

Faith in the Lord who provides.

faith in the Lord who ordains all things.

2. Belongings - The Earth is the Lord’s - Vs. 40