We have been looking at illustrations of Christian righteousness, especially as compared to the pseudo-righteousness of the Pharisees. And as you have probably noticed, several of these are highly controversial. They were in Jesus’ day, and they still are today. And the one for this evening is just like the others, if not actually more so. People either love these themes, or they hate them. Some of the problem is that they may or may understand them. And judging by the various comments by the experts, these are not easy for the best of men to grasp. And I don’t profess to be smarter or more spiritual than the experts.

When it comes to Christian righteousness, part of it is seen in non-retaliation and active love. These things are to be shown to people who are children of God. But perhaps even more, these are to be shown to those who are evil – those who are God’s enemies. You might say that nowhere is the challenge of this sermon any greater than here at this point. And nowhere is our need of the power of the Holy Spirit more necessary – both to understand and to implement what our Lord is telling us.

What is Non-retaliation?

It should never be considered as passivity.

It has been many years now, but I once sat in a court-room where a friend was being tried for operating a Christian school in his church. This was in Canada, and our children were students in that school. One aspect of his defense could be described as “Case Law.” His lawyer cited case after case which indicated the right of my friend to have and keep his school.

That is sort of what we find in the law of Old Testament. Moses reiterated and explainedGod’s moral law to the people of Israel. God has said, “Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee. Thou shalt not kill. Thou shalt not commit adultery. Thou shalt not steal. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s.” After those ten points, Moses issued a series of ordinances, applying the principles of Exodus 20. You could call them “cases” in the application of the original law.

It is in midst of these cases that we read Exodus 21:22-27 – “If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye’s sake. And if he smite out his manservant’s tooth, or his maidservant’s tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth’s sake.”

Something in the context of these examples needs to constantly remembered. These instructions are given to judges, not to individuals or vigilantes. Four times prior to verse 22, we have the word “judges,” “judges,” “judges.” And this sort of legal process is repeated throughout the law. For example in Deuteronomy 19:17-19 we read: “Both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before the LORD, before the priests and the judges, which shall be in those days; And the judges shall make diligent inquisition: and, behold, if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother; Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you.”

The business of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth is “lex talionis” – the principle of exact retribution. It did two things – it defined justice, and it restrained and limited personal revenge. It prohibited people from taking the law into his own hands and creating a family feud. Additional laws forbid defending one’s self, under certain situations, but at the same time it didn’t suggest that personal defense was always the right thing to do.

What the scribes and Pharisees had done over the years was to take this scripture out of the court room where the Lord had placed it. They had moved it into realm of personal responsibilities – not just making it a right but a responsibility. They justified taking personal revenge on one’s enemies. If he pokes you in the eye, poke him in eye – with a stick. “It is your right, it is your duty, it is the law,” they said. And that was in spite what Leviticus 19:18 tells us. “Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.” The Pharisees had completely reversed the meaning of “eye for an eye” and turned it into an opportunity for revenge.

What Christ Jesus did was not to overthrow the principle of justice, but to place it back into its proper room – the court room. Punishment and retribution for crime is the business of courts and honest governments. “He beareth not the sword in vain.” As difficult as it is to say – and even more difficult to practice – our responsibility under the law of Christian righteous is to act in love towards others – not necessarily in justice – and definitely not in a spirit of revenge.

Christ tells us not to resist evil acts against us.

Here is a point where we have to learn to put down our hearts. We have to forget that we are Americans and our definitions of justice and life in general. We have to put aside our worldly attitudes, even if we consider them to be the best of all worldly attitudes. “I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.”

What is this non-resistence? The Greek “anthistemi” (anth-is’-tay-mee) is relatively plain – “anti” – “against” – we are not to set ourselves against our attacker. We are not to oppose him or even necessarily to thwart him. But this is beginning to get really confusing. Clearly, we must not even try to resist GOD or his will “Who hath (successfully) resisted his will?” We are not to resist God’s truth “Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith. “Of (Alexander the coppersmith) be thou ware also; for he hath greatly withstood our words.” Sure we can understand this, because the Lord is righteous, wise and greater than we are. On the other had, we ARE commanded to resist the Devil. Ephesians 6:13 – “Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. James 4:7 – “Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.” I Peter 5:8-9 – “Be sober, be vigilant, because your adversary the Devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about seeking whom he may devour. Whom resist stedfast in the faith, knowing that the same afflictions are accomplished in your brethren that are in the world.”

How can we resist Satan and not resist evil in other forms? Let’s say that some drunken slob comes out of nowhere and smacks you across the face? Some people would react by striking back; some would cry; some out of shock would do nothing. Essentially, we are talking about someone whom we could hurt, if we counter-punched. He is the act of a mere man – an evil man – and even a lady could claw his eyes out in retaliation. But what power do we have against Satan? Obviously, we must not compromise with sin or with Satan. We can’t condone the doctrines of the Devil. We can resist in the sense of defend the truth in the face of his evil. But do we have the ability or means of retaliating? “Resist” here in Matthew 5 refers to taking revenge. The idea of taking revenge on Satan is ludicrous.

The Lord gives us four mini-illustrations to give us some practical example. First we have the slap on the cheek. Does this come from Satan? That is highly unlikely – this is from some sinful man. No one likes being slapped because it stings, it embarrasses, and it degrades. It is actually even worse than that is many cultures. Assuming that I was right handed and I slapped you – it would be on your left cheek. If you turned to me your right cheek, I could slap it with the back of my right hand. If you stop and think about it, that back-handed slap is more than a slap – it is an insult & a challenge.

If you will remember that is what the enemy did to the Saviour after they had their mock trial? “Some began to spit on him, and to cover his face, and to buffet him, and to say unto, Prophesy, and the servants did strike him with the palms of their hands.” Is Isaiah 50:6 prophesying of this: “I gave my back to the smiters, and my cheeks to them that plucked off the hair; I hid not my face from shame and spitting.” Christ Jesus lived exactly as He taught His disciples to live. He gave to them His cheeks – both sides of His face. By behaving in the same way as our Saviour, we participate with Him in His suffering and humiliation.

But was Christ Jesus just being a door-mat? No! He was enduring what was necessary for my salvation. Jesus didn’t strike back because He was completely free any animosity towards those people. He was better than they were; He was bigger than they were. He willingly gave his uttermost to those wretched people. Love marked the limits of His acceptance of this abuse. And this is the sort of people that the Lord wants us to be.

But doesn’t this mean that we’ll become spineless pacifists?

The truth is that not to retaliate or to “resist” often takes more strength than the opposite. Luther spoke of man who refused to bathe, and who let lice bite him because of this verse. That is just as dumb as the Pharisees – only it was pointed in the other direction.

Let us use Paul as an illustration. There once was day when Paul resisted Peter because of doctrinal & practical error – Galatians 2:11-16. “When Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.” Peter had been helping the Gentile converts until some Jews came into town from Jerusalem. When Peter knew that they were anti-Gentile, and that they wanted those heathen to become Jewish proselytes before they could become Christians, Peter pretended to agree with them. Paul rebuked, resisted and denounced what the Peter was doing. He did so out of love – love for the truth, love for those Gentiles and even for love for Peter.

Now let’s alter the picture just a little bit, and try to estimate Paul’s reaction. Let’s say that Peter had been warm and friendly to Paul for several months, encouraging him in his ministry. But then when those Judaisers arrived from Jerusalem, Peter turned his back on Paul and began to criticize some personal things in Paul – in his Gentile dress, his eating with them, his love toward them. I think that in that case, Paul’s reaction might have been different; He might have said nothing. That might have been a personal slap in the face to Paul. But in reality, what Peter actually did was to attack the doctrine of God’s saving grace, endangering the souls of the Gentile converts and their unsaved friends. Paul might have turned the other cheek for the one, but he could not for the other.

Let’s say you caught someone breaking into house – driven to break in because of hunger. It might well be your responsibility to feed him, while you call 911. As a Christian your responsibility is to love him, while as an American you may have other responsibilities. But the point is – it should not be out revenge that you call the police. And you certainly have no right to have someone hold him, while you cut off his thieving right hand. In fact, it might be that you shouldn’t call the police at all. Jesus not opposing the administration of justice – but He is condemning personal revenge.

The other illustrations which the Lord uses, point in the same direction. If someone sues you, and obviously he has a case, because the judge decides against you, then give him even more than he demands – he not only wants it, but perhaps he needs it. If someone needs your service, serve even more than his need. “And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.” Don’t look for a way out, find a way to go beyond. Perhaps your kindness can be used eventually to lead him to Christ. If someone needs your property, loan it out, as best you able.

And the ultimate point would have to be – Let your righteousness exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees. “Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven.”