← Back to sermon library

 Matthew chapter 5, this is part 2 of last time we gathered, we looked at Exodus chapter 22, specifically verses 2 and 3, which legitimizes the doctrine of self-defense. Somebody breaks into your house at night and you kill that person in that exchange, then you are not culpable or responsible in terms of any retribution or any sanction from the criminal court. If, however, it's daylight, then you could be guilty of murder or of at least homicide that is unjustified. Now, when it comes to the infliction of violence on the part of one person against another, there are those who think that it's never authorized for a Christian to do that. And I think it's important for us to make sure we don't see or we don't live in this thought or idea that there's contradiction in the Bible. So typically it's Matthew 5 and Jesus teaching in the Sermon on the Mount in verses 38 to 42, which would give persons cause to reject or resist the interpretation of Exodus 22, 2 and 3, which legitimizes the use of force in terms of a robbery situation. Incidentally, this particular text would be utilized to prevent any Christian or to say that Christians are prohibited from engaging in war or military service. They couldn't function as a civil magistrate if it was about inflicting the death penalty. So it's a powerful passage that I think is misunderstood and hopefully we'll have a better understanding after tonight. So I want to read Exodus 5, 38 to 42. You have heard that it was said, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also. And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him too. Give to him who asks you and from him who wants to borrow from you, do not turn away. Now, as I said, this is the Sermon on the Mount. So Matthew chapters 5 to 7, Jesus goes, he sits on the Mount. and there he teaches, not just his disciples, but the multitudes who drew near to here. Now, the general principles concerning Christ and the law are what are given, or what is given here in chapter 5 specifically. We notice Jesus' relationship to the Old Testament in verse 17. Do not think that I came to destroy the law or the prophets. I did not come to destroy, but to fulfill. So he's not at odds with what was written in the law and the prophets. He says he's come to fulfill, as Spurgeon explains, this can also mean to confirm. He doesn't invalidate the moral law of God. He doesn't eradicate the moral law of God. He everywhere upholds that moral law of God. And then we see the abiding validity of that law indicated in verse 18. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. He then warns specifically against antinomianism in verse 19 and then legalism in verse 20. And on the heels of that, he engages in specific illustrations of that Old Testament law. He refers to murder in verses 21 to 26, adultery in verses 27 to 30, divorce in verses 31 to 32, oaths in 33 to 37. Here in our section, retaliation in 38 to 42. And then he highlights love to enemies in 43 to 47. And then he has a conclusion, at least in this section at verse 48. Therefore you shall be perfect just as your father in heaven is perfect. So he's teaching ethics concerning the kingdom of God. What's it look like for individuals who live in this kingdom? So I want to look at our section tonight under two considerations. First, there is a contrast stated in verses 38 and 39a. And then there are illustrations given in verses 39b to 42. So you've got this contrast and then we have illustrations. Notice the contrast. Verse 38, you have heard that it was said. And then verse 39, but I tell you not to resist an evil person. I think I'm sure I've shared with you before the contrast that you find here in these antitheses are not Jesus versus Moses, but it's typically Jesus versus Pharisaic misinterpretation. The Pharisees, representative of a whole lot of religious externalists and formalists that had populated Israel up until the first century, thought that as long as you didn't violate the actual act of ending somebody's life, you weren't guilty of violating the sixth commandment. Jesus says, no, it's not just that, but the law penetrates deeper than that. If you have unwarranted hatred or you have engaged in character assassination, That is a violation of the sixth commandment. So the contrast isn't Jesus versus Moses. It's Jesus versus bad interpretation or bad hermeneutics. The adultery command. If you, you know, again, this externalist, this formalist mindset that as long as I haven't gone into my neighbor's wife, then I'm okay. I haven't violated the law. That's why he says. But if you look upon a woman to lust, you have broken the commandment in your heart. The same sort of contrast is seen here. But instead of being Jesus against the Pharisees and misinterpretation, he is talking about what obtains in the personal day-to-day realm versus what obtains in the criminal courts. So let's look at this contrast. Verse 38, you have heard that it was said, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. The lex talionis, this law of retribution or retaliation. We've already seen it in Exodus chapter 21. We will see it again littered throughout the Old Testament. You see it in Leviticus 24 and 20, verse 20. And then again in Deuteronomy 19 and verse 21. The law of retaliation. And the principle is applied ultimately to matters of jurisprudence. In the criminal courts, the punishment must fit the crime. Remember, we saw that last time we considered a couple times ago when we considered that lex talionis. There probably wasn't goon squads in Israel that went and chopped, gouged out eyes and broke out teeth. It was simply a principle of retribution that the punishment must fit the crime. The punishment must not be too lenient because that would not reform criminal offenders. That would not punish duly those who stood in need of that sanction. But the punishment must not be too severe either. If someone has engaged in a minor offense, they don't deserve to die for that minor offense. So the lex talionis simply teaches that the punishment must fit the crime. So the law required that a person must be punished sufficiently for criminal activity. If you don't punish criminals sufficiently, then it demoralizes the entirety of the body politic. I think that's something we're experiencing in our own day and age. But as well, it also affords protection to criminals against over-punishment. Van Drunen says, far from promoting unbridled vengeance, the lax talionis prohibits excessive retaliation. I'm sure we looked at Deuteronomy 25, when there's that law given in terms of the criminal offender who is going to be corporally punished. There was the infliction of stripes. It wasn't to exceed 40. There was supposed to be restraint. It couldn't be the case that he gets 80 lashes for his particular crime. So when we have this law of retaliation, it makes sure we don't under punish, but it also makes sure that we don't over punish. But the specific application of this is in the criminal courts. Remember, we're looking at the law code or the application of the general principles of the Ten Commandments, And we see that that's referred to as the civil or the judicial application of God's law. So when we're moving our way through Exodus, that's the specific focus. What does the court say when it comes to these particular issues? Now, notice verse 38. You have heard that it was said, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. But I tell you not to resist an evil person. You see the problem if we don't understand what we're dealing with. There is this contrast now set up between the law of retaliation and what Jesus endorses in terms of his people. So if we don't understand this particular passage, we're going to have to live with a contradiction. We're going to have to live with some sort of a strange approach wherein Jesus was fine mandating the lax talionis for the body politic in Old Covenant Israel. But going forward in terms of the New Covenant Church, we just live and let live and let whatever happens happen. There is a principle here that we need to understand. As I've already hinted at, what we have in verse 38 has to deal with criminal jurisprudence, the civil application of God's law. Verse 39, I tell you not to resist an evil person. Does this mean without qualification? We're never, ever supposed to resist an evil person? If that evil person wants to poke our eye out, are we supposed to just let it stand there so that he can get at it? Is this a universal condemnation against ever resisting an evil person? When it comes to this particular section, the illustrations that Jesus uses indicates that he is not dealing with criminal courts. He's not dealing with the body politic. He's not dealing with what should be heard and what should be sanctioned by a particular judge. He is dealing with interpersonal day-in, day-out relationships. And when we look at the larger context even, you look at his treatment of murder in verses 21 to 26. He's not dealing with the crime of murder, the actual cessation of a human life by another person. He's dealing with the sin of murder. If you have unwarranted anger in your heart or you assassinate your brother's character, this is a violation or transgression of the sixth commandment. Same with adultery. He is not dealing with you actually going into your brother wife That is a criminal activity and falls subject to everything that had been written in the law that he has said he didn come to destroy but rather to fulfill When he deals with adultery, for instance, he's indicating the disposition of the heart and not criminal activity that is a public evil. So the contrast that Jesus provides here is between an application of the law in the criminal courts and our personal daily day in and day out ethics. The rest of the Bible does not indicate that we are to never or that we're always to never to resist an evil person. That would fly roughshod over Exodus 22, 22 and three. The idea being then you come downstairs, you're rubbing out the sleep from your eyes and somebody says, I'm here to kill you and I'm here to rob from you and I'm here to rape your women. Well, go right ahead because Jesus says we're not supposed to resist an evil person. That is a horrific application and an absolute inconsistency on how to deal with the biblical data. So Exodus 22, 2 and 3, Proverbs 24 mandates that we try to defend those who are weak and subject to problems, subject to suffering or a death. So the Bible is pro self-defense. So whatever Jesus is speaking to here, he is not contradicting previous revelation, revelation that he himself assumes in Luke's gospel, and revelation that continues on through the New Testament. We do not have contradiction taught by our Lord Jesus. So the specific issue was the application of a civil law to personal relationships. That's what Jesus is contrasting. So you have heard that it was said, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, but I tell you not to resist an evil person. Again, if your wife or your daughter or your friend got, you know, brutalized by someone else, Jesus does not mean you cannot phone the police. You can't see it through to the criminal courts and you can't stand and testify against that animal who did that brutality against your loved one. That's not what he's talking about. The practice of using the lex talionis for everyday interpersonal relationships had been commonplace among the persons that he is counteracting. The Lord Jesus tells his disciples that they are not to exact the demands of the lex talionis for everyday life. There are personal injuries that we sustain. There are insults that we have to bear up under. There are challenges to us when we live in this present evil age. Not everything is a criminal offense. Not everything is a situation that promotes or should cause you to call the police, to report your neighbor, and to ultimately turn him over to the civil courts. Spurgeon made the observation, when the Lex Talionis came to be the rule of daily life, it fostered revenge, and our Savior would not tolerate it as a principle carried out by individuals. So the contrast is criminal court and your day-in and day-out ethics. Now, if something in your day-in and day-out ethics, again, you undergo a strong-arm robbery, Jesus is not against you reporting that person to the police. And again, seeing it through to the criminal courts. He says good law in court may be very bad custom in common society. And again, the illustrations that he gives as we move through those, I hope you'll see that this is the proper interpretation. John Murray says the lex talionis was part of the order of public justice and not private revenge. So the eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth. Somebody cuts me off on the way to church. Does that mean I race ahead of them and I cut them off? There's my infliction of the lax talionis. You cut me off, I cut you off. Somebody cuts in front of me at the store. Do I, you know, nestle my way in and cut in front? That's not the way we're supposed to function or the way that we're supposed to live. Greg Bonson says the Pharisees were wont to appeal to the Old Testament principle of equitable punishment in civil court to justify personal revenge and vindictiveness. Christ is speaking to the situation of interpersonal relations and prohibited the exacting of due punishment for wrong suffer. Everybody get that contrast between criminal court and what happens to me at Walmart? Not everything that happens to me at Walmart needs to go to a criminal court. I need to have a thick skin. I need to be able to function. I need to be able to be insulted. I need to be able to be dealt with in such a way that I'm not a delicate little snowflake that is so happy over everything that obtains. Now, in terms of the application or some illustrations before we look at Jesus' illustrations, turn to John's gospel in John 18. John chapter 18, specifically at verses 22 and 23. John 18 at verse 22. And when he had said these things, one of the officers who stood by struck Jesus with the palm of his hand saying, do you answer the high priest like that? Jesus answered him. If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil, but if well, why do you strike me? He doesn't turn the other cheek in this particular instance, nor does the apostle Paul in the book of Acts. You can turn to Acts chapter 23. Acts chapter 23. Specifically at verse 1, then Paul, looking earnestly at the council, said, Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day. And the high priest Ananias commanded those who stood by him to strike him on the mouth. Then Paul said to him, God will strike you, you whitewashed wall, for you sit to judge me according to the law. And do you command me to be struck contrary to the law? He's not resisting. He's resisting an evil person. He's not turning the other cheek. This is an actual sort of criminal court situation. and what he is facing is not the same scenario that Jesus is speaking to. When he says in verse 4, those who stood by said, do you revile God's high priest? Then Paul said, I did not know, brethren, that he was the high priest, for it is written, you shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people. I think what he's saying is, I did not know, brethren, because he was not acting like the high priest. And then when Paul gets wind that there's going to be this, or that there's this conspiracy to have him murdered, What does he do? He invokes the Roman military in terms of protection. So again, when we look at what Jesus says, I tell you not to resist an evil person. Jesus didn't turn the other cheek. Neither did the apostle Paul. And when Paul saw injustice inflicted upon him by the high priest, he rebuked him for it. And when Paul was possibly subject to a criminal conspiracy to murder, or what he was subject to that, He let that be known and he was afforded a guard, a guard of trained and highly capable men to protect him in his movements. So as we go back to this particular section, Christ is not dealing with, you know, the sorts of things that we're looking at in Exodus chapters 21 to 23. Actually, before you go back there, turn to Romans chapter 12. Mentioned before, this is the parallel passage to Jesus' statement. Romans chapter 12, specifically verses 17 to 21. And this treats the believer's personal response to wrong suffered. The believer's personal response to wrong suffered. Notice in verse 17, repay no one evil for evil, have regard for good things in the sight of all men. If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men. Beloved, Do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath for it is written. Vengeance is mine. I will repay, says the Lord. Therefore, if your enemy is hungry, feed him. If he is thirsty, give him a drink. For in so doing, you will heap coals of fire on his head. Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. So the principle, again, is pretty obvious there. It is the believer's response to wrong suffered. Now notice in 13, 1 to 4. Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore, whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God. And those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same. For he is God's minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is God's minister and avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. So in 12, 17 to 21, the believer's personal response to wrong suffered. Here in Romans 13, 1 to 4, the magistrate's execution of wrath on criminal offenders. But you should appreciate the connection between those two sections. Notice there's no adversative. There's no sort of statement in 13, 1 that says, okay, brand new topic, brand new subject. They are interrelated. You're not to be a vindictive, petty sort of a person that's always trying to exact a pound of flesh. But if somebody engages in criminal activity against you, you have redress provided by God vis-a-vis the civil government. They have been given the sword and the prerogative by God to execute criminal offenders. So notice the specific emphasis in verse 18 of chapter 12. If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men. Well, there might be times it doesn't depend on you. You try to be a peacemaker. You try to be a friend. You try to be, you know, an encourager. And your neighbor or this criminal keeps abusing you. You're not supposed to take matters into your own hands. But notice verse 19. Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath. Notice he does not say wrath is bad. He says it's wrong for you to be the executor of wrath, but rather vengeance is Yahweh's and he will repay. That's a very common, very famous verse. So beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath. For it is written vengeance is mine I will repay says the Lord And then lo and behold we have an agent of vengeance in 13 1 to 4 Notice the connection at verse 4 in chapter 13 For he is God's minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid. For he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is God's minister, notice, an avenger to do what? To execute wrath on him who practices evil. So the 1219 wrath, obviously most believers would take it and put it in the eschaton. Oh, if somebody has criminalized me or they have offended me, they're going to suffer for it when kingdom come. Yeah, for sure. But there's also temporal redress. God has given the sword to the civil government to punish rapists, to punish pedophiles, to punish murderers. And what Jesus teaches in Matthew 5, 38 to 42 does not invalidate that. And as well, a Christian can function as that minister of God's wrath, executing vengeance on criminal offenders. The Anabaptists were notorious that Christians could not participate in civil life. It was bad. It was evil. Brethren, if you understand the Bible, you could actually function in the job of executor under God and engage in holy service to your Lord. Now, I realize most of us don't think of it that way. I've often thought it'd be a great job. You hardly ever work, especially, you know, in modern political regimes today. You do it maybe once if you're in, you know, one of the states in America, you know, once every few years or so. The point is, is that this is a vital aspect of civil society, jurisprudence and the punishment of criminal offenders. God not only does not say, oh, thou must never be the guy who flips the switch on the electric chair or who injects the lethal injection or who takes part in the firing squad. That's a legitimate calling under God most high. Again, most of us aren't going to bring up our children to do that particular job, but we cannot be Anabaptists at the point of it is wrong for us to engage in what God himself has sanctioned. So going back to the passage in Romans, and Turretin is right, blameless protection is not prohibited in Romans 12, 19, but private revenge. That's what's happening in the passage in Matthew 5, 38 to 42. Now let's look at the illustrations. So the contrast, 38 and 39, you have heard that it was said, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. That's jurisprudence. That's the body politic. That's the infliction of the law of retaliation and retribution on criminal offenders in civil society. But I tell you not to resist an evil person. In your personal ethics, do not adopt the lex talionis. In your personal ethics, don't gouge people's eyes out who happen to bump you. Don't, you know, break out their tooth because they bumped into you and you fell down and your tooth broke out. So when he gives these particular illustrations, The first, he says, is the believer's response to insult. Look at 39b. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. Whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. Now, the fact that you are slapped on your right cheek in a predominantly right-handed environment, it's probably more the case that it was an insult versus a criminal assault, right? If I'm going to slap you, I don't want to pick on anybody because I don't want to slap that, but if I was going to slap you with my right hand on your right cheek, that would necessitate a backhand. Typically, criminals don't backhand their subjects or their victims. When they come to deal with a victim, they use the fist and they use what is most efficacious to render the most injury. So more than likely, whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. France makes the good observation, this is more a matter of honor than of physical injury. So we're not dealing with a criminal assault here. The resisting of an evil person does not mean that if somebody has come to criminally assault you, just give him both cheeks, give him both eyes, give him whatever he wants so he can do whatever it is he wants to you. No, it's probably rather insult. The Lord Jesus is not advocating giving way to violent criminals or not responding to your country's call for military service in the event of war. To push this text to the great lengths that it has been pushed to, if we took it to its logical conclusion. We shouldn't have locks on our doors. We shouldn't have watchdogs. We shouldn't have any sort of physical protection whatsoever. We should just say, hey, I'm not going to resist an evil person. Whatever you want is, you know, whatever's mine is yours. That's not what this text is teaching. The Christian who lives the way he should in this world ought to expect a certain degree of insult. He might even get a little injured from time to time, but he is not supposed to invoke the law of retaliation at every insult or every particular injury that may come his way. Now notice, secondly, the believer's response concerning his rights in verse 40. If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also. Again, if we understand this the way that the pacifist understands it, it teaches way too much. It opens the door to some horrendous implications. Again, wherein we own nothing. Anybody and everybody can take whatever it is that we have. Brethren, the eighth commandment abides. There is a right in the scripture, and I know that the socialists and the commies don't like this, but there is a right to private property that the Bible endorses. The Bible sanctions that. We must have private property in order to live, in order to feed our families, in order to function in this lower world. So in this particular instance, if anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let them have your cloak also. Again, in our personal relationships, in our day-to-day ethics, the point is don't be sue-happy. Don't be a vengeful person. Don't be the kind of person that's always out looking for themselves. The lesson, John Murray says, is surely not that we are to avoid all appeal to public justice as administered by magisterial authority. I was mugged on my way to the ATM machine, and they broke my arms, they broke my ribs, they dotted my eyes, they took my card, they emptied my account. So what are you going to do tomorrow? Well, I'm going to hobble back, and I'm going to meet him there, and I'm going to let him empty out my account again. That's not what Jesus is talking about. You see, the principle of interpretation that produces the contradictory sort of Exodus 22, 2 and 3, legitimizing the self-defense, if you put that against this and say that Jesus is doing away with that, you've got lots of problems in terms of how you're going to function. So he goes on to say, But in line with what we have found in verses 25 and 26, our Lord is inculcating the virtue of forbearance, even with reference to those who do us injustice and the necessity of resigning ourselves to privations, which spring from the miscarriage of justice. Again, this is a sin-cursed world. Sometimes we're going to be injured. Sometimes we're going to be insulted. Sometimes we're going to be taken advantage of. Now, if it is a big injury, if it is a big taking advantage of, if it is a criminal activity that is perpetrated against us, that falls under the realm of a Romans 13 redress to civil authority for that right to be or that wrong to be righted. As well, Spurgeon comments here, the Lord our King would have us bear and forbear and conquer by mighty patience. Now, going through this, I'm not suggesting this is easy. So just so you get that, right? I'm just trying to make sure we don't have any thoughts that this is contradictory or that somehow Jesus is invalidating Old Testament law or that somehow the principle of self-defense and defense of others is unbiblical or not endorsed by Scripture. Now, in terms of the kinds of attitudes that are inculcated, that he wants to inculcate here, this is tough. I mean, I tell you not to resist an evil person. I want to resist all of them. Whoever slaps me, I want to slap them back. So again, I'm not telling you that this is necessarily easy, but here's what he's getting at. Notice for the next one, the believer's response to governing authority. Verse 41. Now, governing authority might not be the best sort of way to describe this. Don't know how else. But the specific practice in view was the Roman soldier. So verse 41, whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him too. The example refers to the Roman practice of commandeering civilians to carry their equipment. I mean, when you're in the military, you got a lot of equipment. You get, at least in the Air Force, where I was, they had, it was called a kit bag. And it was a massive bag, had a flak vest, had a helmet. That thing was pretty heavy to schlep around. We'd have to schlep it from, you know, the armory out to the vehicle. These guys had to schlep it wherever they went. So what would they do? They find some hapless soul wandering on the street and say, hey, I want you to carry my kit bag. I want you to, you know, take it the mile that is authorized under the law. So carrying the luggage or the bag of a military personnel, a prescribed distance, one Roman mile. That's Carson. Osborne points out that Roman soldiers had the right to conscript civilians to carry burdens for them. But the practice was despised by the Jewish people. As you might imagine, right? You are subject to these Romans. You're just minding your own business. And one of these Roman soldiers says, hey, kid, I want you to pick up my bag and carry it for a mile. There's an example of this in Matthew 27 at verse 32. Now, as they came out, they found a man of Cyrene, Simon by name, him they compelled to bear Jesus' cross. So this was something in play So notice what Jesus says in verse 41 whoever compels you to go one mile go with him too Again he not dealing with criminal offense The soldier didn you know beat you up and break your ribs and jeopardize your life. He didn't do that. He's simply saying that when you're pressed by difficult circumstances, instead of whining and snibbling and complaining, double it. Instead of going the one mile, go two miles. I actually think what Jesus is teaching here is far more difficult to apply than the pacifistic reading of this particular text. It is a telling of the Christians as individuals, how they're supposed to function in civil society in a manner that is consistent with the entirety of God's word. And then the believer's response to benevolence in verse 42. Give to him who asks you and from him who wants to borrow from you, do not turn away. Again, is this a universal principle? No. What does Paul say to the church at Thessalonica? If a man doesn't work, neither shall he eat. But Paul, Jesus said in chapter 5, verse 42, if they ask you, give it, don't turn away from him. No, that's a different scenario. You've got a deadbeat that won't go out and work, and yet he wants to mooch off the church's food. He wants to go to the fellowship lunch without contributing. Now, that doesn't mean if on Sunday night you forget your dish, you know, go home, you dirty, rotten criminal. No, that's not what it means at all. But Paul is dealing with an eschatology-driven people in Thessalonica. They think Jesus is going to come at any time. What are you going to do if you think Jesus is going to come any time? Well, I'm going to quit my job. I'm going to sit on my roof and I'm going to watch the clouds until Jesus returns. You know what Paul says? Get off your roof and go get a job. And if you don't get a job, we're not going to let you eat because that's a deadbeat mentality. So whatever Jesus means in verse 42, he cannot mean subsidize evil, right? You probably heard it before when the homeless ask you for money. It's probably a better thing to give them food, to give them socks, to give them, you know, baby wipes, to give them, you know, personal hygiene items, to give them things that are tangible that they can't take down to the liquor store, the weed store and buy things that you wouldn't want them to with your money. Right. There is that principle. But give to him who asks you and from him who wants to borrow from you, do not turn away. What's the principle? It is benevolence. And this jives with what we have in the Old Testament throughout. You have the attitude and joined on the people of God in the Old Testament. Interest-free loans, Exodus 22, Leviticus 25, Deuteronomy 23. But then as well, just a generous spirit inculcated all throughout the Old Testament. So Christ is consistent with the Old Testament. He's not bringing contradiction to bear. He's not uprooting what we saw in Exodus 22, 2 and 3. He's simply saying that we're not talking about the criminal courts in this instance. We're talking about your day in and day out ethics. Don't be that person that can't deal with a little insult or a little injury even in a fallen world. Don't be that person that is so about, well, I'm only going to go the one mile and not a penny more. No, go with them two mile in terms of the authority with reference to your rights. If they want to sue you, just give them what they're after. The idea is that we need to be the people of God that bear and forbear in the various situations that we find ourselves in. Now, in conclusion, in terms of the limitations of this text, this text is not a universal rule to never oppose wickedness personally. It's just not. When he says, I tell you not to resist an evil person, you have to appreciate that that's in a context, just like the sixth commandment. It's not the actual act of murder. He's not suggesting that it's okay to engage in heart murder. But if it was an actual act of murder, what do you think the rule is? Well, it's execution. It's capital punishment. Same with adultery. He's dealing with our personal ethics on a day-to-day basis. We're not to be formalists and externalists, but we're to have the heart in religion. So not a universal rule to never oppose wickedness personally. It's not a universal rule to never oppose wickedness in the church. Right? When you get to Matthew chapter 18, if your brother sins against you, let him keep sitting because you're not supposed to resist an evil person. Do you see what bad hermeneutics produces? It produces a whole host of contradictions. You can make the Bible, if the Bible doesn't say something specifically, you can try to make it say anything. It's like a wax nose. It's malleable. It's something you can form and configure to serve whatever needs that you have. No, it is not a universal rule. Plus, a man can be as much a Christian as those who don't engage. Now, it might not be your forte to inflict violence on another human being. But if it's authorized by God, then it's legit to inflict violence on another human being. Just like with homicide. It's wrong to murder. It's wrong to engage in negligent homicide. But it's not wrong to capitally punish criminal offenders. It's not wrong to go to war if your country needs you to. And it's certainly not wrong to defend yourself from a criminal invader. As well, we see the consistency of Scripture. The biblical case for self-defense is clear. Therefore, we cannot ever begin to imagine that Jesus, who has just espoused his confirmation of the Old Testament, is going to invalidate the Old Testament. That's just not what happens in Matthew 5. Again, the contrasts aren't, you know, me versus Moses, but it's me versus bad interpretation, me being Jesus in that particular instance. And then in terms of the role of the state, this passage has nothing to do with the state. Has nothing to do... Now, obviously, if somebody keeps beating you and keeps criminalizing you and all that, then, of course, the state needs to be in play. But it's consistent with that Romans 12, 17 to 21. When we come to matters of criminal justice and civil jurisprudence, Romans 13, 1 to 4. Martin Lloyd-Jones in discussing man's relation to the state and even whether a young man ought to join the military. Brethren, these are questions that have parentally affected the people of God. Now, whether it is legit to join today's military, that's probably a big, big question. If you ever have, you know, any thought, my thoughts on that, I'd give you some thoughts on that. But in terms of the general principle, is it legitimate for a human being for them to join the military service? So in discussing man's relation to the state and even whether a young man ought to join the military, Lloyd-Jones says that we must seek our answers from Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2. Notice, he doesn't say, Matthew 5, you're not supposed to resist an evil person. Imagine that ethic on the battlefield. You'd be, you know, toast. You'd be Swiss cheese. Well, I'm not supposed to resist evil person. Your own guys are going to probably dispatch you. He says of Matthew 5, 38 to 42 specifically, this is only concerned about my personal relationships. And yet, how often? When a man's duty towards the state is being considered, this passage is quoted. I suggest it has nothing whatsoever to do with that. He's right. It has nothing whatsoever to do with that. So this idea of pacifism legitimized by a bad interpretation of Matthew 5, 38 to 42 is not something a serious Christian ought to hold on to. The Bible is a consistent whole. Christ is not invalidating the law of Moses. Now there's the ceremonial, the judicial, we have to navigate with reference to that in terms of the moral law of God. It's sustained, it's applied, it's all that sort of a thing. But this passage is not speaking to the state's role in terms of matters of jurisprudence. And then finally, the emphasis of the text. How's our heart in terms of, you know, God and our fellow man? I've already confessed to you that if somebody slapped me, I'd want to slap them right back and I might just do so. Well, this text is calling me to reflect on that attitude, that disposition, that mindset. We're not supposed to be that kind of people. The passage does not deal with pacifism, capital punishment, and military service, but rather how do we deal with difficult situations? Are we the kinds of persons that are vindictive and vengeful? Are we the kinds of persons that make sure that we will never do even one iota more than what is expected of us. Are we the kind of person that is stingy and greedy with our resources and our money? Is it the case that, you know, when you open up your wallet and the money, you know, is blinded by the sun because it never sees the light of day? This passage, as Ryle says, is a call to a readiness to resent injuries, or rather when we have these things plague us. He says there's a readiness to resent injuries, a quickness in taking offense, a quarrelsome and contentious disposition, a keenness in asserting our rights, all are contrary to the mind of Christ. So when we get to this particular passage and we learn what it doesn't mean, I think that's helpful. No contradictions. Exodus 22, 2 and 3 legitimizes self-defense. Proverbs 24, 11, legitimizes self and others' defense. The rest of the scripture goes in that direction. When it comes to this passage, are we the kinds of people that are being condemned by our Lord in this specific teaching? So there it is. I hope that that clears up any confusion or any possibility that there's a contradiction in God's Word. I'll close in prayer, and if there's any questions, we can deal with that. Our Father in heaven, we thank you for your word. We thank you for its consistency. We thank you for the teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ. And not only what he doesn't teach in terms of the state's responsibility in matters of criminal justice, but with reference to what he does teach. And I pray for patience and bearance and forbearance and those things that Christ enjoins for his disciples here on earth. Grant us help and strength to apply these things and cause us to glorify your great and awesome name. And we pray through Jesus.