← Back to sermon library

Matthew chapter five this is part two 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 any uh retribution or any uh 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 three which legitimizes the 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 as a civil magistrate if it was about inflicting the death penalty so it's a a powerful passage that I think is misunderstood and hopefully will have a better understanding after tonight so I want to read Exodus 5 38 to 42 you have heard that it was sad and I 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 five to seven 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 shortly I say to you till Heaven and Earth pass away one God or one Tittle will by no domains 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 uh uh uh 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 33-37 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 39 a and then there are illustrations given in verses 39 B to 42. so he's 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 pharisac 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 it's deeper than that if you have unwarranted hand 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 lacks taliones this law of Retribution or retaliation Asian 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 you know you know gouged out eyes and broke out teeth it was simply a principle of Retribution that the punishment must fit the crime the punishment not must not be too lenient because that would not reform criminal offenders that would not punish dually 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 Lax 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 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 lacks 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's 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 crap a 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 punished 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 uh 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 latch 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 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 politics 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 contact Stephen 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's wife that is a criminal activity and Falls subject to everything that had been written in the law that he has said he didn't come to destroy but rather to fulfill when he deals with adultery for instance he's indicate day 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 and 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 rough shot over Exodus 22 2-3 the idea being then you come downstairs you're rubbing out the sleep from your eyes and somebody says I'm 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 2-3 Proverbs 24 mandates that we try to defend those who are are weak and subject to problems subject to suffering or to death so the Bible is pro-self-defense so whatever Jesus is speaking to here he is not contradictory uh 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 sad an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth but I tell you not to resist an evil person so 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 taliones for every day 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 lacks 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 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 principal 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 have a you undergo a strong armed 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 wax 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 will want to appeal to the Old Testament principle of Equitable 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 anybody 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 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. mm-hmm specifically at verse 1 then Paul looking earnestly at the council said man 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 white-washed 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 when 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 you know capable man 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 pulls a 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 suffer now notice in 13 1-4 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 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 17-21 the believer's personal response to wrong suffer here in Romans 13 1-4 the magistrates 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 in great engages in criminal activity against you you have redress provided by God God they survey 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 for to wrath for it is written vengeance is mine I will says the Lord and then lo and behold we have an agent of Vengeance in 13 1-4 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 ascaton 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 execute shooting 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 the the the the the lethal injection or who takes part in the firing squad that's a legitimate calling under God utmost 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 but 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 38-39a you have heard that it was sad 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 a 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 last taliones 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 39 B 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 uh 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 both let give him whatever he wants so he can do whatever it is he wants to you no it's probably rather a 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 to push this text the to the to the Great Lengths that it has been pushed to if we took it to its logical conclusion we shouldn't have lots on our doors we shouldn't have watched dogs we shouldn't have any sort of physical protection whatsoever we should just say hey I'm not going to resist an evil person well 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 colonies 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 so 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 tour are to avoid all appeal to public justice as administered by magisterial Authority day right yeah I was mugged on my way to the ATM machine and they you know they broke my arms they they broke my ribs they dotted my eyes they took my card they they emptied my account so what are you gonna do tomorrow well I'm gonna hobble back and I'm going to meet him there and I'm going to let them empty out my account again that's not what Jesus is talking about you see the principle of interpretation that that produces the contradictory sort of Exodus 22 2-3 legitimate is legitimizing the self-defense if you put that against this and say that Jesus is you know he's doing away with that you 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 Josh says 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 patients 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 on biblical or not endorsed by scripture now in terms of the kinds of attitudes that are inculcated or that he wants to inculcate air this is tough I mean I tell you not to resist an evil person I want to you know resist all of them whoever slaps me I want to slap him back so again I'm not telling you that this is necessarily easy but here's what he's getting at notice for uh 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 interview 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 a lot of equipment you get at least in the Air Force where I was they had it was called a kit bag it was a massive bag had a flat 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'd 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 of the bag of a military personnel a prescribed distance one Roman mile that's Carson Osborne 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 in one of these Roman soldiers says hey kid I want you to pick up my bag and carry it Four Mile there's an example of this in Matthew 27 at verse 32. now as they came out they found 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's not dealing with criminal offense the the soldier didn't you know beat you up and break your ring lives and 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 sniveling 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 uh give it don't turn away from them 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 anytime 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 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 a generous spirit it 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 to One Mile and not up anymore now go with them two mile uh 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 is that we need to be the people of God that bear and forebear in the various situations that we find ourselves at 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 we when he says do 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 role or 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 holos 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 conform and configure to serve whatever needs that you have well for a certain class of men they can inflict violence no those that class of man can be as much a Christian as those who don't engage not might not be or 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 with homicide it's wrong to murder it's wrong to engage in negligent homicide but it's not wrong to capitalally 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 with no 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 17-21 when we come to matters of Criminal Justice and civil jurisprudence Romans 13 1-4 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 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 uh my thoughts on that I'd give you some thoughts on that but in terms of the the general principle is it legitimate for a human bank for them to join the military service so in discussing man's relation to the estate and even whether a young man ought to join the military Lloyd Jones says that we must seek our answers from Romans 13 and first 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 38-42 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 states uh 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 him 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 you open up your wallet and the the money you know is Blinded By by the sun because it never sees the light of day this passage Israel says it it is a a call to a Readiness to resent injuries or rather when we have uh uh uh uh 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 2-3 legitimizes self-defense Proverbs 24 11 legitimize itself and others to fast 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 not only what he doesn't teach in terms of the state's responsibility and matters of criminal criminal justice but with reference to what he does teach and I pray for patience and parents and forbearance and those things that 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