29 Why "An Eye for an Eye" Doesn't Mean What You Think It Means (Matthew 5:28-42)

Krisan Marotta: Welcome to Wednesday in the Word. I'm Krisan Marotta, and this is my podcast about what the Bible means and how we know. This is the 29th talk in my series on the Gospel of Matthew. Today we're gonna study Matthew chapter 5, verses 38 through 42. The lecture notes for today's talk are on the link below the podcast. The lecture notes contain an outline of the main points and links to everything mentioned in the talk. You can also find those lecture notes by going directly to Wednesdayintheword.com slash Matthew 29. While you're on the website, you can find all previous episodes in this series and many other series on wednesdayintheword.com. Thank you so much for listening today. We're continuing in the Sermon on the Mount today. As I outline it, the Sermon on the Mount has four main sections. We're in the second section of the sermon, which is often called the antithesis. It is so called because Jesus quotes the law and then he says, but I say, and makes an oppositional statement or an antithesis. So we've seen this structure. You have heard X, but I say to you Y. Jesus introduced this section by saying to enter the kingdom of heaven your righteousness must surpass that of the scribes and the Pharisees. And then he's been giving examples of what he means by that. He's been contrasting the way the Pharisees understand the Old Testament and how they're interpreting it in order to consider themselves blameless. He's been contrasting that understanding with the way his disciples ought to understand the Old Testament. And in each case, Jesus has showed how the Pharisees have trivialized the law. They have missed the deeper intention God had in giving the law. The next example he gives is retaliation. This is Matthew chapter five verses thirty eight through forty two. You have heard that it was said an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, but I say to you, do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you. As has been true in each unit of this section, Jesus starts by quoting something from the Old Testament, and our first task, as we've done for each example so far, is to go back and look at the Old Testament and figure out what Jesus is referring to. There are three passages that use this phrase an eye for an eye. The first one is Exodus chapter twenty one verses twenty two through twenty five. When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman's husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. So here in Exodus we are describing a situation where a pregnant woman is hit in such a way that she gives birth prematurely. If she and her baby are otherwise okay, the husband can impose a fine. However, if there is further injury, then the penalty is life for life, eye for eye, bruise for bruise, and so forth. Now, as you might imagine, scholars debate whether this law is talking about injury to the woman, injury to the baby or to both. And some rabbis argued that only injuries to the mother were in view. Some rabbis even argued from this passage that abortion was moral and justified, as they understood it, an eye for an eye applied only to the mother, and therefore the premature baby is not considered a fully human person. However, they're the minority. Many others argued that this language includes both the mother and the baby, and that this passage could not be used to justify abortion. I don't want to take time to get into that debate. What is clear is that someone has been harmed and this passage gives instructions to the judges of Israel on how the perpetrator is to be penalized. The judges are to impose strict but proportional judgment. The same damage you have caused will be inflicted upon you. Let's look at the second passage, that's Leviticus twenty four, seventeen through twenty two. Whoever takes a human life shall surely be put to death. Whoever takes an animal's life shall make it good, life for life. If anyone injures his neighbor, as he has done, it shall be done to him, fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, whatever injury he has given a person shall be given to him. Whoever kills an animal shall make it good, and whoever kills a person shall be put to death. You shall have the same rule for the sojourner and for the native, for I am the Lord your God. Again, this passage is giving instructions to the judges of Israel on how they should pronounce judgment. If you kill someone else's animal, you have to replace that animal with another, you have to make it good. Anything that you do to harm a human being can be done to you, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. If you murder another human being, then you will likewise be put to death. Leviticus makes clear this does apply to your fellow Israelites and it also applies to strangers. If you harm a stranger or a non Jew, the punishment is the same. The third passage is Deuteronomy nineteen verses fifteen through twenty one. A single witness shall not suffice against a person for any crime or for any wrong in connection with any offense that he has committed. Only on the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses shall a charge be established. If a malicious witness arises to accuse a person of wrongdoing, then both parties to the dispute shall appear before the Lord, before the priest and the judges who were in office in those days. The judges shall inquire diligently, and if the witness is a false witness and has accused his brother falsely, then you shall do to him as he had meant to do to his brother. So you shall purge the evil from your midst, and the rest shall hear and fear and shall never again commit any such evil among you. Your eyes shall not pity. It shall be life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. Here again, this passage is giving instructions to the judges concerning witnesses in their courts. In the case of a malicious witness, we're talking about the intention to do harm. If I falsely accuse my neighbor of murder and my testimony is believed, then my neighbor faces execution. But suppose then the court discovers that I'm lying, they discover I'm trying to get him executed by lying about him. Since I testified falsely in hopes of getting him executed, I myself face execution. I lied to bring about his death, but instead I bring about my own death. The judges are to impose whatever harm the false witness tried to inflict on his neighbor by lying. Now let's just admit right up front that these are hard passages. This is a difficult and complicated subject. This debate over the nature and the purpose of the criminal justice system continues even today. When people commit crimes today, we either put them in jail, make them pay fines, or sometimes even execute them. Even today there is a great debate about what constitutes justice and what crosses the line into cruelty. Now we inflict punishment on criminals for several reasons. One reason is to discourage the person from committing the crime again in the future. Another reason is to discourage others from committing the same crime. When others see that a crime is severely punished, they avoid doing it. And another reason has to do with justice. Harm has been done and it is right and appropriate for lawbreakers to pay in some way for their crimes. Now you might have noticed that Deuteronomy gives us a clue about the reasons for these punishments. This is Deuteronomy nineteen, nineteen and twenty. Then you shall do to him as he meant to do to his brother, so you shall purge the evil from your midst, and the rest shall hear and fear and shall never again commit any such evil among you. Well, part of the reason given in this passage is fairly straightforward. The punishment is a disincentive to commit crimes. The rest shall hear and fear and will refrain from committing the crime of bearing false witness in the future. If we deal with false witnesses very strictly, then we will have fewer false witnesses. But the other part of the reasoning is not so easily understood. It says you shall purge the evil from among you. Now we could understand this as also promoting good civil behavior, that is, if we execute a false witness, then the person does not have the chance to repeat his crime. His particular act of evil can't happen again. Even if the punishment is losing an eye or a hand, his injury makes it less likely for him to repeat his crimes. So one way to understand purging evil from among you is as eliminating the source, so we have less of it. And that may be part of the rationale, but I think there's a bit more to it. Remember, Israel up to the time of Saul was a true theocracy. It was a nation ruled by God. Their laws were not just designed to promote civil obedience, their laws also served to promote religious purity and religious obedience. Just as families might wash their hands in a certain way to ritually purify themselves, so the nation might have to do the same sort of thing, not just to promote civil order, but also to promote religious order. To remain pure as a nation before God, the nation must purge the evil from their midst. So the punishments were designed not just to promote good behavior, but to communicate the message God is serious about the difference between good behavior and evil behavior. Now there's a whole lot more we could say about that, but for our purposes I think that's enough for now. So what have we learned from our brief look at these Old Testament passages? All three passages concern judicial pronouncements. When one person harms another, God gave the judges of Israel guidelines to follow in how to set their punishment. And that punishment is strict but proportional. The harm that you caused or tried to cause is the harm that will be done to you, and these laws promoted both civil order and religious purity. That means this phrase an eye for an eye is not intended to be a guide for personal behavior. These are guidelines for judges in their courts. They are not guidelines for individuals. If someone breaks into my home and I'm able to subdue them, I don't have the right to lock the intruder up in my basement. The state has the right to lock them in jail, but I do not have the right to enforce my own version of justice. Likewise, the Old Testament law is not saying if your neighbor knocks out your tooth, then you are justified and right to go ahead and knock out his tooth. These laws are not permission for individuals to take matters into their own hands. These laws were guidelines for the judges of Israel concerning their sentences as they enforce the laws of the society. Well now I've created a dilemma because in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus is clearly concerned with personal behavior. In this section, all of his previous examples have concerned personal behavior, and he follows this statement with examples of personal behavior. How should I respond when someone sues me for my shirt? What should I do when someone wants to borrow money from me? What do I do when someone slaps me on the cheek? So clearly in this section, Jesus is concerned with personal behavior. So what is he doing bringing up Old Testament laws that concern the way judges in the courts pronounce their sentences? Well remember as I have been arguing, Jesus is not disagreeing with or correcting the Old Testament law. Rather, he's correcting the way the Pharisees understand and interpret the law. In this case, it seems very unlikely to me that Jesus has switched topics and is now talking about the civil law. I don't think he's launching into a discussion about the way the judges of Israel have been administering their justice. I think he's continuing his critique of the Pharisees. Well that suggests that the Pharisees were using these laws about an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth as justification for their own personal behavior. They justified the way they treat others by appealing to these instructions given to the judges of Israel about an eye for an eye. I don't think Jesus is saying, well, the Pharisees just failed to see the difference between what a judge can do and what a private citizen can do. The Pharisees could read, they can understand that this language comes from instruction given to judges, but I think there's a way they were applying it and understanding it that Jesus is critiquing. Now many scholars say that by the time of Jesus, Israel had stopped applying these laws about an eye for an eye in their criminal justice system. The evidence we have suggests that they had shifted to monetary fines. The more seriously you damaged someone, the more seriously you had to pay. I think Jesus here is saying the Pharisees have misused these instructions that were given to judges to justify their lack of love for their neighbors. Let me see if I can explain with an example. Imagine I run an apple orchard on my property. The laws of my state protect me from theft. It is against the law for you to come on my property and to take my apples from my trees. The law promotes justice by insisting that those who steal my apples pay the penalty for stealing. Now assume that my neighbor has a habit of ducking under my fence and picking a handful of apples from the tree closest to his property. The question is, what am I going to do about that? I could decide to do nothing about it. I might choose to generously let my neighbor pick a few apples now and then. Or I could say, listen, neighbor, there is a law against theft. I have a right to the apples I grow, and it is wrong for anyone to take them without paying for them at my apple stand. I could demand that the police arrest my neighbor. While the law offers me protection and justice, there may be times when I shouldn't demand that protection and justice. There may be times when mercy, grace, and generosity are more important than justice. I as an individual have the freedom to be merciful in a way that the judges in my state do not. If you steal my property, it would be wrong for the law to do nothing about it. The police and the judges are charged with the responsibility of enforcing the laws. The judge does not have the right to say, Well, it's true you robbed him blind and burned down his house, but I forgive you, so I'm not going to impose a penalty. That's not within his responsibility. The judge has a responsibility to uphold the laws and grant justice. Society falls apart when we lose the rule of law. We count on our judges and our law enforcement officers to uphold the laws, enforce them fairly, and establish justice. But there is nothing that requires me as an individual to always seek justice and to exact every penny that is owed me. Nothing stops me from overlooking the theft of a few apples. I'm not required to press charges, and maybe that is what I ought to do. A society cannot be good if it fails to enforce justice, but sometimes, in some cases, individuals cannot be good if they insist on enforcing justice. This is an important fundamental truth that the Pharisees have obscured. The law says punishment should be strict and proportional. This is a way of promoting justice and protecting the innocent. If you hurt me, the law provides a remedy for me to get justice. But the Pharisees are appealing to that same principle. The law prescribes justice, and we can consider ourselves blameless before the law when we insist on justice. We Pharisees may not poke out your eye or knock out your tooth, but we can drag you into court and make sure you cough up every last penny you owe, and we will certainly turn you over to the judge and make sure that he gives you the maximum penalty under the law, and we can call ourselves blameless and righteous for doing so because that's what the law says. Well, I think that is the attitude that Jesus is calling into question. The fact is at times being righteous demands letting go of justice and showing mercy. At times it is more important that I forgive and grant mercy than that I fight back and demand justice. Now the big question we haven't answered is why? Why would we grant mercy instead of justice? What principle is Jesus asking us to live by? How do I know when to seek justice and when to let it go? Well, to answer that, let's start looking at the examples Jesus gives. At first reading, these are rather startling examples. We scratch our heads and say, Did did he really mean that? Is that really what he wants me to do? But let's think them through. Let's start with Matthew five, thirty eight and thirty nine. You have heard that it was said an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, but I say to you, do not resist an evil person, but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. He starts by saying do not resist an evil person, and I take that phrase as an overall comment on all the examples he's about to give. The kind of evil he's talking about is a situation where someone unjustly harms us. Now remember the context. These comments are addressed to the Pharisees about the way they use and apply the language of the Old Testament, in this case, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. They are looking at this law about just and proportional punishment in the courts and applying it in a way that Jesus finds wrong. In this context, the evil person is the one who has dealt with you unjustly in some way that the courts could punish, and Jesus says, Do not resist such a person. The law gives the injured party a right, a legal right to retribution. I have been harmed, I can ask the law for justice. I am resisting the evil person by seeking the enforcement of the laws. I am resisting the evil person by seeking the end of their unjust behavior through the punishment of the courts. In fact, this word that's translated resist is sometimes used in legal contexts, and it means in those contexts to stand up against someone in court, to oppose them in court, to make them stop what they're doing is. To resist this word. So Jesus is saying something like this when someone treats you unjustly, the natural response is to make them stop and to make them pay. You might do this through personal retaliation or appealing to the courts, but I'm saying don't retaliate. For example, whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. Now there may be significance to the fact that Jesus specifies the right cheek. Many scholars comment on that. Since most people are right-handed, the image here is a back-handed slap. For me to hit someone's right cheek being right-handed, I have to employ the back of my hand. And the rabbis said that a backhanded slap was doubly insulting and find you double the amount of money. If I hit you on the right cheek and use my left hand, that's a front slap, but that's also considered insulting because the left hand was considered to be unclean. So by specifying the right cheek, many, many scholars suggest that Jesus is picturing a particularly insulting kind of action. And the question is, how do you respond? Do you slap him back? Do you drag him into court and make him pay a fine? And Jesus says no, make a very dramatic gesture of nonretaliation. Turn and offer him your other cheek. Now, before we try to analyze why, let's look at the other examples. Verse forty. If you lend money to my people, to the poor among you, you are not to act as a creditor to him, you shall not charge him interest. If you ever take your neighbor's cloak as a pledge, you are to return it to him before the sun sets, for that is his only covering, it is his cloak for his body. What else shall he sleep in? And it shall come about that when he cries out to me I will hear him, for I am gracious. The I in that passage is the Lord, that is a quote from the Lord. The cloak in twenty two twenty six is this outer garment that Jesus is talking about. In a situation where you're loaning me money, you could ask for collateral. I give you something as a pledge that I will in fact repay you. If I give you my cloak, my outermost garment, the law says you can't keep my garment for longer than a day. You have to give it back to me because I need it. For a poor person, this cloak would be his only covering. So the law would allow someone else to take your shirt as a just payment for your crime or your collateral, but the law would not allow someone to take your outer garment because that outer garment is necessary to survive. So Jesus is proposing a situation where someone is seeking to harm you by taking your shirt, and instead of fighting him in court, you give him your outer garment as well. And as most scholars point out, Jesus is suggesting you give him what he couldn't even get from you if he took you to court. So you're giving him more than he's entitled to under the law. The next example is five forty one. Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him too. Well many scholars point out that Jesus is referring to the way the Roman soldiers would conscript travelers and force the traveler to carry their equipment for a certain distance. We have an example of this in Scripture. When Jesus was carrying his cross to his execution, he fell and was unable to carry it any farther, and a Roman soldier grabbed a bystander, Simon of Cyrene, and forced him to carry the cross the rest of the way. That's in Matthew twenty seven. Apparently soldiers were allowed to require a certain distance from these conscripts, and then they had to let them go. They couldn't force their conscript to be an indentured servant forever. So if the limit was a mile, he had to let his conscript go after a mile, and then he could grab someone else and make them carry the equipment. Now this statement is going to rankl the political hackles in the crowd. The zealots in the crowd felt that it was their duty to do everything they could to resist the Roman occupation of Judea. A zealot would do everything possible to resist a Roman soldier who forced him to carry his load for a mile. And Jesus is saying, rather than resist him, go even farther than he asks you to. If he can require you to go for one mile, then go for two. The last example is 542. Give to him who asks of you and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you. This example seems a little bit different. No one's hitting you, no one's suing you, and no one is forcing you into labor. You're being asked a favor, you're being asked for money. Now we're still in the context of an eye for an eye, and we're still in the context of someone who is imposing on you or doing you some kind of harm. And I think that implies that this request for money is also an imposition in some way or a hardship for you. Jesus doesn't have to tell us to help our children when they're in trouble financially. Jesus doesn't have to tell us to help out our best friend when our best friend gets in financial trouble. It's more likely that he's speaking to a situation where someone's asking for money and I know something's not right. Perhaps the ask does not have good intentions, maybe the ask is not being totally honest, or something like that. The idea, I think, is that the ask is not entitled to my money, he has no right to it, and on top of that, I don't think I'm gonna come out of this deal in good shape. This deal is gonna cost me. The parallel in Luke 6.30 reads, Give to everyone who begs from you, and from one who takes away your goods, do not demand them back. Well that language suggests this potential of theft or loss. The person has no right to my money and they may end up taking it without repaying it. And yet we're told not to resist them but to grant the request. Okay, so those are his examples. Now we have to try to sort all this out. What is Jesus expecting? Each of his examples seems to be more impossible to obey than the previous one. What's wrong with the way the Pharisees are approaching these situations? And what does Jesus want us to do instead? Well, we've looked at this before, but it seems to me to be an important and obvious starting point. Jesus tells us that one of the two greatest commandments is to love your neighbor as yourself Leviticus nineteen, seventeen and eighteen. You shall not hate your brother in your heart, but you shall reason frankly with your neighbor lest you incur sin because of him. You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself, I am the Lord. Jesus tells us that the two greatest commandments in the Old Testament are love God and love your neighbor, and I think those two commandments underlie and inform all the rest of the law. Yes, there are civil instructions to judges on how to pronounce justice in their courts, which includes this language of an eye for an eye. In those cases there is a principle of civil justice at work. Innocent people need to be protected, criminal harms should be punished proportionate to the crime. But when we try to apply those laws to our individual lives, the overarching principle we must deal with is not an eye for an eye, it's Leviticus. It's love your neighbor as yourself. Sometimes my neighbor is going to do me wrong. According to Leviticus 19, I am not to seek vengeance, I'm not to bear a grudge or hate my neighbor. Instead, I am to treat my neighbor as I myself would want to be treated. I'm not really allowed to say, as the Pharisees do, look, the law allows for retribution and retaliation. Therefore, I can call for retribution down to the last penny and still consider myself blameless because that's what the law allows. Why are the Pharisees wrong? Because the law calls me to seek the good of my neighbor even when he has done me wrong. I would argue that Leviticus 1918 is the key to understanding Jesus' point about an eye for an eye. In fact, I'd say it's the key to understanding most of what Jesus is saying here in this entire second section of the Sermon on the Mount. We are not trying to figure out, as the Pharisees do, how to squeeze everything we are due out of the law. We are not to try to analyze the law and figure out how much we can get away with. We are first and foremost to apply the principle treat my neighbor as I would want to be treated. Next, remember this follows the Beatitudes. Shortly before saying this about an eye for an eye, Jesus said in 5.9, Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God. As we talked about in the podcast on Matthew 5.9, being a peacemaker is being someone who stops the cycle of aggression. Being a peacemaker is being someone who absorbs the blow. When someone does you wrong, you don't respond back in kind. You don't match insult for insult or anger for anger or hurt for hurt. Instead, you seek peace and reconciliation. That's a key part of what it means to be a peacemaker. Now these examples Jesus gives here in this section are striking examples of being a peacemaker. In each case, Jesus gives a striking example of refusing to escalate the conflict. Turn the other cheek, give him your cloak as well, walk two miles instead of one. Tom gives Jerry a backhanded slap. Jerry has options. If all Jerry is concerned about is justice, Jerry could resist, Jerry could hit him back, Jerry could take him to court, Jerry could refuse to speak to him ever again. Instead, Jerry gives a dramatic gesture of reconciliation and refusing to respond in kind by turning the other cheek. It's a very visual way of saying I am not going to retaliate in kind. Or Tom wrongfully sues Jerry for his shirt. Jerry could fight him for it in court and they could become adversaries for life. Instead, Jerry gives Tom his shirt and also offers him his cloak, something the law would never have required of him. Again, it's a dramatic gesture of not responding with anger or in kind, but giving more than required. Or Tom could be a Roman soldier who forcibly grabs Jerry, a Jewish zealot, and conscripts him to carry his equipment for a mile. But instead of escalating the conflict, Jerry stops it by not only walking the mile, but walking a second mile as well. The first mile, Tom could think, well, Jerry's just doing that because I made him do it. But the second mile, Jerry is communicating something else. He's communicating the message, I am doing this for your benefit. Again, it's a dramatic gesture of peacemaking. Or Tom could be a con man who hits Jerry up for money and is unlikely to ever pay it back. This creates an antagonism between the two. Jerry could justifiably refuse to participate. Instead, Jerry dissolves the antagonism by giving him more than he deserves. So in each case, Jesus proposes a dramatic reversal. In the normal course of things, we want justice for ourselves. But Jesus is proposing that we think about the other person involved even when we're the ones who have been wronged. We seek his good and strive to promote peace between us through these dramatic gestures of goodwill. Rather than using the standard, how far can I go in exacting justice? Exactly how many teeth can we knock out here? We are to ask, am I seeking the good of my neighbor? Am I seeking to promote reconciliation and peace between us? That's my understanding of the passage, and there are some people who would insist that I have not gone far enough in what I've said here. Some scholars understand Jesus to be saying that it is always wrong to aggressively resist another person. In addition to the positive incentive to love our neighbor as ourselves, they would argue that Jesus is saying it is wrong in principle to fight back. And you'll often see them argue with this kind of an example. If someone grabs me and tries to kill me with a knife, they argue it's wrong for me to fight back because it is always wrong in principle to act against another person. Some people would argue that Jesus is advocating that we be radical pacifists. No matter what the other person does, it's wrong to resist, especially if it involves violence of any kind. Well this interpretation depends on understanding the language of Jesus in a much more literal way. The people who advocate for this understanding see Jesus as laying down rules that must be followed in all circumstances. So any and all situations in which someone strikes you, you must turn the other cheek. That phrase turn the other cheek is understood as you must let them continue to hit you as long as they wish. You must not resist in any way. It would be morally wrong for you to strike back. Now I hope I'm being clear that I do not think that this is what Jesus is saying. I'm bringing it up for Bible study methodology. When people learn that I have a Bible study podcast, I'm often asked, well, you don't interpret the Bible literally, do you? This is usually asked with this particularly incredulous tone, a certain look and a raised eyebrow, suggesting that no self respecting adult would ever do such a thing. And my answer is of course I do. Interpreting the Bible literally means interpreting the Bible according to the way it was written. When it's written in the form of a narrative, I interpret it according to the rules of a narrative. When it's written in the form of poetry, I interpret it according to the rules of poetry and so forth. When Jesus makes a comparison, states a hyperbole, uses a metaphor, I interpret it in light of that genre. We may reject what scripture says, but we have no right to twist it into saying something the authors never meant to say. So looking at the words of Jesus here, we have to ask, what did he mean to say? Did he mean to be taken exactly literally? Was he trying to give rules of behavior? Was he speaking in metaphor? Was he giving an analogy? Was he speaking in hyperbole? Does the context suggest that he's laying down rules of behavior? Well, part of the reason I reject this interpretation of radical passivity I've already talked about. I see Jesus as appealing to the underlying principle of the Old Testament that I should seek to promote the good of my neighbor, and appealing to that underlying principle he has already spoken of in this sermon that I should seek to promote peace and reconciliation with my neighbor. I don't think he's giving us rules to live by. I don't think he's saying submit to any violence anyone wants to inflict upon you. Instead, he's telling us that when we decide how to treat other people, we have to think about more than getting justice, we have to consider our neighbors good when we decide how to respond. That means using wisdom and discernment when deciding how I'm going to respond. Another reason I reject this idea that Jesus is teaching radical passivity is the nature of the way Jesus teaches, and I've argued this before in earlier podcasts. I think Jesus frequently uses very strong black and white statements to make his point. He speaks in hyperbole. We've seen him do this in this sermon. If your eye causes you to stumble, cut it out. If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off. No one understands those statements as literal rules. Everyone recognizes that this is a rhetorical device to make a point. Well I think we have those same kind of statements here. When Jesus makes these strong statements, he expects us to understand them in light of the full teaching of Scripture. Turn the other cheek is not a rule. Turn the other cheek is a purposely thought provoking example of what it might look like to seek my neighbor's good. Does turning the other cheek always promote my neighbor's good? No. You don't have to think very long to come up with situations where turning the other cheek would be the wrong thing to do. If someone grabs me and tries to kill me with a knife, letting him kill me is not a loving thing to do. I am not a peacemaker if I let a serial killer kill as many people as he wants. Now obviously those are extreme examples, but I hope they make my point about how to understand scripture. If Jesus is making a rule about how to respond to violence, then I might let my attacker kill me. But if Jesus is giving an example of what loving my neighbor might look like in a specific situation, then I need to use my discernment about how to respond in any given situation. Alright, well let's try to put all this together. The Pharisees defend and justify their behavior by appealing to the law. In this case, they appeal to the law that says an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, and they rightly recognize there is a principle of justice in the law. The law rightly calls for strict proportional punishment of the lawbreakers. So when the judges of Israel in their courts are pronouncing their sentences, they are to use strict but proportional punishment. The Pharisees conclude from this law that retaliation is legal and blameless. They can legally pursue retribution and claim to be blameless under the law. They can be proportionally vindictive in the name of seeking retribution and still consider themselves blameless. But the Pharisees have forgotten the overriding principle of the law. We are to love our neighbors as ourselves. We are not to seek vengeance, we are not to hold grudges, even when our neighbors do us wrong, we are still to seek what is good for them. Jesus gives striking examples of ways we can seek the good of those who wrong us. In these examples, we stop the cycle of aggression. We boldly, dramatically demonstrate our willingness to seek peace and reconciliation with those who wrong us when that is an appropriate and good thing to do. That's the kind of righteousness the law promotes, and it surpasses what the Pharisees have required. So, how then should we respond? We seek to love our neighbors, promoting peace and seeking reconciliation. We see this as the path we should follow, and we confess when we fail to live this way. It gives us both a goal to pursue and a standard by which we can evaluate ourselves and our relationship to God. The Pharisees have set an absurdly low standard for righteousness, but the high call of God is that we're to love sacrificially. This call to love our neighbors as ourselves is a high and difficult call. In this fallen world, it is always costly to love, but nonetheless, that's our call. Can we do it perfectly? Can we do it consistently? No, we can't. We need the grace of God, the blood of Christ, and the life-changing work of the Holy Spirit. Still, this is a truth we must wrestle with. We must embrace it as true and right. We must seek to follow it and then confess our failures to God, asking for His mercy and forgiveness. The law, the gospels, and the teaching of Jesus confront us very clearly with two things. First, this is the direction God is going. If we want to follow Him, this is the direction we must go. We must strive to love God with all our hearts, and we must strive to love our neighbors as ourselves. And second, it shows us very clearly how far short we fall of those goals and how much we need the mercy of God. Thank you for listening to Wednesday in the Word, a podcast that explains not only what a passage means, but also shows you how to figure it out. You can hear all previous episodes in this series on my website, wednesdayintheword.com. And you'll also find lots of other series there. There's no chart, no spam, and no ads. It's all free to help you improve your study skills and understanding the scripture. If you've been blessed by this podcast, please subscribe to the podcast. Leave a positive rating or review wherever you listen. It really does help people find the podcast. And more importantly, tell a friend what you learned and what you learned. Thank you to Reggie Coates for the use of his beautiful song, Canasis, as our new song. You can find more of Reggie's music at heartfeltmusic.org. Thank you for joining me today. I'm Krisan Marotta, and I'll see you next week at Wednesday in the Word.