Six Antitheses, Lesson 4

ASSIGNMENT: Read this lesson and Matthew 5:21-48.

My dog’s name is Samson and his name suits him. He is a big boy; half Labrador retriever and half Rottweiler. We often walk together in the woods near our house. One day as we returned home, we overtook a woman who was walking her small, designer dog. The little dog was on one of those retractable leashes; the kind that sets no real boundaries. As is often the case, the little dog’s heart was much larger than his brain. He ran toward Samson barking and making a fuss while its owner nonchalantly talked on her cellphone. I could see Samson was beginning to consider the small annoyance an hors d’oeuvre. 

He looked up at me with eyes that appeared to say, “Aren’t you going to ask me if I want fries with him?” In my sternest voice, which hardly covered my fear that her dog would learn a lesson he and his oblivious owner would not soon forget, I said, “No! Don’t even think about it.” Uncharacteristically, he relaxed and we kept walking without incident. I casually tossed him a treat, but in my mind, I was doing fist bumps and shouting, “Yeah! That’s the way! Good boy, Samson.” In this lesson, Jesus is teaching his disciples how to behave uncharacteristically despite what they have been taught or are naturally inclined to do. By comparing the teaching of the religious leaders of his day with God’s original intent, Jesus shares what God expects.

This passage is what Bible scholars call the “six antitheses,” which is technically an inaccurate description. The six phrases we will cover are not really antithetical, or direct opposites. They are exegesis or critical explanation of Scripture. Jesus begins with the words, “You have heard . . .” He was speaking to people who had, indeed, heard; people who did not have access to Scripture or commentaries like we do today. In first-century Judaism the scribes told the people what the Scriptures said because they were written in the original language, Hebrew. Most average people no longer knew that language because of their exile to Babylon 600 years earlier. 

The focus of the religious leaders was overt action, appearing religious while living lives contrary to God’s intent. Jesus reminds his listeners it is what is in the heart that really matters to God. He contrasts what his listeners believed to be true with what God really wants. He repeats a biblical statement or religious teaching, describes what it means and then explains how it should be applied to daily life. “Jesus contrasts the people’s misunderstanding of the law with the true direction in which the law points, according to his own authority as the law’s ‘fulfiller.’”^1.

Reformers have interpreted this section of Christ’s sermon three ways: 1) as amplification of the deeper meaning of the Decalogue, the Ten Commandments; 2) radically new teaching that abrogates some aspects of the Decalogue; and 3) both radically new, yet in continuity with the Decalogue.^2. He began by referring to something his audience already accepted as being required by a holy God, righteous behavior. But then he directed, with the authority of God himself, actual compliance that is even more stringent. He concluded by telling them what God really expected when he gave the law to Moses. 

Christ’s teaching harmonizes with and adds to the Old Testament.^3. As we work through each of these illustrations, it is important to bear in mind Matthew 5:20. “For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.” (NIV) To be Christ’s disciple is to be righteous.

Murder. “Jesus begins with the prohibition against the ultimate fracture of human relationships that takes place through murder, then supplies his own teaching, which goes far beyond the mere preserving of life itself to the preserving of human relationships.”^4. No doubt his listeners breathed a sigh of relief because they had not murdered anyone. “You shall not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.” (v. 22 | NIV) But Jesus went deeper, concluding God was actually directing his disciples not to hate, use abusive language^5. or even experience and exhibit “unwarranted and immoderate anger.”^6. He wasn’t prohibiting the irritation or frustration we all experience. He was referring to intense fury or seething rage.^7. 

Jesus was especially cautioning against being unjustifiably angry at Christian brothers or sisters. The root of murder is anger and anger is murderous in principle.^8. But not all anger is unjustified. There is such a thing as righteous and even appropriate anger. Anger is appropriate when it burns against sin and injustice.”^9. Unjustified anger is tied to our pride. If we are angry over something someone said or did to us, it is probably unjustified anger and we need to let it go.

“Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.” (v. 22 | NIV) Jesus is referring to language that devalues others in any way. We must be careful in our use of demeaning words like dumb, stupid, nitwit, fool, blockhead, idiot. Instead, we are charged with lifting others up and encouraging them. 

“Jesus is saying that we must not think we are safe just because we have not shed blood. We are guilty enough to receive punishment if we have harbored anger and contempt.^10. We cannot escape the obvious, if we have ever been unjustifiably angry at another, in God’s sight we are guilty of murder and, apart from his grace, deserving of punishment. “Anger in the heart towards any human being, and especially to those who belong to the household of faith, is, according to our Lord, something that is as reprehensible in the sight of God as murder.”^11.

We have all been made in the image of God. When we have done something that affects our relationship with others, we need to make things right before we come to God in worship. “The divine intent, says Jesus, is that disciples be persons who neither break relationships nor fail to restore broken ones.”^12. He tied our actions toward others and their opinion of us resulting from our behavior to our act of worship. If we are not right with others, we cannot be right with God.

23 “Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother or sister has something against you, 24 leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to them; then come and offer your gift. (NIV) In Jesus’s day, the only place animal sacrifice was permitted was Jerusalem. Let’s consider what his disciples heard him say. If they had walked from Galilee to Jerusalem to sacrifice and realized someone back home had something against them, they would be expected to spend about three days going back, make things right, and then return to offer their sacrifice.^13. Otherwise, their worship was in vain.

The Psalmist wrote, “If I had cherished sin in my heart, the Lord would not have listened . . .” (Psalm 66:18 NIV) If our prayers are not being heard or answered, perhaps we should examine our relationships with others to see if they are influencing our relationship with God. And Jesus says the sooner we do so, the better. And he is just getting started.

Lust. Jesus quoted the Old Testament but asserted that the cited Commandment had been misinterpreted. “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” (vv. 27-28 | NIV) Just to be clear, adultery involves a married man or woman having sexual relations with someone other than his or her spouse. According to Old Testament law it was punishable by death. The religious elite had narrowed the intent of adultery to the act, itself. And, if John 8:3-11 is any indication, women may have been more likely to pay the ultimate price than men.

Jesus, on the other hand, linked the 7th and 10th Commandments together, comparing adultery with coveting another person’s spouse. He compared lusting, a purely mental activity, to adultery and asserted the admonition against adultery pointed toward purity that refuses even to lust.^14.

 James, the half-brother of Jesus described sin’s progression like this. 13 When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; 14 but each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed. 15 Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death. (James 1:13-15 | NIV)

Contemplating a sinful action, according to Jesus, is tantamount to sin, itself. Lust, adultery, coveting, in fact, all sin, not just sexual sin begins in the imagination. And, if we have a mind, we are all guilty of sin. Mental infidelity is infidelity. One quick conclusion we might draw is that it is better to confess and repent of a thought than it is to repent of an act. That is not to say one sin is greater than another. Stopping at the thought, however, lessens the damage caused. As Barney Fife used to say to the Sheriff Andy Taylor, “You have to nip it in the bud, Andy. Nip it in the bud.” 

Let’s be clear, Jesus is not describing looking at a woman with admiration or even a fleeting glance that triggers a sexual thought that is quickly dismissed from the mind. Looking and thinking is part of how God designed us to be attracted to our prospective mates. Leering, deep seated lust, is where sin begins.^15. It goes back to those wise words of grandma, “You can’t keep the bird from flying over your head, but you can keep it from building a nest in your hair.” “No sensual sin was ever committed that was not first imagined.”^16. Jesus is describing a lingering look, which potentially leads to an adulterous act. 

The most obvious biblical example of this is the sin of King David. He allowed a look to become lust which produced adultery and ultimately resulted in the murder of an innocent man. “And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.” (v. 30 | NIV) Origin of Alexandria did not recognize this statement as hyperbole and reportedly had himself emasculated to avoid sexual desires. Fortunately, not too long afterward a church council outlawed the practice. 

Through the use of exaggeration, or hyperbole, Jesus suggested that avoiding temptation requires drastic measures. Obviously, he was not serious about us gouging out an eye, cutting off a hand or copying Origin. He was describing what is often called “spiritual mortification,” which may be explained with a two-word command, “Just don’t.” Look away, walk away, take a cold shower, but find something else to do to take your mind off of the temptation. And yes, sometimes we need to simply change the channel, leave the theater, turn off the television and especially avoid pornography. 

Jesus’s intention is to teach that any sacrifice necessary to live a holy, God-honoring life is worthwhile since the consequences of failing to do so could be our eternal damnation. Fortunately, doing what Jesus asks is something we have received the power to accomplish. When we surrender our lives to Jesus, God gives us his Holy Spirit to help us overcome temptation. The Holy Spirit performs spiritual surgery on our hearts and minds, rather than make us resort to amputation or disfigurement. God expects us to take the first step and the Holy Spirit will carry us through. As James wrote, “Submit yourselves, then, to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you” (James 4:7 | NIV). 

What Jesus intended his hearers to understand is that they needed to view all temporal temptation through the eyes of eternity. He is stressing the nature of sin and its eternal consequences for the soul. “When one’s willful conduct contradicts one’s theology, either the conduct or the theology must change. We must understand that much of the heresy we observe today has roots that are moral rather than intellectual. Therefore, we must realize that what people do with their eyes and limbs can affect the eternal destiny of their souls.”^17. It would be better to lose one body part than spend eternity separated from God. 

Lust, adultery or any sin, for that matter, is inconsistent with the purity of heart expected of Christ’s disciples as we discovered in our study of the Beatitudes. “Blessed are the pure of heart for they will see God” (Matthew 5:8 | NIV). Jesus cited lusting, not because it differs from other sin in its nature or consequences, but as an example of sin in general and how God’s law had been subverted by the scribes and Pharisees. Sin that is allowed to remain in our hearts and minds is still sin and all sin separates us from a holy God

Divorce. The point of the next passage is to reinforce God’s view of marriage and divorce. “It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery. (vv. 31-32 | NIV) It is likely no coincidence that the discussion of divorce follows the one on lust.

Given the prevalence of divorce in Christian America today, about the same as among the irreligious, some Bible commentators and pastors slide by this passage rather than hurt people’s feelings or make them uncomfortable. Yet, Jesus considered the topic important enough to address it twice in the Book of Matthew. 

In this context, Jesus diverts from the prior passages by not referring to the Ten Commandments. That is because there is no commandment prohibiting divorce. Also, Jesus used the term “sexual immorality” or in other translations, “marital unfaithfulness,” not adultery.  Presumably that is because the penalty for adultery in the Old Testament was death. Death of the offender would obviously make divorcing them unnecessary. 

‘Marital unfaithfulness’ could refer to lesser sexual misbehavior inside the marriage or prior to it. 

By the time of Jesus, divorce was more often the remedy for anything within the marriage a man did not like because the rabbis had made divorce easy to obtain for a men but women had no such recourse. “Jewish law made no provision for a woman to initiate a divorce.”^18.

 Rabbinic teaching in Jesus’s day, ranged from the hardline position of Rabbi Shammai that only “unchastity” was a valid justification for divorce to the “liberal” position of Rabbi Hillel which allowed a man to divorce his wife for such a trivial offense as spoiling a meal, or even simply because he had found someone else he preferred. The difference between the two rabbinic schools is what brought the question to the attention of Jesus in Matthew 19.

A man could even divorce his wife if she made a negative comment about his parents, ate something he had forbidden her to eat, visited the home of her parents, or if, against her husband’s wishes, the in-laws moved into the same city to be near their daughter. Divorce in the first century was as easy to obtain as it is in America in the twenty-first. 

Marriage is the strongest human relationship. And it is intended to be permanent. Divorce is an aberration, an unnatural mutation of God’s original design. Marriage unites a couple as one flesh. “That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh” (Genesis 2:24 | NIV) And because God considers married couples one flesh, he, alone has authority to dissolve their marriage union. The prophet Malachi, proclaimed, “‘The man who hates and divorces his wife,’ says the Lord, the God of Israel, ‘does violence to the one he should protect,’ says the Lord Almighty” (Malachi 2:16| NIV). 

Jesus challenged the common rabbinic interpretation of Deuteronomy 24 the same way he does for people today. He called frivolous divorce sin and defined remarriage after such a divorce ‘adultery.’ He taught that no legal certificate could dissolve the enduring covenant of marriage in God’s eyes when divorce was sought on trivial grounds.^19. 

He said Moses permitted divorce in very limited circumstances because of the “hardness of the people’s heart.” Under the Law it was a remedy for some natural, moral or physical defect discovered in the wife. The defect had to be supported by two witnesses and the divorce required a “Bill of Divorcement.” 

The Pharisees focused on the certificate or bill but skipped past Moses’s required justification for the action itself or that Moses only permitted divorce. He never required it. Jesus, on the other hand, is invalidating divorce, except for infidelity. The Greek word used is porneia, which, in this context means, “marital unfaithfulness, illicit intercourse that may involve adultery, homosexuality, bestiality, and the like. 

We should note (and this is very important!) that all these offenses were originally punishable by death under Mosaic Law.”^20. The sins of porneia typically ended marriage by the death of the offender, not divorce. Consequently, a liberal interpretation of Jesus’s position would allow divorce only for immorality, however it might be defined apart from those covered by porneia. In addition to marital unfaithfulness, the apostle Paul added desertion of a believer by an unbelieving spouse as grounds for divorce. (1 Corinthians 7:15)

A more stringent interpretation would be that, if both parties remain alive, all divorce is forbidden as Mark 10:11, 12 and Luke 16:18, appear to indicate. “Jesus clearly expected divorce to be a rarity among His followers.”²¹. But he says remarriage, not divorce, results in the sin of adultery. 

What is done is done. Adultery, like every sin but one, may be forgiven. “Even adultery is not the unforgivable sin. It is a terrible sin, but God forbid that there should be anyone who feels that he or she has sinned himself or herself outside the love of God or outside His kingdom because of adultery.”^22. Praise God! Ours is a God of second chances.

Oaths. “The Mishna devotes one whole section called Shebuoth (“Oaths”) to an elaborate discussion of when oaths are binding and when they are not. Not surprisingly, Jesus held this opinion.

 [33] “Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but keep the oaths you have made to the Lord.’ [34] But I tell you, Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; [35] or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. [36] And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. [37] Simply let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one. (NIV)

The swearing of oaths had degenerated into a system of rules as to when you could lie and when you could not.”^23. The rabbis had developed a system by which people could evade the obligation to be honest through creative wording: keeping the letter, but avoiding the intent or spirit of the law. Oaths were only valid and legally binding when they used the Lord’s name. 

However, in first-century Palestine, almost all utterances of the name of God were considered blasphemy. Thus, when one took an oath, substitutions for his name were used. Those substitutions apparently opened the door to determining which vows were valid and which were not. In private conversations Jewish society had essentially institutionalized the childhood practice of crossed fingers. Creative wording in some rabbis’ minds made a lie not a lie, as if the words were spoken on the playground with fingers crossed. 

Satan is the father of lies. That is the reason telling lies comes so naturally to all of us. It is in our DNA. Lies easily creep into our conversation and reflect what is inside. As Christians we should always speak as though we are in the presence of God because we are. One day we will give an account for what we have said. (Matthew 12:36) In our daily lives, Jesus calls us to be completely truthful in all speech. He wants us to be people of such integrity that our word alone will be trusted, without us having to swear an oath. A simple Yes or No should be all that is required for others to place absolute trust in what we say. “Christ made it plain that by no subtle subterfuge can men escape the solemn responsibility of an oath.”^24. 

“Perjury under solemn oath is epidemic. The sacred vows of marriage are broken almost as often as repeated. God’s name is invoked by blatant liars who purport to be witnesses to the truth.”^25. Hughes^26. argues that refusal to swear an oath in court or elsewhere based on this passage is mistaken. Jesus, himself, swore an oath at his trial. (Matthew 26:63-64) Likewise, the Apostle Paul swore oaths (2 Corinthians 1:23 and Romans 1:9) Formal situations are appropriate venues for swearing an oath. Oath-taking, however, must be restricted to only solemn, vital occasions, like court. We should not use them in private conversation.

The key to avoiding all sin boils down to simply keeping our promises. Especially solemn promises are our wedding vows. If we kept our wedding vows as we should, sexual sin in our marriages would not exist. And if we kept the vows we made to God, we would be less likely to succumb to sin’s temptation. People should be able to trust us to tell the truth and keep our promises. Unfortunately, Christians are known for not following through on those things we promise to do. Whether it is to keep our promise to pray for someone or to stand by the one we promised to love, honor and cherish “until death do us part.” In God’s eyes a promise is a promise and a vow is a vow. 

If we desire God above all things we will keep our word, we’ll avert our eyes from sin’s temptation, we’ll compel our hearts and minds to reject sinful thoughts before they become sinful actions. The real question is, “Do we desire God above all things?” To a holy God, all sin is sin and Jesus is teaching us to pour water on the spark of sin before it becomes a blaze. The good news of the gospel is God has offered a way of forgiveness and restoration through faith in him and repentance should we fall short of Christ’s ideal.

Revenge. The phrase “eye for eye and tooth for tooth appears three times in the Old Testament: Exodus 21:24, Leviticus 24:20 and Deuteronomy 19:21 and was intended for literal application.[38] “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ (v. 38 | NIV) At the time God gave his judicial rules to Moses, government as we have come to accept it did not exist, retribution was a way to obtain rational, balanced justice. God’s directive was intended to be a system of proportional punishment known as lex talionis. 

The purpose of God’s law was to prevent vengefulness blinded by rage—hitting back harder than one had been hit. It was an official regulation for the judiciary, not individual liberty to take the law into one’s own hands. It also served to control excesses by the judiciary in response to public opinion or pressure. Because of the restraint it introduced, lex talionis stood as a humane, moderating influence that curbed vendettas and blood feuds resulting in unlimited retaliation. The goal was to insure the punishment fit the crime. “Its design was threefold: to protect the weak against the strong, to serve as a salutary warning unto evil-doers, to prevent the judge from inflicting too severe a punishment upon those guilty of maiming others. As such it was a just, merciful and beneficent law.”^27. 

What was intended to be a judicial principle became something bordering on lawlessness. By the time of Jesus, monetary restitution had largely replaced physical mutilation. As is the case in America so often today, the wealthy paid a much smaller price than those of limited means. So, one is left to surmise that not only had the law been subverted, but it was being unequally applied by the religious authorities. We are all born with a strong desire for revenge and as the Jewish leaders of Jesus’s day sought to ingratiate themselves with the people rather than to please God, they pandered to the people’s darker nature.^28. 

Jesus is opposing retribution in any form. His intention is to establish a “greater righteousness,” a different understanding of how we should live as the people of God, an alternative set of values. It involves an essentially non-self-centered approach to ethics which puts the interests of the other before our personal rights or possessions. Retribution, even proportional retribution, has no place in the life of a disciple. 

In today’s passage, Jesus teaches us to reject the base, animal instinct that makes us want to respond in kind to an actual or perceived offense. The challenge then becomes how to combat our natural inclination to demand our “pound of flesh” when we feel we have been wronged. 

Fortunately, Jesus offers us four examples. All four of them illustrate the principle of not standing up for ourselves or our individual rights—not defending our personal honor, and even allowing others to take advantage of us in the interest of kingdom expansion. The point he makes is that, in the kingdom of heaven, self-interest does not rule. Even our legal rights and legitimate expectations may have to give way to the interests of others. He is offering a principle to be applied in every circumstance, not rules limited to these specific situations. 

We should note also, however, that a willingness to forgo one’s own rights and even to allow oneself to be insulted and imposed upon is not incompatible with a firm stand for justice in principle and for the rights of others. We are expected to do all we can to insure and protect the rights of others, even at the expense of giving up our own claim to the same. Jesus’s concern is only with the inappropriateness of applying such a formula to personal ethics—fighting back against personal attacks or holding on to our possessions too tightly.

Four Examples

What follows are the four examples Jesus offered to avoid retaliating for personal injustices. The first is turning the other cheek. [39] But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. “In the East, a slap on the cheek is the greatest form of insult; its equivalent with us would be spitting in the face.”^29. A blow to the right cheek was considered a serious insult, but certainly was not life-threatening. 

Slapping with the right hand was often a back-handed blow to the right cheek as you would slap a child. It was considered insulting. And retribution or reciprocation was a matter of honor. Yet Jesus tells the disciple to forgo any response to which he is legally entitled and accept the insult without responding. In fact, we are expected to go even further, to offer the left cheek, opening the door to a further, if more painful, insult. 

Social scientists have confirmed when we are hit, our most basic inclination is to hit back, even harder. Anger leading to retaliation and revenge is built into us all. Perhaps that explains our survival. Yet, researchers have identified what they called a “revenge paradox,” described in an article published in the American Psychological Association Journal,^30. which quotes social psychologist Ian McKee who observed, “People who are more vengeful tend to be those who are motivated by power, by authority and by the desire for status. . . They don’t want to lose face.” This is the exact opposite of what Jesus taught.

The article also included results of a study by Carlsmith, Gilbert and Wilson that involved two groups of students. One group was allowed to get back at the one who “wronged” them in a simulated financial transaction while the other group was denied that opportunity. The study concluded “Rather than providing closure, [revenge] does the opposite: It keeps the wound open and fresh.”

The students who took revenge reported feeling worse than the non-punishers but predicted they would have felt even worse had they not been given the opportunity for vengeance. The non-punishers said they thought they would feel better if they’d had an opportunity for revenge—even though the survey identified them as the happier group. Those who did not pay the offender back felt better than those who did, although when asked they believed exactly the opposite to be true.

This passage is all about how believers should respond when something is done to us as individuals. “When the injury received is a personal and private one it is the Christian’s duty to bear it in the spirit of meekness, so long as by so doing he is not encouraging evil-doers and thereby rendering them a menace to others.”^31.

We would do well to avoid the mistake of those who have used this passage as a basis for pacifism and even calls for the elimination of law enforcement. Both positions would be wrong. The world is certainly better off as result of the allies standing firm against the Axis powers. It is a community’s and nation’s responsibility to stand against evil and protect its people. As citizens we may even have a role to play in that response. Until Jesus returns to establish his earthly reign, the military and the criminal justice systems are both necessary to prevent chaos and keep us safe. “Though gladly willing to forgo our own rights, we must not neglect the rights of others by turning loose on society those who would imperil its security.”^32.

The second example has to do with feeling like another has taken advantage of you. [40] And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If we examine what Jesus is saying, based on what he had said so far, we can conclude two things. First, it echoes his words in verse 25, to avoid going to court when we know we are wrong, but then takes it even further by insisting we do more than the courts would order. The principle is, not only are we to do what is demanded of us, we are to go beyond. Again, Jesus is saying we might have to forfeit our personal rights and suffer an injustice to bring another to faith or as a demonstration of our discipleship.

Being forced to do something distasteful is the third example. [41] If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. In those days, Roman soldiers were allowed to conscript conquered people as porters for their gear or other military equipment and supplies. Any resentment that people might have felt against the Romans was condemned by Jesus. We shouldn’t simply dismiss this archaic practice as being irrelevant to those of us who live in a free country. 

It is not just government conscription that is being highlighted. It is being asked to perform any task we would prefer to avoid in order to demonstrate our love for Jesus and our love for others. We are often asked to go places and do things we would rather not do. But if our reluctance might cause strife or hurt feelings, Jesus is telling us to suck it up and not only do it, but do it with a smile on our face. 

And finally, the last example has to do with generosity. [42] Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you. Giving to others, like the three previous examples we have discussed, requires each of us to die to self. They represent the cross we are to take up and carry daily if we follow Jesus. What could we possibly own that we would desire more than heaven itself? I think Jim Elliot made this point best when he said, “He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose.” It was just another way of restating Jesus’s words, “What good is it for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul?” (Mark 8:36 | NIV) 

Jesus is not encouraging us to give money indiscriminately to anyone who asks. Yet, we should always be ready to listen for the prompting of the Holy Spirit and give the one who asks the benefit of the doubt. If we are convinced there is a genuine need, we should give if we are able. When the Holy Spirit leads us to give, we should not hesitate. When he doesn’t, doing so may be ill-advised and work against God’s plan for the other person. Yet, I believe God will still bless our good intentions. If we are being hustled, God will sort it out. 

Our God, who is love, is glorified by our loving response to others. Rather than re-defining God’s law Jesus proposes an alternative set of values that reflect the Father’s true intent that Christians place the interests of others before our personal rights or desires. It may be hard, but that is what God wants most from us. It is what life in the upside-down kingdom of God looks like. Jesus means what he says. “The only right a Christian has is the right not to insist upon his or her rights.”^33.

Love Your Enemy

Nowhere does the Old Testament teach anyone to hate, even those considered enemies. In fact, both Testaments teach that we should treat our enemies with respect and compassion as beings who, like us, have been created in God’s image. 

43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect. (NIV)

The Jews had interpreted the term ‘neighbor’ to mean other Jews and it seems to be a logical conclusion drawn from Leviticus 19:18, “Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD.” (NIV) Non-Jews were compared to dogs and were to be considered enemies. And by definition, enemies are people we hate. The teaching may have had some historical basis in the conquest of Canaan. God told the Jews to kill everything big enough to die. That helped build a wall of separation between the Jews and non-Jews. In this passage Jesus introduces what may be the greatest oxymoron his audience had heard so far, “Love your enemies.” And Jesus cleared up the whole ‘enemies’ thing with the parable of the Good Samaritan in Luke 10.

Proverbs 25:21 instructs us on how enemies are to be treated. “If your enemy is hungry, give him food to eat; if he is thirsty, give him water to drink.” (NIV) The point is repeated by the Apostle Paul in Romans 12:20, “On the contrary: ‘If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.’” (NIV) Our God is a God of love who sent his son to die in our place so that we would not be separated from him in this life or the next. 

Verse 45 tells us that, by demonstrating our love for God by the way we love others, we show that we are God’s kids, “. . . that you may be children of your Father in heaven…” We could spend the rest of our time belaboring the point, but let’s just cut to the chase. God expects us to love everybody. That doesn’t mean we need to like everybody, but we need to love them. Jesus taught us to love our neighbor as we love ourselves and our neighbors include our enemies.

If you have ever been in a loving relationship you know that it is possible to love someone and not like something they said or did. In fact, for a brief time, it is possible to just not like them, period. But you never stop loving them. We get that ability from a loving God. Verse 45 continues with, “He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.” God loves all his creation, but he will eventually judge the evil and unrighteous. That’s his job, not ours. 

Unless we want to be on the wrong side of the equation, we should just do our job and love even those we can’t stand to be around. That is made possible through the power of prayer and the strength of the Holy Spirit. We can start changing our feelings toward others, by praying for them that God’s will to be done their lives, asking him to bless them and honestly petitioning him for the ability to love them as he intends for us to do. 

It’s easy to love those who love us back. 

46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? (NIV)

The challenge Jesus gave his original listeners is the same one he is giving us today. That is to love those we don’t like, especially those who do not love or even like us. We can do that only under Holy Spirit influence. It is his power that allows us to move toward the perfection Jesus demands. But that power is only available to those who know Jesus as both lord and savior. 

It is only “when we realize that we cannot love our enemies, we cannot bless those who curse us, we cannot come anywhere near the standard revealed in the Sermon on the Mount, then we are in a condition to receive from God the disposition that will enable us to love our enemies, to pray for those who spitefully use us, to do good to those who hate us.”^34.

Discussion

1. What did you discover in the reading that you did not anticipate?
2. How do you interpret Jesus’s words in this lesson?
3. Has there been a time in your life when you felt you had to make things right with someone before feeling free to worship?
4. What are your challenges to viewing all sin through the lens of eternity?
5. How do you view divorce and does your reading cause you to reconsider? Why/why not?
6. Hell is reserved for, among others, those who lie. What actions might you take to keep from telling even little “white” lies?
7. Which of Jesus’s expectations do you find most daunting? Why?
8. How do you determine when and how to give money or goods to others?
9. Have you ever chosen not to take revenge? How did that work out?
10. What is it that keep us from “viewing all temptation through the eyes of eternity?”

 

 

Footnotes:

[1] D. A. Carson. Matthew, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Rev. Ed (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010) Location 6667, Kindle Edition.

[2] Kent R. Hughes. The Sermon on the Mount: The Message of the Kingdom, Preaching the Word (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2001) p. 100, Kindle Edition.

[3] Ibid., 99.

[4] Ibid., 100.

[5] A. W. Pink. An Exposition of the Sermon on the Mount, Faithful Classic,  Prisbrary Publishing, Location 1462, Kindle.

[6] Ibid., Location 1462.

[7] Charles L. Quarles, Sermon On The Mount, New American Commentary Studies in Bible and Theology, (Nashville: B&H Publishing Group,2011) Location 2518, Kindle Edition.

[8] Carson, Location 6694.

[9] Pink, Location 1450, Hughes, 100, Quarles, Location 2518.

[10] Hughes, 101.

[11] David Martyn Lloyd-Jones. Studies in the Sermon on the Mount (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2000), Locations 3338-3339, Kindle Edition.

[12] Charles H. Talbert. Matthew, Paideia: Commentaries on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010) 83, Kindle Edition.

[13] R.T. France, The Gospel of Matthew, New International Commentary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2007) p. 203. 

[14] Carson, Location 6770.

[15] Hughes, 106.

[16] Ibid., 107.

[17] Ibid., 110.

[18] France, 207.

[19] Quarles, Location 2852.

[20] Hughes, 116.

[21] Quarles, Location 2967.

[22] Lloyd-Jones, Location 3905.

[23] The Mishna, Herbert Danby, trans. (Oxford: Oxford, 1974), pp. 408-421, cited by Hughes, 125.

[24] Pink, Location 2108.

[25] Hughes, 124.

[26] Hughes, 127, See also Quarles Locations 2106-3120 and Lloyd-Jones, Location 3996.

[27] Pink, Location 2541.

[28] Ibid., 2386.

[29] Oswald Chambers. Studies in the Sermon on the Mount (Grand Rapids: Discovery House, 1995), Location 606, Kindle.

[30] Michael Price, “Revenge and the People Who Seek it,” American Psychological Association, June 2009, Vol. 40, No 6. P.34. https://www.apa.org/monitor/2009/06/revenge, accessed December 12, 2022.

[31] Ibid., 2496.

[32] Pink, Location 2571.

[33] Chambers, Location 651.

[34] Ibid., Location 739.

 

Revised: 12/15/2022