Greater righteousness...
Lesson 5: The Law of Retribution.
In the light of verse 19, Jesus continues to explain to his disciples that his teaching does not do away with the law, rather his teaching supersedes the law. In effect Jesus is raising the standard of what it means to be a “righteous” individual. Then He illustrates this point with specific examples related to the Law. In fact, he places anger, lust, divorce, oaths, and retaliation on the same moral plane as murder, adultery, and perjury. Over the next few weeks we will go over these particulars that Jesus has given us.
Note: While Jesus raises the standard of righteous conduct in this passage, he does not reveal the mechanism by which we arrive at this level of righteousness. On its face, Jesus is placing the Kingdom of Heaven out of reach for everyone. Later passages in the New Testament reveal that the Christian’s righteousness is given to him or her by Jesus Christ and acted out in the Christian as he or she walks in the Holy Spirit. This does not mean that Christians are immune to sin, because believers can and do still sin; however, the spirit of the believer longs to not sin, that is, be righteous. A repentant heart can always find restoration to righteousness in Jesus Christ.
Tempering our Reactions.
"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. [Mat 5:38-42 ESV]
You may wonder how taking an "eye for an eye" could be seen as a form of righteousness. In Leviticus 24:17-22 God gives instructions on the law of retribution. This law was the civil and criminal code for the nation of Israel. It required that punishment for a crime must fit the crime. The punishment was to be neither excessive or lenient. For that reason, an eye for an eye was an act of righteousness.
Establishing the first premise: The call to personal righteousness.
Jesus is calling us to live in a state of mind in which we do not seek personal revenge for wrongs done to us. Instead, Jesus calls Christians to practice a life of personal forgiveness.
We can only forgive offences made against ourselves.
It is important to realize that some offences toward an individual are also offences in other spheres of influence. For instance, if someone murders a person I love, multiple offences occur.
- One is against me,
- another is against civil government,
- and yet another is against God.
While I can forgive the offence against me, I cannot forgive those against government or God. It is not consistent with the rest of scripture to take this passage as a prohibition against justice rendered in a recognized civil government.
The most drastic action of any civil government, capital punishment, was sanctioned by God in Genesis 9:6:
"Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image. [Gen 9:6 ESV]
He reaffirms this in Romans 13:
"Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. "[Rom 13:1-4 ESV]
However, we can advocate before God for those who have done evil against us.
"But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. [Luk 6:27-28 ESV]
Behavior toward those who claim offence from us.
Jesus tells us that if someone sue to take away our tunic, give them the cloak also. In other word, we are to live in such a way that our honesty will be above question. If we do cause an offence, it is a righteous thing to go out of our way to make restitution.
Behavior toward those who would take advantage of us.
Jesus uses a hated practice of the Roman government to illustrate this point. A Roman soldier could compel a civilian to carry his pack for him for a mile. Jesus says to take it two miles. It is important to remember that when I got saved, I surrendered my rights for the mission of his kingdom.
As believers, you and I have a greater call than the pursuit of personal justice. We are to pursue personal righteousness. In so doing we bear a light for His Kingdom.
To go to the next lesson, click HERE.
[These are questions and comments excerpted from a discussion a few months back. I felt they were worth preserving before the disappeared into the FB ether.]This is the question posed: "I am asking if you think that was the mind set of our founding fathers. I have asked myself "if the church of today had to make the choice they made would we still be free?"ANSWER:
If you notice in the Declaration of Independence the complaints are against the King because the Colonies had a legal contract with the King. If my memory serves me correctly, the political situation in England had changed since those contracts were written and Parliament was calling the shots. The colonies did not have a contract with Parliament but with a king whose power was greatly diminished. Rather than extending the same courtesy of representation to the colonies which was now enjoyed in England, they chose to treat English citizens on our side of the Atlantic as second class citizens by imposing taxes (which may have been reasonable) but denying representation in the legislative process. Additionally, the English had disbanded local forms of government necessary for civil preservation. The revolution was not just to overthrow "bad" government, but in many ways born out of a necessity. English civil government in the colonies was in many ways almost non-existent. This then, was a situation which left the colonies vulnerable to perils from within and without. To summarize then, the King was in breach of contract, Parliament had no legal jurisdiction over the colonies because they were chartered by the King, and there was a widespread absence of (and prevention of) necessary civil governing bodies.I'm not sure they had much choice. It is also worth noting, I think, that the colonies did not declare "war" but "independence".
The follow up question: " Could their effort to gain independence be justified in New Testament scripture or would it be contrary to its teaching?"ANSWER:
I think I can make a compelling case for them. Remember that the colonies were corporate ventures chartered by the king. Prior to the "revolution" their original governing system had been arbitrarily abolished, effectively putting the now impotent king in breach of contract. The new government system (essentially martial law) was being imposed by forces to whom they had neither contract nor obligation. Had they submitted to the marshal law as their new government they would not have been justified in the revolution, in my estimation. [The Boston tea party was to demonstrate non-submission].Because they did not submit to Parliament rule (unless afforded representation), they could view the British Army controlled by Parliament as an invading force, which it was. The purpose of the British army in the colonies was not to protect the colonies but to subjugate them to Parliament.The crazy thing is, that had they been granted representation, the revolution would not have occurred. Had they been granted limited self government, the revolution would not have occurred.Theirs was somewhat a unique situation in history. Since two of the older men who signed the DoI were ministers (Lyman Hall and John Witherspoon), I am sure your question was raised and addressed way back in the 1770's.The questions in light of this verse, I suppose, is [1] Did they pursue peace, and [2] were their motives just?
RE the U.S. Constitution:The Constitution is a whole other ball of wax, written several years later. Yes, separation of powers refers to branches of government. To be sure, the founders did not want to found a theocracy (or any other kind of "ocracy") but a Republic. The Republic worked because it's citizen's (by and large) recognized the virtue of Christian morality and ethics as individuals. This is reflected in our fundamental laws. Restitution, multiple witnesses for conviction, property rights, etc. are all based in a Judeo-Christian world view.
Another question: " In terms of relative hostility and/or oppressiveness, how would you rate the British rule over the colonies versus Rome with the Jews (and later, Christians) in the NT?"
ANSWER:The history of the Roman Empire is a long one and I am not sure that is an "apples to apples comparison". The Jews did somewhat successfully resist Roman occupation during the Maccabean era, and were justified to do so in my estimation. By the time of Christ however the hope of self government was pretty much gone and the working civil authority was in fact Roman. The judicial system was Roman. The roads were built by Romans. (Martial) law enforcement was Roman.While that system was far from perfect (ie. political manipulation led Pilate to sentence Jesus to death), it was a functional, established governmental system that did allow a considerable amount of freedom (as long as you were not perceived to be a threat to the system itself). Pilate "found no fault" in Christ and later Paul was held in protective custody and transported to Rome on Caesar's dime, just to make sure he received his appeal process.Roman persecution of the Jews was mostly the result, I think, of the unwillingness of the Jews to surrender to the invaders and the lingering zealot influence. If you do take up arms against a government, you can't really cry "foul" when things don't go your way.Early Christian persecution, ironically, was not fueled by the Roman's but by the local quasi-autonomous religious leadership and in some cases (ie. John the Baptizer) a personal vendetta.So, Jesus tells his disciples to "render unto Caesar" because that is existing established governmental system. It also seems to be the best viable governmental option at the time (try to visualize what Judea governed by the Sanhedrin would have looked like.) Paul also characterized the Roman governmental system as not being "a terror to good works".Later persecution of Christians was conducted by Rome under the Emperor Nero on a larger scale. By that time the Roman system was well on its way to a full implosion.The American Revolution is much more comparable to the early Maccabean period, I think, than the time of Christ. The governmental systems within the colonies was in a state of flux before hostilities began. The governmental system that had been a work under a British Sovereign (with whom they had contractual agreements) were being changed by Parliament who had engaged in usurpation within Britain proper. Theirs was a question of whether or not allegiance could or should be transferred. They had been content to be subjects of a monarch. They were not content to be the subjects of Parliament. I don't think the degree of hostilities and oppressiveness had a lot to do with it.
REFERENCES:http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.htmlhttp://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle%3D816&chapter=69270&layout=html&Itemid=27option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle%3D816&chapter=69270&layout=html&Itemid=27
It seems to me that today there is a great deal of hand wringing going on among evangelicals concerning the imprisonment on Pastor Saeed Abedini.
By all accounts he is a good man on a mission of mercy to help orphans. He has been accused of Christian evangelism and sentenced to eight years in an Iranian prison. He had to have known the risks when he went to Iran. I understand that this is a fearful time for his family and those close to him. I get all of that, and for that reason I write this with a great deal of somberness.
We as Christians need to take a step back for a little "Kingdom" perspective.
This is not the first time a Christian preacher has been put in prison for the sake of the gospel. In fact Jesus told us these things would happen. As much as we love religious liberty, we should not forget that great revivals can happen in prison.
Do I want Pastor Abedini to be freed? Yes, but my hope is not in a rescue by the U.S. Government. My prayer is that he will bear such a witness to the saving power of Jesus Christ, that prisoners and guards alike will believe on Jesus Christ as their Savior. I want his freedom to come in a way that brings glory to Jesus Christ.
As I understand it, he is being held in a notorious Iranian prison called "Evin Prison". It seems that in addition to hardened criminals,
this prison holds many Iranian intellectuals who are incarcerated for political
reasons.
It is unlikely that any missions organization would be able to penetrate this Iranian prison, but now there is an evangelical pastor of Iranian descent,
in this Iranian prison filled with potential national leaders. The Lord Jesus now has a light in a very dark place.
"Our Father in heaven, please grant Pastor Saeed Abedini courage and wisdom and favor and confirm you word in amazing ways!"
Pastor Saeed Abedini
Some statistics say that in the last 40 years since "Roe v. Wade" legalized abortion in the U.S., the lives of 53,000,000 babies have been extinguished. Their little bodies have been thrown out like trash or (worse) sold for various purposes.
We have a problem.
God interacts with mankind in several different levels. He certainly deals with people on an individual level, but the Bible also indicates that he also interacts with people as social groups (such as families, cities and nations) as well.
It is the national relationship that concerns me.
Human government was God's idea, not man's. We first find it established as God talks to Noah after the flood (Genesis chapter 9) . The antediluvian (pre-flood) world was a world of civil anarchy, filled with violence. For this reason, the Bible tells us, God destroyed it in a flood. In Genesis 9, God is pushes the restart button. Here a social contract of self government is established that emphasizes the value of human life:
"Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image." Genesis 9:6.
Do you see the principle there? Human life is sacred because a human life is "in his own image."
This principle continues to be developed throughout the Bible. Notably it makes God's "Top Ten" list as "you shall not murder". He established the principles of "due process" and differentiates between "manslaughter" (accidental killing) and "murder". Throughout the Old Testament we find that the rise and fall of nations is in direct relation to their treatment of the innocent, particularly their children, their widows and foreigners. We find God's promise of national longevity is tied to the protection of the innocent. One of the damning sins of the Canaanites was child sacrifice to the pagan god Moloch. The horrors of the plagues in Egypt were preceded by decades of Israeli children being tossed into the Nile. Israel's and Judah's captivities were preceded by the adoption of pagan practices, including child sacrifice.
Murder, in any form, is an evil of the highest order. When murder is committed, God takes note. If a society does not police itself by bringing murderers to justice, God will avenge the innocent himself. In the case of the abortion industry, we have failed to prosecute those who take innocent life. Even worse, as a nation, we have condoned it. There is a verse in 2 Kings 24:4 that concerns me greatly. Speaking of the ancient nation of Judah it says they,
"... filled Jerusalem with innocent blood, and the LORD would not pardon."
Then they were taken captive.
Will God judge the United States for those 53,000,000 dead babies? I am certain of it.
How will he do it? I have no idea.
Can it be avoided? If we were to arrest and prosecute the abortionist for the last 40 years, perhaps. But we won't.
Can it be postponed? God is merciful. He allows a window for repentance and self judgment. Historically, that window has lasted for decades for many nations. Sometimes nations repent and judgment is postponed, sometimes they don't and it comes more swiftly.
What can I do? Individually there is a lot you can do. First, repent of you sins, any and all. Sin requires judgment. If you will let him, Jesus bore that judgment for you when he died on a cross. He gave his life for you. He took your punishment. There is no sin too great for him to bear, even the killing of the innocent.
Then, for the nation, you can pray for God to work in realms of authority far higher than ours. As Christians we must remember we have a mandate to preach to all nations, but we cannot save any nation. Rather, it is individuals that we lead to salvation.
While the United States remains under a cloud of judgment, individually anyone can find a place redemption in Jesus Christ. He gave his life for you, if you haven't already done so this would be a good day to give your life to him...
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life." - John 3:16
