Date: 6 June 2021 | Pre­a­cher:
Series: | Bible text: Matthew 5:38–42
Hint: This ser­mon has been machi­ne trans­la­ted. Plea­se note that we can­not accept any respon­si­bi­li­ty for the accu­ra­cy of the content.

Many think that the mot­to «an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth» is a very anar­chic and bloodthirsty one. The oppo­si­te is the case: this direc­ti­ve ser­ved as a pre­cept of the public courts and hel­ped to curb evil. Jesus then addres­ses the per­so­nal dealings among his fol­lo­wers. The­re, vir­tu­es such as gent­le­ness and magn­ani­mi­ty are to be pro­mo­ted. The­re is a clear dif­fe­ren­tia­ti­on bet­ween the task of the sta­te and the per­so­nal hand­ling of conflicts.


A sand­box sce­na­rio could look like this: Jonas ste­als the small sho­vel from Lars, his neighbour’s boy, who is play­ing with him in the sand­pit. Lars does­n’t take this lying down and snat­ches the sho­vel from his fri­end. The con­flict escala­tes. Jonas des­troys the bridge con­s­truc­tion that Lars has built, until final­ly the beau­tiful sand cast­le lies in ruins. Con­flicts have a ten­den­cy to esca­la­te, simi­lar to Mani Matter’s song, in which the sce­na­rio occurs that a world war could result from the light­ing of a match.

The reven­ge has a ten­den­cy to esca­la­te. Lamech decla­res who­le­he­ar­ted­ly to his two wives that he would kill a per­son who hurt him even slight­ly in a moment. «If Cain is aven­ged seven­fold, Lamech shall be aven­ged seven­ty-seven­fold!»(Gene­sis 4:24 NLB). Could he have impres­sed his wives with this?

Regulation before the public court

«You have heard that in the Law of Moses it says: «Whoe­ver inju­res someone in the eye shall hims­elf be inju­red in the eye. And he who knocks out another’s tooth shall hims­elf lose a tooth for it».»(Matthew 5:38 NLB). What you hear again and again is: «An eye for an eye, that is the bar­ba­ric mot­to, the Jewish reta­lia­ti­on prac­ti­ce of the Old Tes­ta­ment. For us Chris­ti­ans, the New Tes­ta­ment com­mandment appli­es: Love your neigh­bour as yours­elf!» This pits Chris­tia­ni­ty against Juda­ism. Moreo­ver, one deri­ves from this, among other things, the view that Chris­ti­ans should not offer resis­tance, and paci­fism is glo­ri­fied. This has no basis whatsoever.

Jesus draws on three bibli­cal pas­sa­ges from the Torah for the prin­ci­ple of «an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth». If one reads the­se texts with an open mind, it beco­mes clear that this is not about retri­bu­ti­on, but about com­pen­sa­ti­on for dama­ges. All texts deal with the public tri­al, sta­te law is defi­ned. At that time, pagan peo­p­les lived around the Jews, who reac­ted with blood reven­ge. One of the basic prin­ci­ples of the Torah was to estab­lish law and jus­ti­ce. The punish­ment for a crime is named as pre­cis­e­ly as pos­si­ble and the com­pen­sa­ti­on for the vic­tim is limi­t­ed. The focus of «an eye for an eye» is that one does not have to pay for the dama­ge with «dou­ble coin».

This is the­r­e­fo­re the public regu­la­ti­on of the law and not per­so­nal reven­ge. The punish­ment should not be hig­her than the trans­gres­si­on. The sta­te can­not dis­pen­se with punish­ment to pro­tect its citi­zens. Tole­ra­ti­on of the aggres­sor des­troys socie­ty. It was never Jesus» inten­ti­on to ques­ti­on the legal basis of the Torah. He does not advo­ca­te anar­chism or pacifism.

A few years ago we had a talk with Susan­ne Ges­ke. Her hus­band, along with two other men, was tor­tu­red and bru­t­ally mur­de­red for three hours by five young Tur­ki­sh men. At almost 100 court hea­rings she saw the per­pe­tra­tors again and again. On the tele­vi­si­on she said: «I wish for the­se five young Tur­ki­sh men that God for­gi­ves them, becau­se they do not know what they are doing..» A jour­na­list had writ­ten: «With this one sen­tence she has said more than a thousand mis­sio­na­ries can say in a thousand years.» It is admi­ra­ble that this woman said that God for­gi­ve the men even though they did some­thing ter­ri­ble. But it is equal­ly right that the Tur­ki­sh govern­ment holds the­se men accoun­ta­ble and punis­hes them. The sta­te is respon­si­ble for public law and must enforce it. Howe­ver, we should not take per­so­nal reven­ge and detest, put down or des­troy persons.

Regulation among the followers of Jesus

«But I say: Do not resist if someone does you evil! He who strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.»(Matthew 5:39 NLB). Now Jesus talks about how it should work among his fol­lo­wers. So now it is about per­so­nal feuds in pri­va­te dealings. Paul is sur­pri­sed that the­re were peo­p­le in Corinth who took their quar­rel with ano­ther church mem­ber to a secu­lar court (1 Corin­thi­ans 6:1). After a short dis­cus­sion he arri­ves at the quint­essence: «The fact that you are taking each other to court at all is alre­a­dy a defeat for all of you. Why are you not rea­dy to be wron­ged? Why can’t you stand it when someone enri­ches hims­elf at your expen­se?»(V.7 NLB). Jesus takes a simi­lar line here.

«Whoe­ver strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other to him». A nor­mal slap with the right hand hits the left cheek. Jesus means the slap with the back of the hand. A per­son who does this is very aggres­si­ve insi­de. But he does not want to show his aggres­si­on – other­wi­se he would hit with his fist – becau­se he would lose face. You don’t do some­thing like that in the heat of the moment, but with full cal­cu­la­ti­on. Accor­din­gly, in the Mish­nah, the punish­ment for a blow with the back of the hand is twice as seve­re as a blow with the fist.

Jesus actual­ly asks: How should a per­son react when he is insul­ted like this? How do you pro­per­ly resol­ve con­flict situa­tions with your neigh­bour? Accor­ding to Jesus, we must not decla­re war on our neigh­bour. The call to turn the left cheek is not­hing more than an image of the con­flict being acted out, just as slap­ping the right side is an image of an unjust act. The left cheek held out forces the tor­men­tor to recon­sider his aggression.

If someone insults you with a kick in the shin (slap with the back of the hand), then bring the mat­ter to the table so that the other per­son has to take a stand and so his anger comes to light (offer him the left cheek). This is the solu­ti­on to the con­flict within the com­mu­ni­ty so as not to go to court.

How do we react when we are trea­ted unf­air­ly? If we let our­sel­ves be gui­ded by our fee­lings, then we can beco­me very angry. In this case, we hard­ly think «tooth for tooth», but would like to tear the opponent’s head off: Head for a tooth. If, on the other hand, we allow our­sel­ves to be gui­ded by the spi­rit and con­trol our fee­lings, we can offer the oppo­nent con­s­truc­ti­ve con­ver­sa­ti­on as a respon­se. This cor­re­sponds to tur­ning the other cheek. This dis­arms the other per­son of his aggres­si­on. And after the emo­ti­ons have been expres­sed in the con­ver­sa­ti­on, one can try to res­to­re unity. This was alre­a­dy recom­men­ded by the wise Solo­mon: «A fri­end­ly ans­wer soot­hes anger, offen­ding words arou­se it»(Pro­verbs 15:1 NLB). And Paul says: «See that no one repays evil with evil, but always try to do good to one ano­ther and also to ever­yo­ne else!»(1Thessalonians 5:15 NLB). In the high song of love we also learn that tole­ra­ting and loving belong tog­e­ther: «Love tole­ra­tes ever­y­thing»(1 Corin­thi­ans 13:7 NLB).

«If you have to appear in court and your shirt is taken off, give your coat to them as well»(Matthew 5:40 NLB). In anci­ent Isra­el, the guil­ty per­son had to depo­sit a pledge. The poor peo­p­le depo­si­ted their coat by day and their shirt by night. But the­re were peo­p­le who refu­sed to give their pledge. Jesus says: You do not have to pro­vo­ke your oppo­nent unneces­s­a­ri­ly and should accept this rule.

Actual­ly, this is about the atti­tu­de towards mate­ri­al pos­ses­si­ons. Jesus chal­lenges to renoun­ce one’s own right. The Jewish tra­di­ti­on knows such a kind of jus­ti­ce: The­re is a four­fold mind­set among peo­p­le: He who says, «Mine is mine and yours is yours,» that is the way of the medio­cre. […] «Mine is yours and yours is mine», that is the kind of the law­less. «Mine is yours and yours is yours», that is the pious. «Yours is mine and mine is mine», that is the sacrilegious.

Giving others what is theirs and at the same time being gene­rous with their own is the atti­tu­de of a fol­lower of Jesus.. Due to expe­ri­ence to the con­tra­ry, the fol­lo­wing pro­verb has come into being: «Being a Chris­ti­an stops at the pur­se!»

«If someone asks you to go a mile with him, go two miles with him»(Matthew 5:41 NLB). Yes­ter­day, the bles­sing feast and wed­ding of an Eri­tre­an fami­ly took place in our bis­tro. For some time now, we have beco­me some­thing like a fami­ly of refe­rence for them. Sin­ce they have to live very mode­st­ly finan­ci­al­ly, I offe­red them the bis­tro for free to hold the feast. So far so good. But sud­den­ly they asked me if I would dri­ve with them to Hei­den AR at 5:00 on Satur­day mor­ning, becau­se that is whe­re the church is, whe­re they will be bles­sed. Do I want to invest so much time and expen­se? When I accept­ed this ser­vice, I did not know that today it was about the second mile.

The Roman sol­diers had clai­med for them­sel­ves the right to force other peo­p­le to go with them in order to car­ry some­thing hea­vy for no con­side­ra­ti­on. The most famous exam­p­le is Simon of Cyre­ne, who was forced to car­ry Jesus» cross after him, alt­hough he had just come tired from the field (Mark 15:21). Jesus wants to tell us with the­se wordsNot frus­tra­ti­on about dis­cri­mi­na­ti­on, but bet­ter jus­ti­ce should moti­va­te us to go a second mile bey­ond the mini­mum. We also owe sta­te power bea­rers the tes­tim­o­ny of tole­ra­ting love. How pathe­tic in com­pa­ri­son is con­stant cri­ti­cism of the sta­te, in which not infre­quent­ly Chris­ti­ans also participate.

«Give to tho­se who ask you, and do not turn your backs on tho­se who want to bor­row from you.»(Matthew 5:42 NLB). Does Jesus want to obli­ge us to give of our mate­ri­al goods to anyo­ne who asks? May­be the other per­son buys alco­hol or other drugs with it. Have we not lear­ned not to give to beggars? Jesus inter­prets the fol­lo­wing Bible pas­sa­ge: «Give glad­ly wit­hout com­plai­ning. Then the Lord your God will bless you in ever­y­thing you do. The­re will always be poor peo­p­le in the land. The­r­e­fo­re, I com­mand you to be gene­rous to the poor and nee­dy Israe­li­tes.»(Deut. 15:10f NLB). So it is not begging or fri­vo­lous pum­ping, but hel­ping in need. And – it is bet­ter to decei­ve yours­elf once in favour of the nee­dy than always in my favour.

 

The Ser­mon on the Mount is about vir­tu­es and cha­rac­ter. The last few weeks have been about sere­ni­ty and gent­le­ness, self-con­trol, faithful­ness and love, truthful­ness and hones­ty and today about magn­ani­mi­ty and meekness. All the­se are vir­tu­es that we find in God and that make up his cha­rac­ter. When Christ lives in us and is given space, we are trans­for­med into his image. And this hap­pens at the very points we are tar­ge­ting. God does not work past us!

 

 

 

Possible questions for the small groups

Read Bible text: Matthew 5:38–42; Romans 12:17–21

  1. Read Romans 12:17–21 and compa­re this pas­sa­ge with the ser­mon text. What stands out?
  2. What would hap­pen if the sta­te acted accor­ding to Matthew 5:39 in its courts?
  3. Sup­po­se you were to keep ver­ses 39–42: What does this thought do to you? What effects would this have on your environment?
  4. What does it mean in con­cre­te terms to turn the «left cheek»? What does the image stand for? Is this con­cept realisable?
  5. Love tole­ra­tes ever­y­thing (1 Corin­thi­ans 13:7). What should one tole­ra­te in life? What not?