Biblestudy: Matthew (Part Seven)

Matthew 5:20 - 48
#BS-MA07
John W. Ritenbaugh (1932-2023)
Given 28-Oct-81; 67 minutes

listen:

playlist:
Go to the Matthew (Bible study series) playlist

download:

Now let us go back to Matthew 5:21, and we will get a running start into the part of the chapter that we have not gone into yet. In verses 21 and 22 He is dealing with the spirit of the law regarding murder, and in that part He emphasizes that there is somewhat an idea of degree of things that are evil or bad.

In summary, those two verses put together come out something like this: Long-lasting anger, an anger that is brooded over, is bad. That contemptuous speaking, that is, being scornful of somebody and putting them down, is worse. But worst of all is to destroy someone's reputation. All three of those are part of the spirit of murder, but the worst of the three is to destroy someone's reputation.

Where it says “you fool” there in verse 23, that person is in danger of Gehenna fire. Well, “that fool” is not calling the person stupid as our word “fool” tends to connote, but rather you are calling him immoral. You are destroying his reputation, and that is the worst of the three aspects of the spirit of murder that are mentioned there in verses 21 and 22.

Then beginning in verse 23 is an interesting principle, and that is that all sin is against God. I think we understand that. Acts 20:21 shows that very clearly. Repentance is toward God and faith is toward Jesus Christ. However, He shows in these verses that before one can be united with God he has to first make every effort to heal the breach between himself and his fellow man, the one that is offended.

So that is why He said, “Before you bring your gift to the altar, first you must be reconciled with your brother.” Now there is wisdom there for you and me, because a sin that would be against God directly certainly involves men. And if there is offense involved, then we should first make our apologies to the person that we have offended and we should first repent before them and then go to God. Sometimes we get the cart before the horse, and we go to God first.

Now this is something that can be used in the family, because I think that there is probably more offense and sin against one of our fellow human beings there than maybe any other place. Back in I Peter 3:7, Peter said:

I Peter 3:7 Husbands, likewise, dwell with them with understanding, giving honor to the wife, as to the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life, that your prayers may not be hindered.

If there is a separation between a man and a woman in the same family, the husband and wife are having a fight, well just understand, from what is said in Matthew 5, you are cut off from God too.

So first be reconciled to one another and then take your gift to God, that is, your gift of repentance or whatever it is. That is very important; you have to do your utmost to make things right with your fellow man first.

In verses 25 and 26 the principle involved here is this: He says, “agree with your adversary quickly.” In other words, do not let things build up, take care of problems when they are small. Take care of them when they are still “mole hills,” do not let them brew and fester and get worse and worse, until finally it erupts into a great big problem. Take care of them while they are small.

Verses 27 and 28. He begins addressing the problem of lust first of all and it was really very serious. What is intended here is an abnormal use of the eye for the purpose of lusting. Now, God does not mean here that a man should not look at a woman, or a woman should not look at a man and find that person attractive. God intended that we find one another attractive, beautiful, wholesome, or whatever, but it should stop there. What is intended here by these verses is that we do not use the eyes with the deliberate intention of lusting.

But how do you do that? Well, I do not think you do it by sitting down and saying, “I won’t lust” a thousand times, that does not work. But there really should be a long-range program in which you are committed to doing acts of service and good. If your mind is oriented for doing good for people, then there is not going to be the tendency to use them as objects of lust, you are going to be thinking of the right thing all the time.

It is part of that principle that Paul talked about back in Philippines 4:5 where he began that section by saying, “Let your moderation [gentleness NKJV] be known among all men.” Actually, that word “moderation” can just as easily be translated into “self-control.” And then he goes on in verse 8, he says to think on certain things, does it not? “Think on that which is beautiful. . . think on that which is pure. . . think on that which is holy. . . think on that which is good. . .”

Well, that is a long-range program of filling your mind with good things. And if you do that constantly, if your mind is always oriented for doing that which is the best for someone, then you are not going to lust because you have trained yourself, disciplined yourself over a long period of time not to allow yourself to focus on those kind of thoughts. So it is a matter of reprogramming one's mind over a long period of time.

Now on to verses 31 and 32. He address here the problem of divorce. It was really a problem then and I would say that their problem then was worse really than ours is now. If I am any kind of judge of the things I have read in history, I would say that their problem with marriage and divorce is worse than ours is right at this stage. Now, ours will probably get worse, but maybe we will never reach the bottom as they did, because whether you were in a Greek society or Roman society or a Hebrew society, it was bad everywhere.

The Greeks were probably the worst. They had one of the worst double standards regarding women that you could possibly come up with. A Greek husband expected his wife to be a virgin when he married her, and she was from that time on literally a “kept” woman. I mean that they were literally kept in the house. They were generally not allowed out without the company of other women, she was not allowed to eat in an apartment of another man, even a casual acquaintance or relative, she was not allowed to do those things alone, but all the while the man had prostitutes all over the county. It was part of their way of life.

The temple of Aphrodite there in Athens is reported to have had one thousand separate prostitutes. How do you think they raised the money to build that temple? They raised it through the prostitutes. And who were visiting those prostitutes? Were they all single men? No, most of them were married men who were paying for the privilege of using those prostitutes.

Well, you can imagine what that did to a woman. I do not see how she could possibly have any kind of a fulfilled life under those kind of circumstances because she was either a whore on the one hand or a completely kept woman on the other. It is tremendous opposite[?].

Well, Rome came along and conquered Greece militarily, but I will tell you, Greece conquered Rome morally. Before the Romans ran into the Greeks, they had a pretty good system going, family was strong, and according to the history books there was no divorce in Rome in the first 500 years of the commonwealth. That is quite a record! I do not know whether that is true, but it is commonly reported in encyclopedias and history books that that occurred.

Now that, in my mind, tells me that they must have had pretty strong families. However, less than one hundred years prior to the time of Jesus Christ, they changed from the commonwealth to an empire, and they went over to the emperor system, a form of government that we know of as the Tsars, and things went from terrible to worse. And as the family structure just fell apart, in just a couple hundred years, it was not at all uncommon for a man and woman to be married multiple times. And when Rome lost the power and strength of their families, it fell apart. It was all downhill from that time on.

And so in both Greece and Rome, there was no need for any kind of a legal process in divorce. All that was needed was a statement from the husband that he was going to divorce the wife.

In Hebrew culture, the Jew was to be specific. We are all familiar with Matthew 19, where Jesus was confronted with the question: “Is it right for a man to get a divorce for any reason?” Obviously, there was a large segment of “divorce culture” where the divorce was taken very lightly and a man could get a divorce also under those circumstances very, very easily. Somewhat like the Arabs today, where they are supposed to say, “I divorce you, I divorce you, I divorce you,” and it is a divorce.

The situation was really bad and women especially were really maltreated in regard to marriage. She was a thing and no more, and she was just completely at the mercy of her husband. So what Jesus is doing here is He is beginning to move, at least for the sake of His people, the followers of Christ, God's children, to help put things in their proper perspective and He does it by saying that divorce should be extremely rare, almost unheard of. And in that He begins to move to protect the woman in that situation and to elevate her to her proper place as being a co-heir with man through the Kingdom of God.

Now we are going to get into that later on when we get back in Matthew 19 and we will go into it in greater detail there. But just understand that is what He was beginning to do at that time. In verse 33 we are going to begin to go into this in greater detail.

Matthew 5:33-37 “Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform your oaths to the Lord [now, here comes the change. I think it is the third or fourth time that He has made that statement. “I say unto you,” He is designating a change].’ But I say to you, do not swear at all: neither by heaven, for it is God’s throne; nor by the earth, for it is His footstool; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. Nor shall you swear by your head, because you cannot make one hair white or black. But let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No.’ For whatever is more than these is from the evil one.”

Let us go back into the Old Testament, back to Numbers 30.

Numbers 30:2 If a man makes a vow to the Lord, or swears an oath to bind himself by some agreement, he shall not break his word; he shall do according to all that proceeds out of his mouth.

It is obvious from there that God permitted the use of His name in oath making. Now let us go back to Deuteronomy 23, verse 21 where there is a reiteration of this.

Deuteronomy 23:21-22 “When you make a vow to the Lord your God, you shall not delay to pay it; for the Lord your God will surely require it of you, and it would be sin to you. But if you abstain from vowing, it shall not be sin to you.”

So the rule of thumb is do not open your mouth to swear, but if you do open your mouth to swear, you better pay it. That was the rule of thumb. It is obvious, as I said before, that God permitted people to invoke His name when entering into covenant or other serious forms of agreements.

Now, an oath is supposed to guarantee the fulfillment of a promise and the use of the name of God is intended to give weight or authority to what the person says he is going to do. And thus people go into the court of the land and they raise their right hand, put their left hand on the Bible, and they swear that they will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. You see the principle there, the name of God is invoked in order to force the people, on the authority of God, to tell the truth.

Obviously, from what we know of what goes on in court, it does not make people tell the truth. Some it does, but it obviously does not make everybody tell the truth because not everybody believes in God to that extent, where they would actually be frightened about lying because they had sworn before God with one hand on the Bible that they would not lie. There are a lot of people who would put their hand on the Bible, swear, and proceed to lie because there is no fear of God in them.

Now, the Jews were no different. Again, we can look at their history, things that men have written, and we find that, first of all, they were invoking the name of God in very frivolous ways, just tossing God's name around in vain and breaking the third commandment.

That is the way people are today. The name of Jesus Christ and God is invoked in very ordinary, common, coarse, crude conversations almost everywhere you go under almost any circumstance. So what power does it have? None, it is part and parcel of people's conversation and how frivolous the usage is today, and it was no different than. What these people are doing, of course, is breaking the third commandment, taking the name of the Lord our God in vain.

Now, the Jews were tricky, they were invoking God’s name frivolously and they were failing to invoke God's name in other situations where it probably was really called for. Jews have some interesting characteristics that God even remarks about in the Bible.

I believe that they either in Hosea 5 or 6, in one of those two chapters where Hosea writes that “Judah is as one who removes the boundaries.” Do you know what that means? When surveyors survey land, they put markers up to mark the boundaries. Well, back in those days, they did not drive stakes in the ground, they used piles of stone, and they would put a pile of stone wherever the corner of people's land gathered together.

What God was talking about is that when nobody was looking they would go out and pick up the boundary rock and move it over five or six feet or something, and he would get himself an extra piece of ground that way.

Now, the Jews had a way of picking the boundaries sideways on everything. In other words, they were always trying to get a little bit more out of the deal. Well, what they were doing is that they would enter into covenants, and they would actually word it in such a way that God's name was not used, and therefore if something went wrong with the deal, they could always back out and say, “Well, they didn’t swear to that,” and change their minds.

Why did Jesus say, “Look, you do not have to swear at all.”? Why did God permit these people to swear in the first place? Let us back off this a little bit and give a principle (something that I want to bring out in the sermon this Sabbath too), and that is that in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus is restoring the law to its original purpose as God intended from the beginning. He is elevating its application to include the Spirit, its intent.

He allowed ancient Israel to invoke His name because they were unconverted, because He had never promised that He would give them His Holy Spirit. He knew that there was no way that they would fear Him unless He gave them physical needs to introduce that to them. Now, we should not need that, God should always be before our eyes.

Now, why should one not need to swear? The first reason is that we, who have God's Spirit, ought to recognize and understand that God is involved in every transaction, every covenant, whether we invite Him in or not. Whether we invoke His name, He is involved! So there is no need to swear. He is already involved.

The second reason is that God intends that His people be so transparently good, upright, so righteous, that their word is accepted regardless of circumstances. People know that under no circumstance will you ever lie, that you will never deceive, that you are always above bribes, and that your word is your bond, and that we do not need to have any authority invoked by using the name of God. Now, that is God's purpose. His intention is that first of all, we understand that He is involved in every transaction anyway. God's law is spiritual, it is alive, they work automatically. It is just like He is.

So the conclusion is very simple, say yes or no. In other words, when you give your approval of something, when you give your word that you are going to do something, you had better be evaluating exactly what is being said. And when you give your word, your bond, you had better carry it through, unless of course you find out that what you entered into is illegal and is against God's law. But then, in a case like that, you better repent and back off. So a word to the wise is that you had better think before you say yes or no to any contract. Now verse 38.

Matthew 5:38-42 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also. And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two. Give to him who asks you, and from him who wants to borrow from you do not turn away.”

So here comes another change, a very significant change. Now it is very obvious that this law was enforced. Let us go back to Deuteronomy 19, this “eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth” law is actually repeated three times in the law of Moses. I believe the first time is in Exodus 21, the second time I believe is in Numbers, and the third time is in Deuteronomy.

We could go through a much more detailed presentation of this law back in Exodus 21. And if you want to study it in more detail, you can go back there and do so because in one sense, it is still binding on us. But I want to read Deuteronomy 19 here.

Deuteronomy 19:18-21 And the judges shall make careful inquiry, and indeed, if the witness is a false witness, who has testified falsely against his brother, then you shall do to him as he thought to have done to his brother; so you shall put away the evil from among you. And those who remain shall hear and fear, and hereafter they shall not again commit such evil among you. Your eye shall not pity: life shall be for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.

Now, that law was called by the Romans, lex talionis, and talon means tooth, see, the law of the tooth. Eye for an eye, tooth for tooth. Now, Israel was not the only one to have this law. Almost all of the ancient civilizations had it, and there was ample record from their record, things that have been dug up in archaeological digs, that they were very well aware of this principle.

But it began with God. Now did God literally intended that if someone got their eye knocked out, that the person who did the knocking out, whether by accident or whatever, is to have his eye gouged out? Or if somehow a person's hand was crushed or cut off, maybe he got it caught between some huge mill stone or somehow in some kind of an accident, that the person who caused the accident had to have his hand cut off too? Is that what God intended? A “tit for tat” as we would say today? No, that is not what God intended at all, because what we see here is the basic elements or rudiments of equal justice.

Now, here is what actually happened. The Jews show us from their records that they did not actually literally carry out this kind of punishment, that they did not actually gouge a person's eye out or cut his hand off. Exodus 21 shows very clearly that what God intended was that there be a monetary value placed on the loss of an eye, hand, or whatever. Is that not exactly what we do today? You look at insurance policies and they say you lose a hand; it is worth so many thousands of dollars, you lose an eye, it is worth so many thousands of dollars.

God's law back in Exodus 21 will also show the same thing. That any time that anybody was injured, they took five things into consideration: 1) What was injured and to what extent was it injured? This is where the eye comes in and so forth. 2) How much pain did the person suffer or would he continue to suffer? 3) Was it healed? They took into account any cost involved in bringing about a healing of the injured part. 4) How much time did the man lose while this part was injured? Or would he continue to be out as a result of the injury. 5) Did the person suffer any indignity as a result of the loss of this member of his body?

And so they put numerical values on each one of these things, and a judge then made a decision based upon the circumstances of that case and he awarded a settlement to the injured person involved. So what we see here is the rudiment of equal justice. Now you could find more than that, because once this law was established it began to cut into other things that formerly had been very common.

1. It tended to limit vengeance.

Now, let me put it this way. If you read back into the Old Testament, you will find that there were some very serious disputes between some of the tribes. For example, one time the tribe of Dan almost got wiped out. There was quite an enmity between them and the other tribes. At one time, Jephthah I believe, who was half Mannassite and half Gentile, was putting together an army to overthrow, I believe it was the Midianites. And you know, they did not want any English people in there. They did not want any Ephraimites in the army because they were not really sure that the Ephraimites were going to be loyal and so there was an antagonism between the two of them. So they invented this word that the Ephraimites could not pronounce, and so they singled out all the Ephraimites and there was an antagonism there.

Well, sometimes these antagonisms tended to build up actually into clan wars. And what would happen would be that an injury to anyone of a given clan was considered to be an injury to the whole clan. And so then the whole clan would rise to take vengeance upon the party or the other clan that did the injury. It reminds you of the Hatfield's and the McCoy's, Romeo and Juliet having a feud going on.

Now, if you read that law very carefully, it states very clearly that vengeance was to be limited to the person who was guilty. In other words, you could not take vengeance on a whole clan just because one of its members committed an evil thing.

2. It did not permit private vengeance.

What would occur is that the injured party might consider it an opportunity for him to take vengeance on anybody who was of the family that was responsible for his injury. We just read in Deuteronomy 23:18 that a judge made the decision, “an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth.” So that law restricted judgment to a public official, he was the one who decided what equal justice was and some of those things are given in Exodus 21.

Now we find then that in actual practice the Jews, who are really the only ones who have left us any records from Israel, that they did not actually gouge peoples’ eyes out or cut hands off. They put a monetary value on the injured part and a person was paid according to what a judge said.

You have got to understand what Jesus is heading for here. What is He heading for you and me? He has made a change. He says: “You have heard that it has been said, 'An eye for an eye,' but I say to you. . .” Now you see that law permitted a certain amount of vengeance, it permitted a certain amount of retaliation through the courts of the land, did it not? That law had nothing to say about an attitude that one might have toward his enemy.

Now, what Jesus is changing for you and me is part and parcel of this change from the letter to the Spirit, from physical Israel to spiritual Israel. He is setting a standard here for you and me of non- retaliation and non-resentment. I will tell you, that is tough, because the first thing that comes to our mind when we are injured is to strike back, to take vengeance. And if it is beyond our power to actually take vengeance, then we at least allow ourselves the right to hate that other person, to be resentful for the injuries inflicted upon us.

I tell you; this is a tremendously high standard! Now, let us continue on and look at what He said here in verse 39.

Matthew 5:39 “But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.”

This is directly related to what He said about an “eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” in verse 32. Now you can see already He is talking about non-retaliation. He is talking about not getting even with that person. If two people are facing one another, and we will just assume that the person doing the striking is right-handed, if a right-handed person swings at the head, where is he most likely to hit the person he is swinging at? On his left cheek. Is it not interesting that Jesus said the right cheek? Now, why did He say that? Well, I am just assuming here that we have right-handed people because I think that I understand what He is talking about.

In order for a right-handed person to hit a person who was facing him on his right cheek, he would have to give him a backhand. What is He really talking about? He is talking about being insulted because to give somebody a backhand is about as great of an insult as you could give somebody at that time. It may not be that way today but at that time that was the way you insulted somebody. You showed them that they were really beneath you if you gave them the back of your hand. That is what you did to slaves, that is what you did to people who were way below you.

And so what He is really talking about is not necessarily actually being struck, but actually talking about being insulted. Now, you see, that has much broader application than being struck on the cheek because how many of you have ever been struck in your adult life on your right cheek? Well, hardly any, it just hardly ever happens. But now how many of you have been insulted? Almost everybody has been insulted and that is really what He is talking about.

Now, if you are really being insulted and somebody is really giving you a tongue lashing and you are really being put down, what is it that you are most likely to think of doing? You are going to defend yourself and your tongue is going to be just as sharp as it possibly can be. You are going to get the best of that guy and really put him down. Well, that is exactly what Jesus says not to do. He is saying here that we should not be either resentful nor should we retaliate.

Jesus knew what he was talking about. Let us go back to I Peter 2, verse 18. Peter says:

I Peter 2:18 Servants, be submissive to your masters with all fear, not only to the good and gentle, . . .

Well, I think this is so especially interesting because of what it says in the first line of the first verse of chapter 3. What does it say? It says “Likewise, you wives.” Now let us make the connection because eventually this first part of chapter 3 goes right up to that thing where Peter says,

I Peter 3:7 Husbands, likewise, dwell with them with understanding, giving honor to the wife, as to the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life, that your prayers may not be hindered.

What He is saying in chapter 3 is that the same principle that applies to an employee's relationship with his employer also applies within the family. Now, who are you most likely to talk back to? Who are you most likely to insult? Those who you are most familiar with, and that usually happens within a family.

Now let us look at the instructions.

I Peter 2:18-23 Servants, be submissive to your masters with all fear, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the harsh. For this is commendable, if because of conscience toward God one endures grief, suffering wrongfully. For what credit is it if, when you are beaten for your faults, you take it patiently? But when you do good and suffer, if you take it patiently, this is commendable before God. For to this you were called, because Christ also suffered for us [he means in exactly the same way], leaving us an example, that you should follow His steps: “Who committed no sin, nor was deceit found in His mouth”; who, when He was reviled, did not revile in return; when He suffered, He did not threaten, but committed Himself to Him who judges righteously.

So the very reason we were called was to suffer for righteousness. Are you beginning to see why Jesus said, “Do not retaliate.”? It feels terrible to bite the tongue. All of that builds character, to hold your temper in check, and to be patient. I tell you, it takes faith to do that! It takes faith to believe that God is aware of the insult that you are receiving, He is aware of the fact that you are dealing righteously, and He is going to take vengeance for you. You see, we want take things into our own hands and we want to see things done quickly.

Back in Isaiah 53 there is another example of Christ, this time a prophecy, but it shows the same principle.

Isaiah 53:7 He was oppressed and He was afflicted, yet He opened not His mouth [He was not commanding us to do anything that He had not already done Himself and was not already going to continue to do.]; He was led as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before its shearers is silent, so He opened not His mouth.

Now, all you have to do is go back to Matthew 26—27, Luke 21—23, and Mark 15, and you will see in the trial that Jesus had before Pontius Pilate and before Herod that He spoke, but it does not mean that we have no opportunity to use our mouths. But He treated those people respectfully and He never once allowed His dignity to suffer. He never graveled on their level and tried to retaliate in any way. He respectfully answered their questions. He took their abuse and turned the other cheek. That is a high standard! Now let us go onto verse 40.

Matthew 5:40 “If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also.”

Notice that there are two pieces of clothing mentioned here, the coat and the cloak. Now the coat was a tunic-like affair that we would call an undergarment. The cloak was a mantel, an outer garment that they wore on top. Now turn with me back to Exodus 22.

Exodus 22:26-27 If you ever take your neighbor’s garment as a pledge [that is, use it a collateral for a loan], you shall return it to him before the sun goes down. For that is his only covering [he is talking about this mantle, the cloak that was on the outside], it is his garment for his skin. What will he sleep in? And it will be that when he cries to Me, I will hear, for I am gracious.

That was the law, that a person’s cloak could be taken as collateral on a loan, however, every evening at sundown it had to be returned and the reason was because if the person was so poor that he needed a loan and had to give away his cloak, it was the only thing that he had to keep him warm at night. Now the tunic or coat, the undergarment, even the poor had generally several changes of these. But the cloak, he only had one.

Now what is the point? What is He getting at in Matthew 5? It has something to do with our attitude. It has something to do with our relationships with other people. Remember, He is making a change in the law here. He is dealing with our attitudes towards retaliation and resentment.

So, what is the point? He is saying, do not be so worried about your rights by law. What is implied here is be more concerned about your duty and your responsibilities and your obligations, and quit insisting on your “rights.” You see, when you are insisting on “rights,” that is a selfish attitude. You are trying to get, you are insisting on your way and using every lever of the law to get “your right.” On the other hand, if you are concentrating on your obligations and responsibilities, that is an outgoing attitude of service. You are more concerned about the welfare of the other person whom you are serving because you are obligated to them or you feel you have an obligation or a sense of responsibility for them, that is unselfish.

I tell you, these are high standards, revolutionary changes in a person's thinking, Now you see, we can afford the luxury of not insisting on “our rights” because God is our Father. That is the only reason we can do it. God has control of everything and He says, “all things work together for good, for those who love God and who are the called according to His purpose.” You see, we can insist on it being this way and not insist on “our rights” because God will make it work out right for us. Under ordinary circumstances it is every man for himself, but you and me are not in ordinary circumstances, because God is our Father.

Now let us go on to the next verse.

Matthew 5:41 “And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two.”

This one is pretty clear. We are really unfamiliar with this kind of service or circumstances in that we would be impressed in the service by an official of a foreign nation. Turn with me back to Matthew 27 where we see an example of this.

Matthew 27:32 Now as they came out, they found a man of Cyrene, Simon by name. Him they compelled to bear His cross.

This Simon of Cyrene was compelled to carry the stake or cross that Jesus was killed on. Now under the circumstance that they lived under probably the most common circumstance under which they were impressed into the service involved the delivery of mail. The Romans apparently had a pretty good system of delivering mail, however, even their mail system broke down occasionally and it was arranged somewhat like our old Pony Express was. They would have post offices or way stations about one day's journey apart. And ordinarily they would have a rider or a walker, the mailman, who would spend a day's journey walking to one post office and then he would spend the night there, pick up the mail and go back to his original point of departure.

But every once in a while there would be breakdown and the postman had the authority from the Roman government to impress anybody, any citizen of this occupied nation, into the service and it took such forms as borrowing the guy's horse, donkey, mule, or whatever, or borrowing a man and make him walk with the load. It could include giving meals to these postmen as they went on their rounds, or things like that.

Now, apparently it was something that had happened occasionally and you know what you would feel like. Here you were maybe on a journey of your own and you have certain time limits, you had to meet somebody in such-and-such a city at such-and-such a time in order to transact some business and so your time was pretty valuable. So here you were going from one city to the other and the postman stopped you and says, “Hey buddy, I need your horse,” “I need your mule,” or “How about carrying this bag into the next city,” or “Give me some food,” or whatever. You know that when you travel from one place to another, you have time constraints and so do they, so what would you do? What would your feelings be like? Well, I know that what my feelings would be like. I would mumble and grumble, I would want to go about doing my business making money or whatever it is, and here I am having to do this thing for which I am not even going to get paid and they just conscripted me into it.

So what is He getting at? Now, this one is clear. He is saying that even a path that is unreasonable and hateful that we should do it cheerfully, enthusiastically, and with all our might. He says, “If they ask you to go one mile, go two.” He is giving a sort of a measure by which we can compare ourselves. He says “Look, put twice as much effort into it. Do it cheerfully, enthusiastically. Give it all you have even though it is unfair and unreasonable and a hateful thing. Do it with gracious courtesy. Give yourself over to it.”

Again, the only way that this is possible, that something like this could work out for us is the fact that we have faith, and that God is in heaven. We are to live by faith and if we do what He says, He is bound by His Word to make it work out right—and He will do it. Can we meet that standard? Sure, we can, we can do it, but we have to live by faith in order for it to work out.

Matthew 5:42 “Give to him who asks you, and from him who wants to borrow from you do not turn away.”

This is based on Deuteronomy 15. I want to read that to you where God's feelings regarding those that are poor are very clear.

Deuteronomy 15:7-11 “If there is among you a poor man of your brethren, within any of the gates in your land which the LORD your God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart nor shut your hand from your poor brother, but you shall open your hand wide to him and willingly lend him sufficient for his need, whatever he needs. Beware lest there be a wicked thought in your heart, saying, ‘The seventh year, the year of release, is at hand,’ and your eye be evil against your poor brother and you give him nothing, and he cry out to the LORD against you, and it become sin among you. You shall surely give to him, and your heart should not be grieved when you give to him, because for this thing the LORD your God will bless you in all your works and in all to which you put your hand. For the poor will never cease from the land; therefore I command you, saying, ‘You shall open your hand wide to your brother, to your poor and your needy, in your land.’

Now that law was made for a circumstance in which we all lived in the same village, and we were all well aware of the needs of our neighbor within that village. Unfortunately, we do not live in that kind of a circumstance anymore, however, the principles that are involved are still applicable.

Turn with me back to Proverbs 19, verse 17 where he says,

Proverbs 19:17 He who has pity on the poor lends to the LORD, and He will pay back what he has given.

That is, God will make sure that we are able to have our loan made up. God will ensure it, He will guarantee it.

That is very clear. Now, this could be a whole study by itself, but there are other principles involved that need to be brought into this. For example, back in II Thessalonians 3, God Himself, through Paul, says that “if a person will not work, neither should he eat.”

Now, what this begins to show is that God is not in favor of indiscriminately giving to everybody just because they happen to be poor. But He intends that those who are honestly poor, through no circumstance that was within their control, should be taken care of. You know, sometimes people become poor just through circumstances that are beyond their control. Those kinds of people, God says, should be taken care of.

However, we should under no circumstances except maybe to alleviate immediate hunger, loan money to people to promote carelessness or laziness. That is a major problem with the poverty program. Even though there are good intentions in the minds of the people who promote these programs, they do not really get to the root cause and what always ends up occurring is that those programs feed those people who are poor because of carelessness and laziness.

(Did you hear about the couple in Los Angeles who are receiving money for 235 children? I tell you, they were not dumb, they knew how to work the system. They finally caught up with them but they, I guess through various means, were receiving welfare checks for 235 children.)

Now, if you do not know whether or not a person should be loaned money, you should seek some counsel from others. In a multitude of counselors there is safety. Before you just go indiscriminately handing it out, seek a little counsel. If you know the circumstance well, feel free to give it, but always go into it with this understanding: that any money that is given as loan may never be repaid. If you feel that you need the money back, then maybe you better not give it. That is why He gives that principle about not feeling any constraint at all about giving money. He says, open your hand wide, there should be no feeling of constraint about giving. That is the proper attitude. That is the standard that we are to shoot for.

But do not give it indiscriminately and try to make sure at least that you are not supporting carelessness or laziness.

Matthew 5:43-48 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet your brethren only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the tax collectors do so? Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect."

Now, this is a continuation of the same thought that began all the way back there with not swearing. It even amplifies the thought that began in verse 38 about an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. Instead of retaliating, instead of resenting, we are to take positive action in praying for the person, of loving him.

Love presents a problem because of misunderstanding what God intends here. The word love connotes to us a deep affection, an emotional attachment, a feeling of warmth, or high regard for a person. It does not always mean that in the Greek.

The Greeks had four words for "love.” I mean four words that we translate into the one word, love. Three of them appear in the Bible, and those are the word storge, the word philia, and the word eros. They all have something in common that the word agape does not.

Storge is the word that a Greek writing about love would use if he wanted to indicate family love, the love of parents for children, of children for parents. If he wanted to indicate the perfection between close friends, he would most likely use the word philia. If he wanted to indicate passionate love, the love between a man and a maid and a maid and a man, he would use eros.

Now all those words have something in common and that is that they come to a person unbidden, that is, family love is something that is expected, it is unbidden. The parents love the child, it is a natural thing under normal circumstances. The same with a man and a woman. The same with philia, you have a warm affectionate regard for your good friends.

It is these loves that Jesus is talking about that bring no reward. Why? Because they are always conditional. They depend upon the response of the other person because, “for if you love those who love you, what reward have you?” Well, there is no reward there because these are things that happen naturally. It is just simply something that happens according to nature. You have to make no effort to love somebody that loves you. So there is no reward there. If somebody is affectionate toward you, you are most likely to respond and you are just doing it naturally because the hormones are working. Jesus said “no reward in that.”

Now, agape love is something entirely different. Now the Greeks would translate this as being an invincible goodwill, an unconquerable benevolence. In their literature, they do not apply it to God. It is only the Bible that applies agape to God, and apparently God inspired the writers to use it in that way in order to designate a love that is not conditional. It is a love; a benevolence; an outgoing concern that does not demand that the other person respond.

You should be able to see that. You would not logically expect your enemy to love you. You see, that is why agape is so different. It does not depend on whether your enemy loves you, it only depends on whether you set your will to love him. So agape love is a love that is under the control of the will, you make yourself love that other person, you set your will to do what is good for him.

I will tell you again, that is an awfully high standard, and it is impossible, carnally, to meet that standard. It is a love that only God has and only God can give it. And really, only those who have Christ in them can make use of this love, because by nature, our natural response will be to hate those who injure us, whether in insult or bodily. The normal thought is to hate such a person and to seek vengeance.

Jesus is saying, “Look, have faith in God. He can make things work out right. I want you instead not to have feelings of resentment, vengeance, retaliation, or anything like that. I want you to pray for that person.” I will tell you, if you pray for your enemies, you are not going to hate them for very long. It is impossible to be in the presence of God and hate someone.

And so this love that He is talking about is an invincible goodwill, that you are always going to seek the best even for your enemy. Now, what would be the best thing that could happen to your enemy? That God would lead them to repentance, then he would not be your enemy anymore, he would be your brother. That is why God says, “Vengeance is mine. I will repay.” He knows how to do it.

So you see what Jesus is doing here? He is taking right out of our control the right to take any kind of retaliation or vengeance against anybody, because we do not have the wisdom to do it right—but He does. It takes a lot of faith, because we have to believe that He will act on our behalf. If we believe that He will do it, He will. In His good time and in His way, He will act on our behalf and He will take vengeance.

Now, there is one more thing I want to get to here. It is the word “perfect.” It says, “Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect.” Very interesting word. It is interesting because in the Greek, the word “perfect” did not have the same connotation that it does for us. To us, an English-speaking person, it means without flaw. For the Greeks it simply means to be able to do as one was created to do. It had a very functional meaning.

For example, the other day, I decided that I was going to tighten down the mirror on the door of my car. It was just about ready to fall off because the vibrations had shook the little nuts under there loose and slowly but surely they were winding out and I was just about ready to lose the mirror. The only thing was it was underneath the upholstery, the nuts were in between the two panels of the door. So I decided I was going to take the upholstery off. The only thing was, I could not get the upholstery off. There was one place that I could not get it off, but I had to get down underneath the upholstery and reach way up inside the door and then I could reach those nuts with my fingers.

I turned them as tight as I could with my fingers, but I could not get them any tighter. I thought, how am I going to get it any tighter? Any wrench that I use there is going to be too big. You know what I found? I had a little wrench; it was short and stubby, and I could get it up in there between the panels of the door. And blindly, I slowly but surely tightened those nuts down. I got one tight, I got the other tight. You know what? That little wrench was perfect for the job. Even though it was an ugly little thing, it was perfect.

Now, that is exactly what this Greek word means. A person is perfect when he is performing that for which he was created. Now, what were you created for? He, says, “Therefore you shall be perfect. . .” What were you created for? To build character. That is one way we could do it. The answer is right in the context, in verse 45.

Matthew 5:45 . . . that you may be sons of your Father in heaven.

You are created to become God. You see, right now we are the children of God. When we are becoming Godlike, we are becoming perfect. That is what we were created for, to become God.

Now you see, that is a long process and that is why they use the general term of maturity because it is a process of growing up. But while we are doing, to the best of our ability, what we are created for regardless of the stage of growth at that time, we are perfect.

That is why God was able to call the unconverted Israelites back in the Old Testament perfect, because at that time, they were doing the best they could under the circumstances.

So this word has a very functional approach. And if you just remember that as long as you are doing what you are created for, you are perfect in God eyes. It does not mean that you are without flaw, it means that you are doing what you are intended to do as best as you are able at that time. This also does not mean that you will not improve, because as you grow, you will become even more perfect, more able to demonstrate what God is like in your life.

JWR/skm/drm