The Sermon on the Mount 10 -Matt 5:38-42

Jesus has taught some profoundly deep principles that are a far cry from what was currently being practiced in ancient Hebrew times, and he doesn’t stop at anger and lust, He continues, “Ye have heard that it hath been said, an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.” Yesterday I was talking to some of my family members about the different types of government around the world, and Paraguay came up, and my cousin was saying that back in the 70’s and 80’s Paraguay was incredibly safe and clean and efficient. Why? Because the people who transgressed the law would be executed on the spot without trial. That’s a police state. While watching the recent version of the movie “Ben-Hur,” there is a scene where someone has apparently done something wrong and everyone in the square starts to throw rocks at him. Not the type of rocks to scare him away, but the type to kill him, and Jesus throws himself on top of that man, protecting him, yelling “stop! This man is your brother.” If you kidnap someone and cut their finger off, then that’s pretty psychotic, and there should be significant punishment for that, but I don’t think that that’s the only instance where that punishment would be applicable. Say you are fighting with someone and it gets messy, and you punch someone’s tooth out? Is that a “tooth for a tooth” offense? What if your bull gets out of your pen and gores someone to death? Is that a “life for a life” offense? If you murder someone, then even in the Book of Mormon culture, that was punishable by death. But if it was a case of accident, or some type of event that resulted in manslaughter, like fighting, or being bored by someone’s bull, what about that? Is it automatically a death sentence as well? Is there no room for leniency? Is there no room for mercy?

The Roman’s definitely ruled with a police state, reigning with fear and excessive cruelty. The Hebrews kept their society intact in much the same way, but with a far more mild degree of cruelty. What have we seen of the Hebrew culture so far by the people that Jesus as come into contact with? The sick or diseased were cast out of the society to die, the ruling class of Pharisees made tedious requirements to stay in their good graces, with the punishment being exile, which was the ancient equivalent of destitution and death. Looking at the Ten Commandments, we don’t see the extreme side of the Law of Moses, but seeing as how the punishment for breaking most of those commandments was death, it would seem like ancient Palestine was indeed a police state. And with the corruption that always comes to an authoritarian government, the theocracy had evolved into a power seizing machine, dictating the small details of the people’s lives.

While talking with my family yesterday about the police states in other countries, I thought, “well if it makes everyone safer and everything clean and orderly, what’s so wrong with it?” That’s kind of Satan’s plan wasn’t it? To force everyone to be perfect? There is no personal growth in compulsion. Jesus’ plan is to guide people into the right way, when they are ready. The obvious problem with a governmental police state is that there would be no merciful, compassionate, just administrator to oversee everything. The government would be run by human beings who are power hungry and egotistical, and it would be the ideal for the citizenry as long as they stayed in line and did whatever the leadership wanted. Police states ultimately rule with injustice and brutality, which neither are the ways of God. Now, is the clean, safe, happy place that a police state can result in, the ideal society? Yes, of course. But how can we get a society like that without the resulting totalitarian government that results? I think that’s what Jesus is trying to show with his teachings here. Jesus is trying to create the perfect society, not with intimidation and fear, but with progress and perfection.

I read a thing once that says something like “If we lived with ‘an eye for an eye’ the whole world would be blind.” This is true and significant because we can only gorge out someone’s eye with our hearts rooted in revenge. Even when it comes to doing it, if you had every legal right to cut out a man’s eye because he cut out yours, could you imagine holding him down and digging out his eyeball while he screamed? I think I’m a pretty hard hearted individual, but I don’t know if I could do that, premeditated like that. Would I feel joy seeing with my one good eye, that my perpetrator also only had one eye? Would that improve MY situation? Would that make my life easier? No, of course not. I would still only have one eye, I would still be angry, I would still struggle with the things in life that I struggled with before the other guy lost his eye. The law that they were living at the time focused on retribution and revenge, getting even, and there is no peace in that.

I’ve seen a lot of movies that focus on revenge, the instance “The Princess Bride.” Revenge isn’t the main story line, but it’s a strong undercurrent. This character that has spent his whole life focusing on revenge can be funny, but he spends so much of his time and energy looking for the “6 fingered man” that killed his father and practicing what he’s going to say to him when he finds him, that there is little room in his life for anything else. There is no love in his life, there is little friendship, he earns money as a “bodyguard,” doing the bidding of an evil man. Then once he does find the “6 fingered man” he receives a mortal wound while fighting him, and although he does eventually kill the guy, he himself is still wounded in a manner that will most likely result in his horribly painful death. And did killing that man bring his father back? Nope. He’s still just as lonely for his family as he was before. Did killing that man give him back his love for life? Nope, he’d surrounded himself with hate for so long, that’s who he was now. At the end of the movie, Inigo Montoya, the guy who has sought revenge his entire life says, “you know, I’ve been in the revenge business so long, I don’t know what to do with myself.” This is the same result of anger or holding a grudge, it’s like drinking poison and waiting for the other person to die.

Jesus says, “ye have head that it hath been said, an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, that ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall mite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.” I don’t know what the “resist not evil” part means, but the concept of “turn the other cheek” comes from this teaching. What does it mean to turn the other cheek? To me, it means to walk away, to let it go, to not become involved in a fight that might cause injury to yourself or someone else. I personally struggle with this a lot because I am a fighter, I will not only follow through but I will instigate too, it’s really sad. JTC says, “Of old the principle of retaliation had been tolerated, by which one who had suffered injury could exact or inflict a penalty of the same nature as the offence. Thus an eye was demanded for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life. In contrast, Christ taught that men should rather suffer than do evil, even to the extent of submission without resistance under certain implied conditions. His forceful illustrations… are not to be construed as commanding abject subservience to unjust demands, now as an abrogation of the principle of self-protection.”

There are two parts to these commandments, first that we not return a single aggression, but also that we not allow ourselves to be taken advantage of. These are two concepts walk a very fine line in practice. When am I too aggressive in defending myself, and when am I getting walked all over? It’s hard to know. I feel like the teaching in the Book of Mormon about a justified war is applicable here, we are not to be the aggressor, we do not start the attack or fight, but walk away after the first blow. After the second blow, we can defend ourselves. I think that this applies to physical altercations, but emotional ones? Hmmm… Let’s think about that. I think in that case, there needs to be boundaries constructed. JTC also makes clear that “these instructions were directly primarily to the apostles, who would be professedly devoted to the work of the kingdom o the exclusion of all other interests. In their ministry it would be better to suffer material loss or personal indignity and imposition at the hands of wicked oppressors, than to bring about an impairment of efficiency and a hindrance in work through resistance and contention.” We are commanded to be just as righteous, but are given a little bit more leeway while we progress.

Jesus continues, “And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.” I have a pretty different view of what this verse might mean. Jesus doesn’t say, “if you are sued, give them what they ask for,” he says, “if you are sued and the court finds you at fault and orders you to give them your coat, give them more than is required.” I don’t feel that this is about just rolling over and giving anyone what they tell you to give them, because I don’t feel that that’s being a good steward. I feel that this is more a lesson on generous retribution. We are all wrong about a lot of things a lot of the time, and especially while we are trying to live righteously, and are being blessed by the Lord, circumstances will come up where sales will go bad, or someone will feel slighted or taken advantage of, and I feel like one of the messages the Lord has here is to try and smooth over any bad feelings that others may have against us where we might have been in the wrong.

He continues, “And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.” This feels like it was pretty specific to the Roman occupation of Israel at the time of Christ, but there can still be meaning for us found in it. From what I understand, at the time of the Savior’s mortal ministry, Palestine where he lived was under Roman occupation, and by law a Roman soldier could stop any Hebrew and force him to carry the Roman’s gear for up to a mile. While this doesn’t seem particularly grievous, but there is a humiliation factor, as well as disrespect for the other person’s time and physical well-being. We see in the account of the Savior’s crucifixion that one of the local spectators is forced to carry Jesus’ cross for him when he becomes too weak. Imagine the affront that this mandate would be to a person proud of their heritage and already furious at the Roman’s for their illegal occupation. I believe that Jesus meant to quell the insult felt and calm the fury of someone forced to do something against their will. In our lives, this could be simply having a good attitude when made to do something that we don’t want to do. I don’t feel that there is a lot of physical compulsion like in the days of the Roman rule, but we are forced to do things all the time because we want to pay our bills or we want others to like us, and other societal factors like that. I feel like this is saying that no matter what we do, have a good attitude about it. This is especially prevalent for me because I can be so bitter about my circumstances, raising and providing for my kids by myself. I mean, I do ok, but I don’t want to work all the time, I want to be with my kids more, I want more time to focus on the things that I want to focus on, but I can’t because I have obligations to fulfill. I feel that this is the Lord’s way of telling me to have a good attitude even though my situation might not be ideal.

Finally the Lord says, “Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.” The first part is saying to be generous when you can, but again, I don’t think that this means give all your stuff to whoever asks for it, because that would not be being a good steward. I think that the work “borrow” here is important because it doesn’t say “give everyone everything you have.” There is an expectation that whatever it is that they need will be returned. I think about this in the context of enabling people to be irresponsible. Maybe it’s because I’ve worked my whole life, and I feel like I’ve always taken care of my responsibilities, but I really have a hard time with people who expect others to take care of them, and I have an even harder time with people who actually do take care of them. I don’t really care what other people do in their own lives, but I try really hard to keep that out of my life as much as possible. It doesn’t say “and from him that would take of thee turn not thou away,” which would be enabling, allowing someone to not take responsibility for their own action and support. I feel like it means to help where you can, and be generous in your giving, but also to expect people to uphold their ends of the bargain.