In the Fulness of Time/Part 19

Previous Article

Matter of Retaliation

Last month we began the discussion concerning the Matter of Retaliation in Matthew 5:38-42. In verses 38 Christ presented what Moses’ Law said, “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” This law was given to prevent excessive revenge, and punishment was strictly administered by “the judges” (see Exodus 22:22-25). But Christ taught His disciples that they had to have a better righteousness than that of the Pharisees in order to enter the kingdom of heaven which He was personally introducing.

Christ’s teaching is: Live Above the Law: 5:39-42. His first point concerned:

a. Resisting personal revenge. 5:39. Instead of offering only one cheek, turn the other cheek, which is a form of doubling what the Law of Moses required. Now we go on to the second antithesis:

b. Relinquishing legal rights. 5:40:”And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.”

Here the King James Version gives the opposite impression from what is intended. We think of our coat as the outer garment and the cloak as something lighter; but the Greek word for coat is kiton, the inner garment which would be a shirt or tunic. It was legitimate to receive this garment as a legal payment for debt. However, the outer garment, the himation, was the heavier piece of clothing, used as a blanket or sleeping bag would be used today, so Deuteronomy 24:13 warns, “In any case thou shalt deliver him the pledge again when the sun goeth down, that he may sleep in his own raiment, and bless thee, and it shall be righteousness unto thee before the LORD thy God.”

What Jesus is suggesting, then, is that losing a cloak is better than losing a testimony. The principle is this: Do not demand your legal rights personally if it means that you lose an opportunity to win a person. The Apostle Paul suggests that it is even better not to go to court if it is with another believer. The alternative: “Why do ye not rather take wrong? Why do ye not rather allow yourselves to be defrauded? Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that your brethren” (I Corinthians 6:7-8). It is interesting that the presentation in Deuteronomy 24:13 is from the standpoint of the person who is suing, yet he is told that it is “righteousness” not to take the outer garment as a pledge. Here in Matthew 5:40 the person being sued is to go beyond the Law and give his outer garment. This also would be a manifestation of a righteousness which exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees. Like the “cheeks” illustration, this, too would be a doubling of that which the Law demands.

c. Respecting official rulers. 5:41: “And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him two.”

The Roman government exercised the right to demand a man bear a burden for a mile; this was called impressment. The Greek word used here for compel is angereusei, from a Persian word, angaroi, perhaps cognate with angeloi (angel, or messenger), as McNeile observes: “Being the mounted messengers of the Persian King” (Matthew, p. 70). This government official was authorized to compel anyone into temporary service to help him on his trip. By the time of Christ, the word had come from the Persians to the Greeks and then to the Romans. The application is similar to the two previous illustrations; here, a doubling of distance. All three indicate a voluntary act of living above and beyond the requirements of the Law in order to practice a better righteousness than that of the scribes and Pharisees.

d. Responding to individual requests. 5:42: “Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn thou not away.”

Though this statement does not specifically refer back to the Old Testament, there is an admonition in the Law not to charge interest to a poor person of Israelitish blood (Exodus 22:25). Leviticus 25:37 adds to this that even food supplies should not be loaned for profit. Deuteronomy 23:19-20 does make allowance for interest from foreigners. Further, there is to be a generous attitude toward a poor brother and an open hand. Every seventh year, the year of release brought forgiveness of debts to the poor brother. The Law, therefore, was kind to the poor. Is this admonition of Jesus any different or any better? The account in Matthew simply says to give to him who asks and not to turn away a borrower; no strings attached. In Luke’s account the added admonitions are these: “Give . . .and ask not again . . .if you lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what thanks have ye?” (Luke 6:30-34). Jesus’ idea of giving and lending is the ultimate in generosity—no expectation of a return! In a sense then this is a doubling; you forfeit what you gave and you also forfeit any return on your investment. This is above the Law and manifests a righteousness which exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees.

One more thing needs to be said. This type of giving is toward the truly needy, not for those who would deliberately take advantage of a person. Giving indiscriminately would violate both Old and New Testament precepts concerning the slothful man of Proverbs 6:9; 11:15; 17:18; and the man in the local assembly who refuses to work, yet expects to eat (II Thessalonians 3:10-12). This type of individual should not be pampered nor tolerated. He should be admonished as a brother, and shunned, “that he may be ashamed” (II Thessalonians 3:14-15). We can be sure, that “in the fullness of time” Christ will enforce such standards in His Messianic kingdom on earth.

Read Part 20