Though Jesus was indeed contrasting what their Jewish teachers taught the people (verses 20-21,27,33,38,43), the Master was also pointing to the fulfillment and cessation of the Old Covenant in the law of the kingdom (verses 17-19). The Lord quoted the law of Moses directly to identify the rule He was replacing (cf. Exodus 21:23-25; Leviticus 24:19-20; Deuteronomy 19:21). This is the oldest principle of simple justice known to man. It is known as the Lex Talionis, or the principle of "like for like." It is part of the earliest surviving code of laws, the Code of Hammurabi, ruler of Babylon from 2285 to 2242 B.C. (Barclay. 1:160).

Enemies of the Bible assail this law as brutal. Actually, far from being so, the purpose of this commandment was to prevent brutality. Human nature demands revenge for wrong suffered, for this is justice, but hatred and anger produce excessive revenge. One man knocks out another’s tooth, so the other man kills the aggressor. This is what is happening in Iraq at the instigation of Muslim teachers. The law of "like for like" limits this revenge. The punishment must be equivalent to the injury received. Furthermore, this law acts as a safeguard against personal injury. If an assailant knew he would suffer in return the equivalent of the pain, injury, or suffering he inflicted, he would not, in most cases, inflict the injury.

It is both the right and responsibility of civil government to administer this justice (Romans 13:3-4). When rulers fail to do so, crime is rampant (Ecclesiastes 8:11). The judge who fails to administer such justice neither fears God nor regards man (Luke 18:2-5).

Furthermore, Moses never intended this principle as a license for unlimited personal revenge, but as a guide to judicial equity. The apostle Paul, in his inspired interpretation of the Master’s teaching on vengeance, virtually repeated Old Testament guidelines (Leviticus 19:18; Proverbs 20:22; 24:29; 25:21; Romans 12:17-21).

However, the Mosaic legislation did command that the "avenger of blood" put to death the murderer (Numbers 35; Deuteronomy 19). The term "avenger" referred to

that particular relative whose special duty it was to restore the violated family integrity, who had to redeem not only landed property that had been alienated from the family (Lev 25:25.), or a member of the family that had fallen into slavery (Lev 25:47.), but also the blood that had been taken away from the family by murder (Keil & Delitzsch, quoting Oehler. 262).

The law even presumed the avenger would act "while his anger is hot" (Deuteronomy 19:6). This is the very vengeance splashed in blood red on TV news scenes of the Middle East carried out by Muslims in the name of Allah but devoid of the Mosaic safeguards against wanton savagery.

A final consideration which demonstrates the lack of brutality of the Old Testament command was the fact that, in practice, except where murder was involved (Numbers 35:29-34); a money payment was accepted in place of actual maiming of the criminal.

Since the law of Christ clearly approves the essential and righteous role of civil government as an avenger (Romans 13:3-4), and since the Lord’s precepts set against this statement of verse 38 pertain to personal vengeance, Christ must have directed His prohibitions against personal revenge, including the Mosaic "avenger of blood," not against civil officers in upholding the laws of the state.

It being necessarily true that the Master’s doctrine deals with personal vengeance, what does he teach about this subject? The principle Christ enunciates is "resist not evil." Is this a demand that Christians must passively submit to any and all sorts of physical violence? Must one watch a maniac kill his family and destroy his property, without lifting a finger to resist? Is this an injunction against Christians serving in the armed forces or on a police force?

Forty years ago I heard Bryan Vinson, Sr. preach an outstanding lesson on the Christian and civil government ("Dual Citizenship" was the title of his classic sermon.), defending the right of a Christian to bear arms for his government. A young preacher foolishly jumped brother Vinson in the aisle before other members after services, contending the Lord demands total non resistance on the part of Christians. Brother Vinson simply inquired of him, "If a vicious criminal broke into your house and attacked you wife, would you come to her help?" The young preacher's retort was, "Why, that’s totally irrelevant!" His flabbergasted wife standing beside him quickly replied, "I don’t think so!" Nor do I. If the passage demands complete passivity, thus eliminating service in the armed forces and police forces, it also eliminates any defense of one’s own family and property. If not, why not?

Since the Scriptures are truth (John 17:17), and truth is always consistent with itself, it follows that the Scriptures are always harmonious one with another. The Master commanded, "If your brother sins against you, rebuke him" (Luke 17:3). Verbal resistance is resistance. The Lord Jesus Himself rebuked a Jewish officer for unlawfully striking Him (John 18:22-23). When the Romans in Jerusalem threatened to beat Paul without a trial, the great apostle insisted on his rights as a Roman citizen (Acts 22:22-29).When the radical Jews of that same city bound themselves under a curse to kill Paul, the beloved apostle made use of the armed power of the state, two hundred soldiers, seventy horsemen and two hundred spear men, to thwart their wicked scheme (Acts 23:12-24). When Festus would have sent Paul back to Jerusalem, where the Jews still waited to kill him, again the man of God demanded his citizenship rights and appealed to Caesar (Acts 25:9-12). In all of these instances, the apostle Paul in all innocence appealed to the armed power of civil government. If such use of armed might is evil, so is our calling on armed men for protection, for we must "have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness" (Ephesians 5:11).

Another basic rule of Bible study draws us to the same conclusion. Every statement must be taken in context. The Master contrasted both the Law (verses 17-19) and that which the scribes and Pharisees imagined the law of Moses allowed (verse 20) to that which the law of Christ demands (verses 39-42). The Master is discussing vengeance (verse 38). "Resist not evil" is an absolute prohibition against personal vengeance or even an attitude of resentment as the result of wrong suffered.