Matthew 5 38 48 commentary

MATTHEW 5 38-48 COMME TARY
EDITED BY GLE PEASE
Eye for Eye
38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye,
and tooth for tooth.’[h]
BAR ES, "An eye for an eye ... - This command is found in Exo_21:24; Lev_
24:20, and Deu_19:21. In these places it was given as a rule to regulate the decisions of
judges. They were to take eye for eye, and tooth for tooth, and to inflict burning for
burning. As a judicial rule it is not unjust. Christ finds no fault with the rule as applied to
magistrates, and does not take upon himself to repeal it. But instead of confining it to
magistrates, the Jews had extended it to private conduct, and made it the rule by which
to take revenge. They considered themselves justified by this rule to inflict the same
injury on others that they had received. Our Saviour remonstrates against this. He
declares that the law had no reference to private revenge, that it was given only to
regulate the magistrate, and that their private conduct was to be governed by different
principles.
The general principle which he laid down was, that we are not to resist evil; that is, as
it is in the Greek, nor to set ourselves against an evil person who is injuring us. But even
this general direction is not to be pressed too strictly. Christ did not intend to teach that
we are to see our families murdered, or be murdered ourselves; rather than to make
resistance. The law of nature, and all laws, human and divine, justify self-defense when
life is in danger. It cannot surely be the intention to teach that a father should sit by
coolly and see his family butchered by savages, and not be allowed to defend them.
Neither natural nor revealed religion ever did, or ever can, inculcate this doctrine. Our
Saviour immediately explains what he means by it. Had he intended to refer it to a case
where life is in danger, he would most surely have mentioned it. Such a case was far
more worthy of statement than those which he did mention.
A doctrine so unusual, so unlike all that the world had believed. and that the best
people had acted on, deserved to be formally stated. Instead of doing this, however, he
confines himself to smaller matters, to things of comparatively trivial interest, and says
that in these we had better take wrong than to enter into strife and lawsuits. The first
case is where we are smitten on the cheek. Rather than contend and fight, we should
take it patiently, and turn the other cheek. This does not, however, prevent our
remonstrating firmly yet mildly on the injustice of the thing, and insisting that justice
should be done us, as is evident from the example of the Saviour himself. See Joh_18:23.
The second evil mentioned is where a man is litigious and determined to take all the
advantage the law can give him, following us with vexatious and expensive lawsuits. Our
Saviour directs us, rather than to imitate him rather than to contend with a revengeful

spirit in courts of justice to take a trifling injury, and yield to him. This is merely a
question about property, and not about conscience and life.
Coat - The Jews wore two principal garments, an interior and an exterior. The
interior, here called the “coat,” or the tunic, was made commonly of linen, and encircled
the whole body, extending down to the knees. Sometimes beneath this garment, as in the
case of the priests, there was another garment corresponding to pantaloons. The coat, or
tunic, was extended to the neck. and had long or short sleeves. Over this was commonly
worn an upper garment, here called “cloak,” or mantle. It was made commonly nearly
square, of different sizes, 5 or 6 cubits long and as many broad, and was wrapped around
the body, and was thrown off when labor was performed. If, said Christ, an adversary
wished to obtain, at law, one of these garments, rather than contend with him let him
have the other also. A reference to various articles of apparel occurs frequently in the
New Testament, and it is desirable to have a correct view of the ancient mode of dress. in
order to a proper understanding of the Bible. The Asiatic modes of dress are nearly the
same from age to age, and hence it is not difficult to illustrate the passages where such a
reference occurs. The ordinary dress consisted of the inner garment, the outer garment,
the girdle (belt), and the sandals. In regard to the sandals, see the notes at Mat_3:11.
In the girdle (belt) was the place of the pouch Mat_10:9, and to it the sword and dirk
were commonly attached. Compare 2Sa_20:8. In modern times the pistols are also
fastened to the belt. It is the usual place for the handkerchief, smoking materials,
inkhorn, and, in general, the implements of one’s profession. The belt served to confine
the loose-flowing robe or outer garment to the body. It held the garment when it was
tucked up, as it was usually in walking or in labor. Hence, “to gird up the loins” became a
significant figurative expression, denoting readiness for service, activity, labor, and
watchfulness; and “to loosen the loins” denoted the giving way to repose and indolence,
2Ki_4:29; Job_38:3; Isa_5:27; Luk_12:35; Joh_21:7.
Whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile - The word translated “shall compel”
is of Persian origin. Post-offices were then unknown. In order that the royal commands
might be delivered with safety and despatch in different parts of the empire, Cyrus
stationed horsemen at proper intervals on all the great public highways. One of those
delivered the message to another, and intelligence was thus rapidly and safely
communicated. These heralds were permitted to compel any person, or to press any
horse, boat, ship, or other vehicle that they might need for the quick transmission of the
king’s commandments. It was to this custom that our Saviour refers. Rather, says he,
than resist a public authority requiring your attendance and aid for a certain distance, go
peaceably twice the distance.
A mile - A Roman mile was 1,000 paces.
Twain - Two.
CLARKE, "An eye for an eye - Our Lord refers here to the law of retaliation
mentioned See Exo_21:24, (see the note there, and see Lev_24:20 (note)), which obliged
the offender to suffer the same injury he had committed. The Greeks and Romans had
the same law. So strictly was it attended to at Athens, that if a man put out the eye of
another who had but one, the offender was condemned to lose both his eyes, as the loss
of one would not be an equivalent misfortune. It seems that the Jews had made this law
(the execution of which belonged to the civil magistrate) a ground for authorizing private
resentments, and all the excesses committed by a vindictive spirit. Revenge was often
carried to the utmost extremity, and more evil returned than what had been received.
This is often the case among those who are called Christians.

GILL, "Ye have heard that it hath been said,.... That is, to, or by them of old time,
as is expressed in some of the foregoing instances,
an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth, Exo_21:24. This is "lex talionis", the
"law of retaliation"; which, whether it is to be understood literally, or not, is a matter of
question. The Baithuseans, or Sadducees, among the Jews, took it in a literal sense, and
so does Josephus, who says (b), he that shall blind, i.e. put out a man's eyes, shall suffer
the like. But the Jewish doctors generally understood it of paying a price equivalent to
the damage done, except in case of life. R. Sol. Jarchi (c) explains the law thus:
"He that puts out his neighbour's eye, must give him ‫עינו‬ ‫,דמי‬ "the price of his eye",
according to the price of a servant sold in the market; and so the same of them all; for,
not taking away of the member is strictly meant.''
And, says Maimonides (d),
"if a man cuts off his neighbour's hand, or foot, he is to be considered as if he was a
servant sold in a market; what he was worth then, and what he is worth now; and he
must pay the diminution which is made of his price; as it is said, "eye for eye". From
tradition it is learned, that this for, spoken of, is to be understood of paying money; this
is what is said in the law, "as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to
him again". Not that he is to be hurt, as he has hurt his neighbour; but inasmuch as he
deserves to want a member, or to be hurt as he has done; therefore he ought to pay the
damage.''
And Josephus himself (e) says, that he must be deprived of that, which he has deprived
another of, except he that has his eye put out is willing to receive money; and which, he
observes, the law allows of. The controversy about the sense of this law may be seen in a
few words, as managed between R. Sandish Hagson, and Ben Zeta (f).
"Says R. Sandish, we cannot explain this verse according to its literal sense; for if a man
should smite the eye of his neighbour, and the third part of the light of his eye should
depart, how will he order it, to strike such a stroke, as that, without adding or lessening?
perhaps he will put out the whole light of his eye. And it is yet more difficult with respect
to burning, wound, and stripe; for should they be in a dangerous place the man might
die but that is intolerable. Ben Zeta answers him, is it not written, in another place, "as
he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again?" To which Hagson
replies, ‫,ב‬ "in", is instead of ‫,על‬ "upon", or against; and lo! the sense is, so shall the
punishment be upon him. Ben Zeta answers him again, as he does, so shall it be done to
him. Hagson replies, behold Samson said, "as they have done to me, so will I do to
them"; but Samson did not take their wives, and give them to others, he only rendered to
them their reward: but Ben Zeta replies, if a poor man should smite, what must be his
punishment? Hagson answers him, if a blind man should put out the eye of one that
sees, what shall be done to him? as for the poor man, he may become rich, and pay, but
the blind man can never pay.''
Now our Lord here, does not find fault with the law of retaliation, as delivered by Moses,
but with the false gloss of the Scribes and Pharisees; who, as they interpreted it of

pecuniary mulcts, as a compensation for the loss of a member, which sometimes
exceeded all just and due bounds; so they applied it to private revenge, and in favour of
it: whereas this law did not allow of a retaliation to be made, by private persons, at their
pleasure, but by the civil magistrate only.
HE RY, "In these verses the law of retaliation is expounded, and in a manner
repealed. Observe,
I. What the Old Testament permission was, in case of injury; and here the expression
is only, Ye have heard that is has been said; not, as before, concerning the commands of
the decalogue, that it has been said by, or to, them of old time. It was a command, that
every one should of necessity require such satisfaction; but they might lawfully insist
upon it, if they pleased; an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. This we find, Exo_
21:24; Lev_24:20; Deu_19:21; in all which places it is appointed to be done by the
magistrate, who bears not the sword in vain, but is the minister of God, an avenger to
execute wrath, Rom_13:4. It was a direction to the judges of the Jewish nation what
punishment to inflict in case of maims, for terror to such as would do mischief on the
one hand, and for a restraint to such as have mischief done to them on the other hand,
that they may not insist on a greater punishment than is proper: it is not a life for an
eye, nor a limb for a tooth, but observe a proportion; and it is intimated (Num_35:31),
that the forfeiture in this case might be redeemed with money; for when it is provided
that no ransom shall be taken for the life of a murderer, it is supposed that for maims a
pecuniary satisfaction was allowed.
But some of the Jewish teachers, who were not the most compassionate men in the
world, insisted upon it as necessary that such revenge should be taken, even by private
persons themselves, and that there was no room left for remission, or the acceptance of
satisfaction. Even now, when they were under the government of the Roman
magistrates, and consequently the judicial law fell to the ground of course, yet they were
still zealous for any thing that looked harsh and severe.
Now, so far this is in force with us, as a direction to magistrates, to use the sword of
justice according to the good and wholesome laws of the land, for the terror of evil-
doers, and the vindication of the oppressed. That judge neither feared God nor regarded
man, who would not avenge the poor widow of her adversary, Luk_18:2, Luk_18:3.
And it is in force as a rule to lawgivers, to provide accordingly, and wisely to apportion
punishments to crimes, for the restraint of rapine and violence, and the protection of
innocency.
II. What the New Testament precept is, as to the complainant himself, his duty is, to
forgive the injury as done to himself, and no further to insist upon the punishment of it
than is necessary to the public good: and this precept is consonant to the meekness of
Christ, and the gentleness of his yoke.
JAMISO , "Mat_5:38-42. Same subject - Retaliation.
We have here the converse of the preceding lessons. They were negative: these are
positive.
Ye have heard that it hath been said — (Exo_21:23-25; Lev_24:19, Lev_24:20;
Deu_19:21).
An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth — that is, whatever penalty was
regarded as a proper equivalent for these. This law of retribution - designed to take
vengeance out of the hands of private persons, and commit it to the magistrate - was
abused in the opposite way to the commandments of the Decalogue. While they were

reduced to the level of civil enactments, this judicial regulation was held to be a warrant
for taking redress into their own hands, contrary to the injunctions of the Old Testament
itself (Pro_20:22; Pro_24:29).
hawker, "Who can read the justice and equity of that strict law, which enjoins an eye for
an eye and a tooth for a tooth, without having his mind directed to the contemplation of
CHRIST as our surety. In hint this law was literally fulfilled, when he who knew no sin
became sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. Oh! how
blessed so to contemplate CHRIST. 2Co_5:21.
sbc, "I. The principle of the Mosaic law—and it is a principle of no little importance in
its own place—is that there should be as far as possible a just proportion between the
offence and the punishment; that the penalty to be inflicted should neither be too light
nor too severe, but that the one should be a fair equivalent for the other. While granting
to the full the exceeding wisdom of the Mosaic law on this head, I must add that even in
its judicial aspect it by no means comes up to the requirements of the Gospel. There is
nothing indeed more beautiful than justice and more Divine. But Christian men,
Christian society, Christian legislators, have other duties even to the criminal population
besides punishing their offences. It may be necessary, it is necessary, to inflict
punishment on the wrongdoer; but it is equally necessary to put away all wrath and
revenge, and go to him in the spirit of brotherly love, and heap also coals of fire on his
head, to turn him, if possible, to better thoughts and better ways.
II. For the right understanding of what our Lord says here it must be remembered that,
while this law properly belonged to the judicial procedure of Israel, it was often applied
by the people as a rule of private conduct. Our Lord is here dealing in general with the
principle of private revenge, which He is anxious to destroy, because it is most fatal at
once to the spiritual and social life of men. But, as usual, He goes for this purpose down
into principles of moral duty, which lie far deeper than the precise question on hand;
because His object is not merely to prevent a certain evil from being done, but to implant
another spirit altogether in our hearts. Therefore He tells them that they are not only not
to avenge themselves, but that they are not even to resist evil, but rather to overcome evil
with good. Evil is never overcome with evil, but only with good. Your fire will not put out
your neighbour’s; rather they will combine and make a double conflagration, his wrong
and your wrath together vexing the world.
W. C. Smith, The Sermon on the Mount, p. 131.
TRAPP, "Ver. 38. Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, &c.] This
law of like for like (which also was in use among the ancient Romans) the scribes
and Pharisees had abused and distorted from its proper sense of public justice to
private revenge; teaching the people to render evil for evil, to pay their enemies in
their own coin, and to give them as good as they brought. {a} This is a dictate of
corrupt nature, and her chief secretary Aristotle proclaimeth it. To be avenged of
our enemies is held better in point of honour than to be reconciled unto them. {b}
Flesh and blood suggesteth that it is matter of good mettle to be quick of touch, as
forward in returning as others are in offering wrong. "For if a man find his enemy,
will he let him go well away?" said Saul, 1 Samuel 24:19. This is quite against the

principles of nature and common policy. To turn again and revenge is counted
courage; which yet the word of God calleth cowardliness, disgrace, and loss of
victory ( ‫,)חפפחלב‬ 1 Corinthians 6:7. It is not manliness, but foolishness, Ecclesiastes
7:9. It is brutishness. Anger a dog, and he will fly in your face: touch an ass, and he
will kick and wince. It is baseness so to be led by our passions as to be able to bear
nothing, as Simeon and Levi, brethren in iniquity, that in their anger slew a man,
and in their self-will digged down a wall, Genesis 49:6. Their father Jacob heard
that Dinah was defiled, and held his peace, Genesis 34:5; he reined in his passions,
by setting God before them; and so that divine proverb was made good in him, "He
that is SLOW to anger is better than the mighty; and he that ruleth his spirit (as
Jacob) than he that taketh a city" (as his sons), Proverbs 16:32. It is a godly man’s
part, at some times and in some places, to be deaf and dumb, as if he understood
not; or as men in whose mouths are no reproof. {c} Which as David could skill of at
some times, Psalms 38:14, and in his carriage towards Shimei, so at other times
(when the flesh prevailed) he could not, Psalms 39:2-3, and in his expedition against
abal. But Peter must put up his sword, if he mean to be Christ’s disciple. And
Christians must not so much as grudge one against another, unless they will be
condemned: for behold, the Judge standeth before the door, as ready to right us,
James 5:9. As if we retaliate we leave him nothing to do, unless it be to turn his
wrath from our enemy, on whom we have been avenged already, upon ourselves, for
our sin of self-revenge, Proverbs 24:17-18. We use to say, if the magistrate be not
present, we may offend another, to defend ourselves: but if the magistrate be
present, there is no excuse. ow here the Judge standeth before the door, and crieth
out unto ns with a loud voice: Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather
keep the king’s peace, and so give place to wrath, Romans 12:19 : that is, to the
wrath of God ready to seize upon thine adversary, if thou prevent it not by art
overly hasty revenge of the wrongs offered thee: for it is written, Vengeance is mine,
mine office and royalty, Psalms 94:1-2. Is it safe to invade his part? to jostle the
chief justice out of his seat? or is it fit that the same party should be both accuser
and judge? pope in his own cause? depose the magistrate? at least appeal from God
to himself, as if he would not sufficiently do his office? "Shall not God avenge his
own, that cry night and day unto him, though he bear long with them? I tell you that
he will avenge them speedily," saith our Saviour, Luke 18:7-8 "I will REPAY it,"
saith the Lord; but upon this condition, that we wait his leisure, and pre-occupate
not his executions, saith St Augustine. Joseph, accused by his lewd mistress, either
pleads not, or is not heard. He knew that though he suffered for a season, God
would find a time to clear his innocence, and he was not deceived. Moses
complained not, but was silent, when wronged by Aaron and Miriam; God therefore
struck in for him, and struck Miriam with leprosy: Aaron escaped by his
repentance. God is their champion that strive not for themselves. {d} "I seek not
mine own glory, but there is one that seeketh it," saith Christ, John 8:50; "He, when
he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but
committed himself to him that judgeth righteously," and giveth to every
transgression and trespass a just recompence of reward, 1 Peter 2:23; Hebrews 2:2.
St Paul could not have wished worse to Alexander the coppersmith than "the Lord
reward him according to his works," 2 Timothy 4:14. This was not (saith an ancient
author) a cursing or a reviling of him, but a prediction befitting an apostle, that

revenged not himself, but gave place to wrath, and delivered up his enemy to God,
{e} as David did his adversaries, as Simon Peter did Simon Magus, and the primitive
Church did Julian the Apostate. And surely it is a fearful thing, when the saints
shall say to God, concerning those that malign or molest them, as David sometimes
said to Solomon, Thou knowest what Joab and Shimei did unto me: "do therefore
according to thy wisdom, and let not their hoar heads go down to the grave in
peace," 1 Kings 2:6. If any hurt God’s zealous witnesses, there goeth a fire out of
their mouths to devour them, as the fire from heaven did the first and second
captain sent for Elisha, Revelation 11:5; better anger all the witches in the world
than such, because God is for them. Little thought the Gibeonites in David’s time,
that the Lord had so taken to heart their wrongs, that for their sakes all Israel
should suffer. Even when we think not of it, is the righteous Judge avenging our
unrighteous vexations.
ELLICOTT, "(38) An eye for an eye.—Here again the scribes first took their stand
on the letter, regardless of the aim and purpose, of the Law, and then expanded it in
a wrong direction. As originally given, it was a CHECKon the “wild justice” of
revenge. It said, where the equilibrium of right had been disturbed by outrage, that
the work of the judge was not to do more than restore the equilibrium, unless, as in
the case of theft, some further penalty was necessary for the prevention of crime. It
was, in its essence, a limit in both directions. ot less than the “eye for an eye,” for
that might lead to connivance in guilt; not more, for that would open a fresh score of
wrong. The scribes in their popular casuistry made the rule one not of judicial
action only, but of private retaliation; and it was thus made the sanction of the
vindictive temper that forgives nothing.
COKE, "Matthew 5:38-42. Ye have heard, &c.— With respect to men's resisting
and revenging such injuries as are done them, Jesus assured his disciples, that
although, for the preservation of society, Moses had ordained the judges to give eye
for eye, and tooth for tooth, if the injured party demanded it; yet the doctors were
greatly in the wrong, not only when they enjoined men to insist on retaliation as
their duty, but declared it lawful in many cases for the injured party to avenge
himself with his own hand, provided, in his revenge, he did not exceed the measure
prescribed in the law. Christ's doctrine is, that the good man is so far from
revenging PRIVATE injuries, that oftentimes he does not even resist them, and
always forgives them when they happen to be done to him; a Christian generosity
which he warmly recommended to his disciples in the passage before us. To
understand it aright, we must take notice, that there are five cases put, wherein
Christianmeekness must especially shew itself: first, when any one assaults our
person, in resentment of some affront which he imagines we have put upon him:
secondly, when any one sues us at the law, in order to take our goods from us:
thirdly, when he attacks our natural liberty: fourthly, when one who is poor asks
charity: fifthly, when our neighbour begs the LOA of something from us. In all
these cases, our Lord forbids us to resist: yet, from the examples he mentions, it is
plain, that this forbearance and compliance are to be understood under due
limitations; for it cannot be supposed that our Lord forbids us to defend ourselves
against murderers, who would unjustly take away our life: neither can it be, that he

commands us to give every idle and worthless fellow all he may think fit to ask,
whether in charity or in LOA : we are only to give what we can spare, and to such
persons as out of real necessity seek relief from us; nay, our Lord's own behaviour
towards the man, who, in the presence of the council, smote him on the cheek, gives
reason to think he did not mean that in all cases his disciples should be perfectly
passive under the very injuries which he here speaks of. In some circumstances,
smiting on the cheek, taking away one's coat, and the compelling of him to go a mile,
may be great injuries; and therefore we may be justified in vindicating ourselves in
a way perfectly consistent withevery Christian temper. The first instance was
judged so by Jesus himself, inthe case mentioned; for had he forborne to reprove the
man who did it, his silence might have been interpreted as PROCEEDI G from a
conviction of his having done evil, in giving the high-priest the answer for which he
was smitten. But, in respect to small injuries, it is not only our duty to bear them
patiently, and be passive under them, but it is advantageous even in a temporal
point of view: for he who bears a slight affront consults even his own interest much
better than he who resists or resents it; because he shews a greatness of mind
worthy of a Christian man, and avoids quarrels, which frequently are attended with
the most fatal consequences. In like manner, he who yields a little of his right, rather
than go to law, is much wiser than the man who has recourse to justice in every
instance; because, in the progressof a law-suit, such animosities may arise, as are
inconsistent with charity. Again, benevolence, which is the glory of the divine
nature, and the perfection of the human, rejoices in doing good; hence, the man
possessed of this godlike quality cheerfully embraces every occasion in his power of
relieving the poor and distressed, whether by gift or LOA . Some are of opinion,
that the precept concerning alms-giving, and gratuitous lending, is subjoined to the
instances of injuries which our Lord commands us to bear: to teach us, that if the
persons who have injured us fall into want, we are not to withhold any act of charity
from them, on account of the evil they have formerly done us. Taken in this light,
the precept is generous and divine. Moreover, as liberality is a virtue nearly allied to
the forgiveness of injuries, our Lord joins the two together, to shew, that they should
always go hand in hand: the reason is, revenge will blast the greatest liberality, and
a covetous heart will shew the most perfect patience to be a sordid meanness of
spirit, proceeding from selfishness. See Macknight, Blair, and Blackall. The original
words, ‫נןםחש‬ ‫פש‬ ‫בםפיףפחםבי‬ ‫,לח‬ are rendered by Dr. Doddridge, Do not set
yourselves against the injurious person. See the force of the original word
‫,בםפיףפחםבי‬ 2 Timothy 3:8 where to resist the truth, is the same as to endeavour to
destroy it. Instead of coat and cloak, in the
40th verse, Dr. Doddridge reads vest and mantle, which more exactly answer to the
Greek words ‫קיפבם‬and ‫,ילבפיןם‬ and are parts of dress, under different names, still
retained in Barbary, Egypt, and the Levant. The mantle was much LARGER than
the vest, and probably the more valuable. See John 19:23 and Shaw's Travels, p.
289. The word ‫,בדדבסוץףוי‬ rendered compel, in John 19:41, all the commentators
have observed, is derived item the name of those officers or public messengers
among the Persians, who were wont to press the carriages and horses they met on
the road, if they had occasion for them, and even to force the drivers or riders to go
along with them. See ch. Matthew 27:32. We may very properly render the word

press. This custom was also in use in Judaea, and the Roman empire. The last clause
of the 42nd verse should be rendered, and do not turn away him that would borrow
of thee. The advice, or rather the commands, given above by our blessed Lord are
APPLICABLE to all who are called to be members of the Christian dispensation;
and the following observation may be useful to set them in their proper light.
The essence of virtue consists in mental disposition; in our temper and frame of
mind: but, as human language is adapted to express bodily action much better than
mental disposition, it is usual to express the latter by the action that it would
naturally produce: and, as the principles of action are complicated and various, and
prudence or necessity may often oblige us to omit in respect to action what the
frame and temper of our mind inclines to: hence it comes to pass, that some
evangelical counsels, which prescribe an outward action, mean in particular cases
only the proper inward disposition; namely, a readiness and inclination to perform
it: so that the will, though not formally mentioned in the precept, is always required;
and the deed, though nominally expressed, may on many occasions be omitted. For
instance, it is said at Matthew 5:42, Give to him who asketh thee, &c. ow this
precept is in the letter, and, with regard to the outward act which it commands, very
often impossible, very often improper to be put in practice: but in the spirit of it,
that is to say, the disposition of heart which it enjoins, it is always possible, always
practicable, always obligatory through divine grace: the narrowness of our own
circumstances may make it impossible, or the circumstances of him who asks our
bounty may make it improper, to put this precept in execution, as to the outward
act; for we may be so poor ourselves, or the person who APPLIES to us may, by his
vices or other qualities, be so circumstanced, that we either cannot or ought not to
relieve him. But an inclination to assist him, and do him service, is always in the
power of the genuine Christian: the poorest man may have in the good treasury of
his heart wherewithal to defray this universal debt of benevolence to all who ask or
need his assistance; and thus the precept will be virtually fulfilled. So again, when
our Lord commands us not to resist the man who injures us, &c. his meaning is, that
we should not repel and strive against the occasions of suffering which occur in the
order of Providence, but readily accept every cross which comes in our way. Those
who are capable of this lesson know full well how salutary sufferings are, and that it
is hardly possible to carry on their purification without these means: so true are
those words of our Lord, Luke 14:27. Whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come
after me, cannot be my disciple.
BARCLAY, "THE A CIE T LAW
Matthew 5: 38-42
You have heard that it has been said: An eye for an
eye, and a tooth for a tooth. But I tell you not to
resist evil; but if anyone strikes you on the right
cheek, turn the other to him also; and if anyone
wishes to obtain judgment against you tor your tunic,
give him your cloak also; and if anyone impresses
you into the public service to go a mile, go with him

two miles. Give to him who asks you, and do not turn
away from him who wishes to borrow from you.
THERE are few passages of the ew Testament which have
more of the essence of the Christian ethic in them than this
passage has. Here is the characteristic ethic of the Christian
life, and the conduct which should distinguish the Christian
from other men.
Jesus begins by citing the oldest law in the world
an eye for an eye, and a tooth tor a tooth. That law is
known as the Lex Talionis, and it may be described as the
law of tit for tat. It appears in the earliest known code 01
laws, the Code of Hammurabi, who reigned in Babylon
from 2285 to 2242 B.C. The Code of Hammurabi makes a
curious distinction between the gentleman and the work-
man. " if a man has caused the loss of a gentleman's eye*
his eye one shall cause to be lost. If he has shattered a
gentleman's limb, one shall shatter his limb. If he has
caused a poor man to lose his eye, or shattered a poor man's
limb, he shall pay one mina of silver ... If he has made
the tooth of a man who is his equal fall out, one shall make
his tooth fall out. If he has made the tooth of a poor man
fall out, he shall pay one third of a mina of silver/' The
principle is clear and apparently simple if a man has
inflicted an injury on any person, an equivalent injury shall
be inflicted upon him.
That law became part and parcel of the ethic of the Old
Testament. In the Old Testament we find it laid down no
fewer than three times. " It any mischief follow, then
thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth,
hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound
for wound, stripe for stripe" (Exodus 21: 23-25). " If a
man cause a blemish in his neighbour, as he hath done, so
shall it be done unto him, breach for breach, eye for eye,
tooth for tooth; as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so
it shall be done to him again " (Leviticus 24: 19, 20).
"And thine eye shall not pity, but life shall go for life, eye
for eye, tooth for tooth, hand tor hand, foot for foot "
(Deuteronomy 19: 21). These laws are often quoted as
amongst the blood-thirsty, savage and merciless laws of
the Old Testament; but before we begin to criticise the
Old Testament certain things must be noted.
(i) The Lex Talionis, the law of tit for tat, so far from
being a savage and bloodthirsty law, is in fact the beginning

of mercy. Its original aim was definitely the limitation of
vengeance. In the very earliest days the vendetta and the
blood feud were characteristic of tribal society. If a man
of one tribe injured a man of another tribe, then at once all
the members of the tribe of the injured man were out to
take vengeance on all the members of the tribe of the man
who committed the injury; and the vengeance desired was
nothing less than death. This law deliberately limits
vengeance. It lays it down that only the man who com-
mitted the injury must be punished, and his punishment
must be no more than the equivalent of the injury he has
inflicted and the damage he has done. Seen against its
historical setting this is not a savage law, but a law of
mercy.
(ii) Further, this was never a law which gave a private
individual the right to extract vengeance; it was always a
law which laid down how a judge in the law court must
assess punishment and penalty (cp. Exodus 19: 18). This
law was never intended to give the individual person the
right to indulge even in the vengeance of tit tor tat. It was
always intended as a guide for a judge in the assessment of
the penalty which any violent or unjust deed must receive.
(iii) Still further, this law was never, at least in any
even semi-civilized society, carried out literally. The
Jewish jurists argued rightly that to carry it out literally
might in fact be the reverse of justice, because it obviously
might involve the displacement of a good eye or a good
tooth for a bad eye or a bad tooth. And very soon the
injury done was assessed at a money value; and the
Jewish law in the tractate Baba Kamma carefully lays
down how the damage is to be assessed. If a man has
injured another, he is liable on five counts for injury,
for pain, for healing, for loss of time, for indignity suffered.
In regard to injury, the injured man is looked on as a slave
to be sold in the market place. His value before and after
the injury was assessed, and the man responsible for the
injury had to pay the difference. He was responsible for
the loss in value of the man injured. In regard to pain, it
was estimated how much money a man would accept to be
willing to undergo the pain of the injury inflicted, and the
man responsible for the injury had to pay that sum. In
regard to healing, the injurer had to pay all the expenses
of the necessary medical attention, until a complete cure
had been effected. In regard to loss of time, the injurer had
to pay compensation for the wages lost while the injured

man was unable to work, and he had also to pay compen-
sation if the injured man had held a well paid position, and
was now, in consequence of the injury, fit for less well
rewarded work. In regard to indignity, the injurer had to
pay damages for the humiliation and indignity which the
injury had inflicted. In actual practice the type of compen-
sation which the Lex Talionis laid down is strangely
modern.
(iv) And most important of all, it must be remembered
that the Lex Talionis is by no means the whole of Old
Testament ethics. There are glimpses and even splendours
of mercy in the Old Testament. " Thou shalt not avenge
or bear any grudge against the children of thy people "
(Leviticus 19: 18). " If thine enemy be hungry, give him
bread to eat; and if he be thirsty, give him water to drink "
(Proverbs 25: 21). " Say not, 1 will do so to him as he hath
done to me " (Proverbs 24: 29). " He givtitli his cheek to
the smiter; he is filled with reproach " (Lamentations
3: 30). There is abundant mercy in the Old Testament too.
So, then, ancient ethics were based on the law of tit for
tat. It is true that that law was a law of mercy; it is true
that it was a law for a judge and not for a private individual;
it is true that it was never literally carried out; it is true
that there were accents of mercy speaking at the same
time. But Jesus obliterated the very principle of that law,
because retaliation, however controlled and restricted, has
no place in the Christian life.
THE E D OF RESE TME T A D OF RETALIATIO
Matthew 5: 38-42 (continued)
So, then, for the Christian Jesus abolishes the old law of
limited vengeance and introduces the new spirit of non-
resentment and of non-retaliation. He goes on to take
three examples of the Christian spirit in operation. To
take these examples with a crude and ununderstanding
literalism is completely to miss their point. It is therefore
very necessary to understand what Jesus is saying.
(i) He says that if anyone smites us on the right cheek
we must turn to him the other cheek also. There is far
more here than meets the eye, far more than a mere
matter of blows on the face. Suppose a right-handed man
is standing in front of another man, and suppose he wants

to slap the other man on the right cheek, how must he do
it? Unless he goes through the most complicated con-
tortions, and unless he empties the blow of all force, he can
only hit the other man's cheek in one way with the back
of his hand. ow according to Jewish Rabbinic law to hit
a man with the back of the hand was twice as insulting as
to hit him with the flat of the hand. There is a doubly-
insulting contemptuous arrogance about a flick or a blow
delivered with the back of the hand. So, then, what Jesus
is saying is this: " Even if a man should direct at you the
most deadly and calculated insult, you must on no account
retaliate, and you must on no account resent it." It will
not happen very often, if at all, that anyone will slap us on
the face, but time and time again life brings to us insults
either great or small; and Jesus is here saying that the
true Christian has learned to resent no insult and to seek
retaliation for no slight. Jesus Himself was called a
gluttonous man and a wine-bibber. He was called the
friend of tax-gatherers and harlots, with the implication
that He was like the company He kept. The early
Christians were called cannibals and incendiaries, and were
accused of immorality, gross and shameless, because their
service included the Love Feast. When Shaftesbury under-
took the cause of the poor and the oppressed he was
.warned that it would mean that " he would become
unpopular with his friends and people of his own class,"
and that " he would have to give up all hope of ever being
a cabinet minister." When Wilberforce began on his
crusade to free the slaves the slanderous rumour that he
was a cruel husband, a wife-beater, that he was married to
a negress was deliberately spread abroad. Time and time
again in a church someone is " insulted " because he was
not invited to a platform party, because he was omitted
from a vote of thanks, because in some way he did not get
the place which was due to him. The true Christian has
forgotten what it is to be insulted; he has learned from
his Master to accept any insult and never to resent it, and
never to seek to retaliate.
(ii) Jesus goes on to say that if anyone tries to take away
our tunic in a law suit, we must not only let him have that,
but must offer him our cloak also. Again there is much
more in that than meets the eye. The tunic, chiton, was the
long, sack-like inner garment made of cotton or of linen.
The poorest man would have a change of tunics. The cloak
was the great, blanket-like outer garment which a man
wore as a robe by day, and used as a blanket at night. Of

such garments the Jew would only have one. ow it was
actually the Jewish law that a man's tunic might be taken
as a pledge, but not his cloak. " If thou at all take thy
neighbour's raiment to pledge (his cloak), thou shalt
deliver it unto him by that the sun goeth down; for that is
his covering only, it is his raiment for his skin; wherein
shall he sleep?" (Exodus 22: 26, 27). The point is that
by right a man's cloak could not be taken permanently
from him. So, then, what Jesus is saying is this: " The
Christian never stands upon his rights; he never disputes
about his legal rights; he does not consider himself to have
any legal rights at all." There are people who are for ever
standing on their rights, who clutch their privileges to
them and who will not be pried loose from them, who will
militantly go to law rather than surfer what they regard as
the slightest infringement of them. Churches are tragically
lull of people like that, officials whose territory has been
invaded, office-bearers who have not had their rights,
courts which do business with a manual of practice and
procedure on the table all the time, lest anyone's rights
should be invaded. People like that have not even begun
to see what Christianity is. The Christian thinks not of his
rights, but of his duties; not of his privileges, but of his
responsibilities. The Christian is a man who has forgotten
that he has any rights at all; and the man who will fight
to the legal death for his rights, inside or outside the
Church, is far from the Christian way.
(iii) Jesus then goes on to speak of being compelled to go
one mile; and says that in such a case the Christian must
willingly go two miles. There is here a picture of which we
know little, for it is a picture from an occupied country.
The word which is used for to compel is the verb aggareuein,
and aggareuein is a word with a history. It comes from the
noun aggareus, which is a Persian word meaning a courier.
The Persians had an amazing postal system. Each road
was divided into stages lasting one day. At each stage
there was food tor the courier and water and fodder for the
horses, and fresh horses for the road. But, if by any chance
there was anything lacking, any private person could be
impressed, compelled into giving tood, lodging, horses,
assistance, and even into carrying the message himself for
a stage. The word for such compulsion was aggareuein. In
the end the word came to signify any kind of forced
impressment into the service of the occupying power. In
an occupied country citizens could be compelled to supply
food, to provide billets, to carry baggage. Sometimes the

occupying power exercised this right of compulsion in the
most tyrannical and unsympathetic way. Always this
threat of compulsion hung over the citizens. Palestine was
an occupied country. At any moment a Jew might feel the
touch of the flat of a Roman spear on his shoulder, and
know that he was compelled to serve the Romans, it might
be in the most menial way. That, in fact, is what happened
to Simon of Cyrene, when he was compelled (aggareuein) to
bear the Cross of Jesus. So, then, what Jesus is saying is:
" Suppose your masters come to you and compel you to be
a guide or a porter for a mile, don't go a mile with bitter and
obvious resentment; go two miles with cheerfulness and
with a good grace." What Jesus is saying is: " Don't be
always thinking of your liberty to do as you like; be
always thinking of your duty and your privilege to be of
service to others. When a task is laid on you, even if the
task is unreasonable and hateful, don't do it as a grim duty
to be resented; do it as a service to be gladly rendered."
There are always two ways of doing things. A man can do
the irreducible minimum and not a stroke more; he can do
it in such a way that he makes it clear that he hates the
whole thing; he can do it with the barest minimum of
efficiency and no more; or he can do it with a smile, with a
gracious courtesy, with a determination, not only to do this
thing, but to do it well and graciously. He can do it, not
simply as well as he has to, but far better than anyone has
any right to expect him to. The inefficient workman, the
resentful servant, the ungracious helper has not even begun
to have the right idea of the Christian life. The Christian
is not concerned to do as he likes; he is concerned only to
help, even when the demand for help is discourteous,
unreasonable and tyrannical.
So, then, in this passage, under the guise of vivid
eastern pictures, Jesus is laying down three great rules
the Christian will never resent or seek retaliation for any
insult, however calculated and however deadly; the
Christian will never stand upon his legal rights or on any
other rights he may believe himself to possess ; the Christian
will never think of his right to do as he likes, but always of
his duty to be of help. The question is: How do we
measure up to that?
GRACIOUS GIVI G
Maffheti' 5: 38-42 (continued)

FI ALLY, it is Jesus' demand that we should give to all who
ask and never turn away from him who wishes to borrow.
At its highest the Jewish law of giving was a lovely thing.
It was based on Deuteronomy 15: 7-1 1:
"And if there be among you a poor man of one of thy
brethren within any of thy gates in thy land which the
Lord thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not harden thine
heart, nor shut thine hand from thy poor brother; but
thou shalt open thine hand wide unto him, and shalt
surely lend him sufficient for his need, in that which
he wanleth. Beware that there be not a thought in thy
wicked heart, saying: The seventh year, the year of
release is at hand ; and thy eye be grudging against thy
poor brother, and thou givest him nought; and he cry
unto the Lord against thee, and it be sin unto thee.
Thou shalt surely give to him, and thine heart shall
not be grieved when thou givest unto him; because
that for this thing the Lord thy God shall bless thee in
all thy works, and in all that thou puttest thine hand
unto. For the poor shall never cease out of the land;
therefore I command thee saying: Thou shalt open
thine hand wide unto thy brother, to thy poor, and to
thy needy, in thy land."
The point about the seventh year is that in every seventh
year there was a cancellation of debts; and the grudging
and the calculating man might refuse to lend anything
when the seventh year was near, lest the debt be cancelled
and he lose what he had given.
It was on that passage that the Jewish law of giving was
founded. The Rabbis laid down five principles which ought
to govern giving.
(i) Giving must not be refused. " Be careful not to
refuse charity, for everyone who refuses charity is put in
the same category with idolaters." If a man refuses to
give, the day may well come when he has to beg perhaps
from the very people to whom he refused to give.
(ii) Giving must befit the man to whom the gift is given.
The law of Deuteronomy had said that a man must be given
whatever he lacks. That is to say, a man must not be given
that bare sufficiency which will keep body and soul to-
gether; he must be given enough to enable him to retain
at least something of the standard and the comfort which

once he knew. So, it is said, Hillel arranged that the
poverty-stricken son of a noble family should be given, not
simply enough to keep him from starvation, but a horse to
ride and a slave to run before him; and once, when no slave
was available, Hillel himself acted as his slave and ran
before him. There is something gracious and lovely in the
idea that giving must not only remove actual poverty; it
must do something also to remove the humiliation which
poverty brings.
(iii) Giving must be carried out privately and secretly.
There must be no one else there. In fact, the Rabbis went
the length of saying that in the highest kind of giving, the
giver must not know to whom he was giving, and the
receiver must not know from whom he was receiving.
There was a certain place in the Temple to which people
secretly came and secretly gave their gifts ; and these
secret gifts were used in secrecy to help the impoverished
members of once noble families, and to give the daughters
oi such impoverished ones the dowries without which they
could not be married. The Jew would have regarded with
abhorrence the gift which was given for the sake of
prestige, publicity, or self-glorification.
(iv) The manner of giving must befit the character and
the temperament of the recipient. The rule was that if a
man had means, but was too miserly to use them, a gift
must be given as a gift, but afterwards reclaimed from his
estate as a loan. But if a man was too proud to ask for
help, Rabbi ishmael suggested that the giver should go to
him and say, " My son, perhaps you need a loan." His sell-
respect was thus saved, but the loan was never to be asked
back, and it was in fact, not a loan, but a gift. It was even
laid down that if a man was unable to respond to an appeal
tor help, his very refusal must be such as to show that, if
he could give nothing else, he at least gave sympathy.
Even a refusal was to be such that it helped and did not
hurt. Giving was to be carried out in such a way that the
manner of the giving was to help as much as the gift.
(v) Giving was at once a privilege and an obligation for
in reality all giving is nothing less than giving to God. To
give to some needy person was not something which a man
might choose to do; it was something he must do; for, if he
refused, the refusal was to God. " He who befriends the
poor lends to the Lord, and He will repay him for his good
deed." " To every one who shows mercy to other men,

mercy is shown from heaven; but to him who shows no
mercy to other men, no mercy is shown from heaven." The
Rabbis loved to point out that loving-kindness was one of
the very few things to which the Law appointed no limit
at all.
Are we then to say that Jesus urged upon men what can
only be called indiscriminate giving/ The answer cannot
be given without qualification. It is clear that the effect
of the giving on the receiver must be taken into account.
Giving must never be such as to encourage him in laziness
and in shiftlessness, for such giving can only hurt. But at
the same time it must be remembered that many people
who say that they will only give through official channels,
and who refuse to help personal cases, are frequently
merely producing an excuse for not giving at all, and are
at all times removing the personal element from giving
altogether. And it must also be remembered that it is
better to help a score of fraudulent beggars than to risk
turning away the one man in real need.
CALVI , "Mat_5:38.An eye for an eye. Here another ERROR is corrected. God
had enjoined, by his law, (Lev_24:20,) that judges and magistrates should punish
those who had done injuries, by making them endure as much as they had inflicted.
The consequence was, that every one seized on this as a pretext for taking
PRIVATE revenge. They thought that they did no wrong, provided they were not
the first to make the attack, but only, when injured, returned like for like. Christ
informs them, on the contrary, that, though judges were entrusted with the defense
of the community, and were invested with authority to restrain the wicked and
repress their violence, yet it is the duty of every man to bear patiently the injuries
which he receives.
COFFMA , "Passages which contain this injunction are Exodus 21:24; Leviticus
24:20; and Deuteronomy 19:21. Harsh and demanding as such a principle appears
to enlightened people of our day, it should be remembered that it was a
tremendously significant advance above and beyond the primitive thinking of the
untrained people who first heard it. The law of the jungle was far different: (1) If
you kill my child, I will kill all your children, your wife, your brothers, your whole
generation! (2) If you knock out my tooth (or eye), I will knock out ALL of yours
and kill you also! Thus, the ancient Law of the Hebrews was a vast improvement in
that it strictly limited punitive action to the extent of the original injury or loss that
precipitated it.
PULPIT, "Matthew 5:38
The mildness of Mosaism.

"An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth." This is supposed to represent the
severity of Mosaism. But its proper estimate depends on the contrast in which it is
set. Contrast it with Christ's doctrines of self-denial in order to serve others, and of
non-resistance of evil, and it seems severe. But contrast it with the previous, and the
widely prevailing doctrines of early days, and its mildness will at once come to view.
Illustrate that the primary idea of man is—kill the man who does you any wrong. It
is the sign of good order, wise government, worthier estimate of life, and a milder
tone, when money PAYME TS, and restoration of equivalents, take the place of the
revengeful demand for life. The tendency of civilization to require a more moderate,
restrained, and reformative dealing with wrong-doers, may be observed in all ages;
and it should be APPLIED to the Mosaic civilization, as a distinct advance on the
social systems of that day. But it should be borne in mind that our Lord is dealing
with the private offences of disciples, and not with public offences against law. The
expression of the regenerate character in the ordinary associations of life is his
theme. And he is dealing, not with the Mosaic lex talionis, but with the common and
vulgar idea of revenging offences, which sought to gain support by making an
undesigned APPLICATIO of the Mosaic Law. Christian disciples must not avenge
themselves.
I. OBSERVE THE, CIRCUMSCRIBED AREA OF THIS RULE. It is safe when
officially applied in a court of justice. The wrong-doer can reasonably be made to
replace his wrong. It is unsafe when applied, under personal feeling, in private life.
Then it may be but an expression of revenge; and revenge is altogether unworthy of
the Christian. The mildness of Mosaism is shown in its making revenge to become
official action.
II. OBSERVE THE FIGURATIVE CHARACTER OF THIS RULE. There is no
satisfaction for a noble person in making an enemy suffer exactly as he made him
suffer. The terms are figures for the reasonable demand of restoration of the
mischief done.—R.T.
PULPIT, "Matthew 5:38-42
The Christian type of fulfilling of the Law: Christ's fifth illustration.
The precept or permission of the Law here instanced was not a precept or
permission of revenge, but of equal justice. It was intended to operate, not to the
encouragement, but to the discouragement, of revenge; and rather simply as the
equitable admeasurer of just punishment and restraint of the more natural instinct
of revenge. Christ, however, thus early forewarns his disciples of what his eye saw
so clearly, his knowledge knew so well, that in this vicarious scene and state not so
much even as even-banded justice was to be had, and that it was so dangerous to the
seeker himself to seek it, that he had better, with a voluntary genuineness and a
genuine voluntariness, sacrifice it. Christ teaches, therefore, here—
I. THAT THE HIGHER MORAL PERCEPTIO OF THE TIME A D OF HIS

DISCIPLE SHOULD BE PREPARED TO RECOG IZE THE FACT THAT THE
CO DITIO S OF THIS WORLD ARE OT THOSE OF EXACT A D EVE
JUSTICE.
II. THAT THE DISASTROUS I ER CO SEQUE CES OF PUTTI G O E'S
SELF I TO PERSO AL A TAGO ISM WITH A OTHER ARE SUCH AS TO
COU SEL THE HIGH DUTY OF FOREGOI G EVE THE DEMA D FOR
SUCH JUSTICE, A D OF OT RESISTI G THE EVIL PERSO .
III. THAT CORRESPO DI G BE EFICE T CO SEQUE CES, FI DI G A
WAY TO WORK I OTHERS A D I THE WORLD, SHALL COU SEL THE
SAME COURSE.
IV. THAT THE CHRISTIA RESPO SE TO FORCE IS A WILLI G
SURRE DER OF THE PRESE T HOUR'S JUSTICE, A D PRESE T HOUR'S
APPARE T SELF-I TEREST.
V. THAT THE CROW A D PERFECTIO OF THE CHRISTIA
DISPOSITIO IS TO MEET "I THE WAY" THE APPEAL OF THOSE WHO
WOULD ASK, A D GIVE TO THEM; OF THOSE WHO WOULD BORROW,
A D LE D TO THEM. THOUGH ALL APPREHE SIO OF FORCE BE
REMOVED FAR AWAY, THE CHRISTIA HEART WILL OT REBOU D TO
THE DEMA D OF ITS RIGHTS, BUT WILL FEEL COMPASSIO , SHOW
COMPASSIO , A D GIVE.—B.
KRETZMA , "Jesus here refers to the law of retribution, or compensation, as
contained in the Levitical ordinances, Exo_21:24. This is said to the government,
and is a sound principle for the instruction of the judge; Fair compensation should
be granted for injuries received. But the scribes and Pharisees APPLIED the
statement to the relation of every person toward his neighbor. They taught and
declared that everyone had the right to take revenge and to exact compensation for
himself. Christ goes on record as differing from this explanation:
MACLARE , " O -RESISTA CE
Mat_5:38-42.
The old law directed judges to inflict penalties precisely equivalent to offences-’an
eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth’ {Exo_21:24}, but that direction was not for
the guidance of individuals. It was suited for the stage of civilisation in which it was
given, and probably was then a restriction, rather than a sanction, of the wild law of
retaliation. Jesus sweeps it away entirely, and goes much further than even its
abrogation. For He forbids not only retaliation but even resistance. It is unfortunate
that in this, as in so many instances, controversy as to the range of Christ’s words
has so largely hustled obedience to them out of the field, that the first thought
suggested to a modern reader by the command ‘Resist not evil’ {or, an evil man} is

apt to be, Is the Quaker doctrine of uniform non-resistance right or wrong, instead
of, Do I obey this precept? If we first try to understand its meaning, we shall be in a
position to consider whether it has limits, springing from its own deepest
significance, or not. What, then, is it not to resist? Our Lord gives three concrete
illustrations of what He enjoins, the first of which refers to insults such as
contumelious blows on the cheek, which are perhaps the hardest not to meet with a
flash of anger and a returning stroke; the second of which refers to assaults on
property, such as an attempt at legal robbery of a man’s undergarment; the third of
which refers to forced labour, such as impressing a peasant to carry military or
official baggage or documents-a form of oppression only too well known under
Roman rule in Christ’s days. In regard to all three cases, He BIDS His disciples
submit to the indignity, yield the coat, and go the mile. But such yielding without
resistance is not to be all. The other cheek is to be given to the smiter; the more
costly and ample outer garment is to be yielded up; the load is to be carried for two
miles. The disciple is to meet evil with a manifestation, not of anger, hatred, or
intent to inflict retribution, but of readiness to submit to more. It is a hard lesson,
but clearly here, as always, the chief stress is to be laid, not on the outward action,
but on the disposition, and on the action mainly as the outcome and exhibition of
that. If the cheek is turned, or the cloak yielded, or the second mile trudged with a
lowering brow, and hate or anger boiling in the heart, the commandment is broken.
If the inner man rises in hot indignation against the evil and its doer, he is resisting
evil more harmfully to himself than is many a man who makes his adversary’s
cheeks tingle before his own have ceased to be reddened. We have to get down into
the depths of the soul, before we understand the meaning of non-resistance. It would
have been better if the eager controversy about the breadth of this commandment
had oftener become a study of its depth, and if, instead of asking, ‘Are we ever
warranted in resisting?’ men had asked, ‘What in its full meaning is non-
resistance?’ The truest answer is that it is a form of Love,-love in the face of insults,
wrongs, and domineering tyranny, such as are illustrated in Christ’s examples. This
article of Christ’s ew Law comes last but one in the series of instances in which His
transfiguring touch is laid on the Old Law, and the last of the series is that to which
He has been steadily advancing from the first-namely, the great Commandment of
Love. This precept stands immediately before that, and prepares for it. It is, as
suffused with the light of the sun that is all but risen, ‘Resist not evil,’ for ‘Love
beareth all things.’
It is but a shallow stream that is worried into foam and made angry and noisy by
the stones in its bed; a deep river flows smooth and silent above them. othing will
enable us to meet ‘evil’ with a patient yielding love which does not bring the faintest
tinge of anger even into the cheek reddened by a rude hand, but the ‘love of God
shed abroad in the heart,’ and when that love fills a man, ‘out of him will flow a
river of living water,’ which will bury evil below its clear, gentle abundance, and,
perchance, wash it of its foulness. The ‘quality of’ this non-resistance ‘is twice
blessed,’ ‘it blesseth him that gives and him that takes.’ For the disciple who
SUBMITS in love, there is the gain of freedom from the perturbations of passion,
and of steadfast abiding in the peace of a great charity, the deliverance from the
temptation of descending to the LEVEL of the wrong-doer, and of losing hold of

God and all high visions. The tempest-ruffled sea mirrors no stars by night, nor is
blued by day. If we are to have real communion with God, we must not flush with
indignation at evil, nor pant with desire to shoot the arrow back to him that aimed it
at us. And in regard to the evil-doer, the most effectual resistance is, in many cases,
not to resist. There is something hid away somewhere in most men’s hearts which
makes them ashamed of smiting the offered left cheek, and then ashamed of having
smitten the right one. ‘It is a shame to hit him, since he does not defend himself,’
comes into many a ruffian’s mind. The safest way to travel in savage countries is to
show oneself quite unarmed. He that meets evil with evil is ‘overcome of evil’; he
that meets it with patient love is likely in most cases to ‘overcome evil with good.’
And even if he fails, he has, at all events, used the only weapon that has any chance
of beating down the evil, and it is better to be defeated when fighting hate with love
than to be victorious when fighting it with itself, or demanding an eye for an eye.
But, if we take the right view of this precept, its limitations are in itself. Since it is
love confronting, and seeking to transform evil into its own likeness, it may
sometimes be obliged by its own self not to yield. If turning the other cheek would
but make the assaulter more angry, or if yielding the cloak would but make the legal
robber more greedy, or if going the second mile would but make the press-gang
more severe and exacting, resistance becomes a form of love and a duty for the sake
of the wrong-doer. It may also become a duty for the sake of others, who are also
objects of love, such as helpless persons who otherwise would be exposed to evil, or
society as a whole. But while clearly that limit is prescribed by the very nature of the
precept, the resistance which it permits must have love to the culprit or to others as
its motive, and not be tainted by the least suspicion of passion or vengeance. Would
that professing Christians would try more to purge their own hearts, and bring this
solemn precept into their daily lives, instead of discussing whether there are cases in
which it does not APPLY! There are great tracts in the lives of all of us to which it
should apply and is not applied; and we had better seek to bring these under its
dominion first, and then it will be time enough to debate as to whether any
circumstances are outside its dominion or not.
CHARLES SIMEO , "RETALIATIO FORBIDDE
Mat_5:38-41. Ye have heard 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: hut whosoever shall smite
thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man trill sue thee at
the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. And whosoever shall
compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
IF Christianity be worthy of admiration on ACCOU T of the sublime mysteries it
reveals, it is no less so on account of the pure morality it inculcates. Its precepts are
as far above the wisdom of fallen man, as its doctrines. Search all the systems of
ethics that ever were written, and where shall we find such directions as these? In

vain shall we look for them in the productions of Greece and Rome: in vain shall we
consult the sages and philosophers of any other nation: such precepts as these are
found no where but in the inspired volume. The law of retaliation has in all nations
been deemed equitable and right: but in the Christian code it is expressly forbidden.
In considering the subject of retaliation, we shall notice,
I. The ERRORS which obtain in the world respecting it—
The Pharisees admitted of revenge; and grounded that license upon the word of
God. The passages which they adduced in CO FIRMATIO of their sentiments
were strong; but they did not at all refer to the conduct of individuals towards each
other, but of magistrates towards the community at large [ ote: Exo_21:22-25.
Deu_19:16-21. These passages were to direct them in the administration of justice.].
To APPLY them to individuals, was a perversion of them, a perversion disgraceful
to the teachers of such doctrines, and fatal to those who embraced them.
We, having our Lord’s own comment on those passages, cannot any longer justify
our errors by an appeal to Holy Writ: but yet our sentiments in relation to the
subject treated of in our text, are, for the most part, precisely similar to those which
were maintained among the Jews. Two things in particular we will specify, which
are universally applauded amongst us, yet are exceeding contrary to the spirit of
Christianity:
1. A rigid maintenance of our rights—
[Doubtless our rights, whether civil or religious, ought to be dear to us: and a
certain degree of watchfulness over them may well be admitted; because if our
rights, whether public or private, be invaded by one person, they may by another;
and if they be suffered to be curtailed, they may be altogether annihilated. But this
will not justify that extreme jealousy which some express about their rights. There
are many who will talk incessantly about the rights of man, who yet will trample
without remorse on all the rights of God. They will not suffer the smallest
infringement of their own liberty; whilst they themselves are the most oppressive
tyrants, wherever their authority extends. These may boast of their firmness in
maintaining what they think to be right: but “they know not what spirit they are
of.” How unlike are they to Paul, who, rather than insist upon the support to which,
as a minister of Christ, he was entitled, would work at his TRADE by night, after
having been occupied in preaching all the day! How unlike to Christ also, who,
when, as the Son of God, he might have claimed exemption from paying tribute to
the temple, wrought a miracle to satisfy the demand, rather than put a stumbling-
block in the way of any by a refusal? We do not undertake to say, that, in cases of
great importance, a person may not expostulate with his oppressor, as Christ did
[ ote: Joh_18:22-23.]; or insist upon his right, as did the Apostle Paul [ ote: Act_
16:37.]; but we are perfectly sure that a readiness to demand our utmost right on
every occasion, argues a spirit very different from that which is inculcated in the
Gospel of Christ.]

2. A keen resentment of wrongs—
[This is thought highly meritorious. A disposition to pass by an insult or an injury
would be deemed meanness and cowardice; and the person who indulged it would
be banished from society, and held up to universal scorn and contempt. Hence arise
wars, duels, and domestic feuds without number. But is such a disposition agreeable
to the word of God? Look at the conduct of David, when persecuted by Saul: he
repeatedly had his adversary within his power, and could easily have killed him; but
he would not: he preferred rather the committing of his cause to God; and rendered
nothing but good, in return for all the evil that Saul had done unto him: and, to
shew that he did not consider such conduct as a superfluous act of generosity, he
brands the opposite conduct with the name of wickedness: “Thus saith the proverb
of the ancients; Wickedness proceedeth from the wicked; but mine hand shall not be
upon thee [ ote: 1Sa_24:10; 1Sa_24:13. See also 26:7–12.].” Compare with this the
conduct also of the saints in the ew Testament: St. James, speaking of them to their
proud oppressors, says, “Ye have condemned and killed the just; and he doth not
resist you [ ote: Jam_5:6.].”]
That the sentiments of the world on the subject of retaliation are quite erroneous,
will appear yet further, by considering,
II. The line of conduct which Christianity requires—
The authoritative command of Jesus in the text, is this: “I say unto you, That ye
resist not evil,” that is, that ye resist not the injurious person [ ote: ‫פ‬ῷ ‫ס‬ ‫ח‬ ‫ם‬ ‫ן‬ ‫נ‬ῷ ].
This, especially taken in connexion with our Lord’s illustration of it, undoubtedly
enjoins us to live in the exercise of,
1. A patient spirit—
[We are not to be inflamed with anger against those who treat us ill: but to bear
their injuries with meekness and long-suffering. The direction of the Apostle is, “In
your patience possess ye your souls:” and again, “Let patience have its perfect work,
that ye may be perfect and entire, lacking nothing.” I am aware, that it is difficult to
bear injuries, when we know them to be altogether unmerited. But to abstain from
every thing vindictive was enjoined under the Old Testament [ ote: Lev_19:18.
Pro_20:22; Pro_24:29.]: and much more is it insisted on in the ew Testament
[ ote: Rom_12:17; Rom_12:19. 1Th_5:15.]. And the more undeserving we are of the
injurious treatment, the more are we called upon to display our patience, after the
example of our blessed Lord, who instead of rendering evil for evil, silently
committed his cause to his righteous God and Father [ ote: 1Pe_2:20-23.].]
2. A yielding spirit—
Suppose a person were to carry the insult so far as to strike us a blow upon the face:
what ought we to do then? Are we not at liberty to return the blow? o: we may

expostulate with the injurious person as our Lord did; “If I have done evil, bear
witness of the evil; but, if not, why smitest thou me?” but we must not for a moment
think of avenging ourselves [ ote: Isa_50:6. with Lam_3:30.]. It may be said, this
would be an encouragement to him to strike us again: we hope not; but if it were, it
were better to “turn the other cheek,” and be smitten again, than that we should
resent the injury; for the blows only hurt our body; but the resentment would
wound our soul.
Again, suppose any one were to injure us in our property, as well as our person,
and, under colour of law, were to “take away our coat:” what shall we do? Shall we
indulge a litigious spirit, in order to get it back again? o; rather let him “take our
cloak also,” than induce us to gratify an angry or vindictive spirit [ ote: 1Co_6:7.].
Once more;—Suppose any one, under pretence of some public emergency, were to
infringe upon our liberty, and to compel us (as the Jews did Simon the Cyrenian,
when they “compelled him to bear” our Saviour’s cross,) to carry a burthen for
them “a mile:” what then? Must we SUBMIT? Whether in all cases, or not, I do not
pretend to say: hut this is clear; that it is better to “go with him two” miles, than to
vex ourselves, and quarrel about it. The man that yields, is always safe; he knows
the extent of the injury which he receives: but he who once begins to contend, knows
not where he shall stop, nor what injury he may suffer in his own soul, before the
contention shall cease.]
3. A forgiving spirit—
[Forbearance and forgiveness are frequently united in the Holy Scriptures; nor
should they ever be separated in our conduct [ ote: Col_3:12-13. Eph_4:31-32.].
or would the exercise of forgiveness be so difficult, if only we considered how
much greater injury people do to themselves, than they can possibly do to us. Do
what they will, they can never injure us, except in mere external things: our souls
are beyond their reach: but, whilst they endeavour to injure us, they do the most
irreparable injury to their own souls. Let us suppose for a moment, that a person,
robbing us of a little worthless fruit, were to fall down, and break every bone of his
body; would not our pity for his misfortune swallow up all resentment for his fault?
So then it should be with us towards all who injure us: there is no comparison at all
between the injury they do to us and to themselves; and therefore we should be
ready to exercise forgiveness towards them, and to implore forgiveness for them at
God’s hands.]
Learn then, from this subject,
1. How rare a thing real Christianity is—
[This is Christianity: all, without this, is an empty sound. Look then through the
world, and see how little there is of it any where to be found: yea, let the saints
themselves see how little of true Christianity they possess. This view of Christian
duty may well fill every one of us with shame and confusion of face.]

2. How necessary a renewed spirit is, either to a right discernment of religion, or
to the practice of it—
[The precepts of religion are no less foolishness to the natural man, than the
doctrines. What heathen ever inculcated such lessons? or what unconverted
Christian ever thoroughly approved them in his heart. People fancy that they have
power to do the will of God: but can they do these things? As well may they attempt
to turn the course of the sun, as so to turn the current of corrupt nature. We must
have an understanding given us that we may know these things [ ote: 1Co_2:12.];
and strength, that we may do them [ ote: 2Co_3:5.].]
3. How ornamental true religion is to every one that possesses it—
[Who can see a person acting up to the spirit of these precepts, and not admire him?
Who can help admiring this spirit in Christ and in his holy Apostles? Surely, such
are “beautified with salvation,” and God himself must admire them [ ote: 1Pe_
3:4.].]
4. How happy the world would be, if vital Christianity universally prevailed—
[There would then be no scope for the exercise of these difficult graces, since no
injuries would be committed upon earth — — — O that God would hasten that
blessed time!]
BE SO , "Verses 38-42
Matthew 5:38-42. Ye have heard, &c. — Our Lord proceeds to enforce such
meekness and love toward their enemies, on those who are persecuted for
righteousness’ sake, as were utterly unknown to the scribes and Pharisees. And this
subject he pursues to the end of the chapter. It hath been said, viz., in the law,
Deuteronomy 19:21, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth — Though this
statute was only intended as a direction to judges, with regard to the penalties to be
inflicted in case of violent and barbarous assaults; yet it was interpreted among the
Jews as encouraging a rigorous and severe revenge of every injury a man might
receive. But I say unto you, that ye resist not evil — Or, rather, the evil man, as ‫פש‬
‫נןםחסש‬ought to be rendered. Dr. Doddridge reads the clause: That you do not set
yourselves against the injurious person, viz., in a posture of hostile opposition, as the
word ‫בםפיףפחםבי‬implies, and with a resolution to return evil for evil. But whosoever
shall smite thee on thy right cheek, &c. — Where the damage is not great, choose
rather to pass it by, though possibly it might, on that ACCOU T, be repeated, than
to enter into a rigorous prosecution of the offender. And if any man will sue thee,
&c., and take away thy coat — By the word ‫,קיפשם‬ here rendered coat, it seems we
are to understand an inner garment; and by the word, ‫,ילבפיןם‬ rendered cloak, an
outer garment. Dr. Doddridge renders the former, vest, and the latter, mantle. They
are parts of dress, under different names, still used in Barbary, Egypt, and the
Levant. See Shaw’s Travels, pp. 289, 292. Our Lord, it is to be observed, is not here
speaking of a robber attacking a person on the highway, to whom it would be

natural to take the outer garment first, but of a person suing another at law, as our
translators seem properly to have rendered ‫.ךסיטחםבי‬ The meaning of the whole
passage evidently is, rather than return evil for evil: when the wrong is purely
personal, SUBMIT to one bodily injury after another, give up one part of your
goods after another, submit to one instance of compulsion after another. That the
words, Turn to him the other cheek also, (and consequently those in the next clause,)
are not to be taken literally, appears from the behaviour of our Lord himself, John
18:22-23. Give to him, that asketh thee, &c. — Give and lend to any that are in
want, so far, (but no farther, for God never contradicts himself,) as is consistent
with thy engagements to thy creditors, thy family, and the household of faith.
Upon the whole of this passage, from Matthew 5:38, we may observe, that it seems
to have been primarily intended to counteract and correct that abuse of the law of
retaliation above mentioned, which was common among the Jews, who carried their
resentments to the utmost lengths; and, by so doing, maintained infinite quarrels, to
the great detriment of social life. For this purpose, our Lord “puts five cases
wherein Christian meekness must especially show itself. 1st, When any one assaults
our person, in resentment of some affront he imagines we have put upon him. 2d,
When any one sues us at the law, in order to take our goods from us. 3d, When he
attacks our natural liberty. 4th, When one who is poor asks charity. 5th, When a
neighbour begs the LOA of something from us. In all these cases our Lord forbids
us to resist. Yet, from the examples which he mentions, it is plain that this
forbearance and compliance are required only when we are slightly attacked, but by
no means when the assault is of a capital kind. For it would be unbecoming the
wisdom which Jesus showed in other points, to suppose that he forbids us to defend
ourselves against murderers, robbers, and oppressors, who would unjustly take
away our life, our estate, or our liberty. either can it be thought that he commands
us to give every idle fellow all he may think fit to ask, whether in charity or in
LOA . We are only to give what we can spare, and to such persons as out of real
necessity ask relief from us. ay, our Lord’s own behaviour toward the man that
smote him on the cheek, shows he did not mean that in all cases his disciples should
be passive under the very injuries which he here speaks of. In some circumstances,
smiting on the cheek, taking away one’s coat, and the compelling one to go a mile,
may be great injuries, and therefore are to be resisted. The first instance was judged
so by Jesus himself in the case mentioned. For had he forborne to reprove the man
who did it, his silence might have been interpreted as PROCEEDI G from a
conviction of his having done evil, in giving the high priest the answer for which he
was smitten.” But, admitting that this rule has for its object small injuries, and that
our Lord orders his disciples to be passive under them rather than to repel them, it
is liable to no objection: for he who “bears a slight affront, consults his honour and
interest much better than he who resists or resents it; because he shows a greatness
of mind worthy of a man, and uses the best means of avoiding quarrels, which oft-
times are attended with the most fatal consequences. In like manner, he who yields a
little of his right, rather than he will go to law, is much wiser than the man who has
recourse to public justice in every instance; because, in the progress of a law-suit,
such animosities may arise as are inconsistent with charity. To conclude,
benevolence, which is the glory of the divine nature, and the perfection of the

human, rejoices in doing good. Hence the man that is possessed of this god-like
quality cheerfully embraces every occasion in his power of relieving the poor and
distressed, whether by gift or loan. Some are of opinion, that the precept concerning
alms-giving, and gratuitous lending, is subjoined to the instances of injuries which
our Lord commands us to bear, to teach us that, if the persons who have injured us
fall into want, we are not to withhold any act of charity from them on account of the
evil they have formerly done us. Taken in this light, the precept is generous and
divine. Moreover, as liberality is a virtue nearly allied to the forgiveness of injuries,
our Lord joined the two together, to show that they should always go hand in hand.
The reason is, revenge will blast the greatest liberality, and a covetous heart will
show the most perfect patience to be a sordid meanness of spirit, proceeding from
selfishness.” — Macknight.
39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If
anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them
the other cheek also.
CLARKE, "Resist not evil - Or, the evil person. So, I am fully persuaded, τω
πονηρω ought to be translated. Our Lord’s meaning is, “Do not repel one outrage by
another.” He that does so makes himself precisely what the other is, a wicked person.
Turn to him the other also - That is, rather than avenge thyself, be ready to suffer
patiently a repetition of the same injury. But these exhortations belong to those
principally who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake. Let such leave the judgment of
their cause to Him for whose sake they suffer. The Jews always thought that every
outrage should be resented; and thus the spirit of hatred and strife was fostered.
GILL, "But I say unto you, that ye resist not evil,.... This is not to be understood
of any sort of evil, not of the evil of sin, of bad actions, and false doctrines, which are to
be opposed; nor of the evil one, Satan, who is to be resisted; but of an evil man, an
injurious one, who has done us an injury. We must not render evil for evil, or repay him
in the same way; see Jam_5:6. Not but that a man may lawfully defend himself, and
endeavour to secure himself from injuries; and may appear to the civil magistrate for
redress of grievances; but he is not to make use of private revenge. As if a man should
pluck out one of his eyes, he must not in revenge pluck out one of his; or should he strike
out one of his teeth, he must not use him in the same manner; but patiently bear the
affront, or seek for satisfaction in another way.

But whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other
also: which is to be understood comparatively, rather than seek revenge, and is directly
contrary to the Jewish canons, which require, in such a case, a pecuniary fine (g).
"He that strikes his neighbour (which Maimonides explains, he that strikes his
neighbour with his hand shut, about the neck) he shall give him a "sela", or "shekel": R.
Judah says, in the name of R. Jose the Galilean, one pound: if he smite him (i.e. as
Maimonides says, if he smite him with his double fist upon the face; or, as Bartenora,
with the palm of his hand, ‫,לחיי‬ "on the cheek", which is a greater reproach) he shall give
him two hundred "zuzim"; and if he does it with the back of his hand, four hundred
"zuzim".''
R. Isaac Sangari (h) manifestly refers to this passage of Christ's, when he says to the king
he is conversing with,
"I perceive that thou up braidest us with poverty and want; but in them the great men of
other nations glory: for they do not glory but in him, who said, "Whosoever smiteth thee
thy right cheek, turn to him the left; and whosoever taketh away thy coat, give him thy
cloak".''
HE RY, "Two things Christ teaches us here:
1. We must not be revengeful (Mat_5:39); I say unto you, that ye resist not evil; - the
evil person that is injurious to you. The resisting of any ill attempt upon us, is here as
generally and expressly forbidden, as the resisting of the higher powers is (Rom_13:2);
and yet this does not repeal the law of self-preservation, and the care we are to take of
our families; we may avoid evil, and may resist it, so far as is necessary to our own
security; but we must not render evil for evil, must not bear a grudge, nor avenge
ourselves, nor study to be even with those that have treated us unkindly, but we must go
beyond them by forgiving them, Pro_20:22; Pro_24:29; Pro_25:21, Pro_25:22; Rom_
12:7. The law of retaliation must be made consistent with the law of love: nor, if any have
injured us, is our recompence in our own hands, but in the hands of God, to whose wrath
we must give place; and sometimes in the hands of his viceregents, where it is necessary
for the preservation of the public peace; but it will not justify us in hurting our brother to
say that he began, for it is the second blow that makes the quarrel; and when we were
injured, we had an opportunity not to justify our injuring him, but to show ourselves the
true disciples of Christ, by forgiving him.
Three things our Saviour specifies, to show that Christians must patiently yield to
those who bear hard upon them, rather than contend; and these include others.
(1.) A blow on the cheek, which is an injury to me in my body; “Whosoever shall smite
thee on thy right cheek,” which is not only a hurt, but an affront and indignity (2Co_
11:20), if a man in anger or scorn thus abuse thee, “turn to him the other cheek;” that is,
“instead of avenging that injury, prepare for another, and bear it patiently: give not the
rude man as good as he brings; do not challenge him, nor enter an action against him; if
it be necessary to the public peace that he be bound to his good behaviour, leave that to
the magistrate; but for thine own part, it will ordinarily be the wisest course to pass it by,
and take no further notice of it: there are no bones broken, no great harm done, forgive
it and forget it; and if proud fools think the worse of thee, and laugh at thee for it, all
wise men will value and honour thee for it, as a follower of the blessed Jesus, who,
though he was the Judge of Israel, did not smite those who smote him on the cheek,”
Mic_5:1. Though this may perhaps, with some base spirits, expose us to the like affront

another time, and so it is, in effect, to turn the other cheek, yet let not that disturb us,
but let us trust God and his providence to protect us in the way of our duty. Perhaps, the
forgiving of one injury may prevent another, when the avenging of it would but draw on
another; some will be overcome by submission, who by resistance would but be the more
exasperated, Pro_25:22. However, our recompence is in Christ's hands, who will reward
us with eternal glory for the shame we thus patiently endure; and though it be not
directly inflicted, it if be quietly borne for conscience' sake, and in conformity to Christ's
example, it shall be put upon the score of suffering for Christ.
JAMISO , "But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil; but whosoever shall
smite thee on thy right check, turn to him the other also — Our Lord’s own
meek, yet dignified bearing, when smitten rudely on the cheek (Joh_18:22, Joh_18:23),
and not literally presenting the other, is the best comment on these words. It is the
preparedness, after one indignity, not to invite but to submit meekly to another, without
retaliation, which this strong language is meant to convey.
TRAPP, "Ver. 39. But I say unto you, that ye resist not evil] For here to resist is to
be overcome, saith St Paul, Romans 12:21. And in a matter of strife or
disagreement, he hath the worst that carries it, saith St Basil. Yea, Aristotle himself
yieldeth, that of the twain it is better to suffer the greatest wrong than to do the
least. {a} And it was a heavy challenge and charge upon those carnal Corinthians,
that had strife, divisions, and lawsuits among them; "Why do ye not rather take
wrong? why do ye not suffer yourselves to be defrauded? ay, ye do wrong, and
defraud, and that your brethren," 1 Corinthians 6:7-8. But be not deceived, saith
he, to wit, with vain hope of impunity, for God is the avenger of all such as, like the
angry bee, care not to sting another, though it be to the loss of their own lives. {b}
Besides that, in resisting evil, we give place to the devil, whom if by patience and
forbearance we could resist, he would flee from us. "We wrestle not against flesh
and blood" (as we think we do, when we conflict with men like ourselves, that have
done us injury), "but against principalities and powers," Ephesians 6:12; q.d. while
we are busy in breaking those darts that men shoot from afar against us; we are
oppressed by the devil near at hand to us, Ephesians 4:26. {c} Here, by the way,
magistrates must be admonished to take heed how they aggravate punishment upon
a malefactor out of private grudge; parents also and masters, how they correct in a
rage and fury. For although they be public persons, yet to give correction in a
choleric mood is to ease their heart by way of revenge, it is a degree of resisting evil.
The tyrant saith, ‫לןי‬ ‫,ומוףפי‬ it is in my power to do it; the good governor saith,
‫לןי‬ ‫.ךבטחךוי‬ It concerneth me to do it in point of duty, quoth a philosopher.
But whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek] Socrates, a heathen, when he had
received a box on the ear, answered, What an ill thing is it that men cannot foresee
when they should put on a helmet, before they go abroad? {d} And when he was
kicked by another, If an ass should kick me, said he, should I spurn him again? But
we have those, that professing to be Christians, lest they should seem to he
Anabaptists in taking two blows for one, will give two blows for one, yea, for none,

sometimes: it is but a word and a blow with them, as it was with Cain, Lamech,
Esau, who said, "The days of mourning for my father are at hand, then I will slay
my brother Jacob," Genesis 27:41. In which words he either threateneth his father
(as Luther thinketh) for blessing his brother, q.d. I will be the death of my brother,
and so cause my father to mourn: or else he threateneth his brother (as most
interpreters sense it) after his father’s head is once laid, without any respect at all to
his mother, whom he not so much as mentioneth. He took no great care how she
would take it; and his deferring till his father’s death was more out of fear of a curse
than conscience of a duty. There are those who read the words by way of a wish, Let
the days of mourning for my father draw nigh, &c. And then it is a double
parricide. Sure we are, that as concerneth his brother he comforted himself,
purposing to kill him. He threatened him, saith the Septuagint ( ‫,)בנויכוי‬ Genesis
27:42, q.d. I will sit upon his skirts, and be even with him. The nature of ungodly
men is vindictive, and rejoicing in other men’s hurt (which is the devil’s disease),
especially if provoked by any injury or indignity, as smiting on the cheek. {e} But
God will smite them on the cheek bone so hard, as that he will break the teeth of the
ungodly; smite them in the hinder parts, where we use to whip froward children,
and so put them to a perpetual reproach, Psalms 3:7; Psalms 78:66. either only will
he smite upon their loins, but through them, yea, he will crack their crowns, cleave
their skulls, wound their hairy scalps, be their locks never so bushy, {f} their looks
never so lofty and terrible, that count it courage to turn again and revenge, which
every Turk and heathen, nay, every bull and boar, can do. The Lamb of God gave
his cheeks to the smiters: so did Michaiah the meek, Job the just, and Paul the
patient, Isaiah 50:6; John 18:23; 1 Kings 22:24; Job 16:10; Acts 23:2-3; yet not so
patient, but he could set forth his privilege, when he was to be scourged, and clear
his innocence with meekness of wisdom; and so may we, yea, we may safely decline a
likely danger, in some cases especially, as our Saviour did. Apud Mahometanos
ferunt paucas brevesque lites esse, quod temere litigantes publiae flagellis
caedantur.
ELLICOTT, "(39) Resist not evil.—The Greek, as before in Matthew 5:37, may be
either masculine or neuter, and followed as it is by “whosoever,” the former seems
preferable; only here it is not “the evil one,” with the emphasis of pre-eminence, but,
as in 1 Corinthians 5:13, the human evil-doer. Of that mightier “evil one” we are
emphatically told that it is our duty to resist him (James 4:7).
Shall smite.—The word was used of blows with the hand or with a stick, and for
such blows fines from a shekel upwards were imposed by Jewish courts.
Turn to him the other also.—We all QUOTE and admire the words as painting an
ideal meekness. But most men feel also that they cannot act on them literally; that to
make the attempt, as has been done by some whom the world calls dreamers or
fanatics, would throw society into confusion and make the meek the victims. The
question meets us, therefore, Were they meant to be obeyed in the letter; and if not,
what do they command? And the answer is found (l) in remembering that our Lord
Himself, when smitten by the servant of the high priest, protested, though He did
not resist (John 18:22-23), and that St. Paul, under like outrage, was vehement in his

rebuke (Acts 23:3); and (2) in the fact that the whole context shows that the Sermon
on the Mount is not a code of laws, but the assertion of principles. And the principle
in this matter is clearly and simply this, that the disciple of Christ, when he has
suffered wrong, is to eliminate altogether from his motives the natural desire to
retaliate or accuse. As far as he himself is concerned, he must be prepared, in
language which, because it is above our common human strain, has stamped itself
on the hearts and memories of men, to turn the left cheek when the right has been
smitten. But the man who has been wronged has other duties which he cannot
rightly ignore. The law of the Eternal has to be asserted, society to be protected, the
offender to be reclaimed, and these may well justify—though personal animosity
does not—protest, prosecution, punishment.
CALVI , "39.Do not resist evil. There are two ways of resisting: the one, by
warding off injuries through inoffensive conduct; the other, by retaliation. (412)
Though Christ does not permit his people to repel violence by violence, yet he does
not forbid them to endeavor to avoid an unjust attack. The best interpreter of this
passage that we can have is Paul, who enjoins us rather to “ evil by good” (Rom_
12:21) than contend with evil-doers. (413) We must attend to the contrast between
the vice and the CORRECTIO of it. The present subject is retaliation. (414) To
restrain his disciples from that kind of indulgence, he forbids them to render evil for
evil. He afterwards extends the law of patience so far, that we are not only to bear
patiently the injuries we have received, but to prepare for bearing fresh injuries.
The amount of the whole admonition is, that believers should learn to forget the
wrongs that have been done them, — that they should not, when injured, break out
into hatred or ill-will, or wish to commit an injury on their part, — but that, the
more the obstinacy and rage of wicked men was excited and inflamed, they should
be the more fully disposed to exercise patience.
Whoever shall inflict a blow. Julian, (415) and others of the same description, have
foolishly slandered this doctrine of Christ, as if it entirely overturned the laws of a
country, and its civil courts. Augustine, in his fifth epistle, EMPLOYS much skill
and judgment in showing, that the design of Christ was merely to train the minds of
believers to moderation and justice, that they might not, on receiving one or two
offenses, fail or lose courage. The observation of Augustine, “ this does not lay down
a rule for outward actions,” is true, if it be properly understood. I admit that Christ
restrains our hands, as well as our minds, from revenge: but when any one has it in
his power to protect himself and his property from injury, without exercising
revenge, the words of Christ do not prevent him from turning aside gently and
inoffensively to avoid the threatened attack.
Unquestionably, Christ did not intend to exhort his people to whet the malice of
those, whose propensity to injure others is sufficiently strong: and if they were to
turn to them the other cheek, what would it be but holding out such an
encouragement? It is not the business of a good and judicious commentator to seize
eagerly on syllables, but to attend to the design of the speaker: and nothing is more
unbecoming the disciples of Christ, than to spend time in cavilling about words,
where it is easy to see what the Master means. But in the present instance, the object

Matthew 5 38 48 commentary

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Matthew 5 38 48 commentary

Similar to Matthew 5 38 48 commentary (20)

More from GLENN PEASE

More from GLENN PEASE (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Matthew 5 38 48 commentary