Jesus was against retaliation

JESUS WAS AGAINST RETALIATION
EDITED BY GLENN PEASE
MATT 5:38-3938"Youhaveheard that it was said,
'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' 39ButI tell you, do
not resistan evil person. If anyone slaps you on the
right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.
BIBLEHUB RESOURCES
Non-resistance
Matthew 5:38-42
W.F. Adeney
The difficulty with this, as with similar passagesin the teachings of our Lord,
is to see how to carry out the precept in the fulness of the intention of the great
Teacher. Are we to take it quite literally? If so, Count Tolstoiis right, and we
have not yet begun to be Christian. Are we to take it 'metaphorically,' or even
as a hyperbolical expression? Thenwe shall be in greatdanger of watering it
down to suit our own convenience. Plainlyour Lord meant something very
real. Moreover, this is no counselof perfectionfor selectsaints. It is a general
law of the kingdom of heaven; it is a precept of that exalted righteousness
exceeding the righteousness ofscribes and Pharisees whichChrist absolutely
requires of all his people. How, then, is it to be interpreted?
I. THIS IS A LAW OF UNIVERSAL CHRISTIAN CONDUCT. Christ was
not a Solon, drawing up a code of state laws. His preceptwas not made in any

legislative assembly. He spoke to men who lived under the irresistible yoke of
stern, just Romangovernment. But his words had no influence with that
government. Thus, no doubt, they were primarily for private conduct. They
did not concernthe question of a state's duty in defending its coastfrom the
invader, or protecting its citizens by police supervision from outrage. But
attempts have been made to confine the obligations of our Lord's words to the
individual relations which he was contemplating when he uttered them. The
Sermon on the Mount, we are told, is for private Christian guidance only; it is
not intended to regulate governments. Surely that is a dangerous narrowing of
its functions. So long as the state is not Christian, Christian principles cannot
be lookedfor in legislation;but as soonas the gospelhas Christianized the
state, Christian principles must appearin public policy. This was apparent in
the criminal legislationofConstantine, the first Christian emperor of the
Roman empire. It is a grosslyunchristian thing for men in a free, self-
governing country to think that motives of greedor revenge that are not
permissible betweenman and man are allowable between nation and nation.
II. THIS LAW IS NOT INCONSISTENTWITHORDER AND JUSTICE. To
see that it is not, we must observe its exactapplication.
1. It does not concernour defence of others; it only touches our defence of our
own rights. The government is bound to protectthose committed to its charge,
but it is not bound to avenge an affront offered to itself. The policeman is
required to guard the victim of a brutal assaultfrom violence, but he is not
bound to avenge insults and wrongs directed againsthimself.
2. The reference to the "lextalionis evidently shows that the thought is of
revenge. Still, all resistance ofevil seems to be forbidden. It is certainly
difficult to see. how the principle is to be applied in all cases.

3. Nevertheless, we have sadly failed to carry out even its intelligible and more
obvious demands. Patience and calm endurance of wrong are not Anglo-
Saxoncharacteristics,but they are Christian. Interpret Christ's precept
(1) in the light of ver. 5;
(2) in the light of his own behaviour under arrest;and
(3) in connectionwith the next precept. - W.F.A.
COMMENTARIES
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers
(38) An eye for an eye.—Here againthe scribes first took their stand on the
letter, regardless ofthe aim and purpose, of the Law, and then expanded it in
a wrong direction. As originally given, it was a check on 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 oftheft, some further penalty was necessary
for the prevention of crime. It was, in its essence, a limit in both directions.
Not 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 casuistrymade the rule one not of judicial action only, but of private
retaliation; and it was thus made the sanctionof the vindictive temper that
forgives nothing.
MacLaren's Expositions

Matthew
NON-RESISTANCE
Matthew 5:38-42.
The old law directed judges to inflict penalties precisely equivalent to
offences-’aneye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth’ {Exodus 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 awayentirely,
and goes much further than even its abrogation. ForHe forbids not only
retaliation but even resistance. It is unfortunate that in this, as in so many
instances, controversyas to the range of Christ’s words has so largely hustled
obedience to them out of the field, that the first thought suggestedto a modern
reader by the command ‘Resistnot evil’ {or, an evil man} is apt to be, Is the
Quakerdoctrine of uniform non-resistance right or wrong, insteadof, Do I
obey this precept? If we first try to understand its meaning, we shall be in a
position to considerwhether it has limits, springing from its own deepest
significance, ornot. 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, whichare perhaps the hardestnot
to meet with a flash of angerand a returning stroke;the secondof which
refers to assaults onproperty, such as an attempt at legalrobbery of a man’s
undergarment; the third of which refers to forcedlabour, such as impressing
a peasantto carry military or officialbaggage ordocuments-a form of
oppressiononly 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 loadis 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 secondmile trudged with a
lowering brow, and hate or angerboiling in the heart, the commandment is
broken. If the inner man rises in hot indignation againstthe evil and its doer,
he is resisting evil more harmfully to himself than is many a man who makes
his adversary’s cheekstingle before his own have ceasedto 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 eagercontroversy
about the breadth of this commandment had oftenerbecome a study of its
depth, and if, insteadof asking, ‘Are we ever warranted in resisting?’men
had asked, ‘Whatin its full meaning is non-resistance?’The truest answeris
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
New Law comes lastbut 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 steadilyadvancing 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,
‘Resistnot evil,’ for ‘Love bearethall things.’
It is but a shallow streamthat is worried into foam and made angry and noisy
by the stones in its bed; a deep river flows smooth and silent above them.
Nothing will enable us to meet ‘evil’ with a patient yielding love which does
not bring the faintest tinge of angereven 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, washit of its foulness. The
‘quality of’ this non-resistance ‘is twice blessed,’ ‘it blessethhim that gives
and him that takes.’Forthe disciple who submits in love, there is the gain of
freedom from the perturbations of passion, and of steadfastabiding in the
peace ofa 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 shootthe arrow back to him that aimed it at us. And in
regard to the evil-doer, the most effectualresistance is, in many cases, notto
resist. There is something hid awaysomewhere in most men’s hearts which
makes them ashamedof 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 safestwayto travel in savage
countries is to show oneselfquite unarmed. He that meets evil with evil is
‘overcome of evil’; he that meets it with patient love is likely in most casesto
‘overcome evil with good.’And even if he fails, he has, at all events, used the
only weaponthat has any chance of beating down the evil, and it is better to
be defeatedwhen 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 assaultermore angry, or if yielding the cloak would
but make the legalrobber more greedy, or if going the secondmile would but
make the press-gang more severe and exacting, resistancebecomes a form of
love and a duty for the sake ofthe wrong-doer. It may also become a duty for
the sake ofothers, who are also objects of love, such as helpless persons who
otherwise would be exposedto evil, or societyas 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 leastsuspicionof passionor vengeance. Wouldthat 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 casesin
which it does not apply! There are greattracts 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.

BensonCommentary
Matthew 5:38-42. Ye have heard, &c. — Our Lord proceeds to enforce such
meekness andlove toward their enemies, on those who are persecutedfor
righteousness’sake, as were utterly unknown to the scribes and Pharisees.
And this subjecthe 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 ofviolent 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 τω πονηρω ought to be rendered. Dr.
Doddridge reads the clause:That you do not setyourselves againstthe
injurious person, viz., in a posture of hostile opposition, as the word
αντιστηναι implies, and with a resolutionto return evil for evil. But
whosoevershallsmite thee on thy right cheek, &c. — Where the damage is
not great, chooseratherto pass it by, though possibly it might, on that
account, be repeated, than to enter into a rigorous prosecutionof the offender.
And if any man will sue thee, &c., and take awaythy coat — By the word
χιτων, here rendered coat, it seems we are to understand an inner garment;
and by the word, ιματιον, renderedcloak, anouter 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. OurLord, 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 seemproperly to have rendered κριθηναι. 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 afteranother, submit to one instance of compulsion after another.
That the words, Turn to him the other cheek also, (andconsequently those in
the next clause,)are not to be takenliterally, appears from the behaviour of
our Lord himself, John 18:22-23. Give to him, that askeththee, &c. — Give
and lend to any that are in want, so far, (but no farther, for God never

contradicts himself,) as is consistentwith 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 counteractand correctthat 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 greatdetriment of sociallife. Forthis
purpose, our Lord “puts five cases whereinChristian meekness must
especiallyshow 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 loanof something from us. In all these cases ourLord 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 assaultis of a capital kind. Forit would be unbecoming the
wisdom which Jesus showedin other points, to suppose that he forbids us to
defend ourselves againstmurderers, robbers, and oppressors, who would
unjustly take awayour life, our estate, orour liberty. Neither canit be
thought that he commands us to give every idle fellow all he may think fit to
ask, whetherin charity or in loan. We are only to give what we can spare, and
to such persons as out of real necessityask relieffrom us. Nay, our Lord’s
own behaviour toward the man that smote him on the cheek, showshe did not
mean that in all caseshis disciples should be passive under the very injuries
which he here speaks of. In some circumstances,smiting on the cheek, taking
awayone’s coat, and the compelling one to go a mile, may be greatinjuries,
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 proceeding from a conviction
of his having done evil, in giving the high priest the answerfor which he was
smitten.” But, admitting that this rule has for its objectsmall 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 greatnessofmind 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 wiserthan the man who has recourse to public justice
in every instance; because, in the progress ofa law-suit, such animosities may
arise as are inconsistentwith charity. To conclude, benevolence, whichis the
glory of the divine nature, and the perfection of the human, rejoices in doing
good. Hence the man that is possessedofthis god-like quality cheerfully
embraces every occasionin 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 accountof the evil they have formerly done us. Takenin this light,
the preceptis generous and divine. Moreover, as liberality is a virtue nearly
allied to the forgiveness ofinjuries, our Lord joined the two together, to show
that they should always go hand in hand. The reasonis, revenge will blast the
greatestliberality, and a covetous heartwill show the most perfect patience to
be a sordid meanness of spirit, proceeding from selfishness.” — Macknight.
Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary
5:38-42 The plain instruction is, Suffer any injury that can be borne, for the
sake ofpeace, committing your concerns to the Lord's keeping. And the sum
of all is, that Christians must avoid disputing and striving. If any say, Flesh
and blood cannot pass by such an affront, let them remember, that flesh and
blood shall not inherit the kingdom of God; and those who actupon right
principles will have most peace and comfort.
Barnes'Notes on the Bible
An eye for an eye ... - This command is found in Exodus 21:24; Leviticus
24:20, and Deuteronomy19:21. In these places it was given as a rule to
regulate the decisions ofjudges. 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, anddoes 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 consideredthemselves 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
governedby different principles.
The generalprinciple which he laid down was, that we are not to resistevil;
that is, as it is in the Greek, nor to setourselves againstan evil personwho is
injuring us. But even this generaldirection is not to be pressedtoo strictly.
Christ did not intend to teachthat 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 whenlife 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 allowedto defend them.
Neither natural nor revealedreligion 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 farmore worthy of statementthan those which
he did mention.
A doctrine so unusual, so unlike all that the world had believed. and that the
best people had actedon, 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 John18:23. 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 Saviourdirects 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
conscienceandlife.
Coat- The Jews wore two principal garments, an interior and an exterior.
The interior, here called the "coat," orthe tunic, was made commonly of
linen, and encircledthe whole body, extending down to the knees. Sometimes
beneath this garment, as in the case ofthe priests, there was anothergarment
corresponding to pantaloons. The coat, or tunic, was extended to the neck.
and had long or short sleeves. Overthis was commonly worn an upper
garment, here called"cloak,"ormantle. 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 correctview 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 consistedof the inner
garment, the outer garment, the girdle (belt), and the sandals. In regard to the
sandals, see the notes at Matthew 3:11.
In the girdle (belt) was the place of the pouch Matthew 10:9, and to it the
swordand dirk were commonly attached. Compare 2 Samuel 20:8. In modern
times the pistols are also fastenedto 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 tuckedup, 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 loosenthe loins" denoted the giving way to
repose and indolence, 2 Kings 4:29; Job 38:3; Isaiah 5:27; Luke 12:35;John
21:7.
Whosoevershallcompel thee to go a mile - The word translated"shall
compel" is of Persianorigin. Post-offices were thenunknown. In order that
the royal commands might be delivered with safety and despatchin different
parts of the empire, Cyrus stationedhorsemen at proper intervals on all the
greatpublic highways. One of those delivered the messageto another, and
intelligence was thus rapidly and safelycommunicated. These heralds were
permitted to compelany 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 resista public authority requiring your attendance and aid for a certain
distance, go peaceablytwice the distance.
A mile - A Roman mile was 1,000 paces.
Twain - Two.
Jamieson-Fausset-BrownBible Commentary
38. Ye have heard that it hath been said—(Ex21:23-25;Le 24:19, 20; De
19:21).
An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth—that is, whateverpenalty was
regardedas a proper equivalent for these. This law of retribution—designed
to take vengeance outof the hands of private persons, and commit it to the
magistrate—wasabusedin the opposite way to the commandments of the
Decalogue. While they were reduced to the level of civil enactments, this
judicial regulationwas held to be a warrant for taking redress into their own

hands, contrary to the injunctions of the Old Testamentitself(Pr 20:22;
24:29).
Matthew Poole's Commentary
This was the commandment of God to the magistrate, in case a womanwith
child were struck, and any mischief came of it, Exodus 21:24;in case of
damage done to a neighbour, Leviticus 24:20;and in the case offalse witness,
Deu 19:21. But in the mean time God had said to private persons, Leviticus
19:18, Thou shalt not avenge;and it is said, Proverbs 24:29, Say not, I will do
to him as he hath done to me. The Pharisees hadinterpreted this law of God
into a liberty for every private person, who had been wrongedby another, to
exacta satisfactionupon him, provided that he did not exceedthis proportion
of taking an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth, doing no more wrong to
another than that other had done to him.
Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
Ye have heard that it hath been said,.... Thatis, to, or by them of old time, as
is expressedin some of the foregoing instances,
an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth, Exodus 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, orSadducees,among the Jews, took
it in a literal sense, andso does Josephus, who says (b), he that shall blind, i.e.
put out a man's eyes, shallsuffer the like. But the Jewishdoctors 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 , "the price of his eye",
according to the price of a servantsold in the market; and so the same of them
all; for, not taking awayof the member is strictly meant.''

And, says Maimonides (d),
"if a man cuts off his neighbour's hand, or foot, he is to be consideredas if he
was a servant soldin 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, spokenof, 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". Notthat 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 controversyabout the
sense ofthis law may be seenin a few words, as managed betweenR. 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 respectto 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 causeda blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again?" To which
Hagsonreplies, "in", is instead of "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. Hagsonreplies, behold Samsonsaid, "as they have
done to me, so will I do to them"; but Samsondid 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, whatshall
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 ofthe Scribes and Pharisees;who, as they
interpreted it of pecuniary mulcts, as a compensationfor the loss of a
member, which sometimes exceededalljust 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.
(b) Antiq. Jud. l. 4. c. 8. sect. 35. (c) In Exodus 21.24. (d) Hilchot Chebel. c. 1.
sect. 2, 3.((e) In loc. supra citat. (f) In Aben Ezra in Exodus 21.24.
Geneva Study Bible
{9} Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a
tooth:
(9) He shows that contrary to the doctrine of the scribes, that the sum of the
secondtable must be so understood, that we may in no wise render evil for
evil, but rather suffer double injury, and do well to them that are our deadly
enemies.
EXEGETICAL(ORIGINAL LANGUAGES)
Meyer's NT Commentary
Matthew 5:38. Ὀφθαλμὸν… ὀδόντος]supply δώσει, which supplement is
presupposedas wellknown from the saying referred to (see Exodus 21:24). In
the usual formula (comp. also Leviticus 22:20;Leviticus 24:20;Deuteronomy

19:21)is expressedthe jus talionis, the carrying out of which was assignedto
the magistracy(comp. 12. Tab.:“si membrum rupit, ni cum eo pacit, talio
esto”). Insteadof seeking and asserting this right before the magistracy, the
Christian, in the feeling of true brotherly love, free from all desire of revenge,
is to exercise self-denial, and to exhibit a self-sacrificing spirit of concession.
Comp. 1 Corinthians 6:7. This principle of Christian morality, laid down
absolutely as an ideal, by no means excludes, under the determining
circumstances ofsinful life, the duty of seeking one’s legalrights, as is clear,
moreover, from the history of Christ and His apostles. ThatJesus,moreover,
is speaking againstthe misuse by the Pharisees ofthe legalstandard, as a
standard within the sphere of sociallife, is a groundless supposition of Luther,
Beza, Calvin, Calovius, Bengel, B. Crusius, Keim, and others, especiallyas in
Matthew 5:40 κριθῆναι follows. But certainly the Phariseesmay, unlovingly
enough, in casesoccurring in sociallife, have claimed those rights before the
magistracy, and have influenced others also to practise similar unloving
conduct. Glossesin reference to the payment in money of legaltalio, see in
Lightfoot.
Expositor's Greek Testament
Matthew 5:38-42. Fifth illustration, from the law of compensation.
Cambridge Bible for Schools andColleges
(b) The law of retaliation, 38–42.
38. An eye for an eye] See Exodus 21:24. The Scribes draw a false inference
from the letter of the law. As a legalremedy the lex talionis was probably the
best possible in a rude state of society. The principle was admitted in all
ancient nations. But the retribution was exactedby a judicial sentence for the
goodof the community, not to gratify personalvengeance. The deduction that
it was morally right for individuals to indulge revenge could not be justified.
Bengel's Gnomen

Matthew 5:38. Ὀφθαλμὸν, aneye) sc. Thou shalt require. In Exodus 21:24, the
LXX. have ὀφθαλμὸνἀντὶ ὀφθαλμοῦ, ὀδόνταἀντὶ ὀδόντος, eye foreye, tooth
for tooth. The lex talionis was most suitable for punishments, as in the greater
injury, murder, and in the less, theft, so also in that which stoodmidway
betweenthem. See Leviticus 24:20. Mutilation was frequent in punishments
without reference to the principle of the lex talionis; why then should it not be
used to carry out that principle itself? Cf. Judges 1:7.[222]Penalties would
avail more, if human judgment did not depart so far from the wisdom, the
equity, and the severity of the Divine law.
[222]What had been prescribed to the magistrate, that the Scribes allottedto
private vengeance.—B. G. V.
Pulpit Commentary
Verses 38-48. -The two remaining examples of the current teaching of the
Law are very closelyconnectedtogether, and, in fact, our Lord's corrections
of them are intermingled in Luke 6:27-36. Yet the subjects are really distinct.
In the first (vers. 38-42)our Lord speaks ofthe reception of injuries, in the
second(vers. 43-48)of the treatment of those who do them. Godet's remarks
(in his summary of Luke 6:27-45)on the use made by St. Luke of these
examples are especiallyinstructive. "These lasttwo antitheses, which
terminate in Matthew in the lofty thought (ver. 48) of man being elevatedby
love to the perfectionof God, furnish Luke with the leading idea of the
discourse as he presents it, namely, charity as the law of the new life." Verses
38-42. - The receptionof injuries. The Law inculcated that the injured should
obtain from those who did the wrong exactcompensation(on this being
properly a command, not merely a permission, vide Mozley, 'Ruling Ideas,'
etc., pp. 182, sqq.). Our Lord inculcates giving up of all in-sistance upon one's
rights as an injured person, and entire submission to injuries, even as far as
proffering the opportunity for fresh wrongs. Verse 38. - An eye for an eye, and
a tooth for a tooth. No short phrase could more accuratelydescribe the spirit
of the Mosaic legislation. Offencesagainstindividuals were to be punished by
the injured individual receiving back, as it were, the exactcompensationfrom

him who had injured him. While this was originally observedliterally, it was
in Mishnic times (and probably in the time of our Lord) softenedto payment
of money (vide Lightfoot, 'Hor. Hebr.'). The phrase comes three times in the
Pentateuch(Exodus 21:24;Leviticus 24:20;Deuteronomy 19:21). Notice:
(1) The LXX. has the accusative in eachcase, althoughonly in the first does a
verb precede. Probably the expressionhad already become proverbial in
Greek evenbefore the translation of the LXX.
(2) The Hebrew of Deuteronomy 19:21 is slightly different from that of the
other two passages, and as the preposition there used (‫)ב‬ is not so necessarily
rendered by ἀντί, that passageis perhaps the leastlikely of the three to have
been in our Lord's mind now. It seems likely, however, that he was not
thinking of any one of the three passagesin particular. The words servedhim
as a summary of the Law in this respect.
Matthew 5:39 But I say to you, That you resistnot
evil: but whoever shall smite you on your right cheek,
turn to him the other also.
BIBLEHUB COMMENTARIES
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers
(39) Resistnot evil.—The Greek, as before in Matthew 5:37, may be either
masculine or neuter, and followedas 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 1Corinthians 5:13, the human evil-doer. Of that mightier

“evil one” we are emphatically told that it is our duty to resisthim (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 shekelupwards were imposed by Jewishcourts.
Turn to him the other also.—Weallquote and admire the words as painting
an ideal meekness. Butmost 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 societyinto 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 answeris
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 vehementin his rebuke (Acts 23:3); and
(2) in the fact that the whole contextshows that the Sermon on the Mount is
not a code of laws, but the assertionofprinciples. And the principle in this
matter is clearlyand simply this, that the disciple of Christ, when he has
suffered wrong, is to eliminate altogetherfrom 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, societyto be protected, the offender to be reclaimed, and these may
well justify—though personalanimosity does not—protest, prosecution,
punishment.
Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary
5:38-42 The plain instruction is, Suffer any injury that can be borne, for the
sake ofpeace, committing your concerns to the Lord's keeping. And the sum

of all is, that Christians must avoid disputing and striving. If any say, Flesh
and blood cannot pass by such an affront, let them remember, that flesh and
blood shall not inherit the kingdom of God; and those who actupon right
principles will have most peace and comfort.
Barnes'Notes on the Bible
An eye for an eye ... - This command is found in Exodus 21:24; Leviticus
24:20, and Deuteronomy19:21. In these places it was given as a rule to
regulate the decisions ofjudges. 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, anddoes 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 consideredthemselves 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
governedby different principles.
The generalprinciple which he laid down was, that we are not to resistevil;
that is, as it is in the Greek, nor to setourselves againstan evil personwho is
injuring us. But even this generaldirection is not to be pressedtoo strictly.
Christ did not intend to teachthat 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 whenlife 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 allowedto defend them.
Neither natural nor revealedreligion 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 farmore worthy of statementthan those which
he did mention.

A doctrine so unusual, so unlike all that the world had believed. and that the
best people had actedon, 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 John18:23. 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 Saviourdirects 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
conscienceandlife.
Coat- The Jews wore two principal garments, an interior and an exterior.
The interior, here called the "coat," orthe tunic, was made commonly of
linen, and encircledthe whole body, extending down to the knees. Sometimes
beneath this garment, as in the case ofthe priests, there was anothergarment
corresponding to pantaloons. The coat, or tunic, was extended to the neck.
and had long or short sleeves. Overthis was commonly worn an upper
garment, here called"cloak,"ormantle. 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 correctview 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 consistedof the inner
garment, the outer garment, the girdle (belt), and the sandals. In regard to the
sandals, see the notes at Matthew 3:11.

In the girdle (belt) was the place of the pouch Matthew 10:9, and to it the
swordand dirk were commonly attached. Compare 2 Samuel 20:8. In modern
times the pistols are also fastenedto 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 tuckedup, 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 loosenthe loins" denoted the giving way to
repose and indolence, 2 Kings 4:29; Job 38:3; Isaiah5:27; Luke 12:35;John
21:7.
Whosoevershallcompel thee to go a mile - The word translated"shall
compel" is of Persianorigin. Post-offices were thenunknown. In order that
the royal commands might be delivered with safety and despatchin different
parts of the empire, Cyrus stationedhorsemen at proper intervals on all the
greatpublic highways. One of those delivered the messageto another, and
intelligence was thus rapidly and safelycommunicated. These heralds were
permitted to compelany 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 resista public authority requiring your attendance and aid for a certain
distance, go peaceablytwice the distance.
A mile - A Roman mile was 1,000 paces.
Twain - Two.
Jamieson-Fausset-BrownBible Commentary

39. But I sayunto you, That ye resistnot evil; but whosoevershallsmite thee
on thy right check, turn to him the other also—OurLord's own meek, yet
dignified bearing, when smitten rudely on the cheek (Joh 18:22, 23), and not
literally presenting the other, is the best comment on these words. It is the
preparedness, afterone indignity, not to invite but to submit meeklyto
another, without retaliation, which this strong language is meant to convey.
Matthew Poole's Commentary
See Poole on"Matthew 5:41".
Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
But I sayunto you, that ye resistnot 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 James 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 satisfactionin another way.
But whosoevershallsmite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also:
which is to be understood comparatively, rather than seek revenge, andis
directly contrary to the Jewishcanons, whichrequire, 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, "on the cheek",whichis

a greaterreproach)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 ofChrist'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
greatmen of other nations glory: for they do not glory but in him, who said,
"Whosoeversmiteth thee thy right cheek, turn to him the left; and whosoever
taketh awaythy coat, give him thy cloak".''
(g) Misn. Bava Kama, c. 8. sect. 6. Vid. Maimon. & Bartenora in ib. (h)
Sepher Cosri, Orat. 1. Sign. 113. fol. 56. 1.
Geneva Study Bible
But I sayunto you, That ye resistnot evil: but whosoevershallsmite thee on
thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
EXEGETICAL(ORIGINAL LANGUAGES)
Meyer's NT Commentary
Matthew 5:39-40. Τῷ πονηρῷ] is neither to be understood of the devil
(Chrysostom, Theophylact), nor, as neuter (Augustine, Luther, Castalio,
Calvin, Ewald, and others), of injustice; but, in accordancewith the antithesis
ἀλλʼ ὅστις σε ῥαπίζει, etc., and with Matthew 5:40-41 : homini maligno.
Christ names first the right cheek, althoughthe blow most naturally strikes
first the left, but after the common fashion of naming the left after the right.

κριθῆναι]to go to law. Vulgate well renders: in judicio contendere. Comp. on
1 Corinthians 6:1; Romans 3:4; and see Wetstein, Nägelsbachonthe Iliad, p.
305, ed. 3. It refers to legalcontroversy, not to the extra-judicial beginnings of
contention (de Wette; also Beza, Grotius, Kuinoel, and others), by which the
distinction betweenthe two cases, Matthew 5:39-40, is quite overlooked.
χιτῶνα]‫ְּכ‬‫ח‬ֹ‫נ‬ ֶ‫,ת‬ the shirt-like under-garment, tunica; on the other hand, ἱμάτιον]
‫ְּש‬‫מ‬ ְּ‫ל‬ ,,‫ב‬ ֶ‫ג‬ ֶ‫,ד‬ the mantle-like over-garment, toga, which also servedfor a
covering by night, and might not therefore be retained as a pledge over night;
Exodus 22:26;Deuteronomy 24:13. The ἱμάτιονwas more valuable and more
indispensable than the χιτών; that is the point which, according to Matthew,
Jesus has in view. It is different in Luke 6:29 (according to the order of
successionin covering the body).
λαβεῖν] by the lawsuit, which follows from κριθῆναι;whilst the pettiness of the
objectis not opposedto this, seeing that the method of illustration is by way of
concrete example.
Expositor's Greek Testament
Matthew 5:39. μὴ ἀντιστῆναι:resistnot, either by endeavouring to prevent
injury or by seeking redress forit.—τῷ πονηρῷ, not the devil, as Chrys. and
Theophy. thought; either the evil doer or the evil doing or done. Opinion is
much divided betweenthe lasttwo meanings. The sense is the same in either
case. The A. V[28] takes πονηρῷ as neuter, the R. V[29] as masculine. The
former is on the whole to be preferred. Instances ofinjury in various forms
are next specified to illustrate the generalprecept. These injuries have been
variously distinguished—to body, and property, and freedom, Tholuck;
exemplum citatur injuriae, privatae, forensis, curialis, Bengel;injuries
connectedwith honour, material good, waste oftime, Achelis, who points out
that the relation of the three, Ex. in Matthew 5:39-41, is that of an anti-climax,
injuries to honour being felt most, and those involving waste oftime least.—
ὅστις … ἄλλην. In the following instances there is a climax: injury proceeds

from bad to worse. It is natural to expect the same in this one. But when the
right cheek has been struck, is it an aggravationto strike the left? Tholuck,
Bleek, and Meyersuggestthat the right cheek is only named first according to
common custom, not supposed to be struck first. Achelis conceives the right
cheek to be struck first with the back of the hand, then the left with a return
stroke with the palm, harder than the first, and expressing in a higher
measure intention to insult.—ῥαπίζω in class. Greek = to beat with rods; later,
and in N. T., to smite with the palm of the hand; vide Lobeck, Phryn., p. 175.
[28] Authorised Version.
[29] RevisedVersion.
Cambridge Bible for Schools andColleges
39. resistnot evil] i. e. do not seek to retaliate evil.
turn to him the other also]To be understood with the limitation imposed on
the words by our Lord’s personalexample, John 18:22-23.
The gradationof the examples given is from the greaterto the less
provocation.
Bengel's Gnomen
Matthew 5:39. Μὴ ἀντιστῆναι, not to resist)The infinitive is governedby
λέγω, I say, as in Revelation13:14. To resistevil is to return injury for
injury.—ἀλλʼ, but) Our Lord gives examples of private, legal, and political
wrong, Matthew 5:39-41.—ῥαπίσει, shallsmite) elsewhere ῥαπίζεινis to strike
with rods, but in this passageas the cheek is mentioned, it means to smite with
the open hand.—τὴν δεξιάν σου σιαγόνα, the right cheek)or the left either.
See Luke 6:29. An instance of Synedoche.[223]—στρέψον, turn) It is

sometimes advisable to do so literally.[224]The world says, on the other hand,
Assertthy courage by a duel. Those who are able ought ere this to have made
a stand againstthis evil, this disgrace ofthe Christian name, and to have given
all diligence that they might do so effectually. One man who becomes a
murderer by a duel involves a whole camp in his guilt. Many, so far dilute and
extenuate the lessons here given by the Saviour, that they slide down to a level
with the righteousnessofthe Scribes and Pharisees, oreven below it.
[223]See Explanation of TechnicalTerms in Appendix.—(I. B.)
[224]Spiritual prudence will teach the children of GOD, when they ought to
do so. The words of Christ are not words belonging to the mere human and
natural life, but to the eternal life. What seems folly to the world, appears in a
quite different light in the eternal Life.—Vers. Germ.
Pulpit Commentary
Verse 39. - But I sayunto you, That ye resistnot evil: but whosoevershall
smite thee, etc. The first clause comes here only; the secondis found also in
Luke 6:29 (for the principle, cf. 1 Corinthians 6:7). We may notice that, while
our Lord most perfectly observedthe spirit of this command, he did not
slavishly follow the letter of it (cf. John 18:22, 23). Nor did St. Paul (cf. Acts
16:35ff; Acts 22:25;23:3; 25:9,10). We must remember that, while he clothes
his teaching with the form of concrete examples, these are only parabolic
representations ofprinciples eternal in themselves, but in practice to be
modified according to eachseparate occasion. "This offering of the other
cheek may be done outwardly; but only inwardly can it be always right"
(Trench, 'Sermon on the Mount'). We must further remember the distinction
brought out here by Luther betweenwhat the Christian has to do as a
Christian, and what he has to do as, perhaps an official, member of the state.
The Lord leaves to the state its own jurisdiction (Matthew 22:21:vide Meyer).
That ye resist not; RevisedVersion, resistnot, thus avoiding all possibility of
the Englishreader taking the words as a statementof fact. Evil. So the

RevisedVersion margin; but RevisedVersion, him that is evil (cf. ver. 37;
Matthew 6:13, note). The masculine here, in the sense of the wickedman who
does the wrong, is clearlypreferable; Wickliffe, "a yuel man." (For a very
careful defence of Chrysostom's opinion that even here τῷ πονηρῷ refers to
the devil and not to man. see Chase, 'The Lord's Prayer in the Early Church').
Shall smite; RevisedVersion, smiteth, The right reading gives the more vivid
present. Ῥαπίζω comes in the New Testamenthere and Matthew 26:67 only. It
is properly used of a stroke with a rod. (For "smiting on the cheeks,"cf. the
curious rendering of Hosea 11:4 in the LXX; cf. also Isaiah50:6.) Thee on thy
right. Matthew only. Although it is more natural that the left cheek would be
hit first (Meyer), the right is named, since it is in common parle, nee held to be
the worthier (cf. ver. 29). Cheek. Σιαγών, though properly jaw, is here
equivalent to" cheek," as certainlyin Song of Solomon1:10; Song of Solomon
5:13. Turn. The action seen;Luke's "offer" regards the mental condition
necessaryfor the action.
PRECEPTAUSTIN RESOURCES
BRUCEHURT MD
Matthew 5:38 "You have heard that it was said, 'AN EYE FOR AN EYE,
AND A TOOTHFOR A TOOTH.'(NASB: Lockman)
Greek:Ekousate(2PAAI) oti errethe, (3SAPI) Ophthalmon anti ophthalmou
kai odonta anti odontos.

Amplified: You have heard that it was said, an eye for an eye, and a tooth for
a tooth. (Amplified Bible - Lockman)
NLT: "You have heard that the law of Moses says, 'If an eye is injured, injure
the eye of the person who did it. If a tooth gets knockedout, knock out the
tooth of the person who did it.' (NLT - Tyndale House)
Philips: "You have heard that it used to be said 'An eye for an eye and a tooth
for a tooth' (New Testamentin Modern English)
Wuest: You heard that it was said, An eye in substitution for an eye, a tooth in
substitution for a tooth
Young's Literal: 'Ye heard that it was said: Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth;
YOU HAVE HEARD THAT IT WAS SAID, 'AN EYE FOR AN EYE, AND A
TOOTHFOR A TOOTH: Ekousate(2PAAI) oti errethe, (3SAPI)
Ophthalmon anti ophthalmou kai odonta anti odontos.
Exodus 21:22-27;Leviticus 24:19,20;Deuteronomy 19:19
Matthew 5 Resources - Multiple Sermons and Commentaries
Matthew 5:38 An Eye for an Eye, Part 1 - John MacArthur
Matthew 5:38-42 An Eye for an Eye, Part 2 - John MacArthur
YOU HAVE HEARD THAT IT WAS SAID - Exact statementin Mt 5:27, 38,
43.

Charles Simeon - IF Christianity be worthy of admiration on accountof the
sublime mysteries it reveals, it is no less so on accountof the pure morality it
inculcates. Its precepts are as far above the wisdom of fallen man, as its
doctrines. Searchall 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 retaliationhas in all nations been
deemed equitable and right: but in the Christian code it is expressly
forbidden. (Read the entire sermon - Matthew 5:38-41 RetaliationForbidden)
It was said (in Exodus) -
22 "And if men struggle with eachother and strike a woman with child so that
she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as
the woman's husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges
decide.
23 "But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life
for life,
24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
26 "And if a man strikes the eye of his male or female slave, and destroys it,
he shall let him go free on accountof his eye.

27 "And if he knocks outa tooth of his male or female slave, he shall let him
go free on accountof his tooth. (Ex 21:22-27)
It was said (in Leviticus) -
‘If a man injures his neighbor, just as he has done, so it shall be done to him:
20 fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; just as he has injured a
man, so it shall be inflicted on him. (Leviticus 24:19, 20-note)
It was said (in Deuteronomy) -
then you shall do to him just as he had intended to do to his brother. Thus you
shall purge the evil from among you. And the rest will hear and be afraid, and
will never againdo such an evil thing among you. Thus you shall not show
pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, footfor foot.
(Deuteronomy 19:19, 20, 21)
See F B Meyer's relatedcomments on (Matt. 5:38-42)in his discourse entitled
The SecondMile
J C Ryle introduces Mt 5:38-48 with this comment…
WE have here our Lord Jesus Christ's rules for our conduct towards on
another. He that would know how he ought to feel and acttowards his fellow-
man, should often study these verses. Theydeserve to be written in letters of
gold: they have extorted praise evenfrom the enemies of Christianity. Let us

mark well what they contain. The Lord Jesus forbids everything like an
unforgiving and revengeful spirit. (Matthew 5:38-48 ExpositoryThoughts)
You have here our Lord Jesus Christ's rules for our conduct one towards
another. He that would know how He ought to feeland act towards his fellow
men, should often study these verses. Theydeserve to be written in letters of
gold. They have extorted praise even from the enemies of Christianity. Let us
mark well what they contain…
There is much in all this (Mt 5:38-48)which calls loudly for solemn reflection.
There are few passagesofScripture so calculatedto raise in our minds
humbling thoughts. We have here a lovely picture of the Christian as he ought
to be. We cannotlook at it without painful feelings. We must all allow that it
differs widely from the Christian as he is. Let us carry awayfrom it two
generallessons.
In the first place if the spirit of these ten verses were more continually
remembered by true believers, they would recommend Christianity to the
world far more than they do. We must not allow ourselves to suppose that the
leastwords in this passage are trifling and of small moment. They are not so.
It is attention to the spirit of this passage whichmakes our religion beautiful.
It is the neglect of the things which it contains by which our religion is
deformed. Unfailing courtesy, kindness, tenderness, and considerationfor
others, are some of the greatestornaments to the characterof the child of
God. The world canunderstand these things, if it cannotunderstand doctrine.
There is no religion in rudeness, roughness, bluntness, and incivility. The
perfection of practicalChristianity consists in attending to the little duties of
holiness as well as to the great.

In the secondplace, if the spirit of these ten verses had more dominion and
powerin the world, how much happier the world would be than it is. Who
does not know that quarrelings, strifes, selfishness, and unkindness cause half
the miseries by which mankind is visited? Who canfail to see that nothing
would so much tend to increase happiness as the spreadof Christian love,
such as is here recommended by our Lord? Let us all remember this. Those
who fancy that true religion has any tendency to make men unhappy, are
greatly mistaken. It is the absence of it that does this, and not the presence.
True religion has the directly contrary effect. It tends to promote peace, and
charity, and kindness, and goodwillamong men. The more men are brought
under the teaching of the Holy Spirit, the more they will love one another, and
the more happy they will be. (Matthew 5 Commentary)
This is Jesus'fifth example of how the righteousness Goddemands surpasses
that of the scribes and Pharisees (see note Matthew 5:20)and has to do a
believer's response when personallywronged. The “law of retaliation” was not
designedto encourage retaliationbut to limit it with a view to justice. The
Pharisees grosslymisinterpreted the OT Scriptures and used them an
encouragementfor revenge insteadof an impediment!
Jesus'radicalview is greatly needed in a societywhere "personalrights",
retaliation and getting "one's pound of flesh" have become the norm of the
day rather than the exceptionto the rule! Underlying many of these attitudes
and actions is often an angry, vengeful spirit. This is the timeless issues which
our Lord addresses in this sectionof His sermon.
Without a doubt, this section(Mt 5:38-48)has been one of the most
misinterpreted and consequentlymisapplied sections ofthe entire Sermon.
For example, some have appealedto these passages to justify their call for
Christians be veritable "doormats". Others have used this sectionto promote
pacifism (opposition to war or violence as a means of settling disputes),

conscientious objectionto military service, lawlessness (seeallusionto Tolstoy
below), anarchy, etc. These interpretations howeverare not logicalin view of
the factthat Jesus had made in clearthat He did not come to annul even the
smallestpart of God’s Law (see notes Matthew 5:17; 18; 5:19), a Law which
includes respectfor and obedience to human laws and authorities. In fact the
Law of Moses preventedoffended people from taking the law into their own
hands and seeking private revenge againstan enemy. It also kept magistrates
from issuing exorbitant sentences that did not fit the offenses.
RelatedResources:
What does the Bible say about revenge?
What is the law of retribution?
Do Christians have to obey the Old Testamentlaw?
LEX TALIONIS
Spurgeon- The law of an eye for an eye, as administered in the proper courts
of law was founded in justice, and workedfar more equitably than the more
modern system of fines; for that method allows rich men to offend with
comparative impunity, But when the lex talionis came to be the rule of daily
life, it fosteredrevenge, and our Savior would not tolerate it as a principle
carried out by individuals. Good law in court may be very bad customin
common society. He spoke againstwhathad become a proverb and was heard
and said among the people, “Ye have heard that it hath been said.” Our loving
King would have private dealings ruled by the spirit of love and not by the
rule of law.
An eye for an eye - This is an exactquotation found in three OT passages (see
above - Exodus 21:24; Leviticus 24:20; Deuteronomy 19:21)and reflects the

principle of lex talionis, (lex = law + talionis = retaliation= literally the "law
of retaliation")one of the most ancient law codes discoveredevenin the
secularcode of Hammurabi (a Babylonian king - see article on Babylonian
law) composedsometime around 2000BC. Simply put, this law required that
the punishment match the crime and corresponds to modern expressions like
"tit for tat" and "quid pro quo" (Latin for "something for something"). In
that sense lextalionis was merciful for it limited the magnitude of one's
revenge, restraining an angry response. Look atthe Israeli-Arab conflict
today, where retaliation is practicedusually expeditiously but not necessarily
"tit for tat" or in kind and/or quantity. This response is what one expects
when enmity and animosity seethe beneath the surface of seemingly
conciliatory(sometimes)political rhetoric.
In modern societylex talionis is recognizedas a foundation for all justice, as
all civil, penal and international law has its basis on this ancient principle. As
discussedbelow, in ancientIsrael, the right to carry out this principle of lex
talionis was restrictedto the judges of Israeland not to individuals
(independent of the judges or civil authorities).
Kent Hughes adds…
Moreover, (lex talionis) was not literally carried out by the Jewishlegal
system because theycorrectly saw that in some casesto do so would result in
injustice. Forinstance, a goodtooth might be removed for a bad tooth! Thus
they assesseddamagesjust as we do in our courts today. The Mishna devotes
an entire sectionentitled Baba Kamma to assessing proper damages. So we
have the traditional Old Testamentteaching regarding one's response to
personalwrong in the principle of exactretribution. There was nothing
intrinsically wrong with that, apart from man's manipulation of it. It brought
equity and stability to human relations. (Hughes, R. K. Sermon on the Mount:
The Messageofthe Kingdom. CrosswayBooks)

And so to reemphasize, one purpose of lex talionis was to prevent excessive
punishment basedon personalvengeance andangry retaliation.
Another purpose of "an eye for an eye" was to curtail further crime. For
example the effectof invoking of this principle is seenin Deuteronomy19
where Moses records that…
"If a malicious witness rises up againsta man to accuse him of wrongdoing,
then both the men who have the dispute shall stand before the LORD, before
the priests and the judges who will be in office in those days. And the judges
shall investigate thoroughly; and if the witness is a false witness and he has
accusedhis brother falsely, then you shall do to him just as he had intended to
do to his brother. (the "eye for an eye" idea, lex talionis) Thus you shall purge
the evil from among you. And the rest will hear and be afraid, and will never
againdo such an evil thing among you. Thus you shall not show pity (includes
the idea of sparing the guilty party their just due): life for life, eye for eye,
tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. (Deut 19:16-21)
Do you see the purpose of the punishment that matched the crime? Moses says
"the rest will hear and be afraid and will never againdo such an evil thing
among you" (v20)
This OT passagealso illustrates that the Law was given to encourage
appropriate punishment of a criminal in caseswhere there might be a
tendency to be either too lenient or too strict. Note carefully that the case was
tried before Jehovah, the priests and the judges. As discussedbelow what
Jesus was countering in Matthew 5:38-42 was the teaching of the scribes and

Pharisees thatthis law could be applied by individuals out of the jurisdiction
of the courts (judges) and thus be used to justify one taking personal
vengeance.
As alluded to above, it is critically important to remember that eachOT
passagethat mentions the principle of lex talionis (Exodus 21:22-27;Leviticus
24:19,20;Deuteronomy19:19) specifies in context that it is to be carriedout
by the judges and civil authorities of Israel. It is true, that an injured party
might be allowedto inflict the actualpunishment, but even in these situations
it was the civil body that had the responsibility to try and sentence the guilty
one. One can readily understand how such a system would serve to prevent an
injured individual from overreacting and taking more that their "pound of
flesh". It is interesting that even this merciful principle establishedby God
has commonly been misrepresentedas vindictive, but it is not. Lex talionis is
not a license for cruelty, but a limit to it! It is not a license for vengeance but a
guarantee of justice!
In Genesis we read of a notorious example of personalrevenge by a wicked
man named Lamech who arrogantly declared…
Give heed to my speech, for I have killed a man for wounding me; and a boy
for striking me; If Cain is avengedsevenfold, Then Lamech seventy-
sevenfold." (Genesis 4:23-24)
What a contrastLamech's vindictiveness is with the forgiving attitude taught
by Christ, Who urged Peterto forgive his brother seventy times seven
(Matthew 18:22). Insteadof over reactionand excessive punishment of an
enemy God's desire has always been…

If your enemy is hungry, give him food to eat; and if he is thirsty, give him
waterto drink; for you will heap burning coals on his head, and the LORD
will rewardyou. (Proverbs 25:21-22)
Similarly in Proverbs 24:29 we read (in the NIV)…
Do not say, "I'll do to him as he has done to me; I'll pay that man back for
what he did." (NIV - IBS)
The practice of personalrevenge or personalpayback, though widely carried
out among the world's nations and tribes, both ancient and modern, is not
what the Scripture teaches. Godis to be the avengernot us (Deut 32:35, Psalm
94:1 {Spurgeon's note}, Ro 12:19 [note], He 10:30 [note]). It is important to
understand that this proverb (and the related Proverbs)lifts up a high ethical
principle which is not opposedto “aneye for an eye” (Ex 21:24;Lev 24:20;
Deut 19:21), because the Law was intended to be overseenby judges, and it
required that the penalty fit the crime. These proverbs are addressedto
individuals and describe the heart attitude one should maintain when
wrongedin any way. The problem that existed among the Scribes and
Pharisees in Jesus'day was that they taught a vengeful attitude (see Dr John
MacArthur's comment below). There should be no personalretaliation or
revenge.
Again in Proverbs we read…
Do not say, "I will repay evil". Wait for the LORD, and He will save you.
(Proverbs 20:22)

One with a new heart and His Spirit will leave revenge in God's hands.
PERVERSIONOF LEX TALIONIS
John MacArthur explains that the rabbinic tradition had perverted lex
talionis, an "eye for an eye", which in the OT
did not allow an individual to take the law into his own hands and apply it
personally. Yet that is exactly what rabbinic tradition had done. Eachman
was permitted, in effect, to become his ownjudge, jury, and executioner.
God’s law was turned to individual license (permit to act, freedom to take a
specific course of action), and civil justice was perverted to personal
vengeance. Insteadofproperly acknowledging the law of an eye for an eye,
and a tooth for a tooth as a limit on punishment, they conveniently used it as a
mandate for vengeance-asit has often been wrongly viewed throughout
history. What God gave as a restrictionon civil courts, Jewishtradition had
turned into personal license for revenge. In still another way, the self-centered
and self-asserted“righteousness” ofthe scribes and Pharisees had made a
shambles of God’s holy law. (MacArthur, J: Matthew 1-7 Macarthur New
TestamentCommentary Chicago:Moody Press)
Fergusoncomments that…
Of the entire Sermon on the Mount, no ideas are more frequently alluded to
than the ones that follow: an eye for an eye; turn the other cheek;go the extra
mile. They are still colorful expressions in the English language. Forsome
people, they are the essenceofChristianity. These statements have been used
to explain and justify pacifism, by Christians and by others. For the great
Russianauthor Leo Tolstoy(who consequently had a major influence on

Mahatma Gandhi), these words produced a revolutionary effect(Ed note:
TolstoybasedWar and Peace onthe thesis that the elimination of police, the
military, and other forms of authority would bring a utopian society.)But
what do they mean?… What was the purpose of this law, and the justice that
it expressed? Clearly, it was to limit and, if necessary, restrainretaliation. It
seems, however, that this law was used as the justification for gaining even
limited retaliationand revenge. That was to misunderstand the purpose of the
law. Since it was meant to restrain personalvindictiveness and retaliation, the
real fulfilment of it would be found in the man who did not seek such
revenge… The passage is not really speaking to the question of whether
Christians should be involved in legalor military professions. Rather, it is
challenging believers to follow their Master's example in personal
relationships. (Ferguson, Sinclair:Sermon on the Mount :Banner of Truth)
(Bolding added)
Freemanin Manners and Customs of the Bible comments that…
This is the principle of justice that requires punishment equal in kind to the
offense (not greaterthan the offense, as was frequently given in ancient times).
Thus, if someone puts out another person’s eye, one of the offender’s eyes
should be put out. The principle is statedin the Book of Exodus as “Thou
shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, footfor
foot.” This saying is often quoted today by those who wish to extract equal
revenge for something done againstthem. (Freeman, J. M., & Chadwick, H. J.
Manners & Customs of the Bible. 1996. WhitakerHouse)
Quote Misquote - In the opening chapterof Tom Sawyer, Mark Twain
presents an interesting conversationthat reflects human nature. Tom tries to
persuade his friend Huck to join him in his plans to form a band of robbers
and to take captives much like pirates used to do. Huck asks Tomwhat pirates
do with the captives they take, and Tom answers, "Ransomthem." "Ransom?

What's that?" asks Huck. "I don't know. But that's what they do. I seenit in
books;and so of course that's what we got to do," explains Tom. "Do you
want to go doing different from what's in the books, andget things all
muddled up?"
This dialog represents a way of thinking that's not much different from what
Jesus encountered. The people were also quoting and repeating things they
had found in a book--the Old Testament. But they were merely mouthing
words. The ideas had been separatedfrom the spirit of the original revelation.
By misapplying Mosaic principles of conduct, the people were justifying their
sinful attitudes and actions (Mt. 5:27-42).
This should be a reminder to us. When we quote the Bible, let's be sure we
understand its meaning and context. Then we won't getthings "allmuddled
up." --M R De Haan II (Our Daily Bread, Copyright RBC Ministries, Grand
Rapids, MI. Reprinted by permission. All rights reserved)
When reading God's Word, take specialcare
To find the rich treasures hidden there;
Give thought to eachline, eachprecepthear,
Then practice it well with godly fear. --Anon.
A text takenout of context canbe a dangerous pretext.
Matthew 5:39 "But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever
slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. (NASB:Lockman)

Greek:ego de lego (1SPAI)umin me antistenai (AAN) to ponero; all' ostis se
rapizei (3SPAI) eis ten dexian siagona [sou], strepson(2SAAM) auto kai ten
allen
Amplified: But I say to you, Do not resistthe evil man [who injures you]; but
if anyone strikes you on the right jaw or cheek, turn to him the other one too.
(Amplified Bible - Lockman)
NLT: But I say, don't resist an evil person! If you are slapped on the right
cheek, turn the other, too. (NLT - Tyndale House)
Philips: but I tell you, don't resist the man who wants to harm you. If a man
hits your right cheek, turn the other one to him as well. (New Testamentin
Modern English)
Wuest: but let your word be, Yes, Yes, No, No; and that which is more than
these things is of the evil which is in active opposition to the good.
Young's Literal: but I -- I sayto you, not to resistthe evil, but whoevershall
slap thee on thy right cheek, turn to him also the other;
BUT I SAY TO YOU, DO NOT RESIST AN EVIL PERSON:ego de lego
(1SPAI) humin me antistenai (AAN) to ponero
Leviticus 19:18; 1Samuel24:10-15;25:31, 32, 33, 34; 26:8, 9, 10; Job31:29,
30, 31; Proverbs 20:22;Proverbs 24:29;Luke 6:29; Romans 12:17, 18, 19;
1Corinthians 6:7; 1Thessalonians 5:15;Hebrews 12:4; James 5:6; 1Peter3:9

Matthew 5 Resources- Multiple Sermons and Commentaries
But - term of contrast
See F B Meyer's relatedcomments on (Matt. 5:38-42)in his discourse entitled
The SecondMile
As noted Lex Talionis, the law of retaliation, was never intended to encourage
personalrevenge, but to protectthe offender from punishment harsher than
the offense warranted. Jesus forbids citizens of the Kingdom of heavento seek
revenge and insteadinsists upon positive goodin the face of evil
Spurgeonobserves that…
Non-resistanceand forbearance are to be the rule among Christians. They are
to endure personalill-usage without coming to blows. They are to be as the
anvil when bad men are the hammers, and thus they are to overcome by
patient forgiveness. The rule of the judgement-seatis not for common life; but
the rule of the cross and the all-enduring Sufferer is for us all. Yet how many
regard all this as fanatical, utopian, and even cowardly! The Lord, our King,
would have us bear and forbear, and conquer by mighty patience. Can we do
it? How are we the servants of Christ if we have not his spirit?
J C Ryle writes that…

The Lord Jesus forbids everything like an unforgiving and revengefulspirit.
"I say unto you, That ye resistnot evil." A readiness to resentinjuries, a
quickness in taking offence, a quarrelsome and contentious disposition, a
keenness inasserting our rights,-all, all are contrary to the mind of Christ.
The world may see no harm in these habits of the mind; but they do not
become the characterof the Christian. Our Mastersays, "Resistnotevil."
(Matthew 5:38-48 Expository Thoughts)
Resist(436)(anthistemi from anti = against, opposite + histemi = stand, set)
means to stand (up) against, to setone's self against, to arrange in battle
against. NAS = cope with(1), oppose(1), opposed(5), opposing(1), resist(5),
resists(2).
Anthistemi - 14xin 12v- Matt 5:39; Luke 21:15;Acts 6:10; 13:8; Rom 9:19;
13:2; Gal 2:11; Eph 6:13; 2 Tim 3:8; 4:15; Jas 4:7; 1 Pet 5:9
Evil (4190)(poneros from pónos = labor, sorrow, pain) refers to evil in active
opposition to good. It refers to that which is actively harmful. The idea is one
who is pernicious, which means highly injurious or destructive, exceedingly
harmful, and vicious.
Poneros - 78x in 72v- NAS = bad(5), crimes(1), envious (1), envy*(m)(1),
evil(49), evil one(5), evil things(1),malignant(1), more evil(1), more wicked(1),
vicious(1), what is evil(2), wicked(6), wickedman(1), wicked
things(1),worthless(1).
Matt 5:11, 37, 39, 45;6:13, 23;7:11, 17f; 9:4; 12:34f, 39, 45;13:19, 38, 49;
15:19;16:4; 18:32;20:15;22:10; 25:26;Mark 7:22f; Luke 3:19; 6:22, 35, 45;
7:21; 8:2; 11:13, 26, 29, 34;19:22; John 3:19; 7:7; 17:15;Acts 17:5; 18:14;

19:12f, 15f; 25:18;28:21; Rom 12:9; 1 Cor 5:13; Gal 1:4; Eph 5:16; 6:13, 16;
Col 1:21; 1Th 5:22; 2Th 3:2f; 1 Tim 6:4; 2 Tim 3:13; 4:18; Heb 3:12; 10:22;
Jas 2:4; 4:16; 1 John 2:13f; 3:12; 5:18f; 2 John 1:11; 3 John 1:10; Rev 16:2.
Some interpret Jesus as teaching complete nonresistance under any
circumstances, becoming in essencea virtual "doormat" for people to walk
on! Leo Tolstoyupon pondering the Sermonon the Mount came to the
conclusionthat this was Jesus'commandment. Basedon an inaccurate
interpretation, he recommendedan inappropriate application, concluding
that no Christian should be involved in the armed forces, police or law courts!
(One shudders to think what law courts would look like in America if they
were completely devoid of the salt and light of genuine believers!)
Kent Hughes in fact gives a tragic illustration of a man who believed as did
Tolstoy, writing…
I personally have seenthis lived out, for I know a man who was present when
his daughter and son-in-law were attackedphysically by some thugs over a
legaldispute, and the man did nothing to help or protectthem. So some
believe Jesus outlaws allforce in any form. Not all pacifists, however, hold to
this view. Some believe force is just and necessaryfor the police and courts
but disavow killing and war. Other Biblical pacifists would not isolate and
absolutize this verse but base their beliefs on other Biblical passages,from
which a far strongercase canbe made. I personallybelieve this verse does not
have anything to do with pacifism as it relates to the killing and taking of life,
for that is not what the passageis about. The question of pacifism must be
settled, one way or another, on other Biblical grounds… The problem comes
when we isolate and absolutize Jesus'words without giving due attention to
the context, the flow of the argument, and the specific socialimplications of
the time. Jesus clarifiedwhat he meant by providing four one-sentence
illustrations of what it means to "not resistan evil person." Eachof the

illustrations is culturally specific, but they give us generalprinciples for
today's living. The principles are not for everyone, but only for those who
follow Christ. (Ferguson, Sinclair:Sermon on the Mount :Banner of Truth)
Jesus does not teachChristians are not to resistevil. What He forbids is that
Christians do not seek to retaliate in personalrelationships, which is what the
Pharisees were teaching. The scribes andPharisees took the lex talionis out of
the courtroomand brought it into personalrelationships, in essence
encouraging their disciples to gettheir "pound of flesh." Clearly Jesus
Himself resistedevil in His reactionto the sacrifice sellers andmoney
changers, Johnrecording that…
He made a scourge ofcords, and drove them all out of the temple, with the
sheepand the oxen; and He poured out the coins of the moneychangers, and
overturned their tables and to those who were selling the doves He said,
"Take these things away;stop making My Father's house a house of
merchandise." (John 2:15-16)
Furthermore believers are commanded to resistthe evil one, the devil…
Submit therefore to God. Resistthe devil and he will flee from you. (James
4:7-note)
Be of soberspirit, be on the alert. Your adversary, the devil, prowls about like
a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour. But resisthim, firm in your faith,
knowing that the same experiences ofsuffering are being accomplishedby
your brethren who are in the world. (see notes 1 Peter 5:8; 5:9)

Finally believers are commanded to resistevil in generalPaul writing..
Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is evil; cling to what is good. (Ro
12:9-note)
Examine (present imperative = make this your habitual practice) everything
carefully; hold fast to that which is good;abstain (present imperative = keep
holding yourself awayfrom all that has even the appearance ofevil. Middle
voice conveys sense we must initiate this action and we participate in results)
from every form of evil. (1Th 5:21, 22-notes)
BUT WHOEVER SLAPS YOU ON YOUR RIGHT CHEEK, TURN THE
OTHER TO HIM ALSO: all' hostis se rhapizei (3SPAI) eis ten dexian siagona
[sou], strepson(2SAAM) auto kai ten allen
1 Kings 22:24; Job 16:10;Isaiah50:6; Lam 3:30; Micah5:1; Luke 6:29;
22:64;1Peter2:20-23
Matthew 5 Resources - Multiple Sermons and Commentaries
Parallelpassage:
Luke 6:29-note Whoeverhits you on the cheek, offerhim the other also;and
whoevertakes awayyour coat, do not withhold your shirt from him either.
TURNING THE OTHER

CHEEK
But - term of contrast. What is Jesus contrasting?
WHOEVER SLAPS YOU ON YOUR RIGHT CHEEK - Whoevermeans just
that - no exception clause here!And Jesus is not saying if they slap you on the
left cheek you canretaliate! His point is never pay back evil for evil to anyone
(cf Ro 12:17-note).
IVP BackgroundCommentary - The blow on the right cheek was the most
grievous insult in the ancient NearEast. The clothing in the verse refers to the
outer and inner cloak, respectively;the poorestof people (like the average
peasantin Egypt) might have only one of each;thus here Jesus refers, perhaps
in hyperbolic images, to absolute nonresistance onone’s own behalf.
Slaps (4474)(rhapizo relatedto rhábdos = a stick or rhapis = rod) means to
hit with the open hand, especiallyon the cheeks orears. Rhapizo canrefer to
striking a blow with an instrument, such as a club, rod, or whip. Only used
here, Mt 26:67 and twice in the Septuagint (Jdg 16:25 where Septuagint adds
" they smote [rhapizo] him with the palms of their hands", Hos 11:4).
Rhapizo should be distinguished from kolaphizo which means to punch or
strike with a clenchedfist. Both verbs are used to describe the treatment of
our Lord on the night He was betrayed, when the Jewishreligious leaders
(which undoubtedly included a few scribes and Pharisees who had been
teaching about "an eye for an eye" - here they were ironically breaking their
own perverted teaching!). And we see here that Jesus (empoweredby the
Spirit - cf Lk 4:14, Acts 10:37-38), practicedwhat He preached giving His
disciples an example to follow...

Then they spat in His face and beat Him with their fists (kolaphizo); and
others slapped (rhapizo) Him (Mt 26:67)
TURN THE OTHER TO HIM ALSO
What is Jesus teaching in his first example of non-retaliation to evil? Jesus is
teaching believers, citizens of the kingdom of heaven, (and these instructions
are intended for those who are poor in spirit, those who are meek, those who
are persecutedfor the sake of righteousness,etc)that they are not to retaliate
to insults.
Jesus gave us the "example… to follow in His steps" for when He was slapped
in the face, though He could have calledin a host of angels, He did not
personally retaliate (see Isaiah50:6)
For you have been called for this purpose, since Christ also suffered for you,
leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps, 22 WHO
COMMITTEDNO SIN, NOR WAS ANY DECEIT FOUND IN HIS
MOUTH; 23 and while being reviled, He did not revile in return; while
suffering, He uttered no threats, but kept entrusting Himself to Him who
judges righteously; 24 and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross,
so that we might die to sin (e.g., the desire to pay back a slap to the one who
slaps us - that is the NATURAL reaction)and live to righteousness (to not pay
back evil for evil - that is the SUPERNATURAL reaction!); for by His wounds
you were healed. 25 For you were continually straying like sheep, but now you
have returned to the Shepherd and Guardian of your souls.(1Pe2:21, 22, 23,
24, 25-see notes 1Pe 2:21;22; 23; 24 25)

This non-retaliation was prophesied by the Messiahin Isaiah...
I gave My back to those who strike Me, And My cheeks to those who pluck
out the beard; I did not coverMy face from humiliation and spitting. (Isaiah
50:6)
In Jesus'day a slap to one's face was considereda gross insult by the Jews,
and was among the most demeaning and contemptuous acts one personcould
inflict on another person. Jesus is not describing a physical attack and telling
us to roll over and "play dead". He is describing what was wellknown in the
culture to be a calculatedinsult. A slap to one's face was not intended to cause
physical harm but was intended as a terrible indignity, in which one human
createdin the image of God is treating another human being as even less than
a human! A slave would rather receive a rod or whip across the back than a
slap from their master's hand!
What does Jesus tell us to do? To turn the other cheek which pertains more to
what we are not to do than what we are to do. Why? When you turn the other
cheek, you refuse to avenge the gross insult. You refuse to retaliate. If you
lived by the letter of the Law as the Phariseestaught what should you do?
They would sayyou should take your revenge and slap "their cheek for your
cheek"!Jesus counters their false teaching and says "No, no. You dearly
beloved of My Father, you turn your other cheek."
How can one do this naturally? It is not the natural response!It is a
supernatural response representing the work of God's Spirit in the new heart
of a citizen of the Kingdom of Heaven who is controlled by a gentle, meek
spirit that choosesnotto respond. Remember meekness is not weaknessbut
powerunder control and in this example the one slapped by all cultural norms
of the day (including the "blessing" ofthe Pharisees)had a valid right to

respond but was under such control by the Holy Spirit that he choosesnot to
respond. Such an individual has fully surrender his or her personal rights to
the Lord.
We are also enabled to be non-retaliatory by the truth and assurance that God
is our Protectorand Defenderas wellas a righteous Judge Who will bring all
injustice to light.
Francis Baconwrote that…
“In taking revenge, a man is but even with his enemy; but in passing it over,
he is superior.”
Kent Hughes offers an intriguing interpretation (found in severalother
commentaries)and practicalapplication regarding a slap on the "right
cheek" (versus the left cheek)…
Notice that Jesus specificallymentions "the right cheek,"whichtells us he is
describing a backhandedslap (since most people are right-handed, this is
surely what Jesus had in mind). According to rabbinic law, to hit someone
with the back of the hand was twice as insulting as hitting him with the flat of
the hand. The back of the hand meant calculatedcontempt, withering disdain.
It meant that you were scornedas inconsequential - a nothing. Imagine how
you would respond. My blood would boil… It was an insult for which a Jew
could seek legalsatisfactionaccording to the law of Lex Talionis. That is, he
could seek damages.But Jesus says, do not do it! "If you are dishonored…
says Jesus, youshould not go to law about it; rather you should show
yourselves to be truly My disciples by the way in which you bear the hatred
and the insult, overcome the evil, forgive the injustice." In short, though you

could take your opponent to the cleaners, do not do it! Lovingly absorb the
insult… we must not respond by getting even, by getting our legalpound of
flesh according to the Lex Talionis, but must turn the other cheek. Jesus calls
us to swallow ourpride and give up our "rights" to reparation and fairness.
That is the basic, essentialinterpretation.
But there is another level of application that really gets down to where we
live: We are to set aside our petty ways of getting even - the kind of living that
punishes others by returning their ownsins to them. If your spouse is messy,
you leave things messy in return. If your friend is late, you will be late next
time yourself. In effectJesus asks us, in turning the other cheek, to make the
other person and his or her well-being the center of our focus. We think of
them and adjust our actions according to what we think will point them to
Christ. And when we really do this, we begin to affectthem. Such vulnerable
love brings them to spiritual awareness.EvangelistTomSkinner often told
about the time after he was convertedwhen he was playing footballwith some
of the Harlem Lords, members of the gang he had formerly led. During the
game someone took advantage ofhis Christianity and punched, kicked, and
insulted him. After the game Tom said, "You know, because ofJesus, I love
you anyway." That is what Jesus was talking about. (Hughes, R. K. Sermon
on the Mount: The Messageofthe Kingdom. CrosswayBooks)
J Vernon McGee has a humorous (albeit not interpretatively accurate)note
on this verse…
It reminds me of the Irishman whom someone hit on the cheek and knocked
down. The Irishman got up and turned his other cheek. The fellow knocked
him down again. This time the Irishman gotup and beatthe stuffin’ out of
that fellow. An observer asked, “Whydid you do that?” “Well,” replied the
Irishman, “the Lord said to turn the other cheek and I did, but He never told

me what to do after that.” (McGee, J V: Thru the Bible Commentary:
Nashville: Thomas Nelson)
Turn (4762)(strepho)means to turn, to turn about. The first use is here in Mt
5:39 where a literal turning of the cheek signifies an act of non-retaliation.
Jesus made severalliteral turns (in fact most of the literal uses in the NT
describe Jesus turning), some so dramatic we can picture them in our mind
(See Mt 9:22, 16:23, Lk 7:9, 44, 9:55, 10:23, 14:25, 22:61, 23:28, Jn 1:38).
Jesus usedstrepho figuratively to refer to conversion(Mt 18:3 = turning of
one's heart to Jesus, the antithesis is seenin Acts 7:39!). Strepho describes
Judas' return after remorse but his return was too late for conversion(Mt
27:3, cp Jn 12:40). In Acts 7:39 we read of the Hews in the OT after coming
out of Egypt "in their hearts turned back to Egypt!" Strepho then describes
God turning awayfrom His rebellious people (Acts 7:42, cf Isaiah63:10) Of
Mary seeing Jesus afterHis resurrection(Jn 20:14, 16). Paul and Barnabas
when repudiated by the Jews said"we are turning to the Gentiles" or taking
the Gospelto them. In Rev11:6 the two witnesses"have powerover the
waters to turn them into blood." (cf "the staff that was turned into a serpent"
in Ex 7:15)
Friberg - (1) active transitively; (a) turn something towardsomeone (Mt 5.39);
(b) as making a change of substance turn, change something into something (
Rev 11.6); (c) return something to someone, take back to (Mt 27.3);(2) passive
with a reflexive meaning; (a) turn around, turn toward (Mt 7.6;Lk 7.9); (b)
figuratively, of establishing a relation with someone beginto relate to, turn to
(Acts 13.46);turn back to (Acts 7.39);(c) turn or change inwardly, change
one's ways, be converted (Mt 18.3)(Analytical Lexicon)
Gilbrant - In classicalGreekstrepho means “turn, turn aside, turn about,
change.” Compounds of this word relate to the scriptural idea of conversion
(Moulton-Milligan). Other usages ofthis word include “cause to rotate,

sprain, dislocate,” and“twist” or “plait” the hair. Figuratively it can mean
“return, consider” (turn over in one’s mind), and “give back” (Liddell-Scott).
Strephō is used 50 times in the Septuagint. Twenty-three times it translates
the word hāphakh, “turn, change, pervert, overturn,” etc. Forexample, in 1
Samuel 10:6 Saul was changedinto another man when God appointed him as
king over Israel. Lamentations 1:10 speaks ofinner torment causedby
circumstances. Changing a curse into a blessing is indicated in Esther9:22
and Ps 30:11 and Ps 114:8 . Five times strephō translates the Hebrew word
s̱ āvav. Severalexamples may be cited: the heart of the people is “turned back”
to the Lord (1 Kings 18:37);the flow of the Jordan is “driven back,” i.e., the
direction was changedwhen Israel crossedit into the PromisedLand (Psalm
114:3,5);and Pr 26:14 speaks ofa door “turning” on its hinges as picturing a
slothful personon his bed. In the New Testamentstrephō carries many of the
same meanings as in classicaland especiallySeptuagintalGreek. Most
references mean“turn to or toward” or “turn around” (Matthew 7:6; Luke
7:9,44;9:55; 14:25; 22:61;John 1:38; 20:14,16). This word is used figuratively
in Acts 13:46 of Paul’s decisionto stop trying to evangelize the Jews as a
generalrule. Because ofthe hardness of their hearts, Paul stated, “We turn to
the Gentiles.” In Revelation11:6 the two witnesseshave the powerto change
waterto blood. In Luke 10:23 Jesus statedthat all power had been “given” to
the Sonby the Father. Another conceptrelatedby strephō in the New
Testamentis repentance. In Matthew 18:3 Jesus taught His disciples that they
would not enter the kingdom of heaven unless they “be converted, and become
as little children.” Finally, in Acts 7:39 Stephen said that the fathers of Israel
as a whole did not have their hearts “turned back.” As a result, God “turned”
againstthem (Acts 7:42). (Complete Biblical Library Greek-English
Dictionary
Strepho - 21x in 21v- converted(2), returned(1), turn(3), turned(8), turned
away(1), turned back(1), turning(5).

Matthew 5:39 "But I sayto you, do not resistan evil person; but whoever
slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.
Matthew 7:6 "Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls
before swine, or they will trample them under their feet, and turn and tear
you to pieces.
Matthew 9:22 But Jesus turning and seeing her said, "Daughter, take
courage;your faith has made you well." At once the womanwas made well.
Matthew 16:23 But He turned and said to Peter, "Getbehind Me, Satan!You
are a stumbling block to Me;for you are not setting your mind on God's
interests, but man's."
Matthew 18:3 and said, "Truly I sayto you, unless you are convertedand
become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.
Matthew 27:3 Then when Judas, who had betrayed Him, saw that He had
been condemned, he felt remorse and returned the thirty pieces of silver to the
chief priests and elders,
Luke 7:9 Now when Jesus heardthis, He marveled at him, and turned and
said to the crowdthat was following Him, "I say to you, not even in Israel
have I found such greatfaith."

Luke 7:44 Turning toward the woman, He said to Simon, "Do you see this
woman? I entered your house;you gave Me no waterfor My feet, but she has
wet My feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair.
Luke 9:55 But He turned and rebuked them, and said, "You do not know
what kind of spirit you are of;
Luke 10:23 Turning to the disciples, He said privately, "Blessedare the eyes
which see the things you see,
Luke 14:25 Now large crowds were going along with Him; and He turned and
said to them,
Luke 22:61 The Lord turned and lookedat Peter. And Peterremembered the
word of the Lord, how He had told him, "Before a roostercrows today, you
will deny Me three times."
Luke 23:28 But Jesus turning to them said, "Daughters of Jerusalem, stop
weeping for Me, but weep for yourselves and for your children.
John 1:38 And Jesus turned and saw them following, and said to them,
"What do you seek?" Theysaidto Him, "Rabbi (which translatedmeans
Teacher), where are You staying?"
John 12:40 "HE HAS BLINDED THEIR EYES AND HE HARDENED
THEIR HEART, SO THAT THEY WOULD NOT SEE WITH THEIR EYES

AND PERCEIVE WITH THEIR HEART, AND BE CONVERTED AND I
HEAL THEM."
John 20:14 When she had said this, she turned around and saw Jesus
standing there, and did not know that it was Jesus.
John 20:16 Jesus saidto her, "Mary!" She turned and said to Him in
Hebrew, "Rabboni!" (which means, Teacher).
Acts 7:39 "Our fathers were unwilling to be obedient to him, but repudiated
him and in their hearts turned back to Egypt,
Acts 7:42 "But God turned awayand delivered them up to serve the host of
heaven; as it is written in the book of the prophets, 'IT WAS NOT TO ME
THAT YOU OFFEREDVICTIMS AND SACRIFICES FORTYYEARS IN
THE WILDERNESS,WAS IT, O HOUSE OF ISRAEL?
Acts 13:46 Paul and Barnabas spoke outboldly and said, "It was necessary
that the word of God be spokento you first; since you repudiate it and judge
yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we are turning to the Gentiles.
Revelation11:6 These have the power to shut up the sky, so that rain will not
fall during the days of their prophesying; and they have power over the
waters to turn them into blood, and to strike the earth with every plague, as
often as they desire.
Strepho - 35x in 34vin the Septuagint -

Jesus was against retaliation

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Jesus was against retaliation

Similar to Jesus was against retaliation (20)

More from GLENN PEASE

More from GLENN PEASE (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Jesus was against retaliation