Matthew 5:38

Mat 5:38-42. Ye have heard, &c. — Our Lord proceeds to enforce such meekness and love toward their enemies, on those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, as were utterly unknown to the scribes and Pharisees. And this subject he pursues to the end of the chapter. It hath been said, viz., in the law, Deu 19:21, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth — Though this statute was only intended as a direction to judges, with regard to the penalties to be inflicted in case of violent and barbarous assaults; yet it was interpreted among the Jews as encouraging a rigorous and severe revenge of every injury a man might receive. But I say unto you, that ye resist not evil — Or, rather, the evil man, as τω πονηρω ought to be rendered. Dr. Doddridge reads the clause: That you do not set yourselves against the injurious person, viz., in a posture of hostile opposition, as the word αντιστηναι implies, and with a resolution to return evil for evil. But whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, &c. — Where the damage is not great, choose rather to pass it by, though possibly it might, on that account, be repeated, than to enter into a rigorous prosecution of the offender. And if any man will sue thee, &c., and take away thy coat — By the word χιτων, here rendered coat, it seems we are to understand an inner garment; and by the word, ιματιον, rendered cloak, an outer garment. Dr. Doddridge renders the former, vest, and the latter, mantle. They are parts of dress, under different names, still used in Barbary, Egypt, and the Levant. See Shaw’s Travels, pp. 289, 292. Our Lord, it is to be observed, is not here speaking of a robber attacking a person on the highway, to whom it would be natural to take the outer garment first, but of a person suing another at law, as our translators seem properly to have rendered 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 after another, submit to one instance of compulsion after another. That the words, Turn to him the other cheek also, (and consequently those in the next clause,) are not to be taken literally, appears from the behaviour of our Lord himself, Joh 18:22-23. Give to him, that asketh thee, &c. — Give and lend to any that are in want, so far, (but no farther, for God never contradicts himself,) as is consistent with thy engagements to thy creditors, thy family, and the household of faith.

Upon the whole of this passage, from Mat 5:38, we may observe, that it seems to have been primarily intended to counteract and correct that abuse of the law of retaliation above mentioned, which was common among the Jews, who carried their resentments to the utmost lengths; and, by so doing, maintained infinite quarrels, to the great detriment of social life. For this purpose, our Lord “puts five cases wherein Christian meekness must especially show itself. 1st, When any one assaults our person, in resentment of some affront he imagines we have put upon him. 2d, When any one sues us at the law, in order to take our goods from us. 3d, When he attacks our natural liberty. 4th, When one who is poor asks charity. 5th, When a neighbour begs the loan of something from us. In all these cases our Lord forbids us to resist. Yet, from the examples which he mentions, it is plain that this forbearance and compliance are required only when we are slightly attacked, but by no means when the assault is of a capital kind. For it would be unbecoming the wisdom which Jesus showed in other points, to suppose that he forbids us to defend ourselves against murderers, robbers, and oppressors, who would unjustly take away our life, our estate, or our liberty. Neither can it be thought that he commands us to give every idle fellow all he may think fit to ask, whether in charity or in loan. We are only to give what we can spare, and to such persons as out of real necessity ask relief from us. Nay, our Lord’s own behaviour toward the man that smote him on the cheek, shows he did not mean that in all cases his disciples should be passive under the very injuries which he here speaks of. In some circumstances, smiting on the cheek, taking away one’s coat, and the compelling one to go a mile, may be great injuries, and therefore are to be resisted. The first instance was judged so by Jesus himself in the case mentioned. For had he forborne to reprove the man who did it, his silence might have been interpreted as proceeding from a conviction of his having done evil, in giving the high priest the answer for which he was smitten.” But, admitting that this rule has for its object small injuries, and that our Lord orders his disciples to be passive under them rather than to repel them, it is liable to no objection: for he who “bears a slight affront, consults his honour and interest much better than he who resists or resents it; because he shows a greatness of mind worthy of a man, and uses the best means of avoiding quarrels, which oft-times are attended with the most fatal consequences. In like manner, he who yields a little of his right, rather than he will go to law, is much wiser than the man who has recourse to public justice in every instance; because, in the progress of a law-suit, such animosities may arise as are inconsistent with charity. To conclude, benevolence, which is the glory of the divine nature, and the perfection of the human, rejoices in doing good. Hence the man that is possessed of this god-like quality cheerfully embraces every occasion in his power of relieving the poor and distressed, whether by gift or loan. Some are of opinion, that the precept concerning alms-giving, and gratuitous lending, is subjoined to the instances of injuries which our Lord commands us to bear, to teach us that, if the persons who have injured us fall into want, we are not to withhold any act of charity from them on account of the evil they have formerly done us. Taken in this light, the precept is generous and divine. Moreover, as liberality is a virtue nearly allied to the forgiveness of injuries, our Lord joined the two together, to show that they should always go hand in hand. The reason is, revenge will blast the greatest liberality, and a covetous heart will show the most perfect patience to be a sordid meanness of spirit, proceeding from selfishness.” — Macknight.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

CRITICAL NOTES

GENERAL REMARKS ON THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT

The aim and contents of the “Sermon.”—No mere sermon is this, only distinguished from others of its class by its reach and sweep and power; it stands alone as the grand charter of the commonwealth of heaven; or, to keep the simple title the Evangelist himself suggests (Mat_4:23), it is “the gospel (or good news) of the kingdom.” To understand it aright we must keep this in mind, avoiding the easy method of treating it as a mere series of lessons on different subjects, and endeavouring to grasp the unity of thought and purpose which binds its different parts into one grand whole. It may help us to do this if we first ask ourselves what questions would naturally arise in the minds of the more thoughtful of the people, when they heard the announcement, “The kingdom of heaven is at hand.” It was evidently to such persons the Lord addressed Himself.… In their minds they would, in all probability, be revolving such questions as these:

1. “What is this kingdom, what advantages does it offer, and who are the people that belong to it?”

2. “What is required of those that belong to it? What are its laws and obligations?” And if these two questions were answered satisfactorily, a third would naturally follow.

3. “How may those who desire to share its privileges and assume its obligations become citizens of it?” These, accordingly, are the three great questions dealt with in succession (J. M. Gibson, D.D.).

The originality of the Sermon.—We are not careful to deny, we are eager to admit, that many even of the most admirable sayings in the Sermon on the Mount had been anticipated by heathen moralists and poets (S. Cox, D.D.). To affirm that Christ was not in the world, nor in the thoughts of men, until He took flesh and dwelt among us, is no more to honour Him than it is to affirm that, when He came into the world, He showed Himself to be no wiser than the men whose thoughts He had previously guided and inspired.… His teaching, we may be sure, will not be new in the sense of having no connection with the truths He had already taught by them; but it will be new in this sense, that it will perfect that which in them was imperfect; that it will gather up their scattered thoughts, free them from the errors with which they had blended them, and harmonise, develop, and complete them (S. Cox, D D.).

Is the Sermon on the Mount evangelical?—You have heard, as I have, that there is no “Cross” in this Sermon on the Mount; that we are at the foot of Sinai listening to Moses, and not at Calvary “beholding the Lamb of God who taketh away the sin of the world.” Let us not be deceived. You might as well say there is no sun in a coal-pit or a geyser because you do not see his form there. Your British coalfields are as truly the-children of the sun as is the ray of light that last fell upon our eyes, and the high-pitched morality of this sermon is as really the offspring of the death and resurrection of Christ as the first pulse-beat of joy on the reception of the forgiveness of sins. Will you say that the writer of Todhunter’s Trigonometry is unfamiliar with the first four rules of arithmetic because he assumes instead of stating and proving them? No more should we conclude that salvation by the sacrifice of the Son of God for men is absent from the Sermon on the Mount, because it is not expressly stated and argued as it is in the third of the Romans. There is not a benediction that does not take us to Calvary. There is not a warning that may not urge us to Christ. There is not a mountain elevation of holiness that will not force from us the cry, “Lord, help me, or I perish.” The Sermon is full of the great principles we have to preach, and those principles are all embodied in the Speaker Himself. Teaching Him we teach the principles of this Sermon, and it is of little use teaching the ideas of this Sermon without also teaching Him (J. Clifford, D.D.). The Lord Jesus did not give the world His best wine in this cup, marvellous and precious though it be. The best thing in the Gospels is the gospel itself—that manifestation of the righteousness and love of God in the person, the life, and the death of His Son by which He wins our love and makes us righteous (S. Cox, D.D.).

The relation between the Sermon on the Mount as reported by St. Matthew and the account of it in St. Luke 6—Commentators are divided in opinion as to whether or not these are two versions of the same discourse. Augustine suggests a solution of the difficulty by saying that the two discourses are entirely distinct, though delivered on the same occasion—that reported by St. Matthew, on the mountain to the disciples; that of St. Luke, delivered on the plain just below to the multitude. Dean Vaughan concurs in this view, and says: “Men have doubted whether the discourse in St. Matthew is to be regarded as an ampler account of that which is reported by St. Luke. The general scope and purport is the same. Yet, as St. Matthew says expressly that Jesus spake ‘sitting on the mountain,’ and St. Luke says that He spake ‘standing on the plain,’ it seems not very unnatural to suppose that the one (that given by St. Matthew) was a discourse delivered, as it were, to the inner circle of His disciples, apart from the crowd outside; the other (preserved by St. Luke), a briefer and more popular rehearsal of the chief topics of the former, addressed, immediately afterwards, in descending the hill, to the promiscuous multitude.” Lange also favours this view. Carr (Cambridge Bible for Schools) states the arguments in favour of the identity of the “Sermon on the Mount” with the “Sermon on the Plain,” thus:

1. The beginning and end are identical as well as much of the intervening matter.

2. The portions omitted—a comparison between the old and the new legislation—are such as would be less adapted for St. Luke’s readers than for St. Matthew’s.

3. The “mount” and the “plain” are not necessarily distinct localities. The plain is more accurately translated “a level place,” a platform on the high land.

4. The place in the order of events differs in St. Luke, but it is probable that here as well as elsewhere St. Matthew does not observe the order of time.

Mat_5:38. An eye for an eye, etc.—(See Exo_21:24). The scribes drew a false inference from the letter of the law. As a legal remedy the lex talionis was probably the best possible in a rude state of society (Carr). The aim of the law, as Jerome remarks, was not to sacrifice a second eye, but to save both. When a man in a passion understands that he is liable to lose an eye if he take one, he is likely, in the great majority of cases, to be so far controlled as to save both (Morison).

Mat_5:40. Coat.—The inner garment. Cloke.—The outer and more costly garment. Not allowed to be retained over night as a pledge from the poor, because used for a bed-covering (Exo_22:26-27). “Be ready to give up even that which by law cannot be taken” (Mansel).

Mat_5:41. Mile.—The influence of Rome is shown by the use of the Latin word (slightly altered) for the mille passuum, the thousand paces which made up a Roman mile—about one hundred and forty-two yards short of an English statute mile (Plumptre).

Mat_5:43. Love thy neighbour (Lev_19:18). Hate thine enemy.—Lightfoot quotes some of the cursed maxims inculcated by those traditionists regarding the proper treatment of all Gentiles. No wonder that the Romans charged the Jews with hatred of the human race (Brown).

Mat_5:46. Publicans.—The Roman name publicani, which our translators have employed in this and other places, properly denoted, not the collectors, but the farmers, of the customs; wealthy men of the equestrian order, who paid a rent to the State for the public revenues, and collected them for their own profit. The proper name for the actual collectors was portitores. These latter were sometimes freedmen or slaves, sometimes natives of the province in which the tax was collected (Mansel). The same?—Christianity is more than humanity (M. Henry).

Mat_5:47. Salute.—The prominence of salutation in the social life of the East gives a special vividness to this precept. To utter the formal “Peace be with you,” to follow that up by manifold compliments and wishes, was to recognise those whom men saluted as friends and brothers (Plumptre). Publicans.—Gentiles (R.V.).

Mat_5:48. Be … perfect.—Ye therefore shall be perfect (R.V.). The future for the imperative, as in the Decalogue: “Thou shalt not kill” (Webster and Wilkinson).

MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.—Mat_5:38-48

Counsels of perfection.—The subject discussed here is at once general and restricted. It is general because, instead of taking up individual commandments, as in Mat_5:21-37, it rather deals with the whole question of the second table of the law. It is restricted because it takes up nothing beside. The duty of man towards his neighbour! All that, and only that, is spoken of here. This one subject seems treated here in two different ways. On the one hand, we find more demanded in our Saviour’s teaching about the matter in hand; on the other hand we find more imparted, than ever before.

I. More demanded.—More demanded, in the first place, as to the way of dealing with wrong. The natural tendency of men, on this point, is to return evil for evil; and to return it, so to speak, with interest, too. Natural justice, where wrong has been done, approves of its being returned. Natural anger goes further, and wishes it returned in excess. “I gave him more than I got;” so we wish, naturally, to be able to say. But the law of old stepped in here, and said emphatically that that was too much. “An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth” (Mat_5:38). So far, but no farther, it allowed men to say; and, in so allowing, it placed, of course, a certain amount of restriction—of clear restriction and definite, also, if not very close—upon the wishes of men. What the teaching of Christ does here is both to take up and extend this idea. Instead of saying only when evil has been done us, that we are not to return it in excess; instead of saying even in such a case, that we are not to pay back as much; it teaches us rather, in the plainest language, not to return any at all. “Resist not evil;” resent not injuries; almost reward them, in fact (Mat_5:39-41). Do not even turn aside from the man (whoever he is) to whom you can do any good (Mat_5:42). On the other side, we find more demanded also in the way of dealing with good. On this point also, the attitude of human nature, where wholly untaught, is of a most unsatisfactory kind. It has been said, and is true, of certain wild beasts, that they regard every other wild beast of the same kind as a natural foe; and always, therefore, in catching sight of such, begin preparations for war. There is something not wholly unlike this in the wholly natural man. He naturally mistrusts, and therefore dislikes, and therefore “bristles” against whatever is similar to himself. Therefore it was that the law of old—God’s earlier message—began at this point. It teaches us not to hate, but to love those with whom we are brought into contact. “Thou shalt love thy neighbour” (Mat_5:43) and think well of him until he has proved himself the reverse. Thou shalt love thy neighbour and return his kindness if he shows kindness to thee. On this advance—for such we see it is—Christ advances still mora “Thou shalt love” all those, He teaches, whoever they are, with whom thou dost come into contact. Thou shalt love them even when they prove themselves no true “neighbours” to thee; “blessing” them always, and “doing them good,” and “praying” for their welfare; even as though, all the time, they were not in fact doing the very opposite about thee. So clear is it on this side, as on the other, that Christ asks us to “advance.” Let that half-emptied cup of bitterness be by you emptied entirely. Let that half-filled cup of kindness be by you filled to the brim. Yea, over it also!

II. More imparted.—If there was an advance in demanding, there is advance in this too. An advance in regard to the amount of light vouchsafed in this case. The mission of Christ was not the first step in the revelation of God to mankind. It was rather the third. That precious but dim revelation made to the Gentiles (Mat_5:47 R. V.), by means of God’s works (Rom_1:20; Psa_19:1-3) may be looked on as the first. That fuller but still only limited declaration of the nature of God contained in those “sayings” of “old”—those messages and ordinances of Moses and the prophets—to which the Saviour has referred in this chapter so often, may be considered the second. That still fuller—but still not exhaustive—setting forth of God’s character and attributes which the Saviour Himself had come to exhibit, is the third (see Joh_1:17-18; 2Pe_1:19). Of this the Saviour Himself afterwards said, that it was greater than any before (Mat_13:17). To this, as being such, in this Sermon on the Mount, He is pointing all through. According to Him in fact—according therefore to truth—according to all also that we have quoted just now—His teaching conveyed both far fuller light and far clearer light than before. The Gentiles, in a word, had walked in the twilight; Israel, in that of the morning; Christ brought that of the noon. An advance, also, in regard to the nature of its light. What the Saviour taught was of a more gracious character than any before. The book of nature is a lesson to all about God as our King. His exceeding “glory”—His “power and Godhead”—are the things it sets forth. The “book of the law” was a lesson to Israel about God as a lawgiver. His awful justice, His stainless holiness, are the chief things it enforces (Lev_11:44, etc.). The teaching of Christ is especially a manifestation of Almighty God as our Father (Mat_5:45; Mat_5:48; Mat_6:1; Mat_6:4; Mat_6:6; Mat_6:8-9; Mat_6:15, etc.; also especially Joh_14:6-9). Evidently, therefore, the special light which it gives us is that which is most important to us. Most important to us, on the one hand, as being the works of His hands; and because what it shows us is, that, besides being such, we are the special objects of His care. We are not only, as it were, part of the furniture—we are the “children”—of the house. Most important to us, on the other, as being children who have forfeited their right to that name. Here is that which is proclaimed to us by the very coming of “Christ.” This is what God signifies to us by sending us His own Son—viz. that He is able and willing to restore us to our former standing as sons (Joh_1:12). A light this, therefore, which, being the Light of Love, is the most precious of all.

We see, therefore, on the whole, the perfect reasonableness of the demands made in this passage. They are “counsels of perfection,” it is undoubtedly true. But they are counsels, also, which befit the atmosphere in which they are found. We expect the literal Israel to be nearer God than the Gentiles. We expect the spiritual Israel to be still nearer than they. Fuller light, clearer guidance, greater strength, more powerful motives ought to excel, if anything does. Those who are privileged to know such a Father ought on every ground to be like Him. What is the object of a perfect example except that, as it were, of giving birth to similar copies? Copies as “perfect” themselves as the material they are made of permits them to be. Do we not see, also, the perfect harmony of these demands with those going before? For do we not see, if we may so express ourselves, that they are such as grow cut of those? The restrictions of Moses prepare naturally for the closer restrictions of Jesus. The first ascent brings us to the foot of the second. Something in the same way, in earlier times, Joshua had completed what Moses had begun. Something so, also, out of the tabernacle the temple had grown. It is true, in this latter case, that the “curtains” of the one had become the stones of the other; and that some things which were comparatively small in the one were larger in the other. But it is equally true that this only displayed their harmony in almost every other respect. The same glorious idea, the same God, shone the more visibly in them both!

HOMILIES ON THE VERSES.

Mat_5:38-41. Retaliation.—

I. The doctrine of the scribes and Pharisees.—

1. Though Moses is very express that it was the judges and magistrates who were to inflict this punishment of retaliation, they allowed the injured parties either to avenge themselves or to sell off the punishment by accepting a pecuniary mulct, or some other reward and compensation, to the great discouragement of public justice.

2. They allowed of retaliation for the smallest injury, leaving no room for the virtue of patience.

3. They took no care to teach with what spirit this reparation was to be sought, not distinguishing between a just defence or reparation and a spirit of revenge.

II. Our Saviour’s teaching.—

1. That we are to abstain from all private revenge, let the affront and injury be ever so great; there are public persons whose office it is to be the avengers of wrong, and these are to be applied to if we will needs right ourselves.

2. Our Saviour teaches the way of patience and forgiveness.

3. He obviates an objection, which is very natural to be started—namely, that this way of patience will expose us to be abused and affronted still more and more, when men know they can do it unpunished. Mat_5:39-41. I take the meaning of these expressions to be that we should rather venture receiving a second injury than revenge the first. The words are not to be interpreted literally, the turning of the cheek being a proverbial phrase for exposing oneself to an injury and patiently bearing it. Lam_3:30 means, he patiently beareth injuries and affronts. Our Saviour and St. Paul did not turn the other cheek when they were smitten. That we had better venture the suffering a second injury than revenge the first will appear if we consider:

1. That the evil of suffering is not to be compared with the evil of sin.

2. That not revenging pacifies the wrath of the adversary, whereas retaliating perpetuates strife.—Jas. Blair, M.A.

Mat_5:39. Principle or rule?—It is said that many years ago an eminent minister of the gospel, who had been a great athlete in his youth, on returning to his native town soon after he had been ordained, encountered in the High Street an old companion whom he had often fought and thrashed in his godless days. “So you’ve turned Christian, they tell me, Charley?” said the man. “Yes,” replied the minister. “Well, then, you know the Book says, If you’re struck on one cheek you’re to turn the other. Take that!” and with that hit him a stinging blow. “There, then,” replied the minister quietly, turning the other side of his face toward him. The man was brute enough to strike him heavily again. Whereupon the minister said, “And there my commission ends,” pulled off his coat, and gave his antagonist a severe thrashing, which, no doubt, he richly deserved. But did the minister keep the command of Christ? He obeyed the letter of the rule; but did he not violate the principle, the spirit, of it? Hear [another] story and judge. It is told of a celebrated officer in the army that, as he stood leaning over a wall in the barrack-yard, one of his military servants, mistaking him for a comrade, came softly up behind him and suddenly struck him a hard blow. When the officer looked round, his servant, covered with confusion, stammered out, “I beg your pardon, sir; I thought it was George.” His master gently replied, “And if it were George, why strike so hard?” Which, now, of these two really obeyed the command of Christ? The minister who made a rule of it and kept to the letter of the rule, or the officer who made a principle of it and, acting on the spirit of it, neglected the letter?—S. Cox. D.D.

Mat_5:41. The historical allusion.—The word that is translated “shall compel to go” is of Persian origin, and has reference to a postal arrangement that was much admired by the Greek historians. On the great lines of road stations were established where horses and riders were kept for the purpose of carrying forward the royal mails, on the principle of relays. The carriers were empowered in cases of emergency to press into their service any available persons, or beasts of burden, or other means of transport. The same kind of postal arrangement was adopted by the later Greeks and by the Romans, and has descended, in fuller development, to our own time, and is now interlacing the whole civilized world. The power of empressment that constituted part of the original system is what is referred to in the word which is employed by our Lord. It would sometimes be exceedingly annoying to private individuals; and, no doubt, petty private tyrants would, in their own petty dominions or demesnes, put in operation the same principle when they had some express to forward on their own account. The empressment of such individuals and their officials would be apt to be vexatious. But, says Jesus, do more in such circumstances than is asked of thee; of course, provided it would be of avail to the carrier, and consistent with other and perhaps more imperious or important obligations. Let there be no stint in your efforts to help others, even when your help is ungraciously asked.—J. Morison, D.D.

Christ and Epictetus.—It is interesting to note a like illustration of the temper that yields to compulsion of this kind, rather than struggle or resist, in the teaching of the Stoic Epictetus—“Should there be a forced service, and a soldier should lay hold on thee, let him work his will; do not resist or murmur (Diss., IV. i. 79).—E. H. Plumptre, D.D.

Mat_5:42. Doing good for evil.—I. It is the duty of Christians to do good for evil.—This is to be gathered chiefly from the connection and purport of this discourse.

II. If our adversary is in want we ought to bestow our bounty upon him, as upon other objects of charity and beneficence.

III. If he is not in such want as to need our bounty by way of charity, yet if he wants our help out of any straits and difficulties, by lending, or any other favour and courtesy, we ought readily to afford it, and not show ourselves hard-hearted, difficult, or morose. Exhortation:—

1. From the example of Almighty God (Mat_5:45).

2. The efficacy of this method towards the reconciling of an adversary.

3. This kind treating of an adversary in his want or distress is reconcileable with the customs and maxims of the more generous sort of combatants in the world.

4. This is one of the best signs of the good temper of our own souls.

5. We have the greatest assurance that all actions of that nature shall be amply rewarded; and the contrary uncharitableness punished (Mat_6:14-15).

6. It will be found that the contrary practices proceed always from some base principle, such as pride, frowardness, cruelty, jealousy, cowardice, ingratitude, moroseness, and the want of generosity.—Jas. Blair, M.A.

Mat_5:44. The love of enemies.—

I. To say that this precept is romantic and unpractical is to condemn the gospel of Christ.—The Incarnation and coming into the world of our blessed Lord had the object of making us now, here, at once, better men, women, and children. Our Lord does not teach us that we are to like our enemies, but to love them.

II. Our blessed Lord perfectly fulfilled His own law of loving enemies.—Love is a tree known by its fruits; and these are justice, truth, purity, mercy, patience, liberality, honour, meekness, sympathy. The first step in love, to friend or enemy, is respect.

III. Our blessed Lord here, as everywhere, is our Pattern.

IV. The test of love is not mere fondness or fancy, but the trouble you are willing to take and the sacrifice you are prepared to make for the person loved. Instead of the precept, “Love your enemies,” being a mere lovely theory, it is to the last degree practical, because the principle which underlies the whole matter is simply this—and it admits of very wide application indeed—wherever a person finds himself in a position in any way whatever antagonistic to that of another, then there arises at once a special call and reminder to be just, patient, scrupulously fair, to do as one would be done by; for who can fail to see that, when something draws towards one and not towards another, the two are judged by totally different standards? A weak leniency, a caricature of charity, sees nothing wrong in one, while in another faults are magnified and perhaps nothing is right.—H. Percy Smith, M.A.

Loving enemies.—I remember as a boy sitting by the fireside of a little country inn, up near Dead River in Maine, and hearing some men discuss the Sermon on the Mount. Rough fellows they were; and one of them, scoffing at Christianity, said, “Thou shalt love thine enemy—nonsense! It is not in human nature.” He was right. It is not in human nature; qut it was in Christ’s nature, and it is in the Divine nature. And it is in the Divine nature to impart it through Christ to those who claim it.—L. Abbott, D.D.

Subduing enemies.—It is recorded of a Chinese emperor that, on being apprised of his enemies having raised an insurrection in a distant province, he said to his officers, “Come, follow me, and we shall quickly destroy them.” He marched forward, and the rebels submitted upon his approach. All now thought he would take the most signal revenge, but were surprised to see the captives treated with mildness and humanity. “How!” cried the first minister, “is this the manner in which your promise is fulfilled? Your royal word was given that your enemies should be destroyed, and behold, you have pardoned them all, and even caressed some of them.” “I promised,” replied the emperor, with a generous air, “to destroy my enemies. I have fulfilled my word; for see, they are enemies no longer. I have made friends of them.”—Tools for Teachers.

Kindness to enemies.—A good man is kinder to his enemy than bad men are to their friends.—Bishop Hall.

Mat_5:44-45. Christ’s law ignored.—“Either these sayings are not Christ’s, or we are not Christians,” was the exclamation of a great man after reading these words.—R. W. Dale, LL.D.

Mat_5:47.What do ye more than others?—

I. Disciples have to do more than others.—

1. Maintain the Christian life.

2. Extend the cause of Christ.

II. They are able to do more than others.—

1. They are in alliance with God.

2. They have more light and knowledge.

3. They have more moral power.

III. More is expected of them than of others.—

1. By their Saviour.

2. By the world.

3. By their own consciences.—J. C. Gray.

Mat_5:48. Christian perfection.—The text sums up that portion of the Sermon on the Mount in which Christ has so lucidly developed the Christian ideal of character. Our Lord sets before us the only absolutely perfect and holy Being as the ultimate standard of character in the kingdom of God. We have in the text:—

I. A comprehensive command.—“Be ye therefore perfect.” Note:

1. The meaning of the attainment.—

(1) In general the word “perfect” signifies completeness in all its parts. The babe is a perfect human being, even though only in germ or not full grown, when its parts or limbs are complete. Creation was perfect or complete in all its adjustments when God pronounced it “very good,” though its high purpose had not been attained in the activity of providence and grace.

(2) In particular. Complete in those elements of goodness which form character, and which are found in the full-orbed goodness of our heavenly Father—not in degree, but in kind.

2. The nature of the attainment.—It is important that we should distinguish between a perfection which is absolute, and therefore unattainable by us, and a relative or evangelical perfection. Hence observe

(1) Negatively.—It helps us immensely to find out what a thing is if we have found its negative. (a) It is not the perfection of God. The perfection of God is absolute. (b) It is not the perfection of angels. The angels have never left their first estate. Their faculties and understanding have never been impaired and perverted. (c) It is not Adamic perfection. (d) It is not the perfection of knowledge. There are not any of us free from ignorance. (e) It is not freedom from error. None infallible but God. (f) It is not freedom from temptation. (g) It is not freedom from infirmities—bodily infirmities and mental eccentricities, such as weakness of body, dulness of understanding, and incoherence of thought.

(2) Affirmatively.—The word “perfect” signifies in the New Testament completion in Christian character; a desire to please God in all things; and a sincere compliance with all the Divine precepts.

II. A high standard.—“Even as your Father which is in heaven.” Perfect as God is perfect? We say, Impossible! But for our encouragement let us look into these words closely and remember:—

1. That a high standard is necessary in everything great to attain real success.—Painting, architecture, music, etc.

2. That a high standard is necessary in order to lift our thoughts above the earthly standards.—Boys at school are bidden to look at their copies.

3. That a high standard is necessary to meet the boundless desires of our spiritual being.—Our nature is kindred with that of God. Man is satisfied only in being like God.

III. A possible attainment.—That there is an evangelical or Christian perfection which is possible may be proved:

1. Because we are commanded to be perfect.—Text; Gen_17:1; 2Co_13:11. God never commands what is impossible.

2. Because prayer is offered in the New Testament for certain persons that they may be perfect (1Th_5:23; Col_4:12; 2Co_13:9).

3. Because the means to attain the blessing are sufficient.—We have a perfect rule—God’s Word—to teach us how to get it; a perfect Redeemer, in whom there is fulness of grace, whose blood is enough to cleanse the vilest; a perfect Pattern to copy.

4. Because it is the will of God that we should be perfect.—It is God’s ultimate purpose in all that He has done and is doing for us.—J. Harries.

The Christian aim and motive.—

I. The Christian aim—Perfection.

II. The Christian motive.—Because it is right and Godlike to be perfect.—F. W. Robertson, M.A.

The purpose of Christianity.—Here is Christ’s idea of His holy religion. This is what it is to do for us: It is to make us like God. What is our idea of religion? Very much, one might almost say everything, depends upon the answer.—M. G. Pearse.

The perfection of love.—It is in a small degree that we can share God’s wisdom; in a still smaller degree His power. These attributes of His nature must always be over and around us, rather than within us. But of His love it is said, “God is love, and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.” It is as much ours as our home—nay, as much ours as our heart.—John Ker, D.D.

Perfection—Divine and human.—God’s is the only absolute perfection; man’s is relative, contained in the high destiny which bids him ever struggle towards the Infinite which he yet can never reach. There is no perfection so incomplete as the one which admits of no increase; that is the perfection of death, not of life.—A. M. Fairbairn, D.D.

Difficult yet practicable.—When Dr. Horace Bushnell originated the idea of a public park in Hartford, Connecticut, there were some who feared that the appropriation it called for would not be voted. It was suggested that it would be wiser to ask for half the amount. He replied, “No; sometimes a project is made practicable by being made difficult.”—J. H. Twitchell.

A sign of perfection.—There is no greater sign of your own perfection than when you find yourself all love and compassion toward them that are very weak and defective.—Wm. Law.

The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.

Mat 5:38-48.

Requital Of Injuries And Love Of Enemies

The fourth and fifth examples (see on "Mat 5:21"), by which our Lord illustrates the superiority of his teachings, are the subjects of Requital of Injuries (Mat 5:38-42), and Love of Enemies (Mat 5:43-48.)

Mat 5:38. Ye have heard that it hath been said. See on "Mat 5:21". An eye for an eye, etc. See Exo 21:24; Deu 19:21; Lev 24:20, in which passages these expressions are coupled with various similar ones, as ’life for life,’ ’hand for hand,’ ’foot for foot,’ the general law being that of retaliation, or, "like for like"—which was also the law of Solon, and of the Roman Twelve Tables. This careful. enunciation by Moses of the law of retaliation, was doubtless designed partly to restrain men from going beyond retaliation, as passion often prompts one to inflict a far greater injury than he has received. The Jews held that this law justified personal retaliation of private wrongs, and in general justified revenge; though Moses expressly forbids revenge of private injuries in Lev 19:18: "Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." In a rude state of society, as in the early days of California, every man takes in his own hands the punishment of wrongs done to him; and in the most civilized Christian community we are apt to find some individuals who glory in the fact that they protect and avenge themselves. The Jews would defend such a procedure on their part by misapplying to private action what was given as public law. The teachings of our Lord on this subject are therefore not in antagonism to the law of Moses, but serve to carry out more fully its spirit and design, to ’complete’ the law, (Mat 5:17) as we have seen in all the previous instances.

Mat 5:39. But I say unto you, see on "Mat 5:22". That ye resist not evil (the evil man). The Greek is ambiguous (compare on Mat 5:37, and Mat 6:13). If understood as masculine (Wyclif) it would no here mean ’the evil (one),’ Satan, as it would in Mat 5:37 and Mat 6:13—but ’the evil (man),’ the bad man who harms you, as in the ways that follow. If understood as neuter (Tyndale and all other early Eng. versions), it would be evil in general. The resulting sense is substantially the same. The verb rendered ’resist’ signifies to stand over against, withstand; and the idea seems to be to let evil have its course (or the evil man his course), and leave it for God to punish and control (see Rom 12:19 if.; 1Th 5:15, 1Pe 3:9). Our Lord says not merely that we must not revenge evil, but must not resist it. The explanation of his exact meaning can be better given after considering one of the examples he presents in illustration of this general principle. These examples are four, viz., personal violence, (Mat 5:39) vexatious: litigation, (Mat 5:40) public exactions, (Mat 5:41) and troublesome begging and borrowing. (Mat 5:42)

Shall smite, or, smites. Present tense in the better Greek text, which was readily changed by copyists to the easier future, found in Mat 5:41. The Greek word means to smite with rods, and to smite with the palm of the hand, (compare Mat 26:67) colloquial Eng. ’slap.’ Luke (Luk 6:29) has the general term ’strikes.’—The change to the singular number, ’thee,’ is the same that occurs in Mat 5:23 (see note). It is here continued, as there, through the several particulars which follow, (Mat 5:40-42) and the plural is resumed with the next subject. (Mat 5:43) Smiting on the right cheek (literally jaw), is both an injury and an insult, (1Co 11:20) and yet to this the loving Redeemer was himself more than once subjected.—The (Mat 26:67 Joh 19:3) curious have observed that one naturally smites another’s left cheek first, while Jesus follows rather the general custom of speaking, by which members of the right side are first mentioned. (compare Mat 5:29)

What are we to understand by the precept not to resist evil, or the evil man, with this and the following illustrations? There have always been some who maintained that these expressions are to be taken rigorously, as absolutely forbidding war, or any resistance to personal violence. In the early centuries some Christians positively refused to render military service, as being here forbidden. Many of the Anabaptists of Germany, in the age of the Reformation, condemned war, as did the Mennonists of Holland. In America the view is now held by the Quakers (or Friends), the Tunkers (or Dunkers or Dunkards), and the Mennonists.[1] Besides those persons who conscientiously strove to carry out the supposed teachings of the passage, there have always been others who interpreted it in the same way, and have then made it a ground either of attack upon the morality of the gospel as fanciful and unwise, or of assault upon the current Christianity as inconsistent and confessedly immoral, or else of excuse for the total failure to attempt obedience in any sense to commands which it seemed so impossible fully to carry out. On the other hand, most Christians have perceived that it could not be meant to condemn war under all circumstances, as various soldiers are referred to in the New Testament, without any hint of their being required to cease to be soldiers, and as war is sometimes an inevitable necessity, to prevent yet greater evils. They have also perceived that the direction to turn the left cheek, cannot have been designed as a rule for general observance, since it would often needlessly provoke greater wrong, and seeing that our Lord himself did not turn the other cheek when smitten, but mildly and yet firmly remonstrated, (Joh 18:22 f.) while Paul met the suggestion to insult him in this way with a severe rebuke—besides (Act 23:3) the fact that Jesus repeatedly took great pains to avoid exposing himself to personal violence, by withdrawing from places at which it was threatened. (Luk 4:30 Joh 7:1, Joh 7:10, Joh 10:39 Mar 9:30, etc.)

[1] The Russian novelist Count Tolstoi, in "My Religion," 1855, puts forward this interpretation with enthusiasmas a new discovery, and glories in the thought that the course thus indicated would destroy society, which according to the Russian Nihilist view ought to be destroyed, at once and completely.

How then are we to interpret the language here employed? It is not enough to say that our Lord cannot have meant this as an absolute and general rule, for while that is plain, the question recurs, what did he mean? It will not do to declare the language merely figurative, for we have no warrant whatever for calling plain statements figurative—a process by which the most vital doctrines and precepts of Scripture might be explained away. Two remarks will help to clear up the difficulty. (1) Our Saviour’s teachings in general (as well as the teachings of his apostles), are not simply didactic, but polemical, aimed at existing errors and evils; and while intended to be universal in their application, they will be understood in their exact bearing only when viewed in contrast to the wrong opinion, feeling, or practice he was especially designing in each case to correct. Many passages of Scripture fail to be rightly interpreted because this principle is not apprehended or not borne in mind. In the present case, Jesus aims to correct the revengeful spirit and practice to which the Jews were greatly addicted, and which they justified by a loose application of the law of Moses. (2) Our Lord here, as we have observed in former instances (see on "Mat 5:29", and compare the expressions in Mat 6:3, Mat 6:6), selects an extreme case, in order to exhibit more vividly the principle by which we should be guided. So far from vengeful resistance and retaliation being right, it would be better, if that were the alternative, voluntarily to submit ourselves to a yet greater wrong. Better to turn the other cheek, to give up the other garment, to double the impressing officer’s requisition, than to permit ourselves to practice that passionate resistance and that revengeful retaliation to which we are all prone, and which the Jewish teachers defended. The case is an extreme one, and very unlikely to occur; but if even this would be right, rather than be revengeful, all the more is it our duty to do things less difficult, since the greater includes the less. Dykes : "Of course, when an instance is selected to illustrate a principle, the instance is usually an extreme or next to impossible one; both because a principle is best seen when pushed to its ultimate application, and also because there is less chance of people blindly copying the example when its extravagance drives them to search for some inner meaning in it." On Mat 5:24 we saw that if prompt reconciliation is so important as to make it right to interrupt a sacrifice in order to settle a difficulty just then remembered, much more is it our duty, under all ordinary circumstances, to seek reconciliation without delay. And so here. If it would be proper, were that the alternative, even to expose ourselves voluntarily to the grossest additional insult and wrong, such as is here described, rather than be revengeful, then much more is it our duty to bear wrong and insult that have already been inflicted, rather than exercise a spirit of revenge. To resist, to resent, to punish, whether in national or individual affairs, is not necessarily and inherently sinful, but is useful, when properly regulated, to society, and even to the wrongdoer himself; and so it is sometimes a duty to punish, even when we should prefer to do otherwise. But to resist or resent in a passionate and revengeful spirit is deeply sinful, and a sin to which men are so strongly inclined that it ought to be guarded against with the utmost care. And yet many professing Christians not only act when excited, but deliberately and habitually avow their intention to act, in the way which is here so pointedly condemned—more sensitive as to what the world calls insult and dishonour, than to the teachings of infinite wisdom, the solemn commands of the Divine Redeemer. O, cowardly audacity! afraid to incur the world’s petty frown, and not afraid to displease God.

Mat 5:40. Sue thee at—or, go to—law. Some understand it to include private arbitration of difficulties, as well as suits at law—and certainly the same term does cover both in 1Co 6:1, 1Co 6:6—but the connection here seems to point directly and exclusively to a suit at law. We have already had a reference to legal processes in Mat 5:25. There is a Latin proverb which resembles this saying, viz., "If one sues you for the egg, give him the hen also." Coat. The Greek denotes the inner garment worn by a Jew in those days, resembling what the Romans called ’tunic,’ and corresponding most nearly to a long shirt, which usually reached somewhat below the knee, but in the more elegant article for dress occasions, reached almost to the ground. It was sometimes worn loose, but commonly confined around the waist with a girdle. (Mat 3:4) In some cases two of these were worn (see on "Mat 10:10"), but in general only one. It is this garment of our Saviour which is said to have been without seam. (Joh 19:28) The other Greek word, rendered cloak, is sometimes used to signify a garment in general, as in Mat 9:16, Mat 17:2, Mat 24:18, Mat 26:65, Mat 27:31, Mat 27:35. In other cases, as Mat 9:20-21, Mat 14:36, Mat 21:7-8, it denotes the outer garment, which appears (for our knowledge of Hebrew dress is quite imperfect) to have been for some persons a loose robe, and with others a large square piece of cloth, resembling a large shawl, wrapped around the person with more or less of taste and comfort. In Joh 13:4, Joh 13:12, there appear to have been several garments; for Jesus would not lay aside the inmost garment. But the outer and inner garment here mentioned were commonly all, and the outer one was frequently used by the poor and travellers as a covering at night—just as shawls are used by travellers now. So the law of Moses provided (Exo 22:26) that if it were taken in pawn, it should be returned before sunset. Such being the law, the Jewish tribunals would naturally allow the inner garment to betaken by judicial process rather than the outer one, and that will explain the order in which they are here mentioned. Luke (Luk 6:29) says nothing of a suit at law, but only speaks of taking away the garment, and hence mentions them in the order in which they would naturally be removed from the person, the outer garment first.—It is matter of common observation in all ages, that a man who is threatened with an unjust lawsuit will show a peculiar animosity, and if he thinks himself unjustly treated in the sentence, a peculiar rancour and revengefulness, declaring that he will yet make his adversary suffer for it. Rather than feel and act thus, our Lord says it would be better even voluntarily to give far more than the aggressor is awarded. (Compare 1Co 6:7) How evil then must be this rancorous spirit, and bow carefully should Christians avoid it.

Mat 5:41. Shall compel thee to go—or, impress thee for—a mile. "A"—or One, is in the original emphatic by position. Impress, The Greek word was borrowed into Greek and Latin from tile Persian, to denote a Persian practice continued by the Greek and Roman rulers who succeeded them in Western Asia. It strictly signified to make one a public courier, (compare Est 8:10, Est 8:14) and hence to make one temporarily perform a courier’s work, or help a courier on his way, with horses or personal labours, etc.; and finally it was applied to coercing or compelling any public service, as the Roman soldiers compelled or impressed Simon to carry the cross. (Mat 27:32) Such impressments were all the more odious to the Jews as being a subjugated people, suffering this harsh treatment from foreign rulers. During the great Maccabean struggle, one of the rival Syrian kings sought to conciliate the Jews by promising many exemptions, including this: "And I order that the beasts of burden of the Jews be not impressed" (same Greek word, Josephus "Ant.," 18, 2, 3.) Impressment, like a lawsuit, is apt to produce very angry and revengeful feelings; and so this illustration is parallel to the foregoing.

Mat 5:42. The word rendered borrow would in classical Greek naturally suggest interest, but the Jews were forbidden (Exo 22:25 Lev 25:37 Deu 23:19) to charge interest against each other (see on "Mat 25:27"). Readiness to lend was strongly urged in Deu 15:7-11, and the idea repeated by subsequent inspired writers, as in Psa 37:26, Psa 112:5. Henry: "Lending is sometimes as great a piece of charity as giving, as it not only relieves the present exigence, but obliges the borrower to providence, industry, and honesty. "We are here required to give, and to lend, not merely where it is pleasant to do so, but where it is unpleasant, the latter being the idea apparently suggested by the connection with what precedes. But that the injunction is not intended to be absolute and without exception, is shown by the case of God himself, who promises, in terms as unlimited as these, to give whatever we ask in the name of Jesus, and yet actually does give only when he sees it to be proper. To give to those who "ask amiss" (Jas 4:3) would be no real kindness to them—nor in us. As in Mat 5:45 and elsewhere, God’s example explains the meaning of his precepts.

Mat 5:43. Here begins the fifth and last example (see on "Mat 5:21"), viz., love of enemies. This is closely related to the preceding. (Mat 5:38-42.) Stier : "As this is to close the distinctive reference to the commandments, it is not one of the individual commandments of the Decalogue which is introduced, as the first quotations had been; but the epitome of the whole second table, as Moses had already specified it, viz., the law of love, of that one central disposition of mind, which should evidence itself in every good word and work."

That it hath been said. See on "Mat 5:21". Thou shalt love thy neighbour, is from Lev 19:18. But the Jewish teachers, with their customary efforts to explain away the rigorous requirements of the law (compare the case of oaths, Mat 5:33 ff.), here insisted upon a strict and limited sense of the term ’neighbour.’ The lawyer who came to Jesus, (Luk 10:25 ff.) made it all turn upon this: I am to love my neighbour, but who is my neighbour? Our Lord’s answer there shows, as he teaches here, that in the sense of the law even an enemy is our neighbour. But the Jewish teachers held that an enemy was not a neighbour, and that the command to love the latter implied permission to withhold it from the former. So as they publicly repeated and expounded the law, they would make the addition, "Thou shalt love thy neighbour—and hate thine enemy." This they would perhaps seek to justify by pointing to the severe treatment of the Canaanites which God enjoined upon Israel; but that was an exceptional case. The commandment to love the neighbour was extended in Lev 19:33-34 to strangers, yet that meant strangers sojourning in Israel—With such teachings prevalent as Jesus here describes, we can understand how the Jews came to be charged by Tacitus with "hatred to the human race." (See further on "Mat 22:39".)

Mat 5:44. But I say. See on "Mat 5:21". The clauses omitted from this verse in Rev. Ver. are wanting in the earliest manuscripts and versions, and were manifestly borrowed in later copies from Luk 6:27 ff. They are a real part of the discourse, but not of Matthew’s report of it.—this injunction finds no real parallel among the teachings of heathen sages. Those alleged have been misunderstood or over-stated. The Emperor Julian (the "apostate"), while borrowing the idea from the gospel he rejected, felt that it would sound strange to his heathen readers, for he says in one of his writings: "I would affirm, even though it be a strange thing to say, that even to one’s enemies it would be right to give clothing and food."—some urge that the Old and the New Testaments are in conflict on this point, appealing, for example, to the imprecations and expressions of hate which are found in the Psalms. But the example of God himself shows that an abhorrence of confirmed wickedness and a desire for its punishment may co-exist with pitying love and persevering kindness; and difficult as it may be for man to cherish both feelings at once, it is not more difficult than some other duties. And the Old Testament repeatedly teaches to show kindness to an enemy, as in Exo 23:4 f.; Lev 19:18 Pro 24:17, Pro 24:29, Pro 25:21 f.; (compare Rom 12:20) Job 31:29; Psa 7:4; 1Sa 24:5, while the New Testament has passages corresponding to the imprecations in the Psalms, as when Paul comforts the Thessalonians with the thought that God will terribly punish their persecutors, (2Th 1:6-10) or when the martyred souls under the altar cry, (Rev 6:10. Rev. Ver.)" How long, O Master, the holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?" (See also 1Co 16:22; 2Ti 4:14; Luk 18:7) The difference is therefore of kind, and not of degree; the law speaks more of severity, the gospel more of kindness, though neither wholly lacks that which is most prominent in the other. (Compare on Mat 5:4) Still. it is notably characteristic of the gospel that it enjoins not simply justice, but love.

Mat 5:45. His sun, reminding us by the may that God possesses and controls the sun. We commonly say "it rains," etc., but Jesus here refers the agencies of nature directly to God.[1] Sendeth rain—literally—and rains. Sunshine and rain are naturally chosen as among the chief providential blessings.—(Compare Act 14:17) One element and proof of sonship is resemblance, as it is said, (Eph 5:1) ’Be ye therefore followers (imitators) of God, as dear children,’ and we are urged to love our enemies and treat them kindly, in order that we may be acting like our Heavenly Father, for he loves his enemies, and sends natural blessings upon them as well as upon his friends. Compare Luk 6:35, ’for he is kind toward the unthankful and evil.’—The same idea is presented by Seneca: "If you imitate the gods, give benefits even to the ungrateful; for even to abandoned wretches the sun arises, and to pirates the seas lie open." Sirach: "Be to orphans as a father, and instead of a husband to their mother; and thou shalt be as a son of the Highest, and thy mother shall love thee more and more." The Talmud : "A thousand thousand, and myriads are bound to praise thy name for every drop of rain thou sendest down upon us, because thou renderest good to the wicked." —But the love of God to his enemies is not the same as to his friends, the one being a love of compassion and benevolence, the other a love of complacency; he bestows benefits upon the wicked, he delights in the good. And in like manner we are not bidden to take admiring delight in our enemies, but to cherish no revengeful and malignant feeling towards them, and to do anything we can for their welfare-that is, of course, when it would not aid in the accomplishment of their evil designs against us. This is not inconsistent with restraining and even punishing them; for God does so with his enemies.

[1] See Mat 6:26, Mat 6:30, and in Gen 2:5 Job 36:27, Job 37:6 ff.; Psa 104:10 ff.

Mat 5:46. Two other reasons for loving our enemies. (1) Otherwise what reward have ye? It is implied that if we love our enemies, we have a religious reward (compare Mat 5:12 and Mat 6:1; and Luk 6:32, Luk 6:35). The Scriptures do not leave men to the mere unaided sense of duty as a motive to do right, but appeal also to their hopes and fears. Thus Moses, (Heb 11:26, Rev. Ver.) ’looked unto the recompense of reward,’ and even Jesus, (Heb 12:2) ’for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame.’ (Compare on Mat 5:29) To say that this "vitiates morality" is to propose a philosophy of human conduct at variance with human nature. (2) Even the publicans. It is important to understand the odium which attached among the Jews to the office of publican. The Romans farmed out the privilege of collecting taxes, as is now done in some Oriental countries. The right to collect a particular kind or kinds of revenue in a particular province was sold at Rome to some individual or joint-stock company of the better class of citizens (equites), who were hence called "publicans," or collectors of the public revenue. These parties sent out agents who employed as subordinates either Roman citizens of the lower class, or natives of the province. The subordinates were not in Roman usage called publicani, but portitores. Yet as the same Greek word is applied to both, the Latin versions called both classes publicans, and we do likewise. The tax-gatherers we meet in the Gospel history are doubtless all of the subordinate class, even Zaccheus being probably a chief of the portitores. (Luk 19:2) Tax-collectors are in all countries apt to be unpopular, and these men were especially so among the Jews. They constantly reminded the people of their subjugation to the Romans, and a proud people, whose history told of David and Solomon and the Maccabees, could never think of this without mortification. They often practised extortion, (Luk 3:13, Luk 19:8) encouraged thereto by the fact that their employers paid the government a fixed sum, and had all they could get. No native would take such an office if he cared much for public opinion, and those who did so were usually renegades, or very lax as to observance of the law. Accordingly, while the publicani at Rome, who really served the State, and sometimes advanced large sums to relieve the public finances, are highly commended by Cicero and others, we find that in all the provinces the subordinates were hated and shunned, and particularly in Palestine. The Jews classed them with heathen (Mat 5:47 And Mat 18:17) and with harlots, (Mat 21:31) and one of the reproaches cast on Jesus was that he was a ’friend of publicans and sinners.’ (Mat 11:19) Matthew was himself a publican, (Mat 9:9, Mat 10:3) though he may have been a man of better character than was usual among them. Matthew heard this discourse, yet Jesus did not on that account use softened expressions about the class to which he had belonged. The later Jewish writers class them with robbers and murderers, and affirm that they were not allowed to give testimony, and were excluded from the synagogues.—Our Lord is thus declaring that to love those who love us proves no higher grade of morality than that occupied by the most despised, by publicans and by heathen. (Mat 5:47) Luke (Luk 6:32 f.) uses the more general term, ’sinners.’ In loving his friends a man may in a certain sense be loving only himself—a kind of expanded selfishness.

Mat 5:47. This repeats, in another form, the thought of the preceding sentence, such amplification being common in Scripture (see on "Mat 5:30"), and being very effective in popular discourse. Publicans—rather, Gentiles; the reading of the earliest Greek manuscripts and versions would easily be changed to ’publicans,’ to correspond with Mat 5:46. The Jews regarded other nations with dislike and contempt, and so ’the nations’ would sometimes be a term of contempt, which in English we express by ’Gentiles.’ When Christianity became prevalent in the Roman Empire, the old Roman religion still survived in many remote country districts (pagi, pagani), and so its supporters were called ’pagans,’ or in English ’heathen’ (living in the heath or uncultivated country). Accordingly the same Greek word is translated ’nations’ in Mat 21:43, Mat 24:7, Mat 24:9, Mat 24:14, Mat 25:32, Mat 28:19; and ’Gentiles in Mat 4:15, Mat 5:47, Rev. Ver.; Mat 6:32, Mat 10:5, Mat 10:18, Mat 12:18, Mat 12:21, Mat 20:19, Mat 20:25. A derivative was rendered in all the early English versions by ’heathen’ in Mat 6:7, Mat 18:17, which gives the Christian point of view, but the Rev. Ver. restores the Jewish stand-point by rendering ’Gentiles.’ (It does the same in Act 4:25; 2Co 11:26; Gal 1:16, Gal 2:9, Gal 3:8)—To salute a person is a stronger mark of kind feelings according to Oriental manners than among us, their salutations being usually elaborate, and therefore given only to express high respect. Jews did not generally salute Gentiles, and Mohammedans as a rule do not salute Christians; and the Apostle John (2Jn 1:10 f.) forbids not only hospitality but ’greeting’ (same word as in Jas 1:1 Act 15:23) to teachers of those antichristian and grossly immoral notions which prevailed. To express the importance of ’salute’ in this verse, Tyndale and Geneva give a sort of paraphrase, ’if ye be friendly to your brethren only,’ and Great Bible, ’if ye make much of,’ etc.—Luke here (Luk 6:34 f.) gives some other expressions which still further amplify the thoughts expressed in this and the two preceding verses. It is not difficult to understand that each Evangelist has given only a part of what was spoken.

Mat 5:48. Be ye perfect. Ye shall be (so Tyndale, Great Bible, Geneva, and Rev. Ver.), is a literal translation of the Greek Future, which is in such a case substantially equivalent to an imperative. The form of expression may carry an allusion to Deu 18:13. Ye is emphatic, meaning Christ’s disciples as contrasted with publicans and Gentiles. Therefore, presents this as a conclusion from what precedes: since you ought to be at a higher point of morality than publicans and Gentiles, and ought to be like your Father in heaven, (compare Mat 5:45) therefore you shall be perfect, etc. Father which is in heaven. The reading Heavenly Father of many early manuscripts and versions, was easily changed to the more common ’Father which is in heaven’ of Mat 5:45, Mat 6:9, Mat 6:14. The term rendered perfect is used in a variety of connections, and its precise meaning must always be determined by the particular connection. Sometimes it is simply ’complete,’ without any moral element, Heb 9:11, and perhaps Jas 1:17. In other cases it means complete in growth of body or mind, ’fullgrown.’ (1Co 14:20 Eph 4:13 Heb 5:14, Heb 6:1; 1Co 2:6) In yet others, complete morally, as Mat 19:21; Col 1:28, Col 4:12; Jas 1:4, Jas 1:25, Jas 3:2. And there are passages in which it seems to mean complete in both knowledge and moral excellence, as Php 3:15, and perhaps 1Co 13:10. Here, it is moral perfection in general, but with specific reference to love—i.e., not loving friends only, which would be an imperfect love, but loving enemies also, as our Heavenly Father does. Luke (Luk 6:36) gives only this specific thought, ’merciful.’ But it does not seem proper to restrict Matthew’s general term to this thought alone. In all things, love included, we ought to be perfect, even as our Heavenly Father is—to be like him, and so prove ourselves to be his children. Our own minds demand a perfect standard, such as the divine nature presents; and however far we may actually fall short of attaining it, yet he who is content with coming short gives no evidence that he is a child of God.

Thus ends the series of striking particulars (Mat 5:21-48) in which our Lord compares his teachings with the law and the current explanations of it, so as to show that far from designing to relax the obligations of morality, his requirements were still more stringent, extending, not merely to the outward act, but to the motive and feeling; not merely to what the letter of the law required, but to all that it designed and involved. (See on "Mat 5:17".) As this portion of the Sermon on the Mount has especial reference to Jewish ideas, Luke, who wrote not for Jews in particular (as Matthew did), but for general circulation, has given no report of it, except of what was said on the subject of love to enemies, and this he introduces as general instruction, without any allusion to the Jewish misinterpretations of the law and mistaken expectations, which with his design would have been out of place.

Homiletical And Practical

Mat 5:38-41. Four kinds of Retaliation. (1) Natural passion says, Requite the like, and worse. (2) The law of Moses says, Let the judge requite precisely the like. (3) Christ says, Do not (revengefully) requite the like at all—better receive the like a second time. (4) The apostle Peter says, (1Pe 3:9) "Not rendering evil for evil, but contrariwise blessing." This is the Christian retaliation. —Self-defense, and punishment in ways regulated by law, are not forbidden in forbidding hate and revenge. But do not "take the law in your own hands," and do not press the execution of the law in a revengeful spirit. Chrys.: "Nothing so restrains the wrong-doers, as when the injured bear what is done with gentleness. And it not only restrains them from rushing onward, but works upon them also to repent for what has gone before, and, in wonder at such forbearance, to draw back. And it makes them more our own, and causes them to be slaves—not merely friends—instead of haters and enemies. Even as avenging oneself does just the contrary; for it disgraces each of the two, and makes them worse, and their anger it brightens into a greater flame; yea, often no less than death itself is the end of it, going on from bad to worse." Stier: "That heathenish law of honour, which will not accept the very slightest indignity, but even in the midst of modern Christendom demands the duel itself. To this ’point of honour’ stands opposed the patient acceptance and endurance of insult, as the genuine Christian courage and knightly honour. Offer him the other also—that is, in thy heart, and in the disposition of thy mind; calmly and patiently wait if he may strike thee another blow, and be ready to receive that also—so far let thy spirit be from opposing..... The actual turning of the other cheek might be no other than a challenge to continued sin, consequently itself sinful, and opposed to the love of our neighbour. There might even be a proud despite in it, or a mere hypocritical affectation." Dykes: "By general consent, a blow on the face is the extreme of personal insults..... But the spirit of our Lord’s words is not open to the suspicion of being a craven spirit. It is this suspicion, more, I fancy, than any thing else, which is apt to discredit the teaching of this text with generous men. Yet here, as always, it is sin, not love, that is the real coward. He who best obeys the rule of Jesus will be the bravest man. To curb temper; to govern the spirit of revenge, even under insult; to place what is better than life, personal honour, under the control of a love which is patient and just because it is strong—stronger than passion: this is true valour and true honour."

Mat 5:42. Our duty to Beggars.

I. Counsels. (1) We must not refuse all because many are impostors. (2) We should strive to ascertain who are really needy and deserving, and to inform others. (3) We must not turn beggars away simply because offensive or annoying-this would be a very petty selfishness. (4) Where there is public provision for beggars we should act in harmony with such arrangements, but cannot remit the matter wholly to them. (5) To open some means of supporting themselves is far better than to support them.

II. Motives. (1) Humanity-they have the same nature as ourselves, essentially the same sensitive feelings, pains and pleasures, memories and hopes and destiny. (2) Piety. Grateful love to God. We are beggars, to whom he gives liberally, and we must return to him by giving to our fellowmen.—Borrowing and Lending. It is more blessed to lend than to borrow. Cautions as to borrowing—encouragements to lend. Compare Luk 6:35.

Luk 6:44. Cyril: "Let us love our enemies, not as adulterers or murderers, but as men."—Chrys.: "Have you seen what steps he has ascended, and how he has placed us on the very summit of virtue? Look at the succession from the beginning. The first step is, not to begin injuring; the second, after injury has been begun, not to defend yourself against the injurer by like actions; the third, not to inflict on the wrong-doer that which one ha., buffered, but to keep quiet; the fourth, even ha yield oneself to suffer evil; the fifth, to yield even more than he who did the evil wishes; the sixth, not to hate him who does these things; the seventh, even to love him; the eighth, even to do him good; the ninth, even to pray to God for him. Have you seen the height of Christian philosophy?" —Love your enemies.

I. How? (1) Do not love what is wrong in them, but love them notwithstanding the wrong. (2) Love them in the same way that God loves his enemies.

II. Why? (1) Because fellow-men (’neighbours’), although enemies. (2) In order to be like God, his children. Jerome: "Many say that to love enemies is too much for human nature; but David did this to Saul and Absalom; Stephen prayed for the enemies that were stoning him; Jesus both taught and did it. ’Father, forgive them.’ " —Henry: "It was said of Archbishop Cranmer, that the way to make him a friend was to do him an ill turn; so many did he serve who had disobliged him."

Luk 6:45. Natural blessings, as sunshine and rain. The modern phrase is that they are caused by the "laws of nature." They are caused by natural forces, which we perceive to act regularly, and these regular modes of acting we call laws. But who appointed the laws? Who created the forces, and made them such as to act in these regular ways? The Scriptures represent the Creator as working in the forces he has created and controls.—Sonship to God. (1) Shown by moral likeness to him. (2) In particular, by kindness to our fellow-men, even to enemies.

Luk 6:46 f. Natural kindness and Christian kindness. Christians ought assuredly to be better than men in general.

Luk 6:48. Imitating. (1) Do not imitate the publicans and the Gentiles. (2) Imitate your Heavenly Father.—Perfection. (1) We should wish to be perfect—and pained with our imperfections. (2) We should try to be perfect—not disheartened by past failures. (3) We may hope to be perfect—as we pass into the perfect world.

John A. Broadus, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (American Baptist Publication Society, 1886) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Matthew

NON-RESISTANCE

Mat 5:38-42.

The old law directed judges to inflict penalties precisely equivalent to offences-’an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth’ {Exo 21:24}, but that direction was not for the guidance of individuals. It was suited for the stage of civilisation in which it was given, and probably was then a restriction, rather than a sanction, of the wild law of retaliation. Jesus sweeps it away entirely, and goes much further than even its abrogation. For He forbids not only retaliation but even resistance. It is unfortunate that in this, as in so many instances, controversy as to the range of Christ’s words has so largely hustled obedience to them out of the field, that the first thought suggested to a modern reader by the command ‘Resist not evil’ {or, an evil man} is apt to be, Is the Quaker doctrine of uniform non-resistance right or wrong, instead of, Do I obey this precept? If we first try to understand its meaning, we shall be in a position to consider whether it has limits, springing from its own deepest significance, or not. What, then, is it not to resist? Our Lord gives three concrete illustrations of what He enjoins, the first of which refers to insults such as contumelious blows on the cheek, which are perhaps the hardest not to meet with a flash of anger and a returning stroke; the second of which refers to assaults on property, such as an attempt at legal robbery of a man’s undergarment; the third of which refers to forced labour, such as impressing a peasant to carry military or official baggage or documents-a form of oppression only too well known under Roman rule in Christ’s days. In regard to all three cases, He bids His disciples submit to the indignity, yield the coat, and go the mile. But such yielding without resistance is not to be all. The other cheek is to be given to the smiter; the more costly and ample outer garment is to be yielded up; the load is to be carried for two miles. The disciple is to meet evil with a manifestation, not of anger, hatred, or intent to inflict retribution, but of readiness to submit to more. It is a hard lesson, but clearly here, as always, the chief stress is to be laid, not on the outward action, but on the disposition, and on the action mainly as the outcome and exhibition of that. If the cheek is turned, or the cloak yielded, or the second mile trudged with a lowering brow, and hate or anger boiling in the heart, the commandment is broken. If the inner man rises in hot indignation against the evil and its doer, he is resisting evil more harmfully to himself than is many a man who makes his adversary’s cheeks tingle before his own have ceased to be reddened. We have to get down into the depths of the soul, before we understand the meaning of non-resistance. It would have been better if the eager controversy about the breadth of this commandment had oftener become a study of its depth, and if, instead of asking, ‘Are we ever warranted in resisting?’ men had asked, ‘What in its full meaning is non-resistance?’ The truest answer is that it is a form of Love,-love in the face of insults, wrongs, and domineering tyranny, such as are illustrated in Christ’s examples. This article of Christ’s New Law comes last but one in the series of instances in which His transfiguring touch is laid on the Old Law, and the last of the series is that to which He has been steadily advancing from the first-namely, the great Commandment of Love. This precept stands immediately before that, and prepares for it. It is, as suffused with the light of the sun that is all but risen, ‘Resist not evil,’ for ‘Love beareth all things.’

It is but a shallow stream that is worried into foam and made angry and noisy by the stones in its bed; a deep river flows smooth and silent above them. Nothing will enable us to meet ‘evil’ with a patient yielding love which does not bring the faintest tinge of anger even into the cheek reddened by a rude hand, but the ‘love of God shed abroad in the heart,’ and when that love fills a man, ‘out of him will flow a river of living water,’ which will bury evil below its clear, gentle abundance, and, perchance, wash it of its foulness. The ‘quality of’ this non-resistance ‘is twice blessed,’ ‘it blesseth him that gives and him that takes.’ For the disciple who submits in love, there is the gain of freedom from the perturbations of passion, and of steadfast abiding in the peace of a great charity, the deliverance from the temptation of descending to the level of the wrong-doer, and of losing hold of God and all high visions. The tempest-ruffled sea mirrors no stars by night, nor is blued by day. If we are to have real communion with God, we must not flush with indignation at evil, nor pant with desire to shoot the arrow back to him that aimed it at us. And in regard to the evil-doer, the most effectual resistance is, in many cases, not to resist. There is something hid away somewhere in most men’s hearts which makes them ashamed of smiting the offered left cheek, and then ashamed of having smitten the right one. ‘It is a shame to hit him, since he does not defend himself,’ comes into many a ruffian’s mind. The safest way to travel in savage countries is to show oneself quite unarmed. He that meets evil with evil is ‘overcome of evil’; he that meets it with patient love is likely in most cases to ‘overcome evil with good.’ And even if he fails, he has, at all events, used the only weapon that has any chance of beating down the evil, and it is better to be defeated when fighting hate with love than to be victorious when fighting it with itself, or demanding an eye for an eye.

But, if we take the right view of this precept, its limitations are in itself. Since it is love confronting, and seeking to transform evil into its own likeness, it may sometimes be obliged by its own self not to yield. If turning the other cheek would but make the assaulter more angry, or if yielding the cloak would but make the legal robber more greedy, or if going the second mile would but make the press-gang more severe and exacting, resistance becomes a form of love and a duty for the sake of the wrong-doer. It may also become a duty for the sake of others, who are also objects of love, such as helpless persons who otherwise would be exposed to evil, or society as a whole. But while clearly that limit is prescribed by the very nature of the precept, the resistance which it permits must have love to the culprit or to others as its motive, and not be tainted by the least suspicion of passion or vengeance. Would that professing Christians would try more to purge their own hearts, and bring this solemn precept into their daily lives, instead of discussing whether there are cases in which it does not apply! There are great tracts in the lives of all of us to which it should apply and is not applied; and we had better seek to bring these under its dominion first, and then it will be time enough to debate as to whether any circumstances are outside its dominion or not.

Alexander MacLaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture (1904–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

5:38-42 The Old Testament permitted proportionate retribution (Exod 21:24-25; Deut 19:16-21), which was to prevent punishments from far exceeding the severity of the offense. Jesus, however, does not permit personal retaliation at all among his followers. Jesus’ way is not to insist on justice but to find victory through suffering and the cross (1 Pet 2:23). Some have taken this passage as a guide for all of life (including politics). Others understand it merely as the willingness to forgo one’s personal rights and to forgive as God has forgiven (see Matt 5:48; 18:23-35). Like the servant in Isa 50:4-9 and 53:7 (see also Matt 12:15-21), Jesus’ followers are to apply the same virtue to honor, possessions, time, or property. Righteousness does not insist on its own way.

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Mat 5:38. Ὀφθαλμὸν, an eye) sc. Thou shalt require. In Exo 21:24, the LXX. have ὀφθαλμὸν ἀντὶ ὀφθαλμοῦ, ὀδόντα ἀντὶ ὀδόντος, eye for eye, 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 stood midway between them. See Lev 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. Jud 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 allotted to private vengeance.—B. G. V.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Mat_5:38. Ὀφθαλμὸν … ὀδόντος] supply δώσει, which supplement is presupposed as well known from the saying referred to (see Exo_21:24). In the usual formula (comp. also Lev_22:20; Lev_24:20; Deu_19:21) is expressed the jus talionis, the carrying out of which was assigned to the magistracy (comp. 12. Tab.: si membrum rupit, ni cum eo pacit, talio esto). Instead of 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. 1Co_6:7. This principle of Christian morality, laid down absolutely as an ideal, by no means excludes, under the determining circumstances of sinful life, the duty of seeking ones legal rights, as is clear, moreover, from the history of Christ and His apostles. That Jesus, moreover, is speaking against the misuse by the Pharisees of the legal standard, as a standard within the sphere of social life, is a groundless supposition of Luther, Beza, Calvin, Calovius, Bengel, B. Crusius, Keim, and others, especially as in Mat_5:40 κριθῆναι follows. But certainly the Pharisees may, unlovingly enough, in cases occurring in social life, have claimed those rights before the magistracy, and have influenced others also to practise similar unloving conduct. Glosses in reference to the payment in money of legal talio, see in Lightfoot.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Mat 5:38-42 . Fifth illustration , from the law of compensation.

Mat 5:38 contains the theme, he following vv. Christ’s comment. Ὀφθαλμὸν … ὀδόντος . An exact quotation from Exo 21:24 . Christ’s criticism here concerns a precept from the oldest code of Hebrew law. Fritzsche explains the accusatives, ὀφθαλμὸν , ὀδόντα , by supposing εἶναι to be understood: “Ye have heard that Moses wrote that an eye shall be for an eye”. The simplest explanation is that the two nouns in the original passage are under the government of δώσει , Exo 21:23 . (So Weiss and Meyer after Grotius.) Tersely expressed, a sound principle or civil law for the guidance of the judge, acted on by almost all peoples: Christ does not condemn it: if parties come before the judge, let him by all means give fair compensation for injuries received. He simply leaves it on one side. “Though the judge must give redress when demanded, you are not bound to ask it, and if you take My advice you will not.” In taking up this position Jesus was in harmony with the law itself, which contains dissuasives against vindictiveness, e.g. , Lev 19:18 : “Thou shalt not avenge nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people”. The fault of the scribes did not lie in gainsaying this and introducing the justalionis into private life, but in giving greater prominence to the legal than to the ethical element in the O. T. teaching, and in occupying themselves mainly with discussing the casuistry of compensation, e.g. , the items to be compensated for in a case of wounding the pain, the cure, the loss of time, the shame, etc., and the money value of the whole. Jesus turned the minds of His disciples away from these trivialities to the great neglected ethical commonplace.

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

He showeth clean contrary to the doctrine of the Scribes, that the sum of the second table must be 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.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

In these verses the law of retaliation is expounded, and in a manner repealed. Observe,

I. What the Old Testament permission was, in case of injury; and here the expression is only, Ye have heard that is has been said; not, as before, concerning the commands of the decalogue, that it has been said by, or to, them of old time. It was a command, that every one should of necessity require such satisfaction; but they might lawfully insist upon it, if they pleased; an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. This we find, Exo 21:24; Lev 24:20; Deu 19:21; in all which places it is appointed to be done by the magistrate, who bears not the sword in vain, but is the minister of God, an avenger to execute wrath, Rom 13:4. It was a direction to the judges of the Jewish nation what punishment to inflict in case of maims, for terror to such as would do mischief on the one hand, and for a restraint to such as have mischief done to them on the other hand, that they may not insist on a greater punishment than is proper: it is not a life for an eye, nor a limb for a tooth, but observe a proportion; and it is intimated (Num 35:31), that the forfeiture in this case might be redeemed with money; for when it is provided that no ransom shall be taken for the life of a murderer, it is supposed that for maims a pecuniary satisfaction was allowed.

But some of the Jewish teachers, who were not the most compassionate men in the world, insisted upon it as necessary that such revenge should be taken, even by private persons themselves, and that there was no room left for remission, or the acceptance of satisfaction. Even now, when they were under the government of the Roman magistrates, and consequently the judicial law fell to the ground of course, yet they were still zealous for any thing that looked harsh and severe.

Now, so far this is in force with us, as a direction to magistrates, to use the sword of justice according to the good and wholesome laws of the land, for the terror of evil-doers, and the vindication of the oppressed. That judge neither feared God nor regarded man, who would not avenge the poor widow of her adversary, Luk 18:2, Luk 18:3. And it is in force as a rule to lawgivers, to provide accordingly, and wisely to apportion punishments to crimes, for the restraint of rapine and violence, and the protection of innocency.

II. What the New Testament precept is, as to the complainant himself, his duty is, to forgive the injury as done to himself, and no further to insist upon the punishment of it than is necessary to the public good: and this precept is consonant to the meekness of Christ, and the gentleness of his yoke.

Two things Christ teaches us here:

1. We must not be revengeful (Mat 5:39); I say unto you, that ye resist not evil; - the evil person that is injurious to you. The resisting of any ill attempt upon us, is here as generally and expressly forbidden, as the resisting of the higher powers is (Rom 13:2); and yet this does not repeal the law of self-preservation, and the care we are to take of our families; we may avoid evil, and may resist it, so far as is necessary to our own security; but we must not render evil for evil, must not bear a grudge, nor avenge ourselves, nor study to be even with those that have treated us unkindly, but we must go beyond them by forgiving them, Pro 20:22; Pro 24:29; Pro 25:21, Pro 25:22; Rom 12:7. The law of retaliation must be made consistent with the law of love: nor, if any have injured us, is our recompence in our own hands, but in the hands of God, to whose wrath we must give place; and sometimes in the hands of his viceregents, where it is necessary for the preservation of the public peace; but it will not justify us in hurting our brother to say that he began, for it is the second blow that makes the quarrel; and when we were injured, we had an opportunity not to justify our injuring him, but to show ourselves the true disciples of Christ, by forgiving him.

Three things our Saviour specifies, to show that Christians must patiently yield to those who bear hard upon them, rather than contend; and these include others.

(1.) A blow on the cheek, which is an injury to me in my body; "Whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek," which is not only a hurt, but an affront and indignity (Co2 11:20), if a man in anger or scorn thus abuse thee, "turn to him the other cheek;" that is, "instead of avenging that injury, prepare for another, and bear it patiently: give not the rude man as good as he brings; do not challenge him, nor enter an action against him; if it be necessary to the public peace that he be bound to his good behaviour, leave that to the magistrate; but for thine own part, it will ordinarily be the wisest course to pass it by, and take no further notice of it: there are no bones broken, no great harm done, forgive it and forget it; and if proud fools think the worse of thee, and laugh at thee for it, all wise men will value and honour thee for it, as a follower of the blessed Jesus, who, though he was the Judge of Israel, did not smite those who smote him on the cheek," Mic 5:1. Though this may perhaps, with some base spirits, expose us to the like affront another time, and so it is, in effect, to turn the other cheek, yet let not that disturb us, but let us trust God and his providence to protect us in the way of our duty. Perhaps, the forgiving of one injury may prevent another, when the avenging of it would but draw on another; some will be overcome by submission, who by resistance would but be the more exasperated, Pro 25:22. However, our recompence is in Christ's hands, who will reward us with eternal glory for the shame we thus patiently endure; and though it be not directly inflicted, it if be quietly borne for conscience' sake, and in conformity to Christ's example, it shall be put upon the score of suffering for Christ.

(2.) The loss of a coat, which is a wrong to me in my estate (Mat 5:40); If any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat. It is a hard case. Note, It is common for legal processes to be made use of for the doing of greatest injuries. Though judges be just and circumspect, yet it is possible for bad men who make no conscience of oaths and forgeries, by course of law to force off the coat from a man's back. Marvel not at the matter (Ecc 5:8), but, in such a case, rather than go to the law by way of revenge, rather than exhibit a cross bill, or stand out to the utmost, in defence of that which is thy undoubted right, let him even take thy cloak also. If the matter be small, which we may lose without an considerable damage to our families, it is good to submit to it for peace' sake. "It will not cost thee so much to buy another cloak, as it will cost thee by course of law to recover that; and therefore unless thou canst get it again by fair means, it is better to let him take it."

(3.) The going a mile by constraint, which is a wrong to me in my liberty (Mat 5:41); "Whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, to run an errand for him, or to wait upon him, grudge not at it, but go with him two miles rather than fall out with him:" say not, "I would do it, if I were not compelled to it, but I hate to be forced;" rather say, "Therefore I will do it, for otherwise there will be a quarrel;" and it is better to serve him, than to serve thy own lusts of pride and revenge. Some give this sense of it: The Jews taught that the disciples of the wise, and the students of the law, were not to be pressed, as others might, by the king's officers, to travel upon the public service; but Christ will not have his disciples to insist upon this privilege, but to comply rather than offend the government. The sum of all is, that Christians must not be litigious; small injuries must be submitted to, and no notice taken of them; and if the injury be such as requires us to seek reparation, it must be for a good end, and without thought of revenge: though we must not invite injuries, yet we must meet them cheerfully in the way of duty, and make the best of them. 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.

2. We must be charitable and beneficent (Mat 5:42); must not only do no hurt to our neighbours, but labour to do them all the good we can. (1.) We must be ready to give; "Give to him that asketh thee. If thou has an ability, look upon the request of the poor as giving thee an opportunity for the duty of almsgiving." When a real object of charity presents itself, we should give at the first word: Give a portion to seven, and also to eight; yet the affairs of our charity must be guided with discretion (Psa 112:5), lest we give that to the idle and unworthy, which should be given to those that are necessitous, and deserve well. What God says to us, we should be ready to say to our poor brethren, Ask, and it shall be given you. (2.) We must be ready to lend. This is sometimes as great a piece of charity as giving; as it not only relieves the present exigency, but obliges the borrower to providence, industry, and honesty; and therefore, "From him that would borrow of thee something to live on, or something to trade on, turn not thou away: shun not those that thou knowest have such a request to make of thee, nor contrive excuses to shake them off." Be easy of access to him that would borrow: though he be bashful, and have not confidence to make known his case and beg the favour, yet thou knowest both his need and his desire, and therefore offer him the kindness. Exorabor antequam rogor; honestis precibus occuram - I will be prevailed on before I am entreated; I will anticipate the becoming petition. Seneca, De Vit Beat. It becomes us to be thus forward in acts of kindness, for before we call, God hears us, and prevents us with the blessings of his goodness.

Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Ye have heard that it hath been said-- (Exo 21:23-25; Lev 24:19-20; Deu 19:21).

An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth--that is, whatever penalty was regarded as a proper equivalent for these. This law of retribution--designed to take vengeance out of the hands of private persons, and commit it to the magistrate--was abused in the opposite way to the commandments of the Decalogue. While they were reduced to the level of civil enactments, this judicial regulation was held to be a warrant for taking redress into their own hands, contrary to the injunctions of the Old Testament itself (Pro 20:22; Pro 24:29).

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Verse 38. An eye for an eye] Our Lord refers here to the law of retaliation mentioned See Clarke on Ex 21:24, (see the note there, and See Clarke on Le 24:20,) which obliged the offender to suffer the same injury he had committed. The Greeks and Romans had the same law. So strictly was it attended to at Athens, that if a man put out the eye of another who had but one, the offender was condemned to lose both his eyes, as the loss of one would not be an equivalent misfortune. It seems that the Jews had made this law (the execution of which belonged to the civil magistrate) a ground for authorizing private resentments, and all the excesses committed by a vindictive spirit. Revenge was often carried to the utmost extremity, and more evil returned than what had been received. This is often the case among those who are called Christians.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

(38) An eye for an eye.—Here again the scribes first took their stand on the letter, regardless of the aim and purpose, of the Law, and then expanded it in a wrong direction. As originally given, it was a 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 of theft, 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 casuistry made the rule one not of judicial action only, but of private retaliation; and it was thus made the sanction of the vindictive temper that forgives nothing.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

(b) The law of retaliation, 38–42.

38. An eye for an eye] See Exo_21:24. The Scribes draw a false inference from the letter of the law. As a legal remedy 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 exacted by a judicial sentence for the good of the community, not to gratify personal vengeance. The deduction that it was morally right for individuals to indulge revenge could not be justified.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Ye have heard that it hath been said,.... That is, to, or by them of old time, as is expressed in some of the foregoing instances,

an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth, Exo 21:24. This is "lex talionis", the "law of retaliation"; which, whether it is to be understood literally, or not, is a matter of question. The Baithuseans, or Sadducees, among the Jews, took it in a literal sense, and so does Josephus, who says (b), he that shall blind, i.e. put out a man's eyes, shall suffer the like. But the Jewish doctors generally understood it of paying a price equivalent to the damage done, except in case of life. R. Sol. Jarchi (c) explains the law thus:

"He that puts out his neighbour's eye, must give him , "the price of his eye", according to the price of a servant sold in the market; and so the same of them all; for, not taking away of the member is strictly meant.''

And, says Maimonides (d),

"if a man cuts off his neighbour's hand, or foot, he is to be considered as if he was a servant sold in a market; what he was worth then, and what he is worth now; and he must pay the diminution which is made of his price; as it is said, "eye for eye". From tradition it is learned, that this for, spoken of, is to be understood of paying money; this is what is said in the law, "as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again". Not that he is to be hurt, as he has hurt his neighbour; but inasmuch as he deserves to want a member, or to be hurt as he has done; therefore he ought to pay the damage.''

And Josephus himself (e) says, that he must be deprived of that, which he has deprived another of, except he that has his eye put out is willing to receive money; and which, he observes, the law allows of. The controversy about the sense of this law may be seen in a few words, as managed between R. Sandish Hagson, and Ben Zeta (f).

"Says R. Sandish, we cannot explain this verse according to its literal sense; for if a man should smite the eye of his neighbour, and the third part of the light of his eye should depart, how will he order it, to strike such a stroke, as that, without adding or lessening? perhaps he will put out the whole light of his eye. And it is yet more difficult with respect to burning, wound, and stripe; for should they be in a dangerous place the man might die but that is intolerable. Ben Zeta answers him, is it not written, in another place, "as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again?" To which Hagson replies, "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. Hagson replies, behold Samson said, "as they have done to me, so will I do to them"; but Samson did not take their wives, and give them to others, he only rendered to them their reward: but Ben Zeta replies, if a poor man should smite, what must be his punishment? Hagson answers him, if a blind man should put out the eye of one that sees, what shall be done to him? as for the poor man, he may become rich, and pay, but the blind man can never pay.''

Now our Lord here, does not find fault with the law of retaliation, as delivered by Moses, but with the false gloss of the Scribes and Pharisees; who, as they interpreted it of pecuniary mulcts, as a compensation for the loss of a member, which sometimes exceeded all just and due bounds; so they applied it to private revenge, and in favour of it: whereas this law did not allow of a retaliation to be made, by private persons, at their pleasure, but by the civil magistrate only.

(b) Antiq. Jud. l. 4. c. 8. sect. 35. (c) In Exod. xxi. 24. (d) Hilchot Chebel. c. 1. sect. 2, 3. (e) In loc. supra citat. (f) In Aben Ezra in Exod. xxi. 24.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:

Ver. 38. Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, &c.] This law of like for like (which also was in use among the ancient Romans) the scribes and Pharisees had abused and distorted from its proper sense of public justice to private revenge; teaching the people to render evil for evil, to pay their enemies in their own coin, and to give them as good as they brought. {a} This is a dictate of corrupt nature, and her chief secretary Aristotle proclaimeth it. To be avenged of our enemies is held better in point of honour than to be reconciled unto them. {b} Flesh and blood suggesteth that it is matter of good mettle to be quick of touch, as forward in returning as others are in offering wrong. "For if a man find his enemy, will he let him go well away?" said Saul, 1Sa 24:19. This is quite against the principles of nature and common policy. To turn again and revenge is counted courage; which yet the word of God calleth cowardliness, disgrace, and loss of victory (ηττημα), 1Co 6:7. It is not manliness, but foolishness, Ecc 7:9. It is brutishness. Anger a dog, and he will fly in your face: touch an ass, and he will kick and wince. It is baseness so to be led by our passions as to be able to bear nothing, as Simeon and Levi, brethren in iniquity, that in their anger slew a man, and in their self-will digged down a wall, Gen 49:6. Their father Jacob heard that Dinah was defiled, and held his peace, Gen 34:5; he reined in his passions, by setting God before them; and so that divine proverb was made good in him, "He that is slow to anger is better than the mighty; and he that ruleth his spirit (as Jacob) than he that taketh a city" (as his sons), Pro 16:32. It is a godly man’s part, at some times and in some places, to be deaf and dumb, as if he understood not; or as men in whose mouths are no reproof. {c} Which as David could skill of at some times, Psa 38:14, and in his carriage towards Shimei, so at other times (when the flesh prevailed) he could not, Psa 39:2-3, and in his expedition against Nabal. But Peter must put up his sword, if he mean to be Christ’s disciple. And Christians must not so much as grudge one against another, unless they will be condemned: for behold, the Judge standeth before the door, as ready to right us, Jas 5:9. As if we retaliate we leave him nothing to do, unless it be to turn his wrath from our enemy, on whom we have been avenged already, upon ourselves, for our sin of self-revenge, Pro 24:17-18. We use to say, if the magistrate be not present, we may offend another, to defend ourselves: but if the magistrate be present, there is no excuse. Now here the Judge standeth before the door, and crieth out unto ns with a loud voice: Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather keep the king’s peace, and so give place to wrath, Rom 12:19: that is, to the wrath of God ready to seize upon thine adversary, if thou prevent it not by art overly hasty revenge of the wrongs offered thee: for it is written, Vengeance is mine, mine office and royalty, Psa 94:1-2. Is it safe to invade his part? to jostle the chief justice out of his seat? or is it fit that the same party should be both accuser and judge? pope in his own cause? depose the magistrate? at least appeal from God to himself, as if he would not sufficiently do his office? "Shall not God avenge his own, that cry night and day unto him, though he bear long with them? I tell you that he will avenge them speedily," saith our Saviour, Luk 18:7-8 "I will repay it," saith the Lord; but upon this condition, that we wait his leisure, and pre-occupate not his executions, saith St Augustine. Joseph, accused by his lewd mistress, either pleads not, or is not heard. He knew that though he suffered for a season, God would find a time to clear his innocence, and he was not deceived. Moses complained not, but was silent, when wronged by Aaron and Miriam; God therefore struck in for him, and struck Miriam with leprosy: Aaron escaped by his repentance. God is their champion that strive not for themselves. {d} "I seek not mine own glory, but there is one that seeketh it," saith Christ, Joh 8:50; "He, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously," and giveth to every transgression and trespass a just recompence of reward, 1Pe 2:23; Heb 2:2. St Paul could not have wished worse to Alexander the coppersmith than "the Lord reward him according to his works," 2Ti 4:14. This was not (saith an ancient author) a cursing or a reviling of him, but a prediction befitting an apostle, that revenged not himself, but gave place to wrath, and delivered up his enemy to God, {e} as David did his adversaries, as Simon Peter did Simon Magus, and the primitive Church did Julian the Apostate. And surely it is a fearful thing, when the saints shall say to God, concerning those that malign or molest them, as David sometimes said to Solomon, Thou knowest what Joab and Shimei did unto me: "do therefore according to thy wisdom, and let not their hoar heads go down to the grave in peace," 1Ki 2:6. If any hurt God’s zealous witnesses, there goeth a fire out of their mouths to devour them, as the fire from heaven did the first and second captain sent for Elisha, Rev 11:5; better anger all the witches in the world than such, because God is for them. Little thought the Gibeonites in David’s time, that the Lord had so taken to heart their wrongs, that for their sakes all Israel should suffer. Even when we think not of it, is the righteous Judge avenging our unrighteous vexations.

{a} Neminem laede, nisi lacessitus et iniuria affectus. Cicero.

{b} Inimicos ulcisci, potius quam iis reconciliari honestum censetur. Arist. Rhet.

{c} Tu quidem nihil praetermittis ut ego te interfici iubeam: εγω δε κυνα υλακτευοντα ου φονευω. Sic Demetrio Cynico Vespasianus apud Dionem.

{d} Convitium convitio regerere quid aliud est quam lutum luto purgare?

{e} ουκ εστι καταρα, η λοιδαρια αλλα προροεσις πρεπουσα ανδρι αποστολω μη εκδικουντι εαυτον, αλλα διδοντι τοπον τη οργη.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

An eye for an eye ... - This command is found in Exo 21:24; Lev 24:20, and Deu 19:21. In these places it was given as a rule to regulate the decisions of judges. They were to take eye for eye, and tooth for tooth, and to inflict burning for burning. As a judicial rule it is not unjust. Christ finds no fault with the rule as applied to magistrates, and does not take upon himself to repeal it. But instead of confining it to magistrates, the Jews had extended it to private conduct, and made it the rule by which to take revenge. They considered themselves justified by this rule to inflict the same injury on others that they had received. Our Saviour remonstrates against this. He declares that the law had no reference to private revenge, that it was given only to regulate the magistrate, and that their private conduct was to be governed by different principles.

The general principle which he laid down was, that we are not to resist evil; that is, as it is in the Greek, nor to set ourselves against an evil person who is injuring us. But even this general direction is not to be pressed too strictly. Christ did not intend to teach that we are to see our families murdered, or be murdered ourselves; rather than to make resistance. The law of nature, and all laws, human and divine, justify self-defense when life is in danger. It cannot surely be the intention to teach that a father should sit by coolly and see his family butchered by savages, and not be allowed to defend them. Neither natural nor revealed religion ever did, or ever can, inculcate this doctrine. Our Saviour immediately explains what he means by it. Had he intended to refer it to a case where life is in danger, he would most surely have mentioned it. Such a case was far more worthy of statement than those which he did mention.

A doctrine so unusual, so unlike all that the world had believed. and that the best people had acted on, deserved to be formally stated. Instead of doing this, however, he confines himself to smaller matters, to things of comparatively trivial interest, and says that in these we had better take wrong than to enter into strife and lawsuits. The first case is where we are smitten on the cheek. Rather than contend and fight, we should take it patiently, and turn the other cheek. This does not, however, prevent our remonstrating firmly yet mildly on the injustice of the thing, and insisting that justice should be done us, as is evident from the example of the Saviour himself. See Joh 18:23. The second evil mentioned is where a man is litigious and determined to take all the advantage the law can give him, following us with vexatious and expensive lawsuits. Our Saviour directs us, rather than to imitate him rather than to contend with a revengeful spirit in courts of justice to take a trifling injury, and yield to him. This is merely a question about property, and not about conscience and life.

Coat - The Jews wore two principal garments, an interior and an exterior. The interior, here called the “coat,” or the tunic, was made commonly of linen, and encircled the whole body, extending down to the knees. Sometimes beneath this garment, as in the case of the priests, there was another garment corresponding to pantaloons. The coat, or tunic, was extended to the neck. and had long or short sleeves. Over this was commonly worn an upper garment, here called “cloak,” or mantle. It was made commonly nearly square, of different sizes, 5 or 6 cubits long and as many broad, and was wrapped around the body, and was thrown off when labor was performed. If, said Christ, an adversary wished to obtain, at law, one of these garments, rather than contend with him let him have the other also. A reference to various articles of apparel occurs frequently in the New Testament, and it is desirable to have a correct view of the ancient mode of dress. in order to a proper understanding of the Bible. The Asiatic modes of dress are nearly the same from age to age, and hence it is not difficult to illustrate the passages where such a reference occurs. The ordinary dress consisted of the inner garment, the outer garment, the girdle (belt), and the sandals. In regard to the sandals, see the notes at Mat 3:11.

In the girdle (belt) was the place of the pouch Mat 10:9, and to it the sword and dirk were commonly attached. Compare 2Sa 20:8. In modern times the pistols are also fastened to the belt. It is the usual place for the handkerchief, smoking materials, inkhorn, and, in general, the implements of one’s profession. The belt served to confine the loose-flowing robe or outer garment to the body. It held the garment when it was tucked up, as it was usually in walking or in labor. Hence, “to gird up the loins” became a significant figurative expression, denoting readiness for service, activity, labor, and watchfulness; and “to loosen the loins” denoted the giving way to repose and indolence, 2Ki 4:29; Job 38:3; Isa 5:27; Luk 12:35; Joh 21:7.

Whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile - The word translated “shall compel” is of Persian origin. Post-offices were then unknown. In order that the royal commands might be delivered with safety and despatch in different parts of the empire, Cyrus stationed horsemen at proper intervals on all the great public highways. One of those delivered the message to another, and intelligence was thus rapidly and safely communicated. These heralds were permitted to compel any person, or to press any horse, boat, ship, or other vehicle that they might need for the quick transmission of the king’s commandments. It was to this custom that our Saviour refers. Rather, says he, than resist a public authority requiring your attendance and aid for a certain distance, go peaceably twice the distance.

A mile - A Roman mile was 1,000 paces.

Twain - Two.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Hence your doctors have concluded that revenge, equal to the injury, was permitted.

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

This was the commandment of God to the magistrate, in case a woman with child were struck, and any mischief came of it, Exo 21:24; in case of damage done to a neighbour, Lev 24:20; and in the case of false witness, Deu 19:21. But in the mean time God had said to private persons, Lev 19:18, Thou shalt not avenge; and it is said, Pro 24:29, Say not, I will do to him as he hath done to me. The Pharisees had interpreted this law of God into a liberty for every private person, who had been wronged by another, to exact a satisfaction upon him, provided that he did not exceed this 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.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

38. An eye for an eye — This is the old law of retaliation, to which reference has just been made.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Vers. 38-48. The two remaining examples of the current teaching of the Law are very closely connected together, and, in fact, our Lord"s corrections of them are intermingled in Luk_6:27-36. Yet the subjects are really distinct. In the first (vers. 38-42) our Lord speaks of the reception of injuries, in the second (vers. 43-48) of the treatment of those who do them. Godet"s remarks (in his summary of Luk_6:27-45) on the use made by St. Luke of these examples are especially instructive. "These last two antitheses, which terminate in Matthew in the lofty thought (ver. 48) of man being elevated by love to the perfection of God, furnish Luke with the leading idea of the discourse as he presents it, namely, charity as the law of the new life.

Vers. 38-42. The reception of injuries. The Law inculcated that the injured should obtain from those who did the wrong exact compensation (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 insistence upon one"s rights as an injured person, and entire submission to injuries, even as far as proffering the opportunity for fresh wrongs.

An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. No short phrase could more accurately describe the spirit of the Mosaic legislation. Offences against individuals were to be punished by the injured individual receiving back, as it were, the exact compensation from him who had injured him. While this was originally observed literally, it was in Mishnic times (and probably in the time of our Lord) softened to payment of money (vide Lightfoot, "Hor. Hebr."). The phrase comes three times in the Pentateuch. (Exo_21:24 Lev_24:20 Deu_19:21) Notice:

(1) The LXX has the accusative in each case, although only in the first does a verb precede. Probably the expression had already become proverbial in Greek even before the translation of the LXX

(2) The Hebrew of Deu_19:21 is slightly different from that of the other two passages, and as the preposition there used (b) is not so necessarily rendered by anti , that passage is perhaps the least likely 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 passages in particular. The words served him as a summary of the Law in this respect.

Vers. 38-42. Non-resistance.

The difficulty with this, as with similar passages in 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 Tolstoi is right, and we have not yet begun to be Christian. Are we to take it "metaphorically," or even as a hyperbolical expression? Then we shall be in great danger of watering it down to suit our own convenience. Plainly our Lord meant something very real. Moreover, this is no counsel of perfection for select saints. It is a general law of the kingdom of heaven; it is a precept of that exalted righteousness exceeding the righteousness of scribes and Pharisees which Christ 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 precept was not made in any legislative assembly. He spoke to men who lived under the irresistible yoke of stern, just Roman government. But his words had no influence with that government. Thus, no doubt, they were primarily for private conduct. They did not concern the question of a state"s duty in defending its coast from 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 looked for in legislation; but as soon as the gospel has Christianized the state, Christian principles must appear in public policy. This was apparent in the criminal legislation of Constantine, the first Christian emperor of the Roman empire. It is a grossly unchristian thing for men in a free, self-governing country to think that motives of greed or revenge that are not permissible between man and man are allowable between nation and nation.

II THIS LAW IS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH ORDER AND JUSTICE. To see that it is not, we must observe its exact application.

1. It does not concern our defence of others; it only touches our defence of our own rights. The government is bound to protect those 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 assault from violence, but he is not bound to avenge insults and wrongs directed against himself.

2. The reference to the "lex talionis" evidently shows that the thought is of revenge. Still, all resistance of evil 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-Saxon characteristics, but they are Christian. Interpret Christ"s precept

a. in the light of ver. 5;

b. in the light of his own behaviour under arrest; and

c. in connection with the next precept. W.F.A.

Vers. 38-42. Retaliation.

Of this we have here two sorts, viz. the retaliation of kind and that of kindness. These are not necessarily inconsistent. For Christ came not to destroy but to fulfil the Law. Properly understood, "Eye for eye and tooth for tooth" is the co-relative of "Do unto others as you would they should do unto you." We propose to view the lea talionis

I AS A DIRECTION TO THE MAGISTRATE.

1. The spirit of its teaching to him is to minister judgment in equity.

(1) The law of retaliation was a question for the magistrate. Private vengeance has no sacred approbation. (see Deu_19:16-21 Rom_13:4) The scribes conceded to private revenge what the Law permitted to the magistrate as a civil penalty; but this was an evil perversion.

(2) It would be an outrage upon equity were a magistrate to give the sentence of death for the destruction of an eye. Or, on the contrary, were he to assign a trifling exaction for a serious crime. The magistrate must not refuse justice to the poor; or favour the strong against the weak. (cf. Luk_18:3)

2. The doctrine of Christ strengthens his hands.

(1) The prohibitions of our Lord have reference to private resentments. They do not interfere with magisterial functions. The sermon on the mount was addressed to the disciples (see ver. 1).

(2) The scribes, however, had interfered with them in sanctioning private revenges. And these revenges were often carried far beyond the limits of equity.

(3) In absolutely forbidding private revenges Jesus restored the magistrate to the Law. In this he fulfilled the Law.

II AS A PERMISSION TO THE INJURED.

1. The Law did not impose retaliation.

(1) It simply made it competent to one who had suffered to exact from the person who caused his injury a corresponding or equivalent suffering. Except in cases of life and death, he might commute the exaction of "an eye for an eye" for a money satisfaction. (Exo_21:23-25) Or the sufferer might decline to prosecute. The Law was strictly permissive.

(2) Hence it is evident that the precepts of Jesus do not destroy the Law. The spirit of the Law is not in favour of revenge. It is rather intended to limit and check it.

2. The rule of Christ is against the spirit of revenge.

(1) "That ye resist not evil." In this Christ does not say that we may not avoid evil. He himself went from Judaea into Galilee to avoid the resentment of the Pharisees. (Joh_4:1-3) He instructed his disciples when persecution should arise against them in one city to pass on to another. (Mat_10:23)

(2) He does not say that we may not even resist it simply for our own security or for the security of others, within certain limitations. (cf. Joh_18:23 Act_16:37 Act_22:25 Act_23:2, Act_23:3, 17 25:10, 11)

(3) The law of retaliation must be made consistent with the law of love. This is best secured by forgiveness. To prosecute a knave or a rowdy for his moral benefit might consist with love; but the motive might be misunderstood. (cf. Mat_26:52 Rom_12:17 1Co_6:7 Gal_5:22)

(4) This is the gospel method. It embodies the spirit of the Law. (cf. Pro_20:22 Pro_29:25)

III AS A MORAL TO THE WORLD.

1. The end of Law is the public good.

(1) Licentiousness must be restrained or society must dissolve. Retaliation is sanctioned to restrain it. So for public reasons, without any feeling of resentment, a Christian might prosecute a knave or a rowdy.

(2) Retaliation is sanctioned, moreover, to convey moral lessons to the conscience of the transgressor. In this view a Christian might prosecute an offender with benevolent intention.

2. The public good is also the design of the gospel.

(1) It wins victory by patience. Conquering the resistance of a foe by the restraint of a stronger arm does not vanquish his spirit of resistance. The peaceful victory turns the foe into a friend.

(2) It wins victory in patience. The patient sufferer has vanquished all the devils of pride, selfishness, and cruelty in his soul

IV AS AN INSTRUCTION TO THE CHRISTIAN.

1. When he suffers bodily injury.

(1) This class of injury is represented in the case of the blow upon the cheek. Here is affront as well as injury. (cf. 2Co_11:20)

(2) It must be taken patiently. Jesus, though the Judge of Israel, when smitten, did not smite again. (cf. Mic 5:1Jo Mic 18:23)

(3) Submission, in rare eases of excessive brutality, may expose us to a repetition of the injury. If so, still bear it. "Turn the other cheek.

(4) Generally the first forgiveness will prevent the second blow. (Pro_25:22) Note: It is the return blow that makes the quarrel.

2. When he suffers wrongs to property.

(1) This class of injuries is represented in the case of the coat. We may forfeit property through suits at law instituted by knaves who make no conscience of forgery and perjury. (see Ecc_3:16 Ecc_5:8)

(2) Suffer wrong rather than go to law. If the sufferance should lead to further greater loss the loss of the cloke in addition to the coat suffer it still. The cost of both may be less than the cost of litigation. The loss of both is less than the loss of the spirit of meekness.

3. When he suffers outrages upon liberty.

(1) This class of injuries is represented in the case of the compulsion to go a mile. This also should be taken patiently. Go "twain" rather than contend.

(2) History teaches that our liberties have been won by sufferings rather than by resistance. This is the very principle of the cross of Christ, by which we are liberated from the slavery of sin. So in the interests of liberty is the cross of patient self-denial to be taken up.

4. Moreover, our beneficence must be active.

(1) We must be free to give. The request of the poor should be taken as an opportunity for the duty of almsgiving. We may see the hand of God in the hand of the poor. Who would refuse God?

(2) We must be free to lend. Thereby we may relieve a present exigency. We should not "turn away" from or shun the poor whom we know to be needing our help.

(3) But beneficence must be with discretion, (Psa_112:5) else the idle and worthless may carry away what should have been reserved for the worthy. All must be consistent with the claims of creditors, of family, and of the household of faith. J.A.M.

The mildness of Mosaism.

"An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth." This is supposed to represent the severity of Mosaism. But its proper estimate depends on the contrast in which it is set. Contrast it with Christ"s doctrines of self-denial in order to serve others, and of non-resistance of evil, and it seems severe. But contrast it with the previous, and the widely prevailing doctrines of early days, and its mildness will at once come to view. Illustrate that the primary idea of man is kill the man who does you any wrong. It is the sign of good order, wise government, worthier estimate of life, and a milder tone, when money payments, and restoration of equivalents, take the place of the revengeful demand for life. The tendency of civilization to require a more moderate, restrained, and reformative dealing with wrong-doers, may be observed in all ages; and it should be applied to the Mosaic civilization, as a distinct advance on the social systems of that day. But it should be borne in mind that our Lord is dealing with the private offences of disciples, and not with public offences against law. The expression of the regenerate character in the ordinary associations of life is his theme. And he is dealing, not with the Mosaic lex talionis, but with the common and vulgar idea of revenging offences, which sought to gain support by making an undesigned application of the Mosaic Law. Christian disciples must not avenge themselves.

I OBSERVE THE, CIRCUMSCRIBED AREA OF THIS RULE. It is safe when officially applied in a court of justice. The wrong-doer can reasonably be made to replace his wrong. It is unsafe when applied, under personal feeling, in private life. Then it may be but an expression of revenge; and revenge is altogether unworthy of the Christian. The mildness of Mosaism is shown in its making revenge to become official action.

II OBSERVE THE FIGURATIVE CHARACTER OF THIS RULE. There is no satisfaction for a noble person in making an enemy suffer exactly as he made him suffer. The terms are figures for the reasonable demand of restoration of the mischief done. R.T.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Ye have heard - Our Lord proceeds to enforce such meekness and love on those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake (which he pursues to the end of the chapter) as were utterly unknown to the scribes and Pharisees. It hath been said - In the law, as a direction to Judges, in ease of violent and barbarous assaults. An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth - And this has been interpreted, as encouraging bitter and rigorous revenge. Deut. xix, 21.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

The Law of Love toward the Enemy.

v. 38. Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.

Jesus here refers to the law of retribution, or compensation, as contained in the Levitical ordinances, Exo 21:24. This is said to the government, and is a sound principle for the instruction of the judge; Fair compensation should be granted for injuries received. But the scribes and Pharisees applied the statement to the relation of every person toward his neighbor. They taught and declared that everyone had the right to take revenge and to exact compensation for himself. Christ goes on record as differing from this explanation:

v. 39. But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil,

either by trying to prevent injury or by demanding revenge for it, by repelling one outrage with another. He had excellent authority for His explanation, Lev 19:18; Pro 24:29. Christian love must be willing to bear and to forbear, though a defense of right is permitted, Joh 18:23; Act 23:3; Act 22:25. If this were not true, it would follow that all outrages would go unchallenged, and a Christian would lose house and home, wife and children, as Luther says. But a disciple of Christ should be willing and patient in suffering, even wrongfully, and not seek revenge nor return evil for evil.

Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Our Saviour here vindicates the sixth commandment, which obliges us to do no wrong to the body of our neighbour. God had given a law to the public magistrate, to require an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth, when a person was wronged: hereupon the Pharisees taught, That a private person, wronged by another, might exact satisfaction from him to the same degree in which he had been wronged by him; if he had lost an eye by another, might revenge it, by taking away the eye of another.

But, says Christ, I say unto you, resist not evil; that is, seek not private revenge, but leave the avenging of injuries to God and the magistrates; and in trivial matters not to appeal at all, and, when forced, not for revenge sake: teaching us, That Christians ought rather to suffer a double wrong, than to seek a private revenge. Christianity obliges us to bear many injuries patiently, rather than to revenge one privately. Religion indeed doth not bid them welcome: we are not to return evil for evil, but are rather to endure a greater evil than to revenge a less.

William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

38. An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. The law quoted is found in Exod. 21:23–25 and Lev. 24:18–20. Moses intended it to protect person and property by prescribing what punishment the law should inflict. He who took a life should lose his life; he who robbed another of an eye should be punished by the loss of an eye. The Jews perverted it to justify private retaliation.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

Connecting Statement:

Jesus continues to teach about how he has come to fulfill the Old Testament law. Here he begins to speak about retaliating against an enemy.

General Information:

Jesus is talking to a group of people about what they as individuals should and should not do. The "you" is plural in "you have heard" and "I say to you." The "you" in "whoever strikes you" and the understood "you" in "turn to him" are both singular, but in some languages they may need to be plural. (See: Forms of You)

that it was said

This can be stated in active form. See how you translated this in Matthew 5:27. AT: "that God God said" or "that Moses said" (See: Active or Passive)

eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth

The law of Moses allowed a person to harm a person in the same way he had harmed him, but he could not harm him worse.

But I say

Jesus agrees with God and his word, but he does not agree with the way the religious leaders have applied God's word. The "I" is emphatic. This indicates that what Jesus says is equally important to the original commands from God. Try to translate this phrase in a way that shows that emphasis. See how you translated this in Matthew 5:22.

one who is evil

"an evil person" or "someone who harms you"

strikes ... your right cheek

To strike the side of a man's face was an insult in Jesus' culture. As with the eye and the hand, the right cheek is the more important one, and striking that cheek was a terrible insult.

strikes

hits with the back of an open hand

turn to him the other also

"let him hit your other cheek also"

translationWords

evil

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.

(b) The law of retaliation, 38–42

38. ὀφθαλμὸν ἀντὶ ὀφθαλμοῦ. See Exo 21:24. The Scribes drew a false inference from the letter of the law. As a legal remedy 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 exacted by a judicial sentence for the good of the community, not to gratify personal vengeance. The deduction that it was morally right for individuals to indulge revenge could not be justified.

Jewish history however records no instance of the law being literally carried out. A fine was substituted for the retributive penalty. But the principle of the lex talionis underlay the enactments of the law, and it is against the principle that Christ’s words are directed.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

38-41.] Fifth example. The law of retaliation.

38.] That is, such was the public enactment of the Mosaic law, and, as such, it implied a private spirit of retaliation which should seek such redress; for the example evidently refers to private as well as public retribution. Here again our Lord appears to speak of the true status and perfection of a Christian community,—not to forbid, in those mixed and but half-Christian states, which have ever divided so-called Christendom among them, the infliction of judicial penalties for crime. In fact Scripture speaks, Rom 13:4, of the minister of such infliction as the minister of God. But as before, our Lord shews us the condition to which a Christian community should tend, and to further which every private Christian’s own endeavours should be directed. It is quite beside the purpose for the world to say, that these precepts of our Lord are too highly pitched for humanity, and so to find an excuse for violating them. If we were disciples of His in the true sense, these precepts would, in their spirit, as indicative of frames of mind, be strictly observed; and, as far as we are His disciples, we shall attain to such their observance.

Here again, our Lord does not contradict the Mosaic law, but expands and fulfils it, declaring to us that the necessity for it would be altogether removed in the complete state of that kingdom which He came to establish. Against the notion that ὀφθ. ἀντὶ ὀφθ. κ.τ.λ. sanctioned all kinds of private revenge, Augustine remarks, ‘Quandoquidem et illud antiquum ad reprimendas flammas odiorum, sævientiumque immoderatos animos refrænandos, ita præceptum est. Quis enim tantundem facile contentus est reponere vindictæ quantum accepit injuriæ? Nonne videmus homines leviter læsos moliri cædem, sitire sanguinem, vixque invenire in malis inimici unde satientur?… Huic igitur immoderatæ et per hoc injustæ ultioni lex justum modum figens, pœnam talionis instituit: hoc est ut qualem quisque intulit injuriam, tale supplicium pendat. Proinde, “Oculum pro oculo, dentem pro dente,” non fomes sed limes furoris est; non ut id quod sopitum erat inde accenderetur, sed ne id quod ardebat ultra extenderetur impositus.’ Cont. Faust. xix. 25, vol. viii. See 1Co 6:1-6. The accusatives ὀφθαλμόν, ὀδόντα are perhaps in ref. Exod. governed by δώσει, which immediately precedes them. But it may be noticed, that in ref. Levit., where the construction would require nominatives, we have the saying, as a proverb, in the accusative form. In ref. Deut., the case is exactly as here.

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

38-39a. Fourth illustration.

(L) Ye heard that it was said, Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth. But I say unto you. Resist not the malicious.] Cf. Exo 21:24, Lev 24:20, Deu 19:21.

We are here carried into the atmosphere of the law court. One element in Jewish law was the rough adaptation of punishment to crime. From the individual point of view. recourse to law for protection against injury meant an attempt to retaliate upon the offender through the arm of the law. The question is here contemplated from the point of view of the individual wronged, not from that of social justice. So far from seeking to injure his oppressor by calling in the aid of the law to inflict penalties upon him, the Christian disciple should quietly submit to wrong. We need not ask as to the gender of τῷ πονηρῷ. Just as in v. 37 it meant the evil and sinful element to life regarded from the abstract point of view, so here it is the same element contemplated as in action through an individual. For the lex talionis in Jewish and Babylonian law. cf. Johns. The Oldest Code, and Cook, The Laws of Moses and the Code of Ḫammurabi, 249 ff.

39b-42. Fivefold application. Cf. Luk 6:29-30.

(L) But whosoever smiteth thee upon thy right cheek, turn to him also the other. And if a man wishes to go to law with thee, and to take thy coat, suffer him (to take) also thy cloke. And whosoever shall impress thee for one mile, go with him two. To him that asketh give, and turn not away from him that wishes to borrow of thee.]

χιτών] The coat worn with a girdle over the shirt.—ἱμάτιον] The cloak worn over the χιτών. See DB., art. “Dress.”. ἀγγαρεύειν is Persian in origin. ἄγγαροι were the mounted couriers who conveyed the royal messages. cf. Hdt. 898. The verb is found in Jos. Ant. xiii. 52, with reference to the compulsory transportation of military baggage, but occurs as early as the third century b.c. in Egypt in reference to a boat used for postal service. See Deissm. Bib. Stud. 86 f. The substantive ἀγγαρεῖα seems to have been borrowed by the Jews. Cf. Dalman, wörterbuch, i. 23.

μίλιον] A word of Latin origin used in later writers. Polyb., Plut., Strabo. Like ἀγγαρεῖα, it occurs in the later Jewish literature, Targ., Bab. Talmud (Joma 67a, Sanh 96a), Midrashim. Only here in the N.T.

For τῷ θέλοντι in v. 40 D has ὁ θέλων, the nominative being a casus pendens. Cf. 17:9 καὶ καταβαίνοντες, D; 17:14 καὶ ἐλθών, D. See Moulton, 69, 225, and Wellhausen, Einl. p. 13.

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.