-
MATTHEW 5 38-48 COMMETARYEDITED BY GLE PEASE
Eye for Eye38 You have heard that it was said, Eye for eye, and
tooth for tooth.[h]
BARES, "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 ones 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 kings
commandments. It was to this custom that our Saviour refers.
Rather, says he, than resist a public authority requiring your
attendance and aid for a certain distance, go peaceably twice the
distance.
A mile - A Roman mile was 1,000 paces.
Twain - Two.
CLARKE, "An eye for an eye - Our Lord refers here to the law of
retaliation mentioned See Exo_21:24, (see the note there, and see
Lev_24:20 (note)), which obliged the offender to suffer the same
injury he had committed. The Greeks and Romans had the same law. So
strictly was it attended to at Athens, that if a man put out the
eye of another who had but one, the offender was condemned to lose
both his eyes, as the loss of one would not be an equivalent
misfortune. It seems that the Jews had made this law (the execution
of which belonged to the civil magistrate) a ground for authorizing
private resentments, and all the excesses committed by a vindictive
spirit. Revenge was often carried to the utmost extremity, and more
evil returned than what had been received. This is often the case
among those who are called Christians.
-
GILL, "Ye have heard that it hath been said,.... That is, to, or
by them of old time, as is expressed in some of the foregoing
instances,
an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth, Exo_21:24. This is
"lex talionis", the "law of retaliation"; which, whether it is to
be understood literally, or not, is a matter of question. The
Baithuseans, or Sadducees, among the Jews, took it in a literal
sense, and so does Josephus, who says (b), he that shall blind,
i.e. put out a man's eyes, shall suffer the like. But the Jewish
doctors generally understood it of paying a price equivalent to the
damage done, except in case of life. R. Sol. Jarchi (c) explains
the law thus:
"He that puts out his neighbour's eye, must give him , "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.
HERY, "In these verses the law of retaliation is expounded, and
in a manner repealed. Observe,
I. What the Old Testament permission was, in case of injury; and
here the expression is only, Ye have heard that is has been said;
not, as before, concerning the commands of the decalogue, that it
has been said by, or to, them of old time. It was a command, that
every one should of necessity require such satisfaction; but they
might lawfully insist upon it, if they pleased; an eye for an eye,
and a tooth for a tooth. This we find, Exo_21:24; Lev_24:20;
Deu_19:21; in all which places it is appointed to be done by the
magistrate, who bears not the sword in vain, but is the minister of
God, an avenger to execute wrath, Rom_13:4. It was a direction to
the judges of the Jewish nation what punishment to inflict in case
of maims, for terror to such as would do mischief on the one hand,
and for a restraint to such as have mischief done to them on the
other hand, that they may not insist on a greater punishment than
is proper: it is not a life for an eye, nor a limb for a tooth, but
observe a proportion; and it is intimated (Num_35:31), that the
forfeiture in this case might be redeemed with money; for when it
is provided that no ransom shall be taken for the life of a
murderer, it is supposed that for maims a pecuniary satisfaction
was allowed.
But some of the Jewish teachers, who were not the most
compassionate men in the world, insisted upon it as necessary that
such revenge should be taken, even by private persons themselves,
and that there was no room left for remission, or the acceptance of
satisfaction. Even now, when they were under the government of the
Roman magistrates, and consequently the judicial law fell to the
ground of course, yet they were still zealous for any thing that
looked harsh and severe.
Now, so far this is in force with us, as a direction to
magistrates, to use the sword of justice according to the good and
wholesome laws of the land, for the terror of evil-doers, and the
vindication of the oppressed. That judge neither feared God nor
regarded man, who would not avenge the poor widow of her adversary,
Luk_18:2, Luk_18:3. And it is in force as a rule to lawgivers, to
provide accordingly, and wisely to apportion punishments to crimes,
for the restraint of rapine and violence, and the protection of
innocency.
II. What the New Testament precept is, as to the complainant
himself, his duty is, to forgive the injury as done to himself, and
no further to insist upon the punishment of it than is necessary to
the public good: and this precept is consonant to the meekness of
Christ, and the gentleness of his yoke.
JAMISO, "Mat_5:38-42. Same subject - Retaliation.
We have here the converse of the preceding lessons. They were
negative: these are positive.
Ye have heard that it hath been said (Exo_21:23-25; Lev_24:19,
Lev_24:20; Deu_19:21).
An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth that is, whatever
penalty was regarded as a proper equivalent for these. This law of
retribution - designed to take vengeance out of the hands of
private persons, and commit it to the magistrate - was abused in
the opposite way to the commandments of the Decalogue. While they
were
-
reduced to the level of civil enactments, this judicial
regulation was held to be a warrant for taking redress into their
own hands, contrary to the injunctions of the Old Testament itself
(Pro_20:22; Pro_24:29).
hawker, "Who can read the justice and equity of that strict law,
which enjoins an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, without
having his mind directed to the contemplation of CHRIST as our
surety. In hint this law was literally fulfilled, when he who knew
no sin became sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness
of God in him. Oh! how blessed so to contemplate CHRIST.
2Co_5:21.
sbc, "I. The principle of the Mosaic lawand it is a principle of
no little importance in its own placeis that there should be as far
as possible a just proportion between the offence and the
punishment; that the penalty to be inflicted should neither be too
light nor too severe, but that the one should be a fair equivalent
for the other. While granting to the full the exceeding wisdom of
the Mosaic law on this head, I must add that even in its judicial
aspect it by no means comes up to the requirements of the Gospel.
There is nothing indeed more beautiful than justice and more
Divine. But Christian men, Christian society, Christian
legislators, have other duties even to the criminal population
besides punishing their offences. It may be necessary, it is
necessary, to inflict punishment on the wrongdoer; but it is
equally necessary to put away all wrath and revenge, and go to him
in the spirit of brotherly love, and heap also coals of fire on his
head, to turn him, if possible, to better thoughts and better
ways.
II. For the right understanding of what our Lord says here it
must be remembered that, while this law properly belonged to the
judicial procedure of Israel, it was often applied by the people as
a rule of private conduct. Our Lord is here dealing in general with
the principle of private revenge, which He is anxious to destroy,
because it is most fatal at once to the spiritual and social life
of men. But, as usual, He goes for this purpose down into
principles of moral duty, which lie far deeper than the precise
question on hand; because His object is not merely to prevent a
certain evil from being done, but to implant another spirit
altogether in our hearts. Therefore He tells them that they are not
only not to avenge themselves, but that they are not even to resist
evil, but rather to overcome evil with good. Evil is never overcome
with evil, but only with good. Your fire will not put out your
neighbours; rather they will combine and make a double
conflagration, his wrong and your wrath together vexing the
world.
W. C. Smith, The Sermon on the Mount, p. 131.
TRAPP, "Ver. 38. Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye
for an eye, &c.] This law of like for like (which also was in
use among the ancient Romans) the scribes and Pharisees had abused
and distorted from its proper sense of public justice to private
revenge; teaching the people to render evil for evil, to pay their
enemies in their own coin, and to give them as good as they
brought. {a} This is a dictate of corrupt nature, and her chief
secretary Aristotle proclaimeth it. To be avenged of our enemies is
held better in point of honour than to be reconciled unto them. {b}
Flesh and blood suggesteth that it is matter of good mettle to be
quick of touch, as forward in returning as others are in offering
wrong. "For if a man find his enemy, will he let him go well away?"
said Saul, 1 Samuel 24:19. This is quite against the
-
principles of nature and common policy. To turn again and
revenge is counted courage; which yet the word of God calleth
cowardliness, disgrace, and loss of victory ( ), 1 Corinthians 6:7.
It is not manliness, but foolishness, Ecclesiastes 7:9. It is
brutishness. Anger a dog, and he will fly in your face: touch an
ass, and he will kick and wince. It is baseness so to be led by our
passions as to be able to bear nothing, as Simeon and Levi,
brethren in iniquity, that in their anger slew a man, and in their
self-will digged down a wall, Genesis 49:6. Their father Jacob
heard that Dinah was defiled, and held his peace, Genesis 34:5; he
reined in his passions, by setting God before them; and so that
divine proverb was made good in him, "He that is SLOW to anger is
better than the mighty; and he that ruleth his spirit (as Jacob)
than he that taketh a city" (as his sons), Proverbs 16:32. It is a
godly mans part, at some times and in some places, to be deaf and
dumb, as if he understood not; or as men in whose mouths are no
reproof. {c} Which as David could skill of at some times, Psalms
38:14, and in his carriage towards Shimei, so at other times (when
the flesh prevailed) he could not, Psalms 39:2-3, and in his
expedition against abal. But Peter must put up his sword, if he
mean to be Christs disciple. And Christians must not so much as
grudge one against another, unless they will be condemned: for
behold, the Judge standeth before the door, as ready to right us,
James 5:9. As if we retaliate we leave him nothing to do, unless it
be to turn his wrath from our enemy, on whom we have been avenged
already, upon ourselves, for our sin of self-revenge, Proverbs
24:17-18. We use to say, if the magistrate be not present, we may
offend another, to defend ourselves: but if the magistrate be
present, there is no excuse. ow here the Judge standeth before the
door, and crieth out unto ns with a loud voice: Dearly beloved,
avenge not yourselves, but rather keep the kings peace, and so give
place to wrath, Romans 12:19 : that is, to the wrath of God ready
to seize upon thine adversary, if thou prevent it not by art overly
hasty revenge of the wrongs offered thee: for it is written,
Vengeance is mine, mine office and royalty, Psalms 94:1-2. Is it
safe to invade his part? to jostle the chief justice out of his
seat? or is it fit that the same party should be both accuser and
judge? pope in his own cause? depose the magistrate? at least
appeal from God to himself, as if he would not sufficiently do his
office? "Shall not God avenge his own, that cry night and day unto
him, though he bear long with them? I tell you that he will avenge
them speedily," saith our Saviour, Luke 18:7-8 "I will REPAY it,"
saith the Lord; but upon this condition, that we wait his leisure,
and pre-occupate not his executions, saith St Augustine. Joseph,
accused by his lewd mistress, either pleads not, or is not heard.
He knew that though he suffered for a season, God would find a time
to clear his innocence, and he was not deceived. Moses complained
not, but was silent, when wronged by Aaron and Miriam; God
therefore struck in for him, and struck Miriam with leprosy: Aaron
escaped by his repentance. God is their champion that strive not
for themselves. {d} "I seek not mine own glory, but there is one
that seeketh it," saith Christ, John 8:50; "He, when he was
reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not;
but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously," and giveth
to every transgression and trespass a just recompence of reward, 1
Peter 2:23; Hebrews 2:2. St Paul could not have wished worse to
Alexander the coppersmith than "the Lord reward him according to
his works," 2 Timothy 4:14. This was not (saith an ancient author)
a cursing or a reviling of him, but a prediction befitting an
apostle, that
-
revenged not himself, but gave place to wrath, and delivered up
his enemy to God, {e} as David did his adversaries, as Simon Peter
did Simon Magus, and the primitive Church did Julian the Apostate.
And surely it is a fearful thing, when the saints shall say to God,
concerning those that malign or molest them, as David sometimes
said to Solomon, Thou knowest what Joab and Shimei did unto me: "do
therefore according to thy wisdom, and let not their hoar heads go
down to the grave in peace," 1 Kings 2:6. If any hurt Gods zealous
witnesses, there goeth a fire out of their mouths to devour them,
as the fire from heaven did the first and second captain sent for
Elisha, Revelation 11:5; better anger all the witches in the world
than such, because God is for them. Little thought the Gibeonites
in Davids time, that the Lord had so taken to heart their wrongs,
that for their sakes all Israel should suffer. Even when we think
not of it, is the righteous Judge avenging our unrighteous
vexations.
ELLICOTT, "(38) An eye for an eye.Here again the scribes first
took their stand on the letter, regardless of the aim and purpose,
of the Law, and then expanded it in a wrong direction. As
originally given, it was a CHECKon the wild justice of revenge. It
said, where the equilibrium of right had been disturbed by outrage,
that the work of the judge was not to do more than restore the
equilibrium, unless, as in the case of theft, some further penalty
was necessary for the prevention of crime. It was, in its essence,
a limit in both directions. ot less than the eye for an eye, for
that might lead to connivance in guilt; not more, for that would
open a fresh score of wrong. The scribes in their popular casuistry
made the rule one not of judicial action only, but of private
retaliation; and it was thus made the sanction of the vindictive
temper that forgives nothing.
COKE, "Matthew 5:38-42. Ye have heard, &c. With respect to
men's resisting and revenging such injuries as are done them, Jesus
assured his disciples, that although, for the preservation of
society, Moses had ordained the judges to give eye for eye, and
tooth for tooth, if the injured party demanded it; yet the doctors
were greatly in the wrong, not only when they enjoined men to
insist on retaliation as their duty, but declared it lawful in many
cases for the injured party to avenge himself with his own hand,
provided, in his revenge, he did not exceed the measure prescribed
in the law. Christ's doctrine is, that the good man is so far from
revenging PRIVATE injuries, that oftentimes he does not even resist
them, and always forgives them when they happen to be done to him;
a Christian generosity which he warmly recommended to his disciples
in the passage before us. To understand it aright, we must take
notice, that there are five cases put, wherein Christianmeekness
must especially shew itself: first, when any one assaults our
person, in resentment of some affront which he imagines we have put
upon him: secondly, when any one sues us at the law, in order to
take our goods from us: thirdly, when he attacks our natural
liberty: fourthly, when one who is poor asks charity: fifthly, when
our neighbour begs the LOA of something from us. In all these
cases, our Lord forbids us to resist: yet, from the examples he
mentions, it is plain, that this forbearance and compliance are to
be understood under due limitations; for it cannot be supposed that
our Lord forbids us to defend ourselves against murderers, who
would unjustly take away our life: neither can it be, that he
-
commands us to give every idle and worthless fellow all he may
think fit to ask, whether in charity or in LOA: we are only to give
what we can spare, and to such persons as out of real necessity
seek relief from us; nay, our Lord's own behaviour towards the man,
who, in the presence of the council, smote him on the cheek, gives
reason to think he did not mean that in all cases his disciples
should be perfectly passive under the very injuries which he here
speaks of. In some circumstances, smiting on the cheek, taking away
one's coat, and the compelling of him to go a mile, may be great
injuries; and therefore we may be justified in vindicating
ourselves in a way perfectly consistent withevery Christian temper.
The first instance was judged so by Jesus himself, inthe case
mentioned; for had he forborne to reprove the man who did it, his
silence might have been interpreted as PROCEEDIG from a conviction
of his having done evil, in giving the high-priest the answer for
which he was smitten. But, in respect to small injuries, it is not
only our duty to bear them patiently, and be passive under them,
but it is advantageous even in a temporal point of view: for he who
bears a slight affront consults even his own interest much better
than he who resists or resents it; because he shews a greatness of
mind worthy of a Christian man, and avoids quarrels, which
frequently are attended with the most fatal consequences. In like
manner, he who yields a little of his right, rather than go to law,
is much wiser than the man who has recourse to justice in every
instance; because, in the progressof a law-suit, such animosities
may arise, as are inconsistent with charity. Again, benevolence,
which is the glory of the divine nature, and the perfection of the
human, rejoices in doing good; hence, the man possessed of this
godlike quality cheerfully embraces every occasion in his power of
relieving the poor and distressed, whether by gift or LOA. Some are
of opinion, that the precept concerning alms-giving, and gratuitous
lending, is subjoined to the instances of injuries which our Lord
commands us to bear: to teach us, that if the persons who have
injured us fall into want, we are not to withhold any act of
charity from them, on account of the evil they have formerly done
us. Taken in this light, the precept is generous and divine.
Moreover, as liberality is a virtue nearly allied to the
forgiveness of injuries, our Lord joins the two together, to shew,
that they should always go hand in hand: the reason is, revenge
will blast the greatest liberality, and a covetous heart will shew
the most perfect patience to be a sordid meanness of spirit,
proceeding from selfishness. See Macknight, Blair, and Blackall.
The original words, , are rendered by Dr. Doddridge, Do not set
yourselves against the injurious person. See the force of the
original word , 2 Timothy 3:8 where to resist the truth, is the
same as to endeavour to destroy it. Instead of coat and cloak, in
the
40th verse, Dr. Doddridge reads vest and mantle, which more
exactly answer to the Greek words and , and are parts of dress,
under different names, still retained in Barbary, Egypt, and the
Levant. The mantle was much LARGER than the vest, and probably the
more valuable. See John 19:23 and Shaw's Travels, p. 289. The word
, rendered compel, in John 19:41, all the commentators have
observed, is derived item the name of those officers or public
messengers among the Persians, who were wont to press the carriages
and horses they met on the road, if they had occasion for them, and
even to force the drivers or riders to go along with them. See ch.
Matthew 27:32. We may very properly render the word
-
press. This custom was also in use in Judaea, and the Roman
empire. The last clause of the 42nd verse should be rendered, and
do not turn away him that would borrow of thee. The advice, or
rather the commands, given above by our blessed Lord are APPLICABLE
to all who are called to be members of the Christian dispensation;
and the following observation may be useful to set them in their
proper light.
The essence of virtue consists in mental disposition; in our
temper and frame of mind: but, as human language is adapted to
express bodily action much better than mental disposition, it is
usual to express the latter by the action that it would naturally
produce: and, as the principles of action are complicated and
various, and prudence or necessity may often oblige us to omit in
respect to action what the frame and temper of our mind inclines
to: hence it comes to pass, that some evangelical counsels, which
prescribe an outward action, mean in particular cases only the
proper inward disposition; namely, a readiness and inclination to
perform it: so that the will, though not formally mentioned in the
precept, is always required; and the deed, though nominally
expressed, may on many occasions be omitted. For instance, it is
said at Matthew 5:42, Give to him who asketh thee, &c. ow this
precept is in the letter, and, with regard to the outward act which
it commands, very often impossible, very often improper to be put
in practice: but in the spirit of it, that is to say, the
disposition of heart which it enjoins, it is always possible,
always practicable, always obligatory through divine grace: the
narrowness of our own circumstances may make it impossible, or the
circumstances of him who asks our bounty may make it improper, to
put this precept in execution, as to the outward act; for we may be
so poor ourselves, or the person who APPLIES to us may, by his
vices or other qualities, be so circumstanced, that we either
cannot or ought not to relieve him. But an inclination to assist
him, and do him service, is always in the power of the genuine
Christian: the poorest man may have in the good treasury of his
heart wherewithal to defray this universal debt of benevolence to
all who ask or need his assistance; and thus the precept will be
virtually fulfilled. So again, when our Lord commands us not to
resist the man who injures us, &c. his meaning is, that we
should not repel and strive against the occasions of suffering
which occur in the order of Providence, but readily accept every
cross which comes in our way. Those who are capable of this lesson
know full well how salutary sufferings are, and that it is hardly
possible to carry on their purification without these means: so
true are those words of our Lord, Luke 14:27. Whosoever doth not
bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple.
BARCLAY, "THE ACIET LAW Matthew 5: 38-42
You have heard that it has been said: An eye for an eye, and a
tooth for a tooth. But I tell you not to resist evil; but if anyone
strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other to him also; and if
anyone wishes to obtain judgment against you tor your tunic, give
him your cloak also; and if anyone impresses you into the public
service to go a mile, go with him
-
two miles. Give to him who asks you, and do not turn away from
him who wishes to borrow from you.
THERE are few passages of the ew Testament which have more of
the essence of the Christian ethic in them than this passage has.
Here is the characteristic ethic of the Christian life, and the
conduct which should distinguish the Christian from other men.
Jesus begins by citing the oldest law in the world an eye for an
eye, and a tooth tor a tooth. That law is known as the Lex
Talionis, and it may be described as the law of tit for tat. It
appears in the earliest known code 01 laws, the Code of Hammurabi,
who reigned in Babylon from 2285 to 2242 B.C. The Code of Hammurabi
makes a curious distinction between the gentleman and the work-man.
" if a man has caused the loss of a gentleman's eye* his eye one
shall cause to be lost. If he has shattered a gentleman's limb, one
shall shatter his limb. If he has caused a poor man to lose his
eye, or shattered a poor man's limb, he shall pay one mina of
silver ... If he has made the tooth of a man who is his equal fall
out, one shall make his tooth fall out. If he has made the tooth of
a poor man fall out, he shall pay one third of a mina of silver/'
The principle is clear and apparently simple if a man has inflicted
an injury on any person, an equivalent injury shall be inflicted
upon him.
That law became part and parcel of the ethic of the Old
Testament. In the Old Testament we find it laid down no fewer than
three times. " It any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life
for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for
foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe"
(Exodus 21: 23-25). " If a man cause a blemish in his neighbour, as
he hath done, so shall it be done unto him, breach for breach, eye
for eye, tooth for tooth; as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so
it shall be done to him again " (Leviticus 24: 19, 20). "And thine
eye shall not pity, but life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth
for tooth, hand tor hand, foot for foot " (Deuteronomy 19: 21).
These laws are often quoted as amongst the blood-thirsty, savage
and merciless laws of the Old Testament; but before we begin to
criticise the Old Testament certain things must be noted.
(i) The Lex Talionis, the law of tit for tat, so far from being
a savage and bloodthirsty law, is in fact the beginning
-
of mercy. Its original aim was definitely the limitation of
vengeance. In the very earliest days the vendetta and the blood
feud were characteristic of tribal society. If a man of one tribe
injured a man of another tribe, then at once all the members of the
tribe of the injured man were out to take vengeance on all the
members of the tribe of the man who committed the injury; and the
vengeance desired was nothing less than death. This law
deliberately limits vengeance. It lays it down that only the man
who com-mitted the injury must be punished, and his punishment must
be no more than the equivalent of the injury he has inflicted and
the damage he has done. Seen against its historical setting this is
not a savage law, but a law of mercy.
(ii) Further, this was never a law which gave a private
individual the right to extract vengeance; it was always a law
which laid down how a judge in the law court must assess punishment
and penalty (cp. Exodus 19: 18). This law was never intended to
give the individual person the right to indulge even in the
vengeance of tit tor tat. It was always intended as a guide for a
judge in the assessment of the penalty which any violent or unjust
deed must receive.
(iii) Still further, this law was never, at least in any even
semi-civilized society, carried out literally. The Jewish jurists
argued rightly that to carry it out literally might in fact be the
reverse of justice, because it obviously might involve the
displacement of a good eye or a good tooth for a bad eye or a bad
tooth. And very soon the injury done was assessed at a money value;
and the Jewish law in the tractate Baba Kamma carefully lays down
how the damage is to be assessed. If a man has injured another, he
is liable on five counts for injury, for pain, for healing, for
loss of time, for indignity suffered. In regard to injury, the
injured man is looked on as a slave to be sold in the market place.
His value before and after the injury was assessed, and the man
responsible for the injury had to pay the difference. He was
responsible for the loss in value of the man injured. In regard to
pain, it was estimated how much money a man would accept to be
willing to undergo the pain of the injury inflicted, and the man
responsible for the injury had to pay that sum. In regard to
healing, the injurer had to pay all the expenses of the necessary
medical attention, until a complete cure had been effected. In
regard to loss of time, the injurer had to pay compensation for the
wages lost while the injured
-
man was unable to work, and he had also to pay compen-sation if
the injured man had held a well paid position, and was now, in
consequence of the injury, fit for less well rewarded work. In
regard to indignity, the injurer had to pay damages for the
humiliation and indignity which the injury had inflicted. In actual
practice the type of compen-sation which the Lex Talionis laid down
is strangely modern.
(iv) And most important of all, it must be remembered that the
Lex Talionis is by no means the whole of Old Testament ethics.
There are glimpses and even splendours of mercy in the Old
Testament. " Thou shalt not avenge or bear any grudge against the
children of thy people " (Leviticus 19: 18). " If thine enemy be
hungry, give him bread to eat; and if he be thirsty, give him water
to drink " (Proverbs 25: 21). " Say not, 1 will do so to him as he
hath done to me " (Proverbs 24: 29). " He givtitli his cheek to the
smiter; he is filled with reproach " (Lamentations 3: 30). There is
abundant mercy in the Old Testament too.
So, then, ancient ethics were based on the law of tit for tat.
It is true that that law was a law of mercy; it is true that it was
a law for a judge and not for a private individual; it is true that
it was never literally carried out; it is true that there were
accents of mercy speaking at the same time. But Jesus obliterated
the very principle of that law, because retaliation, however
controlled and restricted, has no place in the Christian life.
THE ED OF RESETMET AD OF RETALIATIO
Matthew 5: 38-42 (continued)
So, then, for the Christian Jesus abolishes the old law of
limited vengeance and introduces the new spirit of non-resentment
and of non-retaliation. He goes on to take three examples of the
Christian spirit in operation. To take these examples with a crude
and ununderstanding literalism is completely to miss their point.
It is therefore very necessary to understand what Jesus is
saying.
(i) He says that if anyone smites us on the right cheek we must
turn to him the other cheek also. There is far more here than meets
the eye, far more than a mere matter of blows on the face. Suppose
a right-handed man is standing in front of another man, and suppose
he wants
-
to slap the other man on the right cheek, how must he do it?
Unless he goes through the most complicated con-tortions, and
unless he empties the blow of all force, he can only hit the other
man's cheek in one way with the back of his hand. ow according to
Jewish Rabbinic law to hit a man with the back of the hand was
twice as insulting as to hit him with the flat of the hand. There
is a doubly-insulting contemptuous arrogance about a flick or a
blow delivered with the back of the hand. So, then, what Jesus is
saying is this: " Even if a man should direct at you the most
deadly and calculated insult, you must on no account retaliate, and
you must on no account resent it." It will not happen very often,
if at all, that anyone will slap us on the face, but time and time
again life brings to us insults either great or small; and Jesus is
here saying that the true Christian has learned to resent no insult
and to seek retaliation for no slight. Jesus Himself was called a
gluttonous man and a wine-bibber. He was called the friend of
tax-gatherers and harlots, with the implication that He was like
the company He kept. The early Christians were called cannibals and
incendiaries, and were accused of immorality, gross and shameless,
because their service included the Love Feast. When Shaftesbury
under-took the cause of the poor and the oppressed he was .warned
that it would mean that " he would become unpopular with his
friends and people of his own class," and that " he would have to
give up all hope of ever being a cabinet minister." When
Wilberforce began on his crusade to free the slaves the slanderous
rumour that he was a cruel husband, a wife-beater, that he was
married to a negress was deliberately spread abroad. Time and time
again in a church someone is " insulted " because he was not
invited to a platform party, because he was omitted from a vote of
thanks, because in some way he did not get the place which was due
to him. The true Christian has forgotten what it is to be insulted;
he has learned from his Master to accept any insult and never to
resent it, and never to seek to retaliate.
(ii) Jesus goes on to say that if anyone tries to take away our
tunic in a law suit, we must not only let him have that, but must
offer him our cloak also. Again there is much more in that than
meets the eye. The tunic, chiton, was the long, sack-like inner
garment made of cotton or of linen. The poorest man would have a
change of tunics. The cloak was the great, blanket-like outer
garment which a man wore as a robe by day, and used as a blanket at
night. Of
-
such garments the Jew would only have one. ow it was actually
the Jewish law that a man's tunic might be taken as a pledge, but
not his cloak. " If thou at all take thy neighbour's raiment to
pledge (his cloak), thou shalt deliver it unto him by that the sun
goeth down; for that is his covering only, it is his raiment for
his skin; wherein shall he sleep?" (Exodus 22: 26, 27). The point
is that by right a man's cloak could not be taken permanently from
him. So, then, what Jesus is saying is this: " The Christian never
stands upon his rights; he never disputes about his legal rights;
he does not consider himself to have any legal rights at all."
There are people who are for ever standing on their rights, who
clutch their privileges to them and who will not be pried loose
from them, who will militantly go to law rather than surfer what
they regard as the slightest infringement of them. Churches are
tragically lull of people like that, officials whose territory has
been invaded, office-bearers who have not had their rights, courts
which do business with a manual of practice and procedure on the
table all the time, lest anyone's rights should be invaded. People
like that have not even begun to see what Christianity is. The
Christian thinks not of his rights, but of his duties; not of his
privileges, but of his responsibilities. The Christian is a man who
has forgotten that he has any rights at all; and the man who will
fight to the legal death for his rights, inside or outside the
Church, is far from the Christian way.
(iii) Jesus then goes on to speak of being compelled to go one
mile; and says that in such a case the Christian must willingly go
two miles. There is here a picture of which we know little, for it
is a picture from an occupied country. The word which is used for
to compel is the verb aggareuein, and aggareuein is a word with a
history. It comes from the noun aggareus, which is a Persian word
meaning a courier. The Persians had an amazing postal system. Each
road was divided into stages lasting one day. At each stage there
was food tor the courier and water and fodder for the horses, and
fresh horses for the road. But, if by any chance there was anything
lacking, any private person could be impressed, compelled into
giving tood, lodging, horses, assistance, and even into carrying
the message himself for a stage. The word for such compulsion was
aggareuein. In the end the word came to signify any kind of forced
impressment into the service of the occupying power. In an occupied
country citizens could be compelled to supply food, to provide
billets, to carry baggage. Sometimes the
-
occupying power exercised this right of compulsion in the most
tyrannical and unsympathetic way. Always this threat of compulsion
hung over the citizens. Palestine was an occupied country. At any
moment a Jew might feel the touch of the flat of a Roman spear on
his shoulder, and know that he was compelled to serve the Romans,
it might be in the most menial way. That, in fact, is what happened
to Simon of Cyrene, when he was compelled (aggareuein) to bear the
Cross of Jesus. So, then, what Jesus is saying is: " Suppose your
masters come to you and compel you to be a guide or a porter for a
mile, don't go a mile with bitter and obvious resentment; go two
miles with cheerfulness and with a good grace." What Jesus is
saying is: " Don't be always thinking of your liberty to do as you
like; be always thinking of your duty and your privilege to be of
service to others. When a task is laid on you, even if the task is
unreasonable and hateful, don't do it as a grim duty to be
resented; do it as a service to be gladly rendered." There are
always two ways of doing things. A man can do the irreducible
minimum and not a stroke more; he can do it in such a way that he
makes it clear that he hates the whole thing; he can do it with the
barest minimum of efficiency and no more; or he can do it with a
smile, with a gracious courtesy, with a determination, not only to
do this thing, but to do it well and graciously. He can do it, not
simply as well as he has to, but far better than anyone has any
right to expect him to. The inefficient workman, the resentful
servant, the ungracious helper has not even begun to have the right
idea of the Christian life. The Christian is not concerned to do as
he likes; he is concerned only to help, even when the demand for
help is discourteous, unreasonable and tyrannical.
So, then, in this passage, under the guise of vivid eastern
pictures, Jesus is laying down three great rules the Christian will
never resent or seek retaliation for any insult, however calculated
and however deadly; the Christian will never stand upon his legal
rights or on any other rights he may believe himself to possess ;
the Christian will never think of his right to do as he likes, but
always of his duty to be of help. The question is: How do we
measure up to that?
GRACIOUS GIVIG
Maffheti' 5: 38-42 (continued)
-
FIALLY, it is Jesus' demand that we should give to all who ask
and never turn away from him who wishes to borrow. At its highest
the Jewish law of giving was a lovely thing. It was based on
Deuteronomy 15: 7-1 1:
"And if there be among you a poor man of one of thy brethren
within any of thy gates in thy land which the Lord thy God giveth
thee, thou shalt not harden thine heart, nor shut thine hand from
thy poor brother; but thou shalt open thine hand wide unto him, and
shalt surely lend him sufficient for his need, in that which he
wanleth. Beware that there be not a thought in thy wicked heart,
saying: The seventh year, the year of release is at hand ; and thy
eye be grudging against thy poor brother, and thou givest him
nought; and he cry unto the Lord against thee, and it be sin unto
thee. Thou shalt surely give to him, and thine heart shall not be
grieved when thou givest unto him; because that for this thing the
Lord thy God shall bless thee in all thy works, and in all that
thou puttest thine hand unto. For the poor shall never cease out of
the land; therefore I command thee saying: Thou shalt open thine
hand wide unto thy brother, to thy poor, and to thy needy, in thy
land."
The point about the seventh year is that in every seventh year
there was a cancellation of debts; and the grudging and the
calculating man might refuse to lend anything when the seventh year
was near, lest the debt be cancelled and he lose what he had
given.
It was on that passage that the Jewish law of giving was
founded. The Rabbis laid down five principles which ought to govern
giving.
(i) Giving must not be refused. " Be careful not to refuse
charity, for everyone who refuses charity is put in the same
category with idolaters." If a man refuses to give, the day may
well come when he has to beg perhaps from the very people to whom
he refused to give.
(ii) Giving must befit the man to whom the gift is given. The
law of Deuteronomy had said that a man must be given whatever he
lacks. That is to say, a man must not be given that bare
sufficiency which will keep body and soul to-gether; he must be
given enough to enable him to retain at least something of the
standard and the comfort which
-
once he knew. So, it is said, Hillel arranged that the
poverty-stricken son of a noble family should be given, not simply
enough to keep him from starvation, but a horse to ride and a slave
to run before him; and once, when no slave was available, Hillel
himself acted as his slave and ran before him. There is something
gracious and lovely in the idea that giving must not only remove
actual poverty; it must do something also to remove the humiliation
which poverty brings.
(iii) Giving must be carried out privately and secretly. There
must be no one else there. In fact, the Rabbis went the length of
saying that in the highest kind of giving, the giver must not know
to whom he was giving, and the receiver must not know from whom he
was receiving. There was a certain place in the Temple to which
people secretly came and secretly gave their gifts ; and these
secret gifts were used in secrecy to help the impoverished members
of once noble families, and to give the daughters oi such
impoverished ones the dowries without which they could not be
married. The Jew would have regarded with abhorrence the gift which
was given for the sake of prestige, publicity, or
self-glorification.
(iv) The manner of giving must befit the character and the
temperament of the recipient. The rule was that if a man had means,
but was too miserly to use them, a gift must be given as a gift,
but afterwards reclaimed from his estate as a loan. But if a man
was too proud to ask for help, Rabbi ishmael suggested that the
giver should go to him and say, " My son, perhaps you need a loan."
His sell-respect was thus saved, but the loan was never to be asked
back, and it was in fact, not a loan, but a gift. It was even laid
down that if a man was unable to respond to an appeal tor help, his
very refusal must be such as to show that, if he could give nothing
else, he at least gave sympathy. Even a refusal was to be such that
it helped and did not hurt. Giving was to be carried out in such a
way that the manner of the giving was to help as much as the
gift.
(v) Giving was at once a privilege and an obligation for in
reality all giving is nothing less than giving to God. To give to
some needy person was not something which a man might choose to do;
it was something he must do; for, if he refused, the refusal was to
God. " He who befriends the poor lends to the Lord, and He will
repay him for his good deed." " To every one who shows mercy to
other men,
-
mercy is shown from heaven; but to him who shows no mercy to
other men, no mercy is shown from heaven." The Rabbis loved to
point out that loving-kindness was one of the very few things to
which the Law appointed no limit at all.
Are we then to say that Jesus urged upon men what can only be
called indiscriminate giving/ The answer cannot be given without
qualification. It is clear that the effect of the giving on the
receiver must be taken into account. Giving must never be such as
to encourage him in laziness and in shiftlessness, for such giving
can only hurt. But at the same time it must be remembered that many
people who say that they will only give through official channels,
and who refuse to help personal cases, are frequently merely
producing an excuse for not giving at all, and are at all times
removing the personal element from giving altogether. And it must
also be remembered that it is better to help a score of fraudulent
beggars than to risk turning away the one man in real need.
CALVI, "Mat_5:38.An eye for an eye. Here another ERROR is
corrected. God had enjoined, by his law, (Lev_24:20,) that judges
and magistrates should punish those who had done injuries, by
making them endure as much as they had inflicted. The consequence
was, that every one seized on this as a pretext for taking PRIVATE
revenge. They thought that they did no wrong, provided they were
not the first to make the attack, but only, when injured, returned
like for like. Christ informs them, on the contrary, that, though
judges were entrusted with the defense of the community, and were
invested with authority to restrain the wicked and repress their
violence, yet it is the duty of every man to bear patiently the
injuries which he receives.
COFFMA, "Passages which contain this injunction are Exodus
21:24; Leviticus 24:20; and Deuteronomy 19:21. Harsh and demanding
as such a principle appears to enlightened people of our day, it
should be remembered that it was a tremendously significant advance
above and beyond the primitive thinking of the untrained people who
first heard it. The law of the jungle was far different: (1) If you
kill my child, I will kill all your children, your wife, your
brothers, your whole generation! (2) If you knock out my tooth (or
eye), I will knock out ALL of yours and kill you also! Thus, the
ancient Law of the Hebrews was a vast improvement in that it
strictly limited punitive action to the extent of the original
injury or loss that precipitated it.
PULPIT, "Matthew 5:38
The mildness of Mosaism.
-
"An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth." This is supposed
to represent the severity of Mosaism. But its proper estimate
depends on the contrast in which it is set. Contrast it with
Christ's doctrines of self-denial in order to serve others, and of
non-resistance of evil, and it seems severe. But contrast it with
the previous, and the widely prevailing doctrines of early days,
and its mildness will at once come to view. Illustrate that the
primary idea of man iskill 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 PAYMETS, and restoration of
equivalents, take the place of the revengeful demand for life. The
tendency of civilization to require a more moderate, restrained,
and reformative dealing with wrong-doers, may be observed in all
ages; and it should be APPLIED to the Mosaic civilization, as a
distinct advance on the social systems of that day. But it should
be borne in mind that our Lord is dealing with the private offences
of disciples, and not with public offences against law. The
expression of the regenerate character in the ordinary associations
of life is his theme. And he is dealing, not with the Mosaic lex
talionis, but with the common and vulgar idea of revenging
offences, which sought to gain support by making an undesigned
APPLICATIO of the Mosaic Law. Christian disciples must not avenge
themselves.
I. OBSERVE THE, CIRCUMSCRIBED AREA OF THIS RULE. It is safe when
officially applied in a court of justice. The wrong-doer can
reasonably be made to replace his wrong. It is unsafe when applied,
under personal feeling, in private life. Then it may be but an
expression of revenge; and revenge is altogether unworthy of the
Christian. The mildness of Mosaism is shown in its making revenge
to become official action.
II. OBSERVE THE FIGURATIVE CHARACTER OF THIS RULE. There is no
satisfaction for a noble person in making an enemy suffer exactly
as he made him suffer. The terms are figures for the reasonable
demand of restoration of the mischief done.R.T.
PULPIT, "Matthew 5:38-42
The Christian type of fulfilling of the Law: Christ's fifth
illustration.
The precept or permission of the Law here instanced was not a
precept or permission of revenge, but of equal justice. It was
intended to operate, not to the encouragement, but to the
discouragement, of revenge; and rather simply as the equitable
admeasurer of just punishment and restraint of the more natural
instinct of revenge. Christ, however, thus early forewarns his
disciples of what his eye saw so clearly, his knowledge knew so
well, that in this vicarious scene and state not so much even as
even-banded justice was to be had, and that it was so dangerous to
the seeker himself to seek it, that he had better, with a voluntary
genuineness and a genuine voluntariness, sacrifice it. Christ
teaches, therefore, here
I. THAT THE HIGHER MORAL PERCEPTIO OF THE TIME AD OF HIS
-
DISCIPLE SHOULD BE PREPARED TO RECOGIZE THE FACT THAT THE
CODITIOS OF THIS WORLD ARE OT THOSE OF EXACT AD EVE JUSTICE.
II. THAT THE DISASTROUS IER COSEQUECES OF PUTTIG OE'S SELF ITO
PERSOAL ATAGOISM WITH AOTHER ARE SUCH AS TO COUSEL THE HIGH DUTY OF
FOREGOIG EVE THE DEMAD FOR SUCH JUSTICE, AD OF OT RESISTIG THE EVIL
PERSO.
III. THAT CORRESPODIG BEEFICET COSEQUECES, FIDIG A WAY TO WORK I
OTHERS AD I THE WORLD, SHALL COUSEL THE SAME COURSE.
IV. THAT THE CHRISTIA RESPOSE TO FORCE IS A WILLIG SURREDER OF
THE PRESET HOUR'S JUSTICE, AD PRESET HOUR'S APPARET
SELF-ITEREST.
V. THAT THE CROW AD PERFECTIO OF THE CHRISTIA DISPOSITIO IS TO
MEET "I THE WAY" THE APPEAL OF THOSE WHO WOULD ASK, AD GIVE TO
THEM; OF THOSE WHO WOULD BORROW, AD LED TO THEM. THOUGH ALL
APPREHESIO OF FORCE BE REMOVED FAR AWAY, THE CHRISTIA HEART WILL OT
REBOUD TO THE DEMAD OF ITS RIGHTS, BUT WILL FEEL COMPASSIO, SHOW
COMPASSIO, AD GIVE.B.
KRETZMA, "Jesus here refers to the law of retribution, or
compensation, as contained in the Levitical ordinances, Exo_21:24.
This is said to the government, and is a sound principle for the
instruction of the judge; Fair compensation should be granted for
injuries received. But the scribes and Pharisees APPLIED the
statement to the relation of every person toward his neighbor. They
taught and declared that everyone had the right to take revenge and
to exact compensation for himself. Christ goes on record as
differing from this explanation:
MACLARE, "O-RESISTACE
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 Christs 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 mans
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 Christs 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 adversarys 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 Christs
examples. This article of Christs ew Law comes last but one in the
series of instances in which His transfiguring touch is laid on the
Old Law, and the last of the series is that to which He has been
steadily advancing from the first-namely, the great Commandment of
Love. This precept stands immediately before that, and prepares for
it. It is, as suffused with the light of the sun that is all but
risen, Resist not evil, for Love beareth all things.
It is but a shallow stream that is worried into foam and made
angry and noisy by the stones in its bed; a deep river flows smooth
and silent above them. othing will enable us to meet evil with a
patient yielding love which does not bring the faintest tinge of
anger even into the cheek reddened by a rude hand, but the love of
God shed abroad in the heart, and when that love fills a man, out
of him will flow a river of living water, which will bury evil
below its clear, gentle abundance, and, perchance, wash it of its
foulness. The quality of this non-resistance is twice blessed, it
blesseth him that gives and him that takes. For the disciple who
SUBMITS in love, there is the gain of freedom from the
perturbations of passion, and of steadfast abiding in the peace of
a great charity, the deliverance from the temptation of descending
to the LEVEL of the wrong-doer, and of losing hold of
-
God and all high visions. The tempest-ruffled sea mirrors no
stars by night, nor is blued by day. If we are to have real
communion with God, we must not flush with indignation at evil, nor
pant with desire to shoot the arrow back to him that aimed it at
us. And in regard to the evil-doer, the most effectual resistance
is, in many cases, not to resist. There is something hid away
somewhere in most mens 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 ruffians mind. The safest way to travel
in savage countries is to show oneself quite unarmed. He that meets
evil with evil is overcome of evil; he that meets it with patient
love is likely in most cases to overcome evil with good. And even
if he fails, he has, at all events, used the only weapon that has
any chance of beating down the evil, and it is better to be
defeated when fighting hate with love than to be victorious when
fighting it with itself, or demanding an eye for an eye.
But, if we take the right view of this precept, its limitations
are in itself. Since it is love confronting, and seeking to
transform evil into its own likeness, it may sometimes be obliged
by its own self not to yield. If turning the other cheek would but
make the assaulter more angry, or if yielding the cloak would but
make the legal robber more greedy, or if going the second mile
would but make the press-gang more severe and exacting, resistance
becomes a form of love and a duty for the sake of the wrong-doer.
It may also become a duty for the sake of others, who are also
objects of love, such as helpless persons who otherwise would be
exposed to evil, or society as a whole. But while clearly that
limit is prescribed by the very nature of the precept, the
resistance which it permits must have love to the culprit or to
others as its motive, and not be tainted by the least suspicion of
passion or vengeance. Would that professing Christians would try
more to purge their own hearts, and bring this solemn precept into
their daily lives, instead of discussing whether there are cases in
which it does not APPLY! There are great tracts in the lives of all
of us to which it should apply and is not applied; and we had
better seek to bring these under its dominion first, and then it
will be time enough to debate as to whether any circumstances are
outside its dominion or not.
CHARLES SIMEO, "RETALIATIO FORBIDDE
Mat_5:38-41. Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an
eye, and a tooth for a tooth: but I say unto you, That ye resist
not evil: hut whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn
to him the other also. And if any man trill sue thee at the law,
and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. And whosoever
shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
IF Christianity be worthy of admiration on ACCOUT of the sublime
mysteries it reveals, it is no less so on account of the pure
morality it inculcates. Its precepts are as far above the wisdom of
fallen man, as its doctrines. Search all the systems of ethics that
ever were written, and where shall we find such directions as
these? In
-
vain shall we look for them in the productions of Greece and
Rome: in vain shall we consult the sages and philosophers of any
other nation: such precepts as these are found no where but in the
inspired volume. The law of retaliation has in all nations been
deemed equitable and right: but in the Christian code it is
expressly forbidden.
In considering the subject of retaliation, we shall notice,
I. The ERRORS which obtain in the world respecting it
The Pharisees admitted of revenge; and grounded that license
upon the word of God. The passages which they adduced in COFIRMATIO
of their sentiments were strong; but they did not at all refer to
the conduct of individuals towards each other, but of magistrates
towards the community at large [ote: Exo_21:22-25. Deu_19:16-21.
These passages were to direct them in the administration of
justice.]. To APPLY them to individuals, was a perversion of them,
a perversion disgraceful to the teachers of such doctrines, and
fatal to those who embraced them.
We, having our Lords own comment on those passages, cannot any
longer justify our errors by an appeal to Holy Writ: but yet our
sentiments in relation to the subject treated of in our text, are,
for the most part, precisely similar to those which were maintained
among the Jews. Two things in particular we will specify, which are
universally applauded amongst us, yet are exceeding contrary to the
spirit of Christianity:
1. A rigid maintenance of our rights
[Doubtless our rights, whether civil or religious, ought to be
dear to us: and a certain degree of watchfulness over them may well
be admitted; because if our rights, whether public or private, be
invaded by one person, they may by another; and if they be suffered
to be curtailed, they may be altogether annihilated. But this will
not justify that extreme jealousy which some express about their
rights. There are many who will talk incessantly about the rights
of man, who yet will trample without remorse on all the rights of
God. They will not suffer the smallest infringement of their own
liberty; whilst they themselves are the most oppressive tyrants,
wherever their authority extends. These may boast of their firmness
in maintaining what they think to be right: but they know not what
spirit they are of. How unlike are they to Paul, who, rather than
insist upon the support to which, as a minister of Christ, he was
entitled, would work at his TRADE by night, after having been
occupied in preaching all the day! How unlike to Christ also, who,
when, as the Son of God, he might have claimed exemption from
paying tribute to the temple, wrought a miracle to satisfy the
demand, rather than put a stumbling-block in the way of any by a
refusal? We do not undertake to say, that, in cases of great
importance, a person may not expostulate with his oppressor, as
Christ did [ote: Joh_18:22-23.]; or insist upon his right, as did
the Apostle Paul [ote: Act_16:37.]; but we are perfectly sure that
a readiness to demand our utmost right on every occasion, argues a
spirit very different from that which is inculcated in the Gospel
of Christ.]
-
2. A keen resentment of wrongs
[This is thought highly meritorious. A disposition to pass by an
insult or an injury would be deemed meanness and cowardice; and the
person who indulged it would be banished from society, and held up
to universal scorn and contempt. Hence arise wars, duels, and
domestic feuds without number. But is such a disposition agreeable
to the word of God? Look at the conduct of David, when persecuted
by Saul: he repeatedly had his adversary within his power, and
could easily have killed him; but he would not: he preferred rather
the committing of his cause to God; and rendered nothing but good,
in return for all the evil that Saul had done unto him: and, to
shew that he did not consider such conduct as a superfluous act of
generosity, he brands the opposite conduct with the name of
wickedness: Thus saith the proverb of the ancients; Wickedness
proceedeth from the wicked; but mine hand shall not be upon thee
[ote: 1Sa_24:10; 1Sa_24:13. See also 26:712.]. Compare with this
the conduct also of the saints in the ew Testament: St. James,
speaking of them to their proud oppressors, says, Ye have condemned
and killed the just; and he doth not resist you [ote:
Jam_5:6.].]
That the sentiments of the world on the subject of retaliation
are quite erroneous, will appear yet further, by considering,
II. The line of conduct which Christianity requires
The authoritative command of Jesus in the text, is this: I say
unto you, That ye resist not evil, that is, that ye resist not the
injurious person [ote: ]. This, especially taken in connexion with
our Lords illustration of it, undoubtedly enjoins us to live in the
exercise of,
1. A patient spirit
[We are not to be inflamed with anger against those who treat us
ill: but to bear their injuries with meekness and long-suffering.
The direction of the Apostle is, In your patience possess ye your
souls: and again, Let patience have its perfect work, that ye may
be perfect and entire, lacking nothing. I am aware, that it is
difficult to bear injuries, when we know them to be altogether
unmerited. But to abstain from every thing vindictive was enjoined
under the Old Testament [ote: Lev_19:18. Pro_20:22; Pro_24:29.]:
and much more is it insisted on in the ew Testament [ote:
Rom_12:17; Rom_12:19. 1Th_5:15.]. And the more undeserving we are
of the injurious treatment, the more are we called upon to display
our patience, after the example of our blessed Lord, who instead of
rendering evil for evil, silently committed his cause to his
righteous God and Father [ote: 1Pe_2:20-23.].]
2. A yielding spirit
Suppose a person were to carry the insult so far as to strike us
a blow upon the face: what ought we to do then? Are we not at
liberty to return the blow? o: we may
-
expostulate with the injurious person as our Lord did; If I have
done evil, bear witness of the evil; but, if not, why smitest thou
me? but we must not for a moment think of avenging ourselves [ote:
Isa_50:6. with Lam_3:30.]. It may be said, this would be an
encouragement to him to strike us again: we hope not; but if it
were, it were better to turn the other cheek, and be smitten again,
than that we should resent the injury; for the blows only hurt our
body; but the resentment would wound our soul.
Again, suppose any one were to injure us in our property, as
well as our person, and, under colour of law, were to take away our
coat: what shall we do? Shall we indulge a litigious spirit, in
order to get it back again? o; rather let him take our cloak also,
than induce us to gratify an angry or vindictive spirit [ote:
1Co_6:7.].
Once more;Suppose any one, under pretence of some public
emergency, were to infringe upon our liberty, and to compel us (as
the Jews did Simon the Cyrenian, when they compelled him to bear
our Saviours cross,) to carry a burthen for them a mile: what then?
Must we SUBMIT? Whether in all cases, or not, I do not pretend to
say: hut this is clear; that it is better to go with him two miles,
than to vex ourselves, and quarrel about it. The man that yields,
is always safe; he knows the extent of the injury which he
receives: but he who once begins to contend, knows not where he
shall stop, nor what injury he may suffer in his own soul, before
the contention shall cease.]
3. A forgiving spirit
[Forbearance and forgiveness are frequently united in the Holy
Scriptures; nor should they ever be separated in our conduct [ote:
Col_3:12-13. Eph_4:31-32.]. or would the exercise of forgiveness be
so difficult, if only we considered how much greater injury people
do to themselves, than they can possibly do to us. Do what they
will, they can never injure us, except in mere external things: our
souls are beyond their reach: but, whilst they endeavour to injure
us, they do the most irreparable injury to their own souls. Let us
suppose for a moment, that a person, robbing us of a little
worthless fruit, were to fall down, and break every bone of his
body; would not our pity for his misfortune swallow up all
resentment for his fault? So then it should be with us towards all
who injure us: there is no comparison at all between the injury
they do to us and to themselves; and therefore we should be ready
to exercise forgiveness towards them, and to implore forgiveness
for them at Gods hands.]
Learn then, from this subject,
1. How rare a thing real Christianity is
[This is Christianity: all, without this, is an empty sound.
Look then through the world, and see how little there is of it any
where to be found: yea, let the saints themselves see how little of
true Christianity they possess. This view of Christian duty may
well fill every one of us with shame and confusion of face.]
-
2. How necessary a renewed spirit is, either to a right
discernment of religion, or to the practice of it
[The precepts of religion are no less foolishness to the natural
man, than the doctrines. What heathen ever inculcated such lessons?
or what unconverted Christian ever thoroughly approved them in his
heart. People fancy that they have power to do the will of God: but
can they do these things? As well may they attempt to turn the
course of the sun, as so to turn the current of corrupt nature. We
must have an understanding given us that we may know these things
[ote: 1Co_2:12.]; and strength, that we may do them [ote:
2Co_3:5.].]
3. How ornamental true religion is to every one that possesses
it
[Who can see a person acting up to the spirit of these precepts,
and not admire him? Who can help admiring this spirit in Christ and
in his holy Apostles? Surely, such are beautified with salvation,
and God himself must admire them [ote: 1Pe_3:4.].]
4. How happy the world would be, if vital Christianity
universally prevailed
[There would then be no scope for the exercise of these
difficult graces, since no injuries would be committed upon earth O
that God would hasten that blessed time!]
BESO, "Verses 38-42Matthew 5:38-42. Ye have heard, &c. Our
Lord proceeds to enforce such meekness and love toward their
enemies, on those who are persecuted for righteousness sake, as
were utterly unknown to the scribes and Pharisees. And this subject
he pursues to the end of the chapter. It hath been said, viz., in
the law, Deuteronomy 19:21, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a
tooth Though this statute was only intended as a direction to
judges, with regard to the penalties to be inflicted in case of
violent and barbarous assaults; yet it was interpreted among the
Jews as encouraging a rigorous and severe revenge of every injury a
man might receive. But I say unto you, that ye resist not evil Or,
rather, the evil man, as 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
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 ACCOUT, 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 , here rendered coat,
it seems we are to understand an inner garment; and by the word, ,
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
Shaws 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 .
The meaning of the whole passage evidently is, rather than return
evil for evil: when the wrong is purely personal, SUBMIT to one
bodily injury after another, give up one part of your goods after
another, submit to one instance of compulsion after another. That
the words, Turn to him the other cheek also, (and consequently
those in the next clause,) are not to be taken literally, appears
from the behaviour of our Lord himself, John 18:22-23. Give to him,
that asketh thee, &c. Give and lend to any that are in want, so
far, (but no farther, for God never contradicts himself,) as is
consistent with thy engagements to thy creditors, thy family, and
the household of faith.
Upon the whole of this passage, from Matthew 5:38, we may
observe, that it seems to have been primarily intended to
counteract and correct that abuse of the law of retaliation above
mentioned, which was common among the Jews, who carried their
resentments to the utmost lengths; and, by so doing, maintained
infinite quarrels, to the great detriment of social life. For this
purpose, our Lord puts five cases wherein Christian meekness must
especially show itself. 1st, When any one assaults our person, in
resentment of some affront he imagines we have put upon him. 2d,
When any one sues us at the law, in order to take our goods from
us. 3d, When he attacks our natural liberty. 4th, When one who is
poor asks charity. 5th, When a neighbour begs the LOA of something
from us. In all these cases our Lord forbids us to resist. Yet,
from the examples which he mentions, it is plain that this
forbearance and compliance are required only when we are slightly
attacked, but by no means when the assault is of a capital kind.
For it would be unbecoming the wisdom which Jesus showed in other
points, to suppose that he forbids us to defend ourselves against
murderers, robbers, and oppressors, who would unjustly take away
our life, our estate, or our liberty. either can it be thought that
he commands us to give every idle fellow all he may think fit to
ask, whether in charity or in LOA. We are only to give what we can
spare, and to such persons as out of real necessity ask relief from
us. ay, our Lords 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 ones 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
PROCEEDIG from a conviction of his having done evil, in giving the
high priest the answer for which he was smitten. But, admitting
that this rule has for its object small injuries, and that our Lord
orders his disciples to be passive under them rather than to repel
them, it is liable to no objection: for he who bears a slight
affront, consults his honour and interest much better than he who
resists or resents it; because he shows a greatness of mind worthy
of a man, and uses the best means of avoiding quarrels, which
oft-times are attended with the most fatal consequences. In like
manner, he who yields a little of his right, rather than he will go
to law, is much wiser than the man who has recourse to public
justice in every instance; because, in the progress of a law-suit,
such animosities may arise as are inconsistent with charity. To
conclude, benevolence, which is the glory of the divine nature, and
the perfection of the
-
human, rejoices in doing good. Hence the man that is possessed
of this god-like quality cheerfully embraces every occasion in his
power of relieving the poor and distressed, whether by gift or
loan. Some are of opinion, that the precept concerning alms-giving,
and gratuitous lending, is subjoined to the instances of injuries
which our Lord commands us to bear, to teach us that, if the
persons who have injured us fall into want, we are not to withhold
any act of charity from them on account of the evil they have
formerly done us. Taken in this light, the precept is generous and
divine. Moreover, as liberality is a virtue nearly allied to the
forgiveness of injuries, our Lord joined the two together, to show
that they should always go hand in hand. The reason is, revenge
will blast the greatest liberality, and a covetous heart will show
the most perfect patience to be a sordid meanness of spirit,
proceeding from selfishness. Macknight.
39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps
you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.
CLARKE, "Resist not evil - Or, the evil person. So, I am fully
persuaded,
ought to be translated. Our Lords meaning is, Do not repel one
outrage by another. He that does so makes himself precisely what
the other is, a wicked person.
Turn to him the other also - That is, rather than avenge
thyself, be ready to suffer patiently a repetition of the same
injury. But these exhortations belong to those principally who are
persecuted for righteousness sake. Let such leave the judgment of
their cause to Him for whose sake they suffer. The Jews always
thought that every outrage should be resented; and thus the spirit
of hatred and strife was fostered.
GILL, "But I say unto you, that ye resist not evil,.... This is
not to be understood of any sort of evil, not of the evil of sin,
of bad actions, and false doctrines, which are to be opposed; nor
of the evil one, Satan, who is to be resisted; but of an evil man,
an injurious one, who has done us an injury. We must not render
evil for evil, or repay him in the same way; see Jam_5:6. Not but
that a man may lawfully defend himself, and endeavour to secure
himself from injuries; and may appear to the civil magistrate for
redress of grievances; but he is not to make use of private
revenge. As if a man should pluck out one of his eyes, he must not
in revenge pluck out one of his; or should he strike out one of his
teeth, he must not use him in the same manner; but patiently bear
the affront, or seek for satisfaction in another way.
-
But whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him
the other also: which is to be understood comparatively, rather
than seek revenge, and is directly contrary to the Jewish canons,
which require, in such a case, a pecuniary fine (g).
"He that strikes his neighbour (which Maimonides explains, he
that strikes his neighbour with his hand shut, about the neck) he
shall give him a "sela", or "shekel": R. Judah says, in the name of
R. Jose the Galilean, one pound: if he smite him (i.e. as
Maimonides says, if he smite him with his double fist upon the
face; or, as Bartenora,
with the palm of his hand, , "on the cheek", which is a greater
reproach) he shall give him two hundred "zuzim"; and if he does it
with the back of his hand, four hundred "zuzim".''
R. Isaac Sangari (h) manifestly refers to this passage of
Christ's, when he says to the king he is conversing with,
"I perceive that thou up braidest us with poverty and want; but
in them the great men of other nations glory: for they do not glory
but in him, who said, "Whosoever smiteth thee thy right cheek, turn
to him the left; and whosoever taketh away thy coat, give him thy
cloak".''
HERY, "Two things Christ teaches us here:
1. We must not be revengeful (Mat_5:39); I say unto you, that ye
resist not evil; - the evil person that is injurious to you. The
resisting of any ill attempt upon us, is here as generally and
expressly forbidden, as the resisting of the higher powers is
(Rom_13:2); and yet this does not repeal the law of
self-preservation, and the care we are to take of our families; we
may avoid evil, and may resist it, so far as is necessary to our
own security; but we must not render evil for evil, must not bear a
grudge, nor avenge ourselves, nor study to be even with those that
have treated us unkindly, but we must go beyond them by forgiving
them, Pro_20:22; Pro_24:29; Pro_25:21, Pro_25:22; Rom_12:7. The law
of retaliation must be made consistent with the law of love: nor,
if any have injured us, is our recompence in our own hands, but in
the hands of God, to whose wrath we must give place; and sometimes
in the hands of his viceregents, where it is necessary for the
preservation of the public peace; but it will not justify us in
hurting our brother to say that he began, for it is the second blow
that makes the quarrel; and when we were injured, we had an
opportunity not to justify our injuring him, but to show ourselves
the true disciples of Christ, by forgiving him.
Three things our Saviour specifies, to show that Christians must
patiently yield to those who bear hard upon them, rather than
contend; and these include others.
(1.) A blow on the cheek, which is an injury to me in my body;
Whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, which is not only a
hurt, but an affront and indignity (2Co_11:20), if a man in anger
or scorn thus abuse thee, turn to him the other cheek; that is,
instead of avenging that injury, prepare for another, and bear it
patiently: give not the rude man as good as he brings; do not
challenge him, nor enter an action against him; if it be necessary
to the public peace that he be bound to his good behaviour, leave
that to the magistrate; but for thine own part, it will ordinarily
be the wisest course to pass it by, and take no further notice of
it: there are no bones broken, no great harm done, forgive it and
forget it; and if proud fools think the worse of thee, and laugh at
thee for it, all wise men will value and honour thee for it, as a
follower of the blessed Jesus, who, though he was the Judge of
Israel, did not smite those who smote him on the cheek, Mic_5:1.
Though this may perhaps, with some base spirits, expose us to the
like affront
-
another time, and so it is, in effect, to turn the other cheek,
yet let not that disturb us, but let us trust God and his
providence to protect us in the way of our duty. Perhaps, the
forgiving of one injury may prevent another, when the avenging of
it would but draw on another; some will be overcome by submission,
who by resistance would but be the more exasperated, Pro_25:22.
However, our recompence is in Christ's hands, who will reward us
with eternal glory for the shame we thus patiently endure; and
though it be not directly inflicted, it if be quietly borne for
conscience' sake, and in conformity to Christ's example, it shall
be put upon the score of suffering for Christ.
JAMISO, "But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil; but
whosoever shall smite thee on thy right check, turn to him the
other also Our Lords own meek, yet dignified bearing, when smitten
rudely on the cheek (Joh_18:22, Joh_18:23), and not literally
presenting the other, is the best comment on these words. It is the
preparedness, after one indignity, not to invite but to submit
meekly to another, without retaliation, which this strong language
is meant to convey.
TRAPP, "Ver. 39. But I say unto you, that ye resist not evil]
For here to resist is to be overcome, saith St Paul, Romans 12:21.
And in a matter of