An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth ( ). Note with the notion of exchange or substitution. The quotation is from Exod 21:24; Deut 19:21; Lev 24:20. Like divorce this jus talionis is a restriction upon unrestrained vengeance. “It limited revenge by fixing an exact compensation for an injury” (McNeile). A money payment is allowed in the Mishna. The law of retaliation exists in Arabia today.

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

1) “Ye have heard it hath been said,” (ekousate hoti errethe) “You all heard that it was said,” by them of ancient times, also alluding to moral and ethical standards of the law and pre-Mosaic eras, Exo 21:24; Deu 19:21; Lev 24:19-20. These were statements of Hebrew criminal law justice.

2) “An eye for an eye,” (ophthalmon anti ophthalmou) “An eye instead of an eye,” a one-for-one exchange of judgment for injury. This was an outward form of retribution of vengeance, administered for loss by wrongs done by others, by virtue of carelessness, or by malice and anger.

3) “And a tooth for a tooth:” (kai odonta anti odontos) “And a tooth instead of a tooth,” a one-of-a-kind “for” one-of-a-kind, (penalty) for a loss. This form of retributive justice, speedily executed, without any ransom or payoff to escape justice, may have been the best safeguard for life and property, Num 35:21; Num 35:32.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

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.

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

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 Todhunters 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 itselfthat 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 6Commentators 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 occasionthat 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 omitteda comparison between the old and the new legislationare such as would be less adapted for St. Lukes readers than for St. Matthews.
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 mileabout 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 Saviours 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 restrictionof clear restriction and definite, also, if not very closeupon 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 oldGods earlier messagebegan 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 advancefor such we see it isChrist 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 Gods 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 oldthose messages and ordinances of Moses and the prophetsto which the Saviour has referred in this chapter so often, may be considered the second. That still fullerbut still not exhaustivesetting forth of Gods 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 factaccording therefore to truthaccording to all also that we have quoted just nowHis 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 gloryHis power and Godheadare 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 furniturewe are the childrenof 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 Sonviz. 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 Saviours 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 startednamely, 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 youve turned Christian, they tell me, Charley? said the man. Yes, replied the minister. Well, then, you know the Book says, If youre struck on one cheek youre 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 EpictetusShould 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 thisand it admits of very wide application indeedwherever 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 enemynonsense! It is not in human nature. He was right. It is not in human nature; qut it was in Christs 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. Christs law ignored.Either these sayings are not Christs, 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 Fathernot 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 infirmitiesbodily 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 ruleGods Wordto 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 Gods ultimate purpose in all that He has done and is doing for us.J. Harries.

The Christian aim and motive.

I. The Christian aimPerfection.

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

The purpose of Christianity.Here is Christs 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 Gods 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 homenay, as much ours as our heart.John Ker, D.D.

PerfectionDivine and human.Gods is the only absolute perfection; mans 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.

Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell

C. THE WISE AND GODLY MAN IN RELATION TO THE LAW
5 . HIS ATTITUDE TOWARD PERSONAL VINDICATION.

(Parallel: Luk. 6:27-31)

TEXT: 5:38-42

38. Ye have heard that it was said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
39. but I say unto you, Resist not him that is evil: but whosoever smiteth thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
40. And if any man would go to law with thee, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.
41. And whosoever shall compel thee to go one mile, go with him two.
42. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.

THOUGHT QUESTIONS

a.

Is the law of retaliation (Mat. 5:38) an ethical principle? If so, in what way? If not, what is the ethical principle behind it which makes it necessary?

b.

According to Jesus, what is ethically wrong with the desire to avenge ones honor, ones person or ones family? Why would He urge His disciples not to resist an evil doer?

c.

Why would Jesus specifically mention thy right cheek and not thy left or say simply thy cheek? (Luk. 6:29 uses this latter form) What might be significant about its being the right?

d.

How can one prepare for such an insulting attack in such a way that his first reaction will be that studied self-control with which Jesus challenges His followers? Can you think of other insults (other than a slap on the cheek) which require self-discipline to keep from retaliating? How does one turn the other cheek, for instance, when he has been slighted? only insulted verbally?

e.

Must Jesus words be taken literally, i.e. must one actually offer the other cheek in order to obey the Lord?

f.

What does the meek surrender of ones right to fight for his petty claims reveal about that mans character?

g.

Is it ever right to go to law? If not, why not? If so, under what conditions?

h.

How does going the second mile make him, who is generous in this way, morally superior to him who compelled him to go the first mile?

i.

From your general knowledge of the NT, provide some general rules which help to interpret and apply Jesus challenge to give to him that asks you, and from who would borrow turn not away.

j.

Is it never right to refuse any gift asked by anyone? Under what conditions would it be wrong to refuse? Under what conditions would it be right to refuse? What ethical principles decide the difference between these two conditions?

k.

Show the practical wisdom in Jesus sage advice offered in these four illustrations (Mat. 5:33-37) .

PARAPHRASE AND HARMONY

You have heard that is was said, An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. But I say to you, Do not defend yourself against him who wrongs you. Rather, if someone slaps you on the right cheek, turn and offer him your left one too. If a man wants to sue for possession of your tunic, let him have itand your robe as well! If anyone impresses you into the public service to go one mile, go with him two. Give to him who asks something of you, and do not turn your back upon him who wants to borrow something from you. Even if a man takes away something of yours, do not demand its return. You must learn to treat men according to the same standard you want used in their treatment of you.

SUMMARY

The Mosaic Law limited retaliation to exact punishment measured according to the wrong done. Jesus completely abolishes that spirit of self-vindication which makes such a law necessary, giving four examples: 1. Do not retaliate against insults. 2. Surrender your right to litigate over trifles. 3. Help generously more than is asked. 4. Return good for evil by intelligent liberality.

NOTES

HOW TO MEET EVIL AND OVERCOME

I. The Laws Way, Mat. 5:38 Ye have heard that it was said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. This is not the language of human scribal interpretations of Gods legislation, but the very punitive muscle of Mosaic law itself. Jesus is not quoting any popularization of this law, which degrades it to justify personal revenge, as so many commentators assume. He cites the Law itself. Study the various applications of this precept in Exo. 21:24-25; Lev. 24:17-21; Deuteronomy 2-21. The purpose of the legal precept was threefold:

1.

To protect the rights of persons and property by an equitable judicial settlement. It meant the end to the excesses involved in blood-bath vengeance to clear personal or family honor.

2.

To discourage personal revenge by providing a rule intended to govern the decisions of the judges. (Cf. Deu. 19:18) The Law was a real limitation of vengeance and the beginning of mercy, for to the vindicator it said, You may retaliate thus far and no farther!

3.

To create a mentality of fear to lose a member because of ones own heedless passion which could strike out the eye of another. Thus, in effect, both mens eyes are saved.

Barclay (Vol. I, 162) raises the interesting question whether this law were ever literally carried out, He answers no, since it might involve the reverse of justice by involving the exchange of that which had relatively more value than that for which it was exchanged: a bad eye for a good one, etc., Thus, monetary value was placed by the Jews upon the injury and value payment was made rather than literal retributive damage, (Cf. Exo. 21:29-30 to see the justice of such an application: of how much more worth is a man than an ox?)

However the application of the precept might have been, so long as he, whose eye or tooth had been knocked out, retaliated against his attacker by exact and legal measure, the letter of Moses law was satisfied. No doubt some prostituted this judicial rule of thumb into a justification for getting their private revenge without due course of law, but Jesus does not bring up this side of the question. He deals only with the ethical principle which requires that this law be on the books.

Jesus does not criticize the rule itself as used by magistrates. Rather, He sets out to eliminate completely the need for it. The rule is not an ethical principle for personal conduct, since it is a mere punitive rule expressing quite another ethical principle which motivates it and gives it meaning. The real ethical principle back of the rule is the protection of personal or family honor or integrity, and perhaps a sense of justice which requires blood for blood retaliation. But this ethical principle is much too low for Jesus. The Lord would show men a higher, more worthy ethic than this primitive tribal ethic of self-revenge.

II. The Lords Way, Mat. 5:39-42 Do not resist him who is evil. This principle has caused no little difficulty for those who have not stayed to hear Jesus out, since it seems to urge absolute non-resistance of all evil persons. But . . ,

1.

The principle must be interpreted in context: Jesus illustrated exactly what He meant by it. The context demands that it be taken as a contrast to the law of retaliation.

2.

It must be interpreted in harmony with Jesus other teachings which urge resistance of evil, even of evil men. (Gal. 2:5; Gal. 2:11; Tit. 1:9-13; cf. 1 Corinthians 5, 6 in which Paul urges resistance of evil and forbids litigation,) This is seen especially in the impact of Jesus own influence which produced the most effective moral resistance to evil the world has ever seen His apostles state that clearly (Eph. 6:11; Eph. 6:13-14; Heb. 12:4; Jas. 4:7; 1Pe. 5:9) His purpose for coming into the world was to attack openly and relentlessly Satan and all those representing his interests (Heb. 2:14; 1Jn. 3:8; cf. Mat. 12:28-29). Jesus personal example shows how He intended this teaching. He vigorously cleansed the Temple two times of its graft and corruption (Joh. 2:11 ff; Mat. 21:12-13). He bitterly and uncompromisingly exposed the personal hypocrisy of the religious leaders as well as the evil inherent in the system of religion that they upheld. (Cf. Mat. 15:1-20; Mat. 16:1-12; Matthew 23; Mar. 12:38-40)

3. This principle must be applied to the individual, to whom Jesus addressed it, and must not be applied to states or nations or even to sub-groups within society that do not possess His point of view.

Marshall (116) correctly observes: In this passage, then, Jesus thought is concentrated on the question of non-vindictiveness in personal relations. ALL other considerations, obligations, circumstances and needs, are for the moment, left out of account. The question of the maintenance of public law and order is not envisaged; that is something which was simply taken for granted.

Luke (Luk. 6:27-31) and Leviticus (Lev. 19:18) connect, by contrast, the desire to take vengeance on the one hand, and on the other, love for ones neighbor even if he be an enemy: Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thy heart . . . Thou shalt not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people; but thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself; I am Jehovah. Although the Law itself commanded such high ideals, it was powerless to enforce them in practical ways. While the Law checked this vindictive passion, Jesus shows His disciples how to rise even above the expectations of the Law. He plans to abolish the desire to seek vengeance altogether.

A. BY REFUSING TO RETALIATE (first illustration of the principle)

Mat. 5:39 b But whosoever smiteth thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. This is a question of ones honor, not a defence of his life, a fact which is established by two reasons: first, this refusal to seek vengeance is in contrast to the cited law of retaliation which would have rewarded the stricken the opportunity to smite his attacker on his right cheek, Second, the actual form of attack is that of the most insulting contempt, but not an attempt to kill. Thy right cheek, as you face your usually right-handed attacker, will be slapped with the back of his right hand, No higher insult could be imagined in almost any society, Yet, Jesus forbids that personal vindictiveness, that unwillingness to forgive that takes the law into its own hands and retaliates, He would remove from the heart that anger, resentment and hate that demands to get even. This He does before the fact, so that the shock and pain of the attack may not catch the disciple unaware and unprepared to react in this most unworldly sort of self-control. Usually words proceed such physical violence and no disciple should fail to heed that inner warning of the impending spiritual crisis. Thus, in place of that desire to revenge self at all costs against whatever threat, Jesus places nobler motivations and considerations, the chief of which is love for that enemy, (Cf. Luk. 6:27-29) Only this kind of active love, which treats the enemy as oneself, is capable of enduring all things. (1Co. 13:7) It is almost, if not entirely, impossible to be a peacemaker while seeking revenge. (See on Mat. 5:9) While it is true that God will wreak vengeance upon them that do not know and obey Him (2Th. 1:7-10), yet the wrath of man cannot pretend to dispense such perfectly righteous justice. (Cf. Jas. 1:19-20)

Yes, Jesus rule is humiliating, because we may be taken for spineless cowards if we do not hit back, Such patient meekness is contemptible in the eyes of the world. Jesus rule is impossible for the natural man, whose reflexes are taught to resent and resist every threat to his person or honor. Only God can make it possible to act like Jesus when we are under fire, Jesus rule is painful there may be that second blow! But we must rather risk that second injury than sin by revenging the first.

When applying Jesus exhortation, let it be recalled that He Himself did not literally turn the other cheek (Joh. 18:22-23), but rebuked His smiters, challenging their right to do so. Paul (Act. 23:3) rebounded in fiery indignation, challenging the mockery of justice that ordered him slapped. But never once did they retaliate with that terrifying, destructive power within their grasp, (Mat. 26:52-53; Luk. 9:51-55; Act. 13:6-12.)

B. BY RELINQUISHING ONES RIGHT TO RESIST (second illustration)

Mat. 5:40 And if any man would go to law with thee, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. This is a question of property or possessions, not an involvement of conscience or life. Thy coat would be better translated tunic, or that inner garment over which the cloak, or heavy outer robe was worn. For maximum effect, Jesus is probably assuming that the person He addresses has the legal right to both the tunic and the robe in the question at law. This latter could not be taken even overnight as a pledge from a poor man (Exo. 22:26-27), because it was such an important item of clothing. Jesus advocates that His followers be ready to give up without litigation even that which, by law, could not be taken. Considered from the point of view of the expenses involved, giving up a full change of clothes is a trifle compared to the relatively higher costs of long litigation. From the ethical standpoint, that meek surrender of ones right to fight for his possessions bespeaks an unselfishness and dignity that rises above petty claims. (Cf. 1Co. 6:1-8; Heb. 10:34)

This, however, is no prohibition of seeking justice through the courts, since defending ones rights by law may also be necessary and right for serious and truly important cases. (Cf. Act. 16:35-39; Act. 22:25-29; Act. 25:10-11) Jesus prohibition intends to discourage that selfish preoccupation with holding possessions that fails to look beyond self to see the true needs of ones opponent. That opponent is selfish too, else he would not be after your tunic. How else can he be taught to be altruistic than by a first-class example of magnanimity in the very one whom he would defraud? Deep love and true concern for him who would wrong you must take precedence over your just rights and claims. Thus, Jesus is not completely forbidding His followers to go to court for any cause, but rather is challenging their motives for so doing. He does not question the right to go to law, but the motive. To accomplish some higher goal of love, one right a Christian has is that of not insisting on his rights.

Blessed are the meek for the whole earth belongs to them! Why should they haggle over one tunic and a robe? (See on Mat. 5:5)

C. BY RENDERING REQUESTED RELIEF WITHOUT RANCOR

Mat. 5:41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go one mile, go with him two. This compulsion of which Jesus speaks is a historic allusion to the right of those in government service, whether postal couriers or occupation soldiers or others, to impress anyone into service to help them carry forward their own mission. (Cf. Mat. 27:32) Naturally, such impressment would be galling to a subject people as well as inconvenient and fatiguing. Going that mile (1000 paces) might mean shouldering a soldiers baggage, To the hypersensitive, punctilious Jew this defiling contact with a Gentile would also be a forced self-contamination.

And what does Jesus say about this contaminating, oppressive, hateful service demanded by foreigners? What a shock must have been registered in the audience when He challenged their discipleship to the core: Do twice as much as is asked of you! Comply cheerfully in excess of the demand. No sullen, complaining spirit here! Considerate helpfulness is the key: no compulsory work which necessarily limits your freedom is to be resented or done hatefully, even if it is Roman work to be done.

While this exhortation of Jesus may be a third illustration of the general principle, Resist not him who is evil, yet Jesus seems to be moving away from a strict interpretation of him who is evil in this and the next illustration. The evidence, that He is not following a strict outline which closely demonstrates the principle, may be seen by interpreting the principle more generally: Do not seek to protect your selfishness or pride in any personal relation with him who would stimulate either. Taken in this latter sense, the general principle is adequately clarified by all four examples. Thus, whosoever shall compel thee to go one mile is not necessarily someone who evilly forces you to work, but He means anyone who lays some obligatory service upon you. Humanly we react against this obligation and constriction of our liberties. We react without reflection upon the needs, both immediate and relative as well as eternal and absolute, of him who thus forces us to work. Nor do we regard seriously enough what results in his life our reaction will produce. What kind of business, domestic, national or international relations would result if Jesus word were taken seriously? (Study some of the apostles suggestions for applications: Eph. 6:5-8; Php. 2:14; Php. 4:5; Tit. 3:2; Jas. 3:17; 1Pe. 2:18 f; Rom. 12:20) What if God and Jesus had not gone the second mile with US? What is this but mercy? If so, does not this exhortation (go with him two) become a specific example of how we may be merciful? We have thus turned a bit of servitude, in which we were the subordinates, into a showing of mercy, in which we are the kings! The foregoing three examples have explained the principle from a negative standpoint: do not seek revenge, do not litigate, do not render grudging service; and from a positive doubling formula: be willing to suffering again, surrender more and help twice as much as is asked. The following example follows the Hebrew poetic parallelism, giving two closely-related positive exhortations. (Cf. 1Th. 5:15)

D. BY READINESS TO RESPOND WITH RESOURCES (fourth illustration )

Mat. 5:42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away. This exhortation of Jesus must be considered within the frame of reference in which it was given, The Law had commanded this kind of open-handed generosity to be directed to any countryman who, being impoverished, was no longer able to sustain himself without help. (Exo. 22:25-27; Lev. 25:35-46; Deu. 15:7-15; Deu. 23:19-20) It is within this merciful helpfulness ordained by the Lord that Jesus urges this open-hearted response. Him that asketh thee and him that would borrow, accordingly, refer to those whose need is real and known or obvious. (Cf. Luk. 6:32-36 to catch this spirit of ready helpfulness.) Jesus encourages this liberality to respond to genuine needs: widows and orphans (Jas. 1:27), an unfortunate (Jas. 2:14-17; 1Jn. 3:17), or someone really hungry, cold, ill-clad, sick or in prison (Mat. 25:35-45), Sometimes gainful employment is the most honorable help to give; other times, food, clothing, etc., according to the need. (See Act. 11:27-30; Rom. 15:25-28; Rom. 15:31; 2 Corinthians 8, 9; Eph. 4:28; Gal. 6:10, for wider application.)

Jesus rule must never be interpreted so as to encourage laziness, shiftlessness or greed. Note 2Th. 3:6-15 where the practical expression of disorderliness is shameless laziness and is worthy of practical excommunication. Paul soundly condemns those busybodies who try to go around work, (periergadzomenous) and urges that they be not fed. Jesus rule must also be applied consistently with our other duties and obligations. (Cf. 1Ti. 5:8; 1Th. 4:11-12) We are not commanded to dole out. daily sustenance to him who will not work, for it would make him a thief to take that to which he has no right.

So how shall Jesus teaching be applied?

1.

Do not refuse to give: what or how you will give may have to be decided according to many factors, by you must not close your heart.

2.

Consider the receiver of the gift: is he a fraudulent beggar or a man in real need? Can you always tell the difference? Better to help a fraud now and then than miss Jesus disguised as one of the least of His brethren!

3.

Consider the kind of gift to be given. Should it be according to his request or according to his real need? Sometimes there is an important difference between these. Is it always possible to know anothers real need? Sometimes employment for a wage could restore a mans self-respect like no hand-out ever could. Other men might be saved from poverty by a gift disguised as a loan. Will the gift contribute to his delinquency by encouraging him to continue begging when he could and should work? Or will it really result in the recipients best interest by making him a better man?

4.

Give as secretly as possible. (Mat. 6:2-4) Sometimes the slightest breath of publicity would humiliate the recipient beyond recall, and cause him to hate his benefactor.

CONCLUSION

Plummer (Luke, 185) has caught the spirit of Jesus behind each of these four precepts:

What is the spirit? Among other things this:-that resistance of evil and refusal to part with our property must never be a personal matter: so far as we are concerned we must be willing to suffer still more and to surrender still more. It is right to withstand and even to punish those who injure us: but in order to correct them and protect society; not because of any personal animus, It is right also to withhold our possessions from those who without good reason ask for them; but in order to check idleness and effrontery; not because we are too fond of our possessions to part with them. So far as our personal feeling goes, we ought to be ready to offer the other cheek, and to give, without desire of recovery whatever is demanded or taken from us. love knows no limits but those which love itself imposes. When love resists or refuses, it is because compliance would be a violation of love, not because it would involve loss or suffering . . . In every case, however, we ought to be willing to part with what may be lawfully given to any. The wish to keep what we have got is not the right motive for refusing.

Jesus is picturing in these four vivid strokes of the brush how He intends for His disciple to master his own h e m by keeping himself free from those natural emotions which too often lead to sin. (Rom. 12:17-21; 1Th. 5:15; 1Pe. 3:3; 1Pe. 2:21-24; cf. Isa. 50:6; Pro. 20:22; Pro. 24:29)

Certain psychological advantages may be found in Jesus counsel. To offer ones cheek in a spirit of magnanimity to receive that second insult should touch the heart of the adversary, if he has any conscience at all. In this vivid expression of obvious self-control he ought to be able to see who IS really the bigger man, and be caused to be ashamed of himself for offering the insult. It takes two to make a fight: what can one do if the other refuses him fight? Again, the willingness to endure wrong may cause a legal adversary to reconsider his own rights in a case, but much depends upon how Jesus disciple shows his refusal to push his claims. The adversary might suppose that he did not have a case anyway and therefore dropped his claims. Though a disciple must risk losing face as well as some property, yet may honorably point out his reasons for believing himself to be in the right and waive his right in favor of the opponent. Considerate helpfulness while doing an unwelcome task should show who is truly the bigger man, the more generous, more longsuffering, more patient in every way, The benefit may fall upon the next man impressed into service, and he may be treated with like consideration, but so what?

Naturally, no moral advantage is gained by a calculating use of Jesus principles, such as giving in to an adversary in order to placate him, with a view to retaining both tunic and robe, or offering to go two miles with a view of shaming the officer into refusal, or turning the other cheek in order to humiliate the insulter for striking such an easy target. This calculation with a view to defending ones selfish pride contradicts outright all that Jesus is teaching here. The Master is trying to get us to stop pampering our selfishness and to crucify it in these practical ways.

FACT QUESTIONS

1.

Summarize the entire Mosaic legislation on retaliation and give several different examples of its application which are offered in the Law itself.

2.

Was this law intended for private, personal application by the individual seeking revenge? Who, according to the Law, was to see that the precept was executed properly?

3.

What was the purpose of this law of retaliation?

4.

Does Jesus criticize the law of retaliation when used as a rule for execution by magistrates? If so, what about it does He criticize? If not, what is the point of the four illustrations He gives which explain what He considers to be in contrast with it?

5.

List all the various factors which bear upon the interpretation of Jesus principle: Do not resist him who is evil.

6.

What is the one point common to all four illustrations, which explains the true meaning of Jesus principle?

7,

List the four illustrations, showing the relation of each to the principle they illustrate.

8.

Did the Law of Moses forbid seeking private revenge (without recourse to law) and bearing a grudge?

9.

Is the frame of reference for Jesus first illustration of His principle a question of life and death? Does Jesus exhortation take into account the problem of self-defence against an attempt to kill?

10. Did Jesus turn the other cheek when slapped? Did Paul? Did they retaliate in any way?
11. Could the robe (cloak) be taken by law? What is the ethical force of Jesus advice regarding it?
12. Does Jesus prohibit a Christians going to court to defend some cause he deems truly important? Prove your answer.
13. What is the historic connection involved in the phrase compel thee to go one mile? (Who compelled? Why? Why one mile? etc.)

Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series

(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.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

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

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

“You have heard that it was said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth”

Known as the lex talionis, in ancient days this law was common in many cultures in times far preceding Moses. It is found in the Code of Hammurabi from the 18th century BC, and it was probably old then (and was incorporated within Israel’s Law Code, see for it Exo 21:24; Lev 24:20; Deu 19:21). Its purpose was to prevent blood revenge and to limit the penalty that could be exacted, by making it fit the offence. There was, however, also in it the thought that justice must be satisfied and that sufficient satisfaction should be obtained. However, man being what he is, it became the standard by which many lived. In the way that they interpreted it, it was the exact reverse of ‘do to others as you would that they would do to you’. It said, ‘I will demand of others what they have done to me’ (something forbidden by Pro 24:29). But at least it was a restraint on crime and prevented worse crimes by satisfying people’s sense of justice. On the other hand, as Jesus will point out, it is not the kind of standard that should be followed under the Kingly Rule of a wise and beneficent God Who Himself shows mercy to the undeserving. Nor is in line with the Law of God which said, ‘You shall not take vengeance or bear any grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love you neighbour (and the foreigner who is among you – Lev 19:34) as yourself’ (Lev 19:18).

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

His Disciples Are To Show Generosity Of Spirit, Not To Cry For Vengeance (5:38-42).

In this example Jesus is replying to a mistaken interpretation of the Law. The purpose of the law ‘an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth’ (the lex talionis), was in order to put a limit on vengeance in a fierce age. The idea was that no one should be killed because he had accidentally, or in a fair fight, knocked someone’s tooth out. The maximum that could be demanded was that he also lose a tooth. Very often, in fact, such a case would be resolved by the payment of compensation, depending on the circumstances. But where the injured party and his friends were insistent on vengeance, then this law limited the vengeance that they could legally exact, without leaving them feeling unfairly done by. The problem was, however, that many had seen in it an excuse for demanding such vengeance, thus misusing what had originally been, in terms of those days, a compassionate law.

Jesus informs His disciples that under the Kingly Rule of God this was not to be the attitude that they followed (compare Lev 19:18). Rather than demanding tit for tat His disciples should respond to unpleasantness by showing humility, kindness and generosity of spirit. The examples given should be noted, however. This is not a question of giving in to random violence and/ or a way of dealing with people who intend to do real physical harm to them (how they were to deal with that is another question not specifically being covered here), this is describing how to deal with people who for one reason or another they might be tempted to resent because of the unpleasant and humiliating behaviour that the people have shown towards them. That is then followed by a positive demand that they also show generosity to all in need, and be ready to lend to anyone who requires such help. This is the opposite of desiring vengeance. It is to give unreservedly.

By this they will be revealed as peacemakers, a concept closely connected with the idea of not seeking vengeance in Rom 12:18-21.

Analysis of Mat 5:38-42 .

a You have heard that it was said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth,

b But I say to you, do not resist him who is unpleasant to you in his behaviour (literally ‘evil’ or ‘the evil person’),

c But whoever smites you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also.

d And if any man would go to law with you, and take away your coat, let him have your cloak also.

c And whoever shall compel you to go one mile, go with him two.

b Give to him who asks you,

a And from him who would borrow of you turn not yourself away.”

Note that in ‘a’ we have the cry for retaliation, demanding hurt for hurt from someone who has hurt us, and in the parallel we have the contrary spirit of the willingness to lend generously to one who wants to borrow from us but deserves nothing from us. In ‘b’ comes the command not to resist unpleasant behaviour, and in the parallel the command to respond pleasantly to anyone in need who asks of us. In ‘c’ and parallel we have two examples of responding pleasantly to unpleasant behaviour when what we see as our ‘rights’ are being invaded, and centrally in ‘d’ we have an example of generosity to someone who is being mean-minded towards us.

Thus in Mat 5:38-42 we have three examples of generosity, firstly ‘do not resist someone with bad intentions’ (Mat 5:39-41), secondly ‘give to him who begs from you’ (Mat 5:42 a), and thirdly ‘do not refuse him who would borrow from you’ (Mat 5:42 b), with the first example then illustrated in a threefold way with a description of the response that should be made to being smitten on the right cheek (Mat 5:39), being sued for the inner garment (Mat 5:40), and being legally forced to carry a soldier’s pack for one mile if required to do so (Mat 5:41). In different ways all are revealing openness towards others, and have the aim of achieving harmony among people.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Jesus Teaches on Retribution ( Luk 6:29-30 ) – In Mat 5:38-42, Jesus teaches us the true meaning of the law of retaliation by making a reference to Exo 21:24.

Exo 21:24, “Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,”

Mat 5:39 Comments – A. R. Bernard explains that when someone is struck on the right cheek, it means that a right-handed persecutor has to strike with a back-hand stroke, and not his fore-hand. This demonstrates his intent to intimidate rather than to injure. For the persecuted person to offer his left cheek also is an act of passive resistance, saying that I am of stronger moral character than my persecutor, and am not intimidated into fearing an opponent. Bernard illustrates the power of passive resistance, when it was used by the black man during the 1960’s Civil Rights movement in America. The black man marched in the city streets of the South without violence, with his wife and children. In response, the white police intimidated them by beating them, shooting water cannons at them, and other cruel attempts to intimidate and disperse these crowds of peaceful demonstrators. The actions of these white persecutors captured on film, along with the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr., so moved the American people with compassion for the plight and cause of the black man in the South that legislation was soon passed in Congress recognizing their equal rights. Thus, the persecuted won the battle because they were able to demonstrate to America that their moral character exceeded the immoral behavior of the white man and his persecutions. This was all done by passive resistance. [377]

[377] A. R. Bernard, interviewed on “Praise the Lord,” on Trinity Broadcasting Network (Santa Ana, California), television program, 16 January 2007.

These civil protests were sparked by an event that took place in December 1, 1955, when Ms. Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat on a bus to a white man. She was charged with violating racial segregation laws in Montgomery, Alabama. This led to a city wide boycott of city buses, which became the early stages of the Civil Rights movement in the South. [378]

[378] Rosa Parks and James Haskins , Rosa Parks: My Story (New York: Scholastic Inc., 1992).

In contrast, Malcolm X was another Black leader of civil rights during this era in American history. He was a converted Muslim, and very outspoken about equal rights for African Americans. The famous slogan he gave his people was, “By any means necessary.” This pro-active position has resulted in him being viewed in history with much less importance than Martin Luther King, Jr. [379]

[379] Malcolm X , By Any Means Necessary (Malcolm X Speeches & Writings) (New York: Pathfinder Press, 1992).

Illustration When I was about 14 years old, I had a bully slap me on the cheek at Moat Junior High School. I remembered this verse, so I turned my other cheek, for that was what the Bible told me to do. He slapped the other cheek. Many years later he became a church member of the small church that I was co-pastoring with Jack Emerson in Panama City, Florida called Alethia Fellowship Church (1983-1988).

Mat 5:40  And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also.

Mat 5:40 Comments – Creflo Dollar tells the story of when he was done wrong by his church account and the Lord spoke to him from Mat 5:40 about how to handle the situation. He was paying millions of dollars in bills for television air time. One day the television stations notified him of his past unpaid bills or he would be cut off. He thought his accountant had been paying these bills, but was instead stealing the money. Dollar at first was angry and wanted to sue this individual or put him in jail. But while in prayer the Lord told him to forgive this person and let him alone. Dollar replied that he had a right to take him to court. The Lord then explained that the Scripture teaches us that when a person takes our coat, we are to give him our cloke also. Dollar said, “But, Lord this is not a coat. This is millions of dollars.” The Lord then told him that if he would obey His Word, that the Lord would take care of the rest. Dollar decided to let this person go, and over the next few weeks, almost all of the television stations forgave his debt and he continued on air. [380]

[380] Creflo Dollar, Changing Your World (College Park, Georgia: Creflo Dollar Ministries), on Trinity Broadcasting Network (Santa Ana, California), television program.

We find another example of Mat 5:40 in Heb 10:34 where the author reminds his readers of how they joyfully took the spoiling of their goods.

Heb 10:34, “For ye had compassion of me in my bonds, and took joyfully the spoiling of your goods, knowing in yourselves that ye have in heaven a better and an enduring substance.”

Mat 5:41  And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.

Mat 5:42  Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures