Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Matthew 5:39
But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
39. resist not evil ] i. e. do not seek to retaliate evil.
turn to him the other also ] To be understood with the limitation imposed on the words by our Lord’s personal example, Joh 18:22-23.
The gradation of the examples given is from the greater to the less provocation.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Verse 39. Resist not evil] Or, the evil person. So, I am fully persuaded, ought to be translated. Our Lord’s meaning is, “Do not repel one outrage by another.” He that does so makes himself precisely what the other is, a wicked person.
Turn to him the other also] That is, rather than avenge thyself, be ready to suffer patiently a repetition of the same injury. But these exhortations belong to those principally who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake. Let such leave the judgment of their cause to Him for whose sake they suffer. The Jews always thought that every outrage should be resented; and thus the spirit of hatred and strife was fostered.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
The apostle Paul giveth the best exposition upon this text, Rom 7:17-19,21, Recompense to no man evil for evil. If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men. Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good. The general scope of our Saviour is that which they must observe, who would understand the sense of these words; they must not think that the particular things mentioned are their duty, but,
1. That it is the will of their Lord that they should not take any private revenge, but leave the avenging of their injuries unto God, and to the public magistrate, who is Gods viceregent, before whom, notwithstanding any thing here said, they may seek a just satisfaction.
2. That in lighter cases we should rather remit the wrong done to us for peace sake than stand upon a rigour of justice; rather overcome evil with good, than suffer ourselves to be overcome by the evil of others; rather suffer a blow on the other cheek, than with our own hands revenge the blow which is given thus on our cheek; rather lose our cloak also, than contend for our coat, taken away in judgment from us, though we be in that judgment oppressed. No injury can deserve a private revenge. Light injuries are not of that nature that we should contend for a public revenge of them.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
39. But I say unto you, That yeresist not evil; but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right check,turn to him the other alsoOur Lord’s own meek, yet dignifiedbearing, when smitten rudely on the cheek (Joh 18:22;Joh 18:23), and notliterally presenting the other, is the best comment on these words.It is the preparedness, after one indignity, not to invite but tosubmit meekly to another, without retaliation, which this stronglanguage is meant to convey.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
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 Jas 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”.”
g Misn. Bava Kama, c. 8. sect. 6. Vid. Maimon. & Bartenora in ib. h Sepher Cosri, Orat. 1. Sign. 113. fol. 56. 1.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Resist not him that is evil ( ). Here again it is the infinitive (second aorist active) in indirect command. But is it “the evil man” or the “evil deed”? The dative case is the same form for masculine and neuter. Weymouth puts it “not to resist a (the) wicked man,” Moffatt “not to resist an injury,” Goodspeed “not to resist injury.” The examples will go with either view. Jesus protested when smitten on the cheek (Joh 18:22). And Jesus denounced the Pharisees (Mt 23) and fought the devil always. The language of Jesus is bold and picturesque and is not to be pressed too literally. Paradoxes startle and make us think. We are expected to fill in the other side of the picture. One thing certainly is meant by Jesus and that is that personal revenge is taken out of our hands, and that applies to “lynch-law.” Aggressive or offensive war by nations is also condemned, but not necessarily defensive war or defence against robbery and murder. Professional pacifism may be mere cowardice.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
1) “But I say unto you, that ye resist not evil:” (ego de lego humin me antistenai to ponero) “Yet I tell you all not to oppose wickedness,” not to stand up against wickedness as revengers. You all are not to function as civil magistrates, taking matters of civil justice administration into your own hands; As a chosen, called, church people you are to defer such to civil rulers, Rom 13:1-7.
2) “But whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek,” (all’ hostis se hrapizei eis ten deksian siagona sou) “But (in contrast) whoever strikes you on your right cheek;” Do not seek to extract the utmost civil or criminal penalty, immediately upon being wronged, by going at once, impulsively into civil courts, as a Christian. Rather, forgive, than resent, the wrong, Luk 6:29.
3) “Turn to him the other also.” (strepson auto kai ten alien) “Turn also the other cheek to him,” Jas 5:6; 1Pe 2:20-23; 1Pe 3:9. Be willing to endure a second injury or wrong rather than try to avenge an old wrong, for such is the spirit of Christ, Pro 20:22; Rom 12:17; Rom 12:19; Rom 12:21; It is better to forebear, to forgive an enemy than to strike back impulsively, either physically, or before civil magistrates. To enter a cause for justice in a civil court should be a matter of last resort for children of God, church members in particular.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
39. Do not resist evil. There are two ways of resisting: the one, by warding off injuries through inoffensive conduct; the other, by retaliation. (412) Though Christ does not permit his people to repel violence by violence, yet he does not forbid them to endeavor to avoid an unjust attack. The best interpreter of this passage that we can have is Paul, who enjoins us rather to “overcome evil by good” (Rom 12:21) than contend with evil-doers. (413) We must attend to the contrast between the vice and the correction of it. The present subject is retaliation. (414) To restrain his disciples from that kind of indulgence, he forbids them to render evil for evil. He afterwards extends the law of patience so far, that we are not only to bear patiently the injuries we have received, but to prepare for bearing fresh injuries. The amount of the whole admonition is, that believers should learn to forget the wrongs that have been done them, — that they should not, when injured, break out into hatred or ill-will, or wish to commit an injury on their part, — but that, the more the obstinacy and rage of wicked men was excited and inflamed, they should be the more fully disposed to exercise patience.
Whoever shall inflict a blow. Julian, (415) and others of the same description, have foolishly slandered this doctrine of Christ, as if it entirely overturned the laws of a country, and its civil courts. Augustine, in his fifth epistle, employs much skill and judgment in showing, that the design of Christ was merely to train the minds of believers to moderation and justice, that they might not, on receiving one or two offenses, fail or lose courage. The observation of Augustine, “that this does not lay down a rule for outward actions,” is true, if it be properly understood. I admit that Christ restrains our hands, as well as our minds, from revenge: but when any one has it in his power to protect himself and his property from injury, without exercising revenge, the words of Christ do not prevent him from turning aside gently and inoffensively to avoid the threatened attack.
Unquestionably, Christ did not intend to exhort his people to whet the malice of those, whose propensity to injure others is sufficiently strong: and if they were to turn to them the other cheek, what would it be but holding out such an encouragement? It is not the business of a good and judicious commentator to seize eagerly on syllables, but to attend to the design of the speaker: and nothing is more unbecoming the disciples of Christ, than to spend time in cavilling about words, where it is easy to see what the Master means. But in the present instance, the object which Christ has in view is perfectly obvious. He tells us, that the end of one contest will be the beginning of another, and that, through the whole course of their life, believers must lay their account with sustaining many injuries in uninterrupted succession. When wrong has been done them in a single instance, he wishes them to be trained by this example to meek submission, that by suffering they may learn to be patient.
(412) “ L’une par laquelle nous empeschons qu’on ne nous outrage, sans mal-faire a personne de nostre coste: l’autre, par laquelle nous rendons mal pour mal.” — “The one, by which we prevent attacks from being made on us, without doing ill to any person on our part: the other, by which we render evil for evil.”
(413) “ Plustost que de rendre la pareille a celuy qui nous a mal-fait.” — “Rather than return the like to him who has done us wrong.”
(414) “ Il est ici parle de la facon de faire de ceux lesquels rendent la pareille a ceux qui les ont offensez.” — “The subject here spoken of is the manner of acting of those who render the like to those who have offended them.”
(415) Julian, the Roman Emperor, generally known by the name of Julian the Apostate. The inveterate hatred of this man to the very name of our blessed Savior has gained him a painfully conspicuous place in ecclesias-tical history. — Ed.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(39) Resist not evil.The Greek, as before in Mat. 5:37, may be either masculine or neuter, and followed as it is by whosoever, the former seems preferable; only here it is not the evil one, with the emphasis of pre-eminence, but, as in 1Co. 5:13, the human evil-doer. Of that mightier evil one we are emphatically told that it is our duty to resist him (Jas. 4:7).
Shall smite.The word was used of blows with the hand or with a stick, and for such blows fines from a shekel upwards were imposed by Jewish courts.
Turn to him the other also.We all quote and admire the words as painting an ideal meekness. But most men feel also that they cannot act on them literally; that to make the attempt, as has been done by some whom the world calls dreamers or fanatics, would throw society into confusion and make the meek the victims. The question meets us, therefore, Were they meant to be obeyed in the letter; and if not, what do they command? And the answer is found (l) in remembering that our Lord Himself, when smitten by the servant of the high priest, protested, though He did not resist (Joh. 18:22-23), and that St. Paul, under like outrage, was vehement in his rebuke (Act. 23:3); and (2) in the fact that the whole context shows that the Sermon on the Mount is not a code of laws, but the assertion of principles. And the principle in this matter is clearly and simply this, that the disciple of Christ, when he has suffered wrong, is to eliminate altogether from his motives the natural desire to retaliate or accuse. As far as he himself is concerned, he must be prepared, in language which, because it is above our common human strain, has stamped itself on the hearts and memories of men, to turn the left cheek when the right has been smitten. But the man who has been wronged has other duties which he cannot rightly ignore. The law of the Eternal has to be asserted, society to be protected, the offender to be reclaimed, and these may well justifythough personal animosity does notprotest, prosecution, punishment.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
39. Resist not evil The word here, resist, may also signify retaliate. As it is the maxim of individual retaliation that our Lord is here annulling, this would seem to be the natural meaning of the word. It is also the law of retaliation, an eye for an eye, that he is now expounding. The instinct of self-preservation seems to be given us divinely, for the very purpose of instantaneous resistance of violence; and the religion of Jesus does never condemn the healthful action of any one of our primary instincts. Yet the feeling of revenge proper, the appetite to inflict a pain upon him who has given us pain, our Lord does condemn. In the place of this he substitutes:
1 . The aim to bring the injurer to repentance and reformation. 2. The effort to disarm him by unexpected concession and graceful conciliation. This is the true Christian mode of overcoming a foe.
Still it must be acknowledged that the Greek verb here used signifies to resist rather than to retaliate. It is a compound word, literally signifying to stand against. The command, therefore, is, not to take our stand in opposition to, or to take issue with the evil. The word in the text rendered evil may signify either evil or the evil person. The latter is perhaps the preferable meaning. The import, therefore, of the command, with these definitions of the words, may be best completely understood when we have explained the latter half of the verse.
Cheek, turn him the other also Our Lord gives a supposable instance. The turning the other cheek is a symbol by specimen or sample of the thing. To do this in a bare literal way would probably expose a man to ridicule, especially if known to be a mechanical compliance with the letter of the command. But follow that course skilfully of which this instance is an index. By some method subdue your enemy with an unexpected stroke of generosity, of candour, of concession, of confidence, of appeal to the magnanimous part of his nature. Thus you will make him your friend, develop the good in him, and illustrate the true generosity of the Gospel.
Both members, therefore, of the verse taken together will amount to this: The Christian way of dealing with the bad assailant is not to take issue with him, or to overcome him by hostile force; but to disarm him by generous concessions and benefactions. The sentiment is therefore identical with the precept of the wise man in the Old Testament, (Pro 25:21-22🙂 “If thine enemy be hungry, give him bread to eat; and if he be thirsty, give him water to drink. For thou shalt heap coals of fire upon his head, and the Lord shall reward thee.” Yet it would be doing great violence both to the words of Solomon in the Old Testament and of the greater than Solomon in the New, to understand them as commanding us to extinguish the instinct and to disobey the law of self-preservation, when assaulted by some violent and unappeasable foe.
And here we must repudiate the interpretation of our Lord’s commands in regard to oaths and to non-resistance of an enemy, adopted by Stier and other German critics, and also by Alford, which represent those commands as not intended for the real, but imperfect Church hitherto existing on earth, but for an ideal Church hereafter to exist. Whatever our Lord’s commands were, they are binding in their full moaning now. The fact that the low state of Christian morality renders the declining of oaths and the practice of non-resistance inconvenient at the present time, does not abrogate the law. If the Quaker interpretation be true, the Quaker doctrine is true, and the Quaker practice right, and all Christendom is bound to be Quaker. There can be no sliding scale in Christian morality. Nor is obedience to the commands of Christ to be postponed to some distant age in the unknown future.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
But I say to you, do not resist him who is evil,
But whoever smites you on your right cheek,
Turn to him the other as well.
And if any man would go to law with you, and take away your coat,
Let him have your cloak as well.
And whoever shall compel you to go one mile,
Go with him two.
Jesus now again sets His own authority up against the wisdom of the ages. “I say to you –.” All that man has seen as wisdom in the past is now subjected to the King of the ages. And He wants His disciples to show compassion and mercy, rather than demanding their ultimate rights.
“Do not resist (or ‘stand up against’) him who is evil.” This is not a general overall statement that evil is never to be resisted. Taken out of context it would clearly not in fact even be right, for one of the main aims of the disciples of Jesus was to be to resist evil when it was wrought on others, and especially to resist the Evil One in every way (Jas 4:7). Furthermore they had already basically been told to resist evil in Mat 5:37. Certainly in the light of the Old Testament they would be expected to protect the rights of the poor and the needy, the widow and the orphan. In the words of the Psalmist we are to, ‘Do justice to the afflicted and destitute, rescue the poor and needy, deliver them out of the hand of the wicked’ (Psa 82:3-4). As we consider this therefore it is a reminder that we must always be careful to interpret terms within their context and not put a stress on them that they do not have.
Here the ‘evil’ or the ‘evil person’ is not represented as grossly evil, (compare ‘if you then being evil –’ in Mat 7:11 which is spoken of the disciples in order to remind them of their own sinful hearts). The ones spoken of here are not murderers or those engaged in illegal activities, or violent actions, rather they are people who are acting quite legally but are behaving arrogantly and unpleasantly and are seeking to demonstrate their superiority and claim their ‘rights’ over others in one way or another. They are representatives of an ‘evil’ world, behaving as the world does. And in process of this they are making demands on the personal life of the disciple himself, not on the helpless poor. If he puts up a defence therefore he is not defending others, but simply defending himself, and revealing himself as on a par with the other. He is thus not being ‘meek’ (see on Mat 5:5), nor is he being righteous (Mat 5:6), nor is he being a peace-maker (Mat 5:9). He is not demonstrating that those who are under the Kingly Rule of God are not like other men and women. To such behaviour then the disciples are not to retaliate with like for like, but are to respond generously and compassionately, returning good for evil, gentleness for arrogance, generosity for meanness, and helpfulness for hardness of spirit.
The man who smites another on the right cheek is clearly doing it with his right hand, and will therefore be smiting with the back of his right hand, and the Mishnah demonstrates that to the Jew to be smitten with the back of the hand was thought of as a double insult. The person who does it is trying to demonstrate his own superiority, and to humiliate the other. He is trying to hurt their deepest feelings and put them in their place. He may even to some extent have the right to do it. Certainly no one would accuse him of a crime. But he is nevertheless misusing his position or betraying his arrogance and behaving contemptibly. His purpose is not to do the one he strikes any real physical damage. Assuming that it was not deserved as a result of some uncalled for remark, he is seeking to remind the person whom he strikes of his place and to show his contempt for him (compare Act 23:2). But instead of producing resentment and a desire for retaliation in the disciple of Christ, which would be the natural reaction to such treatment, it is to do the opposite. It is to arouse a loving response. The disciple is to do the exact opposite of what is expected of him. Instead of glaring and being filled with hatred in return he is to turn the other cheek. He is to openly demonstrate that he is not offended and that he has only thoughts of love and compassion towards his tormentor. He is to show that he is perfectly ready to receive more of the same. He is by his action contrasting the Kingly Rule of God, a sphere of love and gentleness, with the tyranny of darkness, a sphere of arrogance and violence. He is contrasting God with the world, to the world’s disadvantage. He is openly witnessing to the difference between the two. Note that he does not just stand silent and say nothing. It is not passivity. He positively acts to bring out the wrongness of the situation.
Why then did Jesus, when He was smitten, rather than do what He Himself had taught Jesus, quietly ask for justification of the act (Joh 18:23)? We must in that case remember what the situation was. Jesus was in some kind of court, and all that went on would be recorded. Furthermore He was defending Himself at the High Priest’s request and therefore the action of the soldier was reprehensible. If it went down in the record that He had had to be smitten it would have suggested that He had been guilty of some crime. Thus it was necessary for Him to set the record straight and demonstrate before the hearing that He was innocent, and had done or said nothing wrong. He did not want the record to suggest that He had been discourteous in any way, or had been deserving of being smitten. But He was not retaliating with evil for evil. He was quietly seeking to show the High Priest and the court that they were in the wrong. It is a reminder that we must not simply act mechanically with regard to things like this. We too have to think about the consequences of our actions even in these circumstances. For in the end Jesus is not just talking about an insulting blow to the cheek. He has in mind any way in which someone demonstrates a wrong and antagonistic attitude towards a disciple, an attitude that has to be responded to with compassion and love.
The one who sues another for his tunic (or shirt) presumably has a right to do so, but is showing no compassion. He is being remorseless. For the one being sued in such a way is clearly in poverty, otherwise the shirt off his back would not be in question. The plaintiff is clearly determined to have the shirt off the poor man’s back and to leave him unclothed. He is demonstrating a determination to squeeze the last penny out of him and to humiliate him. He is showing extreme meanness of spirit. While strictly legal, what he is doing is in fact to go against the higher law. For the Law commanded that he show concern and generosity towards the poor (Lev 25:35; Deu 15:7-8; Pro 14:21; Pro 21:13).
However, if this is done to the disciple, instead of showing resentment he is to respond with generosity. He is to hand over his outer cloak as well, the cloak over which the one who is suing has no rights (see Exo 22:26-27; Deu 24:12-13). There was no way in law that the plaintiff could obtain the outer cloak. Thereby the disciple reveals his willingness to meet all his obligations over and above what is required on him, and to put the attitude of the other to shame. And he also demonstrates that to be humiliated by being rendered clotheless is of no concern to him. To him life is more than clothing. (Although there is no thought that he would strip there and then. He would have to borrow clothes). And besides he is confident that his Father will supply him with clothing (Mat 6:30; Mat 6:32). And at the same time he is demonstrating what the Kingly Rule of God accomplishes in men, and is contrasting it with the tyranny of darkness. All will be able to judge between the actions of the two. The disciple is acting as true salt and as a light in the world.
The one who compels another to go a mile with him is a Roman soldier, who had a perfect right in law to demand that someone carry his equipment for one mile (strictly 8 stades or one thousand paces). This was the law under which Simon of Cyrene was compelled to carry Jesus’ crosspiece (Mat 27:32). Most Jews resented this law bitterly. To them it was the ultimate in humiliation. But the soldier had the right to expect it. Most Jews would make clear to the soldier their resentment. But it was not to be so for those under the Kingly Rule of God. As servants of the King they were to be only too glad to lend a hand to someone who wanted assistance, even to a soldier of Rome. Unlike the zealots they were not to look on him as an enemy, but as someone to be loved, as God loved him and sent him sunshine and rain.
All three illustrations reveal that the people in question, while they may well have been within their rights, were nevertheless behaving unpleasantly, and humiliating the objects of their unpleasantness. That is what is being indicated by the word ‘evil’ here. And the reply to such behaviour is to reveal pleasantness, and love, and peace, and a total lack of concern at being humiliated, all of which is revealed by their positive response, rather than to demonstrate resentment and retaliation. It is also to reveal the attitude and behaviour prevalent in the Kingly Rule of God. Note that in each case the disciple does not just submit, he acts positively in order to bring out his different view on the world from others. He will be revealing that as a disciple of Christ he is the servant of all (Mat 20:26). And all will say, ‘God is with him of a truth’.
So the response of the disciple is to turn the other cheek, thereby disquieting the striker and revealing a totally different attitude of heart and mind. It is saying, ‘if that helps you, do it again. I do not mind. I serve the One Who was so smitten and I am proud to share His humiliation’. It reveals the non-violence of the Kingly Rule of God. The one who sues you for your tunic is forbidden by law to take your cloak from you, for you need it to sleep in (see Exo 22:26-27; Deu 24:12-13). So by offering him your cloak you are going beyond the law in order to satisfy him, and doing something totally unexpected. And hopefully he will recognise his own meanness of spirit and be brought to consider his ways. You are returning good for evil, and demonstrating sacrificial generosity, and making him see what he ought to have done in the first place. Furthermore you are manifesting to him the effect of being under the Kingly Rule of God. The Roman soldier who has exerted his legal right over you will be taken totally by surprise by your offer to carry his equipment a further mile. He will never have experienced anything like it before. It will open up the opportunity of testimony to Christ (he will want to know why you have done it) and he will never forget you or your testimony. He will tell all his comrades about it. By this means you will be the light of the world (Mat 5:14), and in each case what you have done you will have done for Christ, and Christ will reward you with His blessing. And by your act you will have demonstrated to the one who sought to get one over on you the depth of the love of Christ Who when He was reviled did not revile in return, but instead submitted the reviling to God and was content with whatever His verdict was (1Pe 2:23). It would be the attitude of the Servant of the Lord in Isa 50:6; Isa 53:3-4; Isa 53:7 (compare Mat 26:27). It would reveal to all that here were men who had a new heart and a new spirit within them (Jer 31:33; Eze 36:2-27), and who were thus involved in the eschatological renewal. They were under the Kingly Rule of Heaven and experiencing the eschatological work of the Spirit (Isa 43:1-5; Eze 36:26). The Kingly Rule of Heaven had drawn near.
It should be noted that these positive actions in response to the evil prevent the submission from being just a negative act. It is not a matter of meekly submitting and doing nothing. If we see someone else being treated in this way we might step in. But here the person involved will hopefully be brought up sharply by what is done, and will be made to think. It is not a question of doing nothing in the face of evil. It is a matter of witnessing to the Messianic peace and love.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Christ brings out this fact by a few examples:
v. 39. But whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.
v. 40. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.
v. 41. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. There is a climax in the examples chosen by Christ; injury goes from bad to worse. There will be times and circumstances when love will be ready patiently to suffer the repetition of the same injury: the disgrace of being struck with the palm of the open hand, the humiliation of giving up the more costly mantle or toga together with the tunic or undergarment, the demand and even the compulsion, coming probably from a soldier, to accompany him for some distance and assist him with his baggage. A Christian will, so far as his person alone is concerned, render such exacted service cheerfully and do more than is asked, rather than submit to the inevitable in a sullen manner. On the other hand, of course, such passive behavior must cease as soon as it comes into conflict with the law of love. A disciple of Christ has duties toward his family, his community, his country, which will sometimes compel him to protect and defend them against injustice and insult. But for the individual it is true: he that magnanimously bears, overcomes. Rather than harbor evil, vengeful thoughts and desires, the Christian will be ready to render assistance whenever this is needed:
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
Mat 5:39-40 . ] is neither to be understood of the devil (Chrysostom, Theophylact), nor, as neuter (Augustine, Luther, Castalio, Calvin, Ewald, and others), of injustice; but, in accordance with the antithesis , etc., and with Mat 5:40-41 : homini maligno .
Christ names first the right cheek, although the blow most naturally strikes first the left, but after the common fashion of naming the left after the right.
] to go to law . Vulgate well renders: in judicio contendere . Comp. on 1Co 6:1 ; Rom 3:4 ; and see Wetstein, Ngelsbach on the Iliad , p. 305, Exo 3 . It refers to legal controversy, not to the extra-judicial beginnings of contention (de Wette; also Beza, Grotius, Kuinoel, and others), by which the distinction between the two cases, Mat 5:39-40 , is quite overlooked.
] , the shirt-like under-garment, tunica; on the other hand, ] , , the mantle-like over-garment, toga, which also served for a covering by night, and might not therefore be retained as a pledge over night; Exo 22:26 ; Deu 24:13 . The was more valuable and more indispensable than the ; that is the point which, according to Matthew, Jesus has in view. It is different in Luk 6:29 (according to the order of succession in covering the body).
] by the lawsuit, which follows from ; whilst the pettiness of the object is not opposed to this, seeing that the method of illustration is by way of concrete example.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
Ver. 39. But I say unto you, that ye resist not evil ] For here to resist is to be overcome, saith St Paul, Rom 12:21 . And in a matter of strife or disagreement, he hath the worst that carries it, saith St Basil. Yea, Aristotle himself yieldeth, that of the twain it is better to suffer the greatest wrong than to do the least. a And it was a heavy challenge and charge upon those carnal Corinthians, that had strife, divisions, and lawsuits among them; “Why do ye not rather take wrong? why do ye not suffer yourselves to be defrauded? Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that your brethren,” 1Co 6:7-8 . But be not deceived, saith he, to wit, with vain hope of impunity, for God is the avenger of all such as, like the angry bee, care not to sting another, though it be to the loss of their own lives. b Besides that, in resisting evil, we give place to the devil, whom if by patience and forbearance we could resist, he would flee from us. “We wrestle not against flesh and blood” (as we think we do, when we conflict with men like ourselves, that have done us injury), “but against principalities and powers,” Eph 6:12 ; q.d. while we are busy in breaking those darts that men shoot from afar against us; we are oppressed by the devil near at hand to us, Eph 4:26 . c Here, by the way, magistrates must be admonished to take heed how they aggravate punishment upon a malefactor out of private grudge; parents also and masters, how they correct in a rage and fury. For although they be public persons, yet to give correction in a choleric mood is to ease their heart by way of revenge, it is a degree of resisting evil. The tyrant saith, , it is in my power to do it; the good governor saith, . It concerneth me to do it in point of duty, quoth a philosopher.
But whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek ] Socrates, a heathen, when he had received a box on the ear, answered, What an ill thing is it that men cannot foresee when they should put on a helmet, before they go abroad? d And when he was kicked by another, If an ass should kick me, said he, should I spurn him again? But we have those, that professing to be Christians, lest they should seem to he Anabaptists in taking two blows for one, will give two blows for one, yea, for none, sometimes: it is but a word and a blow with them, as it was with Cain, Lamech, Esau, who said, “The days of mourning for my father are at hand, then I will slay my brother Jacob,” Gen 27:41 . In which words he either threateneth his father (as Luther thinketh) for blessing his brother, q.d. I will be the death of my brother, and so cause my father to mourn: or else he threateneth his brother (as most interpreters sense it) after his father’s head is once laid, without any respect at all to his mother, whom he not so much as mentioneth. He took no great care how she would take it; and his deferring till his father’s death was more out of fear of a curse than conscience of a duty. There are those who read the words by way of a wish, Let the days of mourning for my father draw nigh, &c. And then it is a double parricide. Sure we are, that as concerneth his brother he comforted himself, purposing to kill him. He threatened him, saith the Septuagint ( ), Gen 27:42 , q.d. I will sit upon his skirts, and be even with him. The nature of ungodly men is vindictive, and rejoicing in other men’s hurt (which is the devil’s disease), especially if provoked by any injury or indignity, as smiting on the cheek. e But God will smite them on the cheek bone so hard, as that he will break the teeth of the ungodly; smite them in the hinder parts, where we use to whip froward children, and so put them to a perpetual reproach, Psa 3:7 ; Psa 78:66 . Neither only will he smite upon their loins, but through them, yea, he will crack their crowns, cleave their skulls, wound their hairy scalps, be their locks never so bushy, f their looks never so lofty and terrible, that count it courage to turn again and revenge, which every Turk and heathen, nay, every bull and boar, can do. The Lamb of God gave his cheeks to the smiters: so did Michaiah the meek, Job the just, and Paul the patient, Isa 50:6 ; Joh 18:23 ; 1Ki 22:24 ; Job 16:10 ; Act 23:2-3 ; yet not so patient, but he could set forth his privilege, when he was to be scourged, and clear his innocence with meekness of wisdom; and so may we, yea, we may safely decline a likely danger, in some cases especially, as our Saviour did. Apud Mahometanos ferunt paucas brevesque lites esse, quod temere litigantes publiae flagellis caedantur.
a
b Non minus mali est referre iniuriam, quam inferre. Lactant.
c Cur adeo laboramus ulciscendis infirmissimorum hominum iniuriis? Dum haec tela eminus proiecta frangimus, a diabolo opprimimur. Roloc. in locum.
d Quam molestum est nescire homines quando prodire debeant cum galca?
e , , , , dixit vitis hirco cum ab eo roderetur. Aesop.
f Lacones comam nutriebant ad terrorem.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
39. ] Here again, we have our divine Lawgiver legislating, not in the bondage of the letter so as to stultify His disciples, and in many circumstances to turn the salt of the earth into a means of corrupting it, but in the freedom of the spirit, laying down those great principles which ought to regulate the inner purposes and consequent actions of His followers. Taken slavishly and literally , neither did our Lord Himself conform to this precept ( Joh 18:22-23 ), nor his Apostles ( Act 23:3 ). But truly , and in the spirit , our blessed Redeemer obeyed it; ‘He gave his back to the smiters, and his cheeks to them that plucked off the hair, and hid not his face from shame and spitting’ ( Isa 50:6 ): and his Apostles also, see 1Co 4:9-13 .
] the evil man; ‘him who injures thee.’ Or, perhaps, in the indefinite sense, as before, evil, generally, ‘when thus directed against thee.’ Only, the other possible meaning there, ‘ the evil one ,’ is precluded here. : but not this particular form of his working (viz. malice directed against thyself) so as to revenge it on another.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Mat 5:39 . : resist not, either by endeavouring to prevent injury or by seeking redress for it. , not the devil, as Chrys. and Theophy. thought; either the evil doer or the evil doing or done. Opinion is much divided between the last two meanings. The sense is the same in either case. The A. V [28] takes as neuter, the R. V [29] as masculine. The former is on the whole to be preferred. Instances of injury in various forms are next specified to illustrate the general precept. These injuries have been variously distinguished to body, and property, and freedom, Tholuck; exemplum citatur injuriae, privatae, forensis, curialis , Bengel; injuries connected with honour, material good, waste of time, Achelis, who points out that the relation of the three, Ex. in Mat 5:39-41 , is that of an anti-climax, injuries to honour being felt most, and those involving waste of time least. . In the following instances there is a climax: injury proceeds from bad to worse. It is natural to expect the same in this one. But when the right cheek has been struck, is it an aggravation to strike the left? Tholuck, Bleek, and Meyer suggest that the right cheek is only named first according to common custom, not supposed to be struck first. Achelis conceives the right cheek to be struck first with the back of the hand, then the left with a return stroke with the palm, harder than the first, and expressing in a higher measure intention to insult. in class. Greek = to beat with rods; later, and in N. T., to smite with the palm of the hand; vide Lobeck, Phryn. , p. 175.
[28] Authorised Version.
[29] Revised Version.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
smite. Greek. rapizo. Occurs only in Matthew (here and Mat 26:67).
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
39. ] Here again, we have our divine Lawgiver legislating, not in the bondage of the letter so as to stultify His disciples, and in many circumstances to turn the salt of the earth into a means of corrupting it,-but in the freedom of the spirit, laying down those great principles which ought to regulate the inner purposes and consequent actions of His followers. Taken slavishly and literally, neither did our Lord Himself conform to this precept (Joh 18:22-23), nor his Apostles (Act 23:3). But truly, and in the spirit, our blessed Redeemer obeyed it; He gave his back to the smiters, and his cheeks to them that plucked off the hair, and hid not his face from shame and spitting (Isa 50:6): and his Apostles also, see 1Co 4:9-13.
] the evil man; him who injures thee. Or, perhaps, in the indefinite sense, as before, evil, generally, when thus directed against thee. Only, the other possible meaning there, the evil one, is precluded here. : but not this particular form of his working (viz. malice directed against thyself) so as to revenge it on another.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Mat 5:39. , not to resist) The infinitive is governed by , I say, as in Rev 13:14. To resist evil is to return injury for injury.-, but) Our Lord gives examples of private, legal, and political wrong, Mat 5:39-41.-, shall smite) elsewhere is to strike with rods, but in this passage as the cheek is mentioned, it means to smite with the open hand.- , the right cheek) or the left either. See Luk 6:29. An instance of Synedoche.[223]-, turn) It is sometimes advisable to do so literally.[224] The world says, on the other hand, Assert thy courage by a duel. Those who are able ought ere this to have made a stand against this evil, this disgrace of the Christian name, and to have given all diligence that they might do so effectually. One man who becomes a murderer by a duel involves a whole camp in his guilt. Many, so far dilute and extenuate the lessons here given by the Saviour, that they slide down to a level with the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, or even below it.
[223] See Explanation of Technical Terms in Appendix.-(I. B.)
[224] Spiritual prudence will teach the children of GOD, when they ought to do so. The words of Christ are not words belonging to the mere human and natural life, but to the eternal life. What seems folly to the world, appears in a quite different light in the eternal Life.-Vers. Germ.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
That: Lev 19:18, 1Sa 24:10-15, 1Sa 25:31-34, 1Sa 26:8-10, Job 31:29-31, Pro 20:22, Pro 24:29, Luk 6:29, Rom 12:17-19, 1Co 6:7, 1Th 5:15, Heb 12:4, Jam 5:6, 1Pe 3:9
whosoever: 1Ki 22:24, Job 16:10, Isa 50:6, Lam 3:30, Mic 5:1, Luk 6:29, Luk 22:64, 1Pe 2:20-23
Reciprocal: Deu 19:21 – life shall Pro 3:30 – General Pro 17:14 – leave Mat 5:28 – I say Mat 26:52 – Put Mat 26:67 – and others Luk 9:56 – And Rom 12:19 – give Phi 4:5 – your
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
5:39
The sermon on the mount is largely a document of principles and not specific rules, and the spirit of the teaching is to be followed instead of the letter. This very verse is an indication of the correctness of the aforesaid conclusion, for no one would be expected literally to turn a cheek toward a would-be smiter.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
[Whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek.] That the doctrine of Christ may here more clearly shine out, let the Jewish doctrine be set against it; to which he opposeth his.
“Does any one give his neighbour a box on the ear? Let him give him a shilling. R. Judah in the name of R. Josi of Galilee saith, Let him give him a pound.”
“Does he give him a blow upon the cheek? Let him give him two hundred zuzes; if with the other hand, let him give four hundred.” Compare with this passage Mat 5:39: ‘If any shall strike thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.’
“Does he twitch him by the ear; or does he pull off his hair; or does he spit, so that his spittle falls upon him; or does he take away his coat” [note this also, and compare Mat 5:40 with it, ‘He that will take away thy coat,’ etc.]; “or does he uncover a woman’s head in public? Let him give four hundred zuzees.”
They fetch the reason of so severe a mulct chiefly from the shame done him that is thus injured, and from the disgrace of the thing itself; and, moreover, from the dignity of an Israelite: which is declared at large by the Gemarists upon the words cited, and by Maimonides.
“Those mulcts [say they] are established and inflicted according to the dignity of the person injured. But R. Akibah said, ‘Even the poorest Israelites are to be esteemed as though they were persons of quality divested of their estates, because they are the sons of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.’ ”
Hence the entrance to our Saviour’s doctrine lies easy: 1. He cites the law of retaliation, that, by laying one against the other, Christian charity and forgiveness might shine the clearer. 2. He mentions these particulars which seemed to be the most unworthy, and not to be borne by the high quality of a Jew, that he might the more preach up evangelical humility, and patience, and self-denial. But why was the law of retaliation given, if at last it is melted down into this? On the same reason as the law of death was given concerning adultery, namely, for terror, and to demonstrate what the sin was. Both were to be softened by charity; this by forgiveness, that by a bill of divorce: or, if the husband so pleased, by forgiveness also.
Fuente: Lightfoot Commentary Gospels
Mat 5:39. Resist not evil (wrong),or, the evil man. The general principle governing all the cases mentioned. Lange: Our Lord refers to sin and evil in the world, which is conquered by wise Christian submission rather than by strenuous resistance. To be merely passive, were weakness; but a non-resistance, from Christian principle and for a spiritual object, is true strength and real victory.
But whosoever smiteth thee on thy right cheek, etc. An application of the principle to a case of violence against the person. Christian love must make us bear twice as much as the world, in its injustice, could demand. This neither justifies the world in its demand, nor requires passive non-resistance, since the example of Christ (Joh 18:22) and His Apostles show that there is a time for standing upon our rights. The literal observance may be Pharisaical, yet when rendered in the true spirit, has often most successfully overcome violence. These remarks apply in general to all the cases adduced.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Verse 39
Resist not evil; bear injuries meekly, without retaliation. Like the foregoing precepts, this rule is intended to be applied to the private intercourse of society. The whole tenor of the Scriptures shows that it is the right and the duty of civil governments to exercise coercion, when necessary to restrain or punish the wicked. Paul appealed to the Roman government when in danger, and accepted the protection of an armed escort. (Acts 23:16-33.)
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
Jesus gave four illustrations to clarify what He meant. In the first (Mat 5:39 b), a disciple suffers an unjustified physical attack on his or her person. What is that one to do? He or she should not injure the aggressor in return but should absorb the injury and the insult. He should even be ready to accept the same attack again. In Jesus’ illustration the disciple gets slapped on the right cheek. Under normal conditions this would come from the back of a right-handed person’s right hand. Such a slap was an insult more than an injury. However, we should probably not make too much of that point. The point is that disciples should accept insult and injury without retaliating. In Jesus "honor shame" culture such a sacrifice was perhaps greater than it is for us today in the West.
Second, if someone wanted to extract as much as the disciple’s undergarment for some real or imagined offense, the disciple was to part with it willingly (Mat 5:40). The disciple should not resist the evil antagonist’s action. Moreover he or she should be ready and willing to part with his or her outer garment as well. Under Mosaic Law, a person’s outer cloak was something he or she had an almost inalienable right to retain (Exo 22:26-27; Deu 24:13). This is another example of hyperbole. Jesus did not intend His disciples to walk around naked but to be generous even toward enemies even if it meant parting with essential possessions.
The third illustration requires some background knowledge of customs in New Testament times to appreciate (Mat 5:41). The Romans sometimes commandeered civilians to carry the luggage of military personnel, but the civilian did not have to carry the luggage for more than one Roman mile. [Note: W. Hatch, Essays in Biblical Greek, pp. 37-38.] This imposition exasperated and infuriated many a proud Jew. Again the disciple is not only to refrain from retaliating but even to refrain from resisting this personal injustice. Jesus advocated going an extra mile. The disciple is to respond to unjustified demands by giving even more than the adversary asks, and he or she is to return good for evil.
Fourth, Jesus told His disciples to give what others request of them, assuming it is within their power to do so (Mat 5:41). This applies to loans as well as gifts (cf. Exo 22:25; Lev 25:37; Deu 23:19). A willing and generous spirit is implicit in this command (cf. Deu 15:7-11; Psa 37:26; Psa 112:5). This does not mean we should give all our money away to individuals and institutions that ask for our financial assistance (cf. Pro 11:15; Pro 17:18; Pro 22:26). The scene in view in all these illustrations and in all of this teaching is one individual dealing with another individual. Personal wrongs are in view, not social or governmental crimes. [Note: See Hagner, p. 131.]
". . . Jesus is here talking to his disciples, and speaking of personal relations: he is not laying down moral directives for states and nations, and such issues as the work of police or the question of a defensive war are simply not in his mind." [Note: Hunter, A Pattern . . ., pp. 57-58.]
There is a progression in these illustrations from simply not resisting to giving generously to those who make demands that tempt us to retaliate against them. Love must be the disciple’s governing principle, not selfishness. [Note: See G. Campbell Morgan, The Gospel According to Matthew, p. 58.]
Some conscientious believers have taken Jesus’ instructions about resisting aggression literally and refuse to defend themselves in any situation either as pacifists or as advocates of non-resistance. However the spirit of the law, which Jesus clarified, did not advocate turning oneself into a doormat. It stressed meeting hatred with positive love rather than hatred. Though Jesus allowed His enemies to lead Him as a lamb to the slaughter, He did not cave in to every hostile attack from the scribes and Pharisees. Likewise, Paul claimed his Roman citizenship rather than suffering prolonged attack by the Jews. Disciples may stand up for their rights, but when we are taken advantage of we should always respond in love.
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
Jesus first expounded God’s intention regarding retaliation. Essentially He said: When evil people do you wrong, do not resist them. "Resist" (Gr. anthistemi) means to defend oneself, not to take aggressive action against someone, as the following verses illustrate. When evil people do bad things to us, Jesus’ disciples should accept the injustice without taking revenge. [Note: Stott, p. 105.] Implicit in this view are Old Testament promises that God will take care of the righteous. Therefore to accept injustice without retaliating expresses trust that God will faithfully care for His own. The Old Testament taught that the Jews were to leave vengeance to God (Lev 19:17-18; Deu 32:35; Psa 94:1; Pro 20:22; Pro 24:29). Discerning Jews realized this in Jesus’ day. [Note: Plummer, p. 85.] Paul resisted (Gr. anthistemi) Peter (Gal 2:11) out of love for the gospel and his fellow believers, not out of selfishness. We should stand up for what is right and for the rights of others, but we should trust God to stand up for us.