29<\/strong>. offer also the other<\/em> ] The general principle “resist not evil” ( Mat 5:39 ; 1Co 6:7<\/span>; 1Pe 2:19-23<\/span>) impressed for ever on the memory and conscience of mankind by a striking paradox. That it is only meant as a paradox in its literal<\/em> sense is shewn by the fact that our Lord Himself, while most divinely true to its spirit<\/em>, did not act on the letter of it (Joh 18:22-23<\/span>). The remark of a good man on reading the Sermon on the Mount, “either this is not true, or we are no Christians,” need not be correct of any of us. The precepts are meant,<\/p>\n St Augustine said, more “ ad praeparationem cordis quae intus est<\/em> ” than<\/p>\n “ ad opus quod in aperto fit;”<\/em> but still, the fewer exceptions we make the better, and the more absolutely we apply the spirit<\/em> of the rules, the fewer difficulties shall we find about the letter.<\/p>\n thy cloke…thy coat<\/em> ] The himation<\/em> was the upper garment, the shawl-like abba<\/em>; the chiton<\/em> was the tunic. See on Luk 3:11<\/span>.<\/p>\n Verse 29. Thy cloak – thy coat<\/B><\/I>] In Mt 5:40<\/span>, I have said that COAT, , signifies under garment<\/I>, or strait coat<\/I>; and CLOAK, , means upper garment<\/I>, or great coat<\/I>. This interpretation is confirmed by the following observations of Bishop Pearce. The was a tunica<\/I>, or vestcoat<\/I>, over which the Jews and other nations threw an outer coat<\/I>, or gown<\/I>, called a cloak<\/I>, Mt 5:40<\/span>, (which is meant by ,) when they went abroad, or were not at work. Hence the common people at Rome, who did not usually wear, or had no right to wear, the toga<\/I>, are called by Horace tunicatus popellus<\/I>, Epist. i. 7, 65. This account of the difference between the and the appears plainly from what Maximus Tyrius<\/I> says, The<\/I> inner garment which is over the body they call<\/I> , and the<\/I> outer one the<\/I> . And so Plutarch<\/I>, (in NUPT. p. 139, ed. Fran. 1620,) speaking of a man who felt the heat of the sun too much for him, says that he put off<\/I>, , , his<\/I> vestcoat also with his cloak<\/I>.<\/P> <\/p>\n And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek<\/strong>,…. The right cheek,<\/p>\n offer also the other<\/strong>; the left cheek, by turning it to him, that he may smite that likewise, if he thinks fit: by which proverbial expression, Christ teaches patience in bearing injuries and affronts, and not to seek private revenge; but rather, suffer more, than indulge such a temper; and for the same purpose is what follows urged:<\/p>\n and him that taketh away thy cloak, forbid not to take thy coat also<\/strong>: the phrase is inverted in Matthew;<\/p>\n <scripRef version="Gill" content="[See comments on Mt 5:39. See Gill on “>Mt 5:40.<\/p>\n On the cheek <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). Mt 5:39<\/span> has “right.” Old word meaning jaw or jawbone, but in the N.T. only here and Mt 5:39<\/span>, which see for discussion. It seems an act of violence rather than contempt. Sticklers for extreme literalism find trouble with the conduct of Jesus in Joh 18:22f.<\/span> where Jesus, on receiving a slap in the face, protested against it.<\/P> Thy cloke <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>), thy coat <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). Here the upper and more valuable garment (<\/SPAN><\/span>) is first taken, the under and less valuable <\/SPAN><\/span> last. In Mt 5:40<\/span> the process (apparently a legal one) is reversed.<\/P> Withhold not <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). Aorist subjunctive in prohibition against committing an act. Do not hinder him in his robbing. It is usually useless anyhow with modern armed bandits. <\/P><\/p>\n Cheek [] <\/SPAN><\/span>. Lit., the jaw. The cheek is pareia. The blow intended is not, therefore, a mere slap, but a heavy blow; an act of violence rather than of contempt. <\/P> Taketh away [] <\/SPAN><\/span>. Lit., taketh up, lifteth. <\/P> Cloke – coat. See on Mt 5:40<\/span>.<\/P> <\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n 1) “And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek,” <\/strong>(to tuptonti se epi ten siagona) “To the one who strikes you repeatedly on the cheek,” as an individual to an individual, Mat 5:39<\/span>.<\/p>\n 2) “Offer also the other,” <\/strong>(pareche kai ten alien) “Turn also the other,” as our Lord did, in an exemplary way, Joh 18:22-23<\/span>; Mat 5:39<\/span>.<\/p>\n 3) “And him that taketh away thy cloak,” <\/strong>(kai apo tou airontos sou to himation) “And from the one who takes up and carries off your garment,” loose outer garment, without your permission, for his own selfish, covetous use, Mat 5:40<\/span>.<\/p>\n 4) “Forbid not to take thy coat also.” <\/strong>(kai ton chitona me koluses) “Do not prevent him from also taking your tunic,” your inner garment, Mat 5:40<\/span>. Matthew reverses the order of the garments, while both agree that leniency is to be granted to the covetous, legal theft.<\/p>\n (29) And unto him that smiteth thee . . .<\/strong>See Notes on Mat. 5:39-40<\/span>.<\/p>\n And him that taketh away thy cloke.<\/strong>St. Lukes report of the maxim points to direct violence, St. Matthews to legal process. It is noticeable also that St. Luke inverts the order of the cloke and the coat. <\/em>If he takes the upper garment, give him the under one also.<\/p>\n Love Is Illustrated (6:29-31).<\/p>\n j <\/strong> To him who smites you on the one cheek, offer also the other (Luk 6:29<\/span> a)<\/p>\n k <\/strong> And from him who takes away your cloak, do not withhold your coat also (Luk 6:29<\/span> b).<\/p>\n k <\/strong> Give to every one who asks you, and of him who takes away your goods, ask them not again (Luk 6:30<\/span>).<\/p>\n j <\/strong> And as you would that men should do to you, do you also to them in the same way (Luk 6:31<\/span>).<\/p>\n “To him who smites you on the one cheek offer also the other,<\/p>\n And from him who takes away your cloak withhold not your coat also.<\/p>\n Give to every one who asks you, and of him who takes away your goods ask them not again.<\/p>\n And as you would that men should do to you, do you also to them in the same way.”<\/p>\n We have here four examples of how love behaves. When struck it does not strike back. This is talking about response to a blow struck in anger or in contempt. It is not talking about how to deal with someone who intends severe physical harm. To a blow struck suddenly in anger or contempt the Christian is to turn the other cheek, not literally, but in how he responds. He does not respond blow for blow. Instead he seeks to be conciliatory and to show love to the one who has hit or smitten him (compare Joh 18:23<\/span>).<\/p>\n To the one who takes his outer coat the Christian hands over his undergarment also. If this were taken literally all Christians would walk around naked. But that is not the intention. The point is that the person has taken his outer garment, which most Jews would look on as sacrosanct. This would be looked on by most as an unforgivable injury. But for the Christian the point is that if a man is in such need that he will do such a dreadful thing then the Christian should not just be satisfied with letting him have the coat, but should follow him up to see if he can do anything further for him as well.<\/p>\n In Mat 5:40<\/span> Jesus had spoken of the inner clothing being taken by court action. Thus here He has strengthened the picture of the affront that has been given in order to make the illustration more forceful.<\/p>\n ‘Give to him who asks of you’ refers to someone known to be in need who seeks financial help. The assumption is that the circumstances will be known, although that must not take away from the general idea. Help should be given to those in need. But in many cases today, with people who we do not know, simple giving to assuage the conscience would not necessarily be an act of love. If a man says to us that he is hungry he may well mean hungry for drugs. It would not be love to give him money. Love will rather take him to the bakery or food stall in order to buy him food. In such cases giving money might be the easy way out and might even be seen as doing him harm and therefore as sinful. The basic idea is, ‘make sure that the needs of anyone who comes to you for help are being met’.<\/p>\n ‘Of him who takes away your goods ask them not again.’ This does not refer to someone who has borrowed a book or a lawnmower. It refers to someone who in dire need has taken what belongs to someone else. If the person is in such need then love will allow him to keep it, and will see what more it can do.<\/p>\n ‘And as you would that men should do to you, do you also to them in the same way.’ Finally Jesus adds on a catch-all saying. This principle is a simple test of what is right. It means behaving towards others in their best interests, in the same way as we would want them to behave towards us. By taking this approach we can fairly quickly define what is good and what is not.<\/p>\n In its negative form this statement was a well known, if not well practised, saying. In its negative form it was spoken by Isocrates and the Stoics among others, by Confucius, and by Rabbi Hillel who came before the time of Jesus, and it has often been pointed out that essentially, when analysed in depth, the negative form is saying the same thing as the positive form. But while philosophically that might be true, there is no question but that the positive form gives a more positive angle to the saying, for people on the whole do not analyse. They gather impressions. The positive form is much rarer, and probably did not occur before Jesus’ use of it. It stresses the positive approach, rather than just that of abstaining from doing harmful things. Jesus was concerned with positive living.<\/p>\n So in a well rounded way Jesus completed the list of positive actions with the most positive of all. It is another way of saying, ‘you shall love your neighbour as yourself’ (Lev 19:18<\/span>; Lev 19:34<\/span>), as long as by our neighbour we understand those that we share the earth with. But the problem with the latter was that many of the Jews had hedged it round. Firstly they limited it to Jews. Then they limited it to Jews that they approved of. Thus in the end it came to mean for them ‘love those who are in your particular circle’. Jesus here makes sure that His command applies to all men and women.<\/p>\n Such Love Is To Be Towards The Undeserving.<\/p>\n Luk 6:31<\/span> is now taken up and explained, in the context of what has gone before. To treat friends in a loving way is normal, but to treat all others in such a way is unusual. However that is the very purpose of the Messianic requirement.<\/p>\n Luk 6:29<\/span> . See on Mat 5:39<\/span> f.<\/p>\n . . .] , to keep back from any one<\/em> ; Xen. Cyrop<\/em> . i. 3. 11 : ; iii. 3. 51: ; Gen 23:6<\/span> . Erasmus says aptly: “Subito mutatus numerus facit ad inculcandum praeceptum, quod unusquisque sic audire debeat quasi sibi uni dicatur.”<\/p>\n 29 And unto him that smiteth thee on the one<\/em> cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloke forbid not to take thy<\/em> coat also. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n Ver. 29. That smiteth thee on the one cheek<\/strong> ] Socrates, when one gave him a box on the ear in the market place, said, Quam molestum est nescire homines quando prodire debeant cam galea?<\/em> What an odd thing it is to go abroad without a helmut. <\/p>\n 29.<\/strong> ] See Mat 5:39<\/span> ff.<\/p>\n Luk 6:29<\/span> = Mat 5:39-40<\/span> with some changes: for , for ; suggests the idea of robbery instead of legal proceedings pointed at by Mt.’s ; and change places, naturally, as the robber takes first the upper garment; for Mt.’s Lk. puts = withhold not (for the construction , which Bornemann thought unexampled, vide<\/em> Gen 23:6<\/span> , Sept [66] ).<\/p>\n [66] Septuagint.<\/p>\n on. Greek. epi. App-104. Not the same word as in verses: Luk 6:1, Luk 6:2, Luk 6:6, Luk 1:7, Luk 1:20. <\/p>\n cheek = jaw. <\/p>\n also the other = the other also. <\/p>\n other. See App-124. <\/p>\n cloke = mantle. See Mat 5:40. <\/p>\n not. Greek me. App-105. <\/p>\n coat = tunic. See Mat 5:40. <\/p>\n 29.] See Mat 5:39 ff.<\/p>\n unto: Mat 5:39 <\/p>\n smiteth: Luk 22:64, 2Ch 18:23, Isa 50:6, Lam 3:30, Mic 5:1, Mat 26:67, Joh 18:22, Act 23:2, 1Co 4:11, 2Co 11:20 <\/p>\n and him: 2Sa 19:30, Mat 5:40, Mat 5:41, 1Co 6:7, Heb 10:34 <\/p>\n Reciprocal: Phi 4:5 – your<\/p>\n 9<\/p>\n See the comments at Mat 5:39.<\/p>\n Luk 6:29-30. See on Mat 5:39-42. The order is varied, but the connection is the same.<\/p>\n Luk 6:29; Luk 6:31. To him, &c. You who hear my gospel ought to be patient under injuries, as well as benevolent toward the unthankful. To him that smiteth thee on thy cheek that taketh away thy cloak These seem to be proverbial expressions, to signify an invasion of the tenderest points of honour and property. Offer the other, &c. Forbid not thy coat That is, rather yield to his repeating the affront, or injury, than gratify resentment in righting yourself, in any method not becoming Christian love. Give to every man Friend or enemy, what thou canst spare, and he really wants; and of him that taketh away thy goods By borrowing; ask them not again If he be insolvent: or, do not exact them if it will distress the person concerned to repay thee: rather lose them, if consistent with other duties, than demand them by a legal process. Dr. Doddridge translates and paraphrases the clause thus: From him that taketh away thy possessions, in an injurious manner, do not immediately demand them back in the forms of law, but rather endeavour, by gentle methods, to reduce the offender to reason. The Greek expression, , here rendered, taketh away thy goods, properly signifies, taketh them away violently, or by fraud. But, as Dr. Macknight observes, Whatever sense we put on our Lords precept, it must be understood with the limitations which common sense directs us to make; namely, that we give and lend freely to all who ask, or permit them to retain what they have unjustly taken, provided only that it be a thing of small account, which we can easily spare, and the persons who ask or take such things be in real necessity. And as ye would that men should do unto you, &c. See note on Mat 7:12.<\/p>\n Vers. 29 and 30. Patient Charity.And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek, offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloak, forbid not to take thy coat also. 30. Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again.<\/p>\n Paul also regards , to be long-suffering, as on a par with , to do good (Charity suffereth long, and is kind, 1Co 13:4). The natural heart thinks it does a great deal when it respects a neighbour’s rights; it does not rise to the higher idea of sacrificing its own. Jesus here describes a charity which seems to ignore its own rights, and knows no bounds to its self-sacrifice. He exhibits this sublime ideal in actual instances (lit. in the most concrete traits) and under the most paradoxical forms. In order to explain these difficult words, Olshausen maintained that they only applied to the members of the kingdom of God among themselves, and not to the relations of Christians with the world. But would Jesus have entertained the supposition of strikers and thieves among His own people? Again, it has been said that these precepts expressed nothing more than an emphatic condemnation of revenge (Calvin), that they were hyperboles (Zwingle), a portrayal of the general disposition which the Christian is to exemplify in each individual case, according as regard for God’s glory and his neighbour’s salvation may permit (Tholuck); which comes to St. Augustine’s idea, that these precepts concern the praeparatio cordis rather than the opus quod in aperto fit. Without denying that there is some truth in all these explanations, we think that they do not altogether grasp the idea. Jesus means that, as far as itself is concerned, charity know no limits to its self-denial. If, therefore, it ever puts a stop to its concessions, it is in no way because it feels its patience exhausted; true charity is infinite as God Himself, whose essence it is. Its limit, if it has any, is not that which its rights draw around it; it is a limit like that which the beautiful defines for itself, proceeding from within. It is in charity that the disciple of Jesus yields, when he yields; it is in charity also that he resists, when he resists. CHARITY HAS NO OTHER LIMIT THAN CHARITY ITSELF, that is to say, it is boundless. does not-properly mean, as it is ordinarily translated, the cheek (), but the jaw; the blow given, therefore, is not a slap, but a heavy blow. Consequently it is an act of violence, rather than of contempt, that is meant.<\/p>\n The disciple who has completely sacrificed his person, naturally will not refuse his clothes. As denotes the upper garment, and the under garment or tunic which is worn next the skin, it would seem that here also it is an act of violence that is meant, a theft perpetrated by main force; the thief first snatches away the upper garment. Matthew presents the reverse order: He who would take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. This is because with him it is an affair of legal process (if any man will sue thee at the law). The creditor begins by possessing himself of the coat, which is less valuable; then, if he is not sufficiently compensated, he claims the under garment. This juridical form stands connected in Matthew with the article of the Mosaic code which Jesus has just cited: an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. Matthew, therefore, appears to have preserved the original words of this passage. But is it possible to conceive, that if Luke had had Matthew’s writing before him, or the document made use of by the author of this Gospel, he would have substituted, on his own authority, a totally different thought from that of his predecessor? <\/p>\n Ver. 30. Another form of the same thought. A Christian, so far as he is concerned, would neither refuse anything nor claim anything back. If, therefore, he does either one or the other, it is always out of charity. This sentiment regulates his refusals as well as his gifts, the maintenance as well as the sacrifice of his rights. <\/p>\n Verse 29 <\/p>\n Be of a yielding and forgiving disposition, and not eager to contend for your rights. It is not meant to require, always and absolutely, passive submission to insult and injury. The apostle Paul appealed to the military force of the country for protection when his life was in danger.<\/p>\n Disciples should not resist the violent attacks of their opponents. The attack may be an insult (cf. Mat 5:39) or a violent punch on the jaw (Gr. siagon<\/span>). [Note: Morris, p. 129.] <\/span> In either case, this is an attack on the disciple’s person. An attack against his family members might require their defense, though not with more than defensive action against the attacker. Disciples need to guard themselves against pride that sometimes masquerades as chivalry while at the same time defending those in their care and trying not to overreact against the attacker.<\/p>\n Taking the outer cloak (Gr. himation<\/span>) implies that the setting is a street robbery. In legal disputes the undergarment (Gr. chiton<\/span>, cf. Mat 5:40) more often went to the victor. Luke pictured a robber taking an outer garment. The person being attacked should offer the robber his undergarment (undershirt) also. Matthew conversely pictured a lawsuit in which an enemy sues the disciple for his undergarment and the disciple offers his outer garment. In this whole section, Luke described what was more typical in the Gentile world and Matthew what was more common among Jews.<\/p>\n "The Christian should never refrain from giving out of a love for his possessions." [Note: Ibid., p. 130.] <\/span><\/p>\n "The teaching of the passage as a whole relates not so much to passivity in the face of evil as to concern for the other person." [Note: Liefeld, p. 893.] <\/span><\/p>\n In refraining from doing evil the disciple may suffer evil. This is how Jesus behaved and what He experienced (Luk 23:34; cf. 1Pe 2:20-24). It is what He taught His disciples to do and to expect too.<\/p>\n And unto him that smiteth thee on the [one] cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloak forbid not [to take thy] coat also. 29. offer also the other ] The general principle “resist not evil” ( Mat 5:39 ; 1Co 6:7; 1Pe 2:19-23) impressed for ever on the memory and … Continue reading “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Luke 6:29”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-25159","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25159","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=25159"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25159\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=25159"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=25159"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=25159"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
See Gill on ]” passage=”Mt 5:39.<\/p>\nFuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Greek Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"