Matthew 5:38-42

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

(Parallel: Luke 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 (Matthew 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 one's honor, one's person or one's 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? (Luke 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 one's right to fight for his petty claims reveal about that man's 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 (Matthew 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 Law's Way, Matthew 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 God's 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 Exodus 21:24-25; Leviticus 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. Deuteronomy 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 one's own heedless passion which could strike out the eye of another. Thus, in effect, both men's 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. Exodus 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 Lord's Way, Matthew 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. (Galatians 2:5; Galatians 2:11; Titus 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 (Ephesians 6:11; Ephesians 6:13-14; Hebrews 12:4; James 4:7; 1 Peter 5:9) His purpose for coming into the world was to attack openly and relentlessly Satan and all those representing his interests (Hebrews 2:14; 1 John 3:8; cf. Matthew 12:28-29). Jesus-' personal example shows how He intended this teaching. He vigorously cleansed the Temple two times of its graft and corruption (John 2:11 ff; Matthew 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. Matthew 15:1-20; Matthew 16:1-12; Matthew 23; Mark 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 (Luke 6:27-31) and Leviticus (Leviticus 19:18) connect, by contrast, the desire to take vengeance on the one hand, and on the other, love for one's 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)

Matthew 5:39 b But whosoever smiteth thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. This is a question of one's 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. Luke 6:27-29) Only this kind of active love, which treats the enemy as oneself, is capable of enduring all things. (1 Corinthians 13:7) It is almost, if not entirely, impossible to be a peacemaker while seeking revenge. (See on Matthew 5:9) While it is true that God will wreak vengeance upon them that do not know and obey Him (2 Thessalonians 1:7-10), yet the wrath of man cannot pretend to dispense such perfectly righteous justice. (Cf. James 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 (John 18:22-23), but rebuked His smiters, challenging their right to do so. Paul (Acts 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, (Matthew 26:52-53; Luke 9:51-55; Acts 13:6-12.)

B. BY RELINQUISHING ONE'S RIGHT TO RESIST (second illustration)

Matthew 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 (Exodus 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 one's right to fight for his possessions bespeaks an unselfishness and dignity that rises above petty claims. (Cf. 1 Corinthians 6:1-8; Hebrews 10:34)

This, however, is no prohibition of seeking justice through the courts, since defending one's rights by law may also be necessary and right for serious and truly important cases. (Cf. Acts 16:35-39; Acts 22:25-29; Acts 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 one's 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 Matthew 5:5)

C. BY RENDERING REQUESTED RELIEF WITHOUT RANCOR

Matthew 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. Matthew 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 soldier's 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: Ephesians 6:5-8; Philippians 2:14; Philippians 4:5; Titus 3:2; James 3:17; 1 Peter 2:18 f; Romans 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. 1 Thessalonians 5:15)

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

Matthew 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. (Exodus 22:25-27; Leviticus 25:35-46; Deuteronomy 15:7-15; Deuteronomy 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. Luke 6:32-36 to catch this spirit of ready helpfulness.) Jesus encourages this liberality to respond to genuine needs: widows and orphans (James 1:27), an unfortunate (James 2:14-17; 1 John 3:17), or someone really hungry, cold, ill-clad, sick or in prison (Matthew 25:35-45), Sometimes gainful employment is the most honorable help to give; other times, food, clothing, etc., according to the need. (See Acts 11:27-30; Romans 15:25-28; Romans 15:31; 2 Corinthians 8:9; Ephesians 4:28; Galatians 6:10, for wider application.)

Jesus-' rule must never be interpreted so as to encourage laziness, shiftlessness or greed. Note 2 Thessalonians 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. 1 Timothy 5:8; 1 Thessalonians 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 another's real need? Sometimes employment for a wage could restore a man's 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 recipient's best interest by making him a better man?

4.

Give as secretly as possible. (Matthew 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. (Romans 12:17-21; 1 Thessalonians 5:15; 1 Peter 3:3; 1 Peter 2:21-24; cf. Isaiah 50:6; Proverbs 20:22; Proverbs 24:29)

Certain psychological advantages may be found in Jesus-' counsel. To offer one's 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 one's 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 Christian's 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.)