MATTHEW 5 38-48 COMMETARYEDITED BY GLE PEASE

Eye for Eye38 You have heard that it was said, Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.[h]

BARES, "An eye for an eye ... - This command is found in Exo_21:24; Lev_24:20, and Deu_19:21. In these places it was given as a rule to regulate the decisions of judges. They were to take eye for eye, and tooth for tooth, and to inflict burning for burning. As a judicial rule it is not unjust. Christ finds no fault with the rule as applied to magistrates, and does not take upon himself to repeal it. But instead of confining it to magistrates, the Jews had extended it to private conduct, and made it the rule by which to take revenge. They considered themselves justified by this rule to inflict the same injury on others that they had received. Our Saviour remonstrates against this. He declares that the law had no reference to private revenge, that it was given only to regulate the magistrate, and that their private conduct was to be governed by different principles.

The general principle which he laid down was, that we are not to resist evil; that is, as it is in the Greek, nor to set ourselves against an evil person who is injuring us. But even this general direction is not to be pressed too strictly. Christ did not intend to teach that we are to see our families murdered, or be murdered ourselves; rather than to make resistance. The law of nature, and all laws, human and divine, justify self-defense when life is in danger. It cannot surely be the intention to teach that a father should sit by coolly and see his family butchered by savages, and not be allowed to defend them. Neither natural nor revealed religion ever did, or ever can, inculcate this doctrine. Our Saviour immediately explains what he means by it. Had he intended to refer it to a case where life is in danger, he would most surely have mentioned it. Such a case was far more worthy of statement than those which he did mention.

A doctrine so unusual, so unlike all that the world had believed. and that the best people had acted on, deserved to be formally stated. Instead of doing this, however, he confines himself to smaller matters, to things of comparatively trivial interest, and says that in these we had better take wrong than to enter into strife and lawsuits. The first case is where we are smitten on the cheek. Rather than contend and fight, we should take it patiently, and turn the other cheek. This does not, however, prevent our remonstrating firmly yet mildly on the injustice of the thing, and insisting that justice should be done us, as is evident from the example of the Saviour himself. See Joh_18:23. The second evil mentioned is where a man is litigious and determined to take all the advantage the law can give him, following us with vexatious and expensive lawsuits. Our Saviour directs us, rather than to imitate him rather than to contend with a revengeful

spirit in courts of justice to take a trifling injury, and yield to him. This is merely a question about property, and not about conscience and life.

Coat - The Jews wore two principal garments, an interior and an exterior. The interior, here called the coat, or the tunic, was made commonly of linen, and encircled the whole body, extending down to the knees. Sometimes beneath this garment, as in the case of the priests, there was another garment corresponding to pantaloons. The coat, or tunic, was extended to the neck. and had long or short sleeves. Over this was commonly worn an upper garment, here called cloak, or mantle. It was made commonly nearly square, of different sizes, 5 or 6 cubits long and as many broad, and was wrapped around the body, and was thrown off when labor was performed. If, said Christ, an adversary wished to obtain, at law, one of these garments, rather than contend with him let him have the other also. A reference to various articles of apparel occurs frequently in the New Testament, and it is desirable to have a correct view of the ancient mode of dress. in order to a proper understanding of the Bible. The Asiatic modes of dress are nearly the same from age to age, and hence it is not difficult to illustrate the passages where such a reference occurs. The ordinary dress consisted of the inner garment, the outer garment, the girdle (belt), and the sandals. In regard to the sandals, see the notes at Mat_3:11.

In the girdle (belt) was the place of the pouch Mat_10:9, and to it the sword and dirk were commonly attached. Compare 2Sa_20:8. In modern times the pistols are also fastened to the belt. It is the usual place for the handkerchief, smoking materials, inkhorn, and, in general, the implements of ones profession. The belt served to confine the loose-flowing robe or outer garment to the body. It held the garment when it was tucked up, as it was usually in walking or in labor. Hence, to gird up the loins became a significant figurative expression, denoting readiness for service, activity, labor, and watchfulness; and to loosen the loins denoted the giving way to repose and indolence, 2Ki_4:29; Job_38:3; Isa_5:27; Luk_12:35; Joh_21:7.

Whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile - The word translated shall compel is of Persian origin. Post-offices were then unknown. In order that the royal commands might be delivered with safety and despatch in different parts of the empire, Cyrus stationed horsemen at proper intervals on all the great public highways. One of those delivered the message to another, and intelligence was thus rapidly and safely communicated. These heralds were permitted to compel any person, or to press any horse, boat, ship, or other vehicle that they might need for the quick transmission of the kings commandments. It was to this custom that our Saviour refers. Rather, says he, than resist a public authority requiring your attendance and aid for a certain distance, go peaceably twice the distance.

A mile - A Roman mile was 1,000 paces.

Twain - Two.

CLARKE, "An eye for an eye - Our Lord refers here to the law of retaliation mentioned See Exo_21:24, (see the note there, and see Lev_24:20 (note)), which obliged the offender to suffer the same injury he had committed. The Greeks and Romans had the same law. So strictly was it attended to at Athens, that if a man put out the eye of another who had but one, the offender was condemned to lose both his eyes, as the loss of one would not be an equivalent misfortune. It seems that the Jews had made this law (the execution of which belonged to the civil magistrate) a ground for authorizing private resentments, and all the excesses committed by a vindictive spirit. Revenge was often carried to the utmost extremity, and more evil returned than what had been received. This is often the case among those who are called Christians.

GILL, "Ye have heard that it hath been said,.... That is, to, or by them of old time, as is expressed in some of the foregoing instances,

an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth, Exo_21:24. This is "lex talionis", the "law of retaliation"; which, whether it is to be understood literally, or not, is a matter of question. The Baithuseans, or Sadducees, among the Jews, took it in a literal sense, and so does Josephus, who says (b), he that shall blind, i.e. put out a man's eyes, shall suffer the like. But the Jewish doctors generally understood it of paying a price equivalent to the damage done, except in case of life. R. Sol. Jarchi (c) explains the law thus:

"He that puts out his neighbour's eye, must give him , "the price of his eye", according to the price of a servant sold in the market; and so the same of them all; for, not taking away of the member is strictly meant.''

And, says Maimonides (d),

"if a man cuts off his neighbour's hand, or foot, he is to be considered as if he was a servant sold in a market; what he was worth then, and what he is worth now; and he must pay the diminution which is made of his price; as it is said, "eye for eye". From tradition it is learned, that this for, spoken of, is to be understood of paying money; this is what is said in the law, "as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again". Not that he is to be hurt, as he has hurt his neighbour; but inasmuch as he deserves to want a member, or to be hurt as he has done; therefore he ought to pay the damage.''

And Josephus himself (e) says, that he must be deprived of that, which he has deprived another of, except he that has his eye put out is willing to receive money; and which, he observes, the law allows of. The controversy about the sense of this law may be seen in a few words, as managed between R. Sandish Hagson, and Ben Zeta (f).

"Says R. Sandish, we cannot explain this verse according to its literal sense; for if a man should smite the eye of his neighbour, and the third part of the light of his eye should depart, how will he order it, to strike such a stroke, as that, without adding or lessening? perhaps he will put out the whole light of his eye. And it is yet more difficult with respect to burning, wound, and stripe; for should they be in a dangerous place the man might die but that is intolerable. Ben Zeta answers him, is it not written, in another place, "as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again?" To which Hagson

replies, , "in", is instead of , "upon", or against; and lo! the sense is, so shall the punishment be upon him. Ben Zeta answers him again, as he does, so shall it be done to him. Hagson replies, behold Samson said, "as they have done to me, so will I do to them"; but Samson did not take their wives, and give them to others, he only rendered to them their reward: but Ben Zeta replies, if a poor man should smite, what must be his punishment? Hagson answers him, if a blind man should put out the eye of one that sees, what shall be done to him? as for the poor man, he may become rich, and pay, but the blind man can never pay.''

Now our Lord here, does not find fault with the law of retaliation, as delivered by Moses, but with the false gloss of the Scribes and Pharisees; who, as they interpreted it of

pecuniary mulcts, as a compensation for the loss of a member, which sometimes exceeded all just and due bounds; so they applied it to private revenge, and in favour of it: whereas this law did not allow of a retaliation to be made, by private persons, at their pleasure, but by the civil magistrate only.

HERY, "In these verses the law of retaliation is expounded, and in a manner repealed. Observe,

I. What the Old Testament permission was, in case of injury; and here the expression is only, Ye have heard that is has been said; not, as before, concerning the commands of the decalogue, that it has been said by, or to, them of old time. It was a command, that every one should of necessity require such satisfaction; but they might lawfully insist upon it, if they pleased; an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. This we find, Exo_21:24; Lev_24:20; Deu_19:21; in all which places it is appointed to be done by the magistrate, who bears not the sword in vain, but is the minister of God, an avenger to execute wrath, Rom_13:4. It was a direction to the judges of the Jewish nation what punishment to inflict in case of maims, for terror to such as would do mischief on the one hand, and for a restraint to such as have mischief done to them on the other hand, that they may not insist on a greater punishment than is proper: it is not a life for an eye, nor a limb for a tooth, but observe a proportion; and it is intimated (Num_35:31), that the forfeiture in this case might be redeemed with money; for when it is provided that no ransom shall be taken for the life of a murderer, it is supposed that for maims a pecuniary satisfaction was allowed.

But some of the Jewish teachers, who were not the most compassionate men in the world, insisted upon it as necessary that such revenge should be taken, even by private persons themselves, and that there was no room left for remission, or the acceptance of satisfaction. Even now, when they were under the government of the Roman magistrates, and consequently the judicial law fell to the ground of course, yet they were still zealous for any thing that looked harsh and severe.

Now, so far this is in force with us, as a direction to magistrates, to use the sword of justice according to the good and wholesome laws of the land, for the terror of evil-doers, and the vindication of the oppressed. That judge neither feared God nor regarded man, who would not avenge the poor widow of her adversary, Luk_18:2, Luk_18:3. And it is in force as a rule to lawgivers, to provide accordingly, and wisely to apportion punishments to crimes, for the restraint of rapine and violence, and the protection of innocency.

II. What the New Testament precept is, as to the complainant himself, his duty is, to forgive the injury as done to himself, and no further to insist upon the punishment of it than is necessary to the public good: and this precept is consonant to the meekness of Christ, and the gentleness of his yoke.

JAMISO, "Mat_5:38-42. Same subject - Retaliation.

We have here the converse of the preceding lessons. They were negative: these are positive.

Ye have heard that it hath been said (Exo_21:23-25; Lev_24:19, Lev_24:20; Deu_19:21).

An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth that is, whatever penalty was regarded as a proper equivalent for these. This law of retribution - designed to take vengeance out of the hands of private persons, and commit it to the magistrate - was abused in the opposite way to the commandments of the Decalogue. While they were

reduced to the level of civil enactments, this judicial regulation was held to be a warrant for taking redress into their own hands, contrary to the injunctions of the Old Testament itself (Pro_20:22; Pro_24:29).

hawker, "Who can read the justice and equity of that strict law, which enjoins an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, without having his mind directed to the contemplation of CHRIST as our surety. In hint this law was literally fulfilled, when he who knew no sin became sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. Oh! how blessed so to contemplate CHRIST. 2Co_5:21.

sbc, "I. The principle of the Mosaic lawand it is a principle of no little importance in its own placeis that there should be as far as possible a just proportion between the offence and the punishment; that the penalty to be inflicted should neither be too light nor too severe, but that the one should be a fair equivalent for the other. While granting to the full the exceeding wisdom of the Mosaic law on this head, I must add that even in its judicial aspect it by no means comes up to the requirements of the Gospel. There is nothing indeed more beautiful than justice and more Divine. But Christian men, Christian society, Christian legislators, have other duties even to the criminal population besides punishing their offences. It may be necessary, it is necessary, to inflict punishment on the wrongdoer; but it is equally necessary to put away all wrath and revenge, and go to him in the spirit of brotherly love, and heap also coals of fire on his head, to turn him, if possible, to better thoughts and better ways.

II. For the right understanding of what our Lord says here it must be remembered that, while this law properly belonged to the judicial procedure of Israel, it was often applied by the people as a rule of private conduct. Our Lord is here dealing in general with the principle of private revenge, which He is anxious to destroy, because it is most fatal at once to the spiritual and social life of men. But, as usual, He goes for this purpose down into principles of moral duty, which lie far deeper than the precise question on hand; because His object is not merely to prevent a certain evil from being done, but to implant another spirit altogether in our hearts. Therefore He tells them that they are not only not to avenge themselves, but that they are not even to resist evil, but rather to overcome evil with good. Evil is never overcome with evil, but only with good. Your fire will not put out your neighbours; rather they will combine and make a double conflagration, his wrong and your wrath together vexing the world.

W. C. Smith, The Sermon on the Mount, p. 131.

TRAPP, "Ver. 38. Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, &c.] This law of like for like (which also was in use among the ancient Romans) the scribes and Pharisees had abused and distorted from its proper sense of public justice to private revenge; teaching the people to render evil for evil, to pay their enemies in their own coin, and to give them as good as they brought. {a} This is a dictate of corrupt nature, and her chief secretary Aristotle proclaimeth it. To be avenged of our enemies is held better in point of honour than to be reconciled unto them. {b} Flesh and blood suggesteth that it is matter of good mettle to be quick of touch, as forward in returning as others are in offering wrong. "For if a man find his enemy, will he let him go well away?" said Saul, 1 Samuel 24:19. This is quite against the

principles of nature and common policy. To turn again and revenge is counted courage; which yet the word of God calleth cowardliness, disgrace, and loss of victory ( ), 1 Corinthians 6:7. It is not manliness, but foolishness, Ecclesiastes 7:9. It is brutishness. Anger a dog, and he will fly in your face: touch an ass, and he will kick and wince. It is baseness so to be led by our passions as to be able to bear nothing, as Simeon and Levi, brethren in iniquity, that in their anger slew a man, and in their self-will digged down a wall, Genesis 49:6. Their father Jacob heard that Dinah was defiled, and held his peace, Genesis 34:5; he reined in his passions, by setting God before them; and so that divine proverb was made good in him, "He that is SLOW to anger is better than the mighty; and he that ruleth his spirit (as Jacob) than he that taketh a city" (as his sons), Proverbs 16:32. It is a godly mans part, at some times and in some places, to be deaf and dumb, as if he understood not; or as men in whose mouths are no reproof. {c} Which as David could skill of at some times, Psalms 38:14, and in his carriage towards Shimei, so at other times (when the flesh prevailed) he could not, Psalms 39:2-3, and in his expedition against abal. But Peter must put up his sword, if he mean to be Christs disciple. And Christians must not so much as grudge one against another, unless they will be condemned: for behold, the Judge standeth before the door, as ready to right us, James 5:9. As if we retaliate we leave him nothing to do, unless it be to turn his wrath from our enemy, on whom we have been avenged already, upon ourselves, for our sin of self-revenge, Proverbs 24:17-18. We use to say, if the magistrate be not present, we may offend another, to defend ourselves: but if the magistrate be present, there is no excuse. ow here the Judge standeth before the door, and crieth out unto ns with a loud voice: Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather keep the kings peace, and so give place to wrath, Romans 12:19 : that is, to the wrath of God ready to seize upon thine adversary, if thou prevent it not by art overly hasty revenge of the wrongs offered thee: for it is written, Vengeance is mine, mine office and royalty, Psalms 94:1-2. Is it safe to invade his part? to jostle the chief justice out of his seat? or is it fit that the same party should be both accuser and judge? pope in his own cause? depose the magistrate? at least appeal from God to himself, as if he would not sufficiently do his office? "Shall not God avenge his own, that cry night and day unto him, though he bear long with them? I tell you that he will avenge them speedily," saith our Saviour, Luke 18:7-8 "I will REPAY it," saith the Lord; but upon this condition, that we wait his leisure, and pre-occupate not his executions, saith St Augustine. Joseph, accused by his lewd mistress, either pleads not, or is not heard. He knew that though he suffered for a season, God would find a time to clear his innocence, and he was not deceived. Moses complained not, but was silent, when wronged by Aaron and Miriam; God therefore struck in for him, and struck Miriam with leprosy: Aaron escaped by his repentance. God is their champion that strive not for themselves. {d} "I seek not mine own glory, but there is one that seeketh it," saith Christ, John 8:50; "He, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously," and giveth to every transgression and trespass a just recompence of reward, 1 Peter 2:23; Hebrews 2:2. St Paul could not have wished worse to Alexander the coppersmith than "the Lord reward him according to his works," 2 Timothy 4:14. This was not (saith an ancient author) a cursing or a reviling of him, but a prediction befitting an apostle, that

revenged not himself, but gave place to wrath, and delivered up his enemy to God, {e} as David did his adversaries, as Simon Peter did Simon Magus, and the primitive Church did Julian the Apostate. And surely it is a fearful thing, when the saints shall say to God, concerning those that malign or molest them, as David sometimes said to Solomon, Thou knowest what Joab and Shimei did unto me: "do therefore according to thy wisdom, and let not their hoar heads go down to the grave in peace," 1 Kings 2:6. If any hurt Gods zealous witnesses, there goeth a fire out of their mouths to devour them, as the fire from heaven did the first and second captain sent for Elisha, Revelation 11:5; better anger all the witches in the world than such, because God is for them. Little thought the Gibeonites in Davids time, that the Lord had so taken to heart their wrongs, that for their sakes all Israel should suffer. Even when we think not of it, is the righteous Judge avenging our unrighteous vexations.

ELLICOTT, "(38) An eye for an eye.Here again the scribes first took their stand on the letter, regardless of the aim and purpose, of the Law, and then expanded it in a wrong direction. As originally given, it was a CHECKon the wild justice of revenge. It said, where the equilibrium of right had been disturbed by outrage, that the work of the judge was not to do more than restore the equilibrium, unless, as in the case of theft, some further penalty was necessary for the prevention of crime. It was, in its essence, a limit in both directions. ot less than the eye for an eye, for that might lead to connivance in guilt; not more, for that would open a fresh score of wrong. The scribes in their popular casuistry made the rule one not of judicial action only, but of private retaliation; and it was thus made the sanction of the vindictive temper that forgives nothing.

COKE, "Matthew 5:38-42. Ye have heard, &c. With respect to men's resisting and revenging such injuries as are done them, Jesus assured his disciples, that although, for the preservation of society, Moses had ordained the judges to give eye for eye, and tooth for tooth, if the injured party demanded it; yet the doctors were greatly in the wrong, not only when they enjoined men to insist on retaliation as their duty, but declared it lawful in many cases for the injured party to avenge himself with his own hand, provided, in his revenge, he did not exceed the measure prescribed in the law. Christ's doctrine is, that the good man is so far from revenging PRIVATE injuries, that oftentimes he does not even resist them, and always forgives them when they happen to be done to him; a Christian generosity which he warmly recommended to his disciples in the passage before us. To understand it aright, we must take notice, that there are five cases put, wherein Christianmeekness must especially shew itself: first, when any one assaults our person, in resentment of some affront which he imagines we have put upon him: secondly, when any one sues us at the law, in order to take our goods from us: thirdly, when he attacks our natural liberty: fourthly, when one who is poor asks charity: fifthly, when our neighbour begs the LOA of something from us. In all these cases, our Lord forbids us to resist: yet, from the examples he mentions, it is plain, that this forbearance and compliance are to be understood under due limitations; for it cannot be supposed that our Lord forbids us to defend ourselves against murderers, who would unjustly take away our life: neither can it be, that he

commands us to give every idle and worthless fellow all he may think fit to ask, whether in charity or in LOA: we are only to give what we can spare, and to such persons as out of real necessity seek relief from us; nay, our Lord's own behaviour towards the man, who, in the presence of the council, smote him on the cheek, gives reason to think he did not mean that in all cases his disciples should be perfectly passive under the very injuries which he here speaks of. In some circumstances, smiting on the cheek, taking away one's coat, and the compelling of him to go a mile, may be great injuries; and therefore we may be justified in vindicating ourselves in a way perfectly consistent withevery Christian temper. The first instance was judged so by Jesus himself, inthe case mentioned; for had he forborne to reprove the man who did it, his silence might have been interpreted as PROCEEDIG from a conviction of his having done evil, in giving the high-priest the answer for which he was smitten. But, in respect to small injuries, it is not only our duty to bear them patiently, and be passive under them, but it is advantageous even in a temporal point of view: for he who bears a slight affront consults even his own interest much better than he who resists or resents it; because he shews a greatness of mind worthy of a Christian man, and avoids quarrels, which frequently are attended with the most fatal consequences. In like manner, he who yields a little of his right, rather than go to law, is much wiser than the man who has recourse to justice in every instance; because, in the progressof a law-suit, such animosities may arise, as are inconsistent with charity. Again, benevolence, which is the glory of the divine nature, and the perfection of the human, rejoices in doing good; hence, the man possessed of this godlike quality cheerfully embraces every occasion in his power of relieving the poor and distressed, whether by gift or LOA. Some are of opinion, that the precept concerning alms-giving, and gratuitous lending, is subjoined to the instances of injuries which our Lord commands us to bear: to teach us, that if the persons who have injured us fall into want, we are not to withhold any act of charity from them, on account of the evil they have formerly done us. Taken in this light, the precept is generous and divine. Moreover, as liberality is a virtue nearly allied to the forgiveness of injuries, our Lord joins the two together, to shew, that they should always go hand in hand: the reason is, revenge will blast the greatest liberality, and a covetous heart will shew the most perfect patience to be a sordid meanness of spirit, proceeding from selfishness. See Macknight, Blair, and Blackall. The original words, , are rendered by Dr. Doddridge, Do not set yourselves against the injurious person. See the force of the original word , 2 Timothy 3:8 where to resist the truth, is the same as to endeavour to destroy it. Instead of coat and cloak, in the

40th verse, Dr. Doddridge reads vest and mantle, which more exactly answer to the Greek words and , and are parts of dress, under different names, still retained in Barbary, Egypt, and the Levant. The mantle was much LARGER than the vest, and probably the more valuable. See John 19:23 and Shaw's Travels, p. 289. The word , rendered compel, in John 19:41, all the commentators have observed, is derived item the name of those officers or public messengers among the Persians, who were wont to press the carriages and horses they met on the road, if they had occasion for them, and even to force the drivers or riders to go along with them. See ch. Matthew 27:32. We may very properly render the word

press. This custom was also in use in Judaea, and the Roman empire. The last clause of the 42nd verse should be rendered, and do not turn away him that would borrow of thee. The advice, or rather the commands, given above by our blessed Lord are APPLICABLE to all who are called to be members of the Christian dispensation; and the following observation may be useful to set them in their proper light.

The essence of virtue consists in mental disposition; in our temper and frame of mind: but, as human language is adapted to express bodily action much better than mental disposition, it is usual to express the latter by the action that it would naturally produce: and, as the principles of action are complicated and various, and prudence or necessity may often oblige us to omit in respect to action what the frame and temper of our mind inclines to: hence it comes to pass, that some evangelical counsels, which prescribe an outward action, mean in particular cases only the proper inward disposition; namely, a readiness and inclination to perform it: so that the will, though not formally mentioned in the precept, is always required; and the deed, though nominally expressed, may on many occasions be omitted. For instance, it is said at Matthew 5:42, Give to him who asketh thee, &c. ow this precept is in the letter, and, with regard to the outward act which it commands, very often impossible, very often improper to be put in practice: but in the spirit of it, that is to say, the disposition of heart which it enjoins, it is always possible, always practicable, always obligatory through divine grace: the narrowness of our own circumstances may make it impossible, or the circumstances of him who asks our bounty may make it improper, to put this precept in execution, as to the outward act; for we may be so poor ourselves, or the person who APPLIES to us may, by his vices or other qualities, be so circumstanced, that we either cannot or ought not to relieve him. But an inclination to assist him, and do him service, is always in the power of the genuine Christian: the poorest man may have in the good treasury of his heart wherewithal to defray this universal debt of benevolence to all who ask or need his assistance; and thus the precept will be virtually fulfilled. So again, when our Lord commands us not to resist the man who injures us, &c. his meaning is, that we should not repel and strive against the occasions of suffering which occur in the order of Providence, but readily accept every cross which comes in our way. Those who are capable of this lesson know full well how salutary sufferings are, and that it is hardly possible to carry on their purification without these means: so true are those words of our Lord, Luke 14:27. Whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple.

BARCLAY, "THE ACIET LAW Matthew 5: 38-42

You have heard that it has been said: An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. But I tell you not to resist evil; but if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other to him also; and if anyone wishes to obtain judgment against you tor your tunic, give him your cloak also; and if anyone impresses you into the public service to go a mile, go with him

two miles. Give to him who asks you, and do not turn away from him who wishes to borrow from you.

THERE are few passages of the ew Testament which have more of the essence of the Christian ethic in them than this passage has. Here is the characteristic ethic of the Christian life, and the conduct which should distinguish the Christian from other men.

Jesus begins by citing the oldest law in the world an eye for an eye, and a tooth tor a tooth. That law is known as the Lex Talionis, and it may be described as the law of tit for tat. It appears in the earliest known code 01 laws, the Code of Hammurabi, who reigned in Babylon from 2285 to 2242 B.C. The Code of Hammurabi makes a curious distinction between the gentleman and the work-man. " if a man has caused the loss of a gentleman's eye* his eye one shall cause to be lost. If he has shattered a gentleman's limb, one shall shatter his limb. If he has caused a poor man to lose his eye, or shattered a poor man's limb, he shall pay one mina of silver ... If he has made the tooth of a man who is his equal fall out, one shall make his tooth fall out. If he has made the tooth of a poor man fall out, he shall pay one third of a mina of silver/' The principle is clear and apparently simple if a man has inflicted an injury on any person, an equivalent injury shall be inflicted upon him.

That law became part and parcel of the ethic of the Old Testament. In the Old Testament we find it laid down no fewer than three times. " It any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe" (Exodus 21: 23-25). " If a man cause a blemish in his neighbour, as he hath done, so shall it be done unto him, breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so it shall be done to him again " (Leviticus 24: 19, 20). "And thine eye shall not pity, but life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand tor hand, foot for foot " (Deuteronomy 19: 21). These laws are often quoted as amongst the blood-thirsty, savage and merciless laws of the Old Testament; but before we begin to criticise the Old Testament certain things must be noted.

(i) The Lex Talionis, the law of tit for tat, so far from being a savage and bloodthirsty law, is in fact the beginning

of mercy. Its original aim was definitely the limitation of vengeance. In the very earliest days the vendetta and the blood feud were characteristic of tribal society. If a man of one tribe injured a man of another tribe, then at once all the members of the tribe of the injured man were out to take vengeance on all the members of the tribe of the man who committed the injury; and the vengeance desired was nothing less than death. This law deliberately limits vengeance. It lays it down that only the man who com-mitted the injury must be punished, and his punishment must be no more than the equivalent of the injury he has inflicted and the damage he has done. Seen against its historical setting this is not a savage law, but a law of mercy.

(ii) Further, this was never a law which gave a private individual the right to extract vengeance; it was always a law which laid down how a judge in the law court must assess punishment and penalty (cp. Exodus 19: 18). This law was never intended to give the individual person the right to indulge even in the vengeance of tit tor tat. It was always intended as a guide for a judge in the assessment of the penalty which any violent or unjust deed must receive.

(iii) Still further, this law was never, at least in any even semi-civilized society, carried out literally. The Jewish jurists argued rightly that to carry it out literally might in fact be the reverse of justice, because it obviously might involve the displacement of a good eye or a good tooth for a bad eye or a bad tooth. And very soon the injury done was assessed at a money value; and the Jewish law in the tractate Baba Kamma carefully lays down how the damage is to be assessed. If a man has injured another, he is liable on five counts for injury, for pain, for healing, for loss of time, for indignity suffered. In regard to injury, the injured man is looked on as a slave to be sold in the market place. His value before and after the injury was assessed, and the man responsible for the injury had to pay the difference. He was responsible for the loss in value of the man injured. In regard to pain, it was estimated how much money a man would accept to be willing to undergo the pain of the injury inflicted, and the man responsible for the injury had to pay that sum. In regard to healing, the injurer had to pay all the expenses of the necessary medical attention, until a complete cure had been effected. In regard to loss of time, the injurer had to pay compensation for the wages lost while the injured

man was unable to work, and he had also to pay compen-sation if the injured man had held a well paid position, and was now, in consequence of the injury, fit for less well rewarded work. In regard to indignity, the injurer had to pay damages for the humiliation and indignity which the injury had inflicted. In actual practice the type of compen-sation which the Lex Talionis laid down is strangely modern.

(iv) And most important of all, it must be remembered that the Lex Talionis is by no means the whole of Old Testament ethics. There are glimpses and even splendours of mercy in the Old Testament. " Thou shalt not avenge or bear any grudge against the children of thy people " (Leviticus 19: 18). " If thine enemy be hungry, give him bread to eat; and if he be thirsty, give him water to drink " (Proverbs 25: 21). " Say not, 1 will do so to him as he hath done to me " (Proverbs 24: 29). " He givtitli his cheek to the smiter; he is filled with reproach " (Lamentations 3: 30). There is abundant mercy in the Old Testament too.

So, then, ancient ethics were based on the law of tit for tat. It is true that that law was a law of mercy; it is true that it was a law for a judge and not for a private individual; it is true that it was never literally carried out; it is true that there were accents of mercy speaking at the same time. But Jesus obliterated the very principle of that law, because retaliation, however controlled and restricted, has no place in the Christian life.

THE ED OF RESETMET AD OF RETALIATIO

Matthew 5: 38-42 (continued)

So, then, for the Christian Jesus abolishes the old law of limited vengeance and introduces the new spirit of non-resentment and of non-retaliation. He goes on to take three examples of the Christian spirit in operation. To take these examples with a crude and ununderstanding literalism is completely to miss their point. It is therefore very necessary to understand what Jesus is saying.

(i) He says that if anyone smites us on the right cheek we must turn to him the other cheek also. There is far more here than meets the eye, far more than a mere matter of blows on the face. Suppose a right-handed man is standing in front of another man, and suppose he wants

to slap the other man on the right cheek, how must he do it? Unless he goes through the most complicated con-tortions, and unless he empties the blow of all force, he can only hit the other man's cheek in one way with the back of his hand. ow according to Jewish Rabbinic law to hit a man with the back of the hand was twice as insulting as to hit him with the flat of the hand. There is a doubly-insulting contemptuous arrogance about a flick or a blow delivered with the back of the hand. So, then, what Jesus is saying is this: " Even if a man should direct at you the most deadly and calculated insult, you must on no account retaliate, and you must on no account resent it." It will not happen very often, if at all, that anyone will slap us on the face, but time and time again life brings to us insults either great or small; and Jesus is here saying that the true Christian has learned to resent no insult and to seek retaliation for no slight. Jesus Himself was called a gluttonous man and a wine-bibber. He was called the friend of tax-gatherers and harlots, with the implication that He was like the company He kept. The early Christians were called cannibals and incendiaries, and were accused of immorality, gross and shameless, because their service included the Love Feast. When Shaftesbury under-took the cause of the poor and the oppressed he was .warned that it would mean that " he would become unpopular with his friends and people of his own class," and that " he would have to give up all hope of ever being a cabinet minister." When Wilberforce began on his crusade to free the slaves the slanderous rumour that he was a cruel husband, a wife-beater, that he was married to a negress was deliberately spread abroad. Time and time again in a church someone is " insulted " because he was not invited to a platform party, because he was omitted from a vote of thanks, because in some way he did not get the place which was due to him. The true Christian has forgotten what it is to be insulted; he has learned from his Master to accept any insult and never to resent it, and never to seek to retaliate.

(ii) Jesus goes on to say that if anyone tries to take away our tunic in a law suit, we must not only let him have that, but must offer him our cloak also. Again there is much more in that than meets the eye. The tunic, chiton, was the long, sack-like inner garment made of cotton or of linen. The poorest man would have a change of tunics. The cloak was the great, blanket-like outer garment which a man wore as a robe by day, and used as a blanket at night. Of

such garments the Jew would only have one. ow it was actually the Jewish law that a man's tunic might be taken as a pledge, but not his cloak. " If thou at all take thy neighbour's raiment to pledge (his cloak), thou shalt deliver it unto him by that the sun goeth down; for that is his covering only, it is his raiment for his skin; wherein shall he sleep?" (Exodus 22: 26, 27). The point is that by right a man's cloak could not be taken permanently from him. So, then, what Jesus is saying is this: " The Christian never stands upon his rights; he never disputes about his legal rights; he does not consider himself to have any legal rights at all." There are people who are for ever standing on their rights, who clutch their privileges to them and who will not be pried loose from them, who will militantly go to law rather than surfer what they regard as the slightest infringement of them. Churches are tragically lull of people like that, officials whose territory has been invaded, office-bearers who have not had their rights, courts which do business with a manual of practice and procedure on the table all the time, lest anyone's rights should be invaded. People like that have not even begun to see what Christianity is. The Christian thinks not of his rights, but of his duties; not of his privileges, but of his responsibilities. The Christian is a man who has forgotten that he has any rights at all; and the man who will fight to the legal death for his rights, inside or outside the Church, is far from the Christian way.

(iii) Jesus then goes on to speak of being compelled to go one mile; and says that in such a case the Christian must willingly go two miles. There is here a picture of which we know little, for it is a picture from an occupied country. The word which is used for to compel is the verb aggareuein, and aggareuein is a word with a history. It comes from the noun aggareus, which is a Persian word meaning a courier. The Persians had an amazing postal system. Each road was divided into stages lasting one day. At each stage there was food tor the courier and water and fodder for the horses, and fresh horses for the road. But, if by any chance there was anything lacking, any private person could be impressed, compelled into giving tood, lodging, horses, assistance, and even into carrying the message himself for a stage. The word for such compulsion was aggareuein. In the end the word came to signify any kind of forced impressment into the service of the occupying power. In an occupied country citizens could be compelled to supply food, to provide billets, to carry baggage. Sometimes the

occupying power exercised this right of compulsion in the most tyrannical and unsympathetic way. Always this threat of compulsion hung over the citizens. Palestine was an occupied country. At any moment a Jew might feel the touch of the flat of a Roman spear on his shoulder, and know that he was compelled to serve the Romans, it might be in the most menial way. That, in fact, is what happened to Simon of Cyrene, when he was compelled (aggareuein) to bear the Cross of Jesus. So, then, what Jesus is saying is: " Suppose your masters come to you and compel you to be a guide or a porter for a mile, don't go a mile with bitter and obvious resentment; go two miles with cheerfulness and with a good grace." What Jesus is saying is: " Don't be always thinking of your liberty to do as you like; be always thinking of your duty and your privilege to be of service to others. When a task is laid on you, even if the task is unreasonable and hateful, don't do it as a grim duty to be resented; do it as a service to be gladly rendered." There are always two ways of doing things. A man can do the irreducible minimum and not a stroke more; he can do it in such a way that he makes it clear that he hates the whole thing; he can do it with the barest minimum of efficiency and no more; or he can do it with a smile, with a gracious courtesy, with a determination, not only to do this thing, but to do it well and graciously. He can do it, not simply as well as he has to, but far better than anyone has any right to expect him to. The inefficient workman, the resentful servant, the ungracious helper has not even begun to have the right idea of the Christian life. The Christian is not concerned to do as he likes; he is concerned only to help, even when the demand for help is discourteous, unreasonable and tyrannical.

So, then, in this passage, under the guise of vivid eastern pictures, Jesus is laying down three great rules the Christian will never resent or seek retaliation for any insult, however calculated and however deadly; the Christian will never stand upon his legal rights or on any other rights he may believe himself to possess ; the Christian will never think of his right to do as he likes, but always of his duty to be of help. The question is: How do we measure up to that?

GRACIOUS GIVIG

Maffheti' 5: 38-42 (continued)

FIALLY, it is Jesus' demand that we should give to all who ask and never turn away from him who wishes to borrow. At its highest the Jewish law of giving was a lovely thing. It was based on Deuteronomy 15: 7-1 1:

"And if there be among you a poor man of one of thy brethren within any of thy gates in thy land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not harden thine heart, nor shut thine hand from thy poor brother; but thou shalt open thine hand wide unto him, and shalt surely lend him sufficient for his need, in that which he wanleth. Beware that there be not a thought in thy wicked heart, saying: The seventh year, the year of release is at hand ; and thy eye be grudging against thy poor brother, and thou givest him nought; and he cry unto the Lord against thee, and it be sin unto thee. Thou shalt surely give to him, and thine heart shall not be grieved when thou givest unto him; because that for this thing the Lord thy God shall bless thee in all thy works, and in all that thou puttest thine hand unto. For the poor shall never cease out of the land; therefore I command thee saying: Thou shalt open thine hand wide unto thy brother, to thy poor, and to thy needy, in thy land."

The point about the seventh year is that in every seventh year there was a cancellation of debts; and the grudging and the calculating man might refuse to lend anything when the seventh year was near, lest the debt be cancelled and he lose what he had given.

It was on that passage that the Jewish law of giving was founded. The Rabbis laid down five principles which ought to govern giving.

(i) Giving must not be refused. " Be careful not to refuse charity, for everyone who refuses charity is put in the same category with idolaters." If a man refuses to give, the day may well come when he has to beg perhaps from the very people to whom he refused to give.

(ii) Giving must befit the man to whom the gift is given. The law of Deuteronomy had said that a man must be given whatever he lacks. That is to say, a man must not be given that bare sufficiency which will keep body and soul to-gether; he must be given enough to enable him to retain at least something of the standard and the comfort which

once he knew. So, it is said, Hillel arranged that the poverty-stricken son of a noble family should be given, not simply enough to keep him from starvation, but a horse to ride and a slave to run before him; and once, when no slave was available, Hillel himself acted as his slave and ran before him. There is something gracious and lovely in the idea that giving must not only remove actual poverty; it must do something also to remove the humiliation which poverty brings.

(iii) Giving must be carried out privately and secretly. There must be no one else there. In fact, the Rabbis went the length of saying that in the highest kind of giving, the giver must not know to whom he was giving, and the receiver must not know from whom he was receiving. There was a certain place in the Temple to which people secretly came and secretly gave their gifts ; and these secret gifts were used in secrecy to help the impoverished members of once noble families, and to give the daughters oi such impoverished ones the dowries without which they could not be married. The Jew would have regarded with abhorrence the gift which was given for the sake of prestige, publicity, or self-glorification.

(iv) The manner of giving must befit the character and the temperament of the recipient. The rule was that if a man had means, but was too miserly to use them, a gift must be given as a gift, but afterwards reclaimed from his estate as a loan. But if a man was too proud to ask for help, Rabbi ishmael suggested that the giver should go to him and say, " My son, perhaps you need a loan." His sell-respect was thus saved, but the loan was never to be asked back, and it was in fact, not a loan, but a gift. It was even laid down that if a man was unable to respond to an appeal tor help, his very refusal must be such as to show that, if he could give nothing else, he at least gave sympathy. Even a refusal was to be such that it helped and did not hurt. Giving was to be carried out in such a way that the manner of the giving was to help as much as the gift.

(v) Giving was at once a privilege and an obligation for in reality all giving is nothing less than giving to God. To give to some needy person was not something which a man might choose to do; it was something he must do; for, if he refused, the refusal was to God. " He who befriends the poor lends to the Lord, and He will repay him for his good deed." " To every one who shows mercy to other men,

mercy is shown from heaven; but to him who shows no mercy to other men, no mercy is shown from heaven." The Rabbis loved to point out that loving-kindness was one of the very few things to which the Law appointed no limit at all.

Are we then to say that Jesus urged upon men what can only be called indiscriminate giving/ The answer cannot be given without qualification. It is clear that the effect of the giving on the receiver must be taken into account. Giving must never be such as to encourage him in laziness and in shiftlessness, for such giving can only hurt. But at the same time it must be remembered that many people who say that they will only give through official channels, and who refuse to help personal cases, are frequently merely producing an excuse for not giving at all, and are at all times removing the personal element from giving altogether. And it must also be remembered that it is better to help a score of fraudulent beggars than to risk turning away the one man in real need.

CALVI, "Mat_5:38.An eye for an eye. Here another ERROR is corrected. God had enjoined, by his law, (Lev_24:20,) that judges and magistrates should punish those who had done injuries, by making them endure as much as they had inflicted. The consequence was, that every one seized on this as a pretext for taking PRIVATE revenge. They thought that they did no wrong, provided they were not the first to make the attack, but only, when injured, returned like for like. Christ informs them, on the contrary, that, though judges were entrusted with the defense of the community, and were invested with authority to restrain the wicked and repress their violence, yet it is the duty of every man to bear patiently the injuries which he receives.

COFFMA, "Passages which contain this injunction are Exodus 21:24; Leviticus 24:20; and Deuteronomy 19:21. Harsh and demanding as such a principle appears to enlightened people of our day, it should be remembered that it was a tremendously significant advance above and beyond the primitive thinking of the untrained people who first heard it. The law of the jungle was far different: (1) If you kill my child, I will kill all your children, your wife, your brothers, your whole generation! (2) If you knock out my tooth (or eye), I will knock out ALL of yours and kill you also! Thus, the ancient Law of the Hebrews was a vast improvement in that it strictly limited punitive action to the extent of the original injury or loss that precipitated it.

PULPIT, "Matthew 5:38

The mildness of Mosaism.

"An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth." This is supposed to represent the severity of Mosaism. But its proper estimate depends on the contrast in which it is set. Contrast it with Christ's doctrines of self-denial in order to serve others, and of non-resistance of evil, and it seems severe. But contrast it with the previous, and the widely prevailing doctrines of early days, and its mildness will at once come to view. Illustrate that the primary idea of man iskill the man who does you any wrong. It is the sign of good order, wise government, worthier estimate of life, and a milder tone, when money PAYMETS, and restoration of equivalents, take the place of the revengeful demand for life. The tendency of civilization to require a more moderate, restrained, and reformative dealing with wrong-doers, may be observed in all ages; and it should be APPLIED to the Mosaic civilization, as a distinct advance on the social systems of that day. But it should be borne in mind that our Lord is dealing with the private offences of disciples, and not with public offences against law. The expression of the regenerate character in the ordinary associations of life is his theme. And he is dealing, not with the Mosaic lex talionis, but with the common and vulgar idea of revenging offences, which sought to gain support by making an undesigned APPLICATIO of the Mosaic Law. Christian disciples must not avenge themselves.

I. OBSERVE THE, CIRCUMSCRIBED AREA OF THIS RULE. It is safe when officially applied in a court of justice. The wrong-doer can reasonably be made to replace his wrong. It is unsafe when applied, under personal feeling, in private life. Then it may be but an expression of revenge; and revenge is altogether unworthy of the Christian. The mildness of Mosaism is shown in its making revenge to become official action.

II. OBSERVE THE FIGURATIVE CHARACTER OF THIS RULE. There is no satisfaction for a noble person in making an enemy suffer exactly as he made him suffer. The terms are figures for the reasonable demand of restoration of the mischief done.R.T.

PULPIT, "Matthew 5:38-42

The Christian type of fulfilling of the Law: Christ's fifth illustration.

The precept or permission of the Law here instanced was not a precept or permission of revenge, but of equal justice. It was intended to operate, not to the encouragement, but to the discouragement, of revenge; and rather simply as the equitable admeasurer of just punishment and restraint of the more natural instinct of revenge. Christ, however, thus early forewarns his disciples of what his eye saw so clearly, his knowledge knew so well, that in this vicarious scene and state not so much even as even-banded justice was to be had, and that it was so dangerous to the seeker himself to seek it, that he had better, with a voluntary genuineness and a genuine voluntariness, sacrifice it. Christ teaches, therefore, here

I. THAT THE HIGHER MORAL PERCEPTIO OF THE TIME AD OF HIS

DISCIPLE SHOULD BE PREPARED TO RECOGIZE THE FACT THAT THE CODITIOS OF THIS WORLD ARE OT THOSE OF EXACT AD EVE JUSTICE.

II. THAT THE DISASTROUS IER COSEQUECES OF PUTTIG OE'S SELF ITO PERSOAL ATAGOISM WITH AOTHER ARE SUCH AS TO COUSEL THE HIGH DUTY OF FOREGOIG EVE THE DEMAD FOR SUCH JUSTICE, AD OF OT RESISTIG THE EVIL PERSO.

III. THAT CORRESPODIG BEEFICET COSEQUECES, FIDIG A WAY TO WORK I OTHERS AD I THE WORLD, SHALL COUSEL THE SAME COURSE.

IV. THAT THE CHRISTIA RESPOSE TO FORCE IS A WILLIG SURREDER OF THE PRESET HOUR'S JUSTICE, AD PRESET HOUR'S APPARET SELF-ITEREST.

V. THAT THE CROW AD PERFECTIO OF THE CHRISTIA DISPOSITIO IS TO MEET "I THE WAY" THE APPEAL OF THOSE WHO WOULD ASK, AD GIVE TO THEM; OF THOSE WHO WOULD BORROW, AD LED TO THEM. THOUGH ALL APPREHESIO OF FORCE BE REMOVED FAR AWAY, THE CHRISTIA HEART WILL OT REBOUD TO THE DEMAD OF ITS RIGHTS, BUT WILL FEEL COMPASSIO, SHOW COMPASSIO, AD GIVE.B.

KRETZMA, "Jesus here refers to the law of retribution, or compensation, as contained in the Levitical ordinances, Exo_21:24. This is said to the government, and is a sound principle for the instruction of the judge; Fair compensation should be granted for injuries received. But the scribes and Pharisees APPLIED the statement to the relation of every person toward his neighbor. They taught and declared that everyone had the right to take revenge and to exact compensation for himself. Christ goes on record as differing from this explanation:

MACLARE, "O-RESISTACE

Mat_5:38-42.

The old law directed judges to inflict penalties precisely equivalent to offences-an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth {Exo_21:24}, but that direction was not for the guidance of individuals. It was suited for the stage of civilisation in which it was given, and probably was then a restriction, rather than a sanction, of the wild law of retaliation. Jesus sweeps it away entirely, and goes much further than even its abrogation. For He forbids not only retaliation but even resistance. It is unfortunate that in this, as in so many instances, controversy as to the range of Christs words has so largely hustled obedience to them out of the field, that the first thought suggested to a modern reader by the command Resist not evil {or, an evil man} is

apt to be, Is the Quaker doctrine of uniform non-resistance right or wrong, instead of, Do I obey this precept? If we first try to understand its meaning, we shall be in a position to consider whether it has limits, springing from its own deepest significance, or not. What, then, is it not to resist? Our Lord gives three concrete illustrations of what He enjoins, the first of which refers to insults such as contumelious blows on the cheek, which are perhaps the hardest not to meet with a flash of anger and a returning stroke; the second of which refers to assaults on property, such as an attempt at legal robbery of a mans undergarment; the third of which refers to forced labour, such as impressing a peasant to carry military or official baggage or documents-a form of oppression only too well known under Roman rule in Christs days. In regard to all three cases, He BIDS His disciples submit to the indignity, yield the coat, and go the mile. But such yielding without resistance is not to be all. The other cheek is to be given to the smiter; the more costly and ample outer garment is to be yielded up; the load is to be carried for two miles. The disciple is to meet evil with a manifestation, not of anger, hatred, or intent to inflict retribution, but of readiness to submit to more. It is a hard lesson, but clearly here, as always, the chief stress is to be laid, not on the outward action, but on the disposition, and on the action mainly as the outcome and exhibition of that. If the cheek is turned, or the cloak yielded, or the second mile trudged with a lowering brow, and hate or anger boiling in the heart, the commandment is broken. If the inner man rises in hot indignation against the evil and its doer, he is resisting evil more harmfully to himself than is many a man who makes his adversarys cheeks tingle before his own have ceased to be reddened. We have to get down into the depths of the soul, before we understand the meaning of non-resistance. It would have been better if the eager controversy about the breadth of this commandment had oftener become a study of its depth, and if, instead of asking, Are we ever warranted in resisting? men had asked, What in its full meaning is non-resistance? The truest answer is that it is a form of Love,-love in the face of insults, wrongs, and domineering tyranny, such as are illustrated in Christs examples. This article of Christs ew Law comes last but one in the series of instances in which His transfiguring touch is laid on the Old Law, and the last of the series is that to which He has been steadily advancing from the first-namely, the great Commandment of Love. This precept stands immediately before that, and prepares for it. It is, as suffused with the light of the sun that is all but risen, Resist not evil, for Love beareth all things.

It is but a shallow stream that is worried into foam and made angry and noisy by the stones in its bed; a deep river flows smooth and silent above them. othing will enable us to meet evil with a patient yielding love which does not bring the faintest tinge of anger even into the cheek reddened by a rude hand, but the love of God shed abroad in the heart, and when that love fills a man, out of him will flow a river of living water, which will bury evil below its clear, gentle abundance, and, perchance, wash it of its foulness. The quality of this non-resistance is twice blessed, it blesseth him that gives and him that takes. For the disciple who SUBMITS in love, there is the gain of freedom from the perturbations of passion, and of steadfast abiding in the peace of a great charity, the deliverance from the temptation of descending to the LEVEL of the wrong-doer, and of losing hold of

God and all high visions. The tempest-ruffled sea mirrors no stars by night, nor is blued by day. If we are to have real communion with God, we must not flush with indignation at evil, nor pant with desire to shoot the arrow back to him that aimed it at us. And in regard to the evil-doer, the most effectual resistance is, in many cases, not to resist. There is something hid away somewhere in most mens hearts which makes them ashamed of smiting the offered left cheek, and then ashamed of having smitten the right one. It is a shame to hit him, since he does not defend himself, comes into many a ruffians mind. The safest way to travel in savage countries is to show oneself quite unarmed. He that meets evil with evil is overcome of evil; he that meets it with patient love is likely in most cases to overcome evil with good. And even if he fails, he has, at all events, used the only weapon that has any chance of beating down the evil, and it is better to be defeated when fighting hate with love than to be victorious when fighting it with itself, or demanding an eye for an eye.

But, if we take the right view of this precept, its limitations are in itself. Since it is love confronting, and seeking to transform evil into its own likeness, it may sometimes be obliged by its own self not to yield. If turning the other cheek would but make the assaulter more angry, or if yielding the cloak would but make the legal robber more greedy, or if going the second mile would but make the press-gang more severe and exacting, resistance becomes a form of love and a duty for the sake of the wrong-doer. It may also become a duty for the sake of others, who are also objects of love, such as helpless persons who otherwise would be exposed to evil, or society as a whole. But while clearly that limit is prescribed by the very nature of the precept, the resistance which it permits must have love to the culprit or to others as its motive, and not be tainted by the least suspicion of passion or vengeance. Would that professing Christians would try more to purge their own hearts, and bring this solemn precept into their daily lives, instead of discussing whether there are cases in which it does not APPLY! There are great tracts in the lives of all of us to which it should apply and is not applied; and we had better seek to bring these under its dominion first, and then it will be time enough to debate as to whether any circumstances are outside its dominion or not.

CHARLES SIMEO, "RETALIATIO FORBIDDE

Mat_5:38-41. Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: but I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: hut whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man trill sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.

IF Christianity be worthy of admiration on ACCOUT of the sublime mysteries it reveals, it is no less so on account of the pure morality it inculcates. Its precepts are as far above the wisdom of fallen man, as its doctrines. Search all the systems of ethics that ever were written, and where shall we find such directions as these? In

vain shall we look for them in the productions of Greece and Rome: in vain shall we consult the sages and philosophers of any other nation: such precepts as these are found no where but in the inspired volume. The law of retaliation has in all nations been deemed equitable and right: but in the Christian code it is expressly forbidden.

In considering the subject of retaliation, we shall notice,

I. The ERRORS which obtain in the world respecting it

The Pharisees admitted of revenge; and grounded that license upon the word of God. The passages which they adduced in COFIRMATIO of their sentiments were strong; but they did not at all refer to the conduct of individuals towards each other, but of magistrates towards the community at large [ote: Exo_21:22-25. Deu_19:16-21. These passages were to direct them in the administration of justice.]. To APPLY them to individuals, was a perversion of them, a perversion disgraceful to the teachers of such doctrines, and fatal to those who embraced them.

We, having our Lords own comment on those passages, cannot any longer justify our errors by an appeal to Holy Writ: but yet our sentiments in relation to the subject treated of in our text, are, for the most part, precisely similar to those which were maintained among the Jews. Two things in particular we will specify, which are universally applauded amongst us, yet are exceeding contrary to the spirit of Christianity:

1. A rigid maintenance of our rights

[Doubtless our rights, whether civil or religious, ought to be dear to us: and a certain degree of watchfulness over them may well be admitted; because if our rights, whether public or private, be invaded by one person, they may by another; and if they be suffered to be curtailed, they may be altogether annihilated. But this will not justify that extreme jealousy which some express about their rights. There are many who will talk incessantly about the rights of man, who yet will trample without remorse on all the rights of God. They will not suffer the smallest infringement of their own liberty; whilst they themselves are the most oppressive tyrants, wherever their authority extends. These may boast of their firmness in maintaining what they think to be right: but they know not what spirit they are of. How unlike are they to Paul, who, rather than insist upon the support to which, as a minister of Christ, he was entitled, would work at his TRADE by night, after having been occupied in preaching all the day! How unlike to Christ also, who, when, as the Son of God, he might have claimed exemption from paying tribute to the temple, wrought a miracle to satisfy the demand, rather than put a stumbling-block in the way of any by a refusal? We do not undertake to say, that, in cases of great importance, a person may not expostulate with his oppressor, as Christ did [ote: Joh_18:22-23.]; or insist upon his right, as did the Apostle Paul [ote: Act_16:37.]; but we are perfectly sure that a readiness to demand our utmost right on every occasion, argues a spirit very different from that which is inculcated in the Gospel of Christ.]

2. A keen resentment of wrongs

[This is thought highly meritorious. A disposition to pass by an insult or an injury would be deemed meanness and cowardice; and the person who indulged it would be banished from society, and held up to universal scorn and contempt. Hence arise wars, duels, and domestic feuds without number. But is such a disposition agreeable to the word of God? Look at the conduct of David, when persecuted by Saul: he repeatedly had his adversary within his power, and could easily have killed him; but he would not: he preferred rather the committing of his cause to God; and rendered nothing but good, in return for all the evil that Saul had done unto him: and, to shew that he did not consider such conduct as a superfluous act of generosity, he brands the opposite conduct with the name of wickedness: Thus saith the proverb of the ancients; Wickedness proceedeth from the wicked; but mine hand shall not be upon thee [ote: 1Sa_24:10; 1Sa_24:13. See also 26:712.]. Compare with this the conduct also of the saints in the ew Testament: St. James, speaking of them to their proud oppressors, says, Ye have condemned and killed the just; and he doth not resist you [ote: Jam_5:6.].]

That the sentiments of the world on the subject of retaliation are quite erroneous, will appear yet further, by considering,

II. The line of conduct which Christianity requires

The authoritative command of Jesus in the text, is this: I say unto you, That ye resist not evil, that is, that ye resist not the injurious person [ote: ]. This, especially taken in connexion with our Lords illustration of it, undoubtedly enjoins us to live in the exercise of,

1. A patient spirit

[We are not to be inflamed with anger against those who treat us ill: but to bear their injuries with meekness and long-suffering. The direction of the Apostle is, In your patience possess ye your souls: and again, Let patience have its perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, lacking nothing. I am aware, that it is difficult to bear injuries, when we know them to be altogether unmerited. But to abstain from every thing vindictive was enjoined under the Old Testament [ote: Lev_19:18. Pro_20:22; Pro_24:29.]: and much more is it insisted on in the ew Testament [ote: Rom_12:17; Rom_12:19. 1Th_5:15.]. And the more undeserving we are of the injurious treatment, the more are we called upon to display our patience, after the example of our blessed Lord, who instead of rendering evil for evil, silently committed his cause to his righteous God and Father [ote: 1Pe_2:20-23.].]

2. A yielding spirit

Suppose a person were to carry the insult so far as to strike us a blow upon the face: what ought we to do then? Are we not at liberty to return the blow? o: we may

expostulate with the injurious person as our Lord did; If I have done evil, bear witness of the evil; but, if not, why smitest thou me? but we must not for a moment think of avenging ourselves [ote: Isa_50:6. with Lam_3:30.]. It may be said, this would be an encouragement to him to strike us again: we hope not; but if it were, it were better to turn the other cheek, and be smitten again, than that we should resent the injury; for the blows only hurt our body; but the resentment would wound our soul.

Again, suppose any one were to injure us in our property, as well as our person, and, under colour of law, were to take away our coat: what shall we do? Shall we indulge a litigious spirit, in order to get it back again? o; rather let him take our cloak also, than induce us to gratify an angry or vindictive spirit [ote: 1Co_6:7.].

Once more;Suppose any one, under pretence of some public emergency, were to infringe upon our liberty, and to compel us (as the Jews did Simon the Cyrenian, when they compelled him to bear our Saviours cross,) to carry a burthen for them a mile: what then? Must we SUBMIT? Whether in all cases, or not, I do not pretend to say: hut this is clear; that it is better to go with him two miles, than to vex ourselves, and quarrel about it. The man that yields, is always safe; he knows the extent of the injury which he receives: but he who once begins to contend, knows not where he shall stop, nor what injury he may suffer in his own soul, before the contention shall cease.]

3. A forgiving spirit

[Forbearance and forgiveness are frequently united in the Holy Scriptures; nor should they ever be separated in our conduct [ote: Col_3:12-13. Eph_4:31-32.]. or would the exercise of forgiveness be so difficult, if only we considered how much greater injury people do to themselves, than they can possibly do to us. Do what they will, they can never injure us, except in mere external things: our souls are beyond their reach: but, whilst they endeavour to injure us, they do the most irreparable injury to their own souls. Let us suppose for a moment, that a person, robbing us of a little worthless fruit, were to fall down, and break every bone of his body; would not our pity for his misfortune swallow up all resentment for his fault? So then it should be with us towards all who injure us: there is no comparison at all between the injury they do to us and to themselves; and therefore we should be ready to exercise forgiveness towards them, and to implore forgiveness for them at Gods hands.]

Learn then, from this subject,

1. How rare a thing real Christianity is

[This is Christianity: all, without this, is an empty sound. Look then through the world, and see how little there is of it any where to be found: yea, let the saints themselves see how little of true Christianity they possess. This view of Christian duty may well fill every one of us with shame and confusion of face.]

2. How necessary a renewed spirit is, either to a right discernment of religion, or to the practice of it

[The precepts of religion are no less foolishness to the natural man, than the doctrines. What heathen ever inculcated such lessons? or what unconverted Christian ever thoroughly approved them in his heart. People fancy that they have power to do the will of God: but can they do these things? As well may they attempt to turn the course of the sun, as so to turn the current of corrupt nature. We must have an understanding given us that we may know these things [ote: 1Co_2:12.]; and strength, that we may do them [ote: 2Co_3:5.].]

3. How ornamental true religion is to every one that possesses it

[Who can see a person acting up to the spirit of these precepts, and not admire him? Who can help admiring this spirit in Christ and in his holy Apostles? Surely, such are beautified with salvation, and God himself must admire them [ote: 1Pe_3:4.].]

4. How happy the world would be, if vital Christianity universally prevailed

[There would then be no scope for the exercise of these difficult graces, since no injuries would be committed upon earth O that God would hasten that blessed time!]

BESO, "Verses 38-42Matthew 5:38-42. Ye have heard, &c. Our Lord proceeds to enforce such meekness and love toward their enemies, on those who are persecuted for righteousness sake, as were utterly unknown to the scribes and Pharisees. And this subject he pursues to the end of the chapter. It hath been said, viz., in the law, Deuteronomy 19:21, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth Though this statute was only intended as a direction to judges, with regard to the penalties to be inflicted in case of violent and barbarous assaults; yet it was interpreted among the Jews as encouraging a rigorous and severe revenge of every injury a man might receive. But I say unto you, that ye resist not evil Or, rather, the evil man, as ought to be rendered. Dr. Doddridge reads the clause: That you do not set yourselves against the injurious person, viz., in a posture of hostile opposition, as the word implies, and with a resolution to return evil for evil. But whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, &c. Where the damage is not great, choose rather to pass it by, though possibly it might, on that ACCOUT, be repeated, than to enter into a rigorous prosecution of the offender. And if any man will sue thee, &c., and take away thy coat By the word , here rendered coat, it seems we are to understand an inner garment; and by the word, , rendered cloak, an outer garment. Dr. Doddridge renders the former, vest, and the latter, mantle. They are parts of dress, under different names, still used in Barbary, Egypt, and the Levant. See Shaws Travels, pp. 289, 292. Our Lord, it is to be observed, is not here speaking of a robber attacking a person on the highway, to whom it would be

natural to take the outer garment first, but of a person suing another at law, as our translators seem properly to have rendered . The meaning of the whole passage evidently is, rather than return evil for evil: when the wrong is purely personal, SUBMIT to one bodily injury after another, give up one part of your goods after another, submit to one instance of compulsion after another. That the words, Turn to him the other cheek also, (and consequently those in the next clause,) are not to be taken literally, appears from the behaviour of our Lord himself, John 18:22-23. Give to him, that asketh thee, &c. Give and lend to any that are in want, so far, (but no farther, for God never contradicts himself,) as is consistent with thy engagements to thy creditors, thy family, and the household of faith.

Upon the whole of this passage, from Matthew 5:38, we may observe, that it seems to have been primarily intended to counteract and correct that abuse of the law of retaliation above mentioned, which was common among the Jews, who carried their resentments to the utmost lengths; and, by so doing, maintained infinite quarrels, to the great detriment of social life. For this purpose, our Lord puts five cases wherein Christian meekness must especially show itself. 1st, When any one assaults our person, in resentment of some affront he imagines we have put upon him. 2d, When any one sues us at the law, in order to take our goods from us. 3d, When he attacks our natural liberty. 4th, When one who is poor asks charity. 5th, When a neighbour begs the LOA of something from us. In all these cases our Lord forbids us to resist. Yet, from the examples which he mentions, it is plain that this forbearance and compliance are required only when we are slightly attacked, but by no means when the assault is of a capital kind. For it would be unbecoming the wisdom which Jesus showed in other points, to suppose that he forbids us to defend ourselves against murderers, robbers, and oppressors, who would unjustly take away our life, our estate, or our liberty. either can it be thought that he commands us to give every idle fellow all he may think fit to ask, whether in charity or in LOA. We are only to give what we can spare, and to such persons as out of real necessity ask relief from us. ay, our Lords own behaviour toward the man that smote him on the cheek, shows he did not mean that in all cases his disciples should be passive under the very injuries which he here speaks of. In some circumstances, smiting on the cheek, taking away ones coat, and the compelling one to go a mile, may be great injuries, and therefore are to be resisted. The first instance was judged so by Jesus himself in the case mentioned. For had he forborne to reprove the man who did it, his silence might have been interpreted as PROCEEDIG from a conviction of his having done evil, in giving the high priest the answer for which he was smitten. But, admitting that this rule has for its object small injuries, and that our Lord orders his disciples to be passive under them rather than to repel them, it is liable to no objection: for he who bears a slight affront, consults his honour and interest much better than he who resists or resents it; because he shows a greatness of mind worthy of a man, and uses the best means of avoiding quarrels, which oft-times are attended with the most fatal consequences. In like manner, he who yields a little of his right, rather than he will go to law, is much wiser than the man who has recourse to public justice in every instance; because, in the progress of a law-suit, such animosities may arise as are inconsistent with charity. To conclude, benevolence, which is the glory of the divine nature, and the perfection of the

human, rejoices in doing good. Hence the man that is possessed of this god-like quality cheerfully embraces every occasion in his power of relieving the poor and distressed, whether by gift or loan. Some are of opinion, that the precept concerning alms-giving, and gratuitous lending, is subjoined to the instances of injuries which our Lord commands us to bear, to teach us that, if the persons who have injured us fall into want, we are not to withhold any act of charity from them on account of the evil they have formerly done us. Taken in this light, the precept is generous and divine. Moreover, as liberality is a virtue nearly allied to the forgiveness of injuries, our Lord joined the two together, to show that they should always go hand in hand. The reason is, revenge will blast the greatest liberality, and a covetous heart will show the most perfect patience to be a sordid meanness of spirit, proceeding from selfishness. Macknight.

39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.

CLARKE, "Resist not evil - Or, the evil person. So, I am fully persuaded,

ought to be translated. Our Lords meaning is, Do not repel one outrage by another. He that does so makes himself precisely what the other is, a wicked person.

Turn to him the other also - That is, rather than avenge thyself, be ready to suffer patiently a repetition of the same injury. But these exhortations belong to those principally who are persecuted for righteousness sake. Let such leave the judgment of their cause to Him for whose sake they suffer. The Jews always thought that every outrage should be resented; and thus the spirit of hatred and strife was fostered.

GILL, "But I say unto you, that ye resist not evil,.... This is not to be understood of any sort of evil, not of the evil of sin, of bad actions, and false doctrines, which are to be opposed; nor of the evil one, Satan, who is to be resisted; but of an evil man, an injurious one, who has done us an injury. We must not render evil for evil, or repay him in the same way; see Jam_5:6. Not but that a man may lawfully defend himself, and endeavour to secure himself from injuries; and may appear to the civil magistrate for redress of grievances; but he is not to make use of private revenge. As if a man should pluck out one of his eyes, he must not in revenge pluck out one of his; or should he strike out one of his teeth, he must not use him in the same manner; but patiently bear the affront, or seek for satisfaction in another way.

But whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also: which is to be understood comparatively, rather than seek revenge, and is directly contrary to the Jewish canons, which require, in such a case, a pecuniary fine (g).

"He that strikes his neighbour (which Maimonides explains, he that strikes his neighbour with his hand shut, about the neck) he shall give him a "sela", or "shekel": R. Judah says, in the name of R. Jose the Galilean, one pound: if he smite him (i.e. as Maimonides says, if he smite him with his double fist upon the face; or, as Bartenora,

with the palm of his hand, , "on the cheek", which is a greater reproach) he shall give him two hundred "zuzim"; and if he does it with the back of his hand, four hundred "zuzim".''

R. Isaac Sangari (h) manifestly refers to this passage of Christ's, when he says to the king he is conversing with,

"I perceive that thou up braidest us with poverty and want; but in them the great men of other nations glory: for they do not glory but in him, who said, "Whosoever smiteth thee thy right cheek, turn to him the left; and whosoever taketh away thy coat, give him thy cloak".''

HERY, "Two things Christ teaches us here:

1. We must not be revengeful (Mat_5:39); I say unto you, that ye resist not evil; - the evil person that is injurious to you. The resisting of any ill attempt upon us, is here as generally and expressly forbidden, as the resisting of the higher powers is (Rom_13:2); and yet this does not repeal the law of self-preservation, and the care we are to take of our families; we may avoid evil, and may resist it, so far as is necessary to our own security; but we must not render evil for evil, must not bear a grudge, nor avenge ourselves, nor study to be even with those that have treated us unkindly, but we must go beyond them by forgiving them, Pro_20:22; Pro_24:29; Pro_25:21, Pro_25:22; Rom_12:7. The law of retaliation must be made consistent with the law of love: nor, if any have injured us, is our recompence in our own hands, but in the hands of God, to whose wrath we must give place; and sometimes in the hands of his viceregents, where it is necessary for the preservation of the public peace; but it will not justify us in hurting our brother to say that he began, for it is the second blow that makes the quarrel; and when we were injured, we had an opportunity not to justify our injuring him, but to show ourselves the true disciples of Christ, by forgiving him.

Three things our Saviour specifies, to show that Christians must patiently yield to those who bear hard upon them, rather than contend; and these include others.

(1.) A blow on the cheek, which is an injury to me in my body; Whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, which is not only a hurt, but an affront and indignity (2Co_11:20), if a man in anger or scorn thus abuse thee, turn to him the other cheek; that is, instead of avenging that injury, prepare for another, and bear it patiently: give not the rude man as good as he brings; do not challenge him, nor enter an action against him; if it be necessary to the public peace that he be bound to his good behaviour, leave that to the magistrate; but for thine own part, it will ordinarily be the wisest course to pass it by, and take no further notice of it: there are no bones broken, no great harm done, forgive it and forget it; and if proud fools think the worse of thee, and laugh at thee for it, all wise men will value and honour thee for it, as a follower of the blessed Jesus, who, though he was the Judge of Israel, did not smite those who smote him on the cheek, Mic_5:1. Though this may perhaps, with some base spirits, expose us to the like affront

another time, and so it is, in effect, to turn the other cheek, yet let not that disturb us, but let us trust God and his providence to protect us in the way of our duty. Perhaps, the forgiving of one injury may prevent another, when the avenging of it would but draw on another; some will be overcome by submission, who by resistance would but be the more exasperated, Pro_25:22. However, our recompence is in Christ's hands, who will reward us with eternal glory for the shame we thus patiently endure; and though it be not directly inflicted, it if be quietly borne for conscience' sake, and in conformity to Christ's example, it shall be put upon the score of suffering for Christ.

JAMISO, "But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil; but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right check, turn to him the other also Our Lords own meek, yet dignified bearing, when smitten rudely on the cheek (Joh_18:22, Joh_18:23), and not literally presenting the other, is the best comment on these words. It is the preparedness, after one indignity, not to invite but to submit meekly to another, without retaliation, which this strong language is meant to convey.

TRAPP, "Ver. 39. But I say unto you, that ye resist not evil] For here to resist is to be overcome, saith St Paul, Romans 12:21. And in a matter of