Author : Keith Sharp
You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I tell you no to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also. And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two. Give to him who asks you, and from him who wants to borrow from you do not turn away. (Matthew 5:38-42)
Perhaps no teaching of the Master has resulted in greater consternation and misunderstanding than this passage. A misapplication of this precept has resulted in fanaticism on the one hand and skepticism on the other. What is the meaning and application of this great moral commandment?
Though Jesus was indeed contrasting what their Jewish teachers taught the people (verses 20-21, 27, 33, 38, 43), the Master was also pointing to the fulfillment ad cessation of the Old Covenant in the law of the kingdom (verses 17-19). The Lord quoted the law of Moses directly to identify the rule He was replacing (cf. Exodus 21:23-25; Leviticus 24:19-20; Deuteronomy 19:21). This is the oldest principle of simple justice known to man. It is known as the Lex Talionis, or the principle of “like for like”. It is part of the earliest surviving code of laws, the Code of Hammurabi, ruler of Babylon from 2285 to 2242 B.C. (Barclay. 1:160)
Enemies of the Bible assail this law as brutal. Actually, far from being so, the purpose of this commandment was to prevent brutality. Human nature demands revenge for wrong suffered, for this is justice, but hatred and anger produce excessive revenge. One man knocks out another’s tooth, so the other man kills the aggressor. This is what is happening in Iraq at the instigation of Muslim teachers. The law of “like for like” limits this revenge. The punishment must be equivalent to the injury received. Furthermore, this law acts as a safeguard against personal injury. If an assailant knew he would suffer in return the equivalent of the pain, injury, or suffering he inflicted, he would not, in most cases, inflect the injury.
It is both the right and responsibility of civil government to administer this justice (Romans 13:3-4). When rulers fail to do so, crime is rampant (Ecclesiastes 8:11). The judge who fails to administer such justice neither fears God nor regards man (Luke 18:2-5).
Furthermore, Moses never intended this principle as a license for unlimited personal revenge, but as a guide to judicial equity. The apostle Paul, in his inspired interpretation of the Master’s teaching on vengeance, virtually repeated Old Testament guidelines (Leviticus 19:18; Proverbs 20:22; 24:29 25:21; Romans 12:17-21).
However, the Mosaic legislation did command that the “avenger of blood” put to death the murderer (Numbers 35; Deuteronomy 19). The term “avenger” referred to
that particular relative whose special duty it was to restore the violated family integrity, who had to redeem not only landed property that had been alienated from the family (Lev. 25:25), or a member of the family that had fallen into slavery (Lev 25:47), but also the blood that had been taken away from the family by murder (Keil & Delitzsch, quoting Oehler. 262).
The law even presumed the avenger would act “while his anger is hot” (Deuteronomy 19:6). This is very vengeance splashed in blood red on TV news scenes of the Middle East carried out by Muslims in the name of Allah but devoid of the Mosaic safeguards against wanton savagery.
A final consideration which demonstrates the lack of brutality of the Old Testament command was the fact that, in practice, except where murder was involved (Numbers 35:29-34); a money payment was accepted in place of actual maiming of the criminal.
Since the law of Christ clearly approves the essential and righteous role of civil government as an avenger (Romans 13:3-4), and since the Lord’s precepts set against this statement of verse 38 pertain to personal vengeance, Christ must have directed His prohibitions against personal revenge, including the Mosaic “avenger of blood”, not against civil officers in upholding the laws of the state.
It being necessarily true that the Master’s doctrine deals with personal vengeance, what does he teach about the subject? The principle Christ enunciates is “resist not evil”. Is this a demand that Christians must passively submit to any and all sorts of physical violence? Must one watch a maniac kill his family and destroy his property, without lifting a finger to resist? Is this an injunction against Christians serving in the armed forces or on a police force?
Forty years ago I heard Bryan Vinson, Sr. preach an outstanding lesson on the Christian and civil government (“Dual Citizenship” was the title of his classic sermon), defending the right of a Christian to bear arms for his government. A young preacher foolishly jumped brother Vinson in the aisle before other members after services, contending the Lord demands total non-resistance on the part of Christians. Brother Vinson simply inquired of him, “If a vicious criminal broke into your house and attacked your wife, would you come to her help?” The young preacher’s retort was, “Why, that’s totally irrelevant!” His flabbergasted wife standing beside him quickly replied, “I don’t think so!” Nor do I. If the passage demands complete passivity, thus eliminating service in the armed forces and police forces, it also eliminates any defense of one’s own family and property. If not, why not?
Since the Scriptures are truth (John 17:17), and truth is always consistent with itself, it follows that the Scriptures are always harmonious one with another. The Master commanded, “If your brother sins against you, rebuke him” (Luke 17:3). Verbal resistance is resistance. The Lord Jesus Himself rebuked a Jewish officer for unlawfully striking Him (John 18:22-23). When the Romans in Jerusalem threatened to beat Paul without a trial, the great apostle insisted on his rights as a Roman citizen (Acts 22:22-29). When the radical Jews of that same city bound themselves under a curse to kill Paul, the beloved apostle made use of the armed power of the state, two hundred soldiers, seventy horsemen and two hundred spear men, to thwart their wicked scheme (Acts 23:12-24). When Festus would have sent Paul back to Jerusalem, where the Jews still waited to kill him, again the man of God demanded his citizenship rights and appealed to Caesar (Acts 25:9-12). In all of these instances, the apostle Paul in all innocence appealed to the armed power of civil government. If such use of armed might is evil, so is our calling on armed men for protection, for we must “have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness” (Ephesians 5:11).
Another basic rule of Bible study draws us to the same conclusion. Every statement must be taken in context. The Master contrasted both the Law (verses 17-19) and that which the scribes and Pharisees imagined the law of Moses allowed (verse 20) to that which the law of Christ demands (verses 39-42). The Master is discussing vengeance (verse 38). “Resist not evil” is an absolute prohibition against personal vengeance or even an attitude of resentment as the result of wrong suffered.
When a Christian suffers wrong, he should not “vow to get even” or seethe in resentment. He should do good to the evil-doer and leave vengeance to the Lord (Romans 12:17-21). God has at least three means of accomplishing this vengeance. He has authorized the punitive power of civil government, which involves the police officer (Romans 13:3-4). Christ Himself, as God in ancient days, still “rules in the kingdom of men, and gives it to whomever he will” (Daniel 4:17; Revelation 19:15), and this involves the use of armed forces. God will reap final and complete vengeance in the last judgement of all men (Revelation 20:11-15).
The Master used four examples to illustrate this principle. Each teaches that we should not seek personal vengeance.
The Lord commanded, “But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also” (Matthew 5:39). The term translated “slaps” means “strike with the open hand, esp. in the face, slap” (Arndt & Gingrich. 741). This harmonizes with the fact that a right handed person would hit another person on the right cheek by slapping him with the back of the hand.
In all ages, a “slap on the face” has been regarded as the grossest of insults, but it does not imperil one’s life (cf. 1 Kings 22:24; Lamentations 3:30; John 19:3; 2 Corinthians 11:20). The illustration is simple and demanding. When wicked people heap upon us the lowest and meanest insults, we must not retaliate in kind. Any loyal Christian has been called all sorts of demeaning names, has endured ostracism, and has been the object of vicious lies. One must never angrily turn on such an attacker as a dog on its tormentor. When Jesus was so stricken, he rebuked the offender, but refused to retaliate, although all the forces of heaven were available to Him by prayer (John 18:22- 23). He is our perfect example of enduring suffering without retaliation (1 Peter 2:18-24).
The Lord demanded, “If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also” (verse 40). The “tunic” denoted “the inner vest or under garment” (Vine. 1:198). Even the poorest of Jews would usually have a change of tunics (Barclay, Ibid). But the “cloak” was “an outer garment, a mantle” (Vine, Ibid) and consisted of “a large square piece of cloth, provided with tassels” which “was thrown over the left shoulder and brought over under the right arm” (Davis. 148). The Jew would usually possess only one such garment and used it both as a robe by day and a blanket by night (Barclay, Ibid). The law forbade keeping this cloak as a pledge for debt overnight (Exodus 22:26-27; Deuteronomy 24:12-13).
This is a case of judicial injustice. It does not forbid the Christian’s use of the court in self defense, as the apostle Paul so employed it. It does teach that, even should one use the courts to persecute us, we should not seek vengeance. Be rather willing to lose that which by right cannot be taken from you than to seek personal vengeance (cf. 1 Corinthians 6:7).
The Master enjoined, “And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two”(verse 41). “Compel” means “to impress into service” (Vine 1:219) and was applied to the forced transport of military baggage by the inhabitants of a country through which troops were passing . . . . The sense of oppression is involved, subjection to arbitrary military power (EGT).
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 (Barclay, Ibid).
The Romans had erected “mile posts,” markers at intervals of one mile, and a Jew could be compelled to carry a load for a hated soldier in this occupying army for one mile, but no more. Jesus taught Jews seething in anger under this hated, foreign power to do more than they require; carry their burden two miles.
This is a case of government oppression, subjection to arbitrary military power. The Roman yoke, starkly obvious when one was compelled to carry out belittling tasks, was especially galling to the proud Jews, who hated their masters and yearned for freedom. How exceedingly unsavory must Simon of Cyrene’s work have seemed, when he was “compelled to bear” the cross of Jesus (Matthew 27:32; Mark 15:21; Luke 23:26). How easy it would be to allow an attitude of bitter resentment to spring up and to seek revenge, as the Zealots did. How tempting it would be to see just how little one could get by with in serving such a master. But the Christian is to submit to arbitrary, even tyrannical power, with cheerfulness. Rather than seeing how little we can cooperate and still get by, we should exceed the demands (1 Peter 2:18-20).
Jesus commanded, “Give to him who asks you, and from him who wants to borrow from you do not turn away” (verse 42). Did the Master teach an unlimited benevolence with our material goods? If so, we would soon be impoverished, and our families would be begging. People who insist that the Lord’s demand “not to resist an evil person” is completely unqualified quickly point out that the context qualifies the statement we are now noticing and that other passages limit it. If this be so for one, why not for the other?
The Lord himself promised, “If you ask anything in My name, I will do it” (John 14:14). Yet, he refused to grant Paul’s request (2 Corinthians 11:8- 9) and informed others their prayers were not heard because they asked through improper motives (James 4:3). Even so here, Jesus teaches an attitude toward giving which is limited and qualified by the context and by other passages.
The Old Covenant taught Jews to lend generously to their poor brethren even if they might not be fully repaid and not to charge them interest (Exodus 22:25; Deuteronomy 15:7-11). The Master teaches us to give without seeking anything in return (Luke 6:30; Acts 20:35) and to give to our enemies as well as our brethren (Matthew 5:43-44; Romans 12:20-21). We must give to the needy cheerfully, not resentfully.
Other passages do qualify the command. In our giving, we must not neglect the needs of our own family (1 Timothy 5:8), we must put spiritual matters first (Acts 6:1-4), we are not to encourage the indolent (2 Thessalonians 3:10-12), we should not use material assistance as an attraction to unbelievers (John 6:26-27), and we must not give beyond our ability to do so honestly (Acts 5:1-11). But these limitations do not negate the fact that, as disciples of Christ, we must give willingly and without resentment to those in need.
Our Lord does not demand that we be passive in the face of onslaught and danger. He does allow us to protect our lives, our family and our property. He does not forbid us to serve in the military or police forces. But Christ does command us not to seek personal vengeance for wrongs suffered. We must be willing to bear the grossest insults, the greatest legal injustice, the most arbitrary power, and the needs of the poor with neither resentment nor personal vengeance. The standard is high and difficult, but if we would be partakers of the righteousness of His kingdom, we must obey.
