It is not only
saying it Drew.
Let us see how a well known teacher explains the passage.
You have heard that it was said, “An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.†But I say to you, do not resist him who is evil; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also. Matthew 5:38
Probably no part of the Sermon on the Mount has been so misinterpreted and misapplied as Matthew 5:38-42. It has been interpreted to mean that Christians are to be sanctimonious doormats. It has been used to promote pacifism, conscientious objection to military service, lawlessness, anarchy, and a host of other positions that it does not support. The Russian writer Tolstoy based one of his best-known novels on this passage. The thesis of
War and Peace is that the elimination of police, the military, and other forms of authority would bring a utopian society.
But Jesus already had made plain that He did not come to eliminate even the smallest part of God’s law (Matthew 5:17-19), which includes respect for and obedience to human law and authority.
Among the many unrighteous things that the religion of the scribes and Pharisees (see Matthew 5:20) included was their insistence on personal rights and vengeance. In His fifth illustration contrasting their righteousness with God’s, Jesus again shows how rabbinic tradition had twisted God’s holy law to serve the selfish purposes of unholy men.
“An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.â€Â
This quotation is taken directly from the Old Testament (Exodus 21:24; Leviticus 24:20; Deuteronomy 19:21) and reflects the principle of
lex talionis, one of the most ancient law codes. Simply put, it required that punishment exactly match the crime. The same idea is carried in the expressions
tit for tat and
quid pro quo. The earliest record of
lex talionis is in the
Code of Hammurabi, the great Babylonian king who lived a hundred or so years before Moses. It is likely, however, that the principle was in wide use long before that time.
In the Pentateuch an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth are part of longer lists that include “hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise†(see Exodus 21:24-25) and “fracture for fracture†(Leviticus 24:20). In both the law of Moses and the Code of Hammurabi the principle of punishment to match the crime had two basic purposes. The first was to curtail further crime. When a person is punished for his wrongdoing, “the rest will hear and be afraid, and will never again do such an evil thing among you†(Deuteronomy 19:20). The second purpose was to prevent excessive punishment based on personal vengeance and angry retaliation of the type of which Lamech boasted: “For I have killed a man for wounding me; and a boy for striking me; if Cain is avenged sevenfold, then Lamech seventy-sevenfold†(Genesis 4:23-24). Punishment was to match, but not exceed, the harm done by the offense itself.
It is of the utmost significance that each of the three Pentateuch accounts that prescribe the eye for an eye principle has to do with the
civil justice system. Exodus 21–23 deals entirely with God’s provision for Israel’s civil law, as do the similar teachings in Leviticus 24 and Deuteronomy 19. Punishment was sometimes carried out by the victim, but the trial and sentencing were always the responsibility of duly appointed judges or of a large, representative body of citizens (see Exodus 21:22; Deuteronomy 19:18; Leviticus 24:14-16).
The law of an eye for an eye was a just law, because it matched punishment to offense. It was a merciful law, because it limited the innate propensity of the human heart to seek retribution beyond what an offense deserved. It was also a beneficent law, because it protected society by restraining wrongdoing.
Selfish overreaction is the natural response of sinful human nature. We are tempted to get more than just even. Anger and resentment demand the sort of retaliation Lamech glorified. Human vengeance is never satisfied with justice; it wants a pound of flesh for an ounce of offense. That is one reason why God restricts vengeance to Himself. “Vengeance is Mine, and retribution†(Deuteronomy 32:35; cf. Romans 12:19; Hebrews 10:30).
God’s command for the individual has always been, “If your enemy is hungry, give him food to eat; and if he is thirsty, give him water to drink†(Proverbs 25:21; cf. Matthew 5:44; Romans 12:20). No individual has the right to say, “Thus I shall do to him as he has done to me; I will render to the man according to his work†(Proverbs 24:29). In no instance did the Old Testament allow an individual to take the law into his own hands and apply it
personally.
The Perversion of Rabbinic Tradition
Yet that is exactly what
rabbinic tradition had done. Each man was permitted, in effect, to become his own judge, jury, and executioner. God’s law was turned to individual license, and civil justice was perverted to personal vengeance. Instead of properly acknowledging the law of
an eye for an eye, and a
tooth for a tooth as a
limit on punishment, they conveniently used it as a
mandate for vengeance-as it has often been wrongly viewed throughout history.
What God gave as a restriction on civil courts, Jewish tradition had turned into personal license for revenge. In still another way, the self-centered and self-asserted “righteousness†of the scribes and Pharisees had made a shambles of God’s holy law.
Do not resist him who is evil...
In the command
do not resist him who is evil Jesus rebuts the Pharisees’ misinterpretation and forbids retaliation in personal relationships. He does not teach, as many have claimed, that no stand is to be taken against evil and that it should simply be allowed to take its course. Jesus and the apostles continually opposed evil with every means and resource. Jesus resisted the profaning of God’s Temple by making a scourge of cords and physically driving out the sacrifice sellers and moneychangers (Matthew 21:12; John 2:15). We are to “resist the devil†(James 4:7; 1 Peter 5:9) and all the evil that he stands for and inspires (Matthew 6:13; Romans 12:9; 1 Thessalonians 5:22; 2 Timothy 4:18).
A proper resisting of evil includes resisting it in the church. When Peter compromised with the Judaizers, Paul “opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned†(Galatians 2:11). When there is immorality in the congregation, God says, “Remove the wicked man from among yourselves†(1 Corinthians 5:13; cf. Deuteronomy 13:5). Jesus said that a believer who sins should first be reproved in private, and then before two or three other church members if he does not repent. “And if he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax-gatherer†(Matthew 18:15-17). Paul echoes Jesus’ teaching when he says that those in the church who continue in sin should be rebuked “in the presence of all, so that the rest also may be fearful of sinning†(1 Timothy 5:20).
That the principle of nonresistance does not apply to governmental authorities is clear from many passages in the New Testament. Civil government “is a minister of God to you for good,†Paul says. “But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil†(Romans 13:4). Peter commands, “Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right†(1 Peter 2:13-14).
For the sake of God’s righteousness, as well as for the sake of human justice, believers are obligated not only to uphold the law themselves but to insist that others do so as well. To report crime is an act of compassion, righteousness, and godly obedience as well as an act of civil responsibility. To belittle, excuse, or hide the wrongdoing of others is not an act of love but an act of wickedness, because it undermines civil justice and divine righteousness.
As long as the natural human heart exists, evil will have to be restrained by law. Our crime-wrecked society would do well to reexamine-and reapply-biblical law. When God is forsaken, His righteous standards are forsaken, and His law is forsaken. Antinomianism, the doing away with law, is as much an enemy of the gospel as legalism and works righteousness. The Old and New Testaments are never at odds in regard to law and grace, justice and mercy. The Old Testament teaches nothing of a righteous and just God apart from a merciful and loving God, and the New Testament teaches nothing of a merciful and loving God apart from a righteous and just God. The revelation of God is unchanging in regard to moral law.
Anthisteµmi (resist) means to set against or oppose, and in this context obviously refers to harm done to us personally by someone who is evil. Jesus is speaking of
personal resentment, spite, and vengeance. It is the same truth taught by Paul when he said, “Never pay back evil for evil to anyone. … Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the the wrath of God, for it is written ‘Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,’ says the Lord†(Romans 12:17-19). Vengeful retaliation has no place in society at large, and even less place among those who belong to Christ. We are called to overcome someone’s evil toward us by doing good to them (Romans 12:21).
After establishing the basic principle in Matthew 5:39a, in verses 39b-42 Jesus picks out four basic human rights that He uses to illustrate the principle of non-retaliation:
(1) dignity, (2) security, (3) liberty, and (4) property.
(1) DIGNITY
...but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also. (5:39b)
As human beings we have the right to be treated with basic dignity, respect, and consideration. Because every person is created in His image, God demands that we treat one another with respect. But he knows that we will not always be so treated. Often for the very reason that we belong to God and go by the name of His Son, we will be mistreated, ridiculed, and held in contempt (see Matthew 10:16-23; John 15:18 to John 16:3; 1 Peter 2:20-21; 1 Peter 3:13-17; 1 Peter 4:12-19; cf. 2 Timothy 3:12). It is the way we react to mistreatment and insult that Jesus is talking about here.
Among Jews, a slap or other striking in the face was among the most demeaning and contemptuous of acts (cf. Matthew 26:67-68; Mark 14:65; John 18:22). To strike someone elsewhere on the body might cause more physical harm, but a slap in the face was an
attack on one’s honor and was considered to be a terrible indignity. It was to be treated with disdain, as being less than a human. Even a slave would rather have been stuck across the back with a whip than be slapped in the face by his master’s hand.
To strike someone on the right cheek would then be a vicious angry reaction, indicating an act of insult. Yet when we are insulted, maligned, and treated with contempt-literally or figuratively struck on the cheek by someone-we are to turn to him the other also. But Jesus’ point pertains more to what we are not to do than what we are to do. Turning the other cheek symbolizes the nonavenging, non-retaliatory, humble, and gentle spirit that is to characterize kingdom citizens.
Jesus strongly resisted evil that was directed against others, especially His Father-as when He cleansed the Temple of those who defiled His Father’s house. But He did not resist by personal vengeance any evil directed at Himself. When the leaders of the Sanhedrin, and later the soldiers, physically abused Him and mocked Him, He did not retaliate either in words or in actions (Matthew 26:67-68). As Isaiah had predicted of Him, Christ gave His back to those who struck Him and His cheeks to those who plucked out His beard (Isaiah 50:6). As Jesus hung from the cross, He prayed, “Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing†(Luke 23:34). Peter sums up our Lord’s example: “But if when you do what is right and suffer for it you patiently endure it, this finds favor with God. For you have been called for this purpose, since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps, who committed no sin, nor was any deceit found in His mouth; and while being reviled, He did not revile in return; wile suffering, He uttered no threats, but kept entrusting Himself to Him who judges righteously†(1 Peter 2:20-23).
When someone attacks our right to dignity, we too are not to defend that right by retaliation. We are to leave the protection and defense of our dignity in God’s hands, knowing that one day we will live and reign with him in His kingdom in great glory.
Source: MacArthur, John F.,
Matthew: The MacArthur New Testament Commentary, (Chicago: Moody Press) 1989.
