Ye have heard that it has been said, Eye for eye and tooth for tooth.
The words "an eye for an eye" come from Israel's law books. Why does Jesus begin with a rule God Himself gave — and what does He do with it?
The saying was not advice for a bruised individual deciding how to get even. It belonged to the courtroom, and the Old Testament passages that state it name the judges who were to apply it.
Once that rule leaves the bench and enters private hands, it stops being justice at all.
In verse 38 the Lord quotes from Exodus 21:24. "An eye for an eye" is fully righteous recompense, expressing the firm inflexibility of the law. Of course the sentence must be passed by a judge, not by the offended party. If one takes the law into his own hands, he will practically in every case inflict worse treatment than he received.
Modern ears hear this rule as savage. Set beside what an injured man really wants, it works the other way round.
Under the old economy we find that the law laid down the principle, in righteousness, "An eye for an eye" (Ex. 21:24), thereby restraining the wrath of man. Otherwise he would have demanded two eyes for one, in vengeance.
Jesus does not sharpen this rule or improve it. He names it so that what comes next will stand out against it.
This is not a stricter law. It is a different principle, and it rests on what the hearer has already received.
The law demands an exact equivalent — no more, and no less. But grace can cancel every claim. God has dealt with us in grace and cancelled our whole debt, so we must act on the same principle towards one another. But never forget that righteousness is the deep foundation of grace itself. That is why grace reigns through righteousness (Rom. 5:21), on a basis that is everlasting and unchanging.
Giving up personal payback is not the same as abolishing courts and rulers. Commentators keep the two apart.
Here the Lord instructs His disciples in their own personal path, not in their dealings with rulers. He sets their calling to walk in grace — in what they do and in what they bear — against that of the Jews, who were called to act in the righteousness of the law. It is absurd to apply such a passage to a government or a court of this world. If it did apply, it would prove that magistrates ought to pamper and reward every criminal instead of punishing any.
One writer says the people of that day were misusing the rule: "It was not for them to avenge themselves, but it was given as instruction to the judges" (The Bible Treasury). Another writer disagrees.
The principle "an eye for an eye" was valid only before the judges in Israel. We see this too in that the Jew was not allowed to take vengeance: "You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself" (Lev. 19:18). It is not correct to suppose the Lord Jesus was referring to it because the Pharisees might have allowed it.
Jesus did not only teach this yielding. He lived it.
He presented far more than the other cheek, for they spat in His face, and beat Him, and struck Him with the palms of their hands with the utmost contempt. No! the Lord yielded to wrong instead of resisting it; and such is the true calling of the Christian.
- Measured — the law asked for an exact equal, no more and no less: a ceiling on revenge, not a licence for it.
- Judicial — God gave the rule to Israel's judges, not to the injured party. Left to the injured man, it always overpays.
- Quoted — Jesus names the rule and then leaves it behind.
- Grace — people whose own debt is cancelled release claims instead of collecting them. And grace itself stands on righteousness.
- Limited — the surrender is personal. Courts and rulers still carry out justice. Christ Himself is the pattern of the yielding.
But *I* say unto you, not to resist evil; but whoever shall strike thee on thy right cheek, turn to him also the other;
Jesus has just quoted the old rule of "an eye for an eye." Now He tells His disciples to meet a personal insult with the other cheek. Two questions follow at once: is He overturning justice itself, and did He mean this literally?
The words Jesus repeats come from Israel's law. They belonged in a courtroom, not in a private quarrel.
This law contained moral directions for the life of each Israelite. It contained ceremonial directions too — the laws of the offerings, so that the children of Israel could serve God. And it contained legal directions to regulate the daily life of the people. The principle of "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth" belongs to the last group. It is not a principle for one person's conscience. It is a legal direction for the authorities and judges of Israel. This is clear from Exodus 21:22 and Deuteronomy 19:18, where the judges are expressly mentioned. The direction rested on absolute fairness in repaying the deed. It was also meant to warn the people and hold them back (Deut. 19:20).
So Jesus is not calling the old measure unfair. He is asking for something the law never asked.
It is not that it is wrong for a man to punish according to the injury that has been inflicted on another. "An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth" is perfectly righteous. But our Lord shows that we ought to be much more than righteous. We ought to be gracious… It is clear the Lord has no reference here to what governments have to do… He is speaking of personal injury. The evil done may be ever so undeserved, but it has to be overcome with good. Show that you are willing to take even more for Christ's sake.
The detail of which cheek is struck is not decoration. It marks the blow as an insult rather than an injury.
At that time a slap in the face was a deep insult. It was even more humiliating when it came with the back of the hand and so landed on the right cheek. According to the Jewish Talmud this offence "weighed double" compared to an ordinary slap. The disciples of the Lord Jesus ought not to look for reparation before men, but to suffer offences (compare 1 Peter 2:20). It reminds us of what Isaiah foretold about our Lord: "I gave my back to those who strike, and my cheeks to those who pull out the beard; I hid not my face from disgrace and spitting" (Isa. 50:6).
The command has a boundary, and the wording draws it — every case Jesus lists happens to you.
There is no supposition that the law or its penalties are abolished. The government of the world is not in question. What is in question is the path of disciples in it… We may still turn the left cheek to the man who strikes the right. We may let the man who sues us have the cloak as well as the coat he took by fraud. That is clearly within our rights. If the cause were someone else's, we would have no such right. We may not help men escape justice or make light of it. The Lord could never lay down a general rule that His people should allow lawlessness, or shrug at the rights of others. He speaks only of what is personal to oneself — "slaps you," "sues you," "forces you."
Many soften the saying by pointing to Jesus' own reply when a servant struck Him at His trial. Kelly answers that objection:
Some pare down and whittle away His words. They are not ashamed to argue that He did not mean them literally. Their reason: when He was struck on the face for His answer to the high priest, He protested calmly while bowing to the insult. Was this paying evil back in its own coin? On the contrary. This was One who did no sin, and no deceit was found in His mouth. When He was reviled, He did not revile in return. When He suffered, He did not threaten. In fact He presented far more than the other cheek. They spat in His face, beat Him, and struck Him with their hands in utmost contempt.
This life is not a stricter rule to try harder at. It is a different path altogether.
The saint is given a path through this world which has nothing to do with the world, but which displays the character of Christ in it. … This would not be righteousness, but Christ displayed.
- Law — "an eye for an eye" was a fair rule handed to Israel's judges, never a licence for the injured man to settle his own score.
- Grace — Jesus does not call that rule unjust. He calls His disciples past justice into grace, ready to bear more wrong instead of repaying it.
- Christ — the standard is His own face, given to those who struck and spat. The disciple follows a Master who took far more than one blow.
- Limits — the wording keeps it personal: he slaps you, sues you, forces you. It gives no cover to lawlessness and no right to give away what belongs to someone else.
- Life — this path is not law kept better but Christ displayed: a way through the world that has nothing to do with the world.
and to him that would go to law with thee and take thy body coat, leave him thy cloak also.
Jesus takes a case that any listener could picture: a lawsuit that strips a man of his clothing. His answer goes beyond the measured justice of "an eye for an eye." But how far does it reach? Does it bind the courts, or only the person wronged?
The two words mean different things. The tunic is the inner garment, next to the body. The cloak is the outer coat. Israel's law protected it, because a poor man slept in it.
Under the law it was forbidden to take as a pledge a poor debtor's cloak overnight. The debtor had to have his cloak returned so that he might have a covering for the night (Ex. 22:26; Deut. 24:12-13). This is probably what the Lord Jesus was referring to. He instructs His disciples not to resist and to give even more than the other man demands. This is grace.
So the surrender Jesus asks for is the one thing the law itself would have handed back.
The old rule was just. Jesus does not tighten it. He brings in something different.
Under the old economy the law laid down the principle, in righteousness, "An eye for an eye" (Ex. 21:24), thereby restraining the wrath of man. Otherwise he would have demanded two eyes for one, in vengeance. But here an entirely new principle comes in... It is the very opposite of nature, which loves to avenge itself. It is different from righteousness, which measures out even-handed justice. It is the beautiful spirit of grace... the disciple should be more than righteous: he should be gracious. As he walks through this world, it is better to lose his cloak than to give up those lovely principles of grace. They mark him out as one who belongs to Christ.
This is often read as though Jesus were dismantling courts and law enforcement. Commentators are careful here: the verbs are all personal.
Nothing here assumes that law is abolished, or its penalties. The government of the world is not in question, but the path of disciples in it... We may still turn the left cheek to the man who strikes the right. We may let the man who sues us have the cloak as well as the coat he has gained by fraud. That is clearly within our rights. If the cause were another person's, we would have no such right. We have no right to help people escape justice or treat it lightly. The Lord could never lay down a general rule that His people should allow lawlessness. He would never have them share in an indifference to the rights of others. He speaks only of what is personal to you — "strikes you," "sues you," "forces you."
You may give away your own coat. You may not give away someone else's protection.
One objection comes from the trial of Jesus Himself.
Some pare down and whittle away His words. They are not ashamed to argue that He did not mean them literally. Their reason: when He was struck on the face for His answer to the high priest, He protested calmly, while bowing to the insult. Was this paying evil back in its own coin? On the contrary, it was One who did no sin, and no deceit was found in His mouth, who when reviled, did not revile in return, and when suffering, did not threaten. In fact He presented far more than the other cheek, for they spat in His face, and struck Him, and hit Him with the palms of their hands with the utmost contempt. No — the Lord yielded to wrong instead of resisting it; and such is the true calling of the Christian.
Luke's version of this saying names the outer garment first, then the inner. The difference is deliberate, and it widens the teaching.
In the Gospel of Matthew the case is of one who sues at law... Luke, on the contrary, writes, "from one who takes away your cloak do not withhold your tunic either." It is not a case of legal suing, but of illegal violence... The apparent discrepancies of the Gospels are therefore their perfection, if indeed we value the entire truth of God... The Jewish disciple would especially need guarding on the side of law. But there is also violence in the world that breaks the law. The disciples needed to see this: it was their calling and privilege to hold fast their heavenly principles in the face of man's force, and not only in the face of law.
Everything turns on what a coat is worth next to what you lose by clutching it.
How much better to lose one's clothes than consistency with Christ? The spirit of the instruction goes further than the one cheek or the outer coat. What men want is to escape all suffering and keep their human rights, in defiance of His words. So they lose the reality of Christianity, and they keep not even its appearance.
- Grace, not equity. "An eye for an eye" was righteous restraint; Jesus asks His disciples to be more than righteous — to be gracious.
- Grace gives more. The law itself told a creditor to return a poor man's cloak by nightfall. The disciple hands over even that.
- Grace is personal. The words are "sues you," "strikes you," "forces you." Forgive your own wrong. Never hand over another person's protection.
- Grace has a face. Christ offered more than the other cheek. He yielded to wrong instead of resisting it. That is the standard.
- Grace costs cloth. Losing a coat is cheap. Losing consistency with Christ leaves you without even the appearance of Christianity.
And whoever will compel thee to go one mile, go with him two.
Jesus is still answering the old rule of "an eye for an eye." This time the demand is legal: an official can claim your time and your feet, and the answer is to go twice as far.
The verb here is not about bullying. It is the language of official demand.
The word used for "compel" (Greek: angareuo) first meant to press someone into a service. This is how Simon of Cyrene was pressed into carrying the cross of the Lord Jesus. So even when a service is unwanted and unpleasant, the disciple should not only do it willingly, but do more than the job demands.
The demand was familiar, and people hated it.
The imperial government let its officials, while out on their errands, demand that a man come along in certain cases, and bring his pack animals too. How easily men are annoyed by what is, after all, no great burden! And none more so than a people like the Jews under their pagan rulers. The Lord would raise His disciples above all such self-will.
The second mile is not a new limit to defend.
With what simplicity and force He gives His own a spirit that carries them in quiet dignity above the squabbles of the world! It would be unworthy of Him to hold to the letter and refuse to go four or five miles, if that was the demand, just because the Lord had said, "Go with him two miles." The real mind of the Lord is that the disciple should willingly go beyond what he was asked. It is grace in patience.
The old rule was not unfair. Jesus does not correct it. He asks for something higher than justice.
"An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth" is perfectly righteous. But our Lord shows that we ought to be much more than righteous. We ought to be gracious, and He presses this as the high point of this part of His teaching... It is clear the Lord has no reference here to what governments have to do. The New Testament is written for the Christian... Personal injury is what is meant here. The evil done may be entirely undeserved, but it has to be overcome with good... The great principle our Lord marks here is this: according to the law you might go one step, but according to the gospel you would go two. This holds whether it is human violence, or the law applied however harshly or wrongly. Grace does twice as much as the law, whatever the point in hand.
There are three ways to meet a wrong, and only one of them is grace.
It is the very opposite of nature, which loves to avenge itself. It is different from righteousness, which measures out even-handed justice. It is the beautiful spirit of grace.
One objection points back to the Lord's own trial.
Some who would whittle away His words are not ashamed to argue that He did not mean them literally, because when He was struck on the face for His answer to the high priest, He calmly protested, while still bowing to the insult. Was this paying evil back in its own coin? On the contrary, He was One who did no sin, and no deceit was found in His mouth; when He was insulted, He did not insult in return, and when He suffered, He did not threaten. In fact He offered far more than the other cheek, for they spat in His face, and beat Him, and struck Him with the palms of their hands in utter contempt. No — the Lord yielded to wrong instead of resisting it; and that is the true calling of the Christian.
No one can do this by willpower. It takes a new life.
He saves by giving not only redemption, but a new and divine nature. That nature hates self-will, and loves and does God's will. So you obey under the law of liberty, not as the Jew did under the law of bondage.
The mile is gone. The principle is not.
Going the extra mile has a wide application. Someone may be very inconsiderate of our welfare or our feelings. How good it is if we can answer by being extra considerate of him! This is grace, in contrast to legality. In this we rightly represent the character of our blessed Lord.
- Compelled — the word means an official demand for service, the very word used when Simon of Cyrene carried the cross.
- Grace — eye for eye was righteous; Christ asks His disciples for more than righteous. He asks for gracious.
- Beyond — the second mile is not a new limit but a direction; grace does twice what the law asks, and gladly more.
- Christ — He is the standard: He gave far more than the other cheek, and yielded to wrong instead of resisting it.
- Life — only a new nature makes this walk possible: it hates self-will, and obeys in liberty, not bondage.
To him that asks of thee give, and from him that desires to borrow of thee turn not away.
This verse closes the Lord's teaching on not repaying injury. It moves the disciple from enduring wrong to doing good. And it raises a question every honest reader feels: does Jesus mean I must hand over whatever anyone asks me for?
The command does not stand alone. It closes a run of sayings about being struck, sued, and forced to serve. One writer warns against softening it.
In this verse we have a great principle for the Christian. It comes at the close of the call not to resist evil, but to suffer it. The wrong may be private, or come through twisted uses of the law, or at public demand. Christ is the pattern for the disciple. No sound explanation can explain away His word, however unpleasant it is to human nature. The new nature stays loyal to it, as the perfect law of liberty. Only the selfish nature looks for a way out by every dishonest means.
Why can a disciple afford to be open-handed? Another writer points to who looks after him.
The disciples are under a higher government than any earthly one, and it will take abundant care of them. They no longer need to plead their own cause or take up arms in their own defence. And they share in such royal bounty that they are to be bountiful themselves.
Why should a disciple give like this? Because of what he has already received, and in a measure far past what he ever requested.
He did not stop there, but told the disciple to give habitually to the one who asked. For what had he himself not received from the divine Giver, beyond everything he asked? He was the object of countless rich mercies — was he to turn away from someone who would ask or borrow?
Another writer notes that Israel's law already restrained hard dealing with a needy fellow Israelite, and that Jesus goes further still.
Even under the law the Jew could not lend anything to his brother at interest (Lev. 25:35ff; Deut. 23:19); rather, he was to open his hand wide to him (Deut. 15:7-8). The Lord Jesus here places no restrictions on giving and lending. For God, the great Giver, did not spare His own Son but delivered Him up for us all.
The measure is not the worth of the person in front of you. It is the character of God, seen in the Lord's own dealings with crowds who brought Him nothing.
I am not to ask questions about whether the person is worthy, and I need not give the amount he asks — but I am to give, because God gives. People brought their sick to the Lord, and having power and grace He healed them, requiring nothing, asking nothing. Many did not deserve it at all; yet He was the display of the giving God, and He gave freely.
Commentators differ in emphasis here. One insists that nobody may explain the Lord's word away. Another warns that a strictly literal reading misses the point.
This does not mean that we are to give everyone whatever he chooses to ask, or to lend whatever he wants to borrow. Rather, we must always be in a giving state — always ready to give, never tired of giving. Then, when a case of real need comes before us, we may enjoy the privilege of meeting it. So we are givers even as God Himself is a giver. This does not free us from the responsibility of our stewardship — from acting as God would have us act before Him, and for His glory.
Does that mean giving without thought? One writer says no.
Suppose someone came and asked you for something, and you had reason to think he would spend it wrongly — you must limit it. Why not? He might say to you, "Didn't the Lord command, 'Give to the one who begs from you'?" Certainly He did. But He has also given other words. By them I judge whether giving is right in each case. What the Lord has in view is real need.
A single bad experience tends to close the hand for good. One writer meets that reflex head-on.
Do you count up how often you have been deceived? Even then, why feel bitter about it? The word of Jesus entitles you to give as to your Father. The person who receives your gift may put it to a bad use — that is his responsibility. I am bound to cultivate an unsuspicious generosity, and this quite apart from mere friendship.
The verse can be quoted in a self-serving direction, and one writer answers that trick with its own logic.
One man who professed faith said to me, "I ask because I want to give my brothers an opportunity to fulfil Matt. 5:42." I said, "Be consistent then. Go about hitting them, taking them to court, and forcing them to come at your bidding. That will give them the chance to fulfil the three previous verses." Let us make sure that when we read "Love," we love, and when we read "Give," we give. The one who yields everything gets everything; the one who keeps everything loses.
- Received — God gave first and did not spare His own Son; the disciple gives out of what he received.
- Released — A higher government guards him. He need not defend himself, so his hands stay open.
- Ready — The command builds a settled readiness to give, not a duty to hand over whatever anyone asks.
- Real need — Judgement is right. The Lord has real need in view, not funding folly.
- Responsibility — If the receiver misuses your gift, that is his account, not yours. Stay generous without suspicion.