From the commentary of R.T. France on The Gospel of Matthew (pgs. 219-220):
Matthew 5.38
You have heard that it was said, “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.”
“Eye for eye, tooth for tooth” occurs three times in the Pentateuch: Exod. 21.24; lev. 24.20; Deut. 19.21, in each case as part of a longer list of equivalents, and in a context of formal trial….They may have been intended originally to limit the extravagant vengeance associated with an oriental blood-feud, but the OT texts do not express this intention; rather, in Deut. 19.21 the list is preceded by “Show no pity,” to ensure that judges did not mitigate the full penalty required…But by the time of Jesus appropriate financial compensation had generally taken the place of physical mutilation, so that it is probably not physical brutality as such which Jesus is here opposing, but rather the essential principle of even legitimate retribution.
Matthew 5.39
But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.
Jesus is often quoted as opposing retaliation, a stance for which there are several parallels in the OT and other Jewish writings and among pagan philosophers. But Jesus’ words go further than that: even resistance is forbidden, and no distinction is made between active and passive resistance, violent and nonviolent, legal and illegal…
The startling teaching of this passage is that these are bad people, intent on getting the better of the disciple, but even their admitted badness does not justify the disciple in resisting them. The issue, then, is not whether one should stand up for good in principle, but whether one should stand up for oneself when under threat.
For illustrations follow…The first results from a slap on the right cheek. To slap another’s cheek was a serious insult (2 Cor. 11.20; cf. Lam. 3.30) for which legal redress could be claimed (the code of Hammurabi deals with this too, in paragraphs 202-5, with penalties ranging from a small fine to the cutting off of an ear, depending on the social standing of the two parties involved), but to slap the right cheek required (if the assailant was right-handed) a slap with the back of the hand, which was far m ore insulting and would entail double damages.
This is more a matter of honor than of physical infjuy, and honor required appropriate recompense. Yet Jesus tells the disciple to forgo the financial benefit to which he is legally entitled, to accept the insult without responding, and even to offer the left cheek for a further, if less serious, insult…In a culture which took honor and shame far more seriously than ours, this was a paradoxical and humiliating demand.
Enjoy this post? Get more like them by subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS.
Consider sharing this post:
Related posts:
- A Response to Pacifism From the article on War in the ESV Study Bible (pg....
- Matthew 5.17: D.A. Carson on Christ Fulfilling the Law Matthew 5.17 Do not think that I have come to...
- Twisting Truth: Matthew 7.1 and the Question of Not Judging Others Matthew 7.1: “Judge not, that you be not judged.” in...
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
Leave a Reply