Getting Even? Getting Ahead?  There is perhaps no more familiar line from the OT than an “eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” which often is understood as a sanction for revenge. Here Jesus quotes Exodus 21:24–25 (as well, Lev 24:20; Dt 19:21; cf. Isa 50:4–9; Luke 6:29–30) which expresses the OT principal of proportional retribution in kind (lex talionis) considered a principle of legal rights throughout the Ancient Near East.  This principle was older and more widely recognized than the Mosaic law, as it was already found in the Code of Hammurabi (eighteenth century bc) with the same examples of eye and tooth. The codification of proportional retribution was not intended as a sanction for revenge, but to prevent the excesses and escalation of blood-feuds. Proportional retribution was intended to establish a principle wherein the feud was moved from society into the courtroom where the legal system ensured that the punishment did not exceed the crime. Nonetheless, what becomes embedded in society is a form of law seeking justice with some sense of equity. It is an institutionalized limited retribution.

By the Jesus’ time, physical penalties had generally been replaced by financial damages. When the idea of compensatory damages replaced a personal retribution, a more “civilized” process seems to be available. But does Jesus have in mind the legal setting? Many of the example that follow do have the “courtroom” setting explicitly stated or at least lurking the background. Jesus never seems to reject the idea of the court room, but one wonders if Jesus intends the community of disciples to have any part of such proceedings. Paul seems to have this same concern in mind in 1 Corinthians 6.  It is conceivable that such legal proceedings displace the community’s search for God’s justice and instead settles for a human justice.

Or is there something deeper here? Is Jesus telling the disciples not to seek to replace one human institution (civil court) with another (religious court) even if one believes the second instance will rightly arbitrate God’s will?  If true, then far from simply opposing brutality or even physical retaliation, Jesus is teaching the disciples to forego their natural instinct for even legitimate retribution – and he offers alternatives that go “against the grain” of human reaction. But perhaps the “grain” is simply the hardness of the human heart.

“offer no resistance to one who is evil” (v.39)  In the first example (v.39a) Jesus seems to have move beyond retribution and retaliation. The Greek verb anthistēmi meaning “set oneself against, oppose, resist” is wider in meaning than “do not retaliate.” In the NT the verb most often involves the human opposition to the will of God and can imply more than simple passive resistance.  In the OT (LXX) the verb anthistēmi is sometimes used for ‘take legal action against’ – supporting the premise from above about Jesus’ teaching to forego even legitimate retribution.

There are some (a minority) exegetes who argue that Jesus is teaching is a third way between violent resistance and passive submission: non-violent resistance.  Their basis comes from the use of anthistēmi in classic Greek literature where the word does find a home in the battlefield setting. Thus some translations suggest “offer no violent resistance” as the better translation – even though “violent” does not appear in the text. Mt 5:39 then becomes a prescription for non-violent resistance.  Their argument continues on to suggest that evil (v.39; Jas 4:7) must be countered if justice is to be established. Their argument has merit when one considers that each of Jesus’ example has the disciple taking action (turning the cheek, handing over the cloak, going the additional mile). And the idea has resonance in the light of humanity’s experience: all evil needs in order to triumph is for good men to do nothing.  Ironically in our age a common form of non-violent resistance is litigation in the courtroom, something several NT passages may warn against.  The US Civil Rights movement in the mid 1960s is an example of a believing community that found warrant for their non-violent resistance in these passages. Given the context of Matthew’s use, other exegetes argue these verses are not a prescription for non-violent resistance but for no resistance at all, even by legal means.

A comparison of the wording of vv. 39–40 with Luke 6:29–30 shows that Matthew’s concern seems particularly focused on cases of litigation rather than with violence, and Mt 5:41 is also concerned with legal rights. All the examples deal with the individual’s response to other individuals (rather than evil in general). A willingness to forgo one’s personal rights, and to allow oneself to be insulted and imposed upon, is not incompatible with a firm stand for matters of principle and for the rights of others (cf. Pauls’s attitude in Acts 16:37; 22:25; 25:8–12). Indeed the principle of just retribution is not so much abrogated here as bypassed, in favor of an attitude which refuses to insist on one’s rights, however legitimate. Jesus is not reforming the legal code, but demanding an attitude which can forego personal rights for something greater. Verses 39b–42 are illustrations of that attitude, not rules to be applied.

Turn the other cheek. The words in v.39b have become a common wisdom expression in our day. But our times do not share the same sense of honor/shame operative in 1^st century Palestine. To strike… on the right cheek is considered to describe a blow with the back of the hand which was a severe affront to one’s honor and dignity (Job 16:10; Lam 3:30). God’s prophets had suffered such ill treatment (1 Kings 22:24; 2 Chron 18:23; Is 50:6) – as would Jesus (26:67).  To strike someone so was considered the greatest possible contempt and extreme abuse and as such was punishable by a very heavy fine (Mishnah BK 8:6). The situation envisaged in this verse is one of insult rather than of physical violence.

What is Jesus’ larger intent in suggesting such an example as turning the other cheek? Carter (150) suggests that the context is one in which those in power deliberately take an action of power to humiliate the lesser one. In this view, Jesus is teaching passive resistance to ungodly power by an action that refuses submission, asserts dignity and challenges what is suppose to demean – and as well to bring shame upon the person who has delivered the blow. Keener (198) writes that by freely offering the other cheek one demonstrates that one does not value human honor and shows contempt for the value system of the one who delivered the blow – and perhaps the onlookers. Rather, in turning the other cheek you insist that honor before God is the one thing sought; avenging lost human honor has no value at all.

Hand him your cloak as well. Again Jesus returns to the legal setting of the courtroom. The Greek chitōna describes the undergarment or tunic worn either against the bare skin or over a linen shirt. The chitōna was made of linen or wool, reached to the ankles or knees, had long or half-sleeves, and was worn by both rich and poor.  The Greek himation is used of garments in general (and in the plural means “clothing”) and specifically the outer garment, i.e., the mantle or cloak with openings for the arms.  Dt 24:10-13 describes the himation being used to secure a loan; the cloak must be returned by sundown so that the person has something to keep him warm in the night. But notice that in Mt 5:40 the garment in question is the chitōna, the undergarment. In contrast with the eager litigation of his opponent, the disciple should not only willingly be deprived of his chitōna, but should add his himation (the more valuable outer garment) as a bonus. Jesus has made an absurd example in which the victim ends up naked in the courtroom.

Boring (194) offers that Jesus’ intention is not literal but teaches that “a disciple should be secure enough in one’s acceptance by God to enable one not to insist on one’s rights, legal or otherwise, but empowering one to renounce them in the interest of others.” France (2007, p.221) writes that the principle here is not primarily the avoidance of lawsuit since the other person had no legal rights in the court (Ex 22:25-27; Dt 24:10-13). Rather it teaches that what the opponent could not have dared to claim, the disciple is to offer freely – a radically unselfish attitude to one’s rights and property. Carter (152) insists that the purpose of Jesus’ teaching is literal and that in standing naked (non-violent resistance) in the courtroom one exposes the naked greed of the oppressor. Keener (198-99) agrees that Jesus’ words are hyperbole, but says that there are strong elements of honor/shame in play.  The ones who value honor and possession more than the kingdom will get what they desire. The ones who focus their desire on the kingdom will inherit eternal life.

Going that extra mile. In contemporary life often the expression “to go the extra mile” implies which someone has asked you to volunteer, one should more than agree and do more than expected or asked.  But Jesus is referring to something that is clearly not voluntary service. The phrase “press you into service” uses the Greek word angareuō  which means to “press into compulsory service, or to compel.” This was a practice of Roman soldiers taken over from the Persians by which soldiers and government officials could compel citizens of the occupied country to carry load for a prescribe distance.  This same verb describes Simon being compelled to carry Jesus’ cross. Given the Roman occupation of Palestine, there was no choice but to comply, but the practice was deeply resented by the people.  Jesus’ suggestion is remarkable in itself, but to do it for the enemy is unheard of.

France (2007, p. 222) offers that this illustrates Jesus’ demand to renounce one’s rights and prepares the listener for the equally radical demand to love one’s enemies (v.44).  Keener (200) agrees in this basic assessment and goes so far as to say love commands such actions even if one’s contemporaries see your actions as collaboration with the enemy. Carter (152-3) points out that going the first mile can simply be the path of least resistance in the face of oppressing power whose intent is to humiliate. By going the second mile one shows a refusal to be humiliated and takes the imitative to assert human dignity. Given that Roman law limited the service to one mile, Carter suggests this was an strategy of non-violence to change the relationship: perhaps the Roman soldier is now worried that he will be reported as violating the law of occupation. Boring (194) agrees with France and Keener and places it in a broader context: doing more than the law demands.