Commentary on Matthew 5:38-42

We continue Jesus’ interpretations of some commands of the Mosaic Law as he pushes that law to a higher level of understanding. The saying from the Old Testament, “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” is not, as it may seem to be saying, an encouragement to take revenge. It is part of what is known as the lex talionis by which punishment for an assault was to be restricted to not more than the suffering experienced. The passage in Exodus says:

If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. (Ex 21:23-25)

Jesus calls for a very different kind of response. He tells us to offer the “evildoer” no resistance. He makes the famous recommendation to turn the other cheek. As well:

…if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, give your coat as well, and if anyone forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile. Give to the one who asks of you, and do not refuse anyone who wants to borrow from you.

It is unsurprising that even in Christian circles not a great deal of time is given to this text. Is it to be taken literally? Are we really to allow people to walk over us and offer no resistance at all?

I think the answer is both Yes and No. For many in our modern world, turning the other cheek seems the ultimate in wimpishness and cowardice. Turning the other cheek is certainly not the way of countless ‘heroes’ in our movies and on our TV screens.

But Jesus did. During his trial before the Sanhedrin:

…they spat in his face and struck him, and some slapped him, 68 saying, “Prophesy to us, you Messiah! Who is it that struck you?” (Matt 26:67-68)

What was Jesus’ response? Silence. This was turning the other cheek. Was this weakness or was it strength? Which is easier to do under great provocation: to practise self-restraint and keep one’s dignity or to lash out in retaliation? By lashing out, one comes down to the same level as one’s attackers (of course, this is quite different from self-defence.)

In another account of Jesus’ trial, after having given an answer to a question:

…one of the police standing nearby struck Jesus on the face, saying, “Is that how you answer the high priest?”
(John 18:22-23)

Jesus replied:

If I have spoken wrongly, testify to the wrong. But if I have spoken rightly, why do you strike me?”

Here Jesus does respond to the attack but on a totally different level. The physical and unreasonable attack on an unarmed person is actively responded to on the basis of reason and non-violence. Jesus is not a victim here, rather he is in control. And this is true of the whole experience of the Passion. His executioners behave in the most barbaric way, but Jesus never loses his calm and dignity right up through the very end. And that is why we worship him as our Lord and Master. He asks us to follow in his footsteps.

Revenge, in all its various forms, is the easier way, the more instinctive way, but it is not the better way. The way of active (not passive) non-violence is, in the long run, far more productive, far more in keeping with human ideals and human dignity. We have more than enough evidence in our world of the bankruptcy of a never-ending cycle of violence and counter-violence. We see it all over our world. Violence does not pay and revenge is not sweet.

Turning the other cheek is not at all a sign of weakness. It requires great inner strength, self-respect and even respect for the dignity of one’s attacker. Jesus is calling us a long way forward and upward from “an eye for an eye”.