Matt 5:38–42 — Overcoming Evil With Good

Evil takes many forms: slander, insults, assault, oppression, and religious persecution. Responding faithfully is one of the great challenges of the Christian life. Some read Jesus’ command to turn the other cheek as an absolute prohibition of self-defense, while others reduce it until it makes no practical demand at all.

Jesus instead calls his disciples to resist the impulse to retaliate in kind and to overcome evil with good. We will consider how not to respond to evil, how to respond positively, and how the Master’s own suffering provides both our example and the gospel foundation for this way of life.

How Not to Respond to Evil

Jesus says, verse 38, 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 the one who is evil. So here Jesus begins by quoting a famous line from the Mosaic Law. It’s actually found three times in the Mosaic Law, in Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy. I’ll just quote the one from Leviticus. It says, if anyone injures his neighbor, as he has done, it shall be done to him.

Fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. Whatever injury he has given a person shall be given to him. Whoever kills an animal shall make it good, and whoever kills a person shall be put to death. This is called the Lex Talionis. That’s just a Latin term that means the law of retribution, the law of strict justice. As he has done, it shall be done to him. So if he caused a fracture, then he shall have the fracture inflicted upon him. If he took an eye, he shall have his eye taken out. Whatever injury he has given shall be given to him. It is the law of strict justice, of equitable retribution.

It’s very important to understand that in the Old Testament context, you can tell that this is not being given as a command for personal revenge, as permission to strike back when someone strikes us. It’s very clear in the context of all of these three places in the Old Testament where this statement of the Lex Talionis is found, that in the context, this is something for the judges to do. This is something that happens in the courts. It mentions the judges several times in Exodus 21, verse 22, and also in Deuteronomy 19, verses 15 to 21. And so really this principle of the law of retaliation or the law of retribution is not about individual retaliation, but rather it is a principle of law that governs how the courts ought to function.

It sounds gruesome at first, like are they going to literally go in there and gouge out somebody’s eye? It seems somewhat strange. But actually, the point is to say that the damages should be proportionate, or that the punishment should be proportionate to the damages that were caused.

often, financial compensation was permitted as a substitute. This was not only the case in the time of Jesus. We see that in the writings of the rabbis, in the oral traditions of the rabbis, that they talked about using financial compensation to replace physical taking out somebody’s eye. But even in the Old Testament itself, if you look at the context of these passages, if, for example, it says in Exodus 21, verse 22, he shall pay as the judge has determined. That’s right, the same, that’s like one verse before where it says eye for eye.

He shall pay the fine as the judges determine. Now there was one exception, and that is in Numbers chapter 35, verse 31, it says that no financial compensation would ever be allowed in the case of murder. So in the case of murder, there the lex talionis, the law of just retribution, has to be carried out in the form of capital punishment, and no financial compensation could be allowed. But that implies, doesn’t it, that for anything less than that, for other damages, that financial compensation could be allowed.

The point was to say that the way the courts of Israel should function is to function the basis of strict justice. In fact, in a way, it was a way of trying to restrict the judges so that they didn’t overcompensate and overly punish someone beyond what was just.

It was never intended, though, as a call for personal retaliation and revenge, although that was a temptation, especially in the case of murder. You had these blood feuds, right, where, hey, this guy killed my brother, so then the Klan raises up an army and goes and takes somebody else’s family member out. Blood feuds were common in the ancient world, even in Israel itself, but this was a way of trying to restrict that and to provide a sense of justice and order through the legal system. It was never intended as a call to personal retaliation and revenge. But, on the other hand, you can understand how it could be taken that way, because the Mosaic law did not inculcate suffering graciously, did it? It really didn’t focus on that.

The Mosaic Law focuses on strict justice, an eye for an eye. In the passage in Deuteronomy that contains this eye for an eye language, it says that the rest shall hear and fear. So the purpose of implementing this strict justice is so that everyone else will hear about it and fear and shall never again commit any such evil among you. Your eye shall not pity. The Mosaic law is focused on justice.

It’s very easy to see how at the time of Jesus that the Jews could have mistaken this principle, which was intended only for the courts to enforce, but they could have taken it a step further and applied it to their own personal lives and engaged in personal vengeance and personal retaliation for wrongs and for insults. But Jesus here is calling his disciples to a higher righteousness based on the presence of the kingdom. That’s the whole context of the Sermon on the Mount. The kingdom has come and now he’s calling his disciples to the higher righteousness that is consistent with the presence and the reality of the kingdom of salvation that is in Christ. So what does Jesus positively call the disciples to?

He says in verse 39, Don’t engage in eye-for-an-eye retaliation at the personal level, even though it was never intended that way, but don’t do that. Rather, I say to you, do not resist the one who is evil.” Now, that’s a very difficult statement there, isn’t it? Do not resist. Some translations say, do not oppose the one who is evil. And that translation of the verse is It’s somewhat hard to understand because it seems so broad and so unlimited. Like, you can’t do anything to respond to evil. You can’t even issue a protest, it almost sounds like it’s saying? As if you can’t even flee or protest or seek legal protection. I think though that in the context we have to understand what Jesus is saying there in verse 39, do not resist the one who is evil, is that he means do not retaliate. That is, do not respond in kind against the one who is evil. And I base it upon a couple of things. One, is the way Paul, as I mentioned before, in Romans chapter 12, verses 17 through 21, he is commenting upon this teaching of Jesus. And the way Paul interprets this phrase is as follows. He says, repay no one evil for evil. That’s how Paul is interpreting it. So he’s not saying that you can never respond or never even like issue a protest or any seeking of legal protection. He’s just saying don’t retaliate, don’t respond in kind against the one who is evil.

The Greek verb translated “resist” provides further support for this interpretation. Its compound form conveys the idea of standing against someone and, in this context, of fighting back or repaying in kind. Jesus is not forbidding every form of opposition to evil; he is forbidding retaliation.

The related Greek preposition anti can mean “in place of” or “in exchange for.” The same idea appears in the word Antichrist: one who stands against Christ and claims his place.

That preposition, anti, also appears in verse 38: “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” Jesus appears to carry the idea of exchange into the verb in verse 39. Paul employs the same language in Romans 12:17 when he commands, “Repay no one evil for evil.”

It’s very interesting. So what is Jesus saying then? He’s saying when confronted with an evil person, here’s what you should resist doing? The initial resist, the initial temptation on our heart is to respond in kind. It’s to fight fire with fire. It’s like, well, they did this, so I want to do this back. That seems only just, only fair?

Jesus is saying, when confronted with an evil person who is intending you harm, resist the impulse to respond in kind. Recognize the danger involved in fighting evil with evil. Paul talks about that too in Romans 12. At the end of that same paragraph, Romans 12, 21, he says, do not be overcome by evil. That’s an interesting phrase. Do not be overcome by evil. He’s exhorting the Christians there to not respond in kind, don’t repay evil for evil, let God judge. But then he says, do not be overcome by evil. I think that’s what Jesus is getting at as well. Do not let that evil thing overcome you.

Yes, it’s evil. This evil is happening to you. But because we have this natural human response of wanting to retaliate in kind and to do back to them what they’re doing to us, what does that cause us to do? That causes us to fall into evil as well. That causes us to be overcome by evil. So Jesus is saying, as interpreted by Paul, do not be overcome by evil. Do not fall into that pit that draws you. It seems fair, it seems just to respond in kind? But what happens?

Our hearts become slowly conformed to that very same evil that we are doing, or that we are receiving. One way to think about this is just to think about it in ordinary life. Have you ever encountered somebody who is a perpetual victim? Let’s say they were abused as a child or something really bad happened to them. And they can’t get out of their victim mentality. They can’t overcome that. And so they’re just a perpetual victim. And their whole life is how victimized they are and how hurt they are and how much in pain they are. And what happens with that a person?

Think about the psychology of that, that victim mentality. If they can never overcome that sense of victimhood and they’re just constantly wallowing in that victimhood, they end up becoming pretty bad people themselves, don’t they? They end up hurting a lot of other people. In the name of their own victim status. Victimhood can rationalize great evil. Think about all of the great genocides that have happened in the 20th century. It wasn’t just that one group of people decided, hey, we don’t like those people over there, because we just think that they’re bad, so we’re going to attack them. It was always because they felt threatened by those people. Maybe in the past, something bad had happened to them.

Remember the whole Rwandan genocide in the 1990s? Maybe some of you don’t because you’re not old enough. But in the 1990s, there was this whole genocide that took place in Rwanda and Africa between these two tribes that actually had a lot in common. They spoke the same language.

racially, they looked identical, but the Hutus and the Tutsis were just absolutely at war. Odds with each other. And the argument that was made was, well, those guys, that other tribe, they hurt you in the past. They killed some of you people. And they’re threatening to do it again. So we have to then, as victims, make sure that they don’t hurt us. And so victimhood rationalized their genocide. Victimhood can rationalize great evil.

Do not be overcome by evil. Do not let evil get to you to this point where it draws you and sucks you in to the point where you become the very thing that you hate and you become evil yourself in the name of rationalizing it because of your victimhood. So that’s the first point then, how not to respond to evil. Don’t respond in kind. Don’t repay evil for evil. Do not be overcome by evil. What about the second point though, how to respond to evil?

notice how Jesus says, verse 39, but I say to you, do not resist the one who is evil, but, and then he gives four examples, four illustrations of how you can respond in a positive way to evil. It’s interesting that back again to Paul’s commentary in Romans 12, verse 21, Paul says, do not be overcome by evil, paralleling exactly what Jesus said there in verse 39, do not resist the one who is evil. And then the very next clause in Romans 12, 21b is, but rather, overcome evil with good. And that directly parallels what Jesus is saying here positively in his four examples.

How to Respond to Evil

Overcome evil with good. If someone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. If anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. So do not be overcome by evil, but rather, positively, how to respond to evil, overcome evil with good.

these four illustrations are somewhat unrealistic, aren’t they? To be honest with you, is that what Jesus really is saying, that we should literally do that? Is he giving us a command here and saying, anytime this situation happens, this is what you must do on the basis of my moral authority? Well, I’m not sure that’s exactly what Jesus has in mind here. I think he’s using hyperbole. He’s using extreme language to seek to illustrate a spirit that he desires in his disciples. Literally taken, these are unrealistic, crazy, outrageous responses? But if we don’t take these as literal laws, but rather as illustrations of the mindset that we as Christ’s disciples ought to have when we’re being attacked for our faith, then it makes more sense. And that actually is the key, that last phrase, when we’re being attacked for our faith.

I don’t think Jesus here is making a universal law that applies in every case. If it were a universal law that applies in every case, then going back to one of the illustrations I gave at the beginning, then it would be saying that if a woman is being physically attacked by her abusive husband, then she shouldn’t call the police. She should just turn the other cheek. Is that really true? I don’t think it is true. But that case is different because she’s not being attacked for her faith. Jesus here is talking about those who are being attacked for their faith. The key is, you can see this based on that he uses this illustration of being slapped on the right cheek, which is not the same thing as being assaulted. Being slapped on the right cheek is an insult. In fact, some scholars have argued that when it says specifically the right cheek, that would seem to imply that the assailant, the slapper, is using his right hand and then backhanding the person on their right cheek. And so if it’s a backhand slap, that’s more of an insult than a physical assault.

What Jesus is talking about here is being insulted and we already are prepared for that idea going back to the Beatitudes. Remember in Matthew chapter 5 verses 10 through 11 he said, And so he’s talking there about being persecuted on my account, being persecuted because you are known as my disciple, as my follower.

Jesus is not condemning legitimate self-defense. The Bible clearly teaches that self-defense is legitimate. For example, in Exodus chapter 22, verse 2, the law says that if a thief is found breaking in to someone’s house and is struck, presumably by the owner of the house, so that he dies, there shall be no blood guilt for him.” In other words, the owner of the house is not guilty of bloodshed because he was simply exercising self-defense, defending his home against the thief who broke in. Jesus himself mentions self-defense in your home.

Remember in the Olivet Discourse when Jesus is talking about the end times and the days when he’s going to come back, and he gives this illustration. He says, stay awake for you do not know on what day your Lord is coming. But know this, that if the master of the house had known in what part of the night the thief was coming, Sounds almost like Exodus 22, doesn’t it? He would have stayed awake and would not have let his house be broken into. I’m using an analogy from ordinary life, but that presupposes then the legitimacy of defending yourself and your family.

Paul himself also says the same thing in 1 Timothy 5.8. If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for the members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever. Of course, he’s talking here about providing financially, providing food and shelter for the members of one’s household, but how much more would that apply to providing defense of their lives if they are under attack?

The issue that Jesus is getting at here is, which kingdom are you a part of? David van Drunen, who is a professor at Westminster Seminary in California, has written an excellent article on this passage. And he says this, he says, the legitimacy of self-defense depends upon the context. Am I being assailed as just another citizen of the civil kingdom or as a disciple of Jesus and hence as a member of the church, the kingdom of Christ? If I’m just being attacked on the street, or somebody coming off the street into my home, and there’s no context here that I’m being attacked as a citizen of the heavenly kingdom of Christ, then it’s legitimate to exercise self-defense.

Not only legitimate, I think, as Paul would say in 1 Timothy 5.8, that it’s required to do so. But if it is because we’re being insulted and persecuted because of our faith, then that is when we must turn the other cheek. Jesus said, blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. And then he gives three more examples, being sued unfairly, being called before court and being sued for an unjust cause.

There’s this whole discussion here of the two pieces of clothing, the tunic versus the cloak. The tunic is the inner garment that’s closest to your body. The cloak is like the jacket, the outer garment. In the Old Testament, the Mosaic law said that your outer cloak is so important for basic survival? If you’re a poor person, all you have is your outer cloak. That’s what you need to survive, to live, to even like be a bed at night. Your outer cloak could not be taken away.

Even if you were being lawfully sued for damages, the outer cloak of a poor person could not be taken away. But Jesus here says, If anyone would sue you and take your tunic, that is the inner cloak, the inner garment, then let him have your outer garment as well, the very one that the law says could not be taken away. And so Jesus here is, again, making an outrageous claim in a hyperbolic extreme case, encouraging the disciples to consider giving up their lawful rights. But again, he’s not denying the legitimacy of seeking justice in courts in the civil kingdom, in the kingdom of the common grace realm that we are also dual citizens of. He’s talking about if this is happening because of our faith. And then he also mentions the case, the example of being imposed upon by an unjust government. In verse 41, if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Clearly, Jesus is referring here to the Roman government at the time.

The word to force is the word to compel. It’s the same word that was used in the passion narrative when the soldiers compelled the man from Cyrene or Cyrene, I can’t remember where it was, to carry the cross of Jesus. This was a Roman practice where the Roman soldiers could impress the citizenry to help them carry their weapons and their loads. And that he uses the word mile there If anyone forces you to go one mile, the word mile is a very unusual word in Greek. It’s actually a Roman Latin word.

clearly he’s referring here to being imposed upon by an unjust government. Jesus is rebuking those in the time of the New Testament who were the zealots, who were trying to raise opposition to the Roman government, the Roman occupation. And he’s saying that they are, as citizens of Christ’s kingdom, they are not to engage in holy war. They are to follow the way of the master. Again, this does not mean that if you’re talking about in the dual citizenship of the common grace realm, it does not mean that we cannot appeal to the government and seek redress of grievances. Paul did that, for example, in the book of Acts. In Acts 16 and in Acts 22, there are two cases where Paul was arrested and treated unfairly. And then he pointed out to the soldiers, look, I’m a Roman citizen. You can’t just treat me any way you want. I’m a Roman citizen. I have rights.

Here’s an example of someone who is in the other kingdom seeking to protest mistreatment by an unjust government. But if it is in the realm of salvation, if it is in the realm of seeking to testify to the coming kingdom of Christ, then we must not be like the zealots and engage in holy war to maintain an earthly, theocratic realm. We must seek the heavenly kingdom of Christ. And then the fourth example is being asked for money when you suspect you won’t get paid. You have good reason to believe that you’re going to be taken advantage of, but Jesus says, what’s more important, never allowing yourself to be taken advantage of or having compassion for the needy? It’s hard? Sometimes you see a case of someone that wants money, and you just suspect that you’re just not 100% sure that this is a legitimate case. So what do you do?

I think Jesus is saying, err on the side of compassion, and don’t let that fear that you have of being taken advantage of overcome the need to have that Christ-like love and care for others. So just to summarize then, what Jesus is saying here in this passage is a couple of things. Number one, he’s saying we have to distinguish between these two kingdoms. If we’re talking about the kingdom of Christ and the kingdom of salvation and our life in him, then we must not resist evil and we must be willing to suffer for Christ.

If we’re talking about the civil kingdom, the realm of the world that is under the reign of common grace and God’s earthly kingdom, then there is legitimacy to self-defense, to seeking your rights in courts and so on, but be careful even there. Not to fall into that pit of the cycle of violence and that victimhood mentality and then seeking to return evil for evil. Even in that civil realm, we should still be careful. Yes, we can exercise self-defense. Yes, we can seek redress of grievances and to have a judge look at our case and so on.

Those things are legitimate to do. But make sure that when you do those things, you’re not returning evil for evil. You’re not letting your heart become overcome by evil. That you’re doing it for the right reason, for the glory of God, for the good of your neighbor, and for the self-defense of your family and of your own life.

The Master’s Example

That brings us then to the third point, which is the Master’s example. As I mentioned before, we looked at the passage before in verses 33 to 37 about, you shall not swear falsely, but you shall simply say yes or no, and anything more than that comes from evil. That command of Jesus about not lying and not using oaths to cover up lies is illustrated when we get to the Passion narrative. So when you get to Matthew 26, you see this idea illustrated because what happens? Peter denies the Lord, even takes an oath denying that he knew him, whereas Jesus, when he is put on oath, the high priest says, I adjure you by God under oath, are you the Messiah or not? He did not respond the way Peter did, but he simply said, you have said so, and so this part of the Sermon on the Mount, beginning at verse 33 to the end, is illustrated in the Passion narrative. And we see the same thing here with the passage on, 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 the one who is evil. We see the example of Christ illustrating this in the arrest, trial, and crucifixion of Jesus. We see Jesus himself responding to evil in the way that he commanded. He did not retaliate in the face of evil. He did not respond in kind when he was mistreated.

Peter, when he was about to be arrested, Peter pulled out his sword and cut off the servant’s ear, the high priest’s servant’s ear. And what did Jesus say to Peter? He said, put away your sword. He told Peter to put away his sword. This is not the way of the gospel. This is not the way of Christ. Jesus was also slapped on the cheek as an insult. Remember when he was on trial before the Jewish court, the Sanhedrin. He was insulted and yet he turned the other cheek. He did not respond in kind. He endured unjust court proceedings twice. Not only the Jewish court, the Sanhedrin, but also the Roman court under Pilate. And he also had his garments taken from him. And they were divided up by the Roman soldiers and they cast lots to see who would be able to take his garment.

We see our own master’s example of how he applied his own teaching and how he calls us to follow him in the same way. Instead of insisting on your rights, instead of seeking to get even, he’s calling us to become ever more closely united to Christ, to live in union with him, to take on his mindset, and to overcome evil with good. Peter himself talks about this in 1 Peter chapter 2 and verses 18 and following. He says, servants, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust.

For this is a gracious thing when mindful of God, one endures sorrows while suffering unjustly. For what credit is it if when you sin and are beaten for it, you endure? But if when you do good and suffer for it, you endure, this is a gracious thing in the sight of God. For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example that you might follow in his steps.

He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth. When he was reviled, he did not revile in return. When he suffered, he did not threaten, but he continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly. He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness.

By his wounds, you have been healed. For you are straying like sheep, but have now returned to the shepherd and overseer of your souls. How can we, as disciples of Christ, as we for whom Christ died, how can we insist on an eye for an eye? How can we insist on strict justice when Christ did not demand that from us? Instead, he suffered for us.

The same preposition, anti, appears again in Matthew 20:28: “The Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” The principle of substitution—the life of one in place of another—is satisfied and fulfilled in Christ.

We slapped him. We insulted him. We heaped all of our sins upon him. And what did he do? He turned the other cheek and suffered for us so that we might be saved. And so the gospel is what motivates us to suffer in a Christ-like way when we’re dealing with evil. And we’re navigating which kingdom we’re in. Either way, whether it’s in the earthly kingdom and we have to avoid eye-for-an-eye retaliation and returning evil for evil, or whether it’s in the kingdom of Christ and we have to suffer for Christ, and turn the other cheek. Either way, the gospel is what motivates us to suffer. The gospel itself, that Christ took that eye for an eye principle in our place, that he did not demand justice from us, but took the justice in our place, is what motivates us to suffer for Christ, to graciously suffer in union with Christ. David van Drunen has this helpful paragraph where he’s talking about the gospel. We see the gospel right here in these four illustrations? If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. If anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well.

Van Drunen writes, Jesus does not tell his disciples to ignore and walk away from the person who harms them. But to take a second slap, to give up a second garment, to go a second mile. The lex talionis, that is the law of retribution, prescribes a second action that is proportionate to the first action. The person who causes the injury is to receive the same injury in return. Jesus’ words here preserve that twofold action and the proportionality of the lex talionis. The difference is that he exhorts his disciples to bear the second retaliatory action themselves. Isn’t that interesting? A proportionate penalty is still born, but by whom? By the wronged party, rather than the wrongdoer.

This reflects a larger theme in Matthew: Jesus’ disciples imitate their Lord by suffering at the hands of sinners. Humanity struck God through sin, yet God answered the demands of justice by bearing the retaliatory blow in Christ. Jesus satisfied retributive justice once for all. When his disciples endure wrong to pursue healing and reconciliation, they display God’s gracious action toward them.

This does not forbid legitimate self-defense or legal action in civil society. It does forbid vengeance and the desire to repay evil with evil. In the church and in suffering specifically for Christ, disciples may be called to relinquish lawful rights and bear injustice for his sake.

Either way, we bear witness to the atonement. Suffering unjustly is painful, but, as Peter says, it is gracious when endured in fellowship with Christ. Instead of being overcome by evil, we overcome evil with good and entrust final justice to God.