Vengeance

by Keith Sharp

“Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away” (Matthew 5:38-42).

Perhaps no utterance of the Master has resulted in greater consternation and misunderstanding than this passage. A misapplication of this precept has resulted in both fanatical religious positions on the one hand and scoffing skepticism on the other. What is the meaning and application of this great moral commandment?

The purpose of this commandment was to prevent brutality. Hatred and anger produce excessive revenge. One man knocks out another’s tooth, so the other man kills the aggressor. The law of “like for like” limits this revenge. The punishment must be equivalent to the injury received. Moses never intended this principle as a license for personal revenge, but as a guide to judicial equity. The Old Testament specifically forbid the taking of personal vengeance (Leviticus 19:18; Proverbs 20:22; 24:29; 25:21).

As the Master’s doctrine deals with personal vengeance, what does He teach about this subject? The principle Christ enunciates, “resist not evil.” Is this a demand that Christians must passively submit to any and all sorts of physical violence? Must one watch a maniac kill his family and destroy his property, without lifting a finger to resist?

The Scriptures are always harmonious one with another. The law of Christ clearly approves the essential and righteous role of civil government as an avenger (Romans 13:3-4). The Gospel instructs by apostolic approved example as well as by precept. There are clear apostolic examples that teach a Christian has the right to take all legal measures at his disposal to protect himself against the onslaughts of evil-doers. When the Romans in Jerusalem threatened to beat Paul without a trial, the apostle insisted on his rights as a Roman citizen (Acts 22:22-29).When the radical Jews of that same city bound themselves under a curse to kill Paul, he made use of the armed power of the state, two hundred soldiers, seventy horsemen, and two hundred spear men, to thwart their wicked scheme (Acts 23:12-24). When Festus would have sent Paul back to Jerusalem, where the Jews still waited to kill him, again he demanded his citizenship rights and appealed to Caesar (Acts 25:9-12). In all of these instances, the apostle Paul appealed to the armed power of civil government. If such use of armed might is evil, so is our calling on such for protection, for we must “have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness” (Ephesians 5:11).

Furthermore, every statement must be taken in context. Jesus set a contrast between that which the Jews imagined the law of Moses allowed (verse 38) and that which the law of Christ demands (verses 39-42). The scribes and Pharisees employed Moses’ precepts concerning vengeance to attempt to justify personally “getting even” with an adversary. “Resist not evil” is an absolute prohibition against personal vengeance or even an attitude of resentment as the result of wrong suffered. We should do good to the evil-doer and leave vengeance to the Lord (Romans 12:17-21).

The Master stated four examples to illustrate this principle. Each teaches that we should not seek personal vengeance:

(1) Jesus commanded, “but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.” In all ages, a “slap on the face” has been regarded as the grossest of insults, but it does not imperil one’s life (cf. I Kings 22:24; Lamentations 3:30; John 19:3; II Corinthians 11:20). When wicked people heap upon us the lowest insults, we must not retaliate in kind. One must never angrily turn on such an attacker as a dog on its tormentor. When Jesus was so stricken, he rebuked the offender, but refused to retaliate, although all the forces of heaven were at his behest (John 18:22-23). He is our perfect example of enduring suffering without retaliation (I Peter 2:18-24).

(2) The Lord demanded, “And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.” The “coat” denoted “the inner vest or under garment” (W.E. Vine). Even the poorest of Jews would usually have a change of such “coats.” But the “cloak” was “an outer garment, a mantle” and consisted of “a large square piece of cloth, provided with tassels” which “was thrown over the left shoulder and brought over under the right arm” (Davis Dictionary of the Bible, page 148). The Jew would usually possess only one such garment and used it both as a robe by day and a blanket by night. The law forbade taking this cloak as a pledge. This teaches that, even should one use the courts to persecute us, we should not seek vengeance. Be rather willing to lose that which by right cannot be taken from you than to seek personal vengeance (cf. I Corinthians 6:7).

(3) The Master enjoined, “And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.” “Compel” means “to impress into service” (Vine) and “was applied to the forced transport of military baggage by the inhabitants of a country through which troops were passing … The sense of oppression is involved, subjection to arbitrary military power” (Expositors Greek Testament). Palestine was an occupied country. At any moment a Jew might feel the touch of the flat of a Roman spear on his shoulder, and know that he was compelled to serve the Romans, it might be in the most menial way (Barclay). How unsavory must Simon of Cyrene’s work have seemed, when he was “compelled to bear” the cross of Jesus (Matthew 27:32; Mark 15:21; Luke 23:26). How easy it would be to allow an attitude of bitter resentment to spring up and to seek revenge. How tempting it would be to see just how little one could get by with in serving such a master. Rather than seeing how little we can do, we should exceed the demands (I Peter 2:18-20).

(4) Jesus commanded, “Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.” Did the Master teach an unlimited benevolence with our material goods? If so, we would soon be impoverished, and our families would be begging. People who insist that the statement, “resist not evil,” is completely unqualified, quickly point out that the context limits this statement. If this application is correct, why not for the others? Jesus teaches an attitude toward giving which is limited and qualified by the context and by other passages. We must give to the needy cheerfully, not resentfully. We should not ask remuneration for charitable gifts (Luke 6:30). This attitude and action demanded by the Old Covenant (Deuteronomy 15:7-11), is elsewhere taught in the New Testament (cf. Acts 20:35; I John 3:17-18) and was often exemplified by first century Christians (cf. Acts 4:32-37). In our giving, we must not neglect the needs of our own family (I Timothy 5:8), we must put spiritual matters first (Acts 6:1-4), and we are not to encourage the indolent (II Thessalonians 3:10-12). These limitations do not negate the fact that, as disciples of Christ, we must give willingly and without resentment to the worthy poor.

Our Lord does not demand that we be passive in the face of onslaught and danger. While He does allow us to protect our lives, our family, and our property, He commands us not to seek personal vengeance for wrongs suffered. We must be willing to bear the grossest insults, the greatest legal injustice, the most arbitrary power, and the needs of the poor with neither resentment nor personal vengeance. The standard is high and difficult, but if we would be partakers of the righteousness of His kingdom, we must strive to follow it.