TRV
See on the biblical-era map
Study This Verse
Public-domain commentary
Matthew Henry
From his Commentary on the Whole Bible. Henry comments on passages, not single verses — this entry covers Matthew 5:38–42. His three-level outline is real structure in the source text, so it is rendered as structure.
In these verses the law of retaliation is expounded, and in a manner repealed. Observe,
I.What the Old Testament permission was, in case of injury; and here the expression is only, Ye have heard that is has been said; not, as before, concerning the commands of the decalogue, that it has been said by, or to, them of old time. It was a command, that every one should of necessity require such satisfaction; but they might lawfully insist upon it, if they pleased; an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. This we find, Exo 21:24; Lev 24:20; Deu 19:21; in all which places it is appointed to be done by the magistrate, who bears not the sword in vain, but is the minister of God, an avenger to execute wrath, Rom 13:4. It was a direction to the judges of the Jewish nation what punishment to inflict in case of maims, for terror to such as would do mischief on the one hand, and for a restraint to such as have mischief done to them on the other hand, that they may not insist on a greater punishment than is proper: it is not a life for an eye, nor a limb for a tooth, but observe a proportion; and it is intimated (Num 35:31), that the forfeiture in this case might be redeemed with money; for when it is provided that no ransom shall be taken for the life of a murderer, it is supposed that for maims a pecuniary satisfaction was allowed.
But some of the Jewish teachers, who were not the most compassionate men in the world, insisted upon it as necessary that such revenge should be taken, even by private persons themselves, and that there was no room left for remission, or the acceptance of satisfaction. Even now, when they were under the government of the Roman magistrates, and consequently the judicial law fell to the ground of course, yet they were still zealous for any thing that looked harsh and severe.
Now, so far this is in force with us, as a direction to magistrates, to use the sword of justice according to the good and wholesome laws of the land, for the terror of evil-doers, and the vindication of the oppressed. That judge neither feared God nor regarded man, who would not avenge the poor widow of her adversary, Luk 18:2, Luk 18:3. And it is in force as a rule to lawgivers, to provide accordingly, and wisely to apportion punishments to crimes, for the restraint of rapine and violence, and the protection of innocency.
II.What the New Testament precept is, as to the complainant himself, his duty is, to forgive the injury as done to himself, and no further to insist upon the punishment of it than is necessary to the public good: and this precept is consonant to the meekness of Christ, and the gentleness of his yoke.
Two things Christ teaches us here:
1.We must not be revengeful (Mat 5:39); I say unto you, that ye resist not evil; - the evil person that is injurious to you. The resisting of any ill attempt upon us, is here as generally and expressly forbidden, as the resisting of the higher powers is (Rom 13:2); and yet this does not repeal the law of self-preservation, and the care we are to take of our families; we may avoid evil, and may resist it, so far as is necessary to our own security; but we must not render evil for evil, must not bear a grudge, nor avenge ourselves, nor study to be even with those that have treated us unkindly, but we must go beyond them by forgiving them, Pro 20:22; Pro 24:29; Pro 25:21, Pro 25:22; Rom 12:7. The law of retaliation must be made consistent with the law of love: nor, if any have injured us, is our recompence in our own hands, but in the hands of God, to whose wrath we must give place; and sometimes in the hands of his viceregents, where it is necessary for the preservation of the public peace; but it will not justify us in hurting our brother to say that he began, for it is the second blow that makes the quarrel; and when we were injured, we had an opportunity not to justify our injuring him, but to show ourselves the true disciples of Christ, by forgiving him.
Three things our Saviour specifies, to show that Christians must patiently yield to those who bear hard upon them, rather than contend; and these include others.
(1.)A blow on the cheek, which is an injury to me in my body; "Whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek," which is not only a hurt, but an affront and indignity (Co2 11:20), if a man in anger or scorn thus abuse thee, "turn to him the other cheek;" that is, "instead of avenging that injury, prepare for another, and bear it patiently: give not the rude man as good as he brings; do not challenge him, nor enter an action against him; if it be necessary to the public peace that he be bound to his good behaviour, leave that to the magistrate; but for thine own part, it will ordinarily be the wisest course to pass it by, and take no further notice of it: there are no bones broken, no great harm done, forgive it and forget it; and if proud fools think the worse of thee, and laugh at thee for it, all wise men will value and honour thee for it, as a follower of the blessed Jesus, who, though he was the Judge of Israel, did not smite those who smote him on the cheek," Mic 5:1. Though this may perhaps, with some base spirits, expose us to the like affront another time, and so it is, in effect, to turn the other cheek, yet let not that disturb us, but let us trust God and his providence to protect us in the way of our duty. Perhaps, the forgiving of one injury may prevent another, when the avenging of it would but draw on another; some will be overcome by submission, who by resistance would but be the more exasperated, Pro 25:22. However, our recompence is in Christ's hands, who will reward us with eternal glory for the shame we thus patiently endure; and though it be not directly inflicted, it if be quietly borne for conscience' sake, and in conformity to Christ's example, it shall be put upon the score of suffering for Christ.
(2.)The loss of a coat, which is a wrong to me in my estate (Mat 5:40); If any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat. It is a hard case. Note, It is common for legal processes to be made use of for the doing of greatest injuries. Though judges be just and circumspect, yet it is possible for bad men who make no conscience of oaths and forgeries, by course of law to force off the coat from a man's back. Marvel not at the matter (Ecc 5:8), but, in such a case, rather than go to the law by way of revenge, rather than exhibit a cross bill, or stand out to the utmost, in defence of that which is thy undoubted right, let him even take thy cloak also. If the matter be small, which we may lose without an considerable damage to our families, it is good to submit to it for peace' sake. "It will not cost thee so much to buy another cloak, as it will cost thee by course of law to recover that; and therefore unless thou canst get it again by fair means, it is better to let him take it."
(3.)The going a mile by constraint, which is a wrong to me in my liberty (Mat 5:41); "Whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, to run an errand for him, or to wait upon him, grudge not at it, but go with him two miles rather than fall out with him:" say not, "I would do it, if I were not compelled to it, but I hate to be forced;" rather say, "Therefore I will do it, for otherwise there will be a quarrel;" and it is better to serve him, than to serve thy own lusts of pride and revenge. Some give this sense of it: The Jews taught that the disciples of the wise, and the students of the law, were not to be pressed, as others might, by the king's officers, to travel upon the public service; but Christ will not have his disciples to insist upon this privilege, but to comply rather than offend the government. The sum of all is, that Christians must not be litigious; small injuries must be submitted to, and no notice taken of them; and if the injury be such as requires us to seek reparation, it must be for a good end, and without thought of revenge: though we must not invite injuries, yet we must meet them cheerfully in the way of duty, and make the best of them. If any say, Flesh and blood cannot pass by such an affront, let them remember, that flesh and blood shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
2.We must be charitable and beneficent (Mat 5:42); must not only do no hurt to our neighbours, but labour to do them all the good we can.
(1.)We must be ready to give; "Give to him that asketh thee. If thou has an ability, look upon the request of the poor as giving thee an opportunity for the duty of almsgiving." When a real object of charity presents itself, we should give at the first word: Give a portion to seven, and also to eight; yet the affairs of our charity must be guided with discretion (Psa 112:5), lest we give that to the idle and unworthy, which should be given to those that are necessitous, and deserve well. What God says to us, we should be ready to say to our poor brethren, Ask, and it shall be given you.
(2.)We must be ready to lend. This is sometimes as great a piece of charity as giving; as it not only relieves the present exigency, but obliges the borrower to providence, industry, and honesty; and therefore, "From him that would borrow of thee something to live on, or something to trade on, turn not thou away: shun not those that thou knowest have such a request to make of thee, nor contrive excuses to shake them off." Be easy of access to him that would borrow: though he be bashful, and have not confidence to make known his case and beg the favour, yet thou knowest both his need and his desire, and therefore offer him the kindness. Exorabor antequam rogor; honestis precibus occuram - I will be prevailed on before I am entreated; I will anticipate the becoming petition. Seneca, De Vit Beat. It becomes us to be thus forward in acts of kindness, for before we call, God hears us, and prevents us with the blessings of his goodness.
Historical interpretation
Eleven Centuries of Reception
14 surviving comments on this verse. Each one is dated, so this reads as a timeline rather than a list.
Select a marker to jump to its quote. Markers stagger vertically where authors wrote within a few decades of each other.
Else how will one, when he has two coats, give the one of them to the naked, unless he be a man likewise to offer to one who takes away his coat his cloak as well? How shall we fashion to us friends from mammon, if we love it so much as not to put up with its loss? We shall perish together with the lost mammon.
Beyond the tolerance of physical injury, the Lord wants us also to have contempt for things of this world and to be so far removed from every lawsuit or contest of judgment. If by chance a slanderer or tempter comes forward to initiate a lawsuit for the sake of testing our faith and desires to rob us of the things which are ours, the Lord orders us to offer willingly not only the things that the person goes after unjustly but even those not demanded.
In the next place, they criticise the law in the old covenant, which bids put out "an eye for an eye," and "a tooth for a tooth;" and straightway they insult and say, "Why, how can He be good who speaks so?"
What then do we say in answer to this? That it is the highest kind of philanthropy. For He made this law, not that we might strike out one another's eyes, but that fear of suffering by others might restrain us from doing any such thing to them. As therefore He threatened the Ninevites with overthrow, not that He might destroy them (for had that been His will, He ought to have been silent), but that He might by fear make them better, and so quiet His wrath: so also hath He appointed a punishment for those who wantonly assail the eyes of others, that if good principle dispose them not to refrain from such cruelty, fear may restrain them from injuring their neighbors' sight.
And if this be cruelty, it is cruelty also for the murderer to be restrained, and the adulterer checked. But these are the sayings of senseless men, and of those that are mad to the extreme of madness. For I, so far from saying that this comes of cruelty, should say, that the contrary to this would be unlawful, according to men's reckoning. And whereas, thou sayest, "Because He commanded to pluck out an eye for an eye, therefore He is cruel;" I say, that if He had not given this commandment, then He would have seemed, in the judgment of most men, to be that which thou sayest He is.
For let us suppose that this law had been altogether done away, and that no one feared the punishment ensuing thereupon, but that license had been given to all the wicked to follow their own disposition in all security, to adulterers, and to murderers, to perjured persons, and to parricides; would not all things have been turned upside down? would not cities, market-places, and houses, sea and land, and the whole world, have been filled with unnumbered pollutions and murders? Every one sees it. For if, when there are laws, and fear, and threatening, our evil dispositions are hardly checked; were even this security taken away, what is there to prevent men's choosing vice? and what degree of mischief would not then come revelling upon the whole of human life?
Therefore, you see, as I have already stated, He said this not once only, but once and again; in that to the words, "Think not that I am come to destroy," He added, "I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill."
And to prove to thee that it was of one and the same mildness; in the one He saith, "An eye for an eye," but in this other, "If one smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."
For as in that case He checks him that doth the wrong with the fear of this suffering, even so also in this. "How so," it may be said, "when He bids turn to him the other cheek also?" Nay, what of that? Since not to take away his fear did He enjoin this, but as charging yourself to allow him to take his fill entirely. Neither did He say, that the other continues unpunished, but, "do not thou punish;" at once both enhancing the fear of him that smiteth, if he persist, and comforting him who is smitten.
Seest thou not, how the commandments, so far from coming of cruelty, come rather of abounding mercy? And if on account of these thou callest the Lawgiver grievous, and hard to bear with; tell me which sort of command is the more toilsome and grievous, "Do no murder," or, "Be not even angry"? Which is more in extreme, he who exacts a penalty for murder, or for mere anger? He who subjects the adulterer to vengeance after the fact, or he who enjoins a penalty even for the very desire, and that penalty everlasting? See ye not how their reasoning comes round to the very contrary? how the God of the old covenant, whom they call cruel, will be found mild and meek: and He of the new, whom they acknowledged to be good, will be hard and grievous, according to their madness? Whereas we say, that there is but one and the same Legislator of either covenant, who dispensed all meetly, and adapted to the difference of the times the difference between the two systems of law. Therefore neither are the first commandments cruel, nor the second hard and grievous, but all of one and the same providential care.
For that He Himself gave the old covenant also, hear the affirmation of the prophet, or rather (so we must speak), of Him who is both the one and the other: "I will make a covenant with you, not according to the covenant which I made with your fathers."
"And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also."
For not in the matter of blows only, but of our goods also, He would have such forbearance exhibited. Wherefore He again employs the same strong figure. That is, as in the other case He commands to overcome in suffering, so here again, by allowing ourselves to be deprived of more than the wrong doer expected. However, He did not put it so merely, but with something to enhance it: not saying, "give thy cloak to him that asketh," but "to him that would sue thee at the law," that is, "if he drag thee into court, and give thee trouble."
And just as, after He had bidden not to call another fool, nor to be angry without cause, He went on and required more, in that He commanded to offer the right cheek also; even so here, having said, "Agree with thine adversary," He again amplifies the precept. For now He orders us not only to give what the other would have, but even to show forth a greater liberality.
"What then!" one may say, "am I to go about naked?" We should not be naked, if we obeyed these sayings with exactness; rather more abundantly than any should we be clothed. For first, no one would attack men of this disposition; and next, if there chanced to be any one so savage and ungentle, as to proceed even so far, yet many more would be found to clothe him, who acted with such self-denial, not with garments only, but even with their own flesh, if it were possible.
Further: even though one were of necessity to go about naked on account of this sort of self-denial, neither so were it any disgrace. Since Adam too was "naked" in paradise, "and was not ashamed;" and Isaiah was "naked, and barefoot," and more glorious than all the Jews; and Joseph also, when he stripped himself, did then more than ever shine forth. For to be thus naked is no evil, but to be so clad, as we now are, with costly garments, this is both disgraceful and ridiculous. For this cause, you see, those had praise of God, but these He blames, both by prophets and by apostles.
Let us not therefore suppose His injunctions impossible. Nay, for besides their expediency, they are very easy, if we are sober-minded; and the profit of them is so great as to be an exceeding help, not to ourselves only, but to those also who are using us despitefully. And in this chiefly stands their excellence, that while they induce us to suffer wrong, they by the same means teach them also that do the wrong to control themselves. For while he on his part thinks it a great thing to take what belongs to others, but thou signifiest to him, that to thee it is easy to give even what he doth not ask: while thou bringest in liberality for a counterpoise to his meanness, and a wise moderation to his covetousness: consider what a lesson he will get, being taught not by sayings, but by actual deeds, to scorn vice and to seek after virtue.
For God will have us profitable not to ourselves alone, but to all our neighbors as well. Now if thou givest, and abstainest from suing, thou hast sought thine own advantage only; but if thou give him some other thing, thou hast made him too better, and so sent him away. Of this nature is salt, which is what He would have them to be; seeing it both recruits itself, and keeps all other bodies with which it may associate: of this nature is light; for it shows objects both to a man's self and to all others. Forasmuch then as He hath set thee in the rank of these things, help thou likewise him who is sitting in darkness, and teach him that neither before did he take any thing by force: persuade him that he hath done no despite. Yea, for thus thou thyself also wilt be had in more respect and reverence, if thou signify that thou gavest freely and wert not robbed. Make therefore his sin, through thy moderation, an instance of thine own bounty.
Seest thou that it was not of an eye that He was speaking before, when He made the law to pluck out the offending eye, but of him who by his friendship is harming us, and casting us into the gulf of destruction? For He who in this place uses so great strength of expression, and who, not even when another is plucking out your eye, permits you to strike out his; how should He have made it a law to strike out one's own?
But if any one accuses the ancient law, because it commands such retaliation, he seems to me very unskillful in the wisdom that becomes a legislator, and ignorant of the virtue of opportunities, and the gain of condescension. For if he considered who were the hearers of these sayings, and how they were disposed, and when they received this code of laws, he will thoroughly admit the wisdom of the Lawgiver, and will see that it is one and the same, who made both those laws and these, and who wrote each of them exceeding profitably, and in its due season. Yes, for if at the beginning He had introduced these high and most weighty commandments, men would not have received either these, or the others; but now ordaining them severally in their due time, He hath by the two corrected the whole world.
And besides, He commanded this, not that we might strike out one another's eyes, but that we might keep our hands to ourselves. For the threat of suffering hath effectually restrained our inclination to be doing.
And thus in fact He is silently dropping seed of much self-restraint, at least in that He commands to retaliate with just the same acts. Yet surely he that began such transgression were worthy of a greater punishment, and this the abstract nature of justice demands. But forasmuch as He was minded to mingle mercy also with justice, He condemns him whose offenses were very great to a punishment less than his desert: teaching us even while we suffer to show forth great consideration.
(Hom. xviii.) The word here used signifies to drag unjustly, without cause, and with insult.
Thus our Lord by doing away all retaliation, cuts off the beginnings of sin. So the Law corrects faults, the Gospel removes their occasions.
Mystically interpreted; When we are smitten on the right cheek, He said not, offer to him thy left, but the other; for the righteous has not a left. That is, if a heretic has smitten us in disputation, and would wound us in a right hand doctrine, let him be met with another testimony from Scripture.
If we understand this only of alms, it cannot stand with the estate of the most part of men who are poor; even the rich if they have been always giving, will not be able to continue always to give.
But it maybe understood of the wealth of doctrine: wealth which never fails but the more of it is given away, the more it abounds.
Hence also what follows, And if any man will sue you at the law, and take away your coat, let him have your cloak also, is rightly understood as a precept having reference to the preparation of heart, not to a vain show of outward deed. But what is said with respect to the coat and cloak is to be carried out not merely in such things, but in the case of everything which on any ground of right we speak of as being ours for time. For if this command is given with respect to what is necessary, how much more does it become us to contemn what is superfluous! But still, those things which I have called ours are to be included in that category under which the Lord Himself gives the precept, when He says, If any man will sue you at the law, and take away your coat. Let all these things therefore be understood for which we may be sued at the law, so that the right to them may pass from us to him who sues, or for whom he sues; such, for instance, as clothing, a house, an estate, a beast of burden, and in general all kinds of property. But whether it is to be understood of slaves also is a great question. For a Christian ought not to possess a slave in the same way as a horse or money: although it may happen that a horse is valued at a greater price than a slave, and some article of gold or silver at much more. But with respect to that slave, if he is being educated and ruled by time as his master, in a way more upright, and more honourable, and more conducing to the fear of God, than can be done by him who desires to take him away, I do not know whether any one would dare to say that he ought to be despised like a garment. For a man ought to love a fellow-man as himself, inasmuch as he is commanded by the Lord of all (as is shown by what follows) even to love his enemies.
It is carefully to be observed that every tunic is a garment, but that every garment is not a tunic. Hence the word garment means more than the word tunic. And therefore I think it is so expressed, And if any one will sue you at the law, and take away your tunic, let him have your garment also, as if He had said, Whoever wishes to take away your tunic, give over to him whatever other clothing you have. And so some have interpreted the word pallium, which in the Greek as used here is ἱμάτιον .
Hence, in this class of injuries which is atoned for by punishment, such a measure will be preserved by Christians, that, on an injury being received, the mind will not mount up into hatred, but will be ready, in compassion for the infirmity, to endure even more; nor will it neglect the correction, which it can employ either by advice, or by authority, or by [the exercise of] power. There is another class of injuries, where complete restitution is possible, of which there are two species: the one referring to money, the other to labour. And therefore examples are subjoined: of the former in the case of the coat and cloak, of the latter in the case of the compulsory service of one and two miles; for a garment may be given back, and he whom you have assisted by labour may also assist you, if it should be necessary. Unless, perhaps, the distinction should rather be drawn in this way: that the first case which is supposed, in reference to the cheek being struck, means all injuries that are inflicted by the wicked in such a way that restitution cannot be made except by punishment; and that the second case which is supposed, in reference to the garment, means all injuries where restitution can be made without punishment; and therefore, perhaps, it is added, if any man will sue you at the law, because what is taken away by means of a judicial sentence is not supposed to be taken away with such a degree of violence as that punishment is due; but that the third case is composed of both, so that restitution may be made both without punishment and with it. For the man who violently exacts labour to which he has no claim, without any judicial process, as he does who wickedly compels a man to go with him, and forces in an unlawful way assistance to be rendered to himself by one who is unwilling, is able both to pay the penalty of his wickedness and to repay the labour, if he who endured the wrong should ask it again. In all these classes of injuries, therefore, the Lord teaches that the disposition of a Christian ought to be most patient and compassionate, and thoroughly prepared to endure more.
The other kind of injuries are those in which full restitution can be made, of which there are two kinds; one relates to money, the other to work; of the first of these it is He speaks when He continues, Whoso will sue thee for thy coat, let him have thy cloak likewise. As by the cheek are denoted such injuries of the wicked as admit of no restitution but revenge, so by this similitude of the garments is denoted such injury as admits restitution. And this, as the former, is rightly taken of preparation of the heart, not of the show of the outward action. And what is commanded respecting our garments, is to be observed in all things that by any right we call our own in worldly property. For if the command be expressed in these necessary articles of life, how much more does it hold in the case of superfluities and luxuries? And when He says, He who will sue thee, He clearly intends to include every thing for which it is possible that we should be sued. It may be made a question whether it is to be understood of slaves, for a Christian ought not to possess his slave on the same footing as his horse; though it might be that the horse was worth the more money. And if your slave have a milder master in you than he would have in him who seeks to take him from you, I do not know that he ought to be given up as lightly as your coat.
The Lord here forbids his disciples to have lawsuits with others for worldly property. Yet as the Apostle allows such kind of causes to be decided between brethren, and before arbiters who are brethren, but utterly disallows them without the Church, it is manifest what is conceded to infirmity as pardonable.
For without this command, the commands of the Law could not stand. For if according to the Law we begin all of us to render evil for evil, we shall all become evil, since they that do hurt abound. But if according to Christ we resist not evil, though they that are evil be not amended, yet they that are good remain good.
Or has your return blow at all restrained him from striking you again? It has rather roused him to another blow. For anger is not checked by meeting anger, but is only more irritated.
For it were an unworthy thing that a believer should stand in his cause before an unbelieving judge. Or if one who is a believer, though (as he must be) a worldly man, though he should have reverenced you for the worthiness of the faith, sues you because the cause is a necessary one, you will lose the worthiness of Christ for the business of the world. Further, every lawsuit irritates the heart and excites bad thoughts; for when you see dishonesty or bribery employed against you, you hasten to support your own cause by like means, though originally you might have intended nothing of the sort.
Because wealth is not ours but God's; God would have us stewards of His wealth, and not lords.
Christ bids us lend but not on usury; for he who gives on such terms does not bestow his own, but takes of another; he looses from one chain to bind with many, and gives not for God's righteousness sake, but for his own gain. For money taken on usury is like the bite of an asp; as the asp's poison secretly consumes the limbs, so usury turns all our possessions into debt.
(Mor. xxxi. 13.) There are, who are so far to be endured, as they rob us of our worldly goods; but there are whom we ought to hinder, and that without breaking the law of charity, not only that we may not be robbed of what is ours, but lest they by robbing others destroy themselves. We ought to fear much more for the men who rob us, than to be eager to save the inanimate things they take from us. When peace with our neighbour is banished the heart on the matter of worldly possessions, it is plain that our estate is more loved than our neighbour.
If he drags you into court and harasses you, give him your cloak as well, and not only what he asks for. The "tunic" is what we would call the inner garment, and the "cloak" is the outer garment. But the names are sometimes used one for the other.
(non occ.) The Lord having taught that we are not to offer injury to our neighbour, or irreverence to the Lord, now proceeds to show how the Christian should demean himself to those that injure him.
(non occ.) Or it may be said that the Lord said this, adding somewhat to the righteousness of the old Law.
Continue studying Matthew 5:40 across the web’s major study libraries — every link below opens this exact verse, chapter, or book on the destination site.
Read & Compare
BibleGatewayThis verse in more than 200 translations and 70 languages.
Bible.comThe YouVersion reader — hundreds of translations, reading plans, and highlights.
ESV.orgCrossway's official English Standard Version reader.
NET BibleThe NET translation with 60,000+ translators' notes on every rendering decision.
STEP BibleTyndale House's free study tool — original text, vocabulary, and scholarly resources.
BibliaLogos Bible Software's free web reader.
USCCBThe New American Bible (Revised Edition) with the U.S. bishops' study notes.
Commentaries
BibleHub CommentariesDozens of classic commentaries on this verse, gathered on one page.
StudyLightMore than 100 commentary sets — the largest collection on the web.
BibleRefPlain-English commentary on what this verse means, verse by verse.
Enduring WordDavid Guzik's free commentary on this chapter, widely used by Bible teachers.
Bible Study ToolsVerse commentary alongside Greek and Hebrew study aids.
Original Language & Research
- BibleHub InterlinearThe verse word by word — original language, transliteration, and English.
- BibleHub LexiconEvery word's original-language definition and Strong's entry.
Blue Letter BibleDeep-study tools — Strong's numbers, concordance, and word studies.
CNTR CollationThe earliest Greek manuscripts of this verse, collated letter by letter.
Sermons, Hymns & Audio
TrulyRandomVerse is not affiliated with these sites and doesn’t control their content. They’re linked because they’re genuinely useful.
Summary
In Matthew 5:40, Jesus challenges His followers to a radical ethic of non-retaliation and extraordinary generosity, particularly in the face of legal disputes or personal injustice. Moving beyond the prevailing "eye for an eye" principle, He instructs believers to surrender even more than what is demanded, advocating for a spirit that prioritizes peace, love, and detachment from material possessions over the assertion of personal rights or the pursuit of retribution. This teaching calls for a counter-cultural response that reflects the values of God's Kingdom.
Context
Literary Context
This verse is an integral part of Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, specifically within a series of "antitheses" (Matthew 5:21-48) where Jesus reinterprets traditional Jewish law, often with the phrase "You have heard that it was said... But I tell you..." This particular instruction immediately follows Jesus' teaching on turning the other cheek, directly countering the lex talionis ("an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth") principle mentioned in Matthew 5:38. The progression from physical assault to legal dispute demonstrates Jesus' comprehensive call for non-retaliation across various forms of injustice. The teaching also anticipates the instruction in Matthew 5:41, which calls for going beyond what is merely demanded.
Historical & Cultural Context
First-century Judea was a society with established legal systems, both Jewish (Sanhedrin, local courts) and Roman, where disputes over property and debts were common. The "coat" (Greek: chitōn) was an inner tunic, a basic garment worn by everyone. The "cloke" (Greek: himátion) was the outer garment, a more substantial and valuable cloak that often served multiple purposes: it was used as a blanket at night, a mat during the day, and could even be used as collateral for a loan. Jewish law, as found in Exodus 22:26-27, specifically protected a poor person's cloak from being kept overnight if taken as collateral, highlighting its essential nature. For someone to sue for the inner tunic was already a significant demand; to then give the outer cloak as well would be an act of profound vulnerability and self-impoverishment, demonstrating a complete disregard for personal rights and material security in favor of a higher spiritual principle.
Key Themes
Matthew 5:40 powerfully contributes to several overarching themes within the Sermon on the Mount and Jesus' broader teaching. It underscores Radical Generosity, urging a level of giving that far exceeds legal or social expectations, demonstrating a spirit that values peace and love over material possessions or personal rights. This ties into Non-Retaliation, where instead of fighting for what is "owed" or taken, the teaching advocates for yielding, even to the point of further loss, to avoid conflict and embody a different spirit. The instruction also exemplifies Going the Extra Mile, a concept further developed in Matthew 5:41, illustrating a willingness to give more than demanded, moving from passive non-resistance to active, sacrificial generosity. Ultimately, this verse presents a Kingdom Ethic, a counter-cultural approach to injustice and personal rights that reflects the values of God's kingdom, where love, mercy, and self-sacrifice prevail over worldly notions of justice and retribution.
Exposition and Analysis
Key Word Analysis
This verb properly means "to distinguish, i.e., decide (mentally or judicially)." By implication, it can mean to try, condemn, or punish. In this context, it refers to initiating legal action or going to court. Jesus addresses a scenario where someone is seeking legal redress against another, specifically to "take away" their property.
This refers to the inner tunic or shirt, a basic and essential garment worn directly on the body. It was a common, less valuable piece of clothing compared to the outer cloak, but still fundamental for modesty and warmth.
This denotes the outer garment, a more significant and often more valuable cloak. As noted in the cultural context, it served multiple critical functions, including providing warmth, shelter, and even as a form of security for loans. To give this away, especially after one's inner garment was already being seized, represented a profound act of self-denial and vulnerability.
Derived from "to send forth," this verb carries various applications including to forgive, forsake, leave, let (alone, be, go, have), omit, or yield up. In this context, it is a command to "let him have" or "yield up" the cloak. It implies a deliberate act of relinquishment, a conscious choice to surrender rather than resist or fight for one's rights.
Verse Breakdown
"And if any man will sue thee at the law"
This clause sets the scenario: a legal dispute has arisen, and someone is taking legal action against Jesus' follower. The phrase "will sue" (from thélō and krínō) indicates a deliberate intent on the part of the plaintiff to pursue a legal claim.
"and take away thy coat"
This specifies the object of the lawsuit – the inner tunic, a basic and necessary item of clothing. The verb "take away" (from lambánō) implies a forceful or legally sanctioned seizure, not a voluntary giving.
"let him have thy cloke also"
This is Jesus' radical command. Instead of resisting the legal action or fighting to retain even the inner garment, the follower is instructed to proactively give up the outer cloak as well. This goes beyond passive non-resistance to active, sacrificial generosity, willingly surrendering even more than what is demanded or legally required.
Literary Devices
Jesus employs several potent literary devices in this verse to underscore His radical teaching. The primary device is Hyperbole, where He presents an extreme, almost absurd scenario (giving away one's inner and outer garments in a lawsuit) to emphasize a spiritual truth rather than to be taken strictly literally in every instance. This hyperbole creates a Paradox, as the expected response to being sued and losing one's property is resistance or counter-suit, yet Jesus commands the opposite: further surrender. There is also an element of Antithesis at play, contrasting the prevailing "eye for an eye" mentality with a new, counter-cultural ethic of self-sacrifice and non-retaliation. Finally, the "coat" and "cloke" function as Symbolism, representing not just material possessions, but also personal rights, dignity, and even basic security. By commanding the surrender of both, Jesus symbolizes a complete detachment from worldly claims and a profound trust in divine provision and justice.
Theological and Thematic Connections
Matthew 5:40 is a profound theological statement on the nature of Kingdom living, challenging believers to embody a righteousness that surpasses mere legalistic adherence. It underscores the principle that true discipleship involves a radical reorientation of values, prioritizing love, peace, and spiritual witness over personal rights, material possessions, or the desire for retribution. This teaching reflects God's own character of self-giving love and mercy, calling His children to imitate Him by absorbing injustice rather than perpetuating cycles of conflict. It's not about condoning injustice, but about demonstrating a higher way, trusting God to ultimately vindicate and provide. This radical generosity serves as a powerful testimony to the transforming power of Christ, inviting the world to see a different kind of justice—one rooted in grace and reconciliation.
Reflection and Application
Matthew 5:40 presents a profound challenge to modern believers, urging us to reconsider our default responses to personal injustice and the assertion of our rights. In a world often driven by litigation, self-preservation, and the pursuit of what is "owed," Jesus calls us to a counter-cultural path. This does not necessarily mean abandoning all legal recourse or allowing ourselves to be perpetually exploited. Rather, it calls for a heart attitude of detachment from material possessions and a willingness to suffer loss for the sake of a greater spiritual good—the witness of Christ's love, the preservation of peace, or the demonstration of trust in God's ultimate justice. It compels us to ask whether our pursuit of "justice" through worldly means truly reflects the sacrificial love of Christ, or if it instead reinforces the very systems of retribution that Jesus came to transform. Ultimately, this verse encourages a freedom from materialism and a radical generosity that prioritizes the Kingdom of God above all else, trusting that God will provide for those who surrender their earthly claims for His glory.
Questions for Reflection
FAQ
Does this verse mean Christians should never use the legal system or defend themselves in court?
While Jesus' command is radical, it's crucial to interpret it within the broader context of His teachings and the New Testament. Jesus is primarily addressing the spirit of retaliation and the attachment to material possessions, not necessarily issuing an absolute prohibition against all legal processes. The early church, as seen in 1 Corinthians 6:1-8, was cautioned against suing fellow believers, with Paul even suggesting it's better to suffer wrong. However, the Bible also acknowledges the role of governing authorities and justice (e.g., Romans 13:1-7). The core teaching here is about a heart attitude: prioritizing love, peace, and witness over personal vindication or material gain, and being willing to absorb loss for the sake of Christ. It calls for discernment, asking whether pursuing a legal right aligns with the Kingdom ethic of self-sacrificial love and reconciliation.
Is Jesus promoting passivity or allowing evil to triumph?
No, Jesus is not promoting passivity or condoning evil. Instead, He is advocating for a proactive, counter-intuitive response that breaks the cycle of violence and retribution. This is an active form of love and resistance to evil, not a surrender to it. By absorbing injustice and responding with generosity, the believer demonstrates a different power—the power of love and self-sacrifice, which ultimately disarms the oppressor and reveals the nature of God's Kingdom. This radical ethic is meant to transform both the victim and the perpetrator, offering an opportunity for repentance and reconciliation, rather than merely perpetuating a cycle of "eye for an eye."
Christ-Centered Fulfillment
Matthew 5:40 finds its ultimate fulfillment in the person and work of Jesus Christ Himself. While He never literally gave away His coat and cloak in a lawsuit, His entire life, and especially His passion, perfectly embody the spirit of this radical command. Jesus, though innocent, willingly submitted to unjust legal proceedings, false accusations, and the ultimate taking away of His very life. He did not retaliate when reviled (1 Peter 2:21-23), but "like a lamb led to the slaughter" (Isaiah 53:7), He yielded Himself up. At His crucifixion, His garments were literally stripped from Him and gambled for by soldiers (John 19:23-24), a profound physical manifestation of His complete self-emptying. His willingness to suffer the ultimate loss—His life—for the sake of humanity's redemption is the supreme act of "letting him have thy cloke also." He did not cling to His divine rights or privileges but "made himself nothing, by taking the very nature of a servant" (Philippians 2:5-8). Thus, Jesus' life and death are the ultimate demonstration of this Kingdom ethic, showing that true victory and justice come not through asserting one's rights, but through humble, self-sacrificial love that trusts God for all things.