Thomas Aquinas Commentary Matthew 5:38-42

"Ye have heard that it was said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: but I say unto you, resist not him that is evil: but whosoever smiteth thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man would go to law with thee, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go one mile, go with him two. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away." — Matthew 5:38-42 (ASV)

You have heard that it hath been said: An eye for an eye. Above, the Lord fulfilled the Law concerning permissive precepts which pertain to God. Now He fulfills them concerning those things which pertain to one’s neighbor, and He does this in respect to two things: regarding actions and regarding affections. The second is where it is said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour. Concerning the first part, He does two things. Firstly, He cites the command of the Law, and secondly, He fulfills it.

He says, therefore, You have heard that it hath been said: you ought to exact an eye for an eye; Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot (Exodus 21:24), and, Thou shalt not pity him, but shalt require life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot (Deuteronomy 19:21). In these words of the Law, however, there was a wider intention to fix the manner of judging justly regarding the judges, namely, that they should inflict a determined punishment. The Jews, however, supposed that everyone might take revenge for injuries inflicted upon oneself, which is contrary to the Law: Seek not revenge, nor be mindful of the injury of thy citizens (Leviticus 19:18).

Therefore, the Lord fulfills this precept in relation to their bad interpretation. Hence, He says, But I say to you not to resist evil. And concerning this, He does two things, for He fulfills the precept in two ways. Firstly, He fulfills it in that revenge is not demanded by the precept; and secondly, He fulfills it in that one may do good to someone who inflicts an injury on oneself, where it is said, Give to him that asketh of thee. Concerning the first part, He does two things. Firstly, He fulfills the precept in general, and secondly, He fulfills it in particular, where it is said, But if one strike thee on thy right cheek, turn to him also the other.

Regarding the surface meaning of the text, it seems that this new precept is a bad law because it is contrary to the old precept. But according to Augustine, the Lord did not destroy but fulfill. For the intention of this law was to curb people from excessive and immoderate revenge. The Lord, however, completely forbade revenge. Hence, if the Law had said, ‘You shall not seek revenge beyond what is due,’ and the Lord had said, ‘You may not seek revenge in any way,’ then He would have fulfilled the command of the Law.

And according to Augustine, there are five stages here [in fulfilling this precept]. The first stage is that of the one who inflicted an injury, and this stage is the greatest in wickedness. The second stage is that of the one who, after being offended, inflicts an equal injury; this level of iniquity is lower. The third stage is that of the one who returns an injury but less than what he received. The fourth stage is that of the one who returns no injury. The fifth stage is that of the one who does not return the injury, but also does not prevent another evil from being inflicted upon himself; the Lord teaches this stage. Hence, He says, But I say to you not to resist evil, etc. This is understood as an evil certainly not of guilt, but of punishment or injury, as it is written: Revenge not yourselves, my dearly beloved; but give place unto wrath, for it is written: Revenge is mine, I will repay, saith the Lord (Romans 12:19). And this precept agrees sufficiently with the aforementioned one.

But someone could say, ‘I do not wish to revenge myself so that the one who offended me might be slain in revenge, but so that I may not be offended again’; but the Lord also rejects this, saying, But I say to you not to resist evil.

But it should be considered how this declaration of the Lord is to be understood. For objections are made in two ways according to two errors. The first error is that of the pagans, as Augustine says in his letter against Marcellinus, who argue that without revenge no state could be safeguarded; in this way enemies are resisted and thieves punished, and if this did not happen, the state would completely perish. Therefore, the Gospel law destroys human society, for which reason it ought to be rejected. On the other hand, heretics say that the Gospels support revenge, and they do not wish to remove those things that pertain to society by taking away revenge. Hence, I reply that these men proceed from a false understanding of this teaching.

For someone can resist evil in two ways: from love for the public good and from love for his private good. Now God did not intend to forbid resisting evil for the common good, but He did intend to forbid that one burn with desire to take revenge for one’s private good. For nothing safeguards human society so much as ensuring that a person does not have the power of doing evil privately.

But furthermore, it seems that God would not intend to forbid this, because it is a natural inclination for everything to resist an evil that corrupts its good. Therefore, this precept cannot be kept. But I reply that it is a natural inclination for everything to repel its own harm, and similarly, it is a natural inclination for everything to expose itself to its own loss so that it may avoid a common loss, just as a hand exposes itself to danger for the sake of the body, and any other member for the whole body. Hence, it is natural for a person to endure an evil for the good of the state, and to this pertain political virtues such as fortitude and the like.

But Augustine says that these words, not to resist evil, etc., ought to be understood in terms of the preparation of the soul, because a person, for the good of his neighbor, ought to be prepared to withstand or suffer all evils. He gives an example: If a person were to care for an insane person, and this person were to strike him or do something of this kind, if the person has goodwill toward this individual, he ought also to be prepared to suffer other evils for this individual’s welfare. And in such a manner we ought to act for the good of the Church.

And it should be observed that these words which Our Lord says are in one way a precept and in another way a counsel. It is a precept if someone were to neglect those things which he is bound to do out of fear of some temporal inconvenience; for example, a bishop who watches over his flock ought to be prepared in his own mind to endure all losses before he neglects those things which he is bound to do. It is a counsel if someone does not put aside those things which he is not bound to do; for example, if someone, on account of his entrance into religious life, endures many kinds of harm from his parents, it is a counsel that he not put aside what is better.

Afterward, the Lord explains in detail what He had said in general, where it is said, But if one strike thee on thy right cheek, turn to him also the other. A person can inflict a threefold harm on another: by injuring his body, by taking away his possessions, and by forcing him to do labors. And He gives an example of these three things.

He says, therefore, But if one strike thee on thy right cheek, turn to him also the other; He shall give his cheek to him that striketh him, he shall be filled with reproaches (Lamentations 3:30), and, He shall give his cheek to him that striketh him, he shall be filled with reproaches (Isaiah 50:6). It should be considered how these words ought to be understood from the deeds of the holy men. For the Lord began to do and to teach, and He did not fulfill this [in His deeds]: Jesus answered him: If I have spoken evil, give testimony of the evil; but if well, why strikest thou me? (John 18:23). And the Apostle did not fulfill this: Then Paul said to him: God shall strike thee, thou whited wall. For, sittest thou to judge me according to the law and, contrary to the law, commandest me to be struck? (Acts 23:3). From these passages, Augustine concludes that through the deeds of holy men we know how Scripture ought to be understood. Hence, he says that this precept ought to be understood in such a way that the mind ought to be prepared to fulfill it.

This text can also be understood mystically. Yet it should be known that the one who insults you publicly strikes you in the face: For you suffer… if a man strike you on the face (2 Corinthians 11:20). The right cheek pertains to spiritual things, the left to temporal things. Therefore, He wishes to say that if you withstand an injury in spiritual things, then you ought to withstand an injury in temporal matters much more readily than some prelates do, who withstand the loss of churches but not the loss of their relatives.

And if a man will contend with thee in judgment. This happens in two ways: if a person contends with you so that he may get his own things back, then it is not a great deed if you yield to him. But if someone contends with you so that he may take away your things, this belongs to perfection if you yield, and this is what He says, and take away thy coat, meaning any temporal thing, let go thy cloak also unto him, meaning any other thing. And this also pertains to readiness of mind, because if someone calumniates you, nevertheless, you ought not to relinquish the charity that you have towards him: Already indeed there is plainly a fault among you, that you have law suits one with another (1 Corinthians 6:7).

This judgment ought to be avoided for two reasons. One reason is that if he is a cleric, by submitting himself to a secular judge he diminishes his own dignity. The other reason is that although he does not intend any calumny, nevertheless if he sees the cause of his contention calumniated, an occasion is given to him for doing similar things, and therefore to contend in judgment is dangerous.

Likewise, to begin legal proceedings can happen in two ways: lawfully and unlawfully. It is unlawful to make a legal claim in a court of unbelievers. Likewise, it is required that one not make a legal claim with contention, for contention is an assault upon the truth, accompanied by the confidence of shouting: It is an honor for a man to separate himself from contentions (Proverbs 20:3). It is lawful to make a legal claim, indeed, almost desirable, in two cases: when the goods of the poor or of the Church are involved (hence, if a prelate does not make a legal claim, he sins); and the other case is when the one who takes away is made more insolent and more demanding unless he is resisted. This is charity, because then his soul is freed from death. When, however, a private good is involved and correction is not expected, then a legal claim ought not to be made. Yet all these things are to be understood in regard to readiness of mind.

And whosoever will force thee one mile. To force [angariare], properly speaking, is to enslave for servile works without justice. Go with him other two, namely, miles: For you suffer if a man bring you into bondage, if a man devour you, if a man take from you, if a man be lifted up, if a man strike you on the face (2 Corinthians 11:20).

And it should be noted that the Lord proceeds in a certain order. Firstly, He said not to resist evil. Afterward, He said that a person ought to be prepared not only not to resist but also to endure equal punishment. But now He says more, because He goes all the way up to double.

Give to him that asketh of thee. Here He says that we ought to do good in two ways to one who is doing evil: by way of a simple gift and by way of a loan. Regarding the first, He says, Give to him that asketh of thee: If thou have much give abundantly: if thou have little, take care even so to bestow willingly a little , and, If I have denied to the poor what they desired, and have made the eyes of the widow wait (Job 31:16). But it is objected that the poor are unable to do this; likewise, the rich are unable to do this, because if they were always to give, nothing would be left for themselves. And Augustine solves this in two ways. First, he solves it as follows, saying that you ought not to give everything that is asked, because you ought not to give what is wicked, nor what is unjust or unreasonable, nor that which you yourself need more. And this is a precept if you are bound to give, and a counsel if you are not bound. Jerome, nevertheless, says that it is understood as a spiritual good, because such cannot be harmful to anyone.

And from him that would borrow of thee turn not away. This word, borrow, can be understood in two ways. The first way is that whoever does good to another, even if he gives simply, expects repayment: He that hath mercy on the poor, lendeth to the Lord: and he will repay him (Proverbs 19:17), and, Cast thy bread upon the running waters: for after a long time thou shalt find it again (Ecclesiastes 11:1). Or it can be understood otherwise. From him that would borrow something so that he may repay, turn not away. And it might seem to someone that God would not recompense the possession that he expects from man, and thus he might be more motivated to give rather than to loan, so that he might receive from God; but the Lord says that he [who lends] will also receive from God. Or He says, turn not away, because people sometimes fear to be defrauded and thus they do not loan: Many have refused to lend, not out of wickedness, but they were afraid to be defrauded without cause, etc. . And afterward it is said, Lose thy money for thy brother and thy friend . And it should be observed that this can be a precept and a counsel according to the different conditions, which is evident from what has been said.