You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye and tooth for tooth.’
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Greek — tap a word ↓
Ēkousate hoti errethē Ophthalmon anti ophthalmou kai odonta anti odontos
The Fallible · Synthetic · Study Bible
Love Your Enemies
Matthew 5:38–48 — Love Your Enemies. Each verse below carries the full apparatus: the Berean Standard Bible, the vocalized original (tap any word), and a parsed breakdown of every term transcribed from the interlinear. Synthesized commentary, canonical threads, and the reading of Christ gather at the end, over the whole unit.
You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye and tooth for tooth.’
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Greek — tap a word ↓
Ēkousate hoti errethē Ophthalmon anti ophthalmou kai odonta anti odontos
But I tell you not to resist an evil person. If someone slaps you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also;
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Greek — tap a word ↓
de egō legō hymin mē antistēnai tō ponērō all’ hostis rhapizei se eis tēn sou dexian siagona strepson autō tēn allēn kai
if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well;
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Greek — tap a word ↓
kai tō thelonti krithēnai soi kai labein ton sou chitōna aphes autō to himation kai
and if someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Greek — tap a word ↓
kai hostis angareusei se hen milion hypage met’ autou dyo
Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Greek — tap a word ↓
dos tō aitounti se kai apostraphēs mē ton thelonta danisasthai apo sou
You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor’ and ‘Hate your enemy.’
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Greek — tap a word ↓
Ēkousate hoti errethē Agapēseis ton sou plēsion kai misēseis ton sou echthron
But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Greek — tap a word ↓
de egō legō hymin agapate tous hymōn echthrous kai proseuchesthe hyper tōn diōkontōn hymas
that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Greek — tap a word ↓
hopōs genēsthe huioi tou hymōn Patros tou en ouranois hoti anatellei ton autou hēlion epi ponērous kai agathous kai brechei epi dikaious kai adikous
If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Do not even tax collectors do the same?
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Greek — tap a word ↓
gar ean agapēsēte tous agapōntas hymas tina misthon echete ouchi kai hoi telōnai poiousin to auto
And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even Gentiles do the same?
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Greek — tap a word ↓
kai ean aspasēsthe monon tous hymōn adelphous ti poieite perisson ouchi kai hoi ethnikoi poiousin to auto
Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Greek — tap a word ↓
Esesthe hymeis teleioi oun hōs ho hymōn ho ouranios Patēr estin teleios
The verse-by-verse work is done. What follows gathers the whole unit. All three layers below are machine-generated (⚙). Weigh them; they have no authority.
AI synthesis — woven from the public-domain voices above and the original text; generated and fallible.
The quotation in v. 38 has no verb: Ὀφθαλμὸν ἀντὶ ὀφθαλμοῦ, accusative against genitive, a legal tag rather than a sentence. Pulpit observes that the LXX puts the accusative in all three Pentateuch passages although only the first has a verb before it, and concludes the phrase had already become proverbial in Greek; he adds that our Lord was probably not thinking of any one of Exodus 21:24, Leviticus 24:20 or Deuteronomy 19:21 in particular, but using the words as a summary of the Law on this head. Ellicott's account of what went wrong is the sharpest in the brief: the rule was in its essence a limit in both directions, not less than an eye for an eye lest guilt be winked at, not more lest a fresh score of wrong be opened, and the scribes made it a rule of private retaliation. Cambridge and Barnes agree that as a judicial rule it was just, Barnes adding that Christ neither faults it nor repeals it for magistrates. Maclaren dissents: Jesus, he says, sweeps it away entirely and goes further than its abrogation. ⚙ We record the disagreement rather than resolve it. What the Greek shows is only this, that the saying is quoted with an agentless passive, ἐρρέθη, which is wide enough to include both the statute and the gloss laid over it, and that the answering clause in v. 39 is not agentless at all.
Maclaren reads the three illustrations as insult, property and forced labour: the blow on the cheek, the legal seizure of the undergarment, the impressment known too well under Roman rule. The tenses do the arguing. ῥαπίζει is a vivid present, the blow still landing, and στρέψον an aorist, one decisive turning; ἀγγαρεύσει is a future indicative, the requisition treated as certain, and ὕπαγε a present imperative, a sustained walk. Each case is then doubled: the other cheek, the further garment, the second mile. Ellicott insists the Sermon is not a code of laws but the assertion of principles, and grounds that on Christ's own conduct when struck (John 18:22-23), which JFB calls the best comment on these words and Cambridge makes the express limitation on them. Barnes goes furthest in qualifying, arguing that the law of nature and all laws human and divine justify self-defence when life is in danger, and that Christ deliberately confined himself to smaller matters. Gill, from the Jewish side, shows what the doubling cost: the Mishnaic scale he cites fixed a shekel for one kind of blow and four hundred zuzim for a backhanded one, so the man who turns the other cheek is waiving a quantified, collectable claim.
Verse 42 turns the subject from what is taken to what is asked, and Pulpit marks it as the easy transition into v. 43. Then comes the one place in the unit where the quotation formula covers something unquotable. Ἀγαπήσεις is the future-as-imperative of Leviticus 19:18 LXX; μισήσεις is the identical form with no text behind it. Maclaren says plainly that it comes not from Scripture, though the Leviticus context, where neighbour runs parallel to the children of thy people, gave the contempt for outsiders a foothold. Ellicott and Cambridge call it a Rabbinic addition; Benson says the scribes added it, abusing the commands for destroying the Canaanites; JFB, quoting Bengel, calls it a detestable gloss; Gill produces the actual maxims, including the ruling that after repeated unheeded reproof it is lawful to hate him, and Maimonides on the scholar who must keep the grudge as a serpent. Pulpit alone defends it as a legitimate deduction and a fair summary of the Law's own practice, citing Deuteronomy 25:17-19, while conceding Exodus 23:4 cuts the other way. ⚙ This is the unit's contested seam, and we have tiered its cross-reference as flagged rather than pretend the provenance is settled.
The answer in v. 44 changes the verb form as well as the object: against the future indicative Ἀγαπήσεις stands the present imperative ἀγαπᾶτε, a standing habit rather than a statute. JFB notes that the verb is the word for moral love, and that here it denotes the benignant, compassionate outgoings of desire for another's good, not complacency in character; Barnes makes the same distinction between the love of complacency and the love of benevolence. Cambridge finds four ascending degrees in the longer Byzantine form of the verse and holds that dropping the clauses breaks the gradation, while Ellicott, Cambridge and Pulpit all record that the best manuscripts lack them; BSB follows the shorter text. Then the ground: ὅπως γένησθε, that you may become, which Ellicott says is literally and with far fuller meaning the point, and Gill guards at once, no man becomes a child of God by imitation, but by adoption and regenerating grace, so that the imitation shows what birth has already done. The evidence is meteorological. God ἀνατέλλει his sun, a transitive causative, and βρέχει, he rains, on evil and good, just and unjust, and JFB notices that the Greek drops the articles, making the four terms qualities rather than parties. Gill's rabbinic parallel is remarkable and he uses it against his sources: their own saying that rain is greater than the resurrection, because the resurrection is for the just but rain is for the just and the wicked alike. The unit closes on τέλειοι. Ellicott reads the future Ἔσεσθε as the ideal future that implies an imperative; Pulpit shows it is modelled on Deuteronomy 18:13 LXX with the word order reversed so that the perfection, not the being, takes the stress; Barnes glosses it complete, proportionate, regular, and Gill restrains it to the subject in hand, love, sincerity, the whole compass of objects. Poole alone presses it to absolute perfection, not attainable here but to be laboured for.
⚙ Offered as this tool's own fallible reading, under Scripture and open to correction. The paragraph is usually cut in half, non-resistance in vv. 38 to 42 and love of enemies in vv. 43 to 48, and Pulpit rightly says the subjects are distinct: the first treats the reception of injuries, the second the treatment of those who do them. But the Greek stitches them. πονηρός is the man the disciple may not stand against in v. 39 and the man God warms in v. 45. στρέφω turns the face toward the striker in v. 39 and ἀποστρέφω is forbidden to turn it from the borrower in v. 42: one posture of the body, twice commanded. And every command in vv. 39 to 42 is a doubling that no statute could require, the second cheek, the outer cloak, the second mile, the loan without interest, exactly as v. 45 shows a God who gives sun and rain to those who have earned nothing by them. So our reading is that non-resistance here is not a political theory and not passivity; it is the first half of an argument about parentage. The question the passage puts is not how much a Christian may defend himself, but whether anything in his conduct is περισσόν, surplus, unaccountable by reciprocity. Tax-farmers manage reciprocity; so do outsiders; so, the text implies, does the religion that quotes Leviticus 19:18 and then supplies its own second clause. What cannot be managed by reciprocity is a resemblance, and τέλειος names not a moral score but a thing brought to the end it was made for. On that reading v. 48 is not the crushing demand it sounds; it is the paragraph's only promise, stated as a future indicative, that the family likeness will be complete.
The second mile is the only part of the walk that is yours, and it is the part that looks like your Father. (This line is the tool's own synthesis, not a verse of Scripture.)
AI-generated connections. Each carries a verification badge with a recorded basis; contested links are flagged.
The verb ῥαπίζω is almost unique in the New Testament: it stands in Matthew 5:39 and in Matthew 26:67, where the council spits in Jesus' face and strikes him, and nowhere else. Pulpit notes the restriction of the word to these two places and adds that it is properly used of a stroke with a rod. ⚙ The link is lexical before it is theological: the command and the Lord's own hour share one rare Greek verb, so the obedience Matthew records at 26:67 is verbally the obedience commanded at 5:39. JFB, Cambridge and Pulpit all send the reader to John 18:22-23 for the manner of it, where Jesus protests without retaliating, which they take as the limit on a literal reading of the precept.
Matthew 26:67
basis: Verifier: shared Greek lexeme G4474 rhapizō (in 2 vv), the whole New Testament occurrence of the word; Greek to Greek within Matthew, so a genuine verbal link, though neither verse quotes the other
ἀγγαρεύω occurs in only three verses of the New Testament: here, and at Matthew 27:32 and Mark 15:21, where Simon of Cyrene is pressed into service to carry the cross. Cambridge sends the reader to Matthew 27:32 for an instance of the forced service, and Pulpit, following Hatch, shows the post-classical use is the forced transport of military baggage, so that Simon was compelled not merely to accompany the soldiers but to carry a load. ⚙ The same technical verb governs the precept and the only narrative instance Matthew reports.
Matthew 27:32 · Mark 15:21
basis: Verifier: shared Greek lexeme G29 angareuō (in 3 vv), a rare technical loanword; all three refs are New Testament Greek, so the verbal link is real; it is lexical recurrence, not citation
Luke 6:29 carries the same two illustrations with the garments in the reverse order, a difference Pulpit notes and explains by the absence of a law court in Luke, where the thought is of violent removal, the garments taken as they came. The verbal overlap is strong: σιαγών stands in only two verses of the New Testament, this one and Luke 6:29. ⚙ Where Matthew writes στρέψον, turn, Luke writes offer; Pulpit's formulation is that Matthew shows the action and Luke the mental condition necessary for it.
Luke 6:29
basis: Verifier: shared Greek lexemes G4600 siagōn (in 2 vv, effectively unique to this pair) and G5509 chitōn (in 10 vv); Greek to Greek, parallel tradition of one saying
δανείζω appears in three verses only, Matthew 5:42 and Luke 6:34-35, all three in this one saying. Cambridge notes at v. 42 that Luke has lend, hoping for nothing again, and JFB argues that although the verb classically means to have money lent on security or at interest, simple borrowing must be meant, since usury among Israelites was forbidden (Exodus 22:25). ⚙ The Lukan form supplies the motive clause Matthew leaves implicit, and it is the same clause Matthew supplies differently in v. 45: God gives where nothing returns.
Luke 6:34 · Luke 6:35
basis: Verifier: shared Greek lexemes G1155 daneizō (in 3 vv, rare) with G25 agapaō and G4190 ponēros at Luke 6:35; Greek to Greek across parallel accounts of one discourse
ἐθνικός stands in only four verses of the New Testament, and the Verifier places two of the others here: Matthew 6:7, on the heaped-up prayer of the ethnikoi, and 3 John 1:7. Matthew 18:17 enters this group on a different lexeme, tax-farmer, but JFB explicitly links it, noting that there the excommunicated person is said to be as a heathen man and a publican, the same pairing v. 46 and v. 47 use. Ellicott records that the heathen, not the publicans, is the true reading in v. 47; Pulpit quotes Westcott that the adjectival form describes character rather than mere position. ⚙ So Matthew 18:17 is the hard counterweight to 5:47: the same Gospel that forbids limiting greeting to brothers also provides for a man to be treated as an outsider. The tension is in the book, not imported.
Matthew 6:7 · Matthew 18:17 · 3 John 1:7
basis: Verifier: shared Greek lexeme G1482 ethnikos (in 4 vv, rare) at Matthew 6:7 and at 3 John 1:7, and separately G5057 telōnēs (in 20 vv) at Matthew 18:17, which the Verifier links on the tax-farmer lexeme and not on ethnikos; JFB supplies the heathen-and-publican pairing there. All refs are New Testament Greek, so the tier is verbal, though none of these verses quotes another
Barnes, JFB, Gill, Cambridge and Pulpit all name Exodus 21:24, Leviticus 24:20 and Deuteronomy 19:21 as the source of the quoted words, and Poole distinguishes their three settings: the woman struck while with child, damage done to a neighbour, and the false witness. Pulpit adds two cautions we keep: the Hebrew preposition at Deuteronomy 19:21 differs from the other two and is less naturally rendered by ἀντί, and Jesus was probably not thinking of any one passage but using the phrase as a summary. ⚙ Matthew quotes in Greek what the Torah says in Hebrew, so no shared Strong's number can exist across the pair; the link is a citation established by the named commentators, not by lexical computation, and we tier it accordingly.
Exodus 21:24 · Leviticus 24:20 · Deuteronomy 19:21
basis: Cross-Testament, Greek quoting Hebrew: shared Strong's numbers are impossible in principle, so no verbal tier is available even though v. 38 plainly cites the lex talionis; basis is the citation as identified by Barnes, JFB, Gill, Cambridge, Poole and Pulpit, with Pulpit's caveat that no single one of the three passages need be in view
The first clause of v. 43 is Leviticus 19:18, and Maclaren, Benson, Barnes, JFB, Poole, Gill and Cambridge all say so. Maclaren adds the structural point that matters: in Leviticus the neighbour stands parallel to the children of thy people, so the circumference of the command was national, and the question who is my neighbour (Luke 10:29) was a live one in the schools. ⚙ Matthew's Greek reproduces the LXX's future-as-imperative, which is why the quotation feels seamless even where the second half is not scriptural.
Leviticus 19:18
basis: Cross-Testament, Greek to Hebrew: no shared Strong's lexeme is possible, so the link cannot be tiered verbal despite being an express quotation; basis is the source identification made by Maclaren, Benson, Barnes, JFB, Poole, Gill and Cambridge, plus the shared future-as-imperative form of the LXX
No Old Testament passage commands hatred of an enemy, and the brief's commentators do not agree on where the clause came from. Maclaren says it is not from Scripture at all; Ellicott and Cambridge call it a Rabbinic addition or inference; Benson says the scribes added it, abusing the commands for destroying the Canaanites; JFB, citing Bengel, calls it a detestable gloss; Gill treats it as handed down traditionally and supplies actual maxims permitting hatred after unheeded reproof; Pulpit defends it as a legitimate deduction and a fair summary of the Law's practice, pointing to Deuteronomy 25:17-19 while conceding Exodus 23:4 tells against it. ⚙ We flag rather than adjudicate. Exodus 23:4, the command to return an enemy's straying ox, is listed here as the counter-text Pulpit says is too little weighed, not as a source for the clause.
Leviticus 19:18 · Exodus 23:4
basis: Provenance disputed and unlocatable: the clause quoted under Matthew's citation formula has no Old Testament text; the named voices divide between rabbinic addition (Ellicott, Cambridge, JFB, Benson), oral tradition (Gill) and legitimate deduction from the Law (Pulpit). Cross-Testament in any case, so no verbal tier is possible
Pulpit, annotating the smiting of v. 39, points the reader to the LXX of Hosea 11:4 and to Isaiah 50:6, where the Servant says he gave his back to the smiters and his cheeks to them that plucked off the hair, and hid not his face from shame and spitting. ⚙ The figural reading we offer is that Matthew 5:39 and Matthew 26:67 together enact Isaiah 50:6: the disciple is commanded what the Servant volunteers, and the Lord who commands it is the one struck. This is a long-standing Christian reading of Isaiah 50, but the brief's voices connect Isaiah 50:6 only to the vocabulary of smiting, not to this synthesis, so the figural step is ours.
Isaiah 50:6
basis: Cross-Testament, Greek to Hebrew: no shared Strong's lexeme is possible and none is claimed. Lexical footing is only Pulpit's cross-reference from rhapizō to the smiting of Isaiah 50:6; the Servant-to-Christ reading is ancient and widely held, the specific joining of 5:39 to 26:67 through it is this tool's own
AI-generated reading; weigh it against the text.
⚙ The rarest word in this unit ties the command to its keeper. ῥαπίζω occurs in the New Testament only at Matthew 5:39 and Matthew 26:67, so the Gospel that records the precept records exactly one man keeping it, and it is the speaker. JFB says that our Lord's own meek yet dignified bearing when smitten rudely on the cheek is the best comment on these words; Cambridge makes John 18:22-23 the express limitation on any literal reading; Gill, at v. 44, observes that what Christ commands he himself did, praying for his crucifiers, and that Stephen followed him in it. The reading that Christ is the fulfiller of his own Sermon is ancient and widely held, and here it rests on a verifiable lexical fact rather than on sentiment.
Matthew 26:67 · John 18:22-23 · Luke 23:34
⚙ ἀγγαρεύω is a three-verse word. Twice it describes Simon of Cyrene compelled to carry the cross (Matthew 27:32; Mark 15:21); once it is a command to go the second mile. Cambridge itself points from v. 41 to Matthew 27:32 for an instance of the forced service, and Pulpit establishes that the word means forced carrying, not merely forced attendance. The figural step, that the unrequired second mile finds its picture in a stranger impressed to carry the beam of a condemned man and walking it to Golgotha, is this tool's own; no voice in the brief draws it, and we mark it novel. What the sources do supply is the lexical identity and the fact that Matthew, alone of the evangelists, both preserves v. 41 and uses the verb again at the cross.
Matthew 27:32 · Mark 15:21
⚙ The logic of vv. 45 to 48 is that the family is known by likeness: love enemies ὅπως γένησθε υἱοὶ, that you may become sons. Gill blocks the obvious misreading, that no man becomes a child of God by imitation, since sonship comes by adoption and regenerating grace, and that the imitation only makes the sonship visible, as the tree is known by its fruit. Barnes and Cambridge say the same more briefly, that to act thus is to act like God. Ellicott points the reader to Ephesians 5:1, be imitators of God, and warns that likeness in power or wisdom was the ruin of Adam, while likeness in love cannot err. JFB adds that the principle is not new, Leviticus 19:2 and 20:26 already holding up God's own procedure for imitation, but that the form of v. 45 is that of One who spake as never man spake. ⚙ Our addition is only this: the unit asks for a τέλειος likeness that no reader of it has ever produced, and Matthew's Gospel answers by narrating one life in which every clause of vv. 39 to 44 is kept, ending in a prayer for the executioners. This is the ancient apostolic reading, recorded here by JFB from 1 Peter 2:21-24 and by Gill from Luke 23:34.
Ephesians 5:1 · 1 Peter 2:21-24 · Leviticus 19:2
The biblical text is the Berean Standard Bible (BSB), public domain (CC0). Hebrew/Greek text, transliteration, morphology and Strong’s are transcribed from the Berean interlinear (CC0) + Strong’s lexicons (PD); the literal renderings, divergence notes, word notes and all synthesis are this tool’s own work (⚙) — fallible; verify them.
Named voices, quoted verbatim from public-domain works:
⚙ Honesty notes for this unit. Text. At v. 44 the longer Byzantine reading adds “bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you” and “despitefully use you and.” Ellicott reports that most recent editors judge these inserted in the fourth or fifth century to harmonise with Luke 6:27-28; Cambridge records the high manuscript authority for omitting them and argues the omission breaks the gradation and balance of the paragraph; Pulpit follows the Revised Version in omitting. The BSB text we gloss is the shorter one, so the four-step gradation Cambridge describes is not visible in the interlinear before us. At v. 47 the manuscripts read ἐθνικοί, Gentiles, where the received text had tax-farmers, and τὸ αὐτό where the received text had the commoner οὕτως; Ellicott, Cambridge, JFB and Pulpit all note this, and Gill's comment is written on the older reading. Parse. At v. 39 the Berean parse tags τῷ πονηρῷ as dative neuter singular, while Ellicott and Pulpit argue the masculine is preferable and Pulpit records Chrysostom's view that it means the devil; the English of every version before us decides a question the Greek leaves open. Sources. Gill's long rabbinic citations (the Mishnaic scale of fines for a blow, R. Sandish against Ben Zeta, Maimonides on the scholar's grudge) are reproduced from his eighteenth-century Latin and Hebrew sources; we have used them as he reports them and have not independently checked his references. His and JFB's characterisations of “the Jews” belong to their period and their polemic, and we have flagged that where it bears on a claim. Threads. Every verbal tier in this unit is Greek to Greek and rests on the Verifier's shared-lexeme computation, with frequencies stated. The three quotations from the Pentateuch and from Leviticus 19:18 are express citations, but because they cross from Greek into Hebrew no shared Strong's number can exist, so they are tiered structural, not verbal, and the basis says why. “And hate your enemy” is tiered flagged because it has no Old Testament text and our own sources disagree about where it came from. The Isaiah 50:6 thread and the Simon of Cyrene reading under Christ are figural steps this tool has taken beyond what the voices say, and both are labelled as such. Uncertain. Whether v. 38 abolishes the judicial rule or only its private misuse is not settled here: Maclaren says abolished, Barnes and Cambridge say the rule stands for magistrates, and we have left the disagreement on the page rather than choose for the reader.
✦ = human, public-domain source, quoted and named. ⚙ = machine synthesis, to be verified. Flagged cross-references are left visible on purpose — the verifier working in the open. “Search the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so.” (Acts 17:11)