Matt 5:39 is a rhetorical overstatement. If we take it literally, well then we must take Matt 5:40 literally and walk around naked!!
Think about Matt 5:28 in contrast to Matt 5:32.
Matt 5:28 = thought of adultery = adultery.
Matt 5:32 = only actual adultery / sexual immorality is grounds for divorce.
Matt 5:28 is a rhetorical overstatement. Jesus is not lying but it requires some brains / more scripture and context to better grasp.
If you do not offer resistance to your attacker, you may as well divorce your husband for having an immoral thought.
All that does seem reasonable. In my youth group recently we talked about how the Bible has genres. Hyperbole was not on the list of genres, but to me, seems like it could be a genre that should be considered as a context.
I got in trouble with my dad because of Matthew 5:40. I think I have said this on another thread in this website. I don't believe that Dad has ever given away his coat, but if people ask him for money, he offers to feed them. He takes people to shelters to sleep, soup kitchens to eat or find clothes, and the YMCA to shower. One time he took a woman to the emergency room. The county must have paid her bill. One time he paid for a man's motel rooom.
Totally unrelated to his charity, he gave me a credit card "for emergencies." Trying to follow his example, I bought a man a meal at In and Out Burger. Then I forgot to tell him that I had spent his money. He was annoyed that I had spent his money (maybe five dollars) without his permission. He was even more annoyed that I had any dealing with homeless people, "who could be really dangerous." I had tried to do the right thing, and I had sinned twice.
One of Dad's maxims: No good deed goes unpunished.