Does "eye for eye" in Deuteronomy 19:21 contradict Jesus' teachings on turning the other cheek? Canonical Texts in View Deuteronomy 19:21 : “You must show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, and foot for foot.” Matthew 5:38-39 : “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” Historical-Legal Function of “Eye for Eye” The phrase, echoing Exodus 21:23-25 and Leviticus 24:19-20, summarizes lex talionis—a measured, judicial principle restraining personal vendetta in the fledgling Israelite nation. In the ancient Near East (e.g., Code of Hammurabi §196-201) penalties were often harsher than offenses. By contrast, Mosaic law limited retribution to proportionality and required due process (Deuteronomy 19:15-20). 4Q41 (4QDeut-frag) from Qumran, dated c. 150 BC, preserves this clause verbatim, attesting textual stability. Judicial Context Versus Personal Vengeance Deuteronomy 19 concerns courts, witnesses, and judges; the talionic line caps a paragraph on perjury. The statute: 1. Operated only after investigation by authorized judges (v. 18). 2. Applied to secure the community against escalating feud (v. 20, “those who remain shall hear and be afraid”). 3. Was never a license for private retaliation. Jesus’ Ethical Extension In Matthew 5 Jesus cites the civil code then addresses interpersonal conduct. He speaks to disciples, not magistrates; His examples (cheek, cloak, mile, lending) are private, not courtroom arenas. The call to relinquish retaliation neither overturns the governmental duty to punish (Romans 13:3-4) nor negates the moral rightness of proportional justice; it urges voluntary suffering for righteousness’ sake (1 Peter 2:19-23), modeling His own path to the cross (Isaiah 53:7). Fulfillment, Not Contradiction Matthew 5:17-18: Jesus came “not to abolish the Law or the Prophets but to fulfill.” Fulfillment (πληρόω) means bringing to telos—revealing the intended heart posture of love (Leviticus 19:18; Matthew 22:37-40). The civil principle remains valid for courts; the Messianic kingdom ethic exceeds it by absorbing the cost personally. Rabbinic Misapplication Corrected Second-Temple halakhah often transmuted lex talionis into cash fines (m. B. Qam. 8:1) yet promoted personal payback rhetorically. Jesus exposes the shift from courtroom to street fight and redirects hearers to covenantal love even for enemies (Matthew 5:43-48). Scriptural Harmony in Three Spheres 1. Individual: forgive, overcome evil with good (Romans 12:17-21). 2. Ecclesial: church discipline seeks restoration, not revenge (Matthew 18:15-17). 3. Civil: governing authorities execute proportional justice to restrain evil (Romans 13). Thus “eye for eye” and “turn the other cheek” operate in distinct but complementary domains. Early Church Reception Tertullian (Apology 37) upheld state punishment as ordained while lauding Christians for refusing private revenge. Augustine (Contra Faustum 19.25) saw Jesus teaching “patient heart,” not annulling magistrates. Philosophical Coherence Retributive justice reflects God’s moral nature (Numbers 35:33). Self-sacrificial non-retaliation reflects His grace (Romans 5:8). Both converge at the cross where justice is satisfied and mercy extended (Isaiah 53:10-11; 2 Corinthians 5:21). Practical Application Believers: relinquish personal revenge, entrust justice to God-ordained authorities, pray for offenders, and pursue reconciliation. Magistrates: administer impartial, proportional penalties. Churches: teach both civic justice and Christian mercy. Conclusion Deuteronomy 19:21 safeguards societal order; Matthew 5:38-42 calls disciples to a higher personal ethic. Scripture’s unified testimony presents no contradiction but a progressive revelation culminating in Christ, who perfectly balances justice and grace. |
    |