What does "An eye for an eye" mean in Matthew 5:38? Text Of 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 strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” Old Testament Foundation Of “Eye For Eye” Exodus 21:23-25, Leviticus 24:19-20, and Deuteronomy 19:21 establish lex talionis (“law of proportional retribution”). These statutes functioned as courtroom guidelines, not permission for personal revenge. They required judges to impose penalties matching, not exceeding, the offense, thereby restraining blood-feuds and protecting the vulnerable (cf. Deuteronomy 19:15-19). Archaeological And Textual Corroboration 1. The Dead Sea Scrolls (4QExod-Levf; 4QDeut n) contain these passages virtually unchanged, confirming textual stability more than a millennium before our medieval Hebrew manuscripts. 2. The Bab edh-Dhra law tablets (contemporary with patriarchal periods) and the Code of Hammurabi stele (discovered 1901, Louvre AO 10237) cite similar talionic clauses, supporting the historicity of such legal language in the Ancient Near East. 3. Early Greek papyri of Matthew (𝔓64/67, 2nd century) already include 5:38-39, demonstrating that Jesus’ citation was embedded in the Gospel tradition long before Nicea and long before any alleged ecclesiastical tampering. Cultural Purpose Of Lex Talionis Ancient societies often responded to injury with escalating vengeance (Genesis 4:23-24). By stipulating equal recompense, God imposed a ceiling on punishment, upheld the sanctity of life, and preserved social order. Civil magistrates, not private citizens, were to execute judgment (Exodus 21:22; Deuteronomy 25:1-3). Jesus’ Authoritative Interpretation Jesus quotes the civil statute, then addresses personal ethics. He neither annuls state-sanctioned justice (cf. Romans 13:3-4) nor contradicts Mosaic Law (Matthew 5:17). Instead, He prohibits disciples from seeking personal retaliation. Kingdom righteousness transcends mere legal equity by embodying gracious forbearance (cf. 1 Peter 2:23). “Do Not Resist An Evil Person” Explained “Resist” (Greek anthistēmi) in legal papyri of the first century describes contesting someone in court. Jesus shifts His followers from demanding payback to offering redemptive generosity: • Right cheek strike — an insult; answer with non-violent dignity. • Tunic lawsuit — surrender cloak also (v.40). • Forced mile — volunteer a second (v.41). Personal rights are willingly yielded to display the Father’s character (Matthew 5:45). Not A Denial Of Justice Scripture maintains legitimate punishment: capital penalties remain affirmed (Genesis 9:6; Acts 25:11). Jesus’ words target the heart posture of vengeance, not the moral necessity of courts. God reserves ultimate retribution (Romans 12:19), and governments are His ministers for temporal order (Romans 13:1-4). Christological Fulfillment At Calvary the Savior embodies His own ethic: mocked, scourged, crucified, yet He prays, “Father, forgive them” (Luke 23:34). The resurrection validates this ethic as divine (Romans 1:4). Behavioral research on forgiveness (e.g., Enright, 2001) empirically supports psychological freedom when retaliation is relinquished—echoing biblical wisdom penned centuries earlier. Consistency With Biblical Theology 1. Proverbs 20:22; 24:29 counsel against repayment of evil. 2. Isaiah 50:6 depicts the Servant offering His cheeks to beaters, foreshadowing Messiah’s obedience. 3. The Mosaic lex talionis and Jesus’ ethic converge: justice administered corporately, mercy practiced personally. Practical Application • Personal conflicts: release the right to retaliate; pursue restorative dialogue. • Persecution: respond with prayer and service (Matthew 5:44). • Legal disputes: Christians may utilize courts for protection (Acts 22:25), yet motives must honor Christ’s name. Modern testimonies—such as Corrie ten Boom’s forgiveness of a former guard—illustrate the transformative power of obeying Matthew 5:38-39, often leading adversaries to faith and fulfilling the missionary mandate (1 Peter 3:15-16). Conclusion “An eye for an eye” originally ensured equitable civil justice. Jesus reveals its deeper kingdom trajectory: personal non-retaliation that mirrors God’s grace, anticipates eschatological judgment, and draws the world to the risen Christ. |
    |