On Sunday in our study of Leviticus 24:10-23, we considered the principle of lex talionis, or “eye for an eye” derived from vv17-21: “Whoever takes a human life shall surely be put to death. Whoever takes an animal’s life shall make it good, life for life. If anyone injures his neighbor, as he has done it shall be done to him, fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; whatever injury he has given a person shall be given to him. Whoever kills an animal shall make it good, and whoever kills a person shall be put to death.”
We noted that while the principle has long been regarded as a draconian prescription for justice, lex talionis actually served to prevent injustice and over-retaliation. Rather than prescribing a literal eye for an eye, the law more likely required a punishment commensurate with a given crime. It ruled out both leniency and harshness in the meting out of justice. In other words, the law ensures that the punishment fits the crime.
We are right, then, to wonder what to make of Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 5:38-42, “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.”
At first glance, Jesus’ teaching may reinforce our inclination to hold that “an eye for an eye” was itself a harsh form of justice and that perhaps Jesus was introducing a welcome dose of grace into a society steeped in the harshness of the Old Testament. But is this the right understanding? Was Jesus overturning the kind of justice intended in Leviticus 24, not to mention Exodus 21:24 and Deuteronomy 19:21?
Not likely. Just a few verses earlier in the Matthew 5, Jesus said, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven” (Matt 5:17–19). This is very strong language and virtually rules out the notion that Jesus overturns lex talionis later in the chapter.
Further, consider passages like 2 Corinthians 5:10, For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil (see also, Matt 25:31ff; Rev 20:13). Luke 12:47-48 gives a parabolic glimpse of the basis on which the end time judgment will be carried out…and it sounds strikingly like the principle undergirding lex talionis. Jesus Himself will be the judge meting judgment befitting the deeds of all on the last day. It is highly unlikely that He would undermine His own judgment by overturning this key principle.
Still further, the NT repeatedly champions justice that fits the crime. Paul held firmly to this principle in his own case before Rome in Acts 25:11. In his letter to the Romans, he taught that God gave the governing authorities for the very purpose of ensuring that evil deeds are appropriately punished…on God’s behalf (Rom 13:4). Peter agreed (1 Pet 2:14). All of this indicates that there is no problem at all with the concept of lex talionis, if we understand it rightly. Surely, God hates the idea of injustice—deeds going unrecompensed. Remember, His love of justice is one factor that required the death of Christ on the cross (Rom 3:25).
How then are we to understand Jesus’ teaching? What each of the above cross-references have in common is the meting out of justice by an actual judge, whether that be God Himself or an earthly judge appointed by Him. Perhaps that is a key to understanding Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 5. Indeed, numerous commentators hold that position. They suggest that the Jews—as you and I might be tempted to do—were using lex talionis as justification to live vindictively on a personal level. In other words, they were taking it upon themselves to be the judge.
“If you wrong me, get ready…I’m coming right back at you. And it will be justice because the law says, ‘an eye for an eye’!” It is likely that Jesus wasn’t quoting the law in Matthew 5:38, when He uttered, “You have heard it said…” Rather, He was referring to this common misuse of the law. The appropriate use of the law had to stand as He Himself taught earlier in the chapter (5:17-19). That is, justice must be upheld by judges. On the other hand, at the personal level the individual’s attitude toward the offender should be one of peace and non-retaliation.
A cross-reference that well captures the spirit of the passage is Romans 12:14-21: “Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them…Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, ‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.’ To the contrary, ‘if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.’ Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.” Again, this is just verses before Paul affirms the use of civil judges—appointed by God—to punish the wicked for their deeds.
Bottomline: Do not avenge yourself, but do good to those who wrong you, trusting the Lord to render justice through His appointed means.
Comments