This morning, I read this in Deuteronomy 19 and then did some cross referencing. I found 3 places that basically say the same thing:
- “Show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.” ~Deuteronomy 19~
- “…fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. As he has injured the other, so he is to be injured.” ~Leviticus 24~
- “But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life…” ~Exodus 21~
But Jesus said this in Matthew 5:
- “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.”
What do we do this this contradiction? What does it show us? What does it teach us? How do we respond?
Adam,
Let me take a crack at this. I believe you have met my wife, and she thought it might be helpful for me to respond to your question.
Matthew 5-7 is one of my favorite passages from the Scriptures. Why? The Sermon of the Mount clearly outlines the intent of Jesus’ ministry. It is also the longest single grouping of teaching we have from the Master. The sermon contains many specific examples, yet it has one continuous theme. Jesus is teaching on God’s law, and how we should respond to it.
Jesus said in Matthew 5:17 that he did not come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it. The word fulfill does not mean, “cancelled.” Most people teach that the Sermon on the Mount is an example of Jesus canceling the Law. It is interesting that those who teach this often skip Matthew 5:17-20 in the commentaries they write. Jesus clearly states in those verses He did not come to abolish.
If we take Jesus at His word when he rejects the notion that He is an abolisher of the Law, then it forces us to do a word study on what the word “fulfill” means. In the Hebrew culture the fulfill concept is very different than what we normally think it is through our Western eyes. The word fulfill literally meant to teach and act in a way that supports the notion that God’s ways are true. To “abolish” meant to teach or act in a way that supplants God’s ways.
Think of this as your instructions to Covenant’s youth group. If the group follows your instructions, then you have the strong impression they are fulfilling them. If they don’t, then they have, in effect, abolished your instructions.
Why is this important? Well, I would say this understanding is vital to an understanding of Jesus’ Messiahship and to an understanding of the Sermon on the Mount. Understanding this also answers your questions.
Deuteronomy 13 gives the standard for us to determine if a prophet is an example to reject or follow. Basically, if the prophet encourages hearers to leave God’s teaching they are to be rejected no matter how enticing their (supposed) miracles.
What if Jesus failed to meet this standard? He could not have been the Messiah, right? This is exactly why he answers his critics in the Sermon on the Mount. We can imagine they are saying, “This man does not teach the Law.”
Following his clear rejection of this notion in Matthew 5:17-20, how does Jesus further develop this point?
He takes familiar passages from the Scriptures; he tells them, “You have heard it said,” then He quotes from the Law; finally He gives an interpretation of what each of those passages mean in intention. In Hebrew parlance he is offering a misrash, or teaching on the Law.
So let’s look at one or two of these examples.
In Matthew 5:27 we are reminded we are not to commit adultery. Jesus does not abolish this command. He fulfills it by teaching it properly. Jesus says if we are to really understand what it means to not commit adultery, then we have to avoid cherishing the thought of adultery in our hearts. Jesus’ teaching is proper and true.
For our second example let’s consider the verses you cite in your blog entry. Matthew 5:38-42:
38″You have heard that it was said, ‘AN EYE FOR AN EYE, AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH.’ 39″But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. 40″If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also. 41″Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two. 42″Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you.
Jesus reminds us the Law permits recompense for a loss. In effect, the Mosaic Law sets the limits appropriate for justice. You could be put to death for killing another person, but it wouldn’t be appropriate to put a child to death if he or she stole a piece of candy. All just modern standards of civilized law reflect similar limits. One beauty of Scripture is that God established limits thousands of years before our own time!
Jesus is correctly interpreting this passage to show that just because we may be “technically allowed” to sue for damages, does not mean that we are obligated to do so. Imagine a society where we all demanded “justice” for all of the ills we experience in life. Can you imagine the gridlock on our highways? Just because I am cut off, doesn’t mean I have to race ahead of the offender and cut her off too. Have you ever been jostled by another person on the way through the turnstiles at a football game at Ohio State? Can you imagine the mayhem if we jostled back to every offender? There would be a lot of pushing and shoving for sure!
Jesus takes the intent of the “limits for justice” portion of the law, and establishes that “justice” demands that we seek the good for our neighbor (even neighbors who might choose to do us harm). Jesus standard is certainly a hard one to follow! But, when we do follow His teaching we are establishing his teaching, which is entirely consistent with God’s teaching from the beginning.
In conclusion, Jesus’ statements in Matthew 5 do not contradict the Scriptures at all. In fact, the opposite is true. Jesus ministry confirmed the validity of Scripture. How should we respond? If we are follows of Christ, then (as disciples) we should promote Jesus’ teaching through our own words and actions. We should not “abolish” Jesus. We should “fulfill” (or establish) his teaching through everything we do in life.
I realize this was a long answer to your question. I hope it is helpful. I like the design of your blog. It’s an attractive format.
Michael Reynolds
I see more and more that Christ expands on rules and brings out the real heart behind matters. I think there is still work to be done on this.
I don’t think Michael’s reasoning is sound enough. It negates the verse. Look at the action words:
Show NO pity
As he has injured the other, so HE IS TO BE injured.
you ARE TO take life for life.
I might be prooftexting, but those words are there. What do we do with them?
God’s people worked for years off of these assumptions. During Jesus’ time, a lot of people got really pissed off because he negated these principles. I think there’s valid points in saying, “WTF man! Why did you say one thing then another?”
But I also believe what Michael said, that Jesus put a framework around the law. He added depth. Still, it sucks that God’s people lived under the assumption that it’s OK to act in a way contrary to God’s (Jesus) teachings for years before he came along.
Sorry Michael. I just looked back at my comments and realized I was talking past you (referring to your comment as not being “sound enough”). Any thought on what I said?
Joshua,
I appreciate your thoughts. You recognized something about my answer that I was not able to fully recognize until I read your response. Thank you for seeing that the framework of my argument was in the right direction, however my actual response to Adam’s questions were not as sharp as they could have been. This left you with the concluding thought, “Still, [it's bad] that God’s people lived under the assumption that it’s OK to act in a way contrary to God’s (Jesus) teaching for years before he came along.” Thank you for asking for a response.
Let me begin by saying this: If Jesus broke the Law, then he was not the Messiah. Jesus is spending considerable time in the Sermon on the Mount debunking any notion that he came to abolish the Law. He came to fulfill the Law, which has nothing to do with canceling it (that would have been to abolish it). “Fulfilling” means we live and teach in accordance with it. I mention this as a reminder.
What, “Location, location, location,” is to the Real Estate market, “Context, context, context,” is to biblical interpretation.
In order to interpret the Sermon on the Mount we must understand the words “abolish” and “fulfill” as understood in Jesus’ context.
However, my mistake was not offering the original context of the passages Adam referenced from the Old Testament (Deuteronomy 19:11-13, Leviticus 24:17-22, and Exodus 21:22-25) as well as the specific verses of Matthew 5:38-42. I asked two friends to look at my answer, and both of them “called” me on the fact I did not offer the proper context on the verses in question. Perhaps this is why you found my response lacking.
We get the impression from the Deuteronomy, Leviticus, and Exodus passage that the Bible promotes a vigilante system. However, our initial impression would not be very accurate. There was a process for justice. A person would need to be arrested, the charges investigated, and the charges brought before proper court. If convicted, then a proper penalty would be assigned.
How were the penalties administered? Let me offer a quote from a friend who has been doing biblical interpretation longer (and a lot better, perhaps
) than me.
He says, “Generally, the Rabbinic sages interpret the “eye for eye” stuff as financial compensation (and Jews have been studying this stuff a lot longer than we Johnny-come-lately-Gentiles). If someone injures you and knocks out your tooth and puts out your eye, you get to sue him and the courts determine the monetary value owed due to your injury.”
Keep in mind that God’s Law covered the entire spectrum of how God expected his people to live in society. So God’s Law covers aspects that we would term “civil law” as well as the rules of the faith. We do not have this experience today in the United States. Take a moment to reflect on this, and it will give you a deep appreciation for why Deuteronomy 19, Leviticus 24, and Exodus 21 are there. We might say God’s Law “humanizes” society by making it more humane. However, God’s order for Israel was designed for them to be people after God’s own heart. Those three passages were given in a context where Israel was sovereign and God was their ultimate King.
This was not Jesus’ context. Who ruled Palestine during Jesus’ day? The Romans.
Again, Jesus is not contradicting the Law. He is doing something else. According to my friend, Jesus is showing (in vss. 5:38-42) how to live the Law in a way (in the midst of ungodly opposition) that will show the ungodly how to live.
Let’s look at these verse by verse with my thoughts interspersed:
38″You have heard that it was said, ‘AN EYE FOR AN EYE, AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH.’
Fair enough. Jesus is quoting from the Law as we discussed in my earlier post.
39″But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.
Here Jesus begins his interpretation. However, I forgot to mention the context in my original post. Palestine was not Victorian England, where a slap across a cheek was a common form of insult. In Jesus day a “slap across the cheek” was idiomatic for “a verbal insult.” Jesus was telling the people how to behave in the midst of a political climate were insults from the Roman authorities were common.
40″If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also.
Perhaps this is an extension of Exodus 22:25-27, in effect an inverse of the principle presented there. Mutual grace and honor should apply between all parties within an agreement. In the context of a difficult political climate, I can see who rather than the lender, most Israelites found themselves in a position of great disadvantage (not just economically). If someone who is evil want to sue you, go out of your way to teach by your example how he should live. Give him your coat also.
41″Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two.
Most people know the rules that Roman soldiers were allowed to enforce to ease their travel. Soldiers could compel subjects to carry their baggage one mile. Jesus says we should go two. For what purpose? Again, it’s not just because we should allow ourselves to be beaten down. Quite the opposite. We are to live above the situation to compel people to follow God’s principles for living. Rather than beaten down subjects, we can show our allegiance to God’s ways, but promoting them in our conversation and actions.
42″Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you.
The same general principle we have discussed above applies here too.
I have mentioned my friend who reminded me of the context of these verses. He suggested I look at how closely Paul’s words in Romans 12:17-21 represent the concepts Jesus expresses in the Sermon on the Mount.
17Never pay back evil for evil to anyone Respect what is right in the sight of all men.
18If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men.
19Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, “VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY,” says the Lord.
20″BUT IF YOUR ENEMY IS HUNGRY, FEED HIM, AND IF HE IS THIRSTY, GIVE HIM A DRINK; FOR IN SO DOING YOU WILL HEAP BURNING COALS ON HIS HEAD.”
21Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
In summery, Jesus was not speaking against Deuteronomy, Leviticus, and Exodus. He was using the principles of the Law as a way of showing Israel (and us as we apply Jesus’ principles) how to live. Does this make sense? It is not a negation in the least. It is a rabbinic extension, which is a very different thing indeed.
Joshua, I hope this is helpful. Many have a predisposed view that Jesus was a radical who obliterated the Law and finally got people on the right track. Did Jesus offer correctives? Sure, but it was always within the context of honoring inspired Scripture. If we are willing, what we call the Old and New Testaments can be seen as they were meant to be: two parts of the never-changing Word of God. God does not change. Remember His Word is immutable. Considering the implications of this can have a dramatic impact on our lives.
Michael
I see that you mean. I have always thought of the law from a “limiting” standpoint. It wasn’t created to allow people to commit certain acts, but to limit the acts which they were already going to commit. I agree, it’s not a vigilante system, but a justice system.
Where the issue rests is that faithful people lives for centuaries assuming that their limits were enough, then a guy comes along and shows them the right way. I think of my job. When I was learning some software, someone showed me the way to do a process. Then, after I did it for a few weeks, he said, “Let me show you something.” He opened a window and pressed a button, and it automatically did something for me that I would spend 20 minutes doing per customer. I was relieved, and my view was opened to see the complexities of the task, but I was pretty bugged that I didn’t know the full story to begin with. It wasn’t a correction, nor did it negate the information I already had.
I get the idea. Like I said though, it’s not that I don’t get it. I just think it sort of stinks.