Christ’s Abolishment of ‘Eye for an Eye’ Justice in Favor of Self-Abandonment

By Mark W. Christy, PhD

In present times, one can visit any news outlet and quickly peruse many stories of people claiming to be victims and demanding justice. Some of these, whether they are truly victims or simply perceive of themselves as being in some sort of contrived victim class, are shouting demands for social justice against supposed assailants who many times have no awareness, much less culpability, of that for which they are being accused. Regardless of the side, both express concerns about injustices, and many look to the laws of the state to resolve their disputes. Others, however, rise up in protest and angrily demand the overturning of the state so that they may obtain what they feel is justice. Whether it be justice under the current legal code, or a new code desired by the protesters, both codes are rejected by Christ as the ultimate framework upon which His followers are called to exhibit justice. To demonstrate Christ’s understanding of how Christians are to live under injustices, even those which arise from the state itself, this article will carefully consider His words in Matthew 5:38-42,

“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.”[i]

At a minimum, Christ’s teachings in this passage go far beyond the Old Testament (OT) imperative to leave vengeance to the Lord (Lev 19:18). Even while God’s instruction to the nation of Israel in the OT had provided a foundation for their justice system, many had taken those laws and enforced them so as to satiate their own desires for personal revenge. In other words, God’s word for such as these was no longer being followed to train Israel in regard to the holiness of God and His righteous expectations of His people, it was simply legal jargon that could be employed arbitrarily against one’s nemesis.

In v.38, Jesus draws His audience’s attention to the OT teaching on “eye for an eye” justice. Essentially, the intent of this justice was that “proportionate justice [be] applied in case of physical harm.”[ii] In modern times, this sort of justice may seem extreme as people seem to be more easily swayed by their emotions. Mosaic Law, however, encapsulated this “eye for an eye” justice in strict mercilessness: “Thus you shall not show pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot” (Deut 19:21).

This mercilessness of the Law (which is enshrined into the Law itself) may appear out of place when one considers that God in the OT, as well as in the New Testament (NT), is portrayed as a merciful God (Ex 34:6; Ps 86:15; 145:8; Is 63:9; Jer 31:20; Ezek 39:25). The Law, however, is not a person, and when enacted, it can only mete out an impersonal justice. Aware of the impersonal nature of the legal system and the fearful consequences of receiving judgement under such rules, Luke advises his readers to work things out on a personal level: “For while you are going with your opponent to appear before the magistrate, on your way there make an effort to settle with him, so that he may not drag you before the judge, and the judge turn you over to the officer, and the officer throw you into prison” (Luke 12:58).

Like the offended party in Luke’s illustration, God could have, if He so desired, dragged the whole nation into judgement at any time based upon their violation of the Law (Josh 7:11; Jdg 2:20; Is 24:5; etc.). For His part, God was not trying to rule His people in a tyrannical manner; rather, He instituted the Law to teach people about the holiness of God and the sinfulness of sin (Lev 19:2; 20:7-8; Rom 3:20; Gal 3:19).

Due to this didactive purpose, “[t]he OT texts address the community and its leadership structures and not the victim or victim’s family as such.”[iii] This can be readily observed in the biblical reasoning behind “eye for an eye” justice which is revealed in Deuteronomy 19:19-20: “Thus you shall purge the evil from among you. The rest will hear and be afraid, and will never again do such an evil thing among you.” Here, the motive is not personal vengeance on the behalf of the victim; rather, the goal is the promotion of holiness among the community.

Despite the intended promotion of holiness, the Law was never meant to be a tool for the achievement of perfection. By its very nature, it presumes the sinfulness of its adherents and even prescribes sacrifices to address violations irrespective of its own tenets against those found to have transgressed against it. As Paul writes, “Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God; because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin” (Rom 3:19-20).

The Law, therefore, has the power to make one aware of sin, but it has no means to address those sins other than judgement and condemnation. While it does allow for animal sacrifices to be made for those who have sinned, these sacrifices in no way absolve the sinner. As the writer of Hebrews states, “it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins” (10:4). The purpose of these sacrifices and the countless animals which were required was that God’s people might be “reminde[d] of their sins year after year” (Heb 10:3).

In lieu of these sacrifices, Jesus “offered one sacrifice for sins for all time” (Heb 10:12). By doing so, He became the “end of the Law” for those who believe (Rom 10:4). This, however, does not mean that God has in any way lowered his expectations of holiness for those who believe. As Peter declares, “As obedient children, do not be conformed to the former lusts which were yours in your ignorance, but like the Holy One who called you, be holy yourselves also in all your behavior” (1 Pet 1:14-15).

God’s expectations of holiness among Christians, as alluded to by Peter, occur outside of the bounds of Mosaic Law because Christ has satisfied the requirements of the Law on behalf of all of His followers. This, however, does not mean that the Law does not set forth clear moral principles which still apply to believers; rather, believers are called to follow a sort of personified Law. This Law is no less than Jesus Himself. He embodies the Law because He perfectly fulfilled the Law. As opposed to the Mosaic Law, as a Person, Christ is able to be merciful. For this reason, in his Sermon on the Mount, He could pronounce a different form of justice in Matthew 5:38-42 other than strict “eye for an eye” justice.

In this passage, Jesus advocates that his followers follow a more personal code of justice which promotes love, forgiveness, and mercy. In v.39, he says, “do not resist an evil person.” In response, a thoughtful responder would certainly take pause. Does Christ mean that an evil person should never be hindered in the commission of a dastardly deed? What should one do when they happen upon a woman being raped? Or, what should one do if observe an evil person who is about commit some act that may cause them to bring harm to himself/herself?

To address this conundrum, some suggest that Jesus has in mind a personal response to those evil deeds perpetrated at the individual disciple himself/herself. To some extent, this seems plausible in the context which follows where Jesus adds, “but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also” (v.39). Even so, such an interpretation requires some clarification, otherwise it could prevent one from becoming a police officer or member of the military less they be given cause to defend themselves in line with their sworn duty.

Based upon Christ’s interaction with the Roman centurion in Matthew 8:1-13, it would seem that Christ did not condemn an officer of the state from performing their duties on behalf of the state. When the centurion informed Him that Jesus was a “man under authority, with soldiers under [him],” Jesus “marveled” at his response and commended him for his “great faith” (Matt 8:9-10). As a foremost follower of Christ, the apostle Paul spent many years under house arrest and imprisoned either chained to a soldier or in close proximity to one. Despite this, he never once speaks against them concerning the fulfillment of their duties on behalf of the state. For Paul, the authority of the soldier resides ultimately in God who has ordained the authority of the state under which the soldier receives his commission (Rom 13:1-7).

Both Christ and His apostles, not to mention the numerous other NT saints, never offered resistance to the state and instead chose, as required to do so, to suffer death even if that death was unjustified. This commitment to remain subject to authority can, at least to some degree, even be seen in the NT imperatives regarding slavery. Though it may be surprising to many, this institution was never condemned by the Bible even while the OT did seek to protect the rights of slaves as well as offer a Year of Jubilee every fiftieth year upon which all slaves were to be freed.

While the OT guidelines and restrictions upon the institution of slavery in the OT offered proper legal parameters among Israelites (at least those who were orthodox), Paul was forced to address the issue among the Gentiles where such laws were nonexistent. Before considering his testimony in the NT, one may presume that Paul would seek to establish the rights (at least those granted in the OT) of those bound by slavery by rectifying the problem at the state level to prevent systemic injustice. This, however, is not the case. Just as Paul and his contemporaries willingly suffered unjust humiliation and death at the hands of the state or even the angry mob, he expected slaves to serve their masters faithfully, even when those masters were tyrannical. As he records in 1 Timothy 6:1, “All who are under the yoke as slaves are to regard their own masters as worthy of all honor so that the name of God and our doctrine will not be spoken against.”

Paul not only desires slaves to live justly and serve faithfully even when treated unjustly by their masters, who as non-Christians are not under any biblical imperative to consider the rights as slaves, he also wants them to serve well under their master when those masters are Christians: “Those who have believers as their masters must not be disrespectful to them because they are brethren, but must serve them all the more, because those who partake of the benefit are believers and beloved.”

While calling upon slaves to serve their masters with a sincere heart (Eph 6:5), the NT makes no effort to condemn the owners of slaves. It does, however, call upon them to personally consider the rights of their slaves: “Masters, grant to your slaves justice and fairness, knowing that you too have a Master in heaven” (Col 4:1). Once again and in line with Christ’s comments in Matthew 5:38-42, the NT is concerned with personal justice as a means to rectify the injustices of society.

In a similar vein, the OT laws concerning slavery were never written with the intent on safe-guarding the institution itself; rather, their purpose was to safeguard the people against injustices of the system which could arise from individuals who choose to stray from its requirements. For this reason, the Mosaic Law offers clear penalties which were to be enacted against individuals who were found guilty of transgressing the Law.

Unlike the nation of Israel, secular societies like Rome had no such laws which arose directly from the mind of God. Even so, its authority was assigned to it by God, and its laws were meant to serve a similar purpose of outlining sins and warning people away from them by punishing those who were in violation. As has been mentioned previously, Christians are called upon to submit to the authority of the state even when its authority is being abused because God, in both OT and NT, is primarily concerned with personal justice. The primacy of personal justice can be understood in part simply by understanding the judgement of God will come upon all individuals and not the states in which they belong (Matt 12:36).

Knowing this, Jesus was primarily concerned with personal justice as opposed to the legalist “eye for an eye justice” found in the OT Law. Therefore, he commands his followers as follows, “whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also” (Matt 5:39). Such a violent act is clearly unjust, and the victim of this injustice would be expected to feel humiliated and violated which such a thing happens. Irrespective of these personal feelings, Jesus does not call upon the victim to assert his/her rights, even those crafted into law or those supposed by one’s own sense of pride. Instead, He directs them to willingly surrender themselves to still further abuse if that be forthcoming.

When injustices involved more than pride and demanded of one his/her belongings, Jesus offered essentially the same advice as before. In Matthew 5:40, He announces, “If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also.” If one pays careful attention to this verse, it should become apparent that Jesus sought for His disciples to avoid coming under state-level justice (that is, “eye for an eye justice”) altogether, and preferred that His disciples make every effort to solve problems on a personal level, even if that meant they would have to willingly succumb to injustice themselves (cf. 1 Cor 6:7f). The extremity of Christ’s directives can be more readily understood when one realizes that the “coat” under Jewish law was considered an inalienable possession. By directing His followers to willingly abandon such a possession, He was essentially dictating to them that they should hold any and all supposed inalienable rights loosely if that is what would be required to resolve matters on a personal level.

After directing His listeners to hold their rights and possessions loosely, Jesus offers yet another situation when His followers would have to allow themselves to be treated unjustly: “Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two” (Matt 5:41). While Jesus does not expressly mention the state in this verse, He almost certainly has the state in mind because, apart from the context aforementioned, it was a common (and legal) practice for Roman soldiers to commandeer civilians to assist them by carrying various things for certain distances. In normal circumstances, one would most likely come under such direction in a grudging manner. Jesus, however, wanted His people to joyfully serve even in these perceptively unjust scenarios. Such service, as previously noted, is for all purposes equivalent to the prescribed service of slaves on behalf of their unjust masters.

This joyful service may seem more plausible under an “eye for eye” system of justice which has been composed by a loving and just God. Such a system, nevertheless, is not what enabled Roman aggressors to force conquered peoples to do their bidding when called upon to do so. Their system as well as the personal requests by soldiers who made demands based upon that system were both unjust. Despite this, Jesus offers no condemnation for the systemic injustice and rallies His people to joyfully abandon themselves to any such suffering rather than assert any rights, legal or otherwise.

In a final effort to help His followers engage others outside of the contours of an “eye for an eye” justice system, even when that involves abandonment of justice for oneself, Jesus commands, “Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you” (Matt 5:42). Despite this seemingly clear directive from Christ, Paul gives instructions that those who refuse to work despite being able to do so should not be allowed to eat (1 Thess 3:10-12). In the context, one becomes aware that Paul understands the situation personally to the extent he is aware that feeding these lazy individuals will support an undisciplined lifestyle. His apparent absence of the giving attitude towards those who were lazy seems to arise from Christ’s command in Matthew 5:42 being harmonized with His teaching on loving one’s neighbor: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Matthew 19:19). Paul in 1 Corinthians 10:23-24 associates love for one’s neighbor with concerns about his welfare, including his spiritual welfare: “All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful, but not all things edify. Let no one seek his own good, but that of his neighbor.”

To understand Christ’s imperative in Matthew 5:42 since Paul’s words suggest that taking Christ’s words to a literal extreme could cause one to fail in His command to love one’s neighbors, one must consider the larger context which, as has been noted already in this article, was concerned with the avoidance of “eye for an eye” justice in favor of a personal, self-effacing justice. With such a model, Christians should willingly and joyfully give to those who ask so long as doing so does not cause harm to that individual. Admittedly, in practice, those who faithfully follow this command should do so with much prayer for wisdom and discernment.

In conclusion, Christ would have his followers avoid holding tightly to “eye for an eye” justice because such a “legalistic mentality…dwells on retaliation and so-called fairness” in regard to “one’s rights.”[iv] He would have them abandon their rights in favor of bringing peace to their relationships with others even when doing so forces them to joyfully undergo unjust suffering. Instead of living with vengeful hearts focused only on the maintenance of one’s dignity, Christ calls upon His people to lose their lives for His sake (Matt 16:25).

---

[i]All Scripture references are taken from NASB1995.

[ii]John Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 255.

[iii]Ibid, 256.

[iv]D. A. Carson, Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount and His Confrontation with the World: An Exposition of Matthew 5-10 (Grand Rapids: BakerBooks, 1999), 55.