S.O.T.M. Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth [Matthew 5:38-42]

Today we come to the fifth illustration of our Lord’s that pointed out the perversion and misinterpretation of the Mosaic law given by God by the scribes and Pharisees. We’ve adopted a three-fold method of approaching this by looking at the Mosaic law, the perversion of the scribes and Pharisees, and the teaching of our Lord, and we’ll do the same here in this section. We will however be spending a few weeks in this section because of the tremendous content and due to the fact that this section is one of the most misunderstood and misinterpreted sections. This week we’ll focus in on eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, and the next week maybe two we’ll hone in on turning the other cheek and giving of our cloak and going the extra mile.

Stand for the reading of the word of God [Matthew 5:38-42]

One of the great American philosophies of life is that we all have certain inalienable rights. And I don’t know about you but I like my rights, my right to live freely, to own property, to go and do as I please, even though some would argue those rights are being infringed upon today. But we are big on rights today. In America we’ve seen civil rights movement, women’s rights movement, workers rights movements, and so many other movements protecting persons rights. It is not uncommon to hear from people today, “I have the right to…and you can’t do anything about it because I have rights.”

There is something in the American psyche that says, “I am entitled to certain rights, and if you do anything to infringe my rights, I have the right to protect my rights in anyway I see fit.” Deep down in the human heart is this vengeful, get even kind of thinking that says, if you get me, I’m going to get you back! Just think of the folk heroes in the American culture, John Wayne, Clint Eastwood, Chuck Norris to name a few, they are the ruff tough get even take nothing from no one kind of mentality that represents the American attitude. That resonates with the human heart as well. That’s not just an American attitude that’s part of human nature, to not let anybody get away with anything until you’ve told them or let them know they can’t do that to you because you have rights.

Basically, that’s at the heart of the Jewish misunderstanding of an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: give them what they’re due. That’s the way it was being applied in Jesus’ time. It had become a license for vengeance, it had become a basis for a vendetta, it had become a sort of a biblical permission to have a grudge, to strike back. But Jesus said, “If somebody hits you on the right cheek, give him your left. If somebody sues and takes your tunic, give him your cloak. If somebody asks you to go one mile, go two. And if anybody needs what you’ve got, give it or loan it.”

That’s antithetical to everything in human society. That doesn’t fit with the human heart. I’ve noticed something interesting in our fight for rights. Inevitably, when a fight for rights takes place in a society, lawlessness becomes the norm because when people begin to live on the basis of their rights, then a dominant selfishness begins to take place, and when you have a whole lot of people being selfish, they will invariably tread on each other. And in a fight for rights, what is lawful sort of gets pushed into the background.

That was the argument C. S. Lewis used for the basis of moral law in the universe in His book Mere Christianity. This need for rights or the struggle to get even is so true of the human heart that’s what he used to point to a moral law in the universe. Everybody has that in them, and we have a sense of justice, and I believe that’s the image of God. But in the fall, that sense of justice became perverted into a vengeful spirit. And it isn’t so much the idea that if a person does something wrong, we want it to be made right to uphold the law and to maintain a righteous standard so that God, who made the righteous standard, can be glorified, it’s that we want to get even. And that’s the perversion of a moral righteousness given us in the creation of God.

That’s why we misunderstand the OT statement eye for and eye, tooth for tooth. Corrupt sinful man wants revenge, to get even, to strike back, but that wasn’t the intent of the legislation at all. Let’s look at it.

What did the law of Moses teach?

The Old Testament statement ‘an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth’ is found in Exodus 21:24; Leviticus 24:20 and Deuteronomy 19:21. It was made to the children of Israel by Moses and the important thing now is to determine why this was so. The same principle obtains as in the matter of adultery and divorce, and in the taking of oaths. The main intent of the Mosaic legislation was to control excesses/chaos. In this case in particular, it was to control anger and violence and the desire for revenge. We are all guilty of it. If any harm is done to us, the immediate natural instinct is to hit back, and not only that, but to do more than hit back. That is what men and women were doing then, and it is what they still do. A slight injury, and the man injured will have his vengeance, including bodily injury to the other; he might even kill him. This whole tendency to wrath and anger, to retribution and retaliation is there at the very depths of human nature. You see this very early on in children.

Now this tendency was manifesting itself amongst the children of Israel and there are examples of it given in the Old Testament, Cain and Abel for example. The object of this Mosaic legislation was to control and reduce this utterly chaotic condition to a certain amount of order. This, as we have seen, is a great fundamental principle. God, the Author of salvation, the Author of the way whereby mankind can be delivered from the bondage and the tyranny of sin, has also ordained that there shall be a check upon sin.

The God of grace is also the God of law, and this is one of the illustrations of the law. God will not only ultimately destroy evil and sin and all its works entirely. He is also, in the meantime, controlling it and has set a bound upon it. We find this working out in the Book of Job, where even the devil cannot do certain things until he is given permission. He is ultimately under the control of God, and one of the manifestations of that control is that God gives laws. He gave this particular law which insists that a certain principle of equality and equity must enter into these matters. So, if a man knocks out another man’s eye, he must not be killed for that—‘an eye for an eye’. Or if he knocks out the tooth of another, the victim is only entitled to knock out one of his teeth. The punishment must fit the crime and not be in excess of it.

Here’s where we misunderstand this law. The purpose of this law is to point out that justice is never excessive in it’s demands. There is a correspondence between the crime and the punishment, the thing done and what is to be done. The object of the law was not to urge men to take an eye for and eye or tooth for tooth and insist upon it every time; it was simply meant to avoid this horrible excess and terrible spirit of revenge and demand for retribution and hold it in check. Man’s sinful nature wants to get even, to give what’s due, but the purpose of this law was to keep that in check.

But perhaps the most important thing is that this enactment was not given to the individual, but rather to the judges who were responsible for law and order amongst the individuals. The system of judges was set up amongst the children of Israel, and when disputes and matters arose the people had to take them to these responsible authorities for judgment. Look at Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy and you’ll see it was the judges who were to see to it that it was an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth and no more. The legislation was for them, not for the private individuals—as in the law of our land at this moment. It was never a vigilante approach always law and order. The law is carried out by the magistrate or the judge, by the one who is appointed in the nation to do this. That was the principle; and it is a true picture of the Mosaic legislation itself. Its main object was to introduce this element of justice and of righteousness into a chaotic condition and to take from man the tendency to take the law into his own hands and to do anything he likes.

What did the scribes and Pharisees teach?

Their main trouble was that they tended to ignore entirely the fact that this teaching was for the judges only. They made it a matter for personal application. Not only that, they regarded it, in their typical legalistic manner, as a matter of right and duty to have ‘an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth’. To them it was something to be insisted upon rather than something which should be restrained. It was a legalistic outlook which thought only of its rights—a kind of ruthless loan shark attitude. They were therefore guilty of two main errors at that point. They were turning a negative injunction into a positive one and, furthermore, were interpreting it and carrying it out themselves, and teaching others to do so, they took the law into their own hands instead of seeing that it was something that was to be carried out only by the appointed judges who were responsible for law and order. Not so far removed from where we are today.

It is in the light of that background that our Lord’s teaching is given, ‘I say unto you, That you resist not evil’, together with the further statements that follow.

Clearly, we are face to face here with a subject which has often been debated, which has been frequently misunderstood, and which has always been the cause of much confusion. There is possibly no passage in Scripture which has produced as much heat and disputing as this very teaching which tells us not to resist evil and to be loving and forgiving. Pacifism itself is the cause of much wordy warfare and it often leads to a spirit which is as far removed as possible from that which is taught here by our blessed Lord.

We saw, when we started this series through the sermon no the mount, that there are certain principles of interpretation which must be observed if we want to know the truth concerning these matters. We should remind ourselves of some of them now.

First, we must never regard the Sermon on the Mount as a code of ethics, or a set of rules to cover our conduct in detail. We must not think of it as being a new kind of law to replace the old Mosaic law; it is rather a matter of emphasizing the spirit of the law. So that we must not, if we are in trouble as to what to do at a particular point, rush to the Sermon on the Mount and turn up a particular passage. You do not get that in the New Testament. Isn’t it rather tragic that those of us who are under grace always seem to want to be under law? We ask one another, ‘What is the exact teaching about this?’ and if we cannot be given ‘yes’ or ‘no’ as an answer we say, ‘It is all so vague and indefinite’.

Secondly, these teachings are never to be applied mechanically or as a kind of rule of thumb. It is the spirit rather than the letter. Not that we depreciate the letter, but it is the spirit that we must emphasize.

Thirdly, if our interpretation ever makes the teaching appear to be ridiculous or leads us to a ridiculous position, it is patently a wrong interpretation. And there are people who are guilty of this.

The next principle is this: If our interpretation makes the teaching appear to be impossible it also is wrong. Nothing our Lord teaches is ever impossible. There are people who do interpret certain things in the Sermon on the Mount in such a way and their interpretation must be false. Its teaching was meant for daily life.

Lastly, we must remember that if our interpretation of any one of these things contradicts the plain and obvious teaching of Scripture at another point, again it is obvious that our interpretation has gone astray. Scripture must be taken and compared with Scripture. There is no contradiction in biblical teaching. With that in mind...

What did our Lord teach?

We’ll look just at verse 38 and the beginning of verse 39 today, we’ll consider the rest in the weeks to come. When Jesus says, You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I tell you not to resist an evil person. What does it mean? Some have maintained, like the old writer Tolstoy, that what the Lord said here goes across the board. He said that to have soldiers, police, even judges is unchristian. He said evil is not to be resisted at all under any circumstance. Well Tolstoy took it way out of context and too far. But there are still those today who don’t believe in having military or capital punishment for any crime whatsoever and use this text for that belief. So the question is, is that what our Lord intended in this statement? No.

The first main principle is that this teaching is not for nations or for the world. This teaching is for the Christian. Remember the sermon on the mount is not an general ethical code, it’s what kingdom people should look like. i.e. Our Lord is saying, as a Christian, this is the way you should live. The first thing He said about them was that they are ‘poor in spirit’. In other words they are perfectly aware of their own utter inability. They are aware of the fact that they are sinners, and are absolutely helpless in the sight of God. They are those who are mourning because of their sins. They have come to understand sin as a principle within them that corrupts the whole of their lives, and they mourn because of it. They are meek; they have a spirit in them that is the very antithesis of the spirit of the world. They are hungering and thirsting after righteousness, and so on. Now these particular injunctions which we’ve been studying are meant only for Christians.

Our Lord never asks a person who is a natural man, not born again, still under the bondage of sin to live like this because he can’t. Therefore to advocate a nation or a country to hold such a policy is heretical. if we ask a man who has not been born again, and who has not received the Holy Spirit, to live the Christian life, we are really saying that a man can justify himself by works, and that is heresy. We are suggesting that a man by his own efforts, and by putting his mind to it, can live this life. That is an absolute contradiction of the whole of the New Testament. Therefore to ask for Christian conduct from an individual who is not born again, let alone a nation or a group of nations or a world of nations, is both impossible and wrong.

For the world, and for a nation, and for non-Christians the law still applies, and it is the law which says ‘an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth’. These people are still under that justice which restrains and holds man back, preserving law and order and controlling chaos. In other words, that is why a Christian must believe in law and order, and why he must never be negligent of his duties as a citizen of a State. He knows that ‘the powers that be are ordained of God’, that lawlessness must be controlled, and vice and crime kept within bounds—‘an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth,’ justice and equity. In other words the New Testament teaches that, until a man comes under grace, he must be kept under the law.

Secondly, this applies to the Christians personal relationships. This goes along with what I just said to one’s relationship as a citizen of his country. To resist evil is not for a nation it’s for the individual Christian and how he is to treat others, even his enemies, we will get into it more next week. But this section has nothing to say about a persons duty towards the state, you’ll have to go else where in the bible for that. The question of killing, capital punishment, war, etc. is not addressed here. To use this section of scripture to justify that is to interpret the scripture wrongly.

The real issue Jesus is addressing here is the main principle of man’s attitude towards himself. This is why Jesus takes it from eye for an eye, tooth for tooth, or get even, to resist not evil, but if someone slaps you on the cheek, give them the other cheek. If someone sues you for your tunic, give them you cloak also. If someone compels you to go a mile with them go two. What’s Jesus doing? He’s taking the mentality of getting what is owed to me to the question of our attitude towards ourselves…and what is a Christian supposed to become??? Dead to self. A Christian must die to self. Not demand my rights always.

It is very spiritual teaching, and it works out in the following respects. First, I must be right in my attitude towards myself and the spirit of self-defence that immediately rises when any wrong is done to me.

I must also deal with the desire for revenge and the spirit of retaliation that is so characteristic of the natural self.

Then there is the attitude of self towards injustices that are done to it and towards the demands that are made upon it by the community or by the State. We have seen this explode in this time of COVID, how dare you tell me to wear a mask…that’s that spirit of self first.

And finally there is the attitude of self to personal possessions. Our Lord here is unveiling and exposing this horrible thing that controls the natural man—self, that terrible legacy that has come down from the fall of man and which makes man glorify himself and set himself up as a god. Man will protect himself all along and in every way. But he does it not only when he is attacked or when something is taken from him; he does it also in the matter of his possessions. If another wants to borrow from him, his instinctive response is: ‘Why should I part with my goods and impoverish myself?’ It is self the whole time.

The moment we see that, there is no contradiction between verse 42 and the others. It is not only a connection, it is an essential part of it. The tragedy of the Pharisees and scribes was that they interpreted ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth’ in a purely legal manner or as something physical and material. Men still do that. They reduce this amazing teaching just to the question of capital punishment or whether we should take part in war. ‘No,’ says Christ in effect, ‘it is a matter of the spirit, it is a matter of your whole attitude, especially your attitude towards yourself; and I would have you see that if you are to be truly My disciples you must become dead to yourself.’ And when you become dead to self your demand for rights, well they kind of get put on the back burner…I know this is hard to swallow but remember what our Lord said. He is said, if you like: ‘If any man would be My disciple, let him deny himself (and all his rights to himself and all the rights of possession), and take up the cross, and follow Me.’