TRV
- English
- King James KJV
- Complete Jewish CJB
- World English WEBM
- Berean Standard BSB
- American Standard ASV
- Geneva GNV
- Young's Literal YLT
- Douay-Rheims DRC
- International
- Shqip ALB
- العربية SVD
- বাংলা BN-IRV
- မြန်မာ Judson
- 简体文 CUV-S
- 繁體中文 CUV-T
- Čeština BKR
- Nederlands STVE
- Français LSG
- Deutsch SCH
- Ελληνικά Vamvas
- ગુજરાતી GU-IRV
- Hausa HCB
- עברית Hebrew
- हिन्दी HCV
- Magyar KAROLI
- Bahasa Indonesia INDO-TB
- Italiano Diodati
- 日本語 Kougo
- 한국어 Korean
- മലയാളം MAL
- मराठी MRCV
- Norsk DNB
- فارسی OPV
- Polski BG
- Português Almeida
- Română Cornilescu
- Русский Synodal
- Español RVG
- Kiswahili Neno
- Svenska SV1917
- Tagalog TAG-ADB
- தமிழ் TCV
- తెలుగు TSA
- ภาษาไทย THAI-KJV
- Українська Ohienko
- Tiếng Việt CADMAN
- Yorùbá YCB
See on the biblical-era map
Study This Verse
Public-domain commentary
Matthew Henry
From his Commentary on the Whole Bible. Henry comments on passages, not single verses — this entry covers Matthew 5:38–42. His three-level outline is real structure in the source text, so it is rendered as structure.
In these verses the law of retaliation is expounded, and in a manner repealed. Observe,
I.What the Old Testament permission was, in case of injury; and here the expression is only, Ye have heard that is has been said; not, as before, concerning the commands of the decalogue, that it has been said by, or to, them of old time. It was a command, that every one should of necessity require such satisfaction; but they might lawfully insist upon it, if they pleased; an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. This we find, Exo 21:24; Lev 24:20; Deu 19:21; in all which places it is appointed to be done by the magistrate, who bears not the sword in vain, but is the minister of God, an avenger to execute wrath, Rom 13:4. It was a direction to the judges of the Jewish nation what punishment to inflict in case of maims, for terror to such as would do mischief on the one hand, and for a restraint to such as have mischief done to them on the other hand, that they may not insist on a greater punishment than is proper: it is not a life for an eye, nor a limb for a tooth, but observe a proportion; and it is intimated (Num 35:31), that the forfeiture in this case might be redeemed with money; for when it is provided that no ransom shall be taken for the life of a murderer, it is supposed that for maims a pecuniary satisfaction was allowed.
But some of the Jewish teachers, who were not the most compassionate men in the world, insisted upon it as necessary that such revenge should be taken, even by private persons themselves, and that there was no room left for remission, or the acceptance of satisfaction. Even now, when they were under the government of the Roman magistrates, and consequently the judicial law fell to the ground of course, yet they were still zealous for any thing that looked harsh and severe.
Now, so far this is in force with us, as a direction to magistrates, to use the sword of justice according to the good and wholesome laws of the land, for the terror of evil-doers, and the vindication of the oppressed. That judge neither feared God nor regarded man, who would not avenge the poor widow of her adversary, Luk 18:2, Luk 18:3. And it is in force as a rule to lawgivers, to provide accordingly, and wisely to apportion punishments to crimes, for the restraint of rapine and violence, and the protection of innocency.
II.What the New Testament precept is, as to the complainant himself, his duty is, to forgive the injury as done to himself, and no further to insist upon the punishment of it than is necessary to the public good: and this precept is consonant to the meekness of Christ, and the gentleness of his yoke.
Two things Christ teaches us here:
1.We must not be revengeful (Mat 5:39); I say unto you, that ye resist not evil; - the evil person that is injurious to you. The resisting of any ill attempt upon us, is here as generally and expressly forbidden, as the resisting of the higher powers is (Rom 13:2); and yet this does not repeal the law of self-preservation, and the care we are to take of our families; we may avoid evil, and may resist it, so far as is necessary to our own security; but we must not render evil for evil, must not bear a grudge, nor avenge ourselves, nor study to be even with those that have treated us unkindly, but we must go beyond them by forgiving them, Pro 20:22; Pro 24:29; Pro 25:21, Pro 25:22; Rom 12:7. The law of retaliation must be made consistent with the law of love: nor, if any have injured us, is our recompence in our own hands, but in the hands of God, to whose wrath we must give place; and sometimes in the hands of his viceregents, where it is necessary for the preservation of the public peace; but it will not justify us in hurting our brother to say that he began, for it is the second blow that makes the quarrel; and when we were injured, we had an opportunity not to justify our injuring him, but to show ourselves the true disciples of Christ, by forgiving him.
Three things our Saviour specifies, to show that Christians must patiently yield to those who bear hard upon them, rather than contend; and these include others.
(1.)A blow on the cheek, which is an injury to me in my body; "Whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek," which is not only a hurt, but an affront and indignity (Co2 11:20), if a man in anger or scorn thus abuse thee, "turn to him the other cheek;" that is, "instead of avenging that injury, prepare for another, and bear it patiently: give not the rude man as good as he brings; do not challenge him, nor enter an action against him; if it be necessary to the public peace that he be bound to his good behaviour, leave that to the magistrate; but for thine own part, it will ordinarily be the wisest course to pass it by, and take no further notice of it: there are no bones broken, no great harm done, forgive it and forget it; and if proud fools think the worse of thee, and laugh at thee for it, all wise men will value and honour thee for it, as a follower of the blessed Jesus, who, though he was the Judge of Israel, did not smite those who smote him on the cheek," Mic 5:1. Though this may perhaps, with some base spirits, expose us to the like affront another time, and so it is, in effect, to turn the other cheek, yet let not that disturb us, but let us trust God and his providence to protect us in the way of our duty. Perhaps, the forgiving of one injury may prevent another, when the avenging of it would but draw on another; some will be overcome by submission, who by resistance would but be the more exasperated, Pro 25:22. However, our recompence is in Christ's hands, who will reward us with eternal glory for the shame we thus patiently endure; and though it be not directly inflicted, it if be quietly borne for conscience' sake, and in conformity to Christ's example, it shall be put upon the score of suffering for Christ.
(2.)The loss of a coat, which is a wrong to me in my estate (Mat 5:40); If any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat. It is a hard case. Note, It is common for legal processes to be made use of for the doing of greatest injuries. Though judges be just and circumspect, yet it is possible for bad men who make no conscience of oaths and forgeries, by course of law to force off the coat from a man's back. Marvel not at the matter (Ecc 5:8), but, in such a case, rather than go to the law by way of revenge, rather than exhibit a cross bill, or stand out to the utmost, in defence of that which is thy undoubted right, let him even take thy cloak also. If the matter be small, which we may lose without an considerable damage to our families, it is good to submit to it for peace' sake. "It will not cost thee so much to buy another cloak, as it will cost thee by course of law to recover that; and therefore unless thou canst get it again by fair means, it is better to let him take it."
(3.)The going a mile by constraint, which is a wrong to me in my liberty (Mat 5:41); "Whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, to run an errand for him, or to wait upon him, grudge not at it, but go with him two miles rather than fall out with him:" say not, "I would do it, if I were not compelled to it, but I hate to be forced;" rather say, "Therefore I will do it, for otherwise there will be a quarrel;" and it is better to serve him, than to serve thy own lusts of pride and revenge. Some give this sense of it: The Jews taught that the disciples of the wise, and the students of the law, were not to be pressed, as others might, by the king's officers, to travel upon the public service; but Christ will not have his disciples to insist upon this privilege, but to comply rather than offend the government. The sum of all is, that Christians must not be litigious; small injuries must be submitted to, and no notice taken of them; and if the injury be such as requires us to seek reparation, it must be for a good end, and without thought of revenge: though we must not invite injuries, yet we must meet them cheerfully in the way of duty, and make the best of them. If any say, Flesh and blood cannot pass by such an affront, let them remember, that flesh and blood shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
2.We must be charitable and beneficent (Mat 5:42); must not only do no hurt to our neighbours, but labour to do them all the good we can.
(1.)We must be ready to give; "Give to him that asketh thee. If thou has an ability, look upon the request of the poor as giving thee an opportunity for the duty of almsgiving." When a real object of charity presents itself, we should give at the first word: Give a portion to seven, and also to eight; yet the affairs of our charity must be guided with discretion (Psa 112:5), lest we give that to the idle and unworthy, which should be given to those that are necessitous, and deserve well. What God says to us, we should be ready to say to our poor brethren, Ask, and it shall be given you.
(2.)We must be ready to lend. This is sometimes as great a piece of charity as giving; as it not only relieves the present exigency, but obliges the borrower to providence, industry, and honesty; and therefore, "From him that would borrow of thee something to live on, or something to trade on, turn not thou away: shun not those that thou knowest have such a request to make of thee, nor contrive excuses to shake them off." Be easy of access to him that would borrow: though he be bashful, and have not confidence to make known his case and beg the favour, yet thou knowest both his need and his desire, and therefore offer him the kindness. Exorabor antequam rogor; honestis precibus occuram - I will be prevailed on before I am entreated; I will anticipate the becoming petition. Seneca, De Vit Beat. It becomes us to be thus forward in acts of kindness, for before we call, God hears us, and prevents us with the blessings of his goodness.
Historical interpretation
Eleven Centuries of Reception
13 surviving comments on this verse. Each one is dated, so this reads as a timeline rather than a list.
Select a marker to jump to its quote. Markers stagger vertically where authors wrote within a few decades of each other.
So, too, "Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth," has now grown old, ever since "Let none render evil for evil" grew young.
Who else, therefore, are understood but we, who, fully taught by the new law, observe these practices,-the old law being obliterated, the coming of whose abolition the action itself demonstrates? For the wont of the old law was to avenge itself by the vengeance of the glaive, and to pluck out "eye for eye," and to inflict retaliatory revenge for injury. But the new law's wont was to point to clemency, and to convert to tranquillity the pristine ferocity of "glaives" and "lances," and to remodel the pristine execution of "war" upon the rivals and foes of the law into the pacific actions of "ploughing" and "tilling" the land.
In the next place, they criticise the law in the old covenant, which bids put out "an eye for an eye," and "a tooth for a tooth;" and straightway they insult and say, "Why, how can He be good who speaks so?"
What then do we say in answer to this? That it is the highest kind of philanthropy. For He made this law, not that we might strike out one another's eyes, but that fear of suffering by others might restrain us from doing any such thing to them. As therefore He threatened the Ninevites with overthrow, not that He might destroy them (for had that been His will, He ought to have been silent), but that He might by fear make them better, and so quiet His wrath: so also hath He appointed a punishment for those who wantonly assail the eyes of others, that if good principle dispose them not to refrain from such cruelty, fear may restrain them from injuring their neighbors' sight.
And if this be cruelty, it is cruelty also for the murderer to be restrained, and the adulterer checked. But these are the sayings of senseless men, and of those that are mad to the extreme of madness. For I, so far from saying that this comes of cruelty, should say, that the contrary to this would be unlawful, according to men's reckoning. And whereas, thou sayest, "Because He commanded to pluck out an eye for an eye, therefore He is cruel;" I say, that if He had not given this commandment, then He would have seemed, in the judgment of most men, to be that which thou sayest He is.
For let us suppose that this law had been altogether done away, and that no one feared the punishment ensuing thereupon, but that license had been given to all the wicked to follow their own disposition in all security, to adulterers, and to murderers, to perjured persons, and to parricides; would not all things have been turned upside down? would not cities, market-places, and houses, sea and land, and the whole world, have been filled with unnumbered pollutions and murders? Every one sees it. For if, when there are laws, and fear, and threatening, our evil dispositions are hardly checked; were even this security taken away, what is there to prevent men's choosing vice? and what degree of mischief would not then come revelling upon the whole of human life?
Therefore, you see, as I have already stated, He said this not once only, but once and again; in that to the words, "Think not that I am come to destroy," He added, "I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill."
And to prove to thee that it was of one and the same mildness; in the one He saith, "An eye for an eye," but in this other, "If one smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."
For as in that case He checks him that doth the wrong with the fear of this suffering, even so also in this. "How so," it may be said, "when He bids turn to him the other cheek also?" Nay, what of that? Since not to take away his fear did He enjoin this, but as charging yourself to allow him to take his fill entirely. Neither did He say, that the other continues unpunished, but, "do not thou punish;" at once both enhancing the fear of him that smiteth, if he persist, and comforting him who is smitten.
Seest thou not, how the commandments, so far from coming of cruelty, come rather of abounding mercy? And if on account of these thou callest the Lawgiver grievous, and hard to bear with; tell me which sort of command is the more toilsome and grievous, "Do no murder," or, "Be not even angry"? Which is more in extreme, he who exacts a penalty for murder, or for mere anger? He who subjects the adulterer to vengeance after the fact, or he who enjoins a penalty even for the very desire, and that penalty everlasting? See ye not how their reasoning comes round to the very contrary? how the God of the old covenant, whom they call cruel, will be found mild and meek: and He of the new, whom they acknowledged to be good, will be hard and grievous, according to their madness? Whereas we say, that there is but one and the same Legislator of either covenant, who dispensed all meetly, and adapted to the difference of the times the difference between the two systems of law. Therefore neither are the first commandments cruel, nor the second hard and grievous, but all of one and the same providential care.
For that He Himself gave the old covenant also, hear the affirmation of the prophet, or rather (so we must speak), of Him who is both the one and the other: "I will make a covenant with you, not according to the covenant which I made with your fathers."
Seest thou that it was not of an eye that He was speaking before, when He made the law to pluck out the offending eye, but of him who by his friendship is harming us, and casting us into the gulf of destruction? For He who in this place uses so great strength of expression, and who, not even when another is plucking out your eye, permits you to strike out his; how should He have made it a law to strike out one's own?
But if any one accuses the ancient law, because it commands such retaliation, he seems to me very unskillful in the wisdom that becomes a legislator, and ignorant of the virtue of opportunities, and the gain of condescension. For if he considered who were the hearers of these sayings, and how they were disposed, and when they received this code of laws, he will thoroughly admit the wisdom of the Lawgiver, and will see that it is one and the same, who made both those laws and these, and who wrote each of them exceeding profitably, and in its due season. Yes, for if at the beginning He had introduced these high and most weighty commandments, men would not have received either these, or the others; but now ordaining them severally in their due time, He hath by the two corrected the whole world.
And besides, He commanded this, not that we might strike out one another's eyes, but that we might keep our hands to ourselves. For the threat of suffering hath effectually restrained our inclination to be doing.
And thus in fact He is silently dropping seed of much self-restraint, at least in that He commands to retaliate with just the same acts. Yet surely he that began such transgression were worthy of a greater punishment, and this the abstract nature of justice demands. But forasmuch as He was minded to mingle mercy also with justice, He condemns him whose offenses were very great to a punishment less than his desert: teaching us even while we suffer to show forth great consideration.
(Hom. xviii.) The word here used signifies to drag unjustly, without cause, and with insult.
(Verse 38.) 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 evil. Whoever says an eye for an eye does not want to take away the other, but to preserve both. Our Lord, by taking away vengeance, cuts off the beginnings of sins. And in the Law there is retribution, in the Gospel there is grace. There, fault is corrected, here the beginnings of sins are taken away.
Thus our Lord by doing away all retaliation, cuts off the beginnings of sin. So the Law corrects faults, the Gospel removes their occasions.
Mystically interpreted; When we are smitten on the right cheek, He said not, offer to him thy left, but the other; for the righteous has not a left. That is, if a heretic has smitten us in disputation, and would wound us in a right hand doctrine, let him be met with another testimony from Scripture.
If we understand this only of alms, it cannot stand with the estate of the most part of men who are poor; even the rich if they have been always giving, will not be able to continue always to give.
But it maybe understood of the wealth of doctrine: wealth which never fails but the more of it is given away, the more it abounds.
It is the lesser righteousness of the Pharisees not to go beyond measure in revenge, that no one should give back more than he has received: and this is a great step. For it is not easy to find any one who, when he has received a blow, wishes merely to return the blow; and who, on hearing one word from a man who reviles him, is content to return only one, and that just an equivalent; but he avenges it more immoderately, either under the disturbing influence of anger, or because he thinks it just, that he who first inflicted injury should suffer more severe injury than he suffered who had not inflicted injury. Such a spirit was in great measure restrained by the law, where it was written, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth; by which expressions a certain measure is intended, so that the vengeance should not exceed the injury. And this is the beginning of peace: but perfect peace is to have no wish at all for such vengeance.
This law, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, was enacted to repress the flames of mutual hate, and to be a check on their undisciplined spirits. For who when he would take revenge, was ever content to return just so much harm as he had received? Do we not see men who have suffered some trifling hurt, straightway plot murder, thirst for blood, and hardly find evil enough that they can do to their enemies for the satisfying their rage? To this immeasured and cruel fury the Law puts bounds when it enacts a lex talionis; that is, that whatever wrong or hurt any man has done to another, he should suffer just the same in return. This is not to encourage but to check rage; for it does not rekindle what was extinguished, but hinders the flames already kindled from further spread. It enacts a just retaliation, properly due to him who has suffered the wrong. But that mercy forgives any debt, does not make it unjust that payment had been sought. Since then he sins who seeks an unmeasured vengeance, but he does not sin who desires only a just one; he is therefore further from sin who seeks no retribution at all.
For without this command, the commands of the Law could not stand. For if according to the Law we begin all of us to render evil for evil, we shall all become evil, since they that do hurt abound. But if according to Christ we resist not evil, though they that are evil be not amended, yet they that are good remain good.
Or has your return blow at all restrained him from striking you again? It has rather roused him to another blow. For anger is not checked by meeting anger, but is only more irritated.
For it were an unworthy thing that a believer should stand in his cause before an unbelieving judge. Or if one who is a believer, though (as he must be) a worldly man, though he should have reverenced you for the worthiness of the faith, sues you because the cause is a necessary one, you will lose the worthiness of Christ for the business of the world. Further, every lawsuit irritates the heart and excites bad thoughts; for when you see dishonesty or bribery employed against you, you hasten to support your own cause by like means, though originally you might have intended nothing of the sort.
Because wealth is not ours but God's; God would have us stewards of His wealth, and not lords.
Christ bids us lend but not on usury; for he who gives on such terms does not bestow his own, but takes of another; he looses from one chain to bind with many, and gives not for God's righteousness sake, but for his own gain. For money taken on usury is like the bite of an asp; as the asp's poison secretly consumes the limbs, so usury turns all our possessions into debt.
(Mor. xxxi. 13.) There are, who are so far to be endured, as they rob us of our worldly goods; but there are whom we ought to hinder, and that without breaking the law of charity, not only that we may not be robbed of what is ours, but lest they by robbing others destroy themselves. We ought to fear much more for the men who rob us, than to be eager to save the inanimate things they take from us. When peace with our neighbour is banished the heart on the matter of worldly possessions, it is plain that our estate is more loved than our neighbour.
Condescending to human perversity, the law permitted retaliation so that men would not harm each other, out of fear of suffering the same themselves (Ex. 21:24).
(non occ.) The Lord having taught that we are not to offer injury to our neighbour, or irreverence to the Lord, now proceeds to show how the Christian should demean himself to those that injure him.
(non occ.) Or it may be said that the Lord said this, adding somewhat to the righteousness of the old Law.
Continue studying Matthew 5:38 across the web’s major study libraries — every link below opens this exact verse, chapter, or book on the destination site.
Read & Compare
BibleGatewayThis verse in more than 200 translations and 70 languages.
Bible.comThe YouVersion reader — hundreds of translations, reading plans, and highlights.
ESV.orgCrossway's official English Standard Version reader.
NET BibleThe NET translation with 60,000+ translators' notes on every rendering decision.
STEP BibleTyndale House's free study tool — original text, vocabulary, and scholarly resources.
BibliaLogos Bible Software's free web reader.
USCCBThe New American Bible (Revised Edition) with the U.S. bishops' study notes.
Commentaries
BibleHub CommentariesDozens of classic commentaries on this verse, gathered on one page.
StudyLightMore than 100 commentary sets — the largest collection on the web.
BibleRefPlain-English commentary on what this verse means, verse by verse.
Enduring WordDavid Guzik's free commentary on this chapter, widely used by Bible teachers.
Bible Study ToolsVerse commentary alongside Greek and Hebrew study aids.
Original Language & Research
- BibleHub InterlinearThe verse word by word — original language, transliteration, and English.
- BibleHub LexiconEvery word's original-language definition and Strong's entry.
Blue Letter BibleDeep-study tools — Strong's numbers, concordance, and word studies.
CNTR CollationThe earliest Greek manuscripts of this verse, collated letter by letter.
Sermons, Hymns & Audio
TrulyRandomVerse is not affiliated with these sites and doesn’t control their content. They’re linked because they’re genuinely useful.
Summary
Matthew 5:38 introduces one of Jesus' radical reinterpretations of the Mosaic Law within the Sermon on the Mount, where He challenges the traditional understanding and application of lex talionis. This verse sets the stage for Jesus to move His disciples beyond a principle of proportional civil justice, which prevented excessive retaliation, towards a higher ethic of non-retaliation and love in personal interactions, thereby revealing the deeper spiritual intent of God's kingdom.
Context
Literary Context
Matthew 5:38 is the fifth of six "antitheses" (or "You have heard... But I say to you...") found in Jesus' Sermon on the Mount. Following His declaration that He came not to abolish the Law but to fulfill it (Matthew 5:17), Jesus systematically addresses common interpretations of Old Testament commands, contrasting them with the true, deeper heart of God's will. This particular antithesis builds upon the previous teachings on anger (Matthew 5:21-26) and lust (Matthew 5:27-30), pushing His disciples towards an internal transformation that goes beyond mere external compliance. The phrase "An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth" is a direct quotation from the Mosaic Law, notably Exodus 21:24, Leviticus 24:20, and Deuteronomy 19:21, and Jesus' subsequent teaching in Matthew 5:39-42 provides the radical counter-point.
Historical & Cultural Context
The principle of lex talionis (Latin for "law of retaliation"), meaning "an eye for an eye," was a foundational concept in ancient Near Eastern law, including the Mosaic Law. Its primary purpose was not to encourage personal vengeance but to establish a principle of proportional justice in a legal system, preventing excessive punishment or unchecked revenge. For example, it ensured that a person who caused the loss of an eye would not be put to death, but would suffer a penalty equivalent to the injury caused. This law was intended for civil courts, administered by judges, not for individual citizens to exact personal retribution. However, by Jesus' time, it appears to have been popularly misconstrued or misapplied by some as a justification for personal vengeance or demanding exact repayment for wrongs. The Jewish legal tradition had also developed interpretations that allowed for monetary compensation in many cases rather than literal physical retaliation. Jesus' teaching here directly confronts this popular misapplication, challenging His audience to transcend the prevailing cultural norms of retribution.
Key Themes
This verse is central to the theme of Jesus fulfilling the Law by revealing its deeper, spiritual intent, as stated in Matthew 5:17. It highlights the contrast between external legalism and internal transformation, moving the focus from mere outward compliance to a heart attitude that reflects God's character. The principle of kingdom ethics is profoundly emphasized, calling disciples to a standard of righteousness that surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees (Matthew 5:20). Specifically, it introduces the theme of non-retaliation and radical love, setting the stage for Jesus' subsequent commands to turn the other cheek and love one's enemies (Matthew 5:39-48). It also underscores the distinction between civil justice and personal conduct, clarifying that while the state has a role in administering justice, individuals are called to a higher standard of grace and mercy in their personal interactions.
Exposition and Analysis
Key Word Analysis
The literal organ of sight, but here used metonymically to represent an injury to the person, specifically one that impacts a vital or significant part of the body. Its repetition signifies a direct, proportional equivalence in the context of legal retribution.
A primary particle meaning "opposite," "instead of," or "because of." In this phrase, it denotes substitution or requital, indicating that one thing is given or taken in place of another, establishing the principle of equivalence in the lex talionis.
A literal tooth, again serving as a specific example of bodily harm that requires an equivalent response according to the principle of lex talionis, emphasizing the precise nature of the legal recompense.
Verse Breakdown
"Ye have heard that it hath been said"
This opening phrase, characteristic of Jesus' antitheses in the Sermon on the Mount, indicates that Jesus is addressing a widely known and accepted teaching or interpretation. He is not necessarily condemning the Mosaic Law itself, but rather challenging the way it has been understood, applied, or perhaps even misapplied by His contemporaries. It sets up a contrast between the prevailing understanding and His own, deeper revelation of God's will.
"An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth"
This is a direct quotation of the lex talionis principle from the Old Testament Law. In its original context (Exodus 21:24, Leviticus 24:20, Deuteronomy 19:21), this principle served to limit vengeance and ensure proportional justice within the legal system, preventing excessive retaliation. It was a rule for judges and authorities, not a license for individuals to exact personal revenge. The repetition of the structure "X for X" emphasizes the concept of exact equivalence in retribution.
Literary Devices
Matthew 5:38 employs several significant literary devices. The most prominent is Antithesis, which defines the entire section of the Sermon on the Mount where Jesus contrasts "You have heard that it was said" with "But I say to you." This structure highlights Jesus' authority and His reinterpretation or fulfillment of the Law. The verse also uses Quotation, directly citing the Old Testament principle of lex talionis, which serves as the common understanding Jesus intends to challenge. Furthermore, Metonymy is present in "eye for an eye" and "tooth for a tooth," where "eye" and "tooth" stand in for any bodily injury or harm, representing the principle of equivalent damage or compensation. This specific phrasing also functions as a Proverbial Statement, a concise, memorable saying that encapsulates a widely accepted legal or moral principle.
Theological and Thematic Connections
Matthew 5:38 serves as a critical bridge between the Old Covenant's legal framework and the New Covenant's radical ethic of grace and love. While the lex talionis in the Old Testament was a divine provision to establish justice and limit disproportionate revenge within a civil society, Jesus elevates the standard for His followers. He shifts the focus from the state's role in administering justice to the individual's response to personal injury. This verse prepares the audience for a paradigm shift from a reactive, retributive mindset to a proactive, grace-filled approach, reflecting God's own character of mercy and self-sacrifice. It underscores that true righteousness in the Kingdom of God involves an internal transformation that transcends mere external adherence to the letter of the law, moving towards a spirit of reconciliation and non-retaliation.
Reflection and Application
Matthew 5:38 presents a profound challenge to our natural human inclination towards seeking retribution and demanding what we feel is "owed" to us when wronged. For believers, this verse calls us to move beyond a transactional understanding of justice in our personal relationships and embrace a higher, kingdom ethic of grace. It compels us to consider how we respond when we are hurt, insulted, or unfairly treated. Instead of retaliating in kind, seeking to "get even," or demanding exact repayment, Jesus calls us to a posture of non-retaliation, which opens the door for reconciliation and demonstrates a radical, counter-cultural love. This does not negate the need for justice in society, but it redefines how individual Christians are to interact, fostering a spirit of forgiveness and peace, even at personal cost. It reminds us that our primary calling is to reflect the character of God, who is rich in mercy and slow to anger, rather than to mimic the world's cycle of vengeance.
Questions for Reflection
FAQ
Was Jesus abolishing the Old Testament Law with this teaching?
No, Jesus explicitly states in Matthew 5:17 that He did not come to abolish the Law or the Prophets, but to fulfill them. In Matthew 5:38, Jesus is not negating the principle of lex talionis as a basis for civil justice, which was intended to limit vengeance and ensure proportional punishment administered by the authorities (Exodus 21:24). Instead, He is reinterpreting and elevating its application for His followers in their personal interactions. He moves the focus from a legalistic demand for retribution to a higher standard of personal conduct characterized by non-retaliation and radical love, revealing the deeper spiritual intent of God's heart for His people.
Christ-Centered Fulfillment
Matthew 5:38, by setting up the contrast between the Old Testament principle of lex talionis and Jesus' radical teaching, ultimately points to Christ Himself as the ultimate fulfillment of God's justice and mercy. While the "eye for an eye" principle limited human vengeance, Jesus embodies the divine response to human sin, which is not proportional retribution but sacrificial love. Rather than demanding an "eye for an eye" for humanity's rebellion, God, in Christ, offered His own Son as the perfect sacrifice. Jesus did not retaliate against those who persecuted Him, but instead, on the cross, He cried out, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do" (Luke 23:34). His life and death perfectly exemplify the non-retaliatory, self-giving love He commands His disciples to practice. Through His atoning work, He absorbed the full penalty for sin, satisfying divine justice, and thereby freed His followers to live by grace, extending forgiveness and mercy rather than demanding retribution, just as He did for them (Romans 5:8). The call to turn the other cheek and love enemies, which follows this verse, is only possible because Christ first demonstrated and enabled such a radical, kingdom-oriented way of life.