Matthew 5:38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ 5:39 But I say to you, do not resist the evildoer.”

The so-called lex talionis is found in Ex 21:24; Lev 24:19–20; Dt 19:21.

According to Greg Boyd (Cross Vision), this is the most ‘astonishing’ example of Jesus repudiating an OT law.  This law required a person’s punishment to correspond to the severity of their crime.  The law was given not to limit the punishment (as some have argued), but to stipulate how much a person must retaliate.  Jesus goes on the enunciate precisely the opposite attitude and behaviour, by requiring his followers to ‘turn the other cheek’ and to love and bless their enemies.

In Boyd’s reading, this text exemplifies a radical discontinuity between the teaching of the OT and that of the NT.  But Boyd’s interpretation is idiosyncratic, unjustified and (I think) unjustifiable.  As many commentators have pointed out, Jesus not so much repudiating the OT law, but rather filling it out (extending it and demonstrating its deeper meaning).  He does not contradict the law, but extends it.  Where the law puts a limit on personal revenge, Jesus teaches that his people should not seek revenge at all.

Although, in the book just mentioned, Boyd does not attempt to defend his interpretation, he does so here, in response to Paul’s Copan’s critique of his (Boyd’s) larger work, The Crucifixion of the Warrior God.  Copan maintains that the lex talionis applied the public office, and Jesus is objecting to its application, by his contemporaries, to personal vengeance.  Boyd’s response is threefold:

(a) Jesus is certainly (in Boyd’s view) referring to the OT command itself, and not to some alternative teaching;

(b) The OT context of these commands shows that they are dealing with interpersonal behaviour, and not with the judiciary.

(c) It is invalid to posit a distinction between what is appropriate at a personal level and what is appropriate at the level of the public judiciary.

I don’t find Boyd’s defence convincing.

(a) This law originally applied to the public judiciary, but in Jesus’ day it was commonly applied in the area of personal behaviour.

Calvin: Jesus had in mind that the law, was originally intended to be applied by judges, in their official capacity; whereas it had later been misapplied as a justification for personal vengeance.  Jesus does not oppose civil law, providing that the severity of the punishment does not exceed the severity of the crime.  But it does not apply to personal wrongs, which should be met with an attitude of generous forgiveness.

Matthew Henry: The law was intended to put a restraint on the degree of punishment allowable in a given case.  It should be proportionate.  This principle still applies to law-givers, and law-enforcers.  But it does not apply to individuals, who are to exercise the grace of forgiveness.  Our recompense is in the hands of God.

Barnes: What Jesus is correcting is the tendency to apply the law to private retaliation, whereas it was intended to be used by magistrates.

John Wenham (Christ and the Bible, and also here): Our Lord’s repudiation of the ‘eye for an eye’ principle ‘cannot fairly be said to be a repudiation of what in its context the Old Testament taught. In Ex 21:24, Lev 24:20 and Deut 19:21 we have laws given for the administration of public justice. The practice of private revenge and family feud was to be replaced by strictly fair and impartial public administration of justice. In our Lord’s day this excellent, if stern, principle of judicial retribution was being utilized as an excuse for the very thing that it was instituted to abolish, namely personal revenge. Our Lord gives no hint that He wishes to see the magistrate relaxing his important social function of witnessing to the majesty of the Law and to the sanctity of justice, but He does discourage His disciples from appealing to justice when it is for the merely selfish purpose of gaining their own rights.’

Hendriksen: This was a law for the civil courts, but the religious leaders of Jesus’ day appealed to it to justify personal vengeance.  Thus, they defeated its very purpose, and in doing so denied the repeated teaching of the OT itself (Lev 19:18; Prov. 20:22; 24:29).

John Stott: the scribes and Pharisees extended the principle of retribution from the law courts (where it belonged) to the sphere of personal relationships (where it did not belong).  In the former, justice should rule, in the latter, love should be pre-eminent.

Schreiner (40 Questions about Biblical Law): The epithet ‘antitheses’ is misleading.  Jesus is not setting the law aside, but responding to a misinterpretation of it.  He did not dispute its relevance in official sphere, but opposed the notion that it could be applied in the personal sphere.  This is affirmed also by Paul, who commands believers to ‘never avenge’ themselves, but rather to do good to their enemies (Rom 12:20ff), but then goes on to affirm the role of governing authorities in rewarding good conduct and punishing evil (Rom 13:1-7).

The gracious and just OT “law of the tooth” is still legitimate civil legislation and will always remind the community that God wants justice and is not pleased when the taking of an eye goes unpunished. It is an important part of love that there be social justice.

(b) The main intent of the law was to ensure that the severity of punishment did not exceed the seriousness of the crime

Some acknowledge a prescriptive element in the OT command, whle recognising its strongly restrictive intent, and insisting that Jesus does not annul, and but fulfils it:

Carson, in The Sermon on the Mount: This law may have been prescriptive, but it was certainly restrictive.  It was intended to be discharged by the judiciary, not by individuals bent on personal vendettas.  In Jesus’ day, the prescriptive element was probalby emphasised, at the expence of the restrictive aspect.

Carson (EBC): The lex talionis did not encourage, far less require, vengeance.  The law expressly forbade that (Lev 19:18).  Its purpose, rather, was to provide a ready and fair formula for punishment, and to limit retaliation.

Blomberg (NAC): While formally repudiating the OT law, Jesus intensifies and internalises its application, preventing both excessive punishment and personal vigilante action.

Blomberg (New Testament Use of Old Testament): It looks, at first glance, as if Jesus is repudiating the Mosaic law (in self-contradiction, cf. Mt 5:17).  What seems like a formal annulment may indeed be designed to bring out he original purpose, which was to restrict the severity of the punishment.

The main intent of the command was to establish proportionality in punishment:

Harper’s Bible Commentary: ‘The old Torah injunction was not intended to encourage revenge, but to restrict it: only an eye, not a life.’

France (TNTC): The intention of the law was not to sanction personal revenge, but to prevent excessive revenge by insisting that the magnitude of the punishment should not exceed that of the crime.

Wright: The OT law was designed to limit personal revenge.  Better that the punishment fit the crime than for an escalating feud to develop.  But Jesus takes it further: better to have no vengeance at all, but rather reflect the patient love of God himself.

Osborne: The purpose of the lex talionis was not to encourage retaliation but to ensure that the punishment did nt exceed the crime and to prevent personal vigilante behaviour.

Wilkins (NIVAC): The law of retaliation was established to prevent excessive punishment.

Hagner (WBC): the lex talionis was intended as a way of limiting the degree of personal veneance, rather than as a positive teaching about what an individual must or should do.

William Barclay (DSB): This law is sometimes thought of as one of the most savage in the OT.  But it was originally intended to limit, not promote, vengeance.  Moreover, it took away the right to private retaltiation and put the matter in the hands of a judge, who would use it to assess the suitability of a punishment for a given crime.

Gundry (Matthew Commentary and NT Commentary): In the ancient world, punishments often exceeded the crime.  The lex talionis required that wrong-doers be punished (cf. Deut 19:15-21), but required also that they be not punished excessively.

Michael Green: This law was designed not to justify retaliation but to limit it.  It was not permissive but restrictive.  Jesus takes it further, by teaching that there is no place at all for personal revenge.

F.F. Bruce (Open Your Bible Commentary): The lex talionis originally marked an improvement in civilised behaviour  when it replaced the blood-feud and required the scale of punishment be proportionate to the scale of the crime.  Jesus’ teaching marks a further advance, by teaching that his followers should not retaliate at all.

Bruner: The lex talionis restrained personal revenge and taught justice.  It is still legitimate civil legislation.  God is not honoured if crime goes unpunished.