QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS,
QUESTION: Will you please explain the following verses to me? “Ye have heard that it hath been said, an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, that ye resist not evil : but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek; turn to him the other also;” – (Matthew 38, 39). N.G. (Essex).
ANSWER: Our Lord is quoting. from the Mosaic Covenant Code (Exodus 20-23), and particularly from the domestic laws (Exodus 21:24, 25). These laws are repeated elsewhere in the Pentateuch (Leviticus 24:19-21; Deuteronomy 19:21). The sense is a little obscure, but the rule seems to refer to a case in which the wife of a man who was quarrelling interfered. Possibly the punishment to be meted out for the injury could be decided upon by the husband, but if the injury was serious to the extent of the loss of a limb, or even of life, then a penalty was to be inflicted co-equal with the law of suffering, i.e., like for like. The root principle of this law originated in a simple conception of justice, and abundant evidence is to hand proving that it existed amongst the laws of many ancient nations. Aristotle (Ethic. v. 5) ascribed it to Rhadamantus. The Laws of Solon recognised it (Diogenes, Laert. i. 57). Strabo tells us that the ancient Indians practised it (Geography, xv p. 710), and Diodorus Siculus (xii. 17) that it was a principle among the Thurians, who were Greek colonists (among whom was Herodotus) settled in Lucania, near the site of the ancient City of Sybaris, South Italy.
It appears, therefore, that there was a maxim prevalent in Biblical and classical times that the magistrate had to award such compensation for personal injury as was approximately equal in worth or value to the power lost by the injured person. This view is supported by Jewish tradition, as is evidenced in the Mishna (Baba Kama, viii. i). It is known as “the law of retaliation “ (jus talionis), and in its early Mosaic conception was considered as the acme of justice.
But our Lord in the Sermon on the Mount has in view the true status and perfection of a Christian community based on the altruistic principle of doing unto others as we would that they should do unto us (Matthew 7:12). He quotes Exodus 21:24 as representing the form of the Law, in order to distinguish between the Letter and the Spirit. The Scribes and Pharisees tended to confuse the obligations of the conscience with the external requirements of the Law. The purpose of the Law, which was always to be “holy and just and good,” had for its direct purpose the protection of the community. It had, in one sense, nothing to do with the heart of the believer. The Law pointed to Christ, without Whom it had no practical, spiritual, and lasting good. The Christian is therefore no longer to extract eye for eye, tooth for tooth, but to forgive all injuries and to love his enemies.
Christ therefore does not contradict the Mosaic Law. He came not to destroy it, but to fulfil. Rather, therefore, does He expand and beautify it, showing that if the Christian community accepted His teaching the Mosaic Law would have done its work, and there would arise a kingdom in the hearts of men, ruled by Christian love, forgiveness, self-sacrifice and Christ-like fellowship. This was to be the ethical and Christian example of Israel redeemed, and, said Jesus, if ye love Me, keep My commandments.
