An Eye for An Eye Is Not Okay

An Eye for An Eye Is Not Okay.

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 the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.” (Matthew 5:38-41). Most people, Christians included, have the impulse to retaliate when we have been wronged. Whether it was only our dignity or whether the assault was physical in nature, we crave vengeance. Not only do we want to pay the offender back in kind, but we often want them to suffer even more than we did.

A man was driving under the influence in a quiet suburban neighborhood when he lost control of his vehicle and killed an innocent child on the sidewalk. The father of the deceased girl was enraged and wanted revenge, impatiently waiting for the opportune time. That moment presented itself in a courtroom. During the proceedings, the father jumped over the banister separating the accused from the audience and stabbed him multiple times, shouting, “You killed her! An eye for an eye.” While we can certainly understand his anger, we should not condone the actions of the bereaved father. The problem is, many Christians would say, “He got what he deserved,” but that is not a scriptural response.

Our empathy for the emotional distress the father was suffering should not cloud our Christian judgment. That first phrase Jesus quoted from Exodus 21:24, “…eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,” is often used to justify someone’s actions. But the context of that verse does not suggest a general response to an offense. You see, it was part of the section known as “Lex Talionis,” which means the “law of retaliation” or “law of retribution,” and was intended to prevent excessive. In fact, it was a guiding ethic for a judge hearing the case. If someone’s actions cost a victim an eye, the punishment was compensation equal to the eye, not actually the disfiguring of the offender.

The authoritative and directive nature of the rest of Jesus’s words indicates the proper response was/is a command rather than a suggestion. He tells us in no uncertain terms what is expected of us when confronted with aggressive behavior. In the New Testament time, slapping someone on the cheek was the ultimate expression of insulting and demeaning someone. By turning the other cheek, the victim absorbed the insult and maintained their dignity. He also said to offer the cloak, the more valuable article, when the tunic was taken, which was meant to surprise the offender with superior generosity. The audience was also told to walk two miles when compelled to walk one, the distance a Roman soldier could force a citizen to carry his gear for. This is yet another expression of repaying with kindness rather than anger.

Jesus concludes the passage by instructing His followers to “Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you,” again emphasizing responding to wrongdoing with generosity. Through these vivid illustrations, Jesus makes it clear that His kingdom ethic is one of superior morality. Of course, it is extremely hard to respond in kindness when we have been wronged, but always remember that we are ambassadors for God’s kingdom. Our response to aggression, whether verbal or physical, either glorifies God by showing a better way or glorifies the evil one by responding in kind.