Matthew 5:38 Commentary: Eye for Eye, Jesus on Retaliation

The formula 'eye for eye, tooth for tooth' appears in Exodus 21:24, Leviticus 24:20, and Deuteronomy 19:21. Similar laws existed in the Code of Hammurabi and other ancient Near Eastern codes. But Israel placed this principle under the authority of judges, who were to ensure that punishment did not exceed the crime, thereby preventing cycles of escalating violence. Deuteronomy 19:19 clarifies that the community, through its judges, would 'remove the evil from among you.' The law was a restraint, not an invitation.

By the first century, the scribes and Pharisees had turned this judicial guideline into a justification for personal revenge. Adam Clarke states they 'made this law a ground for authorizing private resentments, and all the excesses committed by a vindictive spirit.' Some Jewish teachers debated whether the law was meant literally. Gill notes that R. Sandish argued against a literal reading, since exact retaliation was impractical, while Ben Zeta insisted on the literal sense. Josephus allowed monetary compensation if the injured party agreed. Despite these debates, the common practice in daily life was often a spirit of payback.

Jesus steps into this confusion. He does not so much abolish the law as rescue it from distortion. He calls his disciples to a different response: instead of demanding rights, turn the other cheek, go the extra mile, give freely. This teaching applies to personal relationships, not to the justice system itself. The civil authority still bears the sword (Romans 13:4), but Christ's followers are to live by a higher ethic of grace, even when wronged.

The consulted sources note no significant manuscript variants for Matthew 5:38. The Greek text is stable. The phrase 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth' matches the Septuagint rendering of the Old Testament passages, indicating that Jesus is quoting a familiar formula.

Early church fathers such as Augustine saw this verse as a call to Christian non-retaliation and forgiveness, urging believers to absorb wrong rather than avenge it. During the Reformation, Calvin and Luther emphasized the judicial context, arguing that Jesus did not forbid the state from punishing evildoers. The Anabaptist tradition took the literal command as binding on all disciples, leading to their historic commitment to nonviolence. In the modern era, this passage has been central to Christian peacemaking movements and discussions about the role of Christians in the military and legal system. Across traditions, the verse challenges readers to examine how their response to personal offense reflects the heart of the Gospel.

Three-point outline

1. The Law's Original Context: The lex talionis was a judicial principle given to judges to ensure proportionate justice and prevent vengeance from spiraling out of control.
2. The Scribes' Distortion: They turned this court rule into a personal right to get even, misusing Scripture to justify private revenge.
3. Jesus' Higher Call: He does not remove the civil law but calls his followers to a life of non-retaliation, generosity, and active love toward those who wrong them.

Five-point outline

1. The Old Testament Framework: God gave the lex talionis to restrain vengeance, not encourage it (Exodus 21:24).
2. The First-Century Misinterpretation: The scribes applied it to personal grudges, ignoring its judicial context.
3. Jesus' Authority: 'But I say to you', Jesus speaks with divine authority, clarifying the true intent.
4. The Practical Examples: Turning the other cheek, giving your cloak, going the extra mile show what non-retaliation looks like in everyday conflict.
5. The Goal: To reflect the character of the Father, who is kind to the ungrateful and the evil (Matthew 5:45).

Illustration hooks

• A driver cuts you off in traffic. Your first instinct is to honk, speed up, return the rudeness. That is the 'eye for eye' mindset. Jesus invites you to let it go, to be generous instead of demanding your rights.
• Someone spreads a rumor about you at work. Your natural reaction is to defend yourself, set the record straight, maybe even expose their fault. Jesus points to a different path: one of grace and trust in God's ultimate justice.
• Being asked to do extra work when you already feel taken advantage of. Jesus' words about the extra mile are not a suggestion; they are an invitation to respond with unexpected generosity.

Questions your congregation is asking

• Does this mean I should never defend myself or my family from physical attack?
• If I take Jesus literally, won't people just take advantage of me?
• How does this relate to the justice system, should Christians press charges for crimes committed against them?

This passage challenges our natural sense of justice. We often want to get even when we are wronged. But Jesus calls us to something counter-cultural: a willingness to absorb wrong rather than retaliate. As you discuss, try to distinguish between the role of governing authorities (who enforce justice for the common good) and the personal ethic Jesus gives his disciples.

Discussion questions

1. In your own words, what was the original purpose of the law 'an eye for an eye' when it was given through Moses? Read Exodus 21:23-25 alongside Matthew 5:38.
2. How did the scribes distort this law? Why was their interpretation so appealing?
3. Jesus says 'do not resist an evil person.' What does he mean by 'resist' here, based on the examples he gives (cheek, cloak, mile)?
4. How can we tell the difference between seeking justice through proper authorities and pursuing personal revenge? When does the line blur?
5. Jesus' teaching on this is hard. What fears come up when we consider letting go of the right to retaliate?
6. Look at 1 Peter 2:23, how does Jesus himself model this teaching?
7. What is one small step our group could take this week to practice non-retaliation in a relationship where we feel provoked?