Being counter-cultural in Matthew 5 – An eye for an eye.

Let’s read Matthew 5:38-42
You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’  But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

We have already looked at the concept of an ‘eye for an eye’ briefly back in March when discussing ‘blessed are the peacemakers’, and now we have the opportunity do so in more detail.

Once again Jesus referred back to a regulation from the Old Testament law and then, speaking with the authority God had given him, explained what the true purpose of that commandment had been and provided a better way.

One passage he may have had in mind was Exodus 21:23-25
If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

However the immediate context of those verses would suggest they are referring more specifically to harm caused when a pregnant woman is injured and caused to miscarry.

It’s perhaps more likely he was quoting from Leviticus 24:19-21
Anyone who maims another shall suffer the same injury in return: fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; the injury inflicted is the injury to be suffered. One who kills an animal shall make restitution for it; but one who kills a human being shall be put to death.

This idea is known in legal terms as lex talionis or ‘the law of exact retaliation’. The principle behind it is not found only in the Old Testament and can, for example, also be seen in the Code of Hammurabi, an ancient Babylonian legal text.

As I pointed out last time, to modern eyes this concept can seem barbaric.

Mahatma Gandhi, famous for his policy of non-violent resistance, is thought to have been the first to coin the saying “An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind”. Martin Luther King Jr said similar words in the context of wishing to discourage racially motivated violence during the American Civil Rights movement.

And as we have already seen, Jesus himself found fault with this commandment, or at least with the way it was being applied, and wanted to suggest a better alternative.

What was the point?

The principle of ‘an eye for an eye’ was legislated in the Old Testament not to encourage retaliation or tit-for-tat vigilanteism, but to prevent them from happening.

It didn’t give an offended party carte blanche to take revenge on someone who had caused harm to them or their family or possessions. The case had to be taken to the local judges or elders who would weigh up the complaint and make a decision on what punishment if any should be applied to the guilty party.

It was a legal procedure designed to bring the matter to a conclusion that would not cause either party to continue seeking revenge or violence upon the other. The offended party could be satisfied that the guilty party had received justice. The guilty party could be satisfied that their punishment was proportionate to the harm they themselves had caused in the first place.

It was specifically designed to prevent the offended party or their relatives from taking matters into their own hands and inflicting disproportionate harm on the guilty party, something that might naturally be expected to happen in a tribal society. This sort of revenge attack could easily lead to further retaliation coming back the other way, with both sides eventually descending into an endless tit-for-tat conflict that could escalate further and further out of control.

Far from being a ‘barbaric’ notion, the principle of an ‘eye for an eye’ was intended to stop potentially hostile family groups from descending into barbarism.

Let it go

Jesus, however, went even further than that. He taught that if someone were to cause you harm, you shouldn’t even seek to bring legal proceedings against them. You should simply let it go.

According to the examples he gave, if someone were to physically attack you or take something from you, you shouldn’t appeal for them to experience a proportionate punishment for these offences, as the Old Testament law permitted.

And it’s even more than that. By turning the other cheek, you would almost be inviting your attacker to hit you a second time. By handing over more than your opponent had originally tried to take from you, you would voluntarily be accepting an even greater loss of personal goods.

The instruction to go a second mile is likely a reference to the fact that the officials or military personnel of the Roman Empire – who were in charge at the time – had the power to force local civilians to help with tasks such as carrying objects or joining in building projects.

This doesn’t seem to be particularly an ‘eye for an eye’ scenario, but the same principle applies: if someone in a position of power or privilege forces you to do something, don’t resist or look for a reason not to. Don’t even settle for doing the bare minimum they ask. Do more than they ask.

In verse 42 Jesus taught that we should always be willing to give and to lend our money or possessions to anyone who asks.

A Christian needs to be able to show that he or she is not afraid of physical harm or loss of possessions, and that he or she trusts God to always provide what is needed.

Do we do that?

If you are a Christian, how often do you actually do what Jesus taught in these verses?

I’ve certainly been in situations when someone has attacked me or tried to to take something from me, and I’ve been able to resist the temptation to retaliate, and instead simply walked away.

However, I’m struggling to think of a time when I’ve actually remained where I was and allowed someone to hit me a second time.

And I can certainly think of times when I’ve only done the bare minimum of a task I’ve been told to do, or told someone that I couldn’t give them what they were asking for.

Avoiding retaliation is one thing. Going the extra mile is quite another. Self-preservation kicks in. Nobody wants to be thought of as a doormat who can be walked all over by unscrupulous people.

I think it can plausibly be argued that in these verses Jesus wasn’t issuing hard-and-fast commandments that were to be followed to the letter in literally all circumstances. He was trying to teach a principle, namely that it’s not enough for a Christian simply to abstain from doing the wrong thing (in this case retaliation). A Christian needs to go even further than that and actively do something positive in a negative situation.

To take a simple example from daily life, it’s not enough just to avoid cursing and making rude gestures at another driver who tries to force his way in front of you in busy traffic, or steals your space in the car park. Let him do it.

Or if someone steals and takes credit for an idea you came up with, it’s not enough just to drop the matter. Let them have it and celebrate their success.

It’s not simply a case of resisting our natural impulses to fight back and assert ourselves. Let’s be honest – many of the times we didn’t retaliate, it was as much to do with fear or politeness as anything else.

What Jesus really wants us to do is override our natural impulses and do positive acts of generosity or humility that might seem nonsensical to most people.

That’s what it means to be counter-cultural.