“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I tell you not to resist an evil per­son. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also. And who­ever compels you to go one mile, go with him two. Give to him who asks you, and from him who wants to borrow from you do not turn away.” (Matt. 5:38-42)

Suppose, for the sake of argument, we grant that in Matthew 5 our Lord is giving the true meaning of the law of Moses: specifically in verse 27, as it touches on adultery. That approach will not explain the contrasts in the verses quoted above. How can the real meaning of an eye for an eye be to turn the other cheek? In these verses, Christ has to be contrasting himself and his teaching with Moses and the law; however, it is a contrast and not a contradiction. In this passage, Christ is neither correcting a faulty interpretation of Moses nor explaining what Moses actually meant. He is showing again that his new law based on grace requires more than the law given at Sinai to Moses required. This is the new lawgiver laying down the new rules for people living in his kingdom. Some of these rules not only were impossible under the law, they would have been unlawful under the Old Covenant.

Look carefully at the text quoted above. If we accept the normal meaning of those words, and apply the same kind of reasoning we use when we interpret the rest of Scrip­ture, we find the following:

First, it is impossible to make these verses mean that Christ is contrasting his teaching with the alleged distor­tions of the Pharisees. Jesus said, “You have heard that it was said” and immediately quotes exactly what Moses said about an eye for an eye. As in Matthew 5:27, 28, our Lord here never mentions either the Pharisees or what they believed. There is nothing either explicitly or implicitly stated in Christ’s words in this text that can be used to prove that Christ’s “but I say unto you” statement contrasts his teaching with that of the Pharisees in any way. We would ask again as we did when discussing Matthew 5:27, 28, “Exactly what in the text, or context, tells us how the Pharisees were distorting what Moses said?” The text clearly and emphatically contrasts Christ’s teaching, not with distortions of Moses by the Pharisees, but with the teaching of Moses himself.

Second, nowhere in the entire Old Covenant legislation can we find anything that is similar to Christ’s but I say unto you statement in verses 39-42. If Christ was showing what Moses really meant, and if Moses indeed taught the same principle as Christ did in this contrast, why did Christ not cite that Mosaic teaching? Why did Christ simply not quote Old Covenant passages that command Israelites to turn the other cheek? That is what he did with Satan in Matthew 4. When Satan quoted a text and used it incorrectly, our Lord quoted another text that clarified the issue. If Moses some­how really had meant that the Israelites were to “turn the other cheek” when he said to “repay an eye for an eye,” then why did Christ not prove it with other passages of Scripture as he did with Satan? Likewise, those who insist that Moses still reigns as lawgiver would strengthen their argument if they could show us (1) where any New Testa­ment writers appeal to the eye-for-eye principle as a Chris­tian’s duty for today, and (2) where any Old Testament writers said or implied that the “eye for eye” legislation actually meant “turn the other cheek.”

It is impossible to read the turn-the-other-cheek princi­ple of the law of Christ back into the law of Moses or to read the eye-for-eye and tooth-for-tooth law of Moses for­ward into the New Covenant. We can find clear examples in the Old Testament Scriptures where people’s actions proved that the grace of God was operating in their hearts, but the law of Moses neither demanded those actions nor produced the motivation for them.^[1] We find many prov­erbs and laws in the Old Testament Scriptures that gave clear objective rules of conduct to an Israelite under the Old Covenant. However, we cannot find Christ’s new com­mandments based on grace (in Matthew 5:39-42) anywhere in the Old Testament Scriptures. Likewise, we cannot find any New Testament Scriptures that reaffirm the absolute duty of eye-for-eye and tooth-for-tooth without pity or mercy.

Third, the greater-includes-the-lesser principle cannot apply here. Even the most agile philosopher cannot twist “an eye for an eye without pity” into meaning “turn the other cheek.” There is no way that logic can deduce the turn-the-other-cheek law from a mandatory eye-for-eye and tooth-for-tooth law. Likewise, logical application of “the greater includes the lesser” principle cannot make “be sure every sin is justly punished” to actually mean “do not resist evil.” One is the true and righteous application of biblical justice under a covenant of law, and the other is the true and righteous application of biblical mercy under a cove­nant of grace. Neither the twisted logic of the Pharisees nor the Thomas Watson rules of interpreting Scripture can make this passage be anything other than a clear contrast between the holy, just, and good law of Moses and the holy, just, and higher law of Christ.

We may be reluctant to admit it, but if anyone other than our Lord were making these contrasts, we would accuse them of adding to the Word of God. In reality, that is ex­actly what Christ is doing. He changes and adds to the law of Moses, and he has every right to do both. Again, we insist that Christ is not saying that Moses was wrong and needed correction. Christ is saying, “Moses was perfectly correct in stating and enforcing the law of eye-for-eye and tooth-for-tooth justice for a nation of rebellious sinners under a covenant of law. I am stating and demanding, because of my saving grace and the indwelling Holy Spirit, a much higher law of mercy for my disciples in the king­dom of grace.”

Let us make sure we know what Moses meant in the law when he said, “eye for eye and tooth for tooth.” One source of confusion is the failure to accept that Moses meant ex­actly what he said. When we see the reason behind his legislation, we find it easier to see why these same laws cannot govern the church. God gave this particular legisla­tion to a physical nation composed of both rebellious un­believers and regenerate believers. God gave the New Testament Scriptures, including the Sermon on the Mount, to a spiritual nation consisting of only regenerate believers. In the Sermon on the Mount, our Lord clearly commanded his disciples both to do and to refrain from doing certain things that no one could have commanded under the law of Moses.

Many writers make unwarranted assumptions about what the Old Testament Scriptures meant in the eye-for-eye law, without actually exegeting the texts. They invaria­bly assume that the primary purpose of this particular law was to check the natural tendency for revenge. The fol­lowing quotation, by Martyn Lloyd-Jones, is typical.

The main intent of the Mosaic legislature was to control excesses. In this case in particular, it was to control anger and violence and the desire for revenge …^[2]

With sincere respect for one of the greatest men of God in this generation (to whom I am everlastingly grateful), I still must say that such a statement does not reflect the actual biblical data. The Old Testament passages neither state outright nor imply in any way that the main reason for the eye-for-eye legislation was to curb anger and re­venge. The main purpose was to ensure enforcement of exact punishment, without exceptions or mercy. That does not mean that I think Lloyd-Jones is entirely wrong in his comment.^[3] One secondary reason for this particular law, in non-serious cases, may have been to prevent excess pun­ishment; however, it was certainly not the only reason, nor even the main one. 

Three passages in the Old Testament Scriptures refer to the eye-for-eye and tooth-for-tooth law. Here is the first instance.

“If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely, yet no harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman’s husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. But 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.” (Ex. 21:22-25)

This passage falls in the midst of a longer section that chronicles the giving of the law on Mount Sinai. God gave the eye-for-eye law at the same time as he gave the Ten Commandments, and included it as part of the Book of the Covenant, sprinkled with blood. God gave Israel the Ten Commandments, or the basic covenant document (Ex. 34:1, 10, 27, 28), orally (Ex. 20). Then, God applied the laws to some real life situations (Ex. 21-23). Moses wrote down everything that God spoke to him (Ex. 20-23), including the Ten Commandments, and called that the Book of the Covenant. He then read the Book of the Covenant to all the people, and they entered into covenant with God, promis­ing to keep all of the laws in the Book of the Covenant. Moses then sprinkled both the people and the Book of the Covenant with blood.

“Then he took the Book of the Covenant and read in the hearing of the people. And they said, “All that the LORD has said we will do, and be obedient.” And Moses took the blood, sprinkled it on the peo­ple, and said, “This is the blood of the covenant which the LORD has made with you according to all these words.”” (Ex. 24:7-8)

In the light of the Old Testament text, it is misleading to say that the main object of this legislation (Ex. 21:22-25) was to control anger and violence and the desire for re­venge. The text neither states this explicitly nor implies it in any way. God was establishing the covenantal terms of his special relationship with his newly created nation. He was giving the rules that would govern the newly established theocracy. The eye-for-eye and tooth-for-tooth law was as much a part of the law of God for Israel’s rule of life as were the Ten Commandments.^[4]

The main purpose of this legislation was not to ensure that punishment would avoid inappropriate severity, but that those in authority would mete out adequate and just punishment. An additional purpose of this law was to set an example to act as a deterrent for potential law-breakers. The mandatory execution of this law was to be a means of keeping others from committing the same sins. I deliber­ately use the word sin instead of crime, because God dealt with violations of his covenant as sins against himself, and not just as crimes against society. This statute was far more than a law that provided social justice; it was a part of the legal covenant that established and maintained the special relationship of the nation of Israel with God. The eye-for-eye ordinance dealt with sin against God, and not merely crime against a neighbor. This legislation did not allow mercy, much less command it. It is impossible to read “turn the other cheek” into the Exodus text.

Israel was a theocracy governed directly by the law of God given to Moses. There is no such theocratic nation today, nor do the New Covenant Scriptures encourage us to establish one. Jesus Christ established a spiritual nation, not a physical one. Unlike Moses, who had no mandate to separate civil and ecclesiastical matters, Jesus tells his fol­lowers to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and unto God, what is God’s (Matt. 22:21). He provides rules for his church to follow in dealing with those inside the church who violate his laws. Jesus, through the Apostle Paul, strictly admonishes his people to keep their grievances out of the civil courts (1 Cor. 6:1-8). These matters are church matters, not civil matters, and we must not confuse the two arenas.

We must be careful that we do not try to protect the Mo­saic legislature from the charge of being cruel and inhu­mane. We must let the law of Moses say what it means and mean what it says. We must not do to God’s holy law what modern politicians have done to our penal system: they have made rehabilitation of the criminal the primary pur­pose of prison. Most people are eager to see the system do everything possible to teach and train inmates so that once they are released, they are able to function as law-abiding citizens and not return to prison. We agree that such a policy ultimately benefits both the criminal and society in general. However, we must not lose sight of the primary reason for the prison’s existence: the incarceration of crimi­nals as punishment for crime, and for the protection of society. Prison does not serve the primary function of pro­tecting the rights, promoting the well being, or providing the rehabilitation of the criminal; it exists to punish law breaking and to protect society. The same was true in Israel under the law of Moses. The primary purpose of the eye-for-eye law was to punish sin against God; not to ensure that punishment was not extreme. The goal of the law was the justice and honor of God; it was not the rights or pro­tection of the criminal (sinner). Our society has turned this truth upside down, and we must avoid importing our cultural biases into the biblical texts.

Exodus 21:22-25 provides distinctions between the method and degree of punishment when the injury was not serious compared to when it was serious. In the first in­stance, the offended party set the fine and received what­ever the court allowed as recompense. Both the offended party and the judge had some leeway in establishing the degree of punishment. Not only did this curb vengeance; it also allowed for forgiveness. If the offended party had so desired, the judge could have dismissed the case with no punishment at all. The eye-for-eye and tooth-for-tooth penalty only came into consideration when the offense was serious. At that point, neither the offended party nor the judge had any control at all over the terms or degree of punishment; God set the exact punishment as an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, with no questions asked. It was now the duty of the court and the judge to enforce, without pity or exception, God’s law of retribution. This was man­datory sentencing, with God himself setting the terms.

Theological presuppositions cause many writers to miss the point in this passage of Scripture. The purpose of the statute was primarily concerned with the violation of God’s law, and not with the restraint of anger. In this text, the eye-for-eye part of the law did not apply in any way to curbing revenge. Let us now look at the second eye-for-eye and tooth-for-tooth reference in Scripture.

“‘Whoever kills any man shall surely be put to death. Whoever kills an animal shall make it good, animal for animal. If a man causes disfigurement of his neighbor, as he has done, so shall it be done to him–fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; as he has caused disfigurement of a man, so shall it be done to him.’” (Lev. 24:17-20)

Again, the context shows that this is an application of the covenant law of God. It falls in the middle of an ex­tended discourse on offerings and sacrifices, food practices, priestly duties, regulations about what is clean and un­clean, feasts days and festivals, and rewards and punish­ments. The aspect of social justice is secondary. In this text, forgiveness and dismissal of the punishment are not op­tions. This law does not regard the depth an offender’s repentance as a mitigating circumstance; it makes no provi­sion for mercy or forgiveness. Covenant breaking mandates punishment. The exact amount of punishment was com­pulsory and clearly described by God.

In the verses immediately preceding this commandment (Lev. 24:10-16), God directed Moses to stone to death a man who had blasphemed God. Verses 17-20 provide the justifi­cation for such punishment. In verse 23, the text returns to the blasphemer, “Then Moses spoke to the Israelites, and they took the blasphemer outside the camp and stoned him …”

At least three concepts are important in this passage:

One: The stated purpose of the legislation was positive and not negative. Enforcement of the eye-for-eye and tooth-for-tooth law was not to keep anger under control and to limit punishment, but rather to ensure that judges actually enforced the deserved punishment. It is impossible to read, “The main intent of this law was to restrain anger and revenge” into Leviticus 24:17-20. Such an interpreta­tion destroys the true meaning of the text. Blasphemy is a sin against God so serious that blasphemers must die; murder is akin to blasphemy, and thus, murderers too must die.

Two: We cannot divide the various serious crimes men­tioned and say or imply that punishment was mandatory in some cases but not in others. The principle of eye-for-eye and tooth-for-tooth applies across the board. Capital pun­ishment was mandatory for murder and blasphemy, and like-degree punishment was mandatory for injuries done to the neighbor. Likewise, there is nothing in this text to indi­cate the possibility of a negotiated settlement with either dropped charges or the specific punishment determined by the offended party or the judges. God’s law clearly speci­fied everything. God demanded that the law was for both native-born Israelites and for aliens living within the bor­ders of Israel. The standard was uniform. It was eye-for-eye across the board to ensure the actual execution of just pun­ishment for every violation; it had nothing to do with curbing anger and the desire for revenge. We must accept what the text actually says.

There is nothing at all in this entire chapter, especially the verses just quoted, to indicate that the primary purpose of the eye-for-eye legislation was to curb revenge. We must not allow either our theological system or the taunts of liberals to force us into misrepresenting God’s Word. This text shows that under the Old Covenant, if you cursed God, eye-for-eye justice assured that God would curse you—and verse 19 clearly shows that the same eye-for-eye punishment was just as mandatory in all of the cases pre­sented. They all were sins against God’s covenant law. There is nothing in the text about “you may, if you choose, apply this punishment” but rather “you shall, because of justice.” The magistrate was an executor of God’s justice and not a referee to control men’s anger.

Three: It would not have been a legalistic distortion of the law to apply the punishments in the latter part of verse 19; it was exactly what the law demanded. In the same way, it would not have been a misapplication to exact capital punishment for blasphemy in verse 23. In both cases, the issue was God’s covenant law, and not merely actions that affected another human being. If it were only the latter, then human vengeance might have been in­volved and could have needed some controlling factor. When we think of the issue in terms of sin against the law of God, then it has a more serious nature. When we discuss Leviticus 24:17-25, we are talking not about a social con­tract, but about the covenant law of God that established and governed a theocratic nation. It is not incidental that the three instances in the Old Testament Scriptures of stoning to death involved picking up a few sticks on the Sabbath, saying a few words against God, and taking a few garments and some gold as spoils of war. If those actions were merely crimes against society, the punishment seems extreme and unwarranted. If they are sins against God, the severity of the punishment is commensurate with the na­ture of the offense. Did you ever wonder how long it was before anyone blasphemed God after the man was stoned to death in Leviticus 24?

The final reference to eye-for-eye justice in the Old Tes­tament Scriptures makes this last point even more clear:

“If a malicious witness takes the stand to accuse a man of a crime, the two men involved in the dispute must stand in the presence of the LORD before the priests and the judges who are in office at the time. The judges must make a thorough investigation, and if the witness proves to be a liar, giving false testimony against his brother, then do to him as he intended to do to his brother. You must purge the evil from among you. The rest of the people will hear of this and be afraid, and never again will such an evil thing be done among you. Show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.” (Deut. 19:16-21 NIV)

Notice carefully the following points in this passage:

One: There could be no pity; justice had to prevail. If the judge found proof that the witness was lying, the specified punishment of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth was mandatory. It is impossible to make this passage teach or imply that the main purpose (or even a secondary purpose) of the law was to curb anger and revenge and protect the offending party from too much punishment. If the liar’s accusation would have resulted in the death of the accused party, then the magistrate had no choice but to punish the liar with death. This law demands exacting punishment.

Two: The amount of punishment in this situation was in the hands of neither the individual offended nor the judge. God established the extent of retribution. The only aspect left to the court was to carry out the prescribed punish­ment; it was the judges’ duty to purge the evil out of soci­ety. The glory of God, the integrity of his law, and the good of God’s nation were the objects of this legislation.

Three: The text, verses 19-21, shows that this particular instance addressed a false witness (a situation directly addressed by one of the Ten Words, the covenant docu­ment). The false witness was to be given the exact penalty that the accused would have received if the lies had not been exposed. It was a literal, mandatory, eye for an eye.

Four: The sole purpose of the eye-for-eye and tooth-for-tooth law was the punishment of sin in order to demon­strate the justice of God and the need for conformity to the law. The sure and just punish­ment of infractions of God’s law would act as a deterrent to other would-be blasphem­ers and false witnesses. Neither the rights of the false wit­ness, nor the pity by the man lied about were factors that determined appropriate punishment. The law of God, which had been disobeyed, was now in charge of the situa­tion, and the courts of justice had to honor the punishment specified by God.

We have underscored the fact that the eye-for-eye and tooth-for-tooth punishment was in the hands, not of the individual, but of the court. Writers that take the view expressed by Lloyd-Jones and Pink also will make much of this fact. These writers teach that Christ is accusing the Pharisees of twisting the law of Moses by urging individu­als to take this law into their own hands and personally exact justice, rather than to allow the court and judges to handle the situation. This fits well with the idea that the main purpose of the eye-for-eye law was to curb anger and revenge. However, it does not fit the texts of Scripture. The following quotation from Lloyd-Jones typifies this view:

But perhaps the most important thing is that this enact­ment was not given to the individual, but rather to the judges who were respon­sible for law and order amongst the indi­viduals …. It was the judges who were to see to it that it was an eye for eye and a tooth for tooth and no more. The legisla­tion was for them, not for private individuals …. As far as the teaching of the Pharisees and scribes is concerned, their main trouble was that they tended to ignore entirely the fact that this teaching was for the judges only. They made it a matter of personal application.^[5]

Lloyd-Jones’ understanding may contain an element of truth, although that is impossible to verify from the text. However, to make this stand for either the whole truth or even the primary application of Christ’s teaching in this passage is to miss the main point. By demanding that his disciples, as individuals, should respond to injustice in a gracious way, Christ is actually doing the very thing that Lloyd-Jones identifies as the main problem of the Phari­sees. Christ is not directing his teaching to the magistrates and telling them how to apply Moses. Nor is he telling his disciples to return this matter to its proper sphere—the court. Christ is making what formerly was a magisterial matter now into a matter of personal application. He is telling his followers how they, as individuals, are to act under his new gracious law.

Christ, in this passage, is:

1. telling individuals not to act according to the Old Cove­nant eye-for-eye law of retaliation;
2. taking the respon­sibility for these actions out of the hands of the court and the judges;
3. placing the responsibility for the correct response en­tirely on the conscience of the individual disciples;
4. forcing his followers, as an individuals, to think and to re­spond in terms of his law, rather than in terms of Moses’ law.

Christ is not teaching his people to follow the law of Moses by acting in justice and refraining from too much punishment. He is teaching that citizens of his kingdom must be gracious toward each other and must not follow a mandatory eye-for-eye system of punishment. The magis­trate has no function in the situation that Christ describes. This does not mean that Christ advocates the abolition of the magistrate, nor do we. Christ, in this passage, gives instructions to the church, and not to society. The Sermon on the Mount does not replace the law of Moses as the new rule for a new theocratic society. Instead, it provides the rule for a spiritual nation; it teaches individual Christians within the new spiritual nation that they should determine their attitudes and actions, not by the law of just retribu­tion, but by the law of grace and love.

In these verses, Christ requires behavior that the law of Moses never could have demanded or even tolerated. He (1) puts the duty and behavior of New Covenant believers into the context of the law of his kingdom, instead of the law of the theocratic kingdom of Israel; and (2) makes the response to certain types of injustice a matter of individual conscience. Christ (3) demands that his followers live un­der the new laws that he gives; and (4) holds his people accountable as individuals to personally take his new laws into their own hands. Christ is commanding his New Covenant people to respond in grace and pity in the same situation that, under the Old Covenant of law, the Israelites had to handle without pity by eye-for-eye justice.

Under Mosaic justice, individual conscience could not rule, and love could not supercede the edicts of the penal code. This held true for both the offended party and the judge. The criterion for cases of lawbreaking was, “What does the law say and require?” Under the law of Moses, the answer was appropriate retribution: an eye for an eye. Under Christ’s new law, the individual’s conscience must rule, but it is not autonomous. It is bound to Christ by love, and justice may not supercede the love of Christ.

In the Sermon on the Mount, Christ is commanding (making a law) that individual disciples in his kingdom of grace do the very thing that Lloyd-Jones accused the Phari­sees of urging their disciples to do. Christ’s demands on the subjects of his kingdom simply were not possible for any magistrate or court (including Moses and all of his laws) to make on their subjects. Once more, Christ is showing the vital difference between rules under a cove­nant of law and rules under a covenant of grace. Both methods of rule are “holy, just, and good,” but the latter is superior to the former, because it is rooted in the better promises of the New Covenant and energized by the in­dwelling Holy Spirit. Both methods of rule have clear ob­jective standards and, in many instances, the content of the rules may be the same. However, the law of Moses could neither demand nor produce the kind of behavior that Christ is demanding in the Sermon on the Mount. The Holy Spirit can, and does, produce that kind of behavior in the life of New Covenant believers.

This contrast is simple and straightforward once we un­derstand that there has been a change of covenants. We are not in any way demeaning Moses and God’s holy law given through him when we exalt Christ and his new laws. The entire New Testament demonstrates the weakness and inability of the law of Moses as a covenant when compared with the New Covenant in the blood of Christ. Does the writer of Hebrews (Heb. 8:6-13), or does Paul (2 Cor. 3:6-11), demean the Old Covenant of Moses when either shows why both Moses and his law covenant had to be replaced with a new and better covenant?

Christ solves the real problem with the Old Covenant, not by giving an interpretation of its true spiritual mean­ing, but by replacing it with a new and better covenant based on better promises. These better promises will make certain the realization of God’s ultimate goal (Heb. 8:6-13; 10:1-18). The authors of the New Testament Scriptures declare with great joy (John 1:17; Heb. 10:16-18; 1 Cor. 11:23-26) that in Christ, under his New Covenant, both the goal of God and the expectations and hopes of the true believer living under the Old Covenant (Jer. 31:33, 34; 1 Pet. 1:10-12) are realized. The establishment of the New Cove­nant through the finished work of Christ fulfills all the promises of God (1 Cor. 1:20; Heb. 11:13, 39).

This does not mean that there was no gracious behavior exhibited among the Old Testament saints. The incident mentioned earlier concerning Abraham and Lot demon­strates the concept of turning the other cheek. Joseph’s treatment of his brothers is equal to anything in the New Testament Scriptures except the behavior of our Lord him­self. The point is that the Mosaic covenant of law would contradict itself if it demanded (legislated as law) such behavior. Law cannot legislate an eye for an eye and, at the same time, demand that one turn the other cheek without being self-contradictory. The Mosaic law with its eye-for-eye edict would not have allowed, let alone commanded, Joseph to forgive his brothers and spare them from death. They would have been stoned to death with no questions asked under the law of Moses. The choice to either forgive or justly punish a violation of God’s law was not an option under the law of Deuteronomy 19:16-21.

Perhaps several simple questions will help clarify our thinking:

1. Is it essential that magistrates and courts enforce the laws of our land, or should they allow murderers and false witnesses to go unpunished?
2. Is it possible for a magistrate to either demand or force an individual to show grace and to refrain from protecting himself against injustice?
3. Do the answers to these two questions point out the distinct and vital difference between what it means to be under the law of Moses as compared to the law of Christ? That distinction should be obvious to any honest and literal interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount and the rest of the New Testament Scriptures.

In other words, it is essential to see that Deuteronomy 19:16-21 is the basis of justice upon which a magistrate settles dis­putes. In principle, that is the law of our land today. When the court forces an individual to pay to fix a fender that he or she dented in an automobile accident, but refuses to make him or her pay for other things wrong with the car that were not caused by the accident, the magistrate is applying the principle of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. The magistrate upholds the law by saying that the penalty must fit the crime (eye-for-eye), and the just pen­alty must be paid. All agree on this point; however, we must also ask if the main purpose of this law is to protect against excessive payment, or if it instead is to make sure that the responsible party pays for the repair of the fender.

It is essential that Matthew 5:39-42 should not become the law of the land and be put into the hands of the magis­trate. How would you like to live in a society where a judge could force you to give or loan to every individual that asked you? What would you say if you hit someone’s 1975 car and slightly dented one fender and the magistrate told you that you had to buy the person a brand new Oldsmo­bile just because it was a gracious thing to do? You would rightly claim that the judgment was contrary to justice.

We would say the same thing to any civil judge that tried to make Christ’s words in Matthew 5:39-42 the basis of his or her decisions. Judges can only make judgments and demands based on the accepted law of the land. They cannot make demands based on the law of a different land. Christ can and does demand, in the sense of command­ment, a gracious response from his disciples because they live under the law of his kingdom. Grace characterizes both the king and his subjects. This is an essential difference between the legal covenant of Moses and the gracious covenant of Christ. Failure to see this radical contrast and vital difference causes a mixing of the law of two different kinds of kingdoms and a distortion of the doctrines of both justification and sanctification.

As Christians living under the gracious New Covenant, we gladly put our consciences under the obligation to obey the clear objective laws of the kingdom of Christ delineated in Matthew 5-7. Christ not only has the right to make these new and higher laws, but he also can ground his demand on the fact of his death, and not the threat of our death.

Not only does Christ demand of his disciples much more than Moses actually legislated, but also more than one can logically deduce from that legislation. The New Covenant embodies laws that the Old Covenant could not have embodied without contradicting itself. In some cases, our obedience to Christ’s new demands actually makes our behavior, based on grace, to be something that the Mosaic law could not even have allowed, let alone demanded.

Christians may forgive a false witness, but an Israelite, under the law of Moses, would not have had that choice. A false witness violated God’s covenant and had to be pun­ished accordingly (Deut. 19:16-21). Subjects of Christ’s kingdom must express pity and show grace in the same situation where an Israelite was specifically forbidden to show pity and a judge was compelled to enforce an eye for an eye. Under the law of Moses, vindication of justice and the honor of God’s law in judg­ment took precedence over everything else. Under the New Covenant in Christ’s blood, God’s honor has been upheld, his justice has been satisfied, and love now takes precedence over all else. This is one of the main differences between being under the law of Moses and being under the law of Christ.

We continue to emphasize that this is not to suggest that there was no grace or mercy under Moses’ law. A physical nation under a legal covenant and a spiritual nation under a gracious covenant are two entirely different things. Moses and Israel are not Christ and the church. The law in the hands of Moses, as a covenant of life and death, and func­tioning as a convicting pedagogue in the conscience, and the indwelling Holy Spirit of adoption functioning as both a pedagogue and a paraclete in the renewed conscience and life of a New Covenant believer are not at all the same situation. The difference is between the nature of rule by a sword and justice, which is holy, just, and good, under a covenant of law, and the nature of rule by the cross and mercy under a covenant of grace which is holy, just, and better.

One modern commentator gives a clear and simple summation of Matthew 5:38-42. After covering the mean­ing of the three texts in the Old Testament Scriptures that mention the eye-for-eye law, he concludes this way:

 … And most important of all, it must be remem­bered that the Lex Talionis [Law of “eye for eye” or “tit for tat”] is by no means the whole of the Old Testament ethics. There are glimpses and even splendors of mercy in the Old Testament. “Thou shalt not avenge or bear any grudge against the chil­dren of thy people” (Leviticus 19:18). “If thine enemy be hun­gry, give him bread to eat; if he be thirsty, give him water to drink” (Proverbs 25:21). “Say not, I will do so to him as he hath done to me” (Proverbs 24:29). “He giveth his cheek to the smiter; he is filled with reproach” (Lamentations 3:30).

So, then, ancient ethics were based on the law of tit-for-tat. It is true that law was [not] a law of mercy; it is true that it was a law for a judge and not for a private individual; it is true that there were accents of mercy at the same time. But Je­sus obliterated the very principle of that law, because retalia­tion, however controlled and restricted, has no place in the Christian life.^[6]

Mercy and pity were not options for the court system of the nation of Israel. Justice and fitting retribution were the rule of the day. God, through Moses, gave laws to govern a physical nation made up of both regenerate and unregen­erate people. Christ has come as the full and final expres­sion of God’s character. He gives rules for his kingdom; a kingdom made up of only regenerated people who desire to imitate their king. Mercy and pity are not options for the lifestyle of God’s spiritual nation, the church. They are the new rule of the new day.

We need to say one more thing before we leave this subject. The Covenant Theologian insists that the Ten Commandments are the unchanging “moral law.” He must insist that Jesus never in any way changes any part of the moral law. This is why he insists that Jesus is not contrast­ing his teaching with the teaching of Moses in the “moral law.” We must realize that not everything in the Sermon on the Mount is dealing with one of the commandments in the “moral law.” Matthew 5:38 is dealing with “civil law” and not “moral law” as Covenant Theology defines those terms. If Covenant Theology is consistent with its view of the Sermon on the Mount and its terminology of moral law, it would seem they have handed Theonomy the keys to the front door of the church on a silver platter.

---