PREGUNTA BÍBLICA
Does 'Do Not Resist Evil' Contradict 'An Eye for an Eye'?
Jesus does not abolish the lex talionis but fulfills it by exposing its true purpose and pushing its demand beyond courtroom limits into personal response.
Respuesta
Jesus frames the contrast the same way in every antithesis of this chapter: 'Ye have heard… but I say unto you.' He is not setting His word against Moses; verse 17 explicitly states, 'I came not to destroy, but to fulfil.' The lex talionis (Exodus 21:24; Leviticus 24:20; Deuteronomy 19:21) was a judicial rule given to curb unlimited vengeance and to ensure proportional punishment in legal settings. It protected the vulnerable by preventing cycles of escalating retaliation.
The phrase 'an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth' quoted in Matthew 5:38 was therefore a curb on private revenge, not a license for it. Jesus honors that curb but insists that His disciples not stay inside it. Verse 39 — 'resist not him that is evil: but whosoever smiteth thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also' — moves the principle from the courtroom (where equal punishment is required) into the personal sphere (where the disciple's voluntary, non-retaliatory response bears witness).
So this is neither abolition nor contradiction; it is fulfillment in the prophetic sense Jesus elsewhere calls 'filling up' the law's demand (Matthew 3:15). The standard of righteousness required of kingdom citizens must exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees (verse 20). Retaliation was never the law's终点; it was its floor. Jesus reveals the law's ceiling — likeness to the Father who 'maketh his sun to rise on the evil and the good' (verse 45).
Contexto
The question assumes a clash between Matthew 5:39 ('resist not him that is evil') and the lex talionis quoted in verse 38. Read carefully, verse 17 sets the framework: Jesus is not contradicting Scripture but deepening its demand. The Old Testament principle governed courts, not personal grudges; Jesus pushes the same logic into the disciple's heart, where retaliation is renounced, not refined.
Note also that Jesus' examples (cheek, coat, mile) involve private wrongs where the disciple, not a judge, controls the response. Romans 13:1-4 and Acts 25:11 still assume the state bearing the sword, so this is not a blanket prohibition on legal justice — it is a call for the disciple personally to absorb the offense rather than repay it.
Escrituras relacionadas
- Matthew 5:38 This verse is the Old Testament principle Jesus is engaging with, not erasing. The lex talionis was given to limit vengeance in judicial proceedings (Exodus 21:24; Leviticus 24:20; Deuteronomy 19:21); verse 39 then asks disciples to extend that same restraint into personal response.
Preguntas frecuentes
Does 'do not resist evil' mean Christians can never defend themselves or seek justice?
No. Jesus' command governs personal retaliation, not public justice. Romans 13:1-4 still assigns the sword to the governing authority. Matthew 5:39 targets the disciple's voluntary response to private wrongs, not lawful protection of the vulnerable.
Did Jesus break His own teaching when He drove out the money-changers?
Not according to the text. Driving out merchants was an act of prophetic judgment in His Father's house, not personal vengeance for a private wrong done to Him. The lex talionis and Matthew 5:39 address personal retaliation, not righteous public confrontation of evil (John 2:13-17).