In the sermon on the mount, Jesus said “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 someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you. You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.” – Matthew 5:38-44
Thousands of years before that, God said “If a man injures his neighbor, just as he has done, so it shall be done to him: fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; just as he has injured a man, so it shall be inflicted on him.” – Leviticus 24:19-20
But isn’t this a contradiction? In Leviticus, we have God saying to Moses that if one man causes another man injury, then the man who was done wrong should do the same thing to him. But Jesus said in the sermon on the mount that if someone strikes you on the left cheek turn to him the other one also. Jesus even quoted this very passage in Leviticus before saying that. Is this a legitimate contradiction?
I don’t think it is. You see, the wider context of the Leviticus passage reveals that this passage was not about revenge at all, but about judicial punishment. God was telling Moses that anyone who commits a crime should have a punishment that fits the crime, and that a punishment that was too harsh for the crime committed was unacceptable. So for example, if a man murdered another man, capital punishment should be administered (Leviticus 24:17), anyone who takes the life of another animal must buy a replacement for that animal, or at least take the life of his own (Leviticus 24:28). God was trying to make sure that people weren’t punished too severely for whatever crime they committed. The punishment must match the crime.
However, just like in the modern era, people rip Bible passages out of context to try to support whatever they do. Just as people today rip Matthew 7:1 right out of its context to condemn all judging, so people in Jesus’ day ripped Leviticus 24:19-20 out of context in order to justify getting revenge on others. This is what Jesus was doing in Matthew 5. Jesus was correcting a misinterpretation of Leviticus 24:19-20 while at the same teaching that we ought to love our enemies, and do good to those who do evil to us.
So Jesus wasn’t contradicting His Father, He was correcting a misinterpretation of what His Father said.
What biblical evidence is there for this interpretation, though? Without any supplementary scriptural evidence this article is literally just saying, “nah I don’t think so, so probably not.” Not to mention, people love to SAY that Matthew 7 is out of context to condemn judgment but you also provide no scripture that justifies that takeaway either! Which becomes a huge problem because people have run with this to the point which they exalt themselves above others. Not to mention the sentiment behind Matthew 7 is echoed again and again by Jesus, in John 8, as one example. For goodness sake, The Man was crucified because of people’s judgment. Who are you to exalt yourself to the position of judge when we have One King in Heaven to do that? If you have an opinion please, PLEASE back it up with scripture if you are going to publish something with authority. God forbid it lead some in the flock to stray.
I did offer one strand of evidence. I said “You see, the wider context of the Leviticus passage reveals that this passage was not about revenge at all, but about judicial punishment. God was telling Moses that anyone who commits a crime should have a punishment that fits the crime, and that a punishment that was too harsh for the crime committed was unacceptable. So for example, if a man murdered another man, capital punishment should be administered (Leviticus 24:17), anyone who takes the life of another animal must buy a replacement for that animal, or at least take the life of his own (Leviticus 24:28). God was trying to make sure that people weren’t punished too severely for whatever crime they committed. The punishment must match the crime.” Don’t believe me? Go look up Leviticus 24 and read the whole chapter. In fact, read the chapters of Leviticus that come before and after this. “Eye for an eye” is clearly a judicial context.
.
But there’s more. Before Jesus starts commenting on various Old Testament passages, Jesus makes a disclaimer; “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets. I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them.” (Matthew 5:17). Now, of course, this verse is debatable itself. I recently watched a YouTube video by Pastor Brandon Robbins saying that this was a second temple idiom referring basically to proper interpretation of scripture (“fulfilling the law”) versus incorrect interpretation (abolishing the law). That in debates between different religious sets during the time of Jesus, if you thought someone was misinterpreting the Torah, you would say they were “abolishing the law”. Unfortunately, he didn’t cite any sources to back up this claim, but Robbins is pretty solid overall, so I’ll simply leave this an open possibility. Most interpret Matthew 5:17 as Jesus saying he wasn’t doing away with the Old Testament, but was going to fulfill it in Himself as the Messiah. This is the position I took in my Sermon On The Mount series on The Cerebral Faith Podcast. Then you have the modern day Judaizers who says this verse means we’re still bound to all 600 something laws of the Torah including Kosher laws. In any case, however you understand Jesus’ words in Matthew 5:17, what is clear is that Jesus is not throwing God’s previous revelation under the bust. It would seem deceptive at worst and obtuse at best for Jesus to say “I’m not doing away with/misinterpreting the law” and then go on to do just that. I take it to be a disclaimer because Jesus does quote OT verses with a “but”. “But I say unto you”. “You have heard it was said ‘do not murder’ but…” “You have heard it was said, ‘do not commit adultery’ but…” And in all cases, Jesus is either correcting common rabbinic misinterpretation, or he’s going deeper into the meaning of the commandments. In the case of murder and adultery, Jesus is saying that it isn’t good enough simply to refrain from murder and adultery, but that you must not even have the mindset of a murderer or an adulterer. Clean your heart of the murderous rage that leads to murder, and you will obey the 6th commandment. Don’t harbor lust for married women in your heart, and you won’t be on your way to committing adultery. (See Matthew 5:21-23, Matthew 5:27-28).
.
Moreover, the Old Testament itself was in favor of showing love and mercy to one’s enemies. For example, Proverbs 25:21 says “If your enemy is hungry, give him food to eat; if he is thirsty, give him water to drink.” (NIV) and Proverbs 20:22 says “Do not say, ‘I’ll pay you back for this wrong!’ Wait for the LORD, and he will avenge you.” (NIV). Jesus’ teachings on non-retaliation when personally wronged, and to love one’s enemies is right in line with the Old Testament.
.
The Bible is God’s word, all of it. 2 Timothy 3:16 says “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,” (ESV). As 2 Peter 2:1 says “For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.” (ESV). The Holy Spirit is not schizophrenic. He will not contradict Himself. If we think we’ve found a contradiction or error, we should assume that WE are the ones in error (see my article “My Theological Epistemology Explained” for more info). My conclusion is supported by contextual clues in the Sermon On The Mount itself, by The Old Testament passage Jesus is quoting (in its context), and from other Old Testament verses saying in effect, to turn the other cheek and to love your enemies.