Matthew 5:38

Ye have heard that it hath been said-- (Exo 21:23-25; Lev 24:19-20; Deu 19:21). An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth--that is, whatever penalty was regarded as a proper equivalent for these. This law of retribution--designed to take vengeance out of the hands of private persons, and commit it to the magistrate--was abused in the opposite way to the commandments of the Decalogue. While they were reduced to the level of civil enactments, this judicial regulation was held to be a warrant for taking redress into their own hands, contrary to the injunctions of the Old Testament itself (Pro 20:22; Pro 24:29).

In these verses the law of retaliation is expounded, and in a manner repealed. Observe, I. What the Old Testament permission was, in case of injury; and here the expression is only, Ye have heard that is has been said; not, as before, concerning the commands of the decalogue, that it has been said by, or to, them of old time. It was a command, that every one should of necessity require such satisfaction; but they might lawfully insist upon it, if they pleased; an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. This we find, Exo 21:24; Lev 24:20; Deu 19:21; in all which places it is appointed to be done by the magistrate, who bears not the sword in vain, but is the minister of God, an avenger to execute wrath, Rom 13:4. It was a direction to the judges of the Jewish nation what punishment to inflict in case of maims, for terror to such as would do mischief on the one hand, and for a restraint to such as have mischief done to them on the other hand, that they may not insist on a greater punishment than is proper: it is not a life for an eye, nor a limb for a tooth, but observe a proportion; and it is intimated (Num 35:31), that the forfeiture in this case might be redeemed with money; for when it is provided that no ransom shall be taken for the life of a murderer, it is supposed that for maims a pecuniary satisfaction was allowed. But some of the Jewish teachers, who were not the most compassionate men in the world, insisted upon it as necessary that such revenge should be taken, even by private persons themselves, and that there was no room left for remission, or the acceptance of satisfaction. Even now, when they were under the government of the Roman magistrates, and consequently the judicial law fell to the ground of course, yet they were still zealous for any thing that lo…

5:38-42 The Old Testament permitted proportionate retribution (Exod 21:24-25; Deut 19:16-21), which was to prevent punishments from far exceeding the severity of the offense. Jesus, however, does not permit personal retaliation at all among his followers. Jesus’ way is not to insist on justice but to find victory through suffering and the cross (1 Pet 2:23). Some have taken this passage as a guide for all of life (including politics). Others understand it merely as the willingness to forgo one’s personal rights and to forgive as God has forgiven (see Matt 5:48; 18:23-35). Like the servant in Isa 50:4-9 and 53:7 (see also Matt 12:15-21), Jesus’ followers are to apply the same virtue to honor, possessions, time, or property. Righteousness does not insist on its own way.