Revoked not Corrected: An Eye for an Eye

I have often heard it stated that Jesus, in the famous “you have heard it said…“ passages from the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5:21-48), was not introducing new law, but merely correcting the pharisees bad teaching of the Mosaic law. Just a two-point brief summary of why I think that is unsupportable:

1. When Jesus is correcting the pharisees, he holds no punches. It’s all “woe to you, scribes and pharisees!” and the like. There is none of that in the Sermon on the Mount. 
2. Some of Jesus’ statements cannot possibly be mere corrections. For example, Jesus says:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ (Matt 5:25)

This cannot be a correction, unless the text written by God on the tablets was not recorded accurately. It cannot be wrong to teach “you shall not commit adultery” when the commandment states “you shall not commit adultery.”

The insistence that Jesus is correcting rather than introducing new law is an artifact of Covenant Theology. It is a theology informing an interpretation rather than scripture informing a theology. The tail is wagging the dog. Covenant theology gets many things right and some things wrong. This is one of the things it gets wrong. Let’s look at another example of this error.

³⁸ “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ ³⁹ But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. ⁴⁰ And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. ⁴¹ And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. ⁴² Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.(Matt 5:38-42)

This is one where the Covenant Theology critics of my view (not that I invented this view) will say, “This was not even taught in the Old Testament, therefore it had to be bad teaching and therefore Jesus is correcting the bad teaching.” This same argument is made for the next instance, where Jesus says “You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.” I have dealt with that elsewhere.

Those making the argument are wrong in both cases. Eye for an eye was taught explicity in the Old Testament. For example:

²² “If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. ²³ But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, ²⁴ eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, ²⁵ burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise. (Ex. 21:22-25)

Jesus’ "turn the other cheek" law can no way be construed, in any rational universe, as a “correction” or “clarification” to this Mosaic law; the two are polar opposites. Moses teaches the validity of “eye for and eye”, Jesus teaches that an “eye for an eye” is not being corrected or updated, but utterly rejected.

Was Moses wrong? He was not. His law was for the Old Covenant. Jesus’ law is for the New Covenant. This is a case where there is no overlap between the old and new laws. The Covenant theologians, to fit their theology, invent overlap out of whole cloth. We can speculate that the “eye-for-an-eye” was binding in the Old Covenant to demonstrate that sin demands an expensive recompense. In the New Covenant, the recompense is even greater, for the price was not merely an eye but the humiliation and death of the sinless son of God. And yet, the price has already been paid in full, on the cross, obviating the need for the continuation of the Mosaic “eye for an eye.”

No theology (or confession) invented by man gets everything right. It is wrong to grant them footing equal or even close to equal to that of scripture. Study them, study their arguments, but remember they are woefully fallible. As are we all.