“It Is Written an Eye for an Eye, and a Tooth for a Tooth”

Brant Gardner

This set of antithetical parallels concentrates on retaliation. Both verse 38 and 39 contain to parts, a provocation and a response. In verse 38 the reference is to the Law, where we find that when one has an eye taken, the proper retaliation is to require an equivalent loss, that is the eye of the one causing the loss (see Exodus 20:23-26; Leviticus 24:19-20; Deuteronomy 19:21).

Contrasted with the equivalent retaliation to the provocation in verse 38, and in that which “is written,” we have the gospel model in verse 39. This verse provides the underlying scripture for the modern saying that one should “turn the other cheek.” Although the phrase has passed into common usage, the background to that phrase has been lost:

“The specific reference to the right cheek implies that one is slapped with the back of the hand, an action that was particularly degrading to a Jew. One’s recourse… in case of insult more than injury, ….would [be] to take legal action to gain recompense and vindication. According to the Mishnah the penalty for such damage was twice as severe. Therefore, in Matthew the one on the receiving end foregoes his right to legal action. (Robert Guelich. A Foundation for Understanding the Sermon on the Mount. Word Publishing, Dallas. 1982, p. 221-2).

The emphasis is on the foregoing of retaliation, but this does not necessarily explain the “turning” of the other cheek. This is not a statement that one should be subjected to continued berating and beating, but rather that while one would forego retaliation, one need not forfeit dignity. The insult was the backhanded slap to the right cheek (assuming a right-handed assailant). The act of turning the other cheek is not one of submission, but of quiet defiance. While foregoing the right of retaliation, the person nevertheless holds their own and suggests that they be treated as equals. The backhanded slap was insulting because it included the implication that the person slapped was inferior. The open-handed slap was among equals. Thus the person turns the cheek to indicate equality even as they eschew retaliation.

The cultural context of this setting is important. Israel is occupied territory at this point, and under a legal system that is imposed upon them from Rome. Thus there are many in the land who consider themselves more important or of higher rank than the Israelite peasants. These might be the wealthy, or they could be the Roman citizens. In any case, this verse and the next several have their context in the tensions that were very real at the time of Jesus’ preaching. In addition to the displaying the gospel’s way of interpersonal relationships, this was essential advice for pure survival in a world constructed as it was at Jesus time in the Old World.

Book of Mormon Context: The political climate in the Book of Mormon was quite different from that which produced these statements in the Old World. The Nephites gathered at Bountiful are not under any outside political organization, and indeed they are probably organized around tribes after the dissolution of the Nephite government. Thus this problem of superior/inferior, powerful/powerless that underlies the Old World statements did not exist at that time for the Bountiful audience. However, it was not many hears prior that there were such distinctions, and the believers had been persecuted. Perhaps the New World reference was to past experiences rather than to current conditions.

Textual: Luke has a parallel saying:

Luke 6:29

29 And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloke forbid not to take thy coat also.

The similarities in language and ordering of elements (which continue past this verse) suggest that Luke is also tapping in to authentic sayings of Jesus, though perhaps from a different time. Luke does not specifically note the right cheek, and the verb is not slap but rather “hit,” or “smite.” Thus while Matthew is an insult, the Lucan phrase is a physical assault. Both require that the offended person forego retaliation.

The 3 Nephi redaction changes only the saying/written phrasing.

Multidimensional Commentary on the Book of Mormon

References