SEV Biblia, Chapter 5:38
¶ Oísteis que fue dicho: Ojo por ojo, y diente por diente.
Clarke's Bible Commentary - Matthew 5:38
Verse 38. An eye for an eye] Our Lord refers here to the law of retaliation mentioned See "Exod. xxi. 24", (see the note there, and See "Lev. xxiv. 20",) which obliged the offender to suffer the same injury he had committed. The Greeks and Romans had the same law. So strictly was it attended to at Athens, that if a man put out the eye of another who had but one, the offender was condemned to lose both his eyes, as the loss of one would not be an equivalent misfortune. It seems that the Jews had made this law (the execution of which belonged to the civil magistrate) a ground for authorizing private resentments, and all the excesses committed by a vindictive spirit. Revenge was often carried to the utmost extremity, and more evil returned than what had been received. This is often the case among those who are called Christians.
John Gill's Bible Commentary
Ver. 38. Ye have heard that it hath been said , etc.] That is, to, or by them of old time, as is expressed in some of the foregoing instances, an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth , ( Exodus 21:24). This is lex talionis, the law of retaliation; which, whether it is to be understood literally, or not, is a matter of question. The Baithuseans, or Sadducees, among the Jews, took it in a literal sense, and so does Josephus, who says f340 , he that shall blind, i.e. put out a mans eyes, shall suffer the like. But the Jewish doctors generally understood it of paying a price equivalent to the damage done, except in case of life. R. Sol. Jarchi explains the law thus: He that puts out his neighbours eye, must give him wny[ ymd , the price of his eye, according to the price of a servant sold in the market; and so the same of them all; for, not taking away of the member is strictly meant. And, says Maimonides f342 , if a man cuts off his neighbours hand, or foot, he is to be considered as if he was a servant sold in a market; what he was worth then, and what he is worth now; and he must pay the diminution which is made of his price; as it is said, eye for eye.
From tradition it is learned, that this for, spoken of, is to be understood of paying money; this is what is said in the law, as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again.
Not that he is to be hurt, as he has hurt his neighbour; but inasmuch as he deserves to want a member, or to be hurt as he has done; therefore he ought to pay the damage.
And Josephus himself says, that he must be deprived of that, which he has deprived another of, except he that has his eye put out is willing to receive money; and which, he observes, the law allows of. The controversy about the sense of this law may be seen in a few words, as managed between R. Sandish Hagson, and Ben Zeta f344 . Says R. Sandish, we cannot explain this verse according to its literal sense; for if a man should smite the eye of his neighbour, and the third part of the light of his eye should depart, how will he order it, to strike such a stroke, as that, without adding or lessening? perhaps he will put out the whole light of his eye. And it is yet more difficult with respect to burning, wound, and stripe; for should they be in a dangerous place the man might die but that is intolerable. Ben Zeta answers him, is it not written, in another place, as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again? To which Hagson replies, b , in, is instead of l[ , upon, or against; and lo! the sense is, so shall the punishment be upon him. Ben Zeta answers him again, as he does, so shall it be done to him. Hagson replies, behold Samson said, as they have done to me, so will I do to them; but Samson did not take their wives, and give them to others, he only rendered to them their reward: but Ben Zeta replies, if a poor man should smite, what must be his punishment? Hagson answers him, if a blind man should put out the eye of one that sees, what shall be done to him? as for the poor man, he may become rich, and pay, but the blind man can never pay.
Now our Lord here, does not find fault with the law of retaliation, as delivered by Moses, but with the false gloss of the Scribes and Pharisees; who, as they interpreted it of pecuniary mulcts, as a compensation for the loss of a member, which sometimes exceeded all just and due bounds; so they applied it to private revenge, and in favour of it: whereas this law did not allow of a retaliation to be made, by private persons, at their pleasure, but by the civil magistrate only.
Matthew Henry Commentary
Verses 38-42 - The plain instruction is, Suffer any injury that can be borne, for the sake of peace, committing your concerns to the Lord's keeping. And the sum of all is, that Christians must avoid disputing and striving. I any say, Flesh and blood cannot pass by such an affront, let the remember, that flesh and blood shall not inherit the kingdom of God and those who act upon right principles will have most peace an comfort.
Greek Textus Receptus
ηκουσατε 191 5656 V-AAI-2P οτι 3754 CONJ ερρεθη 4483 5681 V-API-3S οφθαλμον 3788 N-ASM αντι 473 PREP οφθαλμου 3788 N-GSM και 2532 CONJ οδοντα 3599 N-ASM αντι 473 PREP οδοντος 3599 N-GSM
Robertson's NT Word Studies
5:38 {An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth} (ofqalmon anti ofqalmou kai odonta anti odontos). Note anti with the notion of exchange or substitution. The quotation is from #Ex 21:24; De 19:21; Le 24:20. Like divorce this _jus talionis_ is a restriction upon unrestrained vengeance. "It limited revenge by fixing an exact compensation for an injury" (McNeile). A money payment is allowed in the Mishna. The law of retaliation exists in Arabia today.
