These are Jesus’ words from Matthew 5:38-48
You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 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.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
When Jesus says, “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth,'” he is quoting Leviticus 24:20 of the Old Testament. This phrase is sandwiched in between Leviticus 24:17, “Anyone who takes the life of a human being is to be put to death.” and Leviticus 24:21b, which repeats the line. This is the Old Testament command for the death penalty. Jesus then says but I tell you, and goes on to give a new command that is the exact opposite of the death penalty. You can read it for yourself above.
I posted this verse on Twitter, stating Jesus is against the death penalty. Someone commented and said I was taking this passage out of context because Jesus was only teaching on how Christians should treat other Christians.
Huh?
The “walk a mile” command comes from the first century Roman law called impressment, where a Roman soldier could command a non-Roman Jew to carry his pack up to one mile–a pack that could weigh up to 100 pounds! This is not Christian to Christian.
In verse 45, Jesus appeals to the common grace God the Father shows to everyone, evil and good, righteous and unrighteous. Jesus is going out of his way to make sure we understand this is not talking about Christian to Christian.
I intentionally want this to be a very short, simple post where Jesus’ words speak for themselves.
Jesus is against the death penalty.
For more, check out this 2016 interview I did with Shane Claiborne.
Sign the petitions to abolish the death penalty at https://deathpenaltyaction.org/federal-death-penalty
Read Executing Grace: How the death penalty killed Jesus and why it’s killing us by Shane Claiborne
Watch the movie Just Mercy or read the book Just Mercy: A Story of Justice and Redemption by Bryan Stevenson.
Related posts:
He is:
Author of Beyond the Battle: A man's guide to his identity in Christ in an oversexualized world
Host of the The Flip Side Podcast
Join an online men's small group led by Noah and team at BeyondTheBattle.net
- Ep. 107: Mark & Beth Denison on Betrayal Trauma - November 4, 2024
- When “I follow the Lamb, not the Donkey or the Elephant” falls short - October 31, 2024
- Why We Can’t Merge Jesus With Our Political Party - October 24, 2024
I’m no fan of the death penalty, but to say “Jesus is against it” based on the SotM seems like a huge overreach to me. Jesus is not, of course, just teaching how we should interact with fellow believers. He IS teaching how we should interact as individuals (for example, the poor schlub grabbed on the street and made to carry military equipment for a mile). When it comes to how a government, enforcing the law (the first use of the law, as the Reformers understood it), we should probably look to Romans 13:4, rather than Matthew 5.
Hey Zach, thanks for the comment. I really like the point you are making and will admit I didn’t think too much about Jesus’ emphasis on the individual nature of this teaching versus a government. And remind me if this is deja vu from a conversation we had about another topic on my blog, because I have a foggy memory of that, but hey we are getting old so foggy is normal now.
But my pushback on using Romans 13:4 in this way is that we live in a democracy, which Jesus and the 1st century Jews and Christians did not. So I think as Christians in a democracy, we need to use our Jesus-voice to alter the laws in whatever (little) power we have to do that. Like signing petitions in this example. Whereas the backdrop of Romans 13, and correct me if I’m wrong here, was in a Church where Zealot-like revolt against Rome was still a-brewin’ in people’s hearts. The Jewish War would have been happening or just happened. I’m not saying you’re saying this, but I feel like Christians sometimes use Romans 13 as a way of saying “Do whatever your government says,” which of course would be redonkulous for Nazi Germany as the extreme example, and certainly American atrocities that were righted by illegal activity like the Underground Railroad, the Civil Rights Movement, etc.–things that wouldn’t have happened had they “followed Romans 13” in that way. Where I think the heart of Romans 13 in the first century is to not revolt violently against your government. Leave your zealot sword at home, that’s not the way of the Messiah, even if you were trained up to think it was (thinking of the zealots and/or the hope that the Messiah would establish Israel free from Rome). Thanks for the interaction, I appreciate your insights. p.s. and a side point: there are strangely (to me, in light of this scripture passage and Jesus being our Lord) a lot of Christians who fight strongly for the death penalty, to which I think a blog post like this is an attempt to change their individual stance on the subject
If you think zealot-like revolt isn’t brewing in people’s hearts RIGHT NOW, I envy your commitment to avoiding all news sources.
The “it was a different world back then” loophole is problematic with homosexuality and it’s problematic here too. Certainly, a Christian who has the power to show mercy (e.g. a governor who can commute sentences) ought to bring the Gospel to bear in his calling as he or she does his/her best to justly apply laws and punish those who do evil, but again “Jesus is against it,” (i.e. “Jesus is lined up with my politics”) seems a pretty major stretch. It doesn’t surprise me that Shane Claiborne–one of the most heterodox guys writing books under the label “Christian” today–would make that claim, but it seems reckless to me.
As to the Nazi thing, I could just invoke Godwin’s law, but I think it’ definitely worth pointing out that Paul’s claim about the magistrate, given authority by God, is not “he does not send people into gas-chamber-showers in vain.” No, and to apply that verse there would be heinous. St. Paul wrote, “He does not bear the sword in vain.” Granted, that’s probably some kind of short-hand for the entirety of ruling, hearing cases, dispensing justice, etc., but it’s telling that the ultimate power behind his enforcement of those laws (taking a life) is the term Paul chooses to use. Likewise, Jesus didn’t say to Pilate, “You have the authority to kill me or set me free? What a joke! That’s false authority; you’re twisting what God intended!” No, he acknowledged the authority to execute or set free, as well as its source (“You would have no authority over me if it hadn’t been given to you from above.”)
I agree with taking into account the number of false convictions and the unjust demographics involved. I agree with you re: signing petitions, since we do have a say (at least, ideally) in the laws that govern us. And I get sort of queasy when I think of a doctor being present and involved at an execution, a gallery of people watching, and bureaucrat signing forms as a human being is injected with poison and no one does anything to stop it. But that doesn’t mean that “Jesus is against it” in a blanket way. Heck, the idea of hell doesn’t exactly “sit well” with me either. Doesn’t make it untrue (although Claiborne, McLaren, et. al go that route).
I lose zero sleep over the idea of Timothy McVeigh getting human justice, after a fair trial, in accordance with just laws laid out and enforced by people ordained by God to keep society ordered and safe.
When you say “Jesus is against the death penalty,” you seem to be trying to bind the consciences of people on an issue over which good Christians differ. I respectfully suggest that Jesus is against *that*.
Good points Zach.
On your last paragraph, I think there are a lot of issues good Christians differ on: abortion, homosexuality, transgender identities, racial justice, the poor, to name a few! Not to mention all the theological differences we have (while those I listed tend to line up with politics as well, like the death penalty). But I think it’s important we are able to say how we feel on these, and even to say how Jesus feels on these, if he directly says something about it.
My point, and I may not have said it well, is that he is clearly saying something against the death penalty here. He quotes the Old Testament death penalty, and then he says, “But I tell you…” and goes in the opposite direction. Regardless of anything relating to government, I think he as a person is against the death penalty because of this. I think he’s saying that here and I’m trying to take a direct what’s-on-the-page-of-Scripture approach. There can be good arguments made about Christians and government, individual vs. corporate, etc., but Jesus is still one person who is for or against things, and I think he’s saying here (directly and clearly) the he as a person is against the death penalty. If there was no verse 38, and we only had the teaching of v.39-48, I wouldn’t have any case regarding the death penalty.
As an aside: I think the weakest point in my argument is that he only quotes “eye for eye, tooth for tooth” and doesn’t quote the “life for life” part, though my assumption is he is lumping these together. But I think that’s the thinnest part of my argument, if we keep it to just the point Jesus is making here and not to the broader (good) question you raise about government.
A random thought: I know Jesus isn’t referring to the Roman government here, but I do find it interesting he quotes from the Jewish law (government?) to make his comparison. I know the Jewish government status was pretty murky in the 1st century, but interesting stuff to think about.
Again, I don’t think Jesus says Word One about the death penalty in Matthew 5. The context of the Sermon on the Mount (i.e. a picture of spiritual poverty, the examples of being belittled by a slap to the cheek or humiliated by a soldier making you do menial work) testifies against that. It’s an argument from silence at best (i.e. Jesus could have–but didn’t–say, “Don’t take revenge on people; leave that for the magistrate, who takes an eye for an eye, etc.”) I just don’t see anything whatsoever about a government carrying out a capital sentence here. If that’s what Jesus was talking about, he was talking to the WRONG PEOPLE. Like, the wrongest [sic] people to whom he could wasted his time jawing about government penalties. The hoi polloi gathered on the side of the mountain didn’t set law or policy. They did, however, find themselves in situations where they could justify a cycle of revenge by taking that Old Testament governmental *limit* “eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, life for a life” (i.e., don’t take an eye for a tooth or a life for an eye) as if it were a *license* for personal use. If anything, this highlights that the proper place for these sorts of things to be squared is in the court, by the magistrate, with punishments carried out by the proper authorities.
We’ll have to agree to disagree on the death penalty reference. But I hope you can at least see I’m not crazy or trying to create something out of nothing when Jesus is quoting from:
Lev. 24:17 “ ‘Anyone who takes the life of a human being is to be put to death. 18 Anyone who takes the life of someone’s animal must make restitution—life for life. 19 Anyone who injures their neighbor is to be injured in the same manner: 20 fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. The one who has inflicted the injury must suffer the same injury. 21 Whoever kills an animal must make restitution, but whoever kills a human being is to be put to death.
That (in Leviticus) is clearly about the death penalty in the law.
I will say, back to a point you made earlier, I should not have set this up as the dichotomy of “Jesus believes this” and if you don’t, you disagree with Jesus. I still think Jesus believes this, but that’s not a helpful way to write a blog article / interact with others. Thank you for your interaction. I think with it I could write a much better article that would be more helpful and well-rounded. I am not sure if I’ll do that and delete this all from the interwebs or just keep it and call it a lesson learned…that hopefully I remember next time I get passionate about something.