Lex Talionis in Early Judaism and the Exhortation of Jesus in Matthew 5.38-42

(ProQuest Information and Learning: ... denotes non-USASCII text omitted.)

Lex Talionis in Early Judaism and the Exhortation of Jesus in Matthew 5.38-42. By James F. Davis. JSNTSup 281. London: T & T Clark International, 2005, xv + 192 pp., $115.00.

There is probably no phrase of the Bible that has been more misused than "an eye for an eye." While it is used mostly to justify personal retribution, one must ask, "Is that really what the text intended?" What then did the NT say about personal revenge? I am always interested in reading works that intend to deal with the use of what is sometimes called "OT Ethics" in the NT. This work does not disappoint. Davis deals with Matt 5:38-42 where Jesus, in the Sermon on the Mount, speaks to several ethical quandaries (the best-known being "an eye for an eye") that have already been spoken to by the Hebrew Bible. The work is a publication of Davis's dissertation, which he completed while a student at Dallas Theological Seminary.

In chapter 1 Davis sets out the expected statement of the problem, need for the study, and method for the study. Here we are reminded that the term lex talionis comes from the Latin for the ancient Roman law of the Twelve Tables, which established a law of retaliation in the case of a person who was maimed by another (p. 1). The problem Davis intends to deal with is simply stated in three questions (p. 2). First, how do Jesus' statements in Matthew 5 relate to the OT commands of an "eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth"? second, how does Jesus' teaching relate to the teaching of NT-era Judaism? Thirdly, what does Jesus require of his disciples and for the Church today?

In chapter 2 Davis begins to set forth the real work of the book. He starts with a very current and up-to-date literature survey, which includes both evangelical (e.g. Carson, Keener, and Piper) and non-evangelical sources. While some may argue that the views are flattened out in this survey (it is, after all, a survey), I felt that, given the space and time requirements that Davis must have been dealing with, he was fair to the sources as I understand them. In this survey of the sources, two primary views of the OT emerge. The first is the more literal view that God was requiring a literal "tooth for a tooth." The other view is that there has always been an allowance for, if not the preference for, financial compensation rather than actual maiming. Both views, however, understood the phrase "life for a life" to require capital punishment (p. 35).

In chapter 3, Davis deals with the lex talionis in the OT. He examines both the primary as well as the secondary texts. In dealing with secondary texts he expands his work to include texts on such issues as murder, insult, compensation, violence, retaliation, and revenge. Davis realizes that the passages with which he deals in this chapter (esp. Exodus 21) are difficult and apt to cause much controversy. They can speak to such areas as the life of the fetus, capital punishment for accidental death, and capital punishment for a false witness. Finally, Davis argues, one must conclude that Leviticus 24 provides the strongest case that a literal application of the law (i.e. a literal eye for an eye) was intended for the nation of Israel. Thus, in Davis's view, financial compensation was never originally intended (p. 54).

In chapter 4, Davis deals with early Jewish non-canonical texts. He is wise to narrow his claims and alert the reader to the fact that, while the "author has tried to be as complete as possible, it would be too much to claim that every relevant text is cited" (p. 55). Davis goes on in chapter 4 to deal with what is perhaps the most difficult and longstanding problem for NT scholars studying second Temple Judaism. This is the problem of how much the later documents (the Mishnah and the Babylonian and Palestinian Talmuds) represent earlier thinking. Davis pays careful attention to the work of Jacob Neusner, who argues that one cannot assume a uniform Judaism or one that is consistent over time. Davis uses his methodology carefully to avoid the sort of criticisms that have been leveled at the work of some others who have been accused by Neusner of being less than careful in their use of this kind of Jewish literature.

Chapter 5 deals with the non-biblical background behind Jesus' principle of nonresistance and the four specific commands based on the general principle of not resisting the evildoer. There are three general meanings of the word ... as it is used in Matt 5:39. These are: (1) resistance; (2) retaliation; and (3) violent rebellion or even armed revolt. Davis concludes that in the NT context, specifically in the Matthean context, this word should be seen as not resisting or opposing in the context of a court (p. 133). For example a slap on the cheek is seen as an act of contempt for a person (1 Kgs 22:24), and the offended person could take the offender to court for a monetary settlement. Jesus shows the way as the Messiah who voluntarily gives his cheek to the one who slaps him (p. 134).