Traditions: Israelite-Jewish scripture; early Christian reception Motif: Proportional justice and response to harm Connection verdict: Explicit quotation with a different ethical problem Article status: Expanded Date: 2026-10-31
Summary
Matthew quotes the eye-for-eye formula found in Exodus.
Read the two scenes
Exodus 21 begins with a concrete fight and harm to a pregnant woman; the famous proportional formula belongs to that judicial setting. In Matthew’s sermon, Jesus names the formula and then gives examples of choosing not to retaliate against an aggressor or litigant. The move is from court-like limits on compensation to the ethical posture of a disciple under provocation. Both deal with injury, but they answer different questions about what justice restrains.
What connects—and what does not
Exodus regulates proportional legal redress in a specific injury case; Matthew addresses hearers’ response to slaps, lawsuits, demands, and requests.
Direct quotation is certain, but equating the earlier legal limit with a command for personal revenge misreads its context.
Why read them side by side?
The contrast is sharper when the older rule is understood as a limit on punishment, not a mandate to seek revenge.
Sources and reading notes
- Exodus 21:22-25 (WEB) — the injury formula appears in case law following a fight World English Bible, a modern public-domain English translation; read the named verses in chapter context. Ancient Israelite/Judean Hebrew text within the first-millennium BCE corpus; composition and redaction dates vary by book.
- Matthew 5:38-42 (WEB) — Jesus quotes eye-for-eye language before teaching non-retaliation World English Bible, a modern public-domain English translation; read the named verses in chapter context. Early Christian Greek text of the first or early second century CE; exact dating and authorship vary by book.
Research limit
A named parallel can establish literary reuse or related tradition; a general resemblance alone cannot prove borrowing. Linked editions and translations vary. Where a source is identified as secondary orientation, the comparison does not claim direct close reading of that tradition’s primary text.