Donald Trump in Albany, N.Y., April 11, 2016 (Eduardo Munoz Alvarez/Getty)

The meaning of his favorite biblical teaching is not what it may seem at first.

Donald Trump’s candidacy has been nothing if not clarifying. By now, most people have heard that the Republican frontrunner has, at long last, told us what his favorite Bible verse is. Yesterday, he eschewed Two Corinthians and went old school, as in Old Testament:

Well, I think many . . . You know when we get into the Bible I think many, so many. And “an eye for an eye,” you can almost say that. It’s not a particularly nice thing, but you know when you look at what’s happening to our country, I mean, you see what’s going on with our country how people are taking advantage of us and how they scoff at us and laugh at us and laugh in our face and they’re taking our jobs, they’re taking our money, they’re taking our — you know, they’re taking the health of our country. And we have to be very firm and we have to be very strong and we can learn a lot from the Bible, that I can tell you.

To be honest, I was surprised by Trump’s choice. I was actually expecting Genesis 4:23–24. In the midst of tracing the genealogy of Cain (the first murderer), we’re introduced to his great-great-grandson Lamech, the first polygamist. Lamech, in a fit of poetry worthy of Trump, says,

Adah and Zillah, hear my voice; you wives of Lamech, listen to what I say: I have killed a man for wounding me, a young man for striking me. If Cain’s revenge is sevenfold, then Lamech’s is seventy-sevenfold.


The passage has all the signs of Trumpism: multiple wives (“The sanctity of marriage is great. I love marriage so much I had to try it three times”), overkill (“Eye for an eye? C’mon. That’s weak. How ‘bout life for an eye?”), and the ubiquitous double standards (“If the young man’s family tries to eye-for-an-eye me, then holy hell will be unleashed on them, believe me”).

Joking aside, men like Lamech are precisely why God established eye-for-an-eye in his law (specifically in Exodus 21:24). Eye-for-an-eye was a way of correcting Lamech-like injustice. Given the ancient penchant for blood feuds, the principle of lex talionis (the fancy name for eye-for-an-eye, or proportionate justice) was God’s emergency brake, a way of regulating and bringing the desire for vengeance under control. In other words, in a world where men like Lamech try to create their own definitions of justice (“I can kill a man for wounding me, but nobody better try that on me”), the Mosaic eye-for-an-eye is a standard of divine justice and equality that prevents the strong from preying on the weak.

Which brings me to the rush to comment on Trump’s selected verse. After Trump dropped his Bible bomb, commentators flooded the interwebs with hot takes about Jesus’s rejection of eye-for-an-eye in the Sermon on the Mount (found in Matthew 5–7). Jesus, we’re told, overthrows the Mosaic law in favor of a different principle: “If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, show to them the other also.” No more eye for an eye; instead, if someone takes your right eye, you should let them gouge out the left one too. Proportionate justice is apparently on the wrong side of history.




Now far be it from me to in any way undermine the radical nature of Jesus’s command. Our Lord was notorious for hard sayings that caused more than one would-be disciple to say, “No thanks.” But, given the increasing ignorance about what Christians believe (especially among the cultural gatekeepers in the media), it’s important to be clear about what the Bible actually teaches. In other words, at moments like this, we need to read the passage carefully, to engage in a little Bible study.

Here’s the question: In the Sermon on the Mount, is Christ really rejecting or overthrowing the Mosaic principle of eye-for-an-eye? If we took our cues from Jesus, would our legal system fundamentally abandon the principle of proportionate justice? My answer is no. Jesus is not rejecting the principle of proportionate justice wholesale. Instead, he’s rejecting an ancient tradition that had distorted and warped the intention of God’s law. Let me give two reasons for understanding the words of Jesus in this way.


1) In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus says, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.” (Matthew 5:17–18 in the English Standard Version). Not an iota or a dot, not a jot or a tittle, shall pass from the law until heaven and earth pass away. It’s hard to be more emphatic than that.

Jesus goes on to reject any notion of “relaxing” the commandments given in the Old Testament.

Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.


In light of this, whatever Jesus is doing in the rest of the Sermon on the Mount, he is neither abolishing nor relaxing the commandments of God, including the principle of proportionate justice.

2) That Jesus is not relaxing the commandments is clear from his subsequent words about specific areas of concern: anger/murder, adultery/lust, divorce/remarriage, oath-taking/honesty, retaliation/justice, and how we regard neighbors and enemies. As he deals with each of these issues, Jesus repeatedly ups the ante on the Old Testament. He does so by repeatedly contrasting something that his audience had heard with his own teaching. Again and again he says, “You have heard that it was said . . . But I say to you . . . ”

You’ve heard it said, “Don’t murder.” But Jesus says: In God’s eyes, unrighteous anger is as wicked as murder.

You’ve heard it said, “Don’t commit adultery.” But Jesus says: In God’s eyes, looking lustfully at a woman is just adultery in the heart.

You’ve heard it said, “Divorce is permissible.” But Jesus says: Remarriage after divorce (except in particular circumstances) is adultery.

You’ve heard it said, “Don’t swear falsely, but keep your oaths.” But Jesus says: Don’t swear at all. Let your “yes” be “yes.”

And then, of course, the passage in question:

You have heard that it was said, “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.

Now in each of these cases, Jesus uses the wording of the Old Testament and then contrasts it with his own teaching. Thus, many conclude (and understandably so) that Christ is asserting his own teaching over against the Old Testament law. However, the example that follows the eye-for-an-eye example helps to clarify what’s been going on throughout the sermon.

You have heard that it was said, “You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.” But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.


This passage is crucial in understanding the entire sermon. Why? Because while the first part of the quotation is from the Old Testament (“You shall love your neighbor” Leviticus 19:18), the second half of the quotation (“hate your enemy”) is emphatically not. Leviticus does not command us to hate our enemies.

So why does Jesus quote it here? The most likely reason is that throughout this passage Jesus is dealing with a false tradition of reading the Old Testament. When he said, “You have heard that it was said,” he wasn’t referring directly to the words of Moses, but to the Law of Moses as interpreted by the religious leaders of his day. And based on his correction of this tradition, it seems likely that these religious leaders were twisting the original intent of God’s law. Perhaps they were saying things like: God does forbid murder, but anger is not a big deal. . . . Adultery is out, but don’t worry about the lustful looks. . . . Moses clearly permits divorce, so any old reason will do. . . . The fact that Moses mentions oaths means that general truthfulness is non-essential. . . . And the fact that God tells us to love our neighbor implies that we can regard our enemy differently. In fact, we ought to hate our enemy.

These are precisely the sorts of gymnastics human beings love to use to avoid responsibility before God. Keeping the letter of the law but violating the heart of it. Attempting to parse it carefully while evading its true force. Drawing false inferences from clear commands. These were the sorts of things that Jesus’s audience had heard from their teachers. And so Jesus sets out to correct their flawed tradition by asserting (or rather reasserting) what he, as the Son of God, as the Supreme Law-giver, really meant.

So how does that help us with the question of Jesus’s command to turn the other cheek over against eye-for-an-eye? My argument is that this is another case where this law was being twisted and misapplied. Eye-for-an-eye was given as a way of regulating personal vengeance by turning it into public justice. No more reckless blood feuds; we’ll have trials and standards. There are limits and boundaries on what we may do to someone who has committed an evil act, involving questions of evidence, intent, and degree of heinousness (no more Lamech-style overreaction). Eye-for-an-eye was a law that was meant to be applied in judicial contexts, with judges rendering verdicts in public on the testimony of two or three witnesses.

However, based on Jesus’s correction, it seems that the principle of eye-for-an-eye had been extended. It had jumped the bounds of public justice and was now being used in private quarrels. If someone insulted you, insult them back. Are you reviled? Then you should revile in return. If someone curses you, curse them again. Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, insult for an insult.

Ironically enough, this misapplication and twisting of the original law seems to be precisely what Trump likes about it. People are taking advantage of us? We should take advantage of them. People scoff at the U.S.A.? Then unleash an army of our own scoffers. If we’re mocked and laughed at, we ought to give them a taste of their own medicine.

Jesus is not rejecting the Law of Moses wholesale, but he is showing us a more radical way to live.

And based on the conduct of Trump’s campaign, it would seem that he’s even willing to go beyond the eye-for-an-eye standard to a more Lamech-like retaliation. A reporter tries to ask Trump a question? The campaign manager will rough you up. A protester interrupts a rally? Punch him in the face. A journalist presses him for policy details? Let loose the Twitter mob. Republican activists vote against Trump? Be ready for death threats. In this, Trump resembles the current occupant of the White House, who encouraged his own supporters to practice the “Chicago Way.” Obamaism, like Trumpism, wants to Make Lamech Great Again.

And this is why Trump’s answer is so revealing, and why Jesus’s alternative is so necessary. Jesus is not rejecting the Law of Moses wholesale, but he is showing us a more radical way to live. Proportionate justice is right and good in its place. But followers of Jesus are destined for insults, curses, and reviling. Jesus himself was reviled and cursed, and he promised that his followers would receive the same. He told them to respond the way he did: not by insulting and cursing in return, but with blessing, love, and sacrifice. He doesn’t even tell us to just ignore it; we’re to go beyond indifference and show genuine love, welcoming the opportunity to show that Jesus is more precious than our reputations, our wealth, and our time.


The Son of God bled and died to deliver us from the world that Lamech built, the world that Trump wants to restore. The mockery, injustice, and pain that Christ endured may make him a loser in the gospel according to Trump, but as for me and my house, we’ll take the way of Jesus over the way of Lamech.

— Joe Rigney is a pastor in Minneapolis and a professor at Bethlehem College and Seminary.