IN EXODUS 21 AND MATTHEW 5
|
|
by
Doug Ward |
Recently I watched a television program portraying a feud
between two rival gangs in a certain neighborhood. When the first gang set fire
to a building owned by the second, the leader of the second gang vowed to
retaliate in kind. "`An eye for an eye,' just like it says in the
Bible," he declared.
The
gang leader's rallying cry shows an all-too-common misunderstanding of
scripture. For him, "an eye for an eye" was a call to exact vengeance
upon those who had wronged him. However, the Torah clearly forbids seeking
personal revenge (Lev 19:18) and states that vengeance is God's sole
prerogative (Deut 32:35).
|
A
Judicial Formula |
To understand the biblical meaning of "eye for eye," it
is important to note that the Bible introduces this phrase in a judicial
context. In Exodus 21:12-35, a passage giving sentencing guidelines for various
injury cases in Israelite courts, one case involves a pregnant woman who
suffers trauma that causes her to give birth prematurely. Verses 23-25 specify
that if either the mother or baby suffers permanent harm, the perpetrator
"shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand,
foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."
In
context, the "eye for eye" formula is a graphic way of saying that
the punishment should fit the crime. By bringing injury cases under the
authority of a public court, the Torah's intention is to prevent escalating
cycles of private vengeance from occurring.
The
examples in Exodus 21 imply that the sentences were meant to entail financial
compensation rather than literal eye-gouging or dental extraction. If a master
caused a slave to lose an eye or a tooth (vv. 26-27), he was not given a
corresponding injury. Instead, the slave was to be set free. The one exception
was first-degree murder (v. 12), where the seriousness of taking a human life
warranted a "life for life" punishment (Gen 9:5-6; Num 35:31).
Based
largely on Exodus 21, later Jewish law came to identify five categories of
injuries calling for financial compensation: (a) actual damages to a person;
(b) pain caused; (c) loss of time due to incapacity to work; (d) the cost of healing;
(e) personal insult.1 Categories
(c) and (d) are grounded in Exod 21:19, while (e) is considered to be an attack
on a person's dignity and thus an affront to God, since humans are created in
the image of God. In the Mishnah (c. 200 A.D.), the fine for hitting someone
with the back of the hand-an act that causes humiliation without physical
injury-is set at 400 zuz, about four months' pay (Baba Qamma 8:6).
|
Jesus
and `Eye for Eye' |
With this background in mind, we are in a position to better
understand Jesus' teaching on the "eye for eye" principle from the
Sermon on the Mount: "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"
(Matt 5:38-40).
In
quoting the judicial formula from Exodus 21, Jesus does not mention "life
for life." This omission seems to be intentional, since the examples he
discusses in verses 39-40 are not criminal cases. Instead, he is talking about
civil cases in which one person sues another for damages.
The
case in Matt 5:39, where one person slaps another on the cheek, is cited in
both Jewish and ancient Roman law as an example of category (e), a personal
insult that does not cause serious physical damage.2
In such a case, the offended party has every right to take the offender to
court and try to collect 400 zuz. However, Jesus teaches that it would be
better not to defend one's honor by launching a lawsuit. Similarly in verse 40,
he instructs a person who is sued not to retaliate.
Jesus
states in v. 17 that he has not come to "abolish" the Torah-that is,
he is not going to weaken the Torah or make it ineffectual by misinterpreting
it. Instead, his goal is to "fulfill" the Torah, which means that he
will sustain or preserve it by interpreting it correctly.3
His teaching in vv. 38-40 provides one example. The purpose of the "eye
for eye" principle is to promote peace and true justice in society, and
this purpose is accomplished best when people are quick to forgive and slow to
sue and countersue.
These
words of Jesus are especially powerful because of his own example. By
voluntarily submitting to a sacrificial death, he filled the phrase "turn
the other cheek" with meaning and carried out the prophecy of Isaiah 50:6:
"I gave my back to those who strike, and my cheeks to those who pull out
the beard; I hid not my face from disgrace and spitting."
The
early Christians followed the Master's example and instruction. The apostle
Paul, in I Cor 13:4-7, taught that love "does not insist on its own way"
and "bears all things." It should also be noted that later rabbinic
teaching is consistent with Matt 5:38-40. We read in the Babylonian Talmud,
"He who overlooks insult done to him has the insult he has done
overlooked" (Yoma 23a).
The
words of Exodus 21 and Matt 5:38-40 are more relevant today than ever. Today
personal injury lawyers advertise on television, urging viewers to take
advantage of any possible opportunity to sue and promising payoffs far
exceeding 400 zuz. Large amounts of time and resources are spent in trying to
protect institutions and individuals from potential litigation, at great cost
to society. To our ultralitigious culture the Torah, as amplified in the Sermon
on the Mount, points to a better way.
1See The New
Testament and Rabbinic Judaism by David Daube, University of London,
Athlone Press, 1956, p. 261.
2Daube, p. 257.
3See
David Bivin's New Light on the Difficult Words of Jesus: Insights from his
Jewish Context, Lois Tverberg, Editor, En-Gedi Resource Center, Holland,
Michigan, 2005, pp. 93-94.
File
translated from TEX by TTH,
version 3.66.
On 27 Jan 2016, 23:12.
