Most readers of the scriptures are familiar with the “Great Commission” given by Jesus to his disciples after his resurrection. Many can recite it by heart: “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you … “ (Matthew 28:19-20).
While those verses are consistently quoted as the Commission, in reality they represent the final form of a number of commissions or “job directives” Jesus gave to his disciples during his ministry which often get lost in the rush to examine, ponder and discuss the “Great” commission. This is not to say that we should not focus on the final Great Commission, but that it can also be profitable to look back at some of the earlier commissions given during Christ’s ministry to see what we can learn there. For example, look carefully at the ones recorded in the Book of Luke:
Luke 9:2: “… and he sent them out to proclaim the kingdom of God and to heal the sick.”
Luke 10:9 “Heal the sick who are there and tell them, ‘The kingdom of God has come near to you.’”
Matthew also records one of these earlier commissions:
Matthew 10:7-8 “As you go, proclaim this message: ‘The kingdom of heaven has come near.’ Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy, drive out demons…”
The difference is obvious. The earlier commissions specifically included healing the sick – with an emphasis placed on that task almost equal to the emphasis placed on preaching the Gospel.
That emphasis is undeniably missing in the final Great Commission which appears to focus entirely on the work of evangelism without any direct mention of the sick. But does this mean the needs of the sick are no longer to be a vital concern for the Christian? In answer to that, perhaps we should remember that the Great Commission itself ends with the words “… teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you” (Matthew 28:20, emphasis added), so from that perspective alone, the principles of the earlier commissions Jesus gave may still apply to us today as part of the “everything” Jesus had commanded.
Helping the sick was certainly part of the example Jesus set for us. He not only used physical sickness as a metaphor in his teaching (Mark 2:17) and as a sign of the divine nature of His work, but also He frequently healed and helped the sick purely as a matter of compassion, as we see throughout the Gospels. Godly concern for the sick also clearly precedes the Christian scriptures. Psalm 107:20 says, “He sent out his word and healed them,” showing David’s awareness of God’s compassion in this area – compassion which was expressed many times throughout the Old Testament, as well as in the work of the disciples who continued the New Testament ministry of Christ.
Now, this doesn’t mean that the situation has not changed at all regarding God’s commission to His Church. It seems clear that while God still can – and does – heal, He has not continued to do so in quite the same manner as He did when Jesus sent out disciples who routinely administered healings as an everyday part of their work (Matthew 10:1). But although we may not be empowered to heal today in the way the early disciples were, think about this in terms of the Great Commission: as individual Christians we may not be directly going into all the world, teaching and baptizing, either – yet we can support those who do these works, financially, in prayer and in other ways.
Even without the same command and power of healing given the early disciples, we can still – to the extent we are able, and with the same compassion – do the work of helping the sick mentioned in all the earlier forms of Jesus’ commission to his disciples. Although the evangelism of the Great Commission should indeed be a central focus point for us, we can still give our physical and prayerful support to those helping the sick, and many of us can also find opportunities to directly work to serve those who are victims of sickness and disability.
We can do this in various ways. While we may not have the power to heal, the Spirit of God does give the power of encouragement, support, and help. And we do have the opportunity to help – physically and spiritually – those who are ill just as much as we have the opportunity to be a witness to those who are well. One thing to keep in mind, however, is the great difference between acute and chronic illness. We can help those suffering the intense affliction of acute illness in a number of ways, difficult though that may be, but those suffering from chronic illnesses and disabilities often have different needs. In terms of practical help, we should remember that some who are dealing with long-term illnesses don’t just need short-term encouragement – they need practical encouragement to continue to lead meaningful lives, and help to find opportunities in which they themselves can help others.
Sometimes it is the sick and disabled who can best help those in the same position as themselves. Their experience and understanding of the problems can be far greater than ours. We can see this in the impact of the great variety of support groups for those suffering serious diseases and other medical conditions. But we can still help. Does someone you know need help to get to a support group? Help to find space to run one? This is just one example of the many possible ways we can help those suffering with long-term health and disability problems. It just takes a little thought to see how we can serve in each particular circumstance.
Although it may not be directly mentioned in the Great Commission, it should be remembered that helping the sick and disabled is nevertheless part of the scriptural background of that Commission. If we read Matthew 28: 19-20 to the end, perhaps we can see that serving the needs of the sick is also an important aspect of “everything” Jesus commanded. And that makes sense. Not only was helping the sick a constant part of Jesus’ own life, but also His words that “ … I was sick and you looked after me…” (Matthew 25:36) still apply as much today as they did when he spoke them as a profound lesson during his earthly ministry.
Was the Old Testament law of “an eye for an eye” a brutal law of revenge, or something very different? – And how can the answer help us understand Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount?
The principle of “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth”(Leviticus 24:20, etc.) is one of the most well-known laws in the Bible, but it is seldom fully understood. Known legally as the lex talionis or the “law of retaliation,” and referenced by Jesus himself in his teaching, most people see this law as an ultimately fair, though almost barbarically cruel, principle of revenge and exact restitution. But is this really what this law of “retributive justice“ is all about?
It is often said that the underlying concept of the lex talionis, equal restitution, is the basis of most modern law – that the punishment must fit the crime. But this is something of a misunderstanding. Biblical Israel was not the only culture of the ancient Near East to have such laws, and their purpose is well known. In the ancient Babylonian Law of Hammurabi (c. 1780 BC), for example, we find exactly the same legal principle that individuals should receive as punishment the same injuries and damages they had inflicted upon others:
“If a man has destroyed the eye of another man, they shall destroy his eye. If he has broken another man’s bone, they shall break his bone” (Code of Hammurabi, 196-97).
Babylonian law was complicated by the fact that crimes against those of different social classes required different punishments (something Biblical law forbade, Leviticus 19:15), but the legal principle of the talion itself was obviously identical in both cultures.
In the Mosaic law, the principle of an eye for an eye is commanded in three separate and slightly different situations:
Collateral Injury: If a pregnant woman is hurt by others’ struggling –and her child miscarries – the law of an eye for an eye is to be applied (Exodus 21:24).
Crime of Passion Injury: If men fight and one is injured in the struggle, the law of an eye for an eye is to be applied (Leviticus 24:20).
Premeditated Injury: If a witness testifies falsely against someone, the law of an eye for an eye is to be applied and the punishment is the penalty the accused would have received (Deuteronomy 19:21).
Notice that the first example given shows that the law is really intended to indicate an equivalent punishment rather than an exact restitution. A man who caused a woman to miscarry obviously could not be made to miscarry himself as punishment, and the Law of Hammurabi makes it clear that an equivalent is intended: “If a man struck another man’s daughter and caused her to have a miscarriage he shall pay ten shekels of silver for her fetus” (Hammurabi 209). The Jewish Rabbis commenting on the biblical examples always understood that an approximate equivalence was intended, citing, for example, that a blind man who blinded another cannot be punished with exact restitution. So normally, in ancient Babylonia or in Israel, the law was applied in equivalence – financial or other remuneration equivalent to the loss caused by the injury. It is certainly possible that the law was literally upheld in some cases, but this does not seem to have usually been the case.
This much is commonly realized. What is less widely understood is the underlying reason for the existence of the talionis laws and their real application. These laws were actually intended not to exact revenge, but to restrict revenge. They are not encouraging retribution, they are restraining it.
In most ancient Near Eastern cultures, crimes of injury were usually regarded as private matters of family concern and retribution. For serious offenses the retribution might be handled at the tribal level, and this type of vengeful justice frequently led to blood feuds between families and whole tribes which only grew as time went on (there are many biblical examples of this, beginning with Genesis 4:24). It is clear that the various expressions of the lex talionis originated to limit these destructive spirals, and once that is understood it is clear that the purpose of these laws was not to prescribe revenge, but to limit it. Each “eye for an eye” law allowed what we would call government control of what was otherwise usually a private matter, but the consequences of which could affect much greater parts of society through ongoing and uncontrolled blood feuds. The intent of the laws was to “cap” retribution at no more than the level of the original problem.
When we realize that the purpose of these laws was one of restraint rather than revenge, we can better visualize the application of the laws in their original setting and better understand their reference in the New Testament.
Jesus and the Lex Talionis
The importance of proper understanding of the lex talionis becomes apparent when we consider Jesus’ mention of the law: “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ 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. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well” (Matthew 5:38).
Although these words of Christ are frequently cited as being an example of Christian pacifism (the view of Leo Tolstoy and many other writers and theologians), understanding the proper context of the law shows that Jesus’ words may well have intended something different. First, notice that the direct context of what Jesus said here was clearly a legal, not a confrontational context. Not only does Jesus cite the earlier law, but he counters its maximum application with two examples, at least one of which is taken directly from legal proceedings – a situation where someone might want to sue another.
If we presume that the lex talionis was a law allowing full and complete revenge, it is easy to think that is what Jesus is primarily talking about here. But revenge does not really fit the meaning of the law, as we have seen, and it does not really fit the example Christ gives of someone who might want to sue us for something we have done – there is no issue of revenge involved on our part. When we realize that the “eye for an eye” law was intended to restrict the degree of retaliation employed, we see that Jesus was going a step further and restricting retaliation even more.
Remember that Jesus’ statement on this matter occurs as one of several linked and similar statements made within the Sermon on the Mount (specifically Matthew 5). After reminding his hearers that he did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it (Matthew 5:17), Jesus then gives several examples of this “filling full” the underlying meaning of the law. In each case he shows an earlier instruction in the law, then shows how the principle can be even better fulfilled by exercising even more restraint.
Where the law said “you shall not murder,” Jesus shows we should not even curse others in anger or we would be in danger of legal judgment (vs. 21) – adding another legal context reminder by saying “Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to court” (vs. 25). He then shows that while the law says we should not commit adultery, we should be yet more restrained, not lusting in our hearts (vss. 27-28), even referring here to “gouging out an eye” (vs. 29). Next he shows that while the law allowed divorce for many reasons, he urges us to more restraint by allowing divorce only for adultery (vs. 31). After showing the same principle of restraint regarding oaths – of saying only a simple “yes” or “no” (vss. 33-37) – Jesus then addresses the lex talionis directly (vss. 38-42). He does this, as we saw, by saying that even though the law allowed for restitution up to “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth,” he instructs his listeners to be much more restrained.
The first example he gives is that of not resisting or retaliating for evil that has been done to us: “If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also” (vs. 39). A detail here may be important. Jesus specifically mentions being slapped on the right cheek, meaning that this would normally have to be a backhand slap from a right-handed person. The Rabbinic writings show that this kind of slap was a great insult in the world of ancient Palestine, and Jesus uses it not as an example of being attacked (which is rarely done by means of backhanded slaps), but more likely as an example of an insult (as we see in vs. 11 of the same chapter) liable to be later countered in court, just as his next example of someone suing for a person’s garment might also be legally countered – and in both cases he urges us to restraint.
The context throughout this section of Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount in which the lex talionis is mentioned is, then, clearly a legal one, with courts, suing, judges, prison, certificate of divorce and other legal terms being mentioned over a dozen times in these few verses. There is actually no direct context or reference to warfare, immediate conflict, or principles of pacifism. Most of the issues Jesus discusses in these verses are in the post-event context of restraint in later legal retribution.
Toward the end of this section of the Sermon, Jesus also urges us to even go beyond restraint to more positive responses such as “If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles” (vs. 41) and “love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (vs. 44). While these cases can be said to involve restraint, they clearly go even further, actively seeking the best for the person who has harmed or insulted us. This seems to be the ultimate goal to which Christ points us, just as the sermon itself ends with the words “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (vs. 48).
The Biblical lex talionis of “an eye for an eye” was, then, a law of restraint, limiting the amount of reciprocal damage done after (usually) accidental injury, not a law encouraging revenge. Jesus used this law in the Sermon on the Mount as an example of how even when the law allows us to do certain things, the principle of restraint can and should be utilized wherever possible – and even further exceeded by active love for the offending party.
Recent Comments