If you have read it, you doubtless remember the story of Jephthah, the Old Testament leader (Judges 11) who vowed to sacrifice the first thing that walked out of his house when he returned home if God would grant him success in battle. Sadly, as you know, Jephthah returned to be greeted by his daughter who happened to be the first person to come out of the house to greet him (Judges 11:31).
Reading this story, it is hard not to wonder about the apparent stupidity of Jephthah’s vow. Why would anyone play “Russian roulette” with their family’s lives in that way? What were the chances that it would not be one of his family members who would walk out of their home?
Actually, there is a fairly simple reason why the man’s vow was perhaps more understandable. Today, many homes in the Middle East are no different from those in the rest of the world, but even now many traditional homes of poorer people living on the land have not changed in thousands of years and are essentially the same as those of the Old Testament period.
In the simple homes of the ancient Near East, the family lived in a large “living room” which was the main, and often only, room of the house. That room frequently had a sunken area at one end that functioned as a stall where the family’s livestock were brought at night to protect them. With this living arrangement, each morning someone in the house would open the door at the animals’ end of the house – from within, of course – and drive the animals out to freshen the air in the home while the women prepared the first meal of the day.
There is no reason to doubt that Jephthah’s home was any different from this basic house plan. Jephthah was not rich. As the son of a prostitute he was scorned by his half-brothers and driven from the family home, so his own dwelling was more than likely of the poorer type.
Now, if Jephthah knew he would travel in the cool night hours (as much travel was conducted in that time), he might well have known that he would return home in the early morning about the time the animals would be driven out of the house. Such a situation would mean, of course, that Jephthah would expect it to be one of his animals that would be the first thing to meet him, in which case his vow was perhaps not as foolish – at least in its intent – as it might seem at first.
Although the conclusion of the story may indicate Jephthah’s unfortunate daughter was sacrificed (Judges 11:38), the matter may have had a better outcome. If we look closely at Jephthah’s vow, we find that what he said was: “Whatever comes out of the door of my house to meet me when I return in triumph from the Ammonites will be the Lord’s, and I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering” (Judges 11:31, emphasis added). Notice the word “and” emphasized in this passage. The Hebrew connective particle “v” that is translated as “and” can also mean “or.” We see this, for example, in 1 Kings 18:27: “… Perhaps he is deep in thought, OR busy, OR traveling,” where the word translated “or” is the Hebrew “v.”
This means that Jephthah’s vow should perhaps be better translated: “Whatever comes out of the door of my house to meet me when I return in triumph from the Ammonites will be the Lord’s, OR I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering.” Thus, many scholars believe that Jephthah’s daughter was “dedicated” to God in that she was made to live a life of virginity. This would agree with the end of the story which tells us that the young woman requested: “… Give me two months to roam the hills and weep with my friends, because I will never marry” (Judges 11:37), and that: “After the two months, she returned to her father, and he did to her as he had vowed. And she was a virgin” (Judges 11:38). But whether his daughter was dedicated or sacrificed, the fact that she was the first out of the house was clearly not a possibility Jephthah expected – as we see in the fact that on seeing her, he tore his clothes and cried out in anguish (Judges 11:35). So Jephthah’s vow was perhaps not as blatantly foolish as it might seem at first and the result obviously unintentional, but the vow was unwise, nevertheless, and the story can remind us all of the extreme care we should utilize in making promises so that they do not end up hurting us or others.
“The Lord has dealt with me according to my righteousness; according to the cleanness of my hands he has rewarded me. For I have kept the ways of the Lord; I am not guilty of turning from my God. All his laws are before me; I have not turned away from his decrees. I have been blameless before him and have kept myself from sin. The Lord has rewarded me according to my righteousness, according to the cleanness of my hands in his sight” (Psalm 18:20-24).
At first sight, verses such as these might appear to show a self-righteous attitude and perhaps that the warrior-king David was proud of his own goodness. If you were to say the same things to your friends, you know how they would react! But there are two factors to consider in looking at verses like these and understanding what David meant:
1) What righteousness means in the Old Testament. First, we must understand that the concept of righteousness in the Old Testament is somewhat different from what we find today and in the New Testament. In the Hebrew Bible the word sedek which is often translated as “righteousness” literally means “straightness” as opposed to “crookedness,” but it is usually used of the status of relationships rather than as an abstract measure of perfection. Under the Law of Moses one could be righteous by simply maintaining one’s relationship with God and others according to basic legal norms – the term did not denote some kind of perfect purity or spiritual perfection.
Anyone who did not murder, cheat, lie to, or otherwise harm other individuals maintained a proper relationship with them and was therefore “righteous.” This is different, of course, from the deeper expectations of the New Testament, which more frequently stress the importance of other things such as right motivation and attitude behind the behavior. As a result of the earlier concept of righteousness seen in most of the books of the Old Testament, when a person fulfilled the basic demands of a relationship he or she could be said to be “righteous,” and many of the times that David uses the term sedek, it is from this perspective. David was righteous in Hebrew terms simply because he lived within the expectations of the covenant and the community of God’s people.
2) What David also says regarding sin and righteousness. Even though David could see himself as being righteous in terms of how his society used the term, we find plenty of evidence that he was not proudly self-righteous. We know that David sinned and knew that he sinned (Psalm 51, etc.), so it is clear he did not imagine himself perfect in our modern sense of righteousness. We also know that David earnestly asked God to help him walk in the way of righteousness, as we see, for example, in Psalm 19: “Keep back your servant also from presumptuous sins; let them not have dominion over me. Then I shall be blameless, and I shall be innocent of great transgression” (Psalm 19:13).
Finally, we know that beyond asking God’s help to walk righteously, David openly gave God the credit when he did do what was right. In Psalm 18 – the same psalm we quote above regarding David’s expressions of righteousness – we also find: “It is God who arms me with strength, and makes my way perfect” (Psalm 18:32). This same attitude of humbly crediting God with his righteousness is frequently confirmed in other psalms, as when David says: “You are my Lord, my goodness is nothing apart from You” (Psalm 16:2b)
So, there is no indication in the psalms of David, or elsewhere, that David was self-righteous or proud of his own goodness. While it is clear that David knew that at most times he did walk righteously according to the use of this concept in his own culture, it is equally clear that he asked God’s help to do so and gave God credit when he succeeded. * For further understanding of the psalms of King David, download our free e-book Spotlight on the Psalmshere.
In the Book of Ruth, the heroine’s mother-in-law, Naomi, tells the widowed Ruth:
“My daughter, I must find a home for you, where you will be well provided for. Now Boaz, with whose women you have worked, is a relative of ours. Tonight he will be winnowing barley on the threshing floor. Wash, put on perfume, and get dressed in your best clothes. Then go down to the threshing floor, but don’t let him know you are there until he has finished eating and drinking. When he lies down, note the place where he is lying. Then go and uncover his feet and lie down. He will tell you what to do” (Ruth 3:1-4).
This may sound like strange advice, and it is a part of the story that often troubles readers – especially because even some Bible commentaries have attempted to see sexual innuendos in what is said. But, as we will see, there is really nothing in the language used or in our knowledge of Hebrew culture of the time to suggest anything sexual was involved. Ruth’s distant relative Boaz is shown to be an honorable man throughout the book, just as Ruth herself is shown to be honorable at every point. According to the law of Moses (as Naomi doubtless explained to Ruth), when a man died leaving his wife without children, the man’s nearest relative was bound to take her as a wife and provide a child for her (Deuteronomy 5:5-10). This situation helps us understand what happened next.
The story continues by telling us that when Ruth went to the threshing floor where Boaz had been working and had gone to sleep: “Ruth approached quietly, uncovered his feet and lay down. In the middle of the night something startled the man; he turned—and there was a woman lying at his feet! “Who are you?” he asked. “I am your servant Ruth,” she said. “Spread the corner of your garment over me, since you are a guardian-redeemer of our family” (Ruth 3:7-9).
To understand this part of the story we need to realize that in the Ancient Near East servants often slept crossways at the feet of their master when working outdoors and were allowed to pull any available blanket over themselves in order to keep warm. That is why Ruth told Boaz that she was his servant – and thus eligible to lie at his feet – and that he was her guardian-redeemer (Hebrew goel) who bore a responsibility to marry her to provide a son to perpetuate the name of her deceased husband – so he should “cover her with his garment” or marry her (Ezekiel 16:8, etc.).
But why uncover his feet? Certainly this caused him to eventually awaken in the dark, but Ruth could simply have woken Boaz to talk. The “uncovering” of Boaz’s feet was necessary because it relates to what she tells him – and in the culture of that time a shoe would be removed to signal a responsibility or to seal a contract. We see this signaling in Deuteronomy in exactly this situation when a man would not fulfil his responsibility to his brother’s wife: “his brother’s widow shall go up to him …. take off one of his sandals, spit in his face and say, ‘This is what is done to the man who will not build up his brother’s family line’”(Deuteronomy 5:9).
We see the same act of uncovering the foot to seal an agreement later in the story of Ruth when Boaz cleverly persuades Ruth’s actual nearest of kin to forgo his responsibility and allow Boaz to marry her: “(Now in earlier times in Israel, for the redemption and transfer of property to become final, one party took off his sandal and gave it to the other. This was the method of legalizing transactions in Israel.)” (Ruth 4:7).
So Ruth’s uncovering of Boaz’s feet on the threshing floor has nothing to do with the uncovering of any other part of the anatomy (the Hebrew is literally “uncover the place of his feet,” which is never used euphemistically). Rather, it fits into what we see specifically in this part of the story – the signaling of a responsibility on the part of Boaz to marry Ruth and provide children for her. This was a responsibility that this ancient story shows Boaz was more than happy to fulfill – without ever experiencing “cold feet” again!
*You can download a free copy of our book on Ruth here.
“I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things” (Isaiah 45:7 KJV).
In the King James version of the Bible quoted above, this verse from the Book of Isaiah is one that has puzzled countless people over the centuries since that translation was made. If God is good, we might naturally ask, how can he create evil? But three lines of evidence show that the KJV translation is not accurate in this instance and must be revised in order to properly understand what Isaiah wrote. We will look at the three factors individually.
First, the Hebrew word ra translated “evil” in the KJV of Isaiah 45:7 can mean moral evil, and it is often rightly translated that way in the Old Testament; but the word also has the meanings of physical adversity, calamity, disaster, injury, ruin, or even misery. So while evil is a possible translation in Isaiah 45:7, it is only one of many and we must look at the immediate context of the scripture and the context of the whole Bible to see which meaning would be most appropriate in this verse.
Second, the immediate context of Isaiah 45:7 indicates that Isaiah did not have moral evil in mind when he composed this verse. Chapter 45 has a clear context in which God says he rewards obedience (for example, vss. 8, 17) and punishes disobedience, rebellion and sin (for example, vss. 9, 16). This immediate context makes it far more likely that Isaiah 45:7 is using the Hebrew word ra in the sense of calamity or disaster that comes upon the wicked as a result of their own actions. We can see this in the exact wording of the verse – notice how “light and darkness” (two direct opposites) are compared with “peace and evil.” But evil is not the opposite of peace – this second pair of words should clearly be “peace and calamity.”
Finally, everything we are told throughout the Bible about the goodness and righteousness of God indicates that God does not himself create that which is wrong or morally evil. The prophet Habakkuk tells us of God: “Your eyes are too pure to look on evil” (Habakkuk 1:13); the Psalms tell us: “The LORD is upright…there is no wickedness in him” (Psalm 92:15); Isaiah himself tells us that “Those who walk righteously … shut their eyes against contemplating evil” (Isaiah 33:15). These and a great many other biblical verses show that God clearly does not and cannot contemplate evil.
The fact that the Hebrew word translated “evil” has many other meanings, the fact that the immediate context of Isaiah 45:7 is one of the calamity of punishment for sin rather than the creation of moral evil, and the fact that the Bible is consistent in showing that God does not even look at evil all indicate that it is not moral evil that God creates, but the punishment that comes as a result of sin.
That is why English translations made since the King James was translated in 1611 have almost all chosen to translate the Hebrew ra not as “evil” but with a word reflecting some kind of punishment. The New International Version, for example, translates the word “disaster,” as does the Holman Bible. The English Standard Version translates it “calamity,” as does the New King James Version, which brings the English of the King James Version up to date. God does not ever directly create evil, though he creates beings that may of their own free will turn to evil and bring punishment upon themselves.
Scripture in Focus: “This is the one who came by water and blood—Jesus Christ. He did not come by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. For there are three that testify: the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement” (1 John 5:6-8).
These words of the apostle John are some of the most argued over verses in the Bible. What exactly do they mean? There have been many suggestions as to exactly what the water and blood are by which Christ came, but the most agreed upon are the following two explanations:
The Sacrifice of Jesus
The blood and water that flowed from Jesus’ side when his body was pierced by a Roman soldier after his death on the cross (John 19:34). Understood this way, the water and blood of which John spoke would symbolically represent the blood and water involved in some of the Old Testament sacrifices (Leviticus 14:52: “He shall purify the house with the bird’s blood, the fresh water, the live bird, the cedar wood, the hyssop and the scarlet yarn.” Hebrews 9:19: “he took the blood of calves, together with water, scarlet wool and branches of hyssop, and sprinkled the scroll and all the people.” etc.).
However, although the blood and water that flowed from Christ’s side may have symbolically fulfilled the blood and water aspect of the physical sacrifices, how would this apply to what John says in 1 John 5:6-8? We should note that the order John gives in those verses is water and blood – not blood and water as in all the sacrificial related scriptures. Second, if this were the meaning John had in mind, why would he write that Jesus “came” by the water and blood? In what sense could he have “arrived” after his death? And why would John add “He did not come by water only, but by water and blood.”?
The Baptism and Death of Jesus
The other major interpretation of what John wrote argues that the “water and blood” refer to the water of Jesus’ baptism in the River Jordan and the blood of his sacrifice on the cross. In this sense, the Son of God could certainly be said to have “come” through these two events as they framed Jesus’ ministry from beginning to end. Remember that at both points Christ was declared to be the Son of God – by the heavenly voice at his baptism (Matthew 3:17), and by the testimony of the centurion at his death (Matthew 27:54). Also, as John states, the Spirit of God testified to Jesus being the Son of God (1 John 5:7-8) a fact that applies far more to his complete ministry than to an isolated point after his death.
This understanding fits the order of words that John used – the water then the blood – and there is a historical reason why it is likely correct. The epistle of John was written partly to combat emerging heretical ideas that taught the Son of God descended upon and entered the man Jesus at his baptism and then left him at the time of his arrest, so that it was only the physical Jesus who died. John argues against these early gnostic teachings in many verses of his first epistle and his statement that Jesus came by water and blood makes total sense in this regard.
John seems to argue that the work of the Son of God spanned the whole of his life from baptism to death – which is why he would stress: “He did not come by water only, but by water and blood” (vs. 6b). John’s point is that, contrary to false teachings, it was the Son of God who was baptized and who was crucified. In saying this, John counters the gnostic stress on “knowledge” of this false Jesus – which is why the apostle (stressing both knowledge and idols) concludes:
“We know also that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true. And we are in him who is true by being in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life. Dear children, keep yourselves from idols” (1 John 5:20-21).
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