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.
“If your enemy is hungry, give him food to eat; if he is thirsty, give him water to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head, and the Lord will reward you” (Proverbs 25:21-22).
From a Christian perspective, the proverb’s admonition that we give food and water to our enemies so that “burning coals” will be heaped upon them may seem strange indeed. Helping someone just to bring punishment on the person seems contradictory to most biblical teachings, yet this exact Old Testament proverb is also cited in the New Testament – by the apostle Paul:
If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord. On the contrary: “If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head” (Romans 12:18-20).
But we do not need to understand this proverb literally in order to understand its message. If we look at it in its original setting in the Book of Proverbs, we find that it occurs in a group of sayings that all use physical imagery to describe emotional conditions. Proverbs 25:20 – the proverb directly before the one we are looking at – tells us, for example: “ Like one who takes away a garment on a cold day, or like vinegar poured on a wound, is one who sings songs to a heavy heart.” Proverbs 25:23 – the saying directly after the one we want to understand – likewise tells us: “Like a north wind that brings unexpected rain is a sly tongue — which provokes a horrified look.” All of these proverbs are not to be understood literally, rather they are meant to supply a graphic image of what a given feeling is like.
In Proverbs 25:22 we are given an analogy showing what the emotional feeling will often be like for someone who is treated kindly despite their own behavior toward the person showing the kindness. In a great many cases that feeling will be one of emotional discomfort – the flush of acute embarrassment – that might well be symbolized by having “burning coals” tipped upon the person’s head. There are other examples of the metaphorical use of “burning coals” in the Scriptures, as in 2 Samuel 14:7 which uses the image of a “burning coal” to represent a person’s heir, but the meaning of the expression in Proverbs 25 is clearly that of a feeling of emotional embarrassment and perhaps guilt.
There is a wonderful example of this principle and its effect in the Book of 2 Kings (6:8-23) which tells the story of how the Prophet Elisha asked God to strike an Aramean army that was invading Israel with blindness. When the enemy soldiers did become blind, rather than having them killed as many expected, Elisha led them to Israel’s capital city Samaria where he instructed the king of Israel to “Set food and water before them so that they may eat and drink and then go back to their master” (2 Kings 6:22). This is the exact application of the principle of giving food and drink to one’s enemies, in this case to those who had sought to harm the people of Israel.
Not surprisingly, when the sight of the enemy warriors was restored and they had been fed “a great feast” by those they originally intended to harm, we read that: “after they had finished eating and drinking, he sent them away, and they returned to their master. So the bands from Aram stopped raiding Israel’s territory” (2 Kings 6:23). The Aramean warriors who had been treated in this way felt great embarrassment at the kindness of those they had considered enemies and that feeling doubtless was responsible for their cessation of hostilities.
That is why the apostle Paul could cite Proverbs 25:21-22 as a practical example of not being overcome by evil, but overcoming evil with good (Romans 12:21). The principle of embarrassment also underlies Paul’s words to the Thessalonian church: “Take special note of anyone who does not obey our instruction in this letter. Do not associate with them, in order that they may feel ashamed” (2 Thessalonians 3:14). Paul knew that it is better, where possible, to embarrass others with right behavior than to ignore or reciprocate their wrongdoing. “Heaping burning coals” in the context that Paul uses the expression clearly means to cause temporary emotional discomfort that may lead to good.
The Book of 1 Kings tells us that near the beginning of his reign, King Solomon had his own brother Adonijah executed (1 Kings 2:13-25). Solomon is praised for his godliness at this point of his life (1 Kings 3:3). Why would he do such a thing?
Adonijah was the fourth son of King David and an elder brother to Solomon, who inherited David’s throne according to his father’s wishes. But after the death of his own elder brothers, Amnon and Absalom, Adonijah considered himself the heir to the throne (1 Kings 1:5).
When David was near death, Adonijah invited his younger brothers (except Solomon) and many of the chief officials of the kingdom to a sacrificial feast to announce his intention to take the throne. But the prophet Nathan warned David through Bathsheba, Solomon’s mother, and David gave orders that Solomon immediately be proclaimed king.
At this point Adonijah asked for mercy from Solomon – who pardoned him on condition that he showed himself worthy in his behavior (1 Kings 1:50-53). But not long after this, Solomon executed Adonijah over an incident that might seem difficult to understand. Adonijah went to Solomon’s mother, Bathsheba, and persuaded her to ask the king on his behalf for permission to marry a young woman named Abishag. Bathsheba agreed and asked Solomon, who reacted strongly and ordered Adonijah’s death.
But there is more to the story than meets the eye. Abishag was not just any young woman. She was the virgin who had been selected from David’s harem to sleep alongside the aged king (without any sexual intimacy) to help keep him warm at night due to his poor circulation (1 Kings 1:1-4). But in the cultures of the ancient Near East, a king’s wives and concubines were considered part of the royal household inherited by the next king (2 Samuel 12:8).
The Greek historian Herodotus records this fact in saying that among the Persians a new king inherited the previous king’s harem and that to possess a king’s wife was as good as having title to the throne. In Israel, this had in fact been one of Adonijah’s older brother Absalom’s tactics when he attempted to take the throne of David (2 Samuel 16:22). So Adonijah knew that since the young woman Abishag was part of David’s harem, if he were to marry her it would strengthen his claim to the throne considerably.
That is why Solomon reacted so strongly – and why he told his mother Bathsheba “…Why do you request Abishag the Shunammite for Adonijah? You might as well request the kingdom for him …” (1 Kings 2:22). Solomon knew that this was no simple request, and that the devious Adonijah was clearly continuing his attempts to take over the throne. The Book of 1 Kings also shows that Solomon was aware that Adonijah was being supported by one of the military commanders, Joab, and by one of the chief priests, Abiathar – which is why the king also told his mother: “You might as well request the kingdom for him [Adonijah] and for Abiathar the priest and Joab son of Zeruiah!” (1 Kings 2:22).
Solomon’s mother, Bathsheba, was used as an unwitting accomplice in Adonijah’s scheming, but the Scriptures record that Solomon saw through the plot and acted decisively when it became apparent that his brother continued his plotting to take the throne. Sadly, this incident may have brought to a final fulfillment the curse King David had called down upon himself years earlier when he responded to the prophet Nathan’s story of a man who stole his neighbor’s lamb. That story was actually a parable representing David’s stealing of the wife of the faithful soldier Uriah, and the king (not realizing he spoke of himself) had replied that the guilty man must pay fourfold for his sin (2 Samuel 12:1-6). It is perhaps not coincidence that David’s four eldest sons, ending with Adonijah, met untimely deaths. But in any event, it is clear that although he was granted mercy by Solomon, Adonijah continued to scheme to build power to take over the throne for himself – and in this way caused his own demise.
Scripture in Focus: Now this was John’s testimony when the Jews of Jerusalem sent priests and Levites to ask him who he was. He did not fail to confess, but confessed freely, “I am not the Christ.” They asked him, “Then who are you? Are you Elijah?” He said, “I am not.” “Are you the Prophet?” He answered, “No” (John 19-21).
When the Jewish religious leaders questioned John the Baptist about his identity, he told them he was not the Messiah (the Christ), Elijah, or “the Prophet.” These were three figures mentioned in the Scriptures who the Jews believed would be revealed in the end time: the longed for Messiah (Isaiah 11:1-10, etc.), a second “Elijah” (Malachi 4:5-6), and a great prophet “like Moses” (Deuteronomy 18:15). From our perspective as Christians today, we know the Messiah was, of course, Jesus.
We also know that just as Elijah was a forerunner of his successor Elisha, John the Baptist was a forerunner of Jesus (Isaiah 40:3, John 3:30); and in that way and others, John fulfilled the role of a second Elijah (Matthew 11:7–14, Luke 1:17). But the prophecy of the second Elijah could also be applied to Jesus himself, who did many of the same signs as Elijah in his ministry (2 Kings 2:11, etc.).
But that leaves the expected “Prophet.” Was that individual a second Jeremiah or other Old Testament prophet, as many of the Jews of Christ’s time thought? Or could the prophecy relate to some modern day spiritual leader, as some religious groups have claimed – or even the prophet Mohammed, as many Muslims claim?
There was certainly confusion as to the identity of “the prophet” in the time of Jesus. The Jews knew that Moses had told their ancestors “The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your fellow Israelites. You must listen to him” (Deuteronomy 18:15). But some thought that prophet would be synonymous with the Messiah, while others thought he would be a different individual. Some understood the words “God will raise up” a prophet to mean that God would resurrect one of the Old Testament prophets such as Isaiah or Jeremiah, which is why we read in Matthew’s Gospel that when Jesus asked his disciples who people thought he was, they replied, “…Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets” (Matthew 16:14).
However, the New Testament clearly shows that the prophet spoken of by Moses was not one of the individuals active in Old Testament times (much less some more recent or modern individual), but Jesus Christ himself. Jesus plainly stated that Moses wrote about him: “If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me” (John 5:46). The disciple Philip told Nathaniel: “We have found the one Moses wrote about in the Law ..” (John 1:45).
If we believe what the Scriptures say regarding the eventual appearance of another prophet like Moses, we must also believe what the Bible says in telling us who that prophet was. In his great Pentecost sermon the apostle Peter confirmed that the prophet was Christ himself:
“… that he may send the Messiah, who has been appointed for you—even Jesus. Heaven must receive him until the time comes for God to restore everything, as he promised long ago through his holy prophets. For Moses said, ‘The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own people; you must listen to everything he tells you. Anyone who does not listen to him will be completely cut off from their people’”(Acts 3:20-23).
So the New Testament makes it clear that the prophet to come was neither one of the Old Testament prophets nor any individual after the time of Jesus. The Messiah, the Elijah, and the Prophet like Moses are all clearly identified in the New Testament. In some ways, Jesus Christ fulfilled the promised roles of all these individuals, though we have seen that John the Baptist did fulfill at least a partial role as a second Elijah. Interestingly, in the transfiguration of Jesus before his chief disciples (Matthew 17:1–8, Mark 9:2–8, Luke 9:28–36), Jesus appeared in a glorified state along with Elijah and Moses. The vision of these three individuals is not coincidental and reflects the Jewish expectation and longing for the Messiah, a second Elijah, and the Prophet like Moses. When we understand this, we realize that the transfiguration revealed Jesus not only as being with Elijah and Moses, but also as a manifestation of the Messiah, the Elijah, and the Prophet like Moses.
“… the LORD has sought out a man after his own heart and appointed him ruler of his people …” (1 Samuel 13:14). This is a verse that often comes to mind when we think about the character of David, king of ancient Israel, writer of so many of the Bible’s psalms, and ancestor of Jesus Christ himself. Yet the expression “a man after [God’s] own heart” probably does not mean what we often think it means at all.
Many of us have speculated on the expression and wondered – why would David be described as a man after God’s own heart – something not said of other great biblical figures? What earned David that description? Was it his total commitment to God or some other aspect of his character?
It is actually likely that no aspect of David’s character is in mind, and that it is God who is the focus of this verse. The expression “the LORD has sought out a man after his own heart” reflects a standard ancient Near Eastern manner of expressing someone’s desires and wishes – things they wanted “in their own heart.” Ancient Babylonian texts use the same expression of a god or a king installing a ruler of their choice. In fact, the Nebuchadnezzar Chronicle (c. 599 BC) of the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar II tells how that king conquered Jerusalem and replaced the Jewish king Jeconiah with a king of his own choice – Zedekiah – exactly as recorded in the Bible (2 Kings 24:17).
In both the Bible and the texts of the nations that surrounded ancient Israel, the expression simply means that the new king would be to the liking of the one installing him. It is also paralleled by the biblical description of God’s replacement of the High Priest Eli with Samuel: “I will raise up for myself a faithful priest, who will do according to what is in my heart and mind. I will firmly establish his priestly house, and they will minister before my anointed one always” (1 Samuel 2:35).
So the expression “a man after his own heart” used of David in 1 Samuel 13:14 is not saying that David’s “heart” or attitude was somehow like that of God, that he was a man of extraordinary righteousness or moral excellence, but that God had chosen someone according to his own heart or wishes – someone he felt he could trust to be obedient and to do the work he was given to do.
That is why in the New Testament in Paul’s speech at Antioch, the apostle said: “After removing Saul, he made David their king. God testified concerning him: ‘I have found David son of Jesse, a man after my own heart; he will do everything I want him to do” (Acts 13:22). It is not that God had found David to be “like his own heart,” but that he had chosen a man according to his own wishes.
Finally, the Bible’s chronological notations show that although David was about twenty-three years old when he became king, he was only a very young child when Saul was told that God had selected someone “after his own heart.” David had not yet had time to demonstrate his character in order to qualify as someone with traits like those of God. Rather, 1 Samuel 13:14 means that God was intent on installing a king according to his own standards rather than according to the desires of the Israelites who had clamored for a king just like those of the nations around them (1 Samuel 8:5). A man of powerful presence, yet with pride and many other failings, Saul was exactly the type of leader Israel’s neighbors had. God then chose not a typical leader, as Saul had been, but someone of his own choosing who would be a better ruler. The Old Testament shows that many aspects of David’s character were indeed admirable and that he did rule over Israel wisely and well, but the verse we have examined does not address that fact. It simply shows that God chose David, not why David was chosen.
Scripture in Focus: “There were giants on the earth in those days, and also after that…” (Genesis 6:4 KJV).
Many of us are familiar with children’s books illustrating the biblical story of David and the giant Goliath (1 Samuel 17:4–7) – with pictures showing the young David overshadowed by a huge figure perhaps twice as tall as himself.
Giants are first mentioned in the Old Testament as early as Genesis 6, where we are told “There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward…” But are these stories of giants just “tall tales” as many presume – or, if they are based in fact, what exactly are the stories talking about?
The word in Genesis 6:4 translated “giant” in the King James Version and some other versions of the Bible is the Hebrew word nephilim, and the actual meaning of the word is unknown – which is why it is simply left untranslated in most modern versions such as the NIV, ESV, HCSB, etc.
The “Nephilim” are also mentioned later in the Scriptures. When the Israelite spies returned from their reconnaissance in the Promised Land, they reported: “We saw the Nephilim there (the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim). We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them” (Numbers 13:33). This description does make the Nephilim sound like giants.
But in the book of Ezekiel the Nephilim are spoken of simply as great warriors: “But they do not lie with the fallen warriors of old [Hebrew Nephilim], who went down to the realm of the dead with their weapons of war – their swords placed under their heads and their shields resting on their bones – though these warriors also had terrorized the land of the living” (Ezekiel 32:27).
So the exact meaning of Nephilim is uncertain – possibly the word refers to giants, or it may mean only something like mighty warriors. It is clear, however, that some of the descendants of the Nephilim exhibited the characteristic of great height. We are told the size of some warriors of this group, but there are still uncertainties.
Goliath, for example, is said to have been “six cubits and a span” tall (approximately 9 ft. 9 in.) according to the traditional Masoretic Hebrew text, but the Septuagint and an ancient Hebrew manuscript found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, designated 4QSama, list Goliath’s height as four cubits and a span (approximately 6 ft. 9 in.).
Yet even the great heights recorded for “giants” like Goliath are not outside of possibility. Today, in 2017, the tallest man living is Sultan Kösen of Turkey who was officially measured at 8 ft. 2.8 in. (251 cm.) in Ankara, Turkey, on 08 February 2011; but Robert Wadlow, who lived in the United States 1918–1940, was measured at 8 ft. 11.1 in. (272 cm. – just a little under 9 ft. and almost as tall as even the greatest measurement found in biblical manuscripts for Goliath. Even today, some human populations are much taller than others, though gigantism of the kind recorded in the Bible is usually the result of an over-production of growth hormone in the pituitary gland. We can conclude, therefore, that it remains uncertain whether the “Nephilim” of the biblical accounts were all extremely tall or simply mighty warriors among whom some were “giants,” but the recorded heights of the tallest of these individuals are certainly within the realm of actual possibility.
Recent Comments