There are now a good many websites competing for your online Bible study time. Most publishers of individual translations have a dedicated site for their own Bible version, and there are numerous sites which compare multiple translations and offer other study helps. Which site is best? To some extent, the answer depends on your needs and study preferences, and each site has its own strong points – so comparing the options makes sense. In making our own comparison we found that most of the sites we looked at can be helpful and are providing a valuable service, but we did find that some sites are more useful than others. This article compares five sites (all of them free to use) that we consider to be among the best. There are certainly other good sites – such as the fine Blue Letter Bible – which may be perfect for your needs, but the ones we list have the most translations and features. We look at them in reverse order – saving what we consider the best for last …
#5: Bible Study Tools has a limited number of other-than-English language translations available – but it includes most major English versions and allows side by side comparison of verses or chapters in different versions, which not all sites do. It has a type of “interlinear” Hebrew and Greek text with individual words linked to Strong’s concordance entries, but although the English linkage is word by word, those with no knowledge of the biblical languages may find this feature difficult to use. The site has a selection of devotionals, basic commentaries, Bible dictionaries and other resources, and also has a “My Bible” feature which allows users to add and save notes to scriptures and to highlight, bookmark, and categorize verses with tags. Overall, this is a fine, simple to use site.
#4:StudyLight.org has an excellent selection of translations (though not always listed in alphabetical order), including many in foreign languages and with Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek and Latin texts of the Old and New Testaments. StudyLight claims to have more Bible commentaries, encyclopedias, dictionaries, lexicons and original language tools than any other site on the internet, and the selection is extensive. It also includes the complete text of many important background works such as those of Josephus and the writings of the Early Church Fathers. The site’s “interlinear” version is like that of the Bible Study Tools site with word-by-word translations, but is a little clearer. The site is often excellent for deeper study, but is limited by the inability to compare different translations side by side.
#3: Bible.com (the You Version site) claims over three thousand total versions in well over a thousand languages. We didn’t count to check, but the list has every translation we have ever seen and many more. Even seldom heard of translations such as Cook Islands Maori (in addition to New Zealand Maori!) are included, and some versions are available in audio format. You can save highlighted verses, tabs and notes. The site also offers a good number of reading plans and devotionals ranging from 7 days to a year. A mobile app is offered as well as a way to be involved in live discussions of sermons, Bible studies and questions (you can schedule your own discussion event). These are all good features, though the core aspect of the site – the translation interface – is limited in terms of search and commentary features and only allows side-by-side view for comparison of two versions at one time. The “Recently Used” tab is helpful, however, in allowing the user to go back and forth between versions. We did not find any way to work with the Hebrew or Greek texts on this site.
#2: BibleGatewayis a solid pick. It is not only the most visited Bible site in the world (with astronomical usage statistics), but it also has a great many useful features. The site has hundreds of available translations and while it may not have quite as many as Bible.com, it has more than most of us would ever need in all major languages (for example, seventeen Spanish translations alone). At this time it has limited study tools in the biblical languages available only with paid subscription. It also takes a little extra clicking and scrolling to get to commentaries and some other features compared to some other sites, and the advertising can be a little heavy sometimes. But despite these minor points BibleGateway has many useful features. It has audio capability and is available for desktop use and as a smartphone app, and registered users (free) can insert and save highlights, notes, tabs, etc., as they study. BibleGateway’s search capabilities are unparalleled, and its ability to pull up instances of a given word or phrase from any or all parts of the Bible – in as many translations as one wishes – is also tremendous for deeper comparative study.
#1: Bible Hubis our current top pick for fast and effective study. It has as a quick link bar at the top of the screen for selecting major translations, which some may find more convenient than repeatedly scrolling through drop down menus. The range of translations is relatively limited compared to some other sites, but a major plus of Bible Hub is its fine parallel Bible feature which compares any verse in over thirty major translations. It gives the option to instantly click up to the whole chapter when context is needed. A selection of entries from major commentaries is available for each verse, and like StudyLight.org, Bible Hub has true word-for word interlinear versions of the Hebrew and Greek texts as well as a number of other features, but we think one of its best characteristics is the time-saving ability to see multiple translations of the same verse – and commentaries on it – together on the same page without repetitive menu surfing. Overall, this is an excellent site and combining it with the search capabilities of BibleGateway and the enormous number of translations available on Bible.com when needed provides everything one could normally want for effective online Bible study.
If we don’t read the original languages in which the books of the Bible were written – Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek – we need a translation, and even scholars who can read those languages often don’t read all of them, so ultimately everyone needs or can profit from a good translation.
But there are literally dozens of Bible translations or “versions” available in English – how can you choose the “best” one for your purposes? This article briefly considers some of the most widely used and recommended English translations and gives a number of pointers to help you select a good one for your own needs.
1. No Perfect Translation. First, we need to realize that there is no such thing as a “perfect” translation, although some are certainly much less imperfect than others. We often need to choose a translation based on our specific needs – perhaps an easy reading version for daily study or perhaps a more precise, though not as easy to read version to check scriptures regarding doctrine or important details. Ideally, we might find a single translation that works well for both needs, but often it is a good idea to have two translations (see point 2) if possible, and we should check several translations to decide important questions.
2. Words vs. Thoughts. Next, it’s important to understand that translation can be done in two ways – what we might call a “word-for-word” (technically called the “formal equivalence“) approach, versus a “meaning for meaning” or “phrase for phrase” (“dynamic equivalence”) approach. While an exact word for word translation might seem desirable, we can’t always do that without actually clouding the meaning. For example, the Hebrew Bible uses the expression “God’s nostrils enlarged” and even the King James Version, a “word-for-word” translation, had to use a meaning for meaning approach for this expression which means “God became angry.” On the other hand, while this approach works for translating idioms, if we just translate for “meaning” all the time, we run the risk of the translator’s understanding of the meaning entering into the picture, so that what is translated is not really in the text at all. The New International Version, for example, translates Ephesians 6:6 to say that slaves should “Obey [their masters] not only to win their favor…” But the word “only” is not in the original Greek, and this addition changes the meaning considerably. More extreme “meaning” based versions such as the Living Bible or The Message Bible are really paraphrases – often using different words entirely to try to convey the meaning. While they are easy reading, these are not usually recommended for serious study.
3. Balancing Act. One way we can balance accuracy with readability is to use two translations – a word-for-word version such as the English Standard Version, and a more dynamic version such as the New International Version. While this approach might work well in theory, in practice it is often tedious and time consuming to have to switch back and forth between versions when we just want to read. However, some recent English versions try to balance between formal and dynamic equivalence in their translation. The results are not always perfect, but some of these versions are very good. The Christian Standard Bible is one example, liked by many as it does a good job of carefully translating the meaning of a verse in a readable manner. The Berean Study Bible and New English Translation are also excellent versions of this type.
4.Safety in Numbers. It’s usually best to not choose a translation done by a single person or by a religious denomination as a primary study Bible, as the results are almost always going to be affected by the beliefs of the individual or group. Many translations by single individuals, while they may be very readable, are paraphrases which convey only the general meaning of a verse and simply cannot be trusted for accurate understanding. While it is often said that committees can never agree on anything important, the most trustworthy translations are nevertheless produced by large committees of biblical scholars who balance each other and try to arrive at the best understanding of the original meaning of the text. Most of the major translations mentioned in this article were produced by a large team of scholars – several of the teams being in excess of 100 members. Committee translations include the English Standard Version, Christian Standard Bible, New International Version and others.
5. Newer May be Better. The venerable King James Version, although much loved and still a wonderful version to read, is often hampered as a study Bible by its age. Sometimes it is because the English language has changed a lot since 1611 when the KJV was made. The word translated “conversation” in the KJV, for example, means “conduct” and unless we realize that we can misunderstand what is being said. Also, many ancient manuscripts of the Bible, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, have been found since 1611 which help clarify some difficult verses. As a result, the New King James Version, which maintains much of the beautiful language of the old KJV, updates the English where needed and includes manuscript evidence now available. On the other hand, some newer versions use gender inclusive language substitution (e.g., “person” for “man” or “they” for “he”). Sometimes this is helpful, but sometimes it changes the intended meaning and is misleading.
6. Older May be Good. The King James Version with its “thee” and “thou” forms is often very precise. “Thee,” “thou,” ”thy,” and “thine” refer to one person. “Ye” and “you” mean more than one person, so when a modern translation dispenses with the older forms of address we can lose meaning. For example, in the NKJV, Exodus 16:28 states: “And the LORD said to Moses, ‘How long do you refuse to keep My commandments and My laws?’ “ which sounds like God is talking to Moses, whereas the old KJV “… How long refuse ye to keep my commandments…?’ ” shows God was actually talking about the Israelites in general. Modern translations must be careful with the lack of precision which is part of modern English.
7. Notes May or May Not Help. Many people like study bibles with lots of articles, notes, etc.; but there is little point in taking great care to choose an accurate translation then bringing in notes with information that may be dated, confusing or inaccurate. It’s certainly not a good idea to choose a Bible on the basis of its notes alone, and sometimes safer to just get a good version without a lot of additional material, especially if the notes are of a doctrinal nature. Important questions can be researched far more thoroughly in multiple commentaries and other more extensive works. Notes which show other translation possibilities are certainly useful, as are cross references to related scriptures, maps, and some other helps, but the quality of the translation itself should always be the main concern.
Putting It All Together. To reiterate what was said at the outset, no translation is perfect. Individual needs and circumstances must guide the selection of the “best” translation for each person and for particular uses, but the points given above should help in making choices. An excellent option, if possible, is to have a good word for word translation such as the English Standard Version or New King James Version and a version such as the New International Version or Christian Standard Bible closer to the thought for thought side of the spectrum. When the wording of a section of scripture needs to be studied in detail, however, it is still a good idea to consult a number of translations using resources such as the BibleHub.com or BibleGateway.com websites. You can use these sites to compare versions to find one that works well for you, and you can freely download several of the Bible versions discussed in this article, and others, from the FreeChristianEBooks.org website.
This chart shows the relative positions of some of the English versions discussed in this article across the spectrum of translation – from very literal to not literal at all. Generally speaking, while extreme thought for thought versions may be easy to read, a Bible on the word for word side of the spectrum, or in the center of the range, is recommended for serious study.
“My God … do not remain silent …Appoint someone evil to oppose my enemy; let an accuser stand at his right hand. When he is tried, let him be found guilty, and may his prayers condemn him. May his days be few; may another take his place of leadership. May his children be fatherless and his wife a widow. May his children be wandering beggars; may they be driven from their ruined homes. May a creditor seize all he has; may strangers plunder the fruits of his labor. May no one extend kindness to him or take pity on his fatherless children. May his descendants be cut off, their names blotted out from the next generation” (Psalm 109:1,6-13).
The so-called imprecatory psalms have a way of getting our attention. Their name comes from the verb “imprecate” which means “to invoke a curse upon,” as these compositions invoke judgement, punishment or curses on – and may even express hatred for – the individuals or groups they are directed against.
The psalms given this label include 5, 10, 17, 28, 31, 35, 40, 58, 59, 69, 70, 79, 83, 109, 129, 137, 139, and 140, though some of these compositions only contain a few verses of an imprecatory nature. But the extreme nature of the curses these psalms call down seems to be at total odds with Christ’s command that we love our enemies (Matthew 5:44). How are we to understand them then, as inspired compositions within the Bible as a whole?
Problematic Explanations
Apologists have tried to explain these psalms in various ways. The most common rationale for the assumed disparity between the curses of the imprecatory psalms and Christian attitudes is that psalms of this type belong to an “Old Covenant” dispensation and that they reflect a sub-Christian ethical standard that was replaced with the teachings of Christ. But this view fails to take into account the fact that Christ himself frequently quoted the imprecatory psalms (for example, Psalm 69 – quoted in Matthew 27:24, John 2:17, John 15:25, etc.) and the apostle Paul states that certain individuals should be “accursed” in a very similar manner (Galatians 1:8-9, etc.).
Another view is that the psalmist was simply stating what would happen to the wicked rather than wishing evil on them, and that these psalms were spoken in the “indicative mood,” explaining the punishment that would occur, and not in the “imperative mood,” commanding or requesting the punishment. But that theory does not fit the wording of a number of the psalms which make clear requests to God to destroy the offending individual or enemy.
Various other approaches suggest that the curses found in these psalms were “cathartic” for emotional or ritual cleansing or for release of frustration (we might say “blowing off steam”), or even just quoting other people’s words, but these and similar explanations are all unconvincing in trying to avoid the simple reality that the imprecatory psalms seem to be in direct contradiction to an attitude of forgiveness.
Ancient Legalities
There are two much more likely possibilities for understanding the imprecatory psalms. The first centers on the fact that in a great many of these compositions, there seems to be a background of some kind of accusation. For example, in Psalm 109 the curses (quoted at the beginning of this article) are preceded with the statement:
“… people who are wicked and deceitful have opened their mouths against me; they have spoken against me with lying tongues. With words of hatred they surround me; they attack me without cause. In return for my friendship they accuse me …” (Psalm 109:2-4 and see vs. 31).
In the same way, after reciting the curses of this psalm, the psalmist exclaims: “May this be the Lord’s payment to my accusers, to those who speak evil of me” (Psalm 109:20).
It is known that in many cultures of the ancient Near East curses were invoked on those who acted as false witnesses. If the imprecatory psalms follow this pattern, we should see their curses as the “legal boilerplate” of the day rather than as personal expressions of hatred or vengeance. This view is an attractive one in that many of the Psalms are known to utilize the specific religious and social vocabulary of their time.
Two Sides of the Same Truth
But although this understanding of the nature of the imprecatory psalms makes very good sense, there is also another and perhaps even better explanation for them – that their curses are exactly what they seem to be and that this need not, in fact, contradict the Christian ethic of forgiveness.
Viewed this way, the curses of the Old Testament reflect the psalmist’s firm belief in both God’s justice and his intolerance for sin. Taking this view, the biblical scholar Walter Kaiser wrote:
“To be sure, the attacks which provoked these prayers were not from personal enemies; rather, they were rightfully seen as attacks against God and especially his representatives in the promised line of the Messiah” (Hard Sayings of the Old Testament, Downers Grove, IL, 1988, p. 172).
This approach certainly fits a great many of the facts we have. In Psalm 109 – the example we have used throughout this article – the psalmist stresses that the attacks on him were not from enemies, but from friends who had falsely turned on him (Psalm 109:3-5). This is a common theme that the attackers who had turned on the anointed king equally displayed wickedness in their rebellion against God:
“Declare them guilty, O God! Let their intrigues be their downfall. Banish them for their many sins, for they have rebelled against you” (Psalm 5:10).
When we attempt, as Christians, to forgivingly love the sinner while hating the sin, this is very different from the situation in which David is, under inspiration, looking at the sin from the perspective of God’s judgment. That there is nothing “unchristian ” about this is seen in the fact that Christ himself essentially did the same thing in declaring “woe” on the scribes and Pharisees (Matthew 23:13-39) or on the inhabitants of Capernaum (Matthew 10:15), and that Paul quoted the imprecatory Psalm 69:22-23 in Romans 11:9-10 and he himself also leveled imprecation against certain individuals.
In his book Reflections on the Psalms (London and New York, 1958, p. 33), C. S. Lewis wrote: “The ferocious parts of the Psalms serve as a reminder that there is in the world such a thing as wickedness and that . . . is hateful to God.” This is perhaps the most realistic way to look at the imprecatory psalms – that they describe hatred for extreme sin and its practitioners at the level in which the two are not separated, which is completely different from the Christian approach of looking at individuals from the perspective of God’s love and willingness to forgive and thus separating the sinner from the sin.
Both approaches look at sin from God’s perspective, but one view – seen in the words of Christ and Paul as well as those of David – is based on God’s judgment, and the other (also seen in the words of Christ and Paul as well as those of David) is based on God’s mercy. As has often been said, we must not ever presume that one aspect of God’s character obliterates any other. The imprecatory psalms represent the justice of God’s ways just as the scriptural call to forgiveness represents his mercy.
* You can download a free copy of our e-book Spotlight on the Psalms – available in three versions for reading on computers or e-book readers here.
Conservatives and liberals? There have probably always been two ways to look at life. We only have to look back to New Testament times to see the opposing views of the conservative Pharisees and liberal Sadducees, or the ultra-conservative Essenes and ultra-liberal Herodians – each looking at life from their own perspective and each believing themselves to be right.
Historically, the two views of life have existed in countless forms and variations, but the essential approaches have been the same – conservative and liberal, traditional and progressive, those desiring to maintain what is established and those looking for change, those wanting to uphold good and those wanting to implement improvement. Of course there are other aspects to the great dichotomy – for example, those who feel the implementation of justice is all important and those who stress the importance of mercy. This does not mean, of course, that those with a conservative viewpoint are never merciful or support progressive ideas, any more than it means those with a liberal outlook never support justice or seek to maintain established patterns, but that people usually gravitate to one approach or the other, depending on their view of the world.
One would think that the Bible would have something to say about these fundamental outlooks– and in fact, it does. We don’t find words that can be translated “conservative” or “liberal” in the Scriptures, of course, but we find parallel ideas in such dual biblical concepts as “justice and mercy,” “law and grace,” or “truth and love.” Although some people may stress one of these qualities over the other in a given pair, the fact is both are necessary and right. We see this in the many scriptures stressing that both halves of the duality are found in the nature of God.
The God of Two Ways
In the Old Testament two contrasting Hebrew words are often used to describe God: hesed and ‘emet (Exodus 34:6, etc.). These words are often translated “love” and “faithfulness,” though it is possible to translate them in other ways – such as “love” and “truth,” or other terms that reflect the two basic underlying views of life. For example, in Genesis 32:10 the two Hebrew words are translated “kindness and faithfulness” (NIV), “love and faithfulness” (ESV), “mercies and truth” (NKJ), and so on. But while hesed and ‘emet are frequently used individually, they occur together more than any other words in descriptions of God.
Sometimes, other pairs of words are used in the Old Testament to show the same combination of qualities in God’s nature. Consider what Isaiah tells us: “Yet the Lord longs to be gracious to you; therefore he will rise up to show you compassion. For the Lord is a God of justice…” (Isaiah 30:18, emphases added)
In the New Testament we find a parallel word pair in the Greek words alētheia and charis. While alētheia is usually translated “truth,” charis is translated “grace,” “loving kindness,” and in other ways. When the apostle John described the nature of the son of God, he wrote of “…the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth” (John 1:14).
So, whether we look at the Old Testament or the New, we find both views of life being combined in descriptions of the character and nature of God. The two views may be characterized as love and faithfulness, grace and truth, judgment and mercy, compassion and judgment, or in many other ways, but their essential equivalence with the two basic approaches to life is clear. God clearly embraces both views, and if we are to be like God, we need to be able to do this, too.
Applying Worldviews
But if we say that we should embrace and utilize both approaches in our lives, what does that mean for daily living? Do we become registered members of both the conservative and liberal parties of our nations? How can we be for both the prosecution and pardon of criminals, for preservation and for change? The answer to how we apply both worldviews through careful and prayerful balance is found within the Scriptures themselves. We see this in many scriptures – such as Hosea 12:6 which urges us to “… maintain love and justice …” rather than one or the other.
An often overlooked example from the New Testament is seen in the story of how Joseph dealt with the pregnancy of Mary. The Gospel of Matthew tells us: “Because Joseph her husband was faithful to the law, and yet did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly” (Matthew 1:19). This verse shows us with remarkable clarity the approach Joseph took of being faithful to the law (choosing law, truth, faithfulness), yet at the same time, choosing to quietly divorce Mary rather than to cause her public shame and disgrace (choosing love, mercy, grace). Joseph did not choose one view of life or the other – he chose to apply both.
We see this same approach in the words of Jesus: “…neither do I condemn you …Go now and leave your life of sin” (John 8:11) and expounded by the apostle Paul when he wrote: “But speaking the truth in love, let us grow in every way into Him who is the head — Christ” (Ephesians 4:15). Notice that Paul urges us not to choose truth or love alone, but to apply one with the other – and to do so that we may become more like Christ himself.
This does not mean that we can always combine the two approaches in every situation. Paul himself speaks not only of applying unencumbered mercy: “Anyone you forgive, I also forgive” (2 Corinthians 2:10), but also of applying pure judgment when he had to do so: “I already gave you a warning when I was with you the second time. I now repeat it while absent: On my return I will not spare those who sinned…” (2 Corinthians 13:2).
Walking in Two Ways
The Christian is called to walk according to both approaches to life – that of justice and mercy, truth and love, or however we may define them – at the same time to the degree that it is possible. Sometimes we must choose one or the other approach depending on the circumstances, but we need never feel that we are called to one worldview to the exclusion of the other. If both approaches cannot be taken simultaneously, we can still strive to apply whichever worldview best fits the particular situation.
We should always remember that both approaches are part of the nature and character of God. A prophecy in the Book of Hosea illustrates this beautifully: “I will betroth you to me forever; I will betroth you in righteousness and justice, in love and compassion” (Hosea 2:19).
That is the “forever” life to which we are called – one of both righteousness and justice as well as love and compassion. We are called to a life that accepts both views, a Way in which wisdom is found in learning when to apply each.
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.
The English word “context” is derived from two Latin words meaning “to weave threads” (contextus, from con- ‘together’ + texere ‘to weave’) and so our word signifies that which is connected or woven together.
The expression “context is everything” applies in many areas of life, and it certainly applies in the study of God’s Word. Every beginning student of the Bible soon finds that many statements cannot be taken from their biblical setting and understood or used in isolation. On the other hand, even experienced Bible students sometimes forget the need to seek context in everything that is studied and especially in looking at difficult or puzzling verses. Context can be more than just reading the chapter in which a verse appears and there are, in fact, a number of different aspects or dimensions of context that all play a part in the successful understanding of scripture. As Miles Coverdale, sixteenth century translator of the English Bible, wrote:
“… it shall greatly help thee to understand scripture, if thou mark not only what is spoken or written, but of whom, and unto whom, with what words, at what time, where, to what intent, with what circumstance, considering what goeth before, and what followeth after.” — Miles Coverdale, Preface to the Bible, 1535.
This article looks at four of the most important aspects of biblical context with examples and suggested study helps.
Overall Context
The first and perhaps most important aspect of maintaining context is that of seeing and interpreting every part of the Bible in the light of the whole. Some verses, such as John 3:16, may be clear in isolation, but even then taking in the other verses relevant to this very clear statement expands our understanding and appreciation for its meaning. In many other cases overall context clearly is needed for proper understanding.
In 2 Kings 2:1 the Bible tells us that Elijah was taken up by a whirlwind “into heaven”. It is easy to misunderstand this statement without overall biblical context. But when we put other relevant scriptures together we see that from the biblical perspective, there are three heavens (2 Corinthians 12:2). Over nine hundred years after the time of Elijah, Jesus Himself said “no man has ascended up to heaven” (John 3:13), meaning the heaven of God. So 2 Kings is evidently talking about the “heaven” that we would call the sky or the atmosphere – just as the Bible speaks of the “dew of heaven” (Genesis 27:28, 39, Deuteronomy 33:28).
In the New Testament, the apostle Paul frequently stresses that salvation comes by faith alone (Ephesians 2:8,9: etc.), yet comparing this understanding with the writing of the apostle James who states that faith without works is dead (James 2:14-26), we get the whole picture. In fact, if we look further into the writings of Paul himself, we find statements which back this up. Take for example: “It is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous” (Romans 2:13). So overall context shows that we are saved by faith alone, but saving faith is never alone – living faith leads us to right behavior and good works.
Study Helps: For beginning students, putting everything together that the Bible says on a given subject can seem like a daunting task, but there are many study helps such as concordances and topical Bibles that make this task much simpler. Even the marginal references found in many bibles can be helpful in pulling important scriptures together for overall context.
Literary Context
It’s easy to think of the books of the Bible as being all essentially the same when it comes to studying its message. But the Bible contains many kinds of formats that we must keep in mind if we are to successfully understand what it is saying. Think of the phone book – it’s not all the same format: white pages, yellow pages, blue pages, all with their own format and different kinds of information. The books of the Bible not only have different types of literature – prose, poetry, messages, lists, etc. – within the overall book, but even within individual books. Take, for example, some of the things said in the Book of Psalms where David exclaims “Break the teeth in their mouths, O God” (Psalm 58:6). Such an example may be easy to see as poetic language which obviously is not meant to be understood literally, but when we remember that about 30% of the Hebrew Bible is written in poetic form it can help us better understand sections of the prophetic books, for example, where sections of narrative text are mixed with sections of poetic text. Older translations, such as the King James version, tend to obscure this fact by printing everything in the same format. More recent translations, such as the English Standard Version and New International Version, make a big difference by printing different literary formats in different fonts and layouts.
But it’s not just the Old Testament where this principle applies. Take for example, 1 John 1:2: “The Elder unto the well beloved Gaius, whom I love in truth. Beloved, I wish above all things that you may prosper and be in health, even as your soul prospers.” These verses are often taken out of context as though they indicate that prosperity and physical health are things to be highly sought in the Christian life and are of great importance. In reality this is just a common letter opening expression of that day and age, just as we might write something like “I hope this finds all well with you” at the start of a letter to a friend today.
Study helps: Different translations often help to clarify changes in format in the original texts, but not always. If wording is still unclear, try checking different commentaries on the book in question, though remember that commentaries, by their very nature, may give the personal views of their authors – so you may wish to compare several.
Immediate Context
Ecclesiates 7:28, out of context, makes a seemingly startling statement: “While I was still searching but not finding – I found one upright man among a thousand, but not one upright woman among them all.” At first sight this sounds like a very sad situation, but if we look carefully at the immediate context, we see that the section beginning in vs. 26 is talking about prostitutes who snare unsuspecting men. All Solomon is saying here is that although there may be “one in a thousand” men who resist such a woman (clearly using an idiomatic expression for a round number), he found not a single upright woman in this group. Other verses in this book – Proverbs 12:4, 31:10, etc. – show this is certainly not a condemnation of all women; and the Bible talks of many upright women, of course.
In the New Testament, a scripture with which most Bible readers are familiar is found in the Book of Matthew: “For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them” (Matt. 18:20). While this verse is frequently taken to mean gathering in church fellowship, the actual immediate context is about correcting someone for a problem (vs. 15-18), and asking God’s help in the process (vs. 19). The teaching here is quite different from how it is often understood out of context.
Study Helps: This kind of contextual setting doesn’t usually need tools, though good commentaries can sometimes help if the verse just isn’t making sense. Also remember your Bible’s marginal references – sometimes they will point to a similar section of scripture where the same point is explained more clearly.
Cultural Context
Sometimes only knowledge of the cultures in which biblical stories are set can help us to understand exactly what a biblical narrative means. In Genesis 15: 9-21, for example, in the story of God sealing his covenant with Abram, God instructed Abram to take various animals and sacrifice them, dividing them into halves in such a way that someone could walk between the halves of the carcasses. Genesis then states: “When the sun had set and darkness had fallen, a smoking firepot with a blazing torch appeared and passed between the pieces. On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram …” (Genesis. 15: 17-18a). This strange event is understandable when we realize that in many ancient Near Eastern cultures, land ownership “contracts” were sealed by the participants dividing sacrificed animals or walking between the parts of the animals. Without this cultural context the details of the story would be difficult to understand, but knowing the background helps us to see that God was simply utilizing the legal practices of the time in order to confirm his promises to Abram/Abraham.
In the New Testament, the story of the women who anointed Jesus’ feet and head (Matthew 26:6-13, Mark 14:3-9, Luke 7:36-50, John 12:1-8) can be much better understood in cultural context. When we understand that a “denarius” was the average wage earned by a laborer for a full long day of work, and that the perfume used by the women would have cost upwards of 300 denarii – almost a year’s wages (Mark 14:5), we begin to realize the sacrifice these women, who were not rich, were making in their gifts.
Usually cultural context does not affect our understanding of doctrine or principles of living, but it can frequently illuminate the biblical stories and make them more understandable and real to us.
Study Helps: Carefully selected background books can help with understanding cultural context, but many are very detailed and it can be difficult to find the information needed. This is an area in which the internet shines. Doing a search for “dividing animals in sacrifices,” “biblical sacrifices + ancient Near East” or just “Genesis 15: 17-18” may find information on the background for the example used here. It is often worth doing a quick online search for background information (being careful to evaluate the quality of the site, of course) when cultural context is not clear.
Keeping these four types of context in mind can answer a good many questions about the scriptures and make them seem less puzzling. They can also deepen our understanding of the scriptures and make them more meaningful to us.
Recent Comments