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.
Apart from telling us WHAT to Pray, the “Lord’s Prayer” shows us in at least three ways HOW to pray!
The “Lord’s Prayer” is a profound outline or guide for prayer. It is profound in that although it is so short it provides a framework for every necessary topic of prayer, and also in that it teaches us important things about the way we should pray about the things for which we ask.
The prayer is found in two places in the Gospels – in Matthew 6: 9-13 in its fuller form, and in Luke 11: 2-4 in an abbreviated form. This fact alone seems to prove that the prayer is a guide on essential topics to pray about, rather than a prayer with specific words to be learned and repeated by rote as some believe.
Looking at the longer form of the prayer in Matthew, there are seven specific petitions or requests directed to God; but in this article, rather than looking at those petitions individually, as is often done, let’s look at some of the overall aspects of the guide which can be helpful in teaching us how to pray.
• The Prayer and the Commandments
First, when we compare the overall structure of the prayer, we see that it is actually similar to the structure of the Ten Commandments: the first group of points relating more directly to our relationship with God, the second group of points to our relationship with others. There are even some basic but noticeable touch-points: “I am the Lord Your God …” – “Father in Heaven”; “You shall not take my name in vain” – “Hallowed be your name”; etc. This is not surprising, of course, because in both the Commandments and the Lord’s Prayer we are looking at the same things – our relationship with God and with others.
The dual stresses of the commandments and the model prayer are even clearer if we compare the words of Christ when he was asked which were the most important of all the commandments. Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” (Matthew 22:37-40). When we understand this we see the Lord’s Prayer is not about asking for the things that we think will make us happy or that we want, but things that show our love for God and others. If the Ten Commandments show us how to love God and others, the Lord’s Prayer teaches us how to ask for help to do that properly.
Remembering this dual stress of the commandments and the prayer is truly important in helping us focus our approach to the Lord’s Prayer. Rather than seeing the prayer as an unrelated list of requests, we begin to see it as a prayerful “walk through” of key areas of our relationship with God and with others. That fact in itself gives us an important clue as to how Jesus’ prayer outline can be expanded, as we use it, to include all kinds of things relating to our spiritual relationship with God and the rest of His family. And we need to remember that dual aspect of the prayer’s focus. Humanly it may be easy to expand “Give us today our daily bread” by mentioning our many physical needs, but how much do we expand on requests such as “hallowed be your name”? Realizing the dual stress of the prayer helps us to better equally balance the things for which we pray.
• First Person Plural
Another basic thing to remember as we look at the model we are given is that there isn’t a single “I” or “my” in this prayer – only “you” and “us”, “your” and “our”. Considering how obvious this fact is, there seems to be a clear lesson – once again to focus our prayers on our relationship with God and with others.
Seen this way, the Lord’s Prayer is very different from the individual list of personal wants and needs we are all tempted to offer at most times given the problems of everyday life that we all face. There is certainly no problem in praying for ourselves, and the prayer outline does not deny us the ability to ask for the needs we have – it just puts our requests in the context of “our” needs, helping us to keep our minds on the fact that the problems of others are just as real – and sometimes much more serious – than those we face.
The Book of Psalms gives some great examples of this fact. Remember there are more prayers there than in any other book of the scriptures, and if you look at many of David’s heartfelt personal requests for help, they end with requests for others – for his people, for all of Israel (see Psalms 25:18, 22; 28:2, 9 for just two examples).
• Prayer Triage
When we kneel before God don’t dozens of things come into our minds – the many needs and concerns of our own lives and of those of family, friends and others we know. These many individual-level needs are in addition to things God shows us are even bigger needs – of worldwide scale. Sometimes it’s hard to know where to start and where to end. That fact underscores one of the great purposes of the model we have been given – putting things in the right context and priority. Think of the Lord’s Prayer as prayer triage. Jesus’ guide to communication with our Father sorts through all those clamoring thoughts and needs and puts our concerns and requests in the right order. Matthew 6:7-8 shows us that “… your Father knows what you need before you ask him”; but even though God already knows what our most urgent needs are, the prayer outline puts things in perspective.
Putting it all Together
As we saw at the outset of this article, the Lord’s Prayer is a guide to prayer. None of the recorded prayers of Jesus or the disciples after the time the outline was given follow the wording of the prayer (showing again that it is not a prescribed set of specific words to be prayed), although each recorded prayer in the New Testament stresses some aspect found within the guide. Perhaps we could say that while spontaneous – and especially urgent – prayers will often take their own form, the “Lord’s Prayer” provides a guide for those occasions when we wish to seek God in regular and complete prayer. Although God is doubtless more concerned with the content rather than the form of our prayers, the guide Jesus gave us covers all the main aspects of our relationship with God and with others; it constantly directs our focus outward to include the needs of others; and it helps us to bring order and priority to the requests we make. These three areas of guidance help us to keep in mind what regular prayer is all about.
Most readers of the scriptures are familiar with the “Great Commission” given by Jesus to his disciples after his resurrection. Many can recite it by heart: “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you … “ (Matthew 28:19-20).
While those verses are consistently quoted as the Commission, in reality they represent the final form of a number of commissions or “job directives” Jesus gave to his disciples during his ministry which often get lost in the rush to examine, ponder and discuss the “Great” commission. This is not to say that we should not focus on the final Great Commission, but that it can also be profitable to look back at some of the earlier commissions given during Christ’s ministry to see what we can learn there. For example, look carefully at the ones recorded in the Book of Luke:
Luke 9:2: “… and he sent them out to proclaim the kingdom of God and to heal the sick.”
Luke 10:9 “Heal the sick who are there and tell them, ‘The kingdom of God has come near to you.’”
Matthew also records one of these earlier commissions:
Matthew 10:7-8 “As you go, proclaim this message: ‘The kingdom of heaven has come near.’ Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy, drive out demons…”
The difference is obvious. The earlier commissions specifically included healing the sick – with an emphasis placed on that task almost equal to the emphasis placed on preaching the Gospel.
That emphasis is undeniably missing in the final Great Commission which appears to focus entirely on the work of evangelism without any direct mention of the sick. But does this mean the needs of the sick are no longer to be a vital concern for the Christian? In answer to that, perhaps we should remember that the Great Commission itself ends with the words “… teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you” (Matthew 28:20, emphasis added), so from that perspective alone, the principles of the earlier commissions Jesus gave may still apply to us today as part of the “everything” Jesus had commanded.
Helping the sick was certainly part of the example Jesus set for us. He not only used physical sickness as a metaphor in his teaching (Mark 2:17) and as a sign of the divine nature of His work, but also He frequently healed and helped the sick purely as a matter of compassion, as we see throughout the Gospels. Godly concern for the sick also clearly precedes the Christian scriptures. Psalm 107:20 says, “He sent out his word and healed them,” showing David’s awareness of God’s compassion in this area – compassion which was expressed many times throughout the Old Testament, as well as in the work of the disciples who continued the New Testament ministry of Christ.
Now, this doesn’t mean that the situation has not changed at all regarding God’s commission to His Church. It seems clear that while God still can – and does – heal, He has not continued to do so in quite the same manner as He did when Jesus sent out disciples who routinely administered healings as an everyday part of their work (Matthew 10:1). But although we may not be empowered to heal today in the way the early disciples were, think about this in terms of the Great Commission: as individual Christians we may not be directly going into all the world, teaching and baptizing, either – yet we can support those who do these works, financially, in prayer and in other ways.
Even without the same command and power of healing given the early disciples, we can still – to the extent we are able, and with the same compassion – do the work of helping the sick mentioned in all the earlier forms of Jesus’ commission to his disciples. Although the evangelism of the Great Commission should indeed be a central focus point for us, we can still give our physical and prayerful support to those helping the sick, and many of us can also find opportunities to directly work to serve those who are victims of sickness and disability.
We can do this in various ways. While we may not have the power to heal, the Spirit of God does give the power of encouragement, support, and help. And we do have the opportunity to help – physically and spiritually – those who are ill just as much as we have the opportunity to be a witness to those who are well. One thing to keep in mind, however, is the great difference between acute and chronic illness. We can help those suffering the intense affliction of acute illness in a number of ways, difficult though that may be, but those suffering from chronic illnesses and disabilities often have different needs. In terms of practical help, we should remember that some who are dealing with long-term illnesses don’t just need short-term encouragement – they need practical encouragement to continue to lead meaningful lives, and help to find opportunities in which they themselves can help others.
Sometimes it is the sick and disabled who can best help those in the same position as themselves. Their experience and understanding of the problems can be far greater than ours. We can see this in the impact of the great variety of support groups for those suffering serious diseases and other medical conditions. But we can still help. Does someone you know need help to get to a support group? Help to find space to run one? This is just one example of the many possible ways we can help those suffering with long-term health and disability problems. It just takes a little thought to see how we can serve in each particular circumstance.
Although it may not be directly mentioned in the Great Commission, it should be remembered that helping the sick and disabled is nevertheless part of the scriptural background of that Commission. If we read Matthew 28: 19-20 to the end, perhaps we can see that serving the needs of the sick is also an important aspect of “everything” Jesus commanded. And that makes sense. Not only was helping the sick a constant part of Jesus’ own life, but also His words that “ … I was sick and you looked after me…” (Matthew 25:36) still apply as much today as they did when he spoke them as a profound lesson during his earthly ministry.
Was the Old Testament law of “an eye for an eye” a brutal law of revenge, or something very different? – And how can the answer help us understand Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount?
The principle of “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth”(Leviticus 24:20, etc.) is one of the most well-known laws in the Bible, but it is seldom fully understood. Known legally as the lex talionis or the “law of retaliation,” and referenced by Jesus himself in his teaching, most people see this law as an ultimately fair, though almost barbarically cruel, principle of revenge and exact restitution. But is this really what this law of “retributive justice“ is all about?
It is often said that the underlying concept of the lex talionis, equal restitution, is the basis of most modern law – that the punishment must fit the crime. But this is something of a misunderstanding. Biblical Israel was not the only culture of the ancient Near East to have such laws, and their purpose is well known. In the ancient Babylonian Law of Hammurabi (c. 1780 BC), for example, we find exactly the same legal principle that individuals should receive as punishment the same injuries and damages they had inflicted upon others:
“If a man has destroyed the eye of another man, they shall destroy his eye. If he has broken another man’s bone, they shall break his bone” (Code of Hammurabi, 196-97).
Babylonian law was complicated by the fact that crimes against those of different social classes required different punishments (something Biblical law forbade, Leviticus 19:15), but the legal principle of the talion itself was obviously identical in both cultures.
In the Mosaic law, the principle of an eye for an eye is commanded in three separate and slightly different situations:
Collateral Injury: If a pregnant woman is hurt by others’ struggling –and her child miscarries – the law of an eye for an eye is to be applied (Exodus 21:24).
Crime of Passion Injury: If men fight and one is injured in the struggle, the law of an eye for an eye is to be applied (Leviticus 24:20).
Premeditated Injury: If a witness testifies falsely against someone, the law of an eye for an eye is to be applied and the punishment is the penalty the accused would have received (Deuteronomy 19:21).
Notice that the first example given shows that the law is really intended to indicate an equivalent punishment rather than an exact restitution. A man who caused a woman to miscarry obviously could not be made to miscarry himself as punishment, and the Law of Hammurabi makes it clear that an equivalent is intended: “If a man struck another man’s daughter and caused her to have a miscarriage he shall pay ten shekels of silver for her fetus” (Hammurabi 209). The Jewish Rabbis commenting on the biblical examples always understood that an approximate equivalence was intended, citing, for example, that a blind man who blinded another cannot be punished with exact restitution. So normally, in ancient Babylonia or in Israel, the law was applied in equivalence – financial or other remuneration equivalent to the loss caused by the injury. It is certainly possible that the law was literally upheld in some cases, but this does not seem to have usually been the case.
This much is commonly realized. What is less widely understood is the underlying reason for the existence of the talionis laws and their real application. These laws were actually intended not to exact revenge, but to restrict revenge. They are not encouraging retribution, they are restraining it.
In most ancient Near Eastern cultures, crimes of injury were usually regarded as private matters of family concern and retribution. For serious offenses the retribution might be handled at the tribal level, and this type of vengeful justice frequently led to blood feuds between families and whole tribes which only grew as time went on (there are many biblical examples of this, beginning with Genesis 4:24). It is clear that the various expressions of the lex talionis originated to limit these destructive spirals, and once that is understood it is clear that the purpose of these laws was not to prescribe revenge, but to limit it. Each “eye for an eye” law allowed what we would call government control of what was otherwise usually a private matter, but the consequences of which could affect much greater parts of society through ongoing and uncontrolled blood feuds. The intent of the laws was to “cap” retribution at no more than the level of the original problem.
When we realize that the purpose of these laws was one of restraint rather than revenge, we can better visualize the application of the laws in their original setting and better understand their reference in the New Testament.
Jesus and the Lex Talionis
The importance of proper understanding of the lex talionis becomes apparent when we consider Jesus’ mention of the law: “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well” (Matthew 5:38).
Although these words of Christ are frequently cited as being an example of Christian pacifism (the view of Leo Tolstoy and many other writers and theologians), understanding the proper context of the law shows that Jesus’ words may well have intended something different. First, notice that the direct context of what Jesus said here was clearly a legal, not a confrontational context. Not only does Jesus cite the earlier law, but he counters its maximum application with two examples, at least one of which is taken directly from legal proceedings – a situation where someone might want to sue another.
If we presume that the lex talionis was a law allowing full and complete revenge, it is easy to think that is what Jesus is primarily talking about here. But revenge does not really fit the meaning of the law, as we have seen, and it does not really fit the example Christ gives of someone who might want to sue us for something we have done – there is no issue of revenge involved on our part. When we realize that the “eye for an eye” law was intended to restrict the degree of retaliation employed, we see that Jesus was going a step further and restricting retaliation even more.
Remember that Jesus’ statement on this matter occurs as one of several linked and similar statements made within the Sermon on the Mount (specifically Matthew 5). After reminding his hearers that he did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it (Matthew 5:17), Jesus then gives several examples of this “filling full” the underlying meaning of the law. In each case he shows an earlier instruction in the law, then shows how the principle can be even better fulfilled by exercising even more restraint.
Where the law said “you shall not murder,” Jesus shows we should not even curse others in anger or we would be in danger of legal judgment (vs. 21) – adding another legal context reminder by saying “Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to court” (vs. 25). He then shows that while the law says we should not commit adultery, we should be yet more restrained, not lusting in our hearts (vss. 27-28), even referring here to “gouging out an eye” (vs. 29). Next he shows that while the law allowed divorce for many reasons, he urges us to more restraint by allowing divorce only for adultery (vs. 31). After showing the same principle of restraint regarding oaths – of saying only a simple “yes” or “no” (vss. 33-37) – Jesus then addresses the lex talionis directly (vss. 38-42). He does this, as we saw, by saying that even though the law allowed for restitution up to “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth,” he instructs his listeners to be much more restrained.
The first example he gives is that of not resisting or retaliating for evil that has been done to us: “If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also” (vs. 39). A detail here may be important. Jesus specifically mentions being slapped on the right cheek, meaning that this would normally have to be a backhand slap from a right-handed person. The Rabbinic writings show that this kind of slap was a great insult in the world of ancient Palestine, and Jesus uses it not as an example of being attacked (which is rarely done by means of backhanded slaps), but more likely as an example of an insult (as we see in vs. 11 of the same chapter) liable to be later countered in court, just as his next example of someone suing for a person’s garment might also be legally countered – and in both cases he urges us to restraint.
The context throughout this section of Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount in which the lex talionis is mentioned is, then, clearly a legal one, with courts, suing, judges, prison, certificate of divorce and other legal terms being mentioned over a dozen times in these few verses. There is actually no direct context or reference to warfare, immediate conflict, or principles of pacifism. Most of the issues Jesus discusses in these verses are in the post-event context of restraint in later legal retribution.
Toward the end of this section of the Sermon, Jesus also urges us to even go beyond restraint to more positive responses such as “If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles” (vs. 41) and “love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (vs. 44). While these cases can be said to involve restraint, they clearly go even further, actively seeking the best for the person who has harmed or insulted us. This seems to be the ultimate goal to which Christ points us, just as the sermon itself ends with the words “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (vs. 48).
The Biblical lex talionis of “an eye for an eye” was, then, a law of restraint, limiting the amount of reciprocal damage done after (usually) accidental injury, not a law encouraging revenge. Jesus used this law in the Sermon on the Mount as an example of how even when the law allows us to do certain things, the principle of restraint can and should be utilized wherever possible – and even further exceeded by active love for the offending party.
Recent Comments