I enjoyed Tim Allen’s sitcom, Home Improvement, in my earlier years. In one episode, the older two sons continue to annoying prank-scare their mother, Jill, during Halloween season. As a disciplinary measure, father Tim suggests to Jill that they prank-scare their older sons back. Her initial response? (Paraphrased, because it’s been a few years since I’ve seen it). “An ‘eye for an eye’ is not my view of parenting.”
The “eye for an eye” passage is commonly known as a prooftext that God’s view of governmental justice is wholly supportive of barbarism and maybe even personal vengeance. One of the verses discussed is Exodus 21:23-25.
“But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.”
But the next verses say . . .
“If a man hits a manservant or maidservant in the eye and destroys it, he must let the servant go free to compensate for the eye. And if he knocks out the tooth of a manservant or maidservant, he must let the servant go free to compensate for the tooth.”
We’re talking about types of financial or labor compensation, not literal compensation with body parts. But that’s what we do see in the Code of Hammurabi and Middle Assyrian laws. In fact, the Old Testament law only insists on the death penalty (with no chance for financial compensation as a penal substitute) for premeditated murder, whereas other ancient laws had disproportionate punishments that seemed inhuman.
Sadly, the cliche “eye for an eye” is tossed around with a literal translation, portraying God as a peddler of a strict law of obsolete barbarism. The “eye for an eye” verse was actually meant as a metaphor to have the punishment fit the crime, financially. While neighboring governments were chopping off body parts and executing family members for the crimes of their relatives, Old Testament law, ironically, stood out in its time for its grace.
No comments:
Post a Comment