Home » Thursday: Lex Talionis    

Comments

Thursday: Lex Talionis — 5 Comments

  1. Did the Law that Christ gave actually command Israel to retaliate and seek revenge, if someone poked you in the eye were you supposed to retaliate and poke them back in the eye? If so why is it written in Leviticus 19:18 “‘Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the Lord.”

    If we closely examine Exodus 21:22-25 we see that it is written. “If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely[a] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand.”

    In the first case a husband demands payment before the court and the court decides what the amount that is allowed for compensation. The setting of this passage is within a court. The Oral law (Talmud, Bava Kamma 83b–84a) explains that “eye for an eye” should not be taken as commanding revenge but understood and read as compensate eye for an eye that is decided by the court.

    The Bible seems to support that understanding it is written in Exodus 21:26-27 “An owner who hits a male or female slave in the eye and destroys it must let the slave go free to compensate for the eye. And an owner who knocks out the tooth of a male or female slave must let the slave go free to compensate for the tooth.” Note the passage says compensate, not poke out his eye or knock out his tooth.

    In a related case the Oral law spoke of a penniless man who steals of loaf a bread to feed his starving family and the owner of the bread who could afford the loss demanded compensation. Yet the court instructed him to “turn the other cheek” that is to forgive the debt. It appears that court may have understood the command to “love your neighbor as yourself.”

    I believe this is what Jesus taught on how to fulfill that command, it appears this concept may have always been part of the Law and the meaning of the Written Law that Christ himself gave to the Children of Israel.

    (19)
  2. is there any contradiction between Lev. 24:17 and matt. 5:38-42? can you please explain it ?? is it a contradiction ? if not how will you connect it and make it as a one statement

    (0)
    • Dianna I think “contradiction” is probably the wrong term to use in this case. Lev 24:17 is in the middle and part of what the lesson author calls Lex Talionis. I don’t think we fully appreciate the social condition God had to deal with and the effects of Sin that engulfed those people. This whole controversy is a learning experience where God is reaching down and slowly bringing man up from a disastrous situation and because of that He has had to implement laws in the past that seem strange to us in comparison to our view of Jesus. I think here we need to keep the concept of progressive revelation in mind.

      (0)
    • Diana

      Let us ask how is Jesus the answer to this?

      I agree with Tyler it is hard for us to understand the social condition and I will add the Hebrew language of this passage and the section that it belongs to which is so easy to misunderstand. But rather than go into the long details of language and law I will ask:

      How can anyone possibly pay for the life of another human being? How could King David ever pay for the life he took when he desired another man’s wife? The answer is there is no payment, no animal sacrifice that could atone for such an action. The law says he must pay with his life.

      Who has given His life for us, when the law said we must die?

      (4)
  3. If it we were supposed to take “eye for eye” literally the sages of Israel pointed out then the Hebrew text would read “ayin l’ ayin” but is does not. It reads “ayin tachat ayin.” Now the word “ayin” means eye and the word” tachat” in the Bible is usually translated as under, beneath, or instead the meaning that fits here best is instead.

    Regarding compensation “tachat” in Hebrew makes very good sense . But there is more to it. Who is our instead? Who has paid our all our debts instead of us having to pay them? If we have been forgiven our debts should we not also forgive others who wrong us, should we not turn the other cheek?

    (4)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>