Eye for an Eye

Current System Configuration: Sick again.
BGM: Holy Orders ~ Be Just or Be Dead~ by Saitama Saishuu Heiki. A remix of Ky Kiske's theme from Guilty Gear. S.S.H. is a very talented remix artist from Japan. Check out his website. (You can download stuff from his mp3 section) Take note: S.S.H. isn't his real name, it means "Saitama's Ultimate Weapon." Saitama is a place in Japan.
Breakfast: Ensaymada and yohgurt
Lunch: --
Dinner: --
Current Read/s:
+X_x

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."
--Mohandas Gandhi, called Mahatma

Before anything else, let me make it clear that I am a pacifist. Although I'm not a perfect pacifist (I think some things are worth fighting for and should be fought for), in general I do not like getting into fights, even verbal ones, and I do not delight in the torment of young children and small, furry animals. But I feel that the Bible and its Old Testament in particular have received so much bashing on account of the "Eye for an Eye" clause in the book of Exodus, which has always been taken out of context. This statement has been erroneously used to point out the harshness and supposed obsolescence of the Old Testament and its opposition to the supposedly kinder and more forgiving New Testament.

Even among practicing Christians, the Old Testament is sometimes considered obsolete and superceded by the New. Admittedly, the harsh-sounding text in the Old Testament has been used---erroneously---to justify harsh (and often unjust) punishment, which I would like to refer to as castigation. Even in pop culture we see this. Here's an excerpt from Avantasia's Sign of the Cross, a song that satirizes the harshness of the Roman Catholic Church during the Renaissance.

[Bishop von Bicken]
In the heart of justice called Horeb long ago
Moses got carvings in stone.
Imposed to judge those who do not fear
the only, the holy, the lord.

[Gabriel]
The blood of anger and pain:
Ink of the Old Testament.

There's a lot of hate for the Old Testament. However, Jesus Himself says:

"I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." ---Matthew 5:18

Jesus plainly says that the Law will still be in place until the end of the world, and Paul elaborates on this later to say that the Law will be used to judge those who did not choose Christ's gift of grace. In this sense, Grace does override Law, but take note: its standard is higher. That's why it has "turning the other cheek" instead of "eye for an eye." This is more "You take his punishment instead" than "Be nice and soft toward him." But let's get back on topic: the much-maligned Eye for an Eye Clause.

Here's the original verse:

"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."
--Exodus 21:23-25

The reason so many people find this verse so off-putting is that they see it as a license to vendetta---if one injures another, the other injures back, and the cycle goes on and on and on until everyone is dead or maimed. This is the common misinterpretation of this verse and is probably how Gandhi understood it. Not to say he's a fool, he contributed a lot to the world's pool of ideologies, but I seriously think that he did not have a real understanding of the oft-misquoted verse.

What people do not see is that this is a law. It is a decree that is to be pursued only by lawful authority and not personally. From what I've read in the Bible, although it is the citizens themselves who execute the punishment (stoning or killing), this is regulated by authority. Seriously, would the nation of Israel be able to rise up and establish itself as a nation if its laws promoted crimes of passion, let alone become a world power in its time? Sure, Israel didn't become a massive empire that spanned across continents, but it did rule over a sizable chunk of the Middle East.

The intent of this law was to promote order and a spirit of justice, not vengeance. A nation ruled by a license to vendetta is a nation of chaos, a nation that would tear itself apart very quickly. Now of course, people would complain that the brand of justice promoted in the Old Testament is overly harsh and oppressive. Nowadays we don't knock out someone's teeth because he knocked out some other guy's teeth. But we have to understand the context.

They didn't really have dentists and orthodontists back then, given that they were just fresh out of being slaves in a foreign country. Dentures did not exist. Knock a guy's teeth out, they stay out and can't be replaced. Without any food processors to mash food down to a shake, a guy could starve to death if he lost his teeth. Medical care was limited and usually performed by religious authorities. Burns and other injuries that are seen as minor now could potentially get dangerously infected and cause death or at the very least, long periods of recovery that reduced productivity. They cared about productivity in the Old Testament, as seen here:

"If men quarrel and one hits the other with a stone or with his fist and he does not die but is confined to bed, the one who struck the blow will not be held responsible if the other gets up...however, he must pay the injured man for the loss of his time and see that he is completely healed." --Exodus 21:18-19.

This is just a few verses before the Eye for an Eye Clause, so it shares the same context. A few verses before that, there is a Murder/Homicide law:

"Anyone who strikes a man and kills him shall surely be put to death. However, if he does not do it intentionally, but God lets it happen, he is to flee to a place I will designate. But if a man schemes and kills another man deliberately, take him away from My altar and put him to death." -- Exodus 21:12-14

After this verse we have more crimes that deserve capital punishment: Physically or verbally assaulting one's parents, kidnapping, neglect of dangerous animals under one's care, among others. There are other capital crimes in the Book of the Law that are not related to physical injury, but in this context these are the laws mentioned. It was strict, yes, but I believe that these laws, by God' s authority, are what allowed the nation to establish itself and flourish. Even then, mercy was upheld---there were six cities of sanctuary placed at strategic points throughout the nation, to which people who killed unintentionally could flee. Other laws that called for death had provisions for adequate compensation instead, such as the neglect of a dangerous animal one owns. The owner of a bull that is known to be violent, for example, could be executed if his bull kills someone (the bull is killed as well), or he can pay adequate compensation while the bull is killed. Furthermore, they don't just go out and kill someone who's accused of murder on the streets and leave him there.

"Anyone who kills a person is to be put to death as a murderer only on the testimony of witnesses. But no one is to be put to death on the testimony of only one witness."
--Numbers 35:30.

I'm no lawyer, but I think this is pretty fair. You can't just go and execute someone on a simple accusation. There should be at least two witnesses before someone is executed.

The Old Testament, contrary to popular belief, does not promote mindless revenge. These were laws that were put into place and enacted by the proper authorities. Crimes of passion were not encouraged or sanctioned by the Lord. The Eye for an Eye Clause was meant for people to elevate their grievances to the proper authorities. The Eye for an Eye Clause has been used countless times, out of context, to attack the integrity of the Bible. I hope this little essay has helped you understand the Old Testament a little more.

In closing:

"Do not pollute the land where you are. Bloodshed pollutes the land, and atonement cannot be made for the land on which blood has been shed, except by the blood of the one who shed it. Do not defile the land where you live and I dwell, for I the Lord dwell among the Israelites." --Numbers 35:33-34.

" Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord. On the contrary: If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing so you will heap burning coals upon his head. Do not be overcome with evil, but overcome evil with good." --Romans 12:19-21

I think that the Old and New Testaments reconcile very well on this. The Old Testament demands justice dispensed by the proper authorities (which the New Testament promotes as well), but one should never take matters into his own hands and thus seek vengeance. Paul's "Vengeance is Mine" quote is taken from the Old Testament (Deuteronomy 32:35), meaning he STILL upholds it.

The Old Testament, especially in the Eye for an Eye Clause, is not a license to vendetta. It is a law that is put into the place for an orderly society. The New Testament clarifies this: Forgive your enemies and love them, let God and his authorities deal with them. The expression "heap burning coals upon his head" is not a hostile thing in their culture. It wasn't pouring burning coals onto a guy to incinerate him. It was generously heaping coals into a basket on his head. It was an act of donating coals to a man who has no fire to warm himself by in the cold desert night. It is an act of giving to a man who has less---a man who demonstrated this by harming you. In loving one's enemies, we become better people and demonstrate God's love in our lives.

The Old and New Testament are not polar opposites. The Old points to the New. The Old was the background, the explanation of our situation as fallen people, the New is the fulfillment of all of God's promises in the Old. The Old and New go hand in hand. The Bible is one.