Sign up to save your podcasts
Or
Share Exodus 51 part 2 - Exod. 21:22-25 - EYE FOR AN EYE
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Or
Exodus 51 part 2 - Exod. 21:22-25 - EYE FOR AN EYE
LESSON 51 PART 2
Link to part 1 - listen before you listen to part 2
https://lightofmenorah.podbean.com/e/genesis-51-part1-exod-2122-fetus-is-human/
Again and again in the Hebrew Scriptures, the Old Testament, God is showing that revenge, retribution, and payback is HIS and not up to us. See Deut. 32:35, Lev. 19:18, or Psm. 94:1-2 or Isa. 35:4 and Rom. 12:19 or Heb. 10:30 and many other verses. That is why Samson showed himself to be less than a Bible hero when Samson asked God to help him to have revenge on the Philistines …
Then Samson called to the LORD and said, "O Lord GOD, please remember me and please strengthen me just this time, O God, that I may at once be avenged (H5358 נָקַם nâqam – revenge for oneself or to punish or avenge) of the Philistines for my two eyes." Jdg 16:28
Samson wants revenge. He wants payback. From the Bible again and again we see this is not a characteristic of one of His heroes or heroines. Samson is a lesson of what we are not to be as we walk our walk with the Lord.
God’s updated version of “Eye for an Eye and Tooth for a Tooth,” is that litigation for a loss due to an injury, is allowed and legal, but, it must not come against His foundational laws and commandments of His covenant people. These foundational laws are the primary duty to love God and serve Him (Exod. 20:1-7 and Deut. 6:4-9) and to love one’s neighbor as himself (Lev. 19:18). This was commonly understood in Jesus’ day as it was in the days of Moses and David and Hezekiah. But, God Himself when He was here, Jesus, said these two commandments are not basic nor are they the foundational laws of the covenant but they are THE GREATEST OF ALL THE COMMANDMENTS. The fulfillment of the Torah is love – loving the Lord and our neighbor. Paul teaches this as well as the rabbis. Paul said it in Gal. 5:14 and he is doing nothing more than what rabbis were also teaching in his day. So, it seems that God sees the court and litigation as the last resort when someone purposely hurts us.
In the Mishna (Jewish law books written after the Temple was destroyed in 70 a.d.) it shows the Jewish understanding of what God intended goes far beyond the simple lex talionis – the "law of retaliation" or an eye for eye …
"If someone wounds his fellow, he becomes liable to compensate the injured party for five different aspects of the injury: damage, pain, healing, loss of time from work, and insult.
"In the case of damage, here is an example of how restitution is determined. Suppose someone blinded someone else's eye, cut off his hand or broke his leg. They value the injured person as if he were a slave for sale in the market, and they appraise his value before the injury and now.
"Here is an example of determining the compensation for pain. Suppose someone burns another with a skewer or nail, even if only on his fingernail, where it doesn't actually produce a wound. They determine how much a man of his position would be willing to be paid to suffer that amount of pain.
"For healing the indemnity is determined in this way. If someone hit another person, he must pay all the expenses of healing him. If he develops ulcers, then if they come about in consequence of the blow, he is liable; but if not, he is not liable. If the wound heals, reopens, heals and reopens again, he is liable for all the expenses. But once it has healed thoroughly, he does not remain liable to pay the expenses of healing him.
"The value of time lost is estimated in this way. They consider what he would earn if he were a watchman over a cucumber field [a job requiring no special skills], for he has already been paid for the loss of his hand or foot. [In practice, this means they determine what kind of work he will be fit for when he fully recovers and evaluate the time lost by this standard.]
"For insult the compensation is determined entirely in accordance with the social status of both the one who caused the indignity and the one who suffered it. If someone insults a person who is naked, blind or asleep, he is liable. But if a sleeping person causes an insult, he is not liable. Someone who falls from a roof and causes injury and insult at the same time is liable for the injury but not for the insult,... because one should not be held responsible for an indignity one did not intend to cause." (Bava Kama 8:1)
I want to thank David Stern the scholar who came out with “The Jewish New Testament Commentary.” He was the one who showed me the statements in the Mishna as we just read in the previous.
Dr. Craig Keener wrote “The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament.” His comments related to the historical context of Jesus’ words regarding and “eye for an eye” are helpful as we see that Jesus was in this case teaching ideas and concepts that man rabbis of His day did as well. Just consider …
Mat_5:38. The “eye for an eye” and “tooth for a tooth” are part of the widespread ancient Near Eastern law of retaliation. In Israel and other cultures, this principle was enforced by a court and refers to legalized vengeance; personal vengeance was never accepted in the (the Torah) law of Moses, except as a concession for a relative’s murder (Num_35:18-21). The Old Testament (better to call them the Hebrew Scriptures) did not permit personal vengeance; David, a great warrior, recognized this principle (1Sa_25:33; 1Sa_26:10-11).
Mat_5:39. The blow on the right cheek was the most grievous insult possible in the ancient world (apart from inflicting serious physical harm), and in many cultures was listed alongside the “eye for an eye” laws; both Jewish and Roman law permitted prosecution for this offense. A prophet might endure such ill treatment (1Ki_22:24; Isa_50:6).
Mat_5:40. The poorest people of the Empire (e.g., most peasants in Egypt) had only an inner and outer garment, and the theft of a cloak would lead to legal recourse. Although conditions in first-century Palestine were not quite that bad, this verse could indicate divestiture of all one’s possessions, even (hyperbolically) one’s clothes, to avoid a legal dispute affecting only oneself. Jesus gives this advice in spite of the fact that, under Jewish law, a legal case to regain one’s cloak would have been foolproof: a creditor could not take a poor person’s outer cloak, which might serve as one’s only blanket at night as well as a coat (Exo_22:26-27).
Mat_5:41. Roman soldiers had the legal right to impress the labor, work animal or substance of local residents (cf. Mar_15:21). Although impressment may not have happened often in Galilee, it happened elsewhere, and the fact that it could happen would be enough to raise the eyebrows of Jesus’ hearers at this example of nonresistance and even loving service to the oppressor.
Finally, I wanted to share the awesome article from the Christian scholarly website, “Got Questions,: and the article on “Eye for an Eye.” Here’s the article (accessed July 2024 at https://www.gotquestions.org/eye-for-an-eye.html) …
The concept of “an eye for eye,” sometimes called jus talionis or lex talionis, is part of the Mosaic Law used in the Israelites’ justice system. The principle is that the punishment must fit the crime and there should be a just penalty for evil actions: “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). Justice should be equitable; excessive harshness and excessive leniency should be avoided.
We have no indication that the law of “an eye for an eye” was followed literally; there is never a biblical account of an Israelite being maimed as a result of this law. Also, before this particular law was given, God had already established a judicial system to hear cases and determine penalties (Exodus 18:13–26)—a system that would be unnecessary if God had intended a literal “eye for an eye” penalty. Although capital crimes were repaid with execution in ancient Israel, on the basis of multiple witnesses (Deuteronomy 17:6), most other crimes were repaid with payment in goods—if you injured a man’s hand so that he could not work, you compensated that man for his lost wages.
Besides Exodus 21, the law of “an eye for an eye” is mentioned twice in the Old Testament (Leviticus 24:20; Deuteronomy 19:21). Each time, the phrase is used in the context of a case being judged before a civil authority such as a judge. “An eye for an eye” was thus intended to be a guiding principle for lawgivers and judges; it was never to be used to justify vigilantism or settling grievances personally.
In the New Testament, it seems the Pharisees and scribes had taken the “eye for an eye” principle and applied it to everyday personal relationships. They taught that seeking personal revenge was acceptable. If someone punched you, you could punch him back; if someone insulted you, he was fair game for your insults. The religious leaders of Jesus’ day ignored the judicial basis of the giving of that law.
In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus counters the common teaching of personal retaliation: “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you . . .” (Matthew 5:38–39). Jesus then proceeds to reveal God’s heart concerning interpersonal relationships: “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. If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you” (Matthew 5:39–42).
In giving this “new” command, Jesus is not nullifying the Old Testament law (Matthew 5:17). Rather, He is separating the responsibility of the government (to punish evildoers justly) from the responsibility we all have on a personal level before God to love our enemies. We should not seek retribution for personal slights. We are to ignore personal insults (the meaning of “turn the other cheek”). Christians are to be willing to give more of their material goods, time, and labor than required, even if the demands upon us are unjust. We should loan to those who want to borrow, love our enemies, and pray for those who persecute us (verses 43–48). Enforcing “an eye for an eye” is the magistrate’s job; forgiving our enemies is ours. We see this played out today every time a victim stands up in court to publicly forgive a convicted criminal—the forgiveness is personal and real, but the judge still justly demands that the sentence be carried out.
Jesus’ limiting of the “eye for an eye” principle in no way prohibits self-defense or the forceful protection of the innocent from harm. The actions of duly appointed agents of the government, such as police officers and the military, to protect citizens and preserve the peace are not in question. Jesus’ command to turn the other cheek applies to personal relationships, not judicial policy. The principle of “an eye for an eye” is meant as a judicial policy, not as a rule for interpersonal relationships. The believer in Christ is guided by Jesus’ words to forgive. The Christian is radically different from those who follow the natural inclination to respond in kind.
Rev. Ferret - who is this guy?
What's his background? Why should I listen to him? Check his background at this link - https://www.dropbox.com/s/ortnret3oxcicu4/BackgrndTeacher%20mar%2025%202020.pdf?dl=0
View all episodes
By Rev John Ferret
5
11 ratings
LESSON 51 PART 2
Link to part 1 - listen before you listen to part 2
https://lightofmenorah.podbean.com/e/genesis-51-part1-exod-2122-fetus-is-human/
Again and again in the Hebrew Scriptures, the Old Testament, God is showing that revenge, retribution, and payback is HIS and not up to us. See Deut. 32:35, Lev. 19:18, or Psm. 94:1-2 or Isa. 35:4 and Rom. 12:19 or Heb. 10:30 and many other verses. That is why Samson showed himself to be less than a Bible hero when Samson asked God to help him to have revenge on the Philistines …
Then Samson called to the LORD and said, "O Lord GOD, please remember me and please strengthen me just this time, O God, that I may at once be avenged (H5358 נָקַם nâqam – revenge for oneself or to punish or avenge) of the Philistines for my two eyes." Jdg 16:28
Samson wants revenge. He wants payback. From the Bible again and again we see this is not a characteristic of one of His heroes or heroines. Samson is a lesson of what we are not to be as we walk our walk with the Lord.
God’s updated version of “Eye for an Eye and Tooth for a Tooth,” is that litigation for a loss due to an injury, is allowed and legal, but, it must not come against His foundational laws and commandments of His covenant people. These foundational laws are the primary duty to love God and serve Him (Exod. 20:1-7 and Deut. 6:4-9) and to love one’s neighbor as himself (Lev. 19:18). This was commonly understood in Jesus’ day as it was in the days of Moses and David and Hezekiah. But, God Himself when He was here, Jesus, said these two commandments are not basic nor are they the foundational laws of the covenant but they are THE GREATEST OF ALL THE COMMANDMENTS. The fulfillment of the Torah is love – loving the Lord and our neighbor. Paul teaches this as well as the rabbis. Paul said it in Gal. 5:14 and he is doing nothing more than what rabbis were also teaching in his day. So, it seems that God sees the court and litigation as the last resort when someone purposely hurts us.
In the Mishna (Jewish law books written after the Temple was destroyed in 70 a.d.) it shows the Jewish understanding of what God intended goes far beyond the simple lex talionis – the "law of retaliation" or an eye for eye …
"If someone wounds his fellow, he becomes liable to compensate the injured party for five different aspects of the injury: damage, pain, healing, loss of time from work, and insult.
"In the case of damage, here is an example of how restitution is determined. Suppose someone blinded someone else's eye, cut off his hand or broke his leg. They value the injured person as if he were a slave for sale in the market, and they appraise his value before the injury and now.
"Here is an example of determining the compensation for pain. Suppose someone burns another with a skewer or nail, even if only on his fingernail, where it doesn't actually produce a wound. They determine how much a man of his position would be willing to be paid to suffer that amount of pain.
"For healing the indemnity is determined in this way. If someone hit another person, he must pay all the expenses of healing him. If he develops ulcers, then if they come about in consequence of the blow, he is liable; but if not, he is not liable. If the wound heals, reopens, heals and reopens again, he is liable for all the expenses. But once it has healed thoroughly, he does not remain liable to pay the expenses of healing him.
"The value of time lost is estimated in this way. They consider what he would earn if he were a watchman over a cucumber field [a job requiring no special skills], for he has already been paid for the loss of his hand or foot. [In practice, this means they determine what kind of work he will be fit for when he fully recovers and evaluate the time lost by this standard.]
"For insult the compensation is determined entirely in accordance with the social status of both the one who caused the indignity and the one who suffered it. If someone insults a person who is naked, blind or asleep, he is liable. But if a sleeping person causes an insult, he is not liable. Someone who falls from a roof and causes injury and insult at the same time is liable for the injury but not for the insult,... because one should not be held responsible for an indignity one did not intend to cause." (Bava Kama 8:1)
I want to thank David Stern the scholar who came out with “The Jewish New Testament Commentary.” He was the one who showed me the statements in the Mishna as we just read in the previous.
Dr. Craig Keener wrote “The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament.” His comments related to the historical context of Jesus’ words regarding and “eye for an eye” are helpful as we see that Jesus was in this case teaching ideas and concepts that man rabbis of His day did as well. Just consider …
Mat_5:38. The “eye for an eye” and “tooth for a tooth” are part of the widespread ancient Near Eastern law of retaliation. In Israel and other cultures, this principle was enforced by a court and refers to legalized vengeance; personal vengeance was never accepted in the (the Torah) law of Moses, except as a concession for a relative’s murder (Num_35:18-21). The Old Testament (better to call them the Hebrew Scriptures) did not permit personal vengeance; David, a great warrior, recognized this principle (1Sa_25:33; 1Sa_26:10-11).
Mat_5:39. The blow on the right cheek was the most grievous insult possible in the ancient world (apart from inflicting serious physical harm), and in many cultures was listed alongside the “eye for an eye” laws; both Jewish and Roman law permitted prosecution for this offense. A prophet might endure such ill treatment (1Ki_22:24; Isa_50:6).
Mat_5:40. The poorest people of the Empire (e.g., most peasants in Egypt) had only an inner and outer garment, and the theft of a cloak would lead to legal recourse. Although conditions in first-century Palestine were not quite that bad, this verse could indicate divestiture of all one’s possessions, even (hyperbolically) one’s clothes, to avoid a legal dispute affecting only oneself. Jesus gives this advice in spite of the fact that, under Jewish law, a legal case to regain one’s cloak would have been foolproof: a creditor could not take a poor person’s outer cloak, which might serve as one’s only blanket at night as well as a coat (Exo_22:26-27).
Mat_5:41. Roman soldiers had the legal right to impress the labor, work animal or substance of local residents (cf. Mar_15:21). Although impressment may not have happened often in Galilee, it happened elsewhere, and the fact that it could happen would be enough to raise the eyebrows of Jesus’ hearers at this example of nonresistance and even loving service to the oppressor.
Finally, I wanted to share the awesome article from the Christian scholarly website, “Got Questions,: and the article on “Eye for an Eye.” Here’s the article (accessed July 2024 at https://www.gotquestions.org/eye-for-an-eye.html) …
The concept of “an eye for eye,” sometimes called jus talionis or lex talionis, is part of the Mosaic Law used in the Israelites’ justice system. The principle is that the punishment must fit the crime and there should be a just penalty for evil actions: “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). Justice should be equitable; excessive harshness and excessive leniency should be avoided.
We have no indication that the law of “an eye for an eye” was followed literally; there is never a biblical account of an Israelite being maimed as a result of this law. Also, before this particular law was given, God had already established a judicial system to hear cases and determine penalties (Exodus 18:13–26)—a system that would be unnecessary if God had intended a literal “eye for an eye” penalty. Although capital crimes were repaid with execution in ancient Israel, on the basis of multiple witnesses (Deuteronomy 17:6), most other crimes were repaid with payment in goods—if you injured a man’s hand so that he could not work, you compensated that man for his lost wages.
Besides Exodus 21, the law of “an eye for an eye” is mentioned twice in the Old Testament (Leviticus 24:20; Deuteronomy 19:21). Each time, the phrase is used in the context of a case being judged before a civil authority such as a judge. “An eye for an eye” was thus intended to be a guiding principle for lawgivers and judges; it was never to be used to justify vigilantism or settling grievances personally.
In the New Testament, it seems the Pharisees and scribes had taken the “eye for an eye” principle and applied it to everyday personal relationships. They taught that seeking personal revenge was acceptable. If someone punched you, you could punch him back; if someone insulted you, he was fair game for your insults. The religious leaders of Jesus’ day ignored the judicial basis of the giving of that law.
In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus counters the common teaching of personal retaliation: “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you . . .” (Matthew 5:38–39). Jesus then proceeds to reveal God’s heart concerning interpersonal relationships: “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. If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you” (Matthew 5:39–42).
In giving this “new” command, Jesus is not nullifying the Old Testament law (Matthew 5:17). Rather, He is separating the responsibility of the government (to punish evildoers justly) from the responsibility we all have on a personal level before God to love our enemies. We should not seek retribution for personal slights. We are to ignore personal insults (the meaning of “turn the other cheek”). Christians are to be willing to give more of their material goods, time, and labor than required, even if the demands upon us are unjust. We should loan to those who want to borrow, love our enemies, and pray for those who persecute us (verses 43–48). Enforcing “an eye for an eye” is the magistrate’s job; forgiving our enemies is ours. We see this played out today every time a victim stands up in court to publicly forgive a convicted criminal—the forgiveness is personal and real, but the judge still justly demands that the sentence be carried out.
Jesus’ limiting of the “eye for an eye” principle in no way prohibits self-defense or the forceful protection of the innocent from harm. The actions of duly appointed agents of the government, such as police officers and the military, to protect citizens and preserve the peace are not in question. Jesus’ command to turn the other cheek applies to personal relationships, not judicial policy. The principle of “an eye for an eye” is meant as a judicial policy, not as a rule for interpersonal relationships. The believer in Christ is guided by Jesus’ words to forgive. The Christian is radically different from those who follow the natural inclination to respond in kind.
Rev. Ferret - who is this guy?
What's his background? Why should I listen to him? Check his background at this link - https://www.dropbox.com/s/ortnret3oxcicu4/BackgrndTeacher%20mar%2025%202020.pdf?dl=0