An Example of The Usefulness of Context

If you have not read my last post, this post will probably make less sense. In a way, this fact goes to prove the point of the thought I have been promoting in the last post and in this one. Statements often do not stand on their own. There is a purpose for them being said. When we pull them out of context, we lose something of their purpose.

Let's consider the biblical statement: "An eye for an eye..." (Lev 24:20; Deut 19:21), which does indeed show up elsewhere in the ANE literature (Hammurabi's Code--A law of the King of Babylon).* Many secularists will point to the Bible as an outdated and outmoded way of life. They would suggest that this idea is cruel and uncivilized. They would further point to the New Testament, and Christ's command to turn the other cheek (Matt 5:38-42). Here it seems that Christ is contradicting the Old Testament command. This would prove to them that even within the tradition, people begin to disagree with the old ways.

Without context, we would have to say that disagreement is a real possibility. Let's pull these two statements out of their books and their historical context, and read them side by side.

Leviticus 24:20

....fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; as he has caused disfigurement of a man, so shall it be done to him.

Matthew 5:38-42

You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also. And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two. Give to him who asks you, and from him who wants to borrow from you do not turn away.

Not only does it seem that these two ideas are mutually exclusive, Christ seems to be challenging the OT idea of an "eye for an eye." Is this the case, or will the context give us a clue as to what is going on?

How do we understand this? Just prior to Christ seemingly contradicting the OT, He says of Himself: "I did not come to destroy [the law], but to fulfill." (Matthew 5:17). How can this be so, if what He does throughout the rest of the sermon is mention an OT idea and then change it?

We need some context.

The statement "an eye for an eye" does not stand alone in the OT as some sort of timeless rule. Instead, it is a guideline for an ANE people who need direction. The laws given in the Pentateuch are to set Israel apart as different from the rest of the ANE. So, what was the common form of discipline in the ANE? Commonly the punishment was disproportionately severe. Someone who stole a cheap piece of stale bread could have his life taken. Israel was restrained from such action. The phrase an "eye for an eye" is analogous to "let the punishment fit the crime," or "no cruel or unusual punishment" in our day. Therefore, it is quite the opposite of what the secularist would assume. It is not a heartless or harsh punishment, but a loosening of the harshness from the old ways. It was a step in the right direction. A step that Christ continues forward in His own day to reveal the real nature of the Father.

In other words, the idea of an "eye for an eye" is more than just a rule to follow, but carries with it an idea: "Be more merciful than you would be otherwise." Is this not the point Christ is making in Matt 5. He is saying to the crowd: "You are following rules, but it is the principle that matters. It is not, 'I have to gouge out your eye for justice to be served.' Instead, it is 'In light of God's message of grace I have to show the guilty a measure of mercy that I would not otherwise show." So, he takes the statement, "An eye for an eye," to its logical next step. In other words, He fulfills the (yet to be fulfilled) law: Not only should we be so merciful to give an equal punishment; we need to go the extra mile. Christ was telling the people to turn from blindly following the law out of legalistic ritual and to get to the core of the law.

So, it is with the rest of the Sermon on the Mount. Christ mentions a law of the OT and then extracts the principle that the people had forgotten in their legalism.

Historical context is key.

* While some might want to suggest that Israel was simply mirroring the Babylonians, this would be a very uneducated statement considering that much of Israelite Scripture is very intent upon removing the Israelite way of life away from the rest of the ANE. However, it cannot be denied that Hammurabi's Code does state "an eye for an eye" and that this was written down before the Pentateuch. While this does not prove that the Babylonians came up with this rule first, it does offer the possibility. In the end, what is more significant is not the fact that the statement is made in two ANE cultures, but how each culture received and understood such an idea. For the Babylonians, the idea was quite literal, and without nuance. But, before the legalism of Christ's time came to such an extreme, the Hebrew people actually understood the nuance of God's order, which, as this article argues, is mercy. We need simply to look at Hebrew Targums on the passage to see that they spent a lot of effort extracting the proper nuance, even at times suggesting that literalism is not crucial, but that perhaps a fine that fit the crime could be a suitable substitute. 

However, do not let me deny that even Hammurabi's Code is a much more humane idea than the rules and ways of still other ANE societies. Hammurabi's Code is indeed praised as being a more humane look at punishment. Thus, that the Hebrews might have been given this truth first through another people does not threaten that it is indeed God's truth as well. As is often stated, all truth is God's truth. 

History as Theology:

When we want to find foundation for our theology, it seems natural for us to turn to platitudes, those verses of Scripture that are repeatable and unhindered by outdated Bible names and context, simply timeless ideas. However, these statements, on their own, lose a lot of their power. They are bantered about as pithy solutions to deep and varied issues until they are seen as too worn or insufficient for all the applications for which they are used.

Moral ideas need foundation themselves, lest their import is assumed to come from the feeling the comment produces, which holds no real power at all, not at least lasting power. Let me see if I can give a practical example of what I mean. The statement: “You should probably think really hard before breaking the law again,” is a perfectly profitable statement, but on its own, it does not move one to take it too seriously. Especially if all we can think back to is a possible traffic violation. Big whoop.

On the other hand, if you are standing in front of a judge who is just about ready to throw the book at you and is giving you one last chance before incarceration, it carries much more weight. It is the same statement, but it is given real world application and import. Context is key. With this truth in mind, we must try to reconstruct in our mind why our favorite memory verses are said in the first place. They are, almost, if not always said as response to some real historical event or fact.

“God is love,” is a beautiful idea, but it has, when taken on its own, led to less than helpful views of God as a sentimental being, never willing to discipline, sort of like the God of Rob Bell’s, Love Wins. The terms “God” and “love” do not stand on their own as timeless ideas. No, the writers of the Bible are always using their terms in the context of their Hebraic understanding, which is defined by the OT. When we then think of the statement, “God is Love,” we get a rich understanding of just what this means. It means that Yahweh, the personal God of Israel, the Lord Most High, the One God that exists without equal is Holy-love, a love that is expressed of a superior to an inferior to bring restoration and healing without transgressing justice.  Lovey-dovey flies out the window when we see this God for who He is.

We do not learn about the definitions of our terms from other moral platitudes given elsewhere. That would just move the problem back a step. No, we learn who God is and what His love is like by reading about God through story, real story, but story nonetheless. We know God demands justice, because we see him, in our minds eye, demand justice through the literature of the OT. We know that He is merciful as well for the same reason.

So, we read the OT, and we muster through the stories, and we think that just because we know how the story plays out that we know the Scripture, but if we do not ask “Why,” why is this story told, what is the author trying to teach, we do not learn much at all. Knowing the story is the first step. It is foundational. The various lesson that we learn of God and man do not jump right off the page some times (often times), but after we know the stories and we come across what seems to be a nice moral statement, the light bulb goes off. “Ah, he did not just make that up; he got that from (this or that) story.” God acts in real space and time to reveal His self and His plan for us.

God uses unrepeatable history as a solid foundation to demonstrate who He is and what He cares about. He then becomes the measuring stick for humanity, and by comparison, we see the depths of our need for Him. The Bible’s history then stands as the foundation for its lessons. Many think that once we get the “timeless” lesson, we can then discard the story itself, but that is a huge mistake. Without the history the lessons become disassociated platitudes that come to mean whatever they make us feel. We end up in square one again.