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in the ANE literature (Hammurabi's Code--A law of the King of Babylon).* Many secularists will point to the Bible as an outdated and outmoded way of life.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.
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.
* 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment