Exodus 21:23-25 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
Justice can look very different from our expectations. And too often, what we really want is not justice but revenge. We don’t want equal suffering, we want to get more than even. We want them to fry!
This tendency to see justice through our own lens of suffering creates problems that we can see all around us. Instead of decreasing suffering in the world, this kind of justice colors everything with darker tones than reality dictates. And justice isn’t served. Revenge isn’t justice, no matter how much we want it.
So when people quote this text, always out of context, they see revenge, not justice. They read harshness and vindictiveness where none exists. Our own lens colors how we read a text like today’s text.
So if the meaning of the text isn’t what we think it is, what does this text mean? It is included in the section of the Hebrew Scriptures that is listing a whole bunch of laws that Israel was supposed to keep. And lots of these laws seem awfully unreasonable to our western ears.
So let’s start by looking at the laws that come before our text. They are dealing with personal liability. When people do things that cause others to be injured, what would justice look like in practical terms in the life of a middle eastern, agrarian culture three thousand years ago. That is where our text fits.
If you intentionally kill someone, justice would be in kind. But if it was unintentional, accidental, then there is a way to deal with this that avoids revenge killing. Remember, justice isn’t served with revenge.
Kidnapping is not good, to say the least. It is the depriving of the individual of their freedom and the family and community of that individual and their talents and worth. The punishment matches the crime.
If an injury happens by someones actions, but it isn’t fatal, then recompense involves making up for what was lost, both in terms of function and in terms of future revenue. The injurer is responsible for rehab costs and sustaining the income level until full recovery has happened. That seems fair.
The general principle seems to be that there should be equity between the injury inflicted and the punishment and restitution given. The punishment should match the crime. Revenge isn’t justice.
So our text today sets limits on the levels of punishment allowed. If a finger gets crushed, you can’t cut off the arm of the person who injured the finger of the other person. That wouldn’t be fair. If they steal your chicken, it wouldn’t be fair for you to kill all their livestock. If they break the handle on your front door, it isn’t fair to burn down their house.
The most the injured party can do is what our text is laying out. It is not a requirement that these punishments be carried out. There is always room for grace and mercy. But there are limits that constrain punishments.
We hear about “mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines” in the news every now and again. This was an effort to bring a balance to a system that didn’t treat criminals across different judges and courts equally. Some were way too lenient.
But this isn’t what our text is teaching. Don’t go overboard. Don’t be too harsh. That is the point of our text today. Leave room for justice not revenge. Keep things fair. Don’t allow emotion to overrule justice.
The Arnold Journey 