#Eye for an eye old testament code

#Eye for an eye old testament code

To hear the God of the Bible saying things like, 'Vengenance is mine (I.e not yours!) says the Lord' is remarkable progression.Īdditionally, unlike, say, even the Code of Hammurabi, Leviticus is clear that the principle is to apply regardless of social class. The prophets over time called out for mercy. Indeed, the concept of judicial mercy itself was rather unique, and was developed over the course of the OT. If the husband makes no demand, there is no case. Commentators understand it to represent Gods Spirit coupled with obedience. If the victim did not wish the court to act, the court was obliged to do so. Their need of eye salve contrasts with their blindness. 38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: 39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall. Note also, it is the court here that is in charge- not the aggrieved party. We are told, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord (Rom 12:19) which even in the Old Testament it. That a man might be put to death for killing someone's property is rather progressive for it's day. That women were property, for instance, would have been taken for granted. 23 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. Instead, it was saying, the victim may not demand any more than this.Ģ0 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.Ģ2 “If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows.

To answer you question, no it did not demand that an equal punishment be meted out if the victim did not desire the punishment be inflicted. This was not an imperative, but a restriction on the one demanding vengeance. In contrast, prior laws had said the equivalent of 'a life for an eye.' It was quite remarkable that limitations were being placed on revenge. The remarkable thing about the law was that it set a maximum punishment, equal to the damage inflicted. The Lex Talionis was actually restrictive in it's nature.