I just read a great comic book, that, for me, was ruined when I ran into a philosophizing bad guy and a religious spectre (God’s “spirit of vengeance”) who were talking together and the bad guy started spouting off about the “eye for an eye” deal. The religious spectre noted that the bad guy was using Scripture, and the bad guy carried on his philosophizing about how not everything is equal in revenge, and that an “eye doesn’t always equal an eye”. In other words, some wounds run deeper than an equilateral retaliatory response can soothe. In this case, a man’s daughter was murdered, then he murdered the murder, and the “spirit of vengeance” was going to claim his life as forfeit for his actions.
The bad guy told him something to the extent of, and I’m paraphrasing here, “Murdering the murderer didn’t soothe his pains, and he’ll hurt far beyond the lone act of revenge. His wounds are so deep that not even claiming the ‘eye for an eye’ rule will help him.”
This is *SO* common in writings that I just have to comment about poor research and complete misrepresentation of fact. For some reason, everybody ignorant of Scripture likes to quote this verse as if it is a “Law of Revenge”. In fact, this is often referred to in Latin as lex talionis, or “The Law of Retaliation” — which is something of a misnomer. Let’s examine the text from which this is drawn:
And the rest shall hear and fear, and shall never again commit any such evil among you. Your eye shall not pity. It shall be life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. — Deuteronomy 19:20-21 (ESV)
At first glance, it seems to validate everyone’s idea that this verse is all about getting “just revenge”. You kill my momma, I kill yours or you! Uh, no. It does *NOT* say that. Let’s back up a little and review the context:
A single witness shall not suffice against a person for any crime or for any wrong in connection with any offense that he has committed. Only on the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses shall a charge be established. If a malicious witness arises to accuse a person of wrongdoing, then both parties to the dispute shall appear before the LORD, before the priests and the judges who are in office in those days. The judges shall inquire diligently, and if the witness is a false witness and has accused his brother falsely, then you shall do to him as he had meant to do to his brother. So you shall purge the evil from your midst. And the rest shall hear and fear, and shall never again commit any such evil among you. Your eye shall not pity. It shall be life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.
(Deuteronomy 19:15-21 ESV)
Notice the context now? In case you missed it, please allow me to walk you through it a little. Verse 15 opens us up to the context, “single witness shall not suffice”, meaning anyone bringing up a charge against someone needs proof or witnesses. ”Two or three witnesses” brings us to understand the importance of justice and valid claims here — that no one shall be charged without proper evidence to the complaint. Now, we get into the main thrust of this section in verse 16, “If a malicious witness…accuse(s) a person…both…shall appear… before the LORD…priests and the judges…in office”. Verses 17-18 give us the answer to the initial question when they discuss “false witness” and “accus(ing) his brother falsely”. The text says one guilty of this false accusation shall have done unto “him as he had meant to do to his brother”. And then we close out with the “eye for an eye…” text.
In more common vernacular: if you accuse someone of something you know is a lie, and you are “bearing false witness” to get someone else in trouble so that they might go to jail, lose a hand, be put to death, etc., and you are found out, the authorities are capable of issuing judgment against you and placing on you the punishment you had intended on giving the other person. For example: Someone stole $400 (felony) from the 7-11 down the street and I decide to say my neighbor stole it just because I don’t like him. I have no proof, and I’m pretty sure it wasn’t him anyway, but I’ve got to get this guy: his lawn’s prettier than mine. I go so far as to perjure myself in court even after swearing to tell the truth! I lie through my teeth, and I’m found out. Now, I had intended that my neighbor, who I do not like, would be arrested and thrown in jail, as well as publicly humiliated by the whole event. Instead, based on this passage, the judge could instead find me guilty of perjury and throw me in jail and ensure that I’m publicly humiliated instead.
Now, do you get it? It has nothing to do with revenge at all! The ruling and punishment are handed down by AN AUTHORITY, not an individual. It may be that the judge hands the false accuser over to the offended party and allows them to engage in the punishing act, but the judgment and consequences must come from the ruling authority. Period.
Context! Context!! Context!!!
So, there you have it. The next time you read a book and they misuse this passage, you can set them straight!