'An Eye for an Eye': Getting Even vs Getting Over it - Biblically Speaking

Where Do Eye Start?
Often the Biblical reference of 'an eye for an eye' is used to justify revenge - some even say that God endorsed revenge in the Old Testament through this teaching, while Jesus revoked it in Matthew 5: 38-42:

38"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth'. 39But I tell you do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

Now Jesus is referencing scripture itself - so is he telling us to turn away from the practice of revenge encouraged by Old Testament teaching? The best thing is to go to the texts in the OT that make the initial statement. The first scripture is Exodus 21, and much of Exodus and Leviticus are spent giving specific instructions on delivering justice and fairness to the people of Israel. Indeed, some believe much of the modern day justice system in the West is built on the Judaic judicial structure.

Exodus 21:22-24 reads,

22 "If men who are fighting 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. 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.

Sounds pretty much like revenge right? Someone lops your hand off - you lop theirs right off and everybody goes home left-handed, whether they like it or not. But if you think about it, going home with someone’s severed hand really won't help you (especially if you live in a time when advanced surgery like face-replacement isn't around just yet). It would probably be better if the victim was somehow compensated - sounds very familiar right? You might be thinking of all those frivolous lawsuits in the US where people are awarded millions for burning themselves with their own coffee, or sue a burger joint for making them fat.

More Even-handed Than Previously Thought

The whole point of the lengthy and often boring detail of books like Exodus and Leviticus was to avoid frivolous cases by covering as much of the possibilities as could be done. So, what does the rest of the scripture say? Verses 26-29 read,

26 "If a man hits a manservant or maidservant in the eye and destroys it, he must let the servant go free to compensate for the eye. 27 And if he knocks out the tooth of a manservant or maidservant, he must let the servant go free to compensate for the tooth.

28 "If a bull gores a man or a woman to death, the bull must be stoned to death, and its meat must not be eaten. But the owner of the bull will not be held responsible. 29 If, however, the bull has had the habit of goring and the owner has been warned but has not kept it penned up and it kills a man or woman, the bull must be stoned and the owner also must be put to death.

Wow. This sounds more reasonable doesn't it? There is no reference to taking out someone's eye if they take out yours at all. Other references to this type of judgement are made in Leviticus 24 and Deuteronomy 19 but in very much the same vein as this Exodus passage. Now we already know that capital punishment was part of the Judaic justice system and some crimes that attracted the death penalty may be questionable, but if one considers the detail that went into the laws it might be fairly easy to avoid such crimes. Just as easy as it is today. It might not be too common to be accidentally involved in a pre-meditated murder.

Even in today's society the death penalty is still carried out - and I'm not talking about Afghanistan or Iraq but USA, Texas. Our challenge has always been in determining the just punishment for a crime. So many factors come into play: intent, remorse, self-defence, motive and so on. But one thing is for certain - we need a system of justice if society is to function normally - or as close to what we can call 'normal' as possible.

The Price is Right?

The problem with crime or sin is that when it is committed it cannot be 'un-committed'. Stolen goods can be returned but the violation is already done - the house broken - the peace-of-mind and security of the family shattered. What is the proper sentence? Not even apologies make true recompense for insults or affronts. Unfaithfulness in relationships destroys trust in profound ways - even genuine remorse cannot completely restore trust to a person who has been so betrayed. Some wounds may heal, but still bleed, however, in our consumerist society money if often sufficient for the troubles of many. It might be worth asking if large financial settlements enhance or devalue justice. What do you think?

A crime that has been committed is done so forever. Indeed, in some societies we deem some acts as crimes that are less destructive than others we don't deem criminal. Adultery, for example, is punishable by a prison sentence in South Korea (no, not North - South Korea). In many, maybe most countries, adultery is not a crime - but when one considers the repercussions of such an act it might make you think a little about how we determine what is or isn't a crime.

Of course that is a debate about morality and the law. The two don't always meet by any means - and this is what terrifies us about religious law (like the Muslim Shariah) because the law is morality. How can we go through life and not break some aspect of the law, nobody is perfect?

It makes one think about the purpose of any moral code. Is it there to tell us what is right and/or wrong or to tell us what to do only when someone does something we innately know is harmful in some way? Justice usually seems simple when one is neither the victim nor the perpetrator, but if you are either, an objective or impartial standard comes in handy.

But then we are left to question the justice of the justice system. It may be that a moral code is the least of our worries - we might do well to be concerned about living up to a moral code - any moral code. The track record of humanity suggests that no matter how realistic a moral code, we manage to fall below it and break 'the rules'. Paul points out the part of our human nature that just wants to do something because we were explicitly told not to (Romans 7:7-10). Justice is indispensible when considering our propensity for wrongdoing - whether it is a violation of state law or Mom & Dad's law.

Living a Law

This points to something beyond law - rules don't make us better, only better informed and only then if the rules make sense. If we violate some aspect of morality by lying, for example, the solution is not just to speak the truth - it is to stop being a liar, or racist or violent as the case may be. What good is it to apologize for a racist slur when one continues to be racist?

Perhaps Jesus' intent - indeed the intent of most moral codes - is not to make people DO things, but to help people see the value of certain aspects of character and hence be things. But as for the initial passage referring to 'an eye for an eye', Spielberg's Munich suggested that the only true solution to violation, illustrated through the perennial Israeli/Muslim conflict, was forgiveness. But this is nothing new - only under-practiced. Surely it takes a depth of character to act in a just and righteous way - but pursuit of righteous character may be more progressive than pursuit of righteous rules. Indeed, when we come upon some undocumented situation that has no coded solution, what's left? Only our character and this is the difference between knowing a rule and living it - between avoiding an act of injustice or embracing acts of kindness.

It may be that forgiveness has nothing to do with the trespass itself or the perpetrator - but the attitude of the victim. Forgiveness doesn't preclude justice, but it may very well prevent a vicious circle of injustice.

One love.

Atheists: No God, just whining | Charlotte Allen | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

Atheists: No God, just whining | Charlotte Allen | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk.

Here is a polemic rant - the very parallel of many atheist rants which I have either read or been subject to. It's not my style as a theist though I understand the position. What do you think?

Men: 5ive Secrets Women Don't Want You To Know (there are more but space is limited)

An Introduction to the Induction
What you are about to read could put your life (and mine) in grave danger. These are things men are not permitted to know and have the potential to bring down the deep, wide and altogether monolithic superstructure that is Womanhood.

Certainly, what I am about to reveal has been a closely gaurded secret since Eve conspired with the snake/serpent/devil to swindle Adam out of Creation (of course now we know Eve swindled both Adam AND the Serpent who now has a one way ticket to the darkest pits of hell).

I have (like all men) come to suspect that a written manifesto has been circulating since Gutenburg invented the printing press, passed on orally before that time, amongst women. This manifesto outlines all the rules, goals, aims and techniques of womanhood - it is the reason for both the power women hold over men and the paradoxical state of simultaneous unity and disunity in womankind.

This WoManifesto is the reason why the female of the species all seem to agree on everything regarding men, can communicate non-verbally at incredibly long distances, all love to sing 'I Will Survive' angrily at their men even if happily married/dating and never been cheated on, watch and cry at the Lifetime Channel and a host of other interesting and terrifying facts I can't get into now for fear of my life. Indeed my source must remain undisclosed, but it is likely that the content is very nearly verbatim.

Now it is well known that men have no such manifesto - and this is our greatest weakness and failing. Like Black people, men have no sense of unity or organization - hence we are left vulnerable and easily exploited by those who are well mobilized by a singular purposeful focus. Women, knowing how stupid we are, have taken full advantage of this, hence the contents of this note have the potential to upset the balance of power. But as men are blockheads - they won't be reading this, they will be watching the NBA Playoffs and the FA Cup - two sporting events invented by women to ensure sustained domination.

The Secrets

1. Do nothing by accident. That's right, you never met your significant other 'by chance' as you have hitherto thought. It was all planned at least 5 days in advance when you 'accidentally bumped into her' at the bank. It was orchestrated by her and perhaps with the help of other women as has everything since that time. The spontaneous way she asks you about about the financial plan for the next 5 years has been planned for years before. The fact that she demands you give her and answer in 5 minutes is part of her domination strategy. You will of course feel like a thoughtless fool - this is when she proposes her completely 'spontaneous' financial outlay. It should be noted that arguments are precipitated for specific purposes among them 'to see how he will react', 'to generate guilt' (see point 5), 'because there is nothing else to do' and indeed some women think that lack of arguments mean the relationship is not 'real'.

2. Don't trust anyone - especially each other. Women are incessantly and perpetually paranoid. They don't trust anyone - least of all other women because they all know what is in the confounded WoManifesto and know that they cannot be trusted. Men would feel the same way - but we don't know what's in the said manifesto and it's better that way. Women (and they are separated into various types - but that is another expose altogether) have corporate and individual aims. Some have no other goal but to get other women's men to look at them in order to make other women feel unattractive and they themselves can feel like a hotty. If a man looks at them, but he is single - it is worthless. The single most powerful thing a woman can do is 'steal' another woman's man as it elevates her in the pecking order. This is why women don't trust other women.

3. Pretend like you don't know what's going on. This is very important and is the basis for controlling mankind. Helpless females don't actually exist - they are expert mechanics, rocket scientists, tyre changers etc - ALL OF THEM. But pretending like they don't have a clue about certain things primes a man for endless service and makes him 'feel manly'. This 'manly' feeling is addictive and keeps us subservient. More importantly however, is emotional control. After thoroughly emasculating you through constant verbal attacks she will then wonder out loud what it could possibly be that's bothering you once you pluck up the courage to say something about the perpetual onslaught. She will appear completely oblivious and admit that all she wanted to do was to express that she thought you were the kitchen floor - an honest mistake.

4. Never be satisfied - even if you are. A central teaching in the WoManifesto. Once a woman knows her man loves her it is essential that she never express happiness and satisfaction. A man in love will do anything to make his woman happy - if she is not happy he will keep trying until she is. Hence, in order to ensure a steady stream of happiness-inducing acts one must never, ever under any circumstances express contentment or satisfaction in case he loses his edge and 'drops off of shape'. This of course comes with the risk that he may look for a woman he can satisfy - but they don't exist anyway, so he is doomed. Part of this 'quest of dissatisfaction' is perfecting the art of blaming everything - EVERYTHING - on the man. Once he believes everything is his fault (and it is - see I have been successfully indoctrinated) control is a fait accompli.

5. When in doubt - get angry or cry. To a man, a woman's anger/tears is more terrifying than anything else in Creation. Men would prefer to endure marauding wild animals, warfare and/or a vicious physical assault by drunken strangers (or assualt a stranger while drunk) than deal with a woman's anger/tears, this is proven by the level of violence and warfare in society. But this is a good last resort when on the verge of having to admit a weakness, error or mistake and is closely linked to point 4. This is part of another effort of some women to remain at the centre of attention at all times - but this will be elaborated on at another time - when it is decidedly safer.

Women who get angry at or disagree with these points are merely exercising points 3 and 5 - don't be fooled.

NOTE: Men are marginal in this manifesto as a means to an ends - the real battle is amongst women. Men provide little or no resistance but women are much more worthy adversaries for each other and spend inordinate amounts of time trying to get the one up on each other. No one knows why just yet - including women themselves.

PS I love my Empress

C. Arthur Young

But Seriously: Men & Women...roles, rumours, relationships

The conversation about men & women is often fun, sometimes strident and certainly perpetual.  Time for a few thoughts on the raging battle. Read this excerpt from Ephesians 5: 22-33:

Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Saviour. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church— for we are members of his body. "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

The reactions to this passage usually range from revulsion and incredulity, to disgust and fear, and if you're a man, happiness - with convenient misinterpretation. But like many scriptures it is widely misunderstood. I'm not an expert on the Bible, but my intuition tells me that the Bible is not just a book of rules or commands, but an insightful text that points out facts about human and Divine nature and how both those things 'work'.

In my opinion, this passage is telling us about the most basic but profound needs of men and women in the love relationship. The person with the most power (and responsibility) over you on earth is the one whom with you are in love. They have the potential to hurt and/or inspire you more deeply than any other person.

Now each Biblical role is seriously challenging, submission for women and total self-sacrifice for men. But something tells me that a woman would have little trouble entrusting herself (and that is what I believe submission to be) to a man she felt completely loved by and who would die for her. Likewise, I can't imagine any reasonable man would hesitate to lay down his life for a woman he felt genuinely respected him and demonstrated loyalty and devotion.

It is my belief that the last sentence of the excerpt is the core statement: men above all else desire respect, and women above all else desire love and affection. Both are expressions of love, but each incarnation is an articulation in accordance with the way the respective genders consume love.

Women look for a man they can respect, who knows how and when to 'put his foot down' with anyone - including her, but is also considerate and gentle though firm and strong in character. A man loves a strong and outspoken woman who wants to uplift rather than compete against him - who will 'be on his side' and truly believe in him.

We are in the realm of the ideal right now - so clearly this passage is proposing the goal and aspiration. Men may balk at the idea that such a woman exists and women laugh at the possibility of such a prince. But as much as we sometimes fall - sometimes we are this ideal. The idea would be to become this ideal more of the time than not - and that will take not just time but intent, effort, practice and yes - Divine intervention. The built in failsafe is that each role is meant to compensate for the reality of human frailty.

If you give thought to some of the central conflicts of the man/woman relationship they revolve around issues of love and respect - usually surfacing through communication. It would take a profound sense of security and self-confidence to fulfil either of these roles. A sense of security and strength that would not find its genesis in the relationship itself but, I believe, from the Divine and from within the individual. A relationship that demonstrates fluency in the stated direction is one where each individual is bringing that peace, security, confidence, strength and Divine connection to the table. And one can only get what one pursues.

Issues of authority and leadership also arise and make this passage ever more controversial. But ask yourself if fighting for 'control' ever made you happy. Then ask yourself is having complete control ever made your partner happy. For both men and women the issue is not control - it's surrender.

The roles outlined by the scripture, in my opinion, relate to the natural needs of the parties rather than enforcing some unnatural order. One can assume the roles imply silence and non-participation for the woman and complete control and lordship for the man - but that would be a mistake. However, if that's what one wants it may be what one gets. Either way, for any relationship to work there must be an agreed order of some kind with which both parties are happy. No order, no plan, no agreement will lead to more conflict - disorder always does. Leadership doesn't imply superiority but responsibility and servanthood and any sensible leader will recognize the strengths (and weaknesses) of those in his care. Indeed the kind of leadership that scripture advocates subordinates the needs of the leader for the needs of those in his care.

The problem is the 'you first' mindset. If no one wants to fulfil their role until they are sure the other does so first - then there will be an impasse; constant conflict. So, if one person fails the other withdraws their offer of respect or love, as the case may be. Or one partner spends more time pointing out the other’s responsibility rather fulfilling his or her own. If one does not consider their partner worthy of self-sacrifice or respect then one should consider the future, value or at least purpose of the relationship (perhaps it is purely for entertainment or self-satisfaction).

Now, when we bring weighty issues like abuse, infidelity/adultery, apathy and such into the discussion, things get more complicated. Not every relationship works out and it can't be fun to be in a one-sided affair. But if our actions and attitudes are completely dependent on another, then who is really in control? Perhaps if we pursued the kind of very profound Divine confidence that no mortal can give us our relationships would benefit profoundly.

It is my belief that virtues like respect and love are not things you do - but things you are. And wherever you go and whomever you go with, there you are.

C. Arthur Young