Levítico 24
John MacArthur · Citado em PreceptAustin
Levítico 24
MacArthur - This law of retaliation established the principle that the punishment should fit the crime, but not go beyond it. Jesus "raised the bar" on the OT principle when He quoted this passage in the Sermon on the Mount charging His audience to turn the other cheek, in essence offering of forgiveness instead of retribution! Of course as with much of the Sermon on the Mount this was not the expected natural reaction and was meant to show His hearers that they needed a supernatural power to enable such an unnatural reaction. In short they needed to be born again and receive the Holy Spirit to carry out Jesus' holy instruction! “You have heard that it was said, ‘AN EYE FOR AN EYE, AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH.’ 39 “But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.his disciples to return good for evil 40 “If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also. 41 “Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two. (Matthew 5:38-41-note).
Levítico 24
MacArthur explains that the rabbinic tradition had perverted lex talionis, an "eye for an eye", which in the OT did not allow an individual to take the law into his own hands and apply it personally. Yet that is exactly what rabbinic tradition had done. Each man was permitted, in effect, to become his own judge, jury, and executioner. God’s law was turned to individual license (permit to act, freedom to take a specific course of action), and civil justice was perverted to personal vengeance. Instead of properly acknowledging the law of an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth as a limit on punishment, they conveniently used it as a mandate for vengeance-as it has often been wrongly viewed throughout history. What God gave as a restriction on civil courts, Jewish tradition had turned into personal license for revenge. In still another way, the self-centered and self-asserted “righteousness” of the scribes and Pharisees had made a shambles of God’s holy law. (MacArthur, J: Matthew 1-7 Macarthur New Testament Commentary Chicago: Moody Press) Freeman in Manners and Customs of the Bible comments that… This is the principle of justice that requires punishment equal in kind to the offense (not greater than the offense, as was frequently given in ancient times). Thus, if someone puts out another person’s eye, one of the offender’s eyes should be put out. The principle is stated in the Book of Exodus as “Thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.” This saying is often quoted today by those who wish to extract equal revenge for something done against them. (Freeman, J. M., & Chadwick, H. J. Manners & Customs of the Bible. 1996. Whitaker House) Got questions answers the Question - : "What does the Bible mean by 'an eye for an eye'?" Answer: The concept of “an eye for eye,” sometimes called jus talionis or lex talionis, is part of the Mosaic Law used in the Israelites’ justice system. The principle is that the punishment must fit the crime and there should be a just penalty for evil actions: “If there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise” (Exodus 21:23–25). Justice should be equitable; excessive harshness and excessive leniency should be avoided. We have no indication that the law of “an eye for an eye” was followed literally; there is never a biblical account of an Israelite being maimed as a result of this law. Also, before this particular law was given, God had already established a judicial system to hear cases and determine penalties (Exodus 18:13–26)—a system that would be unnecessary if God had intended a literal “eye for an eye” penalty. Although capital crimes were repaid with execution in ancient Israel, on the basis of multiple witnesses (Deuteronomy 17:6), most other crimes were repaid with payment in goods—if you injured a man’s hand so that he could not work, you compensated that man for his lost wages. Besides Exodus 21, the law of “an eye for an eye” is mentioned twice in the Old Testament (Leviticus 24:20; Deuteronomy 19:21). Each time, the phrase is used in the context of a case being judged before a civil authority such as a judge. “An eye for an eye” was thus intended to be a guiding principle for lawgivers and judges; it was never to be used to justify vigilantism or settling grievances personally. In the New Testament, it seems the Pharisees and scribes had taken the “eye for an eye” principle and applied it to everyday personal relationships. They taught that seeking personal revenge was acceptable. If someone punched you, you could punch him back; if someone insulted you, he was fair game for your insults. The religious leaders of Jesus’ day ignored the judicial basis of the giving of that law. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus counters the common teaching of personal retaliation: “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you . . .” (Matthew 5:38–39). Jesus then proceeds to reveal God’s heart concerning interpersonal relationships: “Do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you” (Matthew 5:39–42). In giving this “new” command, Jesus is not nullifying the Old Testament law (Matthew 5:17). Rather, He is separating the responsibility of the government (to punish evildoers justly) from the responsibility we all have on a personal level before God to love our enemies. We should not seek retribution for personal slights. We are to ignore personal insults (the meaning of “turn the other cheek”). Christians are to be willing to give more of their material goods, time, and labor than required, even if the demands upon us are unjust. We should loan to those who want to borrow, love our enemies, and pray for those who persecute us (verses 43–48). Enforcing “an eye for an eye” is the magistrate’s job; forgiving our enemies is ours. We see this played out today every time a victim stands up in court to publicly forgive a convicted criminal—the forgiveness is personal and real, but the judge still justly demands that the sentence be carried out. Jesus’ limiting of the “eye for an eye” principle in no way prohibits self-defense or the forceful protection of the innocent from harm. The actions of duly appointed agents of the government, such as police officers and the military, to protect citizens and preserve the peace are not in question. Jesus’ command to turn the other cheek applies to personal relationships, not judicial policy. The principle of “an eye for an eye” is meant as a judicial policy, not as a rule for interpersonal relationships. The believer in Christ is guided by Jesus’ words to forgive. The Christian is radically different from those who follow the natural inclination to respond in kind. The End of the Law: Mosaic Covenant in Pauline Theology by Jason Meyer (Gotquestions) Leviticus 24:20 Eye for an Eye Two tugboat captains, pals for years, passed each other every morning in the channel. If all was well, each man would wave, yell “Aye!” and blow his whistle in a friendly salute. One day a neophyte crewman asked the mate, “Why do they do that?” “You mean,” replied the startled mate, “you’ve never heard of an aye for an aye and a toot for a toot?” Source unknown Leviticus 24 "Lex Talionis:" The Principle of Retribution The principle of lex talionis, or the law of retaliation, was an important part of Old Testament Law. Rather than legislating violent action, it was actually intended to mitigate vengeance. The penalty for a crime could be no more severe than the crime itself. Our passage today is not all law: it first opens with further instructions concerning the duties of the priests. They tended to the nightly lighting of the golden lampstand, and weekly, they prepared the twelve sacred loaves of bread. Both are symbolic of God’s good work of creation and covenant, themes we’ve already traced in Leviticus. The light of the lampstand calls to mind God’s first words of creation: "Let there be light." And by the pillar of cloud and fire, God illuminated the path of the Israelites as they left Egypt. Bread is the symbol of God’s provision, reminding us of the table God set for Adam and Eve. They were permitted to nourish themselves from the goodness of God’s creation. And in the wilderness, it was of course the bread that fell from heaven, which kept alive the wandering Israelites. These items also point forward to Christ, who declared "I am the light of the world," and "I am the bread of life" (John 8:12; John 6:35). The passage abruptly turns from instructions for the priests to a narrative retelling. It’s only the second story told in Leviticus. (The first was about Nadab and Abihu.) This narrative is another portrait of sin: a man of mixed heritage is heard blaspheming God’s holy name. He is put to death by the command of God at the hands of the community. This is not an act of murder, for a distinction is clearly drawn in this passage between capital punishment and murder. According to the principle of lex talionis, or an eye for an eye, all crimes should be punished swiftly but justly. Apply the Word - In debates over appropriate criminal penalties, Christians should support principles outlined in Scripture. God favors justice, with penalties in proportion to the crime. They are not to be applied out of vengeance or pleasure. Vulnerable members of society must not be exploited. God’s justice is mingled with His mercy, and ours should be as well. A Misunderstood Command - Geoffrey, a dedicated believer, took seriously our Lord's command about turning the other cheek, yet he misunderstood the meaning of what Christ taught. When a man struck him, for example, he turned the other side of his face to his assailant and allowed him to hit it again. He said, "I have now fulfilled the Lord's command." Then he proceeded to pound his foe into submission. That's quite obviously not what Jesus had in mind. The Russian writer Leo Tolstoy also misinterpreted this command. He said that we should be completely nonresistant when people steal from us or hurt us. His theory was that the wicked would soon be so ashamed that they would correct their ways. But his logic was wrong. Society doesn't operate that way. Without the restraining force of the police, the wicked would completely overpower decent, law-abiding citizens. Let me turn the other cheek As You so often did; Let me feel the joy of love When saying, "I forgive." --Monroe The best way to get even is to forgive as you have been forgiven. Leviticus 24:21 'Thus the one who kills an animal shall make it good, but the one who kills a man shall be put to death. animal Lev 24:18. Ex. 21:33. Leviticus 24:22 'There shall be one standard for you; it shall be for the stranger as well as the native, for I am the Lord your God.' " Lev 17:10; 19:34. Ex. 12:49. Nu. 9:14; 15:15, 16, 29 One standard - God does not play favorites. When justice is to be carried out it is without divine bias. We should be the same! G Campbell