Torah and an Eye for an Eye
In another piece I said that the Mosaic covenantal Torah originated with and served the gracious Lord's purposes. In this section I want to look at some specific laws, their nature, purpose and application, to show what is true as a whole is true as it's worked out in specifics. If we read the Torah as a legalist's handbook we've missed its tone and spirit by a million miles. What immediately follows is written to show that the Torah is utterly unlike the kind of law a potential legalist would need to support his legalism.A writer, justly recognized for his sensitiveness and graciousness, was certainly wrong when he used Exodus 21:24, "Eye for eye, tooth for tooth" to characterize a legalist and vengeful spirit. He said of it that it's a quick, sure way to a sightless and toothless world. This is not what the Torah in general is about nor what that text in particular has in mind.
When you think of a "legalist" you think of someone who pores over the minutiae of life and scripture, trying to match them up; you think of someone who has to have every "t" crossed and every "i" dotted; you think of someone who scrutinizes his life and the lives of others, not like a nurse tending to someone who's sick to make them well, but with the intensity of Javert, the tormented policeman in Victor Hugo's Les Miserables, looking for law-breakers in order to punish them (even if the law-breaker is himself).
When you think of a "legalist" you think of someone who insists that every matter of the law is of equal importance and should be given equal time and concern ("If it's a law, it's as much a law as any other law!"); you think of someone for whom everything must not only be spelled out with precision, it must be followed in slavish detail. When we think of a legalist we won't think of someone simply on the basis of a number of independent decisions, we'll see (or think we see) a pattern of thought, a "way" of responding.
There's a cut and dried approach to life, a definite right/wrong about everything, a rigid consistency which tends to nurture flintiness because, you see, there's little or no room for doubt or dithering--the facts are what the facts are! Little nuances are passed over, extenuating circumstances are minimized or completely ignored because they only muddy the waters; there's no giving the benefit of the doubt because if we confess there's something we can't nail down with precision, that's the thin end of the wedge. Before we know it we'll be dithering on a host of others things so everything's coloured with the same brush. Legalists only rarely dither and when they do, it's only until they have time to find a verse that settles the matter one way or another.
First, the Torah doesn't give enough answers to be a legalist's document. Second, the Torah knows nothing of a legalist's flinty consistency. Third, and as a consequence, people are left in many situations to work out their own response of faith to God. Fourth, the commandments in the Torah encourage and call for an extraordinary measure of generosity; something that doesn't sit well in a legalistic framework. Fifth, all the laws in the Torah are important but they're not all equally important.
There Aren't Enough Answers in the Torah
Here's a question: Why were judges chosen in the Old Testament? Part of the answer is that so everyone would receive justice if and when disputes arose. Yes, but why didn't they simply go to the written text and let it settle the matter? Because there aren't enough verses in the world, spelled out with exhaustive precision, to settle every dispute. Judges--who loved the whole community as well as each individual--were needed to give a definitive interpretation of the Torah. This means the Torah wasn't an exhaustive blueprint! See Deuteronomy 1:9-18; 17:8-13 and elsewhere.
No one pretends that the legal material in the covenantal Torah is exhaustive. There can never be enough rules to cover every eventuality or deal with all aspects of life. Herbert Danby, in introducing the Mishnah to English readers said this (xvii-xviii): "Since written laws cannot anticipate all possible contingencies, or embrace every detail, or deal in advance with each possible case, it can be assumed that, in applying the Mosaic code to daily life and to the Temple worship, to domestic relations and trade and to the administration of justice, a multitude of usages arising out of practical necessity or convenience or experience became part of the routine of observance of the code..." 1 E.P. Sanders said in his Jewish Law From Jesus To The Mishnah, "In some ways the biblical laws regarding food and purity almost cry out for extension and clarification." 2
You only have to glance at Israel's laws to be confronted with a mass of unanswered questions. "You shall not work on the Sabbath" seems simple enough until you ask, "Precisely what constitutes work?" Precisely when does healthy desire become coveting? Is flirting with and/or kissing someone's wife the same as committing "adultery"? Is it stealing to haggle for and take more than you believe an object is worth? Punishment was to be carried out according to the nature of the crime, but how was that to be determined? The law said a rapist had to marry the virgin and never divorce her but what if she didn't want to marry him? At what precise moment did the Sabbath begin or end? Who disposed of the ashes of the altar of burnt offering? How and where was it to be done? It was forbidden to reap the "edges" of the fields. What was left in the edges was for the poor and the alien; but what exactly was an "edge" and who were the "poor"? There are precise answers for none of these questions and hundreds more.
We find illustrations of new laws having to be introduced to cover situations not covered by earlier legislation. Property and inheritance laws were laid out with males in mind, but what about females? What if the family had no boys? See Numbers 27:1-11. The daughters of Zelophehad came with that complaint and Moses had to take it to the Lord. A new law was introduced but it raised another question which required another new law. See Numbers 36:1-9 and 15:32-36 . Ezra and Nehemiah, who wanted people to be obedient to the Torah introduced new measures to that end.
The Torah wasn't an exhaustive blueprint!
The Torah Knows Nothing of a Flinty Consistency
Then there's the lack of rigid consistency in the writings of or connected with the Torah. Nehemiah was angry because his people were dishonoring God and ignoring the Torah. Angry at the traders who wanted to trade in the city on the Sabbath, he closed the gates and set guards to keep the merchants out. He saw no problem in having the guards working on the Sabbath to keep people from working on the Sabbath. See Nehemiah 13:15-22.
Leviticus 10 speaks of Nadab and Abihu being slain by God because they violated his law about "strange fire". What precisely is involved might not be clear; what's clear is that the two men violated the will of God and God slew them. It would be easy to take this text and make it a hermenutical grid by which to judge not only the whole Torah but the God of the Torah; however even before the chapter is finished we're given a different picture.
Aaron and his two remaining sons violate the Torah concerning the peace offering which was to be eaten by the priests in a holy place. When Moses first hears of it he is incensed but when Aaron explains to him that they broke the law to honour God, Moses is pacified. What exactly Aaron meant is something of a problem but he satisfied Moses that what they had done remained within the larger stream of God's will.
In 2 Samuel 6:1-11 we have the famous case of Uzzah who was slain by God when he touched the ark (see Numbers 4:15). We could use this text to stress the severity of God (and it will bear that weight, because God did indeed strike Uzzah dead), but if we have an eye to see it, God was just as merciful as he was decisive in judgment. It wasn't only Uzzah who had sinned; the whole enterprise headed up by David and his priestly companions was sinful from the beginning. Why didn't God slay the whole procession of people, including David, since every step they took was contrary to the Torah which said the ark was to be carried on the shoulders of the priests? So the very text which proclaims God's awful severity also proclaims his mercy. Uzzah breaks the law and dies; David and the rest break the law and don't die.
And take a look at Numbers 12 and 16. When Miriam and Aaron rebel against Moses, disputing his authority, an angry God shows mercy in judging Miriam. In chapter 16 when Korah and his companions rebel against the authority of Moses and Aaron, God not only destroys them, he destroys two hundred and fifty leaders who were implicated in the whole matter. And subsequent to that he destroys more than fourteen thousand who refuse to enter into the spirit of that righteous judgment.
And to complicate the matter, Hezekiah enlists Levites and priests who were not purified according to the Torah enlists them to do priestly work and offer sacrifice. God destroyed Korah for wanting to do what he later allows Levites to do priestly work. See 2 Chronicles 30:15-20 and note the joy in the whole experience of a renewed Passover. How God applies the Torah can help us in interpreting it. (See it developed in Franky and Jennifer.)
The Torah specified that adulterers and murderers were to be stoned and yet David is left alive despite committing both crimes. The Torah forbids anyone to eat the shewbread but the priests and yet a high-priest gives it to David and his men and did no wrong.
It's worth noting that when Jesus uses that incident in Matthew 12:1-8 in his defense of his disciples, he doesn't claim that he or David or the high-priest was exercising "executive privilege". He tells the critics that if they had had the heart that understood Hosea 6:6 they wouldn't have condemned his disciples. "I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice" must have explanatory value when we turn to the laws in the Torah. Christ says here that they could and should have known better.
And, you'll have noted that this "inconsistency" isn't only about cultic matters, it involves moral transgression and what God did or did not do about it. The Torah doesn't call for a legalistic response because the God of the Torah is not a legalist. We see this variation of response to transgression in our own families. See it developed in Franky and Jennifer; Torah for the Family.
But how can we explain such variations in God's response? Why don't all adulterers die irrespective of their rank? Why don't all thieves die and not just Achan? Why don't all rebels against legitimate authority die as Korah did?
The Torah Leaves People to Work Out their Own Response of Faith to God
There are limits to be placed on that heading but it's still true that the Torah leaves room for people to exercise various options. Many of the punishments laid down in the Torah didn't have to be slavishly followed. Take the case of an "eye for an eye". The injunction was not promoting revenge, it was limiting punishment and ensuring that the injured party would be taken seriously.
One who lost his hand wasn't to think he had the right to remove his assailant's head. Losing a foot didn't give him leave to remove the other person's two legs. On the other hand, the person disabled or maimed was a person, and was to be taken seriously. Justice was to be done and a penalty commensurate with the nature of the injury was to be carried out if the situation called for it.
This "eye for an eye" text is part of a covenant Torah that urges forgiveness and generosity (more on that later) so we're not to see it as promoting vengefulness. The passage goes on to tell us that a servant who lost his eye could be given his freedom in place of his eye (Exodus 21:24-27) so we know Israel isn't bound to slavishly follow the letter. A reading of the whole section illustrates that compensation rather than "wound for wound" can be pursued. Note 21:28-31. (And we need to note that a musician's hand is relatively more important on a commercial, social scale than, say, .......?)
But more to the point, the punishments laid down in many texts are optional, not absolutely demanded. Exodus 21:24 isn't demanding that the victim insist on punishment! The passage limits the punishment that can be administered even while it takes into account the communal rights of the one hurt but the one who is hurt isn't required to demand the eye or even compensation.
Leviticus 19:18 says they were not to bear a grudge and were to love each other as they loved themselves. This certainly means they didn't have to demand an eye. What if they wanted to say, "An apology is quite enough," and got it? What if the sheep is stolen and the owner is content not to demand a replacement (Exodus 22:12)? What if the girl who was raped doesn't want to marry the rapist (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)?
What if Jacob in a bizarre accident killed Barak, his lifelong and most devoted friend? What if instead of running to a refuge city he ran to Barak's house (to his parents and seven giant brothers), beside himself with grief and poured out the whole story? What if the bereaved family knew of the love these two had for each other and grieved not only for the loss of the son/brother but grieved over Jacob's loss? What if the whole village knew the truth and entered into the grief, and the judges saw the affair as one deep tragedy with no one to "blame"? Exile in a refuge city wouldn't be required. See Deuteronomy 19:1-13; Number 35:9-15 and elsewhere. [We should learn from this that biblical texts deal with specific situations and take many things for granted. The law concerning refuge cities and (alleged) accidental killings completely ignores all deaths that are not in dispute.]
Take the case of the adulterer. Adulterers were to be stoned to death (Deuteronomy 19:22; Leviticus 20:10) and yet there isn't one person in the Old Testament who was stoned to death for adultery. At some point divorce was introduced based on adultery (as witnessed by Isaiah 50:1 and Jeremiah 3:8, compare also Deuteronomy 24:1-5). Obviously the death penalty wasn't carried out every time adultery occurred. It appears that the death penalty is open to the offended but not demanded. The case of Joseph (in Matthew 1:18-19) and the woman Jesus dealt with in John 8 add to the picture.
To be sure, the above raises other questions and there are issues involved that need nuanced, but what is the general drift of all this? I'm wanting to say that in many instances the passages assume that the "sufferer" may want to exercise his or her rights. The Torah doesn't demand that they take everything to court and insist on reparation. Those sinned against are allowed to forgive; they're allowed to be generous and dismiss the matter as something best set aside. There would be situations where the crime would have deeper level ramifications for the community, as well as the individual, and this would have to be worked out, but there is no nurturing of revenge or cultivation of a litigious spirit in the Torah.
The Torah has none of the marks of a legalistic document. It knows nothing of a flinty absolutism and it certainly doesn't promote a cold consistency which becomes a slave to the letter of the law. In it and behind it, giving it its spirit and thrust is a Lord of holy love and compassion who would want Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 6:7 to be taken seriously. "To have lawsuits at all with one another is defeat for you. Why not rather suffer wrong? Why not rather be defrauded?"
The Torah Nutures Generosity
It isn't unusual to hear New Testament people say things like, "The law's demand falls below the obligation grace feels." Depending on what, precisely, is meant by that, there's some truth in it. But what if the Torah is God's grace expressed? To make what the covenantal Torah calls for something other than "the obligation grace feels" is completely false. (Compare Titus 2:11-15.)
And in the main, the specific statement is false. In practice, at least, Israel's "legalistic" system of giving outstrips much of what we see under a "grace" obligation. Paul will not only make Christ's giving the foundational motivation for Christian giving, he appeals to Old Testament texts on giving (see 2 Corinthians 8:9). That bad old "legalistic" system is used by the apostle of grace for instruction and inspiration for Christian giving!
The specified "tenth" was only the beginning of Israel's generosity to priests, one another (and to aliens). There were interest free loans, there were crops left unharvested, there was fruit not gathered in, there were firstlings (animals and crops) offered in sacrifice or redeemed with money, there was the redemption of their firstborn children which cost money, there was the feeding of animals belonging to others, there was the liberal giving of goods to the slave at the end of his seven year stint, there was the remission of debt and return of property in the Jubilee year and the remission of debts in the Sabbatical year, and there was the leaving of crops for the poor on the Sabbatical year. 3
The spirit and tone of the instruction in Deuteronomy 15:7-10 is pervasive throughout the Torah. "If there is a poor man among your brothers in any of the towns of the land that the Lord your God is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward your poor brother. Rather be openhanded and freely lend him whatever he needs. Be careful not to harbor this wicked thought, 'The seventh year, the year for canceling debts, is near,' so that you do not show ill will toward your needy brother and give him nothing...Give generously to him and do so without a grudging heart." All this is echoed in 1 & 2 Corinthians where Paul will speak of Christians giving as God has prospered them and giving cheerfully. In principle, there was nothing new about the nature of Christian giving—it was based on principles already taught in the Torah.
It isn't only the generosity of the giving that is striking, it's the motivation behind it all. In "liberally" giving goods to the departing slave they are to "Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and the Lord your God redeemed you. That is why I give you this command today." (Deuteronomy 15:14-15) God's own generosity and kindness is the basis and model for Israel's response. This means that Israel's ethical and moral response is as much an obligation to grace as the Christian's. Certainly the new manifestation of God's grace in Christ was grander than what went before, but it was nevertheless the grace of the same one true God. The truth is, in the Torah, the call for Israel to give generously doesn't exist without the truth that God has already graciously acted on Israel's behalf. To characterize anything in the Torah as legalistic is sheer ignorance. 4
This nurturing of generosity goes beyond the very important matter of giving money and goods. We've noticed it takes matters to the heart of a person. On the basis of their relationship to God and their neighbour, grudges are forbidden (Leviticus 19:17-18), shrewd self-interest is censured, tightfistedness and hard-hearted attitudes are outlawed (Deuteronomy 15:7-9). Personal differences are to be sidelined in order to show kindness (Deuteronomy 22:1-3); the disabled are not to be mistreated (Leviticus 19:14), gossip is frowned on and everything that threatens your neighbour's life is to be avoided (Leviticus 19:16; compare Romans 13:10).
And if we think all these things were to be carried out as if life were a long, grim slog, that too misses the mark. Catering for the needy and the vulnerable was to be done in the spirit of glad rejoicing or at least with a sense of cheerful contentment. See Deuteronomy 15:18; 16:10-14 and note the conclusion of 16:15.
Torah's Laws Are Not of Equal Importance
It's one of the failings of the legalist spirit that it flattens all God's commandments, it destroys the distinction between what is important, more important and most important. Part of the reason for this is the misguided notion that it's demanded by a true piety that is shaped by scripture and takes scripture seriously.
But it's precisely because we don't take scripture seriously that we make all commandments of equal importance. If we took scripture seriously we'd accept the word of Christ that there are "more important" and less important matters in the Torah (Matthew 23:23). We'd accept the word of Christ when he speaks of "the least" of Torah's commands and "the greatest" (Matthew 22:34-40).
No one has the right to reject even the least of God's commands (Matthew 5:19-22, and compare Deuteronomy 4:2; 5:32; 12:32) but it's unhealthy and it ignores a clear biblical witness to deny the priority of some commands over others.
To place the law which forbids non-priests to eat the shewbread on the same level with the command forbidding idolatry is misguided. To despise the law about shewbread is to despise the Lord who gave it, but if that law needs to be reverently by-passed in some exceptional circumstances to honour God, then it should be (and was with Christ's approval). But one couldn't reverently by-pass the command to worship and serve only the Lord. Some truths were "moral imperatives" without which there could be no life with God and others (like rules for gathering manna) could come and go because they existed for a particular and passing purpose. The moral authority behind all the commands, God himself, doesn't come and go but some of the specific commands he lays down serve their purpose and become obsolete in the sense that they are no longer binding.
This calls for reverent and rigorous study and reflection but what's strange about that? We have to prioritize our ethical and moral responsibilities if we want to live a normal life. "Things" are less important than "people". Love doesn't always respond in the same way to similar situations. While we're fixing a leaking roof (a matter of real importance, no doubt) and our child gets seriously hurt, we leave the roof and work with the child. As long as the child demands our attention the roof is left unattended. We wouldn't dream of debating whether the roof job was more important than the child's situation. Life confirms what the Torah everywhere insists on.
The Torah has none of the marks of a legal code. No part of it is, or is a sure way to, a "legalistic system of works". The reverse is the truth!
1. The Mishnah, Oxford University Press, 1987
2. SCM Press, London, 1990, page 136
3. Gordon McConville's Law and Theology in Deuteronomy, JSOT Press, Sheffield, England, 1984 is a rich resource here. His treatment of this whole area is not only eye-opening, it's inspiring and convicting. He characterizes Israel's giving as gracious "self denial" (page 17) in the face of God's prior grace and goes on to say this: "Just as the creditor may not claim that he might consider his legitimate right with regard to the debtor, so the owner of the firstlings may not claim what seems to be his right in relation to his beast...we have noticed that such self-denial in the face of apparent rights is a theme that underlies all the laws of Deuteronomy." (page 96) It is not a devotional book!
4. It's worth stressing here that Israel's generosity is not a "secular" humaneness it's an expression of their relationship to Yahweh and is part of his overarching purpose for the world.
No comments:
Post a Comment