DOCSLIB.ORG

Sermon on the Mount Part 17 Text: Matthew 5:33-37 Intro

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Sermon on the Mount Part 17 Text: Matthew 5:33-37 Intro Sermon On The Mount Part 17 Text: Matthew 5:33-37 Intro: We now come to one of the most perplexing sections in Christ’s Sermon on the Mount. Here’s what I mean: “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, 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 5:38-42 Let take the first point—an eye for an eye. Once again Jesus is challenging the Rabbis’ application of these following verses from the Mosaic Law: “Anyone who injures their neighbor is to be injured in the same manner: fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. The one who has inflicted the injury must suffer the same injury.” Leviticus 24:19-20 “Show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.” Deuteronomy 19:21 “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 I imagine that you’ve heard it said: “An eye-for-eye and tooth-for-tooth would lead to a world of the blind and toothless.” This saying, Has been attributed to Mohandas Gandhi, however, there is no record that he ever said it; one of his biographers used the phrase to sum up what he thought was Gandhi’s philosophy. Nevertheless, It goes to show that once again moderns have misinterpreted the O.T. Law even as the Rabbis did in Jesus day—of course the two misconstrued applications are different, but what they have in common is they are both misplaced understanding. To begin with, Let us examine the original intent and purpose of the law. I. The Original Intent To sum it up in a phrase you could say its purpose was: “To limit revenge.” “To avoid over-kill.” “Make the punishment fit the crime.” “In a word, to promote fairness in judgment.” However, The Rabbis of Jesus day saw it as a requirement & viewed it as valid for personal retaliation. The contemporary view is a bit different—it is seen as uncivilized, barbaric and savage and belonging to a primitive age and therefore unfit for a modern world—both miss the point. First of all, Let me say, God never intended it to be a prescription for personal revenge. This is clear, From what is said elsewhere in the Mosaic Law. There we discover that it is the civil magistrate, not the individual, who is responsible to see that the appropriate justice is carried out: “If the guilty person deserves to be beaten, the judge shall make them lie down and have them flogged in his presence with the number of lashes the crime deserves.” Deuteronomy 25:2 We see 2 things here: 1. The punishment had to fit the crime: “The number of lashes the crime deserves.” (giving someone a black eye certainly didn’t deserve the same penalty as killing them). 2. Secondly, by assigning a court official to carry out the sentence, it was intended that he would be objective and unbiased since he is not emotionally involved in the crime—something which can’t be said about personal revenge. Moreover, God’s guidelines for judges speak for themselves: “Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly.” Leviticus 19:15 Therefore, What we have here is in the ‘eye for an eye’ is civil and criminal legislation. It kept people from paying more than the offense warranted. It required the sentence and the crime had to match. Keep in mind, Jesus is not setting aside the Law, remember His earlier statement: “ Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. “ Matthew 5:17 Meaning, There is no contradicting the Law here. He isn’t taking issue with what Moses prescribed. Instead He’s teaching His followers to live far above the Law just as He did! A key aspect to understanding this entire issue is to discern the purpose of the Law in the first place—the Law was introduced to restrain evil. \ “Why then was the law given? It was added because of transgressions.” Galatians 3:19 So then, Who is the Law targeting? The apostle answers this question in no uncertain terms: “We know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers— and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God.” I Timothy 1:9-11 However, In the Sermon, who is Jesus directing His comments to—lawbreakers? The answer is found at the very beginning of the Sermon: “Now when Jesus saw the crowds, He went up on a mountainside and sat down. His disciples came to Him, and He began to teach them.” Matthew 5:1 So, Christ is outlining the spiritual life not the legal life of those who wish to follow Him. They are called to a much higher standard that mere Law, the standard is the one Jesus lived out Himself. For instance, Remember when the hypocritical leaders brought a sinful woman to Him? Well, here’s how it went down: “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing Him. But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with His finger. When they kept on questioning Him, He straightened up and said to them, ‘Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.’ Again He stooped down and wrote on the ground. At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. Jesus straightened up and asked her, ‘Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?’ ‘No one, sir,’ she said. Then neither do I condemn you,’ Jesus declared. ‘Go now and leave your life of sin’.” John 8:4-11 Again, Was Jesus over-ruling Moses? Pulling rank? Or vetoing the courts? Not at all, Actually He was upholding the Law while showing mercy. First of all, where is the man—it smells of a set up to me. Secondly, to carry out the punishment, you can’t be guilty of the same crime. Ezekiel makes this clear: “But righteous men will judge them the way adulteresses and those who shed blood are judged.” Ezekiel 23:45 The woman’s accusers were actually attempting to circumvent the Law in order to trip up Jesus. Besides, This time around, Christ isn’t wearing a ‘black robe,’ that comes later, for we are told: “God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through Him.” John 3:17 Now, It’s right here that we have the secret of understanding this otherwise perplexing dilemma. It’s salvation and not condemnation that’s behind Christ’s command. It’s “Whoever claims to live in Him must walk as Jesus did.” I John 2:6 It’s the calling to exhibit grace! To go beyond Law and Justice to demonstrate mercy, grace and forgiveness. It has nothing to do with the courthouse—that’s a different subject altogether. This is about softening hearts and winning souls! So, Evidence that Jesus’ non ‘eye for an eye’ response was about personal Christian ethics and not an abrogation of civil or criminal legislation, can be seen by recognizing two different biblical positions at the same time. First of all, The government, which has received a God-given responsibility of carry out justice, must never ever give up the ‘eye for an eye’ principle. II. Eye For An Eye Still Valid For instance, consider these verses focused on Law and Order: “When justice is done, it brings joy to the righteous but terror to evildoers.” Proverbs 21:15 “By justice a king gives a country stability, but those who are greedy for bribes tear it down.” Proverbs 29:4 “The wicked accept bribes in secret to pervert the course of justice.” Proverbs 17:23 “The righteous care about justice for the poor, but the wicked have no such concern.” Proverbs 29:7 “It is not good to be partial to the wicked and so deprive the innocent of justice.” Proverbs 18:5 “Acquitting the guilty and condemning the innocent—the LORD detests them both.” Proverbs 17:15 And, Finally in a N.T. book written after Jesus preached the Sermon on the Mount we find this injunction: “The one in authority is God’s servant for your good.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Classic Arguments for and Against the Death Penalty
    \\server05\productn\E\ELO\1-1\ELO105.txt unknown Seq: 1 25-NOV-09 10:39 INTRODUCTORY ESSAY CLASSIC ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST THE DEATH PENALTY ©VICTOR STREIB* This death penalty symposium issue is an academic exploration of a wide variety of complex legal issues surrounding capital punishment law. It follows, then, that the authors of the articles examine these issues as academics, regardless of the political fallout from their find- ings. What this symposium issue is not, therefore, is a pro and con debate about the death penalty’s morality, legality, or effectiveness. The organizers of this symposium assume, however, that at least some of our audience at the symposium and the readers of this symposium issue would appreciate having a primer on the classic arguments for and against the death penalty.1 This is that primer, complete with ref- erences to guide readers to more complete information if they choose to pursue it.2 * Professor, Ohio Northern University College of Law; Senior Lecturing Fellow, Duke University School of Law. These materials are taken primarily from VICTOR STREIB, DEATH PENALTY IN A NUTSHELL 9-26 (3d ed. 2008). 1 Symposium attendees did benefit considerably from the oral presentation by Pro- fessor Arnold Loewy entitled The Death Penalty and Innocence, Elon Law Review Death Penalty Symposium (Nov. 21, 2008), based upon his previously published article, Police, Citizens, the Constitution, and Ignorance: The Systematic Value of Citizen Ignorance in Solving Crime, 39 TEX. TECH L. REV. 1077 (2007). 2 An excellent summary of these issues also can be found at LINDA E.
    [Show full text]
  • Exodus an Eye for an Eye Lesson 32 Exodus 21:12-36 120620
    Exodus An Eye for an Eye Lesson 32 Exodus 21:12-36 120620 Introduction 1 Two weeks ago we jumped back into our study in the book of Exodus right where we left off three years ago. a The Israelites had been miraculously freed from Egypt, led through the Red Sea and brought out into the dessert where God called them to be his people and formed them into his nation. b As a new nation under God they would need laws to govern them. And so God directly gave them ten timeless commandments to live before Him … and we took those up in great detail. 2 Now, three years later we are turning our attention to the next section of Exodus which Scripture itself calls the Book of the Covenant. a It comprises about three chapters and was given by God to teach his people how to apply the Ten Commandments to specific situations in a way the promoted love of God and neighbor. b And while these laws could never address every possible situation that might arise, they provided the basic spiritual and legal principles for the Israelites to live as the people of God. 3 As I mentioned last week this section of scripture is not written directly to us but it is written for us. a There is something to be learned from these verses because all scripture is God-breathed and useful for our instruction (2 Tim 3:16). The mistake often made regarding these laws is to either completely toss them or try to implement them at our next city council meeting.
    [Show full text]
  • The Christian Executioner: Reconciling “An Eye for an Eye” with “Turn the Other Cheek”
    Pepperdine Law Review Volume 27 Issue 1 Article 4 12-15-1999 The Christian Executioner: Reconciling “An Eye for an Eye” with “Turn the Other Cheek” Jill Jones Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/plr Part of the Criminal Law Commons, Judges Commons, and the Religion Law Commons Recommended Citation Jill Jones The Christian Executioner: Reconciling “An Eye for an Eye” with “Turn the Other Cheek”, 27 Pepp. L. Rev. Iss. 1 (2000) Available at: https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/plr/vol27/iss1/4 This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by the Caruso School of Law at Pepperdine Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Pepperdine Law Review by an authorized editor of Pepperdine Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]. The Christian Executioner: Reconciling "An Eye for an Eye" with "Turn the Other Cheek" God quit you in his mercy! Hear your sentence.... Touching our person seek we no revenge; But we our kingdom's safety must so tender, whose ruin you have sought, that to her laws we do deliver you. Get you therefore hence, poor miserable wretches, to your death: The taste whereof, God his mercy give you patience to endure, and true repentance of all your dear offences! Bear them hence. King Henry V, WILLLAM SHAKESPEARE, KING HENRY V act 2, sc. 2. I am going face to face with Jesus now. I love all of you very much. I will see you all when you get there.
    [Show full text]
  • WJ&MM HS Study Guide.Pages
    Where Justice and Mercy Meet: Catholic Opposition to the Death Penalty By David Matzko McCarthy, Trudy D. Conway, and Vicki Schieber, Editors Forward by Sister Helen Prejean, CSJ 6 SESSION/LESSON STUDY GUIDE SESSION 1: “The Death Penalty Today” [Text Chapters 1-3] AIM: To familiarize students with the reality of the death penalty today: how it works (or doesn’t), its application in the United States and around the world, and (in general terms) the U.S. legal/court system. Summary of the Readings: Chapter 1 “Facing the Truth” (pp. 3-15) Chapter 1 may be an uncomfortable piece for many to read. As explained by editors Vicki Schieber, Trudy D. Conway, and David Matzko McCarthy, “This opening chapter asks us to deal with what actually occurs in execution chambers across our country.” (p. 3) It challenges us to “face the realties of what American citizens ask prison officers to do in their [our] names.” (p. 3) Chapter 2 “Seeing Ourselves from an International Perspective” (pp. 16-30) Chapter 2 offers a broad overview of the current international response to the death penalty and its historical background. (p. 17) Students may be surprised (even shocked) to learn that the United States is the only Western democracy in the world to retain the death penalty, and joins with the likes of China, Iran, North Korea, and Yemen in executing more people than any other countries. As the editors note: “On the issue of capital punishment, our country seems to be inconsistent with its broader role in the world.” (p. 18) Chapter 3 “Trying to Get it Right” (pp.
    [Show full text]
  • Parashat Mishpatim 5778
    And These Are the Layers – Parashat Mishpatim 5778 Rabbi Michael Safra I’m not sure how good a story can be if I have to explain it first, but for this one it helps to know that the Shulkhan Arukh is a legal code from the 16th century, written by Rabbi Joseph Karo. In traditional circles, it was essentially the test for rabbinic ordination. It is divided into four sections – Orah Hayyim on rituals related to services and holidays; Yoreh Deah on ritual matters like Kashrut and tzedakkkah; Even Haezer on women and marriage; and Hoshen Mishpat on civil law. And it is printed like most rabbinic books, with the text occupying a small portion of the page and layers of interpretation all around. So it once happened that a young scholar approached the 18th-century Rabbi Barukh Frankel- Teomim and asked to be considered for ordination. The rabbi tested the young man and found his scholarship to be impeccable. He was baki, he knew well the complicated details of all four sections of the Shulkhan Arukh. Rabbi Frankel ordained him, and then he suggested: “Before you can be chosen as the rabbi of a community, you must first learn the fifth section of the Shulkhan Arukh.” “The fifth section?!?” The young scholar didn’t understand. “Everyone knows that there are only four sections of the Shulkhan Arukh.” “Yes,” the rabbi explained. “But for rabbis there is a fifth section that you must learn. And that is the etiquette of how to deal with people.” After some time, this young scholar, now the rabbi of a community, came back to Rabbi Frankel.
    [Show full text]
  • Natural Law, the Lex Talionis, and the Power of the Sword
    Liberty University Law Review Volume 2 Issue 3 Article 14 March 2008 Natural Law, the Lex Talionis, and the Power of the Sword David VanDrunen Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/lu_law_review Recommended Citation VanDrunen, David (2008) "Natural Law, the Lex Talionis, and the Power of the Sword," Liberty University Law Review: Vol. 2 : Iss. 3 , Article 14. Available at: https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/lu_law_review/vol2/iss3/14 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Liberty University School of Law at Scholars Crossing. It has been accepted for inclusion in Liberty University Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholars Crossing. For more information, please contact [email protected]. NATURAL LAW, THE LEX TALIONIS, AND THE POWER OF THE SWORD t David VanDrunen I. INTRODUCTION The idea of the lex talionis-aneye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth-seems to take us back to the murky origins of legal history, to the raw, primitive, and violent impulses of not-yet-fully civilized humanity. The idea evokes the specter of villages filled with one-eyed men consumed by the violent demands of honor cultures and tribal feuds. The lex talionis is easily dismissed as unworthy of humane civilization and especially of a legal order historically influenced by Christianity. Jesus himself revoked the lex talionis in his Sermon on the Mount and no longer would we imagine that maiming is a fitting way to resolve torts cases. Yet such a facile dismissal of the so-called law of retribution is both legally and theologically hasty.
    [Show full text]
  • Customs Going Back to the Days of Pharisees and the Torah.Org Sadducees the Judaism Site
    Customs Going Back To The Days of Pharisees and the Torah.org Sadducees The Judaism Site https://torah.org/torah-portion/ravfrand-5768-emor/ CUSTOMS GOING BACK TO THE DAYS OF PHARISEES AND THE SADDUCEES by Rabbi Yissocher Frand Parshas Emor Customs Going Back To The Days of Pharisees and the Sadducees These Divrei Torah were adapted from the hashkafa portion of Rabbi Yissocher Frand's Commuter Chavrusah Tapes on the weekly portion: Tape # 547, The Wayward Daughter. Good Shabbos! Parshas Emor contains the Biblical command of Counting the Omer: "And you shall count for yourselves on the morrow of the Sabbath, from the day when you bring the Omer of the waving, seven weeks, they shall be complete." [Vayikra 23:15]. The interpretation of the phrase "on the morrow of the Sabbath" (m'macharas haShabbos) was one of the classic debates between the Tzedukim and the Perushim [Sadducees and Pharisees]. Rabbinic interpretation, based on the tradition of the Oral Law, was that the "morrow of the rest day" meant the day after the first day of Pesach, namely the 16th of Nissan. It is based on this tradition that our practice is to begin counting the Omer on the second day of Pesach. The Tzedukim were literalists who did not believe in the Oral Law, and interpreted "the morrow of the Sabbath" to mean Sunday. Thus, the Sunday of Pesach would be the first day of the Omer count and the holiday of Shavuos would always be Sunday, 7 weeks later . Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach made an interesting observation.
    [Show full text]
  • Islam: Crime and Punishment Justice
    Islam: Crime and Punishment Justice The Qur’an describes God as just. Because God is just, justice must be of the highest importance for all Muslims The Qu’ran says that God wants people to treat each other fairly and to establish justice: “God commands justice, the doing of good…and He forbids all shameful deeds and injustice.” Surah 16:90 Muslim’s believe that it is part of their role as vicegerents of God’s creation to behave justly to other people and to ensure that the world is run in a fair way. Allah commands Muslims to be just that means the unjust must be punished, “God commands justice and good conduct to all… and he forbids all immorality, bad conduct and oppression” Surah 16:90 Every Muslim is free to choose good or bad behaviour (freewill) and must accept that their actions will affect their relationship with God and the society around them. Muslims will be judged on Judgement day “People beware of injustice, for justice shall be darkness on the Day of Judgement”. There are many hadith (sayings of the Prophet Muhammad) in which Muhammad is shown as acting justly and telling Muslims to treat everyone justly and equally. “Stand up firmly for justice, as a witness to God, even as against yourselves or your parents or your kin, and whether it be against rich or poor.’” Surah 4:35 Shari’ah For Muslims the fair way to act justly is through Shari’ah, literally “a path to be followed”, It is a system of law covering moral, social, economic, political and religious life, based on the Qur’an and the Sunnah and is used by Muslims to make moral decisions.
    [Show full text]
  • VAYIKRA > Emor
    “Words from the Heart Enter the Heart” VAYIKRA > Emor By Rabbi Simon Jacobson May 21, 2016 Emor True Vision: An I for an I V “Words from the Heart a Meaningful Sermons Enter the Heart” y i k VAYIKRA > Emor > True Vision: An I for an I May 21, 2016 r a ABSTRACT Imagine if, every time you hurt someone, that same injury would be inflicted upon you as punishment. It may make mathematical, E symmetrical sense but doesn’t it seem cruel? You knock out m someone’s tooth in a fight, and your tooth gets automatically pulled out in retribution. It sounds barbaric – like something out o of the Middle Ages (or the Middle East). r But isn’t it exactly what the Torah proscribes when it says, An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth? Is this to be taken literally? If yes, how is that humane? If not, how come it’s written that way? To find an answer, let us explore a fascinating Talmudic decision, anchored by Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, the author of the Zohar, whose passing we will commemorate this coming Thursday on Lag B’Omer. T Let us also examine an ingenious teaching of the Vilna Gaon, the r Genius of Vilna. As well, let us take a look at the mystical u explanation of the monumental 13th century Italian rabbi, known e as the Recanti. V i This is how our eyes shall be opened. For we must read an eye for s i an eye as “an I for an I.” o n : A n I f o r a n I Page 2 V Vayikra > Emor > True Vision: An I for an I a y TRUE VISION: AN I FOR AN I i k r a 1.
    [Show full text]
  • The Meaning of Crime and Punishment to Muslim Inmates and Its Policy Implications)
    ISSN 1554-3897 AFRICAN JOURNAL OF CRIMINOLOGY & JUSTICE STUDIES: AJCJS; Volume 2, No. 2, November 2006 Crime, Punishment, And Justice Among Muslim Inmates (The Meaning of Crime and Punishment to Muslim Inmates and Its Policy Implications) Nawal H. Ammar Dean & Professor Faculty of Criminology, Justice and Policy, University of Ontario Institute of Technology, Oshawa, Canada. Robert R. Weaver Professor Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Ontario Institute of Technology, Oshawa, Canada. ABSTRACT This study explores how incarcerated Muslim men understand crime and punishment from their religion’s perspective. It analyzes responses to open-ended questions posed in a mail survey delivered to Muslim inmates from Ohio State prisons. The inmates’ understanding of concepts such as crime, punishment, repentance, reconciliation, and forgiveness is then compared to the “normative” textual explanations to better understand the religious experiences of Muslims in U.S. prisons. The results suggest that more moderate or “normative” religious education might help counter extremist interpretations of Islamic texts and, correspondingly, reduce the prospects of terrorist-related activities. 64 Crime, Punishment, And Justice Among Muslim Inmates Nawal H. Ammar & Robert R. Weaver There is an emerging literature on religion in prison. Several studies examine the role religion plays in regard to inmates’ and their adjustment to prison conditions, rehabilitation, recidivism (Beckford, 1999; Beckford & Gilliat, 1999; Clear & Sumter, 2002; Clear, Hardyman, Stout, Lucken, & Dammer, 2000; Cochran, Wood & Arnekev, 1994; Evans, Cullen, Dunaway, Burton& Velmer, 1995; Grasmick, Cochran, Bursick & Kimpel, 1993; Johnson, 2004; O’Conner& Perreyclear, 2002; Sharp, 2003; Spalek & Wilson, 2002). Others explore conversion patterns and certain minority religions (Ammar, Weaver & Saxon, 2004; Byron, 1987; Kusha, 2002).
    [Show full text]
  • The Bible, Hammurabi's Code and Law in the Ancient Near East
    The Bible, Hammurabi’s Code and Law in the Ancient Near East The Bible, Hammurabi’s Code and Law in the Ancient Near East Subject Area: World History Time Required: 1 class session General Topics: legal history, Ancient Near East, Mesopotamia, biblical law, Moses Average Grade Level from Readable.io: 10.3 SUMMARY How do the laws of ancient Israel compare to those of ancient Mesopotamia? In this lesson we explore this question by comparing material from a part of the biblical book of Exodus known as the Covenant Code and laws found in the much older Code of Hammurabi, which is recorded in an inscription from Babylonia. The lesson focuses specifically on the legal notion of talion — punishment should be measure-for-measure the same as the crime. Or, as Exodus 21:24 puts it, an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. As it turns out, parts of the Code of Hammurabi reflect a very similar principle. Students compare laws from the two sources that are literally about eyes and teeth as well as other types of bodily injury. What exactly constitutes equal punishment for different types of injury? Is financial compensation acceptable in lieu of actual, literally equal punishment? Should the penalty for causing injury or death vary depending on the class or status of the victim? As these texts illustrate, laws reflect the broader culture of the society that produced them — especially the values and assumptions of the elites who set those laws. ALIGNMENT WITH GEORGIA STANDARDS OF EXCELLENCE World History: SSWH1: Analyze the origins, structures and interactions of societies in the ancient world from 3500 B.C.E./B.C.
    [Show full text]
  • An Eye for An
    Chapter 23: Eye for an eye – Daniel JH Greenwood Chapter 23: Eye for an eye An eye for an eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise: in concrete and brutal symmetry, the text insists, as Leviticus explicitly glosses, “as he has done so shall it be done to him.” The poetry raises but does not resolve basic arguments about punishment, the purposes of criminal and tort law, and the nature of justice itself. “As he has done so shall it be done to him,” could pass for an abstract epitome of justice that could motivate a criminal law system. Aristotle taught that justice is treating equals equally; Maimonides states that punishment should be exactly the same as the offense. By doing to the offender as he has done, we restore precisely the balance of the status quo ante; equals have been treated equally and justice is done. But the claim undermines itself. If an eye for an eye is justice, it is justice of the poets, not the justice of law in our world. We are mere humans, not God. For us, restoration is impossible; as the Kuzari emphasizes, cutting off an offender’s hand does nothing to restore the victim’s. Nor is the equality of balance any easier. If justice is founded on equal treatment of equals, the problem is that--as R. Dosthai b. Yehudah and R. Shimon bar Yohai point out in the Bava Kamma excerpt--eyes and limbs are never equal. Some eyes are highly trained, others see little; destroying the eye of a one-eyed man is vastly different from removing the eye of a two eyed or blind man.
    [Show full text]