Original Meaning

AFTER INSTRUCTIONS for holy times in chapter 23, chapter 24 has to do with other holy things: oil for the lamps in the outer sanctum of the sanctuary, bread to be placed on the golden table there, and the narrative case of the brawling blasphemer, whose misuse of God’s holy name and violence leads to additional legislation regarding blasphemy and assault.

Regular maintenance rituals in the outer sanctum. Verses 2–4 remind the Israelites of their ongoing duty to supply olive oil as fuel for the lamps on the golden lampstand so that the priest can keep them burning regularly (tamid) every night from evening to morning (Ex. 27:20–21). Every morning he is to trim the lamps and fill them with fresh oil, and every evening he is to kindle them (30:7–8; cf. 25:37; Num. 8:2–3). By burning through the night, the lamps parallel the evening regular burnt offering on the outer altar (Lev. 6:2).

Within the Israelite ritual system, the lampstand, table, and incense burner served as the Lord’s furniture in his dwelling place (cf. Ex. 25:8). The complex of rituals performed regularly by the priest in the outer sanctum, such as tending the lamps (27:20–21; Lev. 24:1–4) and burning incense (Ex. 30:7–8), constituted the work of a servant for his Lord, who was enthroned behind the curtain in the Most Holy Place.1

The regular rituals had the purpose of maintaining an existing order, that is, the Presence of God dwelling among his people in the sanctuary. Thus in F. Gorman’s taxonomy of rituals, these are rituals of “maintenance” (cf. Num. 28–29), in contrast to rituals of “founding” that create a normative state (Lev. 8–9: consecration and inauguration) or rituals of “restoration” that accomplish return to the normative state (e.g., purification and reparation offerings).2

Another regular (tamid in v. 8) priestly ritual duty in the outer sanctum was to renew the “bread of the Presence” (KJV “shewbread”; see Ex. 25:30) each Sabbath on the golden table (Lev. 24:5–9). This special presentation offering of grain, consisting of twelve (probably unleavened)3 loaves plus frankincense, was placed on the table in two “arrangements” (24:6; NIV “rows”). To fit on the small table (cf. Ex. 25:23), these must have been piles (not rows) of six (probably flat) loaves each.4 A “memorial” (token) portion of frankincense was “by” (ʿal; “on”?) each pile (Lev. 24:7), most likely in containers.5

Brawling and blasphemy. As in chapter 10 regarding Nadab and Abihu, 24:10–23 is a narrative reporting a person’s sin against the sphere of holiness, which results in his death. Both of these passages, which are the only narratives in Leviticus, are accompanied by additional legislation. Whereas 10:1–7 and the subsequent law regarding intoxication in 10:8–11 are not clearly and tightly connected, the circumstances involved in the narrative of 24:10–14 directly generate the ensuing legislation regarding blasphemy and physical assault (24:15–22).6 In fact, the laws are framed by the divine sentence of death on the blasphemer (v. 14) and the report of his execution (v. 23).

The text does not say when the blasphemer incident occurred, so it appears to be included here in Leviticus 24 for a thematic reason (holiness) rather than a chronological one. The problem starts when a man whose mother is Israelite but whose father is Egyptian, and who therefore is camped with the mixed multitude of non-Israelites (cf. Ex. 12:38; Deut. 23:7–8), goes out of his area into the Israelite encampment. A fight ensues between the half-Israelite and a full Israelite (Lev. 24:10), which likely has something to do with the fact that the former is in the wrong neighborhood. While the text does not say who started the altercation, because the full Israelite is not later indicted and punished, the intruder must be at fault.

The mother of the half-Israelite is “Shelomith, the daughter of Dibri the Danite” (24:11). In addition to specifying his Israelite connection, Mary Douglas has shown that translating these proper Hebrew names reveals a potent subtext emphasizing that actions carry consequences. The effect is something like:

Once there was a man (with no name), son of Shelomith-Retribution, grandson of Dibri-Lawsuit, from the house of Dan-Judgement, and he pelted insults at the Name . . . and the Lord said “He shall die, he pelted my Name, he shall be pelted to death.”7

Apparently frustrated and angry that he is not achieving his objective, whatever it is, the half-Israelite pronounces (Qal of nqb) “the Name,” that is, “YHWH,”8 the sacred personal name of Israel’s deity, and curses. The shocked Israelites apprehend him and bring him to Moses for determination of his fate (24:11).

By itself nqb (“pronounce”) is neutral. In some contexts it is good (Gen. 30:28; Num. 1:17) and even something God does (Isa. 62:2). Saying God’s name could also be proper, positive, and permissible in Old Testament times (e.g., Ruth 2:4). However, the half-Israelite disrespectfully misuses God’s name, violating the third commandment of the Decalogue (Ex. 20:7). He does not simply take God’s name in vain as a construction worker might when he accidentally whacks his thumbnail instead of a sixteen-penney nail; he curses (Piel of qll; Lev. 24:11).

It is not that the half-Israelite invokes the name “YHWH” to curse his human antagonist, as the prophet Elisha did (2 Kings 2:24; cf. Josh. 6:26). Rather, he assaults the Lord by cursing him personally, as shown by the way the following legislation begins: “If anyone curses [Piel of qll] his God, he will be held responsible; anyone who blasphemes [Qal of nqb] the name of the LORD [yhwh] must be put to death” (Lev. 24:15–16). This reiterates the command of Exodus 22:28: “You shall not curse [Piel of qll] God, nor curse [Qal of ʾrr] a ruler of your people” (NASB). Because a curse was regarded as a real and potent weapon in ancient times, such an attack was not merely figurative. There is a closer connection between blasphemy against God and assault on humans and animals, the topics of the legislation in Leviticus 24:15–22, than we thought!

Using the power of speech against God, who created the world for the human species by speaking (Gen. 1), is the height of ingratitude and rebellion. It is also ultimate arrogance to suppose that one can engage in a verbal slugfest with the Almighty. This is an implicit claim to divine power, which is not protected by a right of “free speech” under the Lord’s constitution.

Once the Israelites bring the blasphemer to Moses (24:11), we expect the latter to pronounce a sentence on him for violating the legislation in Exodus 22:28. This apodictic law, however, states no penalty for directly attacking the Lord by cursing him—though if one who curses his parents should be put to death (21:17), it seems obvious that the blasphemer has even greater reason to die. Still Moses does not know whether God himself will directly administer capital punishment or whether he will delegate this to the community. Pending a divine oracle to clarify the question, the blasphemer is put under guard (Lev. 24:12).

When the Lord speaks, he specifies the execution procedure: “Take the blasphemer outside the camp. All those who heard him are to lay their hands on his head, and the entire assembly is to stone him” (24:14). “Outside the camp” is to avoid polluting the camp with a corpse.

The hand-leaning gesture does not show up with other early Israelite executions, most notably that of the man gathering sticks on Sabbath, whom the Lord also commanded the community to stone (Num. 15:32–36; cf. 25:4–5; Josh. 7:25). So it appears that hand-leaning by witnesses must do more than designating the culprit and acknowledging responsibility for his death (cf. Deut. 13:10; 17:7), factors that seem to adequately account for the act in the much later story of Susanna’s false condemnation for adultery (LXX Dan. 13:34). Milgrom contends that the function of hand-leaning in the context of Leviticus 24 is to “convey the pollution generated by the blasphemy back to its producer.”9 This is probably related to the high priest’s leaning both hands on the nonsacrificial live goat and loading the moral faults of the Israelites on it before sending it away to Azazel, the source of evil (Lev. 16:21–22; cf. 16:10).

Whatever the nature of the “pollution” affecting the witnesses may have been, it appears that the dynamic curse has affected them in some way. By leaning their hands on the blasphemer, they briefly make a connection for the sake of rejection: Yes, they have heard the curse, but no, they were not party to it; therefore the evil and its consequences belong to the blasphemer alone.

By having the Israelites put the curse “genie” back in the “bottle” through hand-leaning and execution (24:14, 23), the Lord indicates that the community is responsible for rooting out such devastating sin committed by an individual in its midst,10 even if he was not fully Israelite. Failure to carry out the divine mandate to repudiate, isolate, and annihilate evil will bring condemnation on the community (cf. 20:4–5). As President George W. Bush said to the countries of the world after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, there are only two sides. Either you help destroy evil or you are with the enemy.

After telling Moses what to do with the blasphemer in particular (24:14), the Lord formulates his ruling into an ongoing law against cursing God and blaspheming his name (24:15–16). There is another objectionable aspect of the blasphemer’s behavior: physical violence. The following legislation lays down a series of penalties for various kinds of violence related to the case at hand by logical extension, including murder, assault, and killing animals belonging to others (24:17–22).11

In the law of assault regarding (presumably intentional) infliction of permanent physical injury (24:19–20), we encounter the lex talionis (“law of retaliation”), famous for its devastatingly simple approach to pure justice: “eye for eye, tooth for tooth.” This kind of law also appears in Exodus 21:22–25 for a particular case of physical injury that results from a fight, and in Deuteronomy 19:19, 21 for abuse of the legal procedure by a malicious false witness.

Literal retaliation is clearly expressed by the preposition “as” and the verb “do” in Leviticus 24:19 (“just as he has done, so it shall be done to him”; NASB, emphasis supplied) and Deuteronomy 19:19 (“then do to him as he intended to do to his brother”; emphasis supplied). Exodus 21:23–25; Leviticus 24:18; and Deuteronomy 19:21 contain the formulation “life for life,” which can refer either to monetary or literal talion. In Leviticus 24:18, “life for life” indicates that restitution in kind for killing someone else’s animal should be equal to the value of the slain animal. However, when a person is the victim of permanent injury, retaliatory penalties (“fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth,” v. 20) are actually physically inflicted on the culprit, as shown by the “as . . . done” formulation (vv. 19–20).

Bridging Contexts

BALANCING ACT. According to Genesis 1:27, God made humankind in his own image. Although we are like God, we are not the same as him. Paralleling the tension in nature is a tension in encounter. After the Fall drastically curtailed divine-human interaction, the Lord draws near by assuming human form (Gen. 18; Judg. 6:11–23; 13:3–20), by abiding at the Israelite sanctuary (Ex. 40:34–38), through the incarnation of Christ (Matt. 1:18–23; John 1:14), and through the Holy Spirit (John 14:16–18; 16:12–15). However, amidst the immanence, the Bible also emphasizes the transcendence of “the high and lofty One . . . he who lives forever, whose name is holy” (Isa. 57:15), “who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see” (1 Tim. 6:16).

God interacts with us, but this is no ordinary encounter. For our interactions with God to have divine efficacy and power, we should always, within the contexts of our respective cultures, acknowledge that while God makes Himself familiar, we must maintain our sense of awe rather than slipping into undue familiarity.12

Like the Israelites, other ancient Near Easterners believed that cultivation of healthy divine-human relationships was essential to their well-being. Thus a Sumerian hymn to the goddess Nanshe (c. 2100 B.C.) extols the benefits of her presence:

The living quarters of the land prosper in her presence . . .

Does not propriety shine brightly in the presence of the lady? . . .

In the presence of Nanshe abundance triples in Lagash. . . .13

Through prayers, recitations, hymns, and rituals, ancient peoples believed that they interacted with supernatural beings who lived and moved in the heavens and the air, on earth, in the region of subterranean fresh water, or in the netherworld.14 Myths taught them the origins, powers, and exploits of these mighty personalities.15

Devotion to divinities from a distance was not enough. Needing tangible evidence of divine presence among them, people constructed temples as palaces for their gods. The Sumerian “Cylinder A” reports that Gudea, the Ur III period governor of Lagash (c. 2141–2122 B.C.), erected a temple for the god Ningirsu according to divine orders,16 just as Exodus 25:8 tells us that the Lord directed the Israelites to build him a sanctuary. The layout of the portable Israelite tabernacle (Ex. 25–30) and of the later permanent temple built by Solomon (1 Kings 6–7) was remarkably similar to that of other ancient Near Eastern shrines. For example, archaeologists have discovered the remains of several Syrian temples, each of which had an inner room or area (= Most Holy Place), a main hall (= Holy Place), and, like Solomon’s temple, a portico.17

Regular rituals at the Israelite sanctuary reinforced the concept that the divine King (cf. Num. 23:21) was in residence and treated him to a significant extent the way a human king would be served: Priests tended lamps (Ex. 27:20–21; Lev. 24:1–4), burned incense to sweeten the atmosphere at “mealtime” (Ex. 30:7–8),18 and offered meat with grain and drink (Num. 28:1–8). So in a dwelling of human fabrication, the Lord received service from human priests and accepted human food. Sacrifices offered to him at his outer altar were explicitly termed the leḥem (“food”) of God (Lev. 21:8, 17, 21, 22; 22:25; see also Num. 28:2). Granted that he enjoyed altar sacrifices in a nonhuman way through the smoke alone (e.g., Lev. 1:9), in his outer “living room,” the “bread of the Presence” (leḥem [hap]panim) was laid out on the golden table before him (Ex. 25:30; Lev. 24:5–9), the way it would for a human king.

Outside Israel, ritual bread-laying appears long before Moses or even Abraham, as early as a Sumerian inscription of Urukagina (Uru-inimgina, c. 2350 B.C.). Placement of bread before deities was part of the daily care and feeding of Babylonian, Egyptian, and Hittite gods, which were represented by their images. Aside from receiving food and drink, idols were washed, clothed, and in some cases provided with makeup (Egypt).19

Corresponding to treatment of deities in a quasi-human manner, they were regarded as really needing human food. For instance, according to the old Babylonian epic Atraḫasis, the gods suffered from hunger and thirst when the great flood annihilated the human population. Consequently, when Atraḫasis offered a sacrifice after the Flood, the gods smelled it and crowded around like flies.20 Because human beings were simultaneously dependent on the gods, divine-human relationships were symbiotic.

Unlike other deities, however, the Lord was not viewed as consuming food set before him. We have already mentioned that he enjoyed only the smoke of altar sacrifices. It is true that the “bread of the Presence” was a presentation offering on a table rather than burned on an altar. However, the ritual by which the bread was renewed (Lev. 24:5–9) distanced him from excessive anthropomorphism by denying his need for human sustenance.21

(1) Unlike other regular Israelite rituals and non-Israelite presentation offerings of food, the Israelite bread ritual was performed only once a week (24:8).

(2) To show that he did not merely have a slow metabolic rate, the Lord assigned the bread to the priests as their due when they removed it (24:9).

(3) The ritual preempted the possibility that enjoyment of the bread by the priests could be viewed as secondary utilization following consumption by the deity, as in the Hittite ritual system.22 The Lord received only the frankincense offered with the bread as his token portion, presumably by having it burned (cf. 2:2, 9, 16; 6:15), when the priests were authorized to eat the bread (24:7). It was not a case of “you can have it when I’m done with it.” Rather, “you can have that and I’ll have this.”

The bread was changed weekly on the Sabbath (24:8), which commemorates creation (Gen. 2:2–3; Ex. 20:11; 31:16–17). Reinforcing the Sabbath connection, Leviticus 24:8 labels the twelve loaves an eternal “covenant,” a microcosm of the relationship between God and the twelve tribes of Israel, which was also represented by the Sabbath (Ex. 31:16). Thus, renewing the “bread of the Presence” not only differed from analogous non-Israelite rituals by denying that the Lord needs human food (cf. Ps. 50:12–13); it affirmed precisely the opposite: As the Creator, the Lord provided for Israel.

Talk about high-tension theological balance! The offering of bread (i.e., basic food; cf. Sir. 29:21) walks a tightrope to demonstrate God’s real Presence while simultaneously denying that he is just like a human being. Although God dwelt among his people in an earthly palace, he was neither human nor like other ancient Near Eastern deities in that he had no need whatsoever to consume food provided by human beings (Ps. 50:12–13). By providing the bread, the Israelites acknowledged that the Lord was Israel’s Creator-in-residence, who continued to sustain his people (cf. Job 12:10; Ps. 145:15–16; Dan. 5:23).23

Christ as bread offering. There is more to life than maintenance of mortal existence. In John 6:48–51 Jesus said:

I am the bread of life. Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died. But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

Manna (i.e. “bread” from heaven) physically fed the Israelites in the desert (cf. Ex. 16:14–18). It thereby sustained their temporal lives in a way that they acknowledged by keeping a token sample of manna with the ark of the covenant (16:33–34; Heb. 9:4) and also by offering the “bread of the Presence” (Lev. 24:5–9). However, the life that Christ makes available to everyone through the sacrifice of his own flesh is eternal (John 6:51).

The idea that Christ is the “bread of life” informs his words at the Last Supper, when he broke Passover bread: “Take and eat; this is my body” (Matt. 26:26). By eating bread and drinking wine at the Lord’s Supper/Communion, we reenact and thereby reinforce the conversion transaction: incorporation of Christ and his eternal life into our own lives (cf. Gal. 2:20). At the ancient Israelite sanctuary/temple, bread and wine were accompaniments to animal sacrifices (Num. 15). Earlier, Melchizedek, “priest of God Most High,” brought out bread and wine to Abraham and blessed him (Gen. 14:18–20). Appropriately, our Christian ceremony has only bread and wine but no animal sacrifice, acknowledging that “Christ, our Passover lamb” (1 Cor. 5:7) has already been sacrificed and that he is now the Melchizedek high priest (Heb. 5:6, 10; 6:20; 7:1–28) of all spiritual sons and daughters of Abraham (Gal. 3:29).24

Contemporary Significance

VIOLENCE AND RETALIATION. “If anyone takes [lit., smites] the life of a human being . . .” (Lev. 24:17); “anyone who takes the life of someone’s animal . . .” (v. 18); “if a man causes disfigurement of his neighbor . . .” (v. 19 NKJV). Sounds like today’s news: An ex-husband injures his ex-wife and kills her new boyfriend. A road-raged man grabs a little dog from a woman’s car and throws it out into the California traffic, and it is run over. Mike Tyson bites off part of his opponent’s ear. Alas, Leviticus is distressingly relevant. We wish it were less so.

We know that murder, assault, and killing or harming someone else’s animal are wrong. If we didn’t know, the principle of respect for human and animal life in Genesis 9:4–6, the sixth commandment (Ex. 20:13), and the Covenant Code (Ex. 21:12–36) would have told us before we got to Leviticus 24. We also know that violations do occur, even in the best societies, and justice must be preserved through some kind of punishment. Long ago Aristotle observed:

For man, when perfected, is the best of animals, but, when separated from law and justice, he is the worst of all; since armed injustice is the more dangerous, and he is equipped at birth with the arms of intelligence and with moral qualities which he may use for the worst ends. Wherefore, if he have not virtue, he is the most unholy and the most savage of animals, and the most full of lust and gluttony. But justice is the bond of men in states, and the administration of justice, which is the determination of what is just, is the principle of order in political society.25

To what extent are the biblical penalties still relevant, given that the Israelite theocracy no longer exists? We do not have a problem with restitution of the equivalent value of an animal by payment of money or giving another animal to take the place of a dead one (Lev. 24:18; see also v. 21).26 But what about capital punishment for every case of murder (vv. 17, 21) and infliction of equivalent disfigurement for assault that causes permanent injury (vv. 19–20)? We are accustomed to occasional capital punishment, though many modern people oppose even that. We hear about disfigurement as punishment for crimes in a few strictly Islamic countries, but it sounds barbaric to us. Furthermore, didn’t Jesus do away with the lex talionis: “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 someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also” (Matt. 5:38–39)?

The easiest thing for us to do is to simply dismiss the biblical penalties as passé because the governments of our countries and their judicial systems fix penalties today. However, if we live in a democracy and possess the right to vote, our values and attitudes are of some indirect relevance to the way the state conducts its business; and if we are Jewish or Christian, our basic ethical values are informed to some degree by the Bible. Therefore, it is not surprising that contemporary debates over life and death matters, such as capital punishment, abortion, and euthanasia, often refer to the Bible, though rarely in an informed, balanced, or systematic way.

For us the question is not whether we want to push for a modern American pseudo-theocracy, equivalent to what the Taliban had in Afghanistan. We don’t. Without the divine Shekinah ruling from an earthly administrative center, as in ancient Israel, attempts at theocracy based on any religion have always produced (and are still producing) gruesome results. Our question, as believers in the humanitarian God of the Bible, is how to understand his values so that within the context of democracy, we can make morally informed choices when we have opportunities to support one option or another.

Obviously this commentary is not the place to settle all issues involved in penalties for murder and assault, but we can raise some factors that should be kept in mind as debates continue.27 Regarding the “eye for eye, tooth for tooth” approach to assault that causes permanent injury, we should keep in mind a number of factors. (1) Before the monarchy, ancient Israel had no prisons. Thus, the modern, expensive “catch-all” of incarceration was not an option.

(2) Israelite law sought to make punishments fit crimes. Thus, stealing property appropriately called for monetary penalties (Ex. 22:1–15) rather than having one’s hand cut off (as in some countries even today), and inflicting permanent physical damage to humans correspondingly resulted in corporal punishment with a permanent effect.

(3) The lex talionis, by which “whatever he has done must be done to him,” was 100 percent justice that enforced the principle of fairness underlying Jesus’ “Golden Rule”: “Do to others as you would have them do to you” (Luke 6:31).

(4) Leviticus 24 implies that assault causing permanent damage is partial murder. The lex talionis for assault resulting in permanent disfigurement (24:19–20) appears within an introversion of laws against killing persons and animals (24:17–18, 21):28

kill human being: death (v. 17)

kill animal: restitution life for life (v. 18)

assault: as he did, done to him (v. 19)

“fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth” (v. 20a)

assault: as he did, done to him (v. 20b)

kill animal: restitution (v. 21a)

kill human being: death (v. 21b)

This structure indicates that the concern is for life, which God has made in his image (cf. Gen. 9:6). Just as a disfigurement or serious blemish (mum) in a priest disqualified him from sacred officiation (Lev. 21:16–23) and such a defect (also mum) in an animal invalidated its fitness for holy sacrifice (22:17–25), so it was a serious matter for an Israelite who belonged to God’s “kingdom of priests” and “holy nation” (Ex. 19:6) to receive a disfigurement (mum; Lev. 24:19–20). Emphasized by placement of “fracture for fracture” at the center of the structure is the implication that such damage detracts from holiness by partially defacing the live human image of God. In a sense, assault is analogous to blasphemy, which also violates holiness.29

(5) Israelite law was concerned with justice for the victim, unlike modern law that often compromises such justice in favor in protecting the criminal.

(6) Unlike the ancient Israelites, we have orthopedists, ophthalmologists, orthodontists, and plastic surgeons, and so on, to fix many bodily injuries. Furthermore, we have all kinds of conveniences for physically challenged individuals. In ancient times, losing something such as an eye or a tooth would have a much greater practical impact on a person’s life. For example, a man with only one eye could not fight adequately to defend himself, his family, and his territory (cf. 1 Sam. 11:2). This could be life-threatening.

(7) Talionic punishment first appears in the Old Babylonian Code of Hammurabi (laws 196–97, 200; cf. 116, 210, 229–230). Rather than regarding this form of punishment as more primitive than money payments, A. S. Diamond concludes:

. . . we should have to regard this change from pecuniary to corporal sanctions for the most serious wrongs as a sociological advance. It occurs in the later laws as against the earlier, and—still more important—it apparently occurs in the laws of the larger and more powerful and more centralised and economically more advanced states, where the codes and collections of laws are larger and richer in detail (C.H. and M.A.L.) as against the smaller states, with their simpler economies and briefer collections of laws.30

S. Paul points out that talion would have improved jurisprudence in two ways. (a) It curbed excessive retaliation (e.g., Gen. 4:23). (b) It provided for “equal opportunity punishment” without class discrimination: Rich and/or higher status individuals received the same corporal punishment as other people.31

(8) When Jesus promulgated his higher standard of reconciliation rather than retaliation (Matt. 5:38–39; see above) in his Sermon on the Mount, he was speaking to a group of private individuals (4:25–5:1). Some were undoubtedly inclined to seize on the lex talionis as justification for personal vengeance. In context, Jesus taught the principle of Leviticus 19:18: “Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself.” Like this verse, he was not addressing civil penalties administered by the court system, even though the original setting of the lex talionis in chapter 24 was judicial (24:19–20). Unless we distinguish between the private and judicial/public spheres, verses 19–20 (public: retaliation) contradict 19:18 (private: no revenge).

Although we refer to the law of retaliation, in the judicial sphere this is not revenge, as it would be in the private domain. Rather, it is corporal punishment fixed by a court, which is the same as the injury suffered by the victim. Jesus was not revoking retaliation as a judicial penalty any more than he was rescinding the laws against murder and adultery by pointing to a higher standard of avoiding inner attitudes that cause these wrongs (Matt. 5:21–22, 27–30).

While the lex talionis made good sense for ancient Israel from the viewpoints of justice, theology, and practicality, it would be viewed as “cruel and unusual punishment” today, even for those who perpetrate cruel and unusually painful and damaging crimes. Nevertheless, Leviticus teaches us the importance of respecting the sanctity of another person’s body, facing the full consequences of one’s physical violence, treating everyone equally before the law, and protecting the rights of victims. Deuteronomy 19:19–20 also upholds the need to deter wrongdoing by making it “expensive”: “. . . then do to him as he intended to do to his brother. You must purge the evil from among you. The rest of the people will hear of this and be afraid, and never again will such an evil thing be done among you.”