Revising the revisionist history on Old Testament teaching

Jesus tells us to not take an eye for an eye or a tooth for a tooth, but to love our brothers and sisters. He tells us to turn the other cheek, to give more than what we are asked for, and to share with those who don't have what we have. The spirituality of Jesus is a completion of the law. In what the law was attempting to accomplish through justice, Jesus brings to completion for Grace. So we know from the teachings of Jesus, that we are called to more than "an eye for an eye."

Because we have studied the spirituality of Jesus for 2000 years, and at least know on an intellectual level that we are to apply it to our lives, we often view the justice of an eye for an eye is barbaric and antiquated. Sometimes the God of the Old Testament seems so bloody and violent to our modern eyes. I think if we look at the setting of God's teaching on justice we will see that it is not violent, but restrictive in the violence that allows. It is an improvement on what men were doing to each other in the name of retaliation and justice. Although we as Christians know that justice is not enough and that we should extend grace to each other I think the very nature of our problems today comes from our escalation of violence. God's teaching of an eye for an eye is something we should look at with fresh eyes because God's teaching is against the escalation of violence.

Recently we've had arson in the homeless camps that we minister to. It is actually the third arson in the past six months, and we now know that all these fires were basically set by 1 man. The first fire was the burning of a tent that belong to a man who was not well-liked in the homeless community and was somewhat of a bully. Providence used in the burning of his tent to move him into rehab and at the time we didn't know who set fire to the tent, so nothing more was thought of it. Again about six weeks ago there was a fire and about an acre of Woods was burned. No tent was destroyed and no one was harmed. But this last fire was different. It was malicious and violent. The man had been abusive to a woman in the camps, attacking her, knocking her to the ground. She was defended verbally by another homeless man, and for this crime his camp was burned. He lost everything he had, which wasn't much, but whether you have a little or a lot when you lose everything, everything is gone. He torched several other camps, and made a second trip in the middle of the night to burn what he had missed the first time. The only camp left standing was the tent of a man who stands 6'9" and has friends in the community. It was a calculated decision to leave it alone.

The homeless community is very upset with this man, James, who is alleged to have burn the camps. They are concerned about the danger to human life that is present with the burning of tents in the middle of the night. They are angry about the loss of material possessions that cannot be replaced, such as a crucifix that came from the casket of a grandmother, or a Bible that was given by a loved one. They know the level of violence involved in this arson is too extreme and calls for a response. But I think the most heinous thing about this crime is that it extends beyond an eye for an eye. No one would be angry with James to the level they are angry now, if his tent had first been burned. We would be disappointed with him, sad that he had not heeded the call of Jesus, but we would understand on some level the reasoning for his response. So I would argue that James's crime is that no one had first burned his tent. And without this level of justification there is no justice, there is no eye to match eye. He escalated violence beyond any reasonable expectation of reciprocity. If we follow "an eye for an eye" to its logical conclusion, that we never escalated violence above what is done to us, in this absence of the escalation of violence we are only loving each other. Maybe we would just use harsh words with each other in the heat of the moment and there would never be blows thrown or fires lit.

I think somewhere in this argument is a missing link. We who know that with strong love comes strong boundaries and responsibilities know that there must be consequences for actions. This justice begins and ends with loving each other. In the middle, where the rubber hits the road, lies all our successes and failures. The most important rule in living with these failures is to not escalate violence, but only take "an eye for an eye." I think if we never escalate violence to each other, never answer harsh words with a slap, or a rude driver with the middle finger, then we are not far away from what Jesus is asking us to do. Because Jesus asked us to extend Grace to each other and to love as God loves us. God does not give us what we deserve but withholds the taking of an eye. So let us always follow Jesus and not return evil for evil and always remember never more than eye for an eye.