By: Obed Pineda
Inside the halls of the world renown Louvre Museum in Paris, France one can be mesmerized by some of the most famous pieces of art and history known to mankind. The museum prides in calling itself home to the Mona Lisa, the Great Sphinx of Tanis, the Winged Victory of Samothrace, and the Assyrian lamassu, to name a few pieces of their vast and envious collection. Irrefutably, each one of these artifacts tells a story about the men and women who made them and also unveils certain facts about the time periods from whence the emerged. For this reason it is interesting to discover that the etymology of the word museum was originally interpreted by the ancient Greeks as either an academy of philosophy or a place for reflection. In other words, the purpose of these locations was to carefully consider lessons from the past and their impact on the present. Among the myriad of ancient artifacts that sit in the Louvre for one’s contemplation is found what historians consider one of the earliest legal codes from the old Babylonian kingdom; the Code of Hammurabi. The seven foot four inch slab of obsidian diorite is engraved with two hundred eighty-two laws that governed Babylon in the twentieth century B.C., under the rule of King Hammurabi. One law that can be found on this stone engraving is often referred to as the Lex Talionis or “law of retaliation.” It is believed that this law of retaliation was developed when early civilizations began to grow and blood feuds posed a serious threat to the fabric of society. Wars between tribes would often break out seeking retribution for the injury of one member of a clan, essentially punishing the entire clan for one man’s crime. Ergo, the objective was in reality vengeance and not righteous justice (cf. Genesis 34:1ff). Thus, the Lex Talionis was instituted to take unrestricted vengeance out of the hands of individuals, and established a legal entity (such as a judge or jury) that was entrusted to assign a fair punishment equal to the crime committed. Today, this law of retribution is better recognized by the phrase “an eye for an eye” as found written in the old Hebrew law (cf. Exodus 21:23-25). Although it is held by the majority of historians that the Code of Hammurabi predates the Mosaic Law, the principle of this law was similar to Hammurabi’s code in that reciprocal justice was to be administered by a judge, removing the right of an individual to exact his personal, private form of vengeance. One key difference between the two is that the Code of Hammurabi had a different set of punishments based on the societal class to which the perpetrator belonged to. In other words, if a poor man was injured by a rich man, then the matter would be settled monetarily, whereas if it were the poor man who injured the rich man, he then would pay his crime by receiving the same injury he inflicted (i.e. eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, hand for a hand, etc.). This was not so in the Law of Moses, for God declared to Moses “If a man causes disfigurement of his neighbor, as he has done, so shall it be done to him – fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; as he has caused disfigurement of a man, so shall it be done to him” (Leviticus 24:19-20). Furthermore Jehovah asserts “you shall have the same law for the stranger and for one from your own country; for I am the Lord your God” (Leviticus 24:22). Undeniably, the righteousness of God’s judgments are manifested in His commandment to Moses and the children of Israel, by not showing partiality or favoritism toward any man unlike the ancient Babylonian code. It is vital to note as well that when God spoke these words to the Israelites, it was in response to the blasphemy uttered by the son of an Israelite woman and Egyptian man, in the heat of the moment (cf. Leviticus 24:10-12). Nevertheless, the purpose of this commandment was to remove personal vendettas from provoking unrestricted violence to run rampant in society, but also to deter all members of the community from inflicting harm upon one another. Unfortunately, this law was abused by the Israelites because the true purpose of the Divine ordinance was ignored by them (cf. Matthew 22:36-40, Galatians 5:13-14). This highlights the importance of Jesus’ need to correct certain misinterpretations of the Law promulgating first, “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill” (Matthew 5:17). The Master begins to correct the crooked paths by illuminating their misinterpretation of God’s law with the expression “You have heard that it was said” and not with “It is written” as He did so with Satan in the wilderness (cf. Matthew 5:21, 27, 33, 38, 43, 4:1-11). The great Savior did this to demonstrate that the common interpretation of the Law during His lifetime was not accurate with heaven’s design of the commandment given. It was because of this that He was sent from heaven to “fulfill all righteousness” (Matthew 3:15) so that He could remove “the curse of the law” (Galatians 3:10-14). One of the mandates rectified by the Lord was the Lex Talionis (Matthew 5:38-42). The Master demonstrated the superiority of mercy and meekness over vengeance and wrath when He boldly pronounced “I tell you not to resist an evil person” (Matthew 5:39a). It is crucial to understand that the Lord’s commandment was not condoning a criminal act to go unpunished, but instead He is speaking about a personal insult aimed a one’s person. Christ was bringing to memory Solomon’s proverbs that counsel, “A soft answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger” and furthermore, “The discretion of a man makes him slow to anger, and his glory is to overlook a transgression” (Proverbs 15:1, 19:11). There is no question that when a person has control over his emotions, he will obtain the gifted eyes that allows him to see that perhaps the injury comes from profound personal pain and anguish. The inspired Solomon also reveals that “Hatred stirs up strife, but love covers all sins” (Proverbs 10:12). Thus, the Master’s instruction establishes the goal of helping the offender out of that prison of bitterness and wrath, by being kind and compassionate to him (cf. Proverbs 25:21-22, Romans 12:17-21). It is marvelous to bring to memory that the same Paul who quotes the proverb to the Romans was a product of the kindness of which Jesus speaks in His Sermon on the Mount (cf. 1st Corinthians 15:8-11). Going the second mile for those who solely asked for one is described by the apostle to the Gentiles as being “more than conquerors through Him who loved us” (Romans 8:37). Indeed, this description is apropos because it coincides with Solomon’s wise conclusion, “He who is slow to anger is better than the mighty, and he who rules his spirit than he who takes a city” (Proverbs 16:32). The Lord was sketching that what makes a man mighty is self-restraint anchored by love and compassion toward a fellow man whose insults are perhaps symptoms of a heart poisoned by hatred and wrath. Thus, let us strive to be the antidote and not another ingredient to the toxicity.