“The devil was conquered by his own trophy of victory. The devil jumped for joy, when he seduced the first man and cast him down to death. By seducing the first man, he slew him; by slaying the last man, he lost the first from his snare. The victory of our Lord Jesus Christ came when he rose, and ascended into heaven; then was fulfilled what you have heard when the Apocalypse was being read, ‘The Lion of the tribe of Judah has won the day’ [Rev 5:5]…The devil jumped for joy when Christ died; and by the very death of Christ the devil was overcome: he took, as it were, the bait in the mousetrap. He rejoiced at the death, thinking himself death’s commander. But that which caused his joy dangled the bait before him. The Lord’s cross was the devils’ mousetrap: the bait which caught him was the death of the Lord!”
— Augustine, Sermons, 261
Showing posts with label Lex Talion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Lex Talion. Show all posts
Saturday, August 13, 2011
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Lex Talion and Theodicy in Job 34
Few people are ever very impressed with the role of Elihu in the book of Job. Some have argued that his diatribe is a redactor’s gloss, added by a later scribe who sought to do what Job’s other three friends could not do: justify God’s dealings with poor Job. Summing up the thoughts of R. H. Pfieiffer and M. H. Pope, Derek Kidner puts it thus, “[Pfieiffer and Pope] regards the Elihu speeches as the well-meaning intervention of a reader who was shocked at Job’s audacity and disappointed by the failure of his friends to silence him” (An Introduction To Wisdom Literature, 1985. 82).
Others have thought that Elihu’s place in the story is simply a ‘too little, too late’ type situation; Elihu actually adds nothing to the long-waxed prose of Eliphaz, Bildad and Zophar. Nevertheless, whatever Elihu’s place is in the plot, we can find little to complain about the gist of his theology.
Having said that, lets look at Job 34 in particular. Here, I believe, is a fine example of applying the lex talionic principle of God’s judgments to the problem of theodicy (i.e., justifying God’s actions).
Elihu begins with an invitation for the “wise men” to give his argument an ear (v. 2, 10). Elihu then invokes the same sensory figure—“ear tests words” just as the “palate tastes food”—that Job had earlier in his pleas (cf. 12:11; Ps 119:103, etc).
Elihu, in keeping with Near Eastern etiquette, refrained from offering his verdict too soon, because of his relative youthfulness (32:4. Note: That Elihu’s remarks would be dismissed due to his youthful impropriety is not uncommon, granting the cultural context of ‘many years = wisdom.’ However, this mustn’t be made too absolute of a criterion. The elevated piety of the psalmist reflects a parallel attitude, Ps 119:97—104. Also, if we were to take this too absolutely, what are we to make of Jesus’ conflicts with the "elders of Israel," and that as a thirty-something?!?). After all, “Is it not the old who are wise...?” (32:9; cf. 12:12). Though Elihu is “young in years” and his company is “aged” (32:6), he can finally stand it no longer. With hints of prophetic unction (v. 8), he is now prepared to vent the frothing, fermenting speech that threatens to burst him asunder (vv. 17—20). The utter incompetence of his elder fellows in substantiating their charges against Job, thus failing to rebut his complaints, was a driving force for Elihu (v. 3, 11—16). But the main concern for Elihu, that which caused him to “burn with anger at Job” was “because [Job] justified himself rather than God” (v. 2). Theodicy is therefore Elihu’s top priority.
That theodicy is primary is further supported by Elihu’s choice of Job’s complaints in chapter 34. In v. 5, Elihu quotes Job’s earlier remark: “I am in the right, and God has taken away my right” (cf. 27:2—6). Similarly, in v. 9, Elihu cites Job again, this time recalling his statement, “It profits a man nothing that he should delight in God” (cf. 21:15). Elihu’s thesis, the centre of his argument, is the lex talionic principle of God’s justice incased by a brief introversion of couplets, following the A-X-A’ pattern. This is vv. 10—12.
"Therefore, hear me, you men of understanding:
(A. 1) far be it from God that he should do wickedness,
(A. 2) and from the Almighty that he should do wrong.
(X. 1) For according to the work of a man he will repay him,
(X. 2) and according to his ways he will make it befall him.
(A’. 1) Of a truth, God will not do wickedly,
(A’. 2) and the Almighty will not pervert justice. "
What was at stake was God being charged with injustice and wickedness (!). These charges have become very popular in the propaganda of the New Atheists today (antitheists, better; e.g., Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, et cetera). In the pair of A lines, Elihu implicitly draws and denies the necessary conclusion of Job’s reasoning; in the A’ set, he states his denial with emphatic negatives. Between the couplets is the grounds for Elihu’s denial, the lex talionis principle. Regardless of one’s appraisal of Elihu’s role in the story, I believe that his comments here can be pedagogical for us.
Granted, with respect to Job’s story, we modern readers have the back of the book answer, so to speak; we were made privy to the heavenly levels disclosed in the first two chapters, and we know the end, we have “seen the purpose of the Lord, how the Lord is compassionate and merciful” (Jas 5:11). This vantage allows us to evaluate not only Job’s circumstances better than his four friends, but also lets us treat them a bit unfairly. In much of the popular moralistic type of preaching today, a sermon from this book will usually have for its take-home point something to the effect that “In Suffering, listen, don’t speak...Don’t be like Job’s non-comforters.”
Of course, there are times when people have questions and even accusations against God that are borne in genuine suffering. In these cases, they are not in need of philosophical dialectics, but empathy. However, this is stressed to the point that I fear that it has emasculated further the already weak apologetical posture and abilities of the Church at large. Because there are often times when the ‘problem of evil’ is thrust upon believers as a formidable objection to the omnibenevolent, omnipotent and omniscient God portrayed in Scripture, we cannot suspend judgment indiscriminately in every case.
In other words, when the philosophical objection is made by someone, parroting either Richard Dawkins or his junior college philosophy professor, we must be ready always to give a defense to any one who asks us a reason for the hope that is in us (1 Pet 3:15). And I believe that the lex talionic principle can often be helpful in that defense.
When the texts appropriate it, we’ll look further in this direction and its various applications. For a more thorough examination and one answer to the ‘problem of evil’ from a Christian perspective, you might want to check this out.
Blessings in the thrice holy God!
Others have thought that Elihu’s place in the story is simply a ‘too little, too late’ type situation; Elihu actually adds nothing to the long-waxed prose of Eliphaz, Bildad and Zophar. Nevertheless, whatever Elihu’s place is in the plot, we can find little to complain about the gist of his theology.
Having said that, lets look at Job 34 in particular. Here, I believe, is a fine example of applying the lex talionic principle of God’s judgments to the problem of theodicy (i.e., justifying God’s actions).
Elihu begins with an invitation for the “wise men” to give his argument an ear (v. 2, 10). Elihu then invokes the same sensory figure—“ear tests words” just as the “palate tastes food”—that Job had earlier in his pleas (cf. 12:11; Ps 119:103, etc).
Elihu, in keeping with Near Eastern etiquette, refrained from offering his verdict too soon, because of his relative youthfulness (32:4. Note: That Elihu’s remarks would be dismissed due to his youthful impropriety is not uncommon, granting the cultural context of ‘many years = wisdom.’ However, this mustn’t be made too absolute of a criterion. The elevated piety of the psalmist reflects a parallel attitude, Ps 119:97—104. Also, if we were to take this too absolutely, what are we to make of Jesus’ conflicts with the "elders of Israel," and that as a thirty-something?!?). After all, “Is it not the old who are wise...?” (32:9; cf. 12:12). Though Elihu is “young in years” and his company is “aged” (32:6), he can finally stand it no longer. With hints of prophetic unction (v. 8), he is now prepared to vent the frothing, fermenting speech that threatens to burst him asunder (vv. 17—20). The utter incompetence of his elder fellows in substantiating their charges against Job, thus failing to rebut his complaints, was a driving force for Elihu (v. 3, 11—16). But the main concern for Elihu, that which caused him to “burn with anger at Job” was “because [Job] justified himself rather than God” (v. 2). Theodicy is therefore Elihu’s top priority.
That theodicy is primary is further supported by Elihu’s choice of Job’s complaints in chapter 34. In v. 5, Elihu quotes Job’s earlier remark: “I am in the right, and God has taken away my right” (cf. 27:2—6). Similarly, in v. 9, Elihu cites Job again, this time recalling his statement, “It profits a man nothing that he should delight in God” (cf. 21:15). Elihu’s thesis, the centre of his argument, is the lex talionic principle of God’s justice incased by a brief introversion of couplets, following the A-X-A’ pattern. This is vv. 10—12.
"Therefore, hear me, you men of understanding:
(A. 1) far be it from God that he should do wickedness,
(A. 2) and from the Almighty that he should do wrong.
(X. 1) For according to the work of a man he will repay him,
(X. 2) and according to his ways he will make it befall him.
(A’. 1) Of a truth, God will not do wickedly,
(A’. 2) and the Almighty will not pervert justice. "
What was at stake was God being charged with injustice and wickedness (!). These charges have become very popular in the propaganda of the New Atheists today (antitheists, better; e.g., Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, et cetera). In the pair of A lines, Elihu implicitly draws and denies the necessary conclusion of Job’s reasoning; in the A’ set, he states his denial with emphatic negatives. Between the couplets is the grounds for Elihu’s denial, the lex talionis principle. Regardless of one’s appraisal of Elihu’s role in the story, I believe that his comments here can be pedagogical for us.
Granted, with respect to Job’s story, we modern readers have the back of the book answer, so to speak; we were made privy to the heavenly levels disclosed in the first two chapters, and we know the end, we have “seen the purpose of the Lord, how the Lord is compassionate and merciful” (Jas 5:11). This vantage allows us to evaluate not only Job’s circumstances better than his four friends, but also lets us treat them a bit unfairly. In much of the popular moralistic type of preaching today, a sermon from this book will usually have for its take-home point something to the effect that “In Suffering, listen, don’t speak...Don’t be like Job’s non-comforters.”
Of course, there are times when people have questions and even accusations against God that are borne in genuine suffering. In these cases, they are not in need of philosophical dialectics, but empathy. However, this is stressed to the point that I fear that it has emasculated further the already weak apologetical posture and abilities of the Church at large. Because there are often times when the ‘problem of evil’ is thrust upon believers as a formidable objection to the omnibenevolent, omnipotent and omniscient God portrayed in Scripture, we cannot suspend judgment indiscriminately in every case.
In other words, when the philosophical objection is made by someone, parroting either Richard Dawkins or his junior college philosophy professor, we must be ready always to give a defense to any one who asks us a reason for the hope that is in us (1 Pet 3:15). And I believe that the lex talionic principle can often be helpful in that defense.
When the texts appropriate it, we’ll look further in this direction and its various applications. For a more thorough examination and one answer to the ‘problem of evil’ from a Christian perspective, you might want to check this out.
Blessings in the thrice holy God!
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Lex Talionis in Leviticus
The Chiastic Form of Lev. 24:10—23: The Universality of Lex Talionic Judgment
A. vv. 10—12b, Needing the revelation: in the case of the sojourner/native blasphemer
B. v. 13, Revelation disclosed: “The LORD spoke to Moses...”
Bp. vv. 14—16b, Judicial actions prescribed
Bp1. v. 14a, proceedings to occur “outside the camp...”
Bp2. v. 14b, c, Corporate involvement: “all...shall stone him”
C. v. 16c, Universal application*: “the sojourner as well as the native...”
Cp. v. 16c, Based on “the NAME” (YHWH)
D. v. 17, Human: life for life
E. v. 18, Animal: life for life
F. v. 19, Injury for injury
G. v. 20a, Lex Talionis proper: “...eye for eye, tooth for tooth...”
F′. v. 20b, Injury for injury
E′. v. 21a, Animal: life for life
D′. v. 21b, Human: life for life
C′. v. 22a, Universal application: “...same rule for sojourner and for the native...”
Cp′. v. 22b, based on “YHWH” (the Name)
B′. v. 23a, Revelation disclosed: “So Moses spoke to the people of Israel...”
Bp′. v. 23b, Judicial actions described
Bp2′. v. 23b, Corporate involvement: “they...brought...stoned him”
Bp1′. v. 23b, proceedings occurred “outside the camp...”
A′. v. 23c, Heeding the revelation in the case of the sojourner/native blasphemer
* Universal Application theme further emphasis in v. 16
a. The blasphemy: “Whoever blasphemes the name of YHWH...put to death...”
b. Universal involvement: “all the congregation...shall stone him...”
b’. Universal application: “sojourner as well as native...” (all)
a’. The blasphemy: “when he blasphemes the Name...put to death.”
A. vv. 10—12b, Needing the revelation: in the case of the sojourner/native blasphemer
B. v. 13, Revelation disclosed: “The LORD spoke to Moses...”
Bp. vv. 14—16b, Judicial actions prescribed
Bp1. v. 14a, proceedings to occur “outside the camp...”
Bp2. v. 14b, c, Corporate involvement: “all...shall stone him”
C. v. 16c, Universal application*: “the sojourner as well as the native...”
Cp. v. 16c, Based on “the NAME” (YHWH)
D. v. 17, Human: life for life
E. v. 18, Animal: life for life
F. v. 19, Injury for injury
G. v. 20a, Lex Talionis proper: “...eye for eye, tooth for tooth...”
F′. v. 20b, Injury for injury
E′. v. 21a, Animal: life for life
D′. v. 21b, Human: life for life
C′. v. 22a, Universal application: “...same rule for sojourner and for the native...”
Cp′. v. 22b, based on “YHWH” (the Name)
B′. v. 23a, Revelation disclosed: “So Moses spoke to the people of Israel...”
Bp′. v. 23b, Judicial actions described
Bp2′. v. 23b, Corporate involvement: “they...brought...stoned him”
Bp1′. v. 23b, proceedings occurred “outside the camp...”
A′. v. 23c, Heeding the revelation in the case of the sojourner/native blasphemer
* Universal Application theme further emphasis in v. 16
a. The blasphemy: “Whoever blasphemes the name of YHWH...put to death...”
b. Universal involvement: “all the congregation...shall stone him...”
b’. Universal application: “sojourner as well as native...” (all)
a’. The blasphemy: “when he blasphemes the Name...put to death.”
Sunday, December 13, 2009
The Lex Talion
There is in Scripture a principle of justice know by the old Latin term lex talionis. Roughly, this means a law or principle of retribution; that the punishment is commensurate to the crime committed. More specifically, it is associated with the five occurrences of the variously stated “eye for eye, tooth for tooth,” et cetera. Far from the modern critic’s appraisal that this law is indicative of our primitive, barbarous past, the lex talion insured that the penalty did not exceed that which the injurious act warranted.
This principle, I argue, is that which underlies all of God’s judgment on the children of men. It is not some mere, impersonal law knitted into the fabric of nature or the like, such as assumed in Eastern Mystic philosophies. Contrarily, the lex talion is part and parcel of the living God’s attribute of justice—perfect justice. And as one aspect of his holy nature, the lex talion is a reflection of his perfection.
We should not fail to look beyond the specificity of “eye for eye, tooth for tooth” to the rounded nature of the law in principled instances. For example, Paul’s warning, which has been engrafted into common English parlance, “Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap” (Gal 6:7), is based upon this same principle of God’s justice and judgment. Likewise, from beginning to end, there is the cautioning all throughout Scripture that God has, does and will judge and recompense every one according to their deeds or works.
This means, on the one hand, that God sees to it that the punishment will correspond qualitatively to the crime; that is, the degree of punishment will meet the offence. But it also means, on the other hand, that the kind of punishment one (individually or collectively) receives corresponds in similitude and likeness to the offence. As Paul said, “what” one sows is precisely also “that” which he reaps. Perhaps a couple of examples from Scripture would be helpful to elucidate this latter sense of the principle, the similitude or likeness of the punishment to the crime.
Think of the exodus story, Pharaoh’s war against Yahweh and his Seed, for instance. It opens with allusive statements of Israel, according to Yahweh’s promise (Gen 17:1f), as a corporate Adam, fulfilling Gen 1:28. “But the people of Israel were fruitful and increased greatly; they multiplied and grew exceedingly strong, so that the land was filled with them” (Ex 1:7). In response, Pharaoh and Egypt were terrified of Israel’s growing strength, and so Pharaoh tried first to “afflict them with heavy burdens.’ This foil, however, failed his purposes; Israel grew all the stronger under his oppressive hand (vv. 9—12). This is all too true to Israel’s surrogate name, Ephraim, meaning, “God has made me fruitful in the land of my affliction” (Gen 41:52). Just another felix culpa, a fortunate fall in Israel’s history.
Having seen that plan-A had not met the growing challenge, Pharaoh attempted to thwart the purposes of Yahweh with a plan-B—kill the firstborn of Israel (1:15ff). From here follows the terrors and horrors that Yahweh brought upon Pharaoh and Egypt with the first nine plagues. (Many understand each of the plagues to be a direct battle between the God of Israel and one of the many gods of the Egyptian pantheon, thus making each plague-judgment lex talionic in character: “You desire to worship and serve idols, then you’ll have more of them [through means of their imaged representatives, e.g., frogs] than you can handle.”). Each of these nine judgments, and the subsequent hardening of Pharaoh, is foreshadowing and anticipating one climactic judgment; one that would finally break Pharaoh’s relentless grip.
And what is that 10th and final judgment? Exactly what Pharaoh had decreed, only in recompense. Pharaoh’s evil plot was turned on his own head; he was clothed with his own devises as with a garment, to put it in psalteric terms. And so, the Destroyer came a snuffed the life of the firstborn of Egypt, just as Pharaoh had struggled to destroy the firstborn of Israel.
The section ends similar to how it began. The Egyptians are again in fear and dread of the people of Israel (12:33; cf. 1:12). Also again, the Egyptians burden the Israelites under heavy loads. This time, however, it was silver and gold jewelry and clothing, “Thus they spoiled the Egyptians” (12:35—36). God gave to Pharaoh just what he wanted, a dead son; the punishment was commensurate to the crime— in both quality and likeness.
Another case in point, in connection with the exodus, is that which lead to it. The patriarchs’ dealing treacherously with Joseph; and rather than kill him outright, they sell him into slavery in Egypt, “the land of his affliction.” We know how the rest goes.
Finally, we’ll look at a more experimental example of the lex talionis. There are numerous instances in Scripture were we find what one has called sensory organ malfunction language. This is usually, if not always, associated with idolatry. Perhaps this is nowhere more clearly stated than in Ps 115:4—8 (ESV), which reads,
Their idols are silver and gold,
the work of human hands.
They have mouths, but do not speak;
eyes, but they do not see.
They have ears, but do not hear;
noses, but do not smell.
They have hands, but do not feel;
feet, but do not walk;
and they do not make a sound in their throats.
Those who make them become like them;
so do all who trust them.
Anyone interested in witnessing this theme fleshed out would do well to consult Dr. Gregory Beale’s recent work We Become What We Worship. Beale does a biblical theology of idolatry in Scripture, especially the lex talionic nature of becoming like the idol so cherished by the worshipper; they, like the idol, become deaf, mute, lifeless and “worthless.”
We’ll stop here for today, but I wanted to share this much now so as to provide a paradigm for future posts that will rest upon and assume the general observations above. There are literally hundreds of demonstrations of this principle in Scripture (believe me, I’ve been accumulating a list for about two years now). Thus, if 1) the lex talion is a reflection of God moral character and his justice, and 2) the principle underlies so many of God’s dealings with men and nations in Scripture, then we’d do well to understand this theme as much as possible, and make applications in our interpretation and experience.
Blessings to you on this glorious Lord’s Day!
This principle, I argue, is that which underlies all of God’s judgment on the children of men. It is not some mere, impersonal law knitted into the fabric of nature or the like, such as assumed in Eastern Mystic philosophies. Contrarily, the lex talion is part and parcel of the living God’s attribute of justice—perfect justice. And as one aspect of his holy nature, the lex talion is a reflection of his perfection.
We should not fail to look beyond the specificity of “eye for eye, tooth for tooth” to the rounded nature of the law in principled instances. For example, Paul’s warning, which has been engrafted into common English parlance, “Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap” (Gal 6:7), is based upon this same principle of God’s justice and judgment. Likewise, from beginning to end, there is the cautioning all throughout Scripture that God has, does and will judge and recompense every one according to their deeds or works.
This means, on the one hand, that God sees to it that the punishment will correspond qualitatively to the crime; that is, the degree of punishment will meet the offence. But it also means, on the other hand, that the kind of punishment one (individually or collectively) receives corresponds in similitude and likeness to the offence. As Paul said, “what” one sows is precisely also “that” which he reaps. Perhaps a couple of examples from Scripture would be helpful to elucidate this latter sense of the principle, the similitude or likeness of the punishment to the crime.
Think of the exodus story, Pharaoh’s war against Yahweh and his Seed, for instance. It opens with allusive statements of Israel, according to Yahweh’s promise (Gen 17:1f), as a corporate Adam, fulfilling Gen 1:28. “But the people of Israel were fruitful and increased greatly; they multiplied and grew exceedingly strong, so that the land was filled with them” (Ex 1:7). In response, Pharaoh and Egypt were terrified of Israel’s growing strength, and so Pharaoh tried first to “afflict them with heavy burdens.’ This foil, however, failed his purposes; Israel grew all the stronger under his oppressive hand (vv. 9—12). This is all too true to Israel’s surrogate name, Ephraim, meaning, “God has made me fruitful in the land of my affliction” (Gen 41:52). Just another felix culpa, a fortunate fall in Israel’s history.
Having seen that plan-A had not met the growing challenge, Pharaoh attempted to thwart the purposes of Yahweh with a plan-B—kill the firstborn of Israel (1:15ff). From here follows the terrors and horrors that Yahweh brought upon Pharaoh and Egypt with the first nine plagues. (Many understand each of the plagues to be a direct battle between the God of Israel and one of the many gods of the Egyptian pantheon, thus making each plague-judgment lex talionic in character: “You desire to worship and serve idols, then you’ll have more of them [through means of their imaged representatives, e.g., frogs] than you can handle.”). Each of these nine judgments, and the subsequent hardening of Pharaoh, is foreshadowing and anticipating one climactic judgment; one that would finally break Pharaoh’s relentless grip.
And what is that 10th and final judgment? Exactly what Pharaoh had decreed, only in recompense. Pharaoh’s evil plot was turned on his own head; he was clothed with his own devises as with a garment, to put it in psalteric terms. And so, the Destroyer came a snuffed the life of the firstborn of Egypt, just as Pharaoh had struggled to destroy the firstborn of Israel.
The section ends similar to how it began. The Egyptians are again in fear and dread of the people of Israel (12:33; cf. 1:12). Also again, the Egyptians burden the Israelites under heavy loads. This time, however, it was silver and gold jewelry and clothing, “Thus they spoiled the Egyptians” (12:35—36). God gave to Pharaoh just what he wanted, a dead son; the punishment was commensurate to the crime— in both quality and likeness.
Another case in point, in connection with the exodus, is that which lead to it. The patriarchs’ dealing treacherously with Joseph; and rather than kill him outright, they sell him into slavery in Egypt, “the land of his affliction.” We know how the rest goes.
Finally, we’ll look at a more experimental example of the lex talionis. There are numerous instances in Scripture were we find what one has called sensory organ malfunction language. This is usually, if not always, associated with idolatry. Perhaps this is nowhere more clearly stated than in Ps 115:4—8 (ESV), which reads,
Their idols are silver and gold,
the work of human hands.
They have mouths, but do not speak;
eyes, but they do not see.
They have ears, but do not hear;
noses, but do not smell.
They have hands, but do not feel;
feet, but do not walk;
and they do not make a sound in their throats.
Those who make them become like them;
so do all who trust them.
Anyone interested in witnessing this theme fleshed out would do well to consult Dr. Gregory Beale’s recent work We Become What We Worship. Beale does a biblical theology of idolatry in Scripture, especially the lex talionic nature of becoming like the idol so cherished by the worshipper; they, like the idol, become deaf, mute, lifeless and “worthless.”
We’ll stop here for today, but I wanted to share this much now so as to provide a paradigm for future posts that will rest upon and assume the general observations above. There are literally hundreds of demonstrations of this principle in Scripture (believe me, I’ve been accumulating a list for about two years now). Thus, if 1) the lex talion is a reflection of God moral character and his justice, and 2) the principle underlies so many of God’s dealings with men and nations in Scripture, then we’d do well to understand this theme as much as possible, and make applications in our interpretation and experience.
Blessings to you on this glorious Lord’s Day!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)