Main news for 3 April 2019

King James Version (en)

King James Version (en)

Exodus, Chapter 23, verse 4

⁴ Of charitableness

⁴If thou meet thine enemy's ox or his ass going astray, thou shalt surely bring it back to him again.

Read more:Exodus, Chapter 23

Comments:

Comments on the current fragment

Comments on the book

Comments on the part

23 This chapter concludes the acts that passed in the first session (if I may so call it) upon Mount Sinai. Here are,

Some laws of universal obligation, relating especially to the ninth commandment, against bearing false witness, Exo 23:1.
and giving false judgement, Exo 23:2-3, Exo 23:6-8.
Also a law of doing good to our enemies, Exo 23:4-5.
and not oppressing strangers, Exo 23:9.
Some laws peculiar to the Jews: the sabbatical years, Exo 23:10-11.
the three annual feasts, Exo 23:14-17.
with laws pertaining thereto.
Gracious promises of completing the mercy God had begun for them, upon condition of their obedience, that God would conduct them through the wilderness, Exo 23:20-24.
that he would prosper all they had, Exo 23:25-26.
that he would put them in possession of Canaan, Exo 23:27-31.
But they must not mingle themselves with the nations, Exo 23:32-33.

NOTES

It is customary to think that love for enemies is an exclusively evangelical, New Testament virtue. In reality, as we can see, the corresponding norms already exist in the legislation of the book of Exodus, and as law, not as a simple wish or piece of advice. Here, of course, this is not yet love as a stable relationship; it is more accurate to speak of...

It is customary to think that love for enemies is an exclusively evangelical, New Testament virtue. In reality, as we can see, the corresponding norms already exist in the legislation of the book of Exodus, and as law, not as a simple wish or piece of advice. Here, of course, this is not yet love as a stable relationship; it is more accurate to speak of actions that presuppose such a relationship. But relationships in general cannot be prescribed by law. The law can require a person to perform certain actions, while relationships are too subtle a matter for legal regulation. Yet the character of the action and its meaning point to the relationship that is presupposed.

Helping one's enemy means, at the very least, the absence of hatred toward that enemy. The absence of hatred does not by itself guarantee love, but at least it makes love possible. In practice, the absence of hatred is expressed precisely in the refusal to take revenge.

The traditional norm reflected in the customary law of many peoples came down to this: one must harm an enemy as much as possible and in every possible way as long as he remains an enemy. Any damage was considered acceptable here: war is war. The Torah, however, prescribes a limit to enmity. Enmity must not turn into a war for the annihilation of one's enemy; this is the main meaning of the relevant prescriptions.

For example, a situation in which an enemy has fallen into trouble should be a sign that hostilities against one's enemy must be suspended. Such a suspension means fair play: a person recognizes his enemy as an enemy, but also recognizes that his enemy does not deserve destruction at any cost and in every possible form. Such a position can be called nobility toward an enemy, the kind of nobility that in the Middle Ages was called chivalrous; but above all what is present here is the recognition of a human being as a human being, the recognition that a person remains such for you even after becoming your enemy. This recognition is the necessary condition for love of an enemy, and the Torah strives to guarantee it as far as this is possible by law.

The Torah, like the Bible as a whole, never encouraged revenge and never prompted anyone to vengefulness. There is, of course, among the laws of the Torah the one Jesus quotes in the Sermon on the Mount, about an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. This norm was part of the principle consistently carried through...

The Torah, like the Bible as a whole, never encouraged revenge and never prompted anyone to vengefulness. There is, of course, among the laws of the Torah the one Jesus quotes in the Sermon on the Mount, about an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. This norm was part of the principle consistently carried through in the legislation of the Book of Exodus: the principle of talion, of recompense and compensation. But this principle can be put into practice in different ways. For example, one can adopt a law prescribing payment of monetary compensation to the one who has suffered damage. There are many such norms in the same Book of Exodus.

If a person caused someone personal or property damage, as a rule he is sentenced precisely to compensate the damage inflicted, often in a multiple amount. In the case of personal injury, the one who inflicted it is obliged to pay for the victim's treatment and support him at his own expense until his capacity for work is restored. And if this does not happen, the guilty person is obliged to support the victim at his own expense until the end of his days. The norm following the principle "eye for eye, tooth for tooth" was rather a survival from the past, when revenge was the only, or at least the chief, way of settling relations and compensating for harm inflicted.

Here the matter is more about limitation than prescription: that for one eye knocked out, both eyes should not be knocked out of the guilty person, and that he should not be deprived of all his teeth for the loss of one by the victim. But even in such a limited version, revenge still remained revenge. It is no accident that Jesus abolishes this norm: it was an obvious concession to human sinfulness. And how the Torah actually regards revenge is easy to see from the example of the law forbidding one to take it out on an enemy's property. One must not use a misfortune that has happened to a person in order to do him evil, even if he is your enemy.

At most, if there is no way at all to restrain oneself, one may inflict proportional damage on him, especially if, for example, a fight is involved. But one must not take revenge even on one's enemy at every opportunity. Such revenge without limits means only one thing: endless and unceasing hatred toward the one on whom revenge is taken. Hatred with which it is impossible to live. And not even because, hating in this way, sooner or later you may kill the one you hate, but because by this hatred you kill yourself. Forever and irrevocably.

The Torah, like the Bible as a whole, never encouraged revenge and never urged anyone toward vindictiveness. There is, of course, among the laws of the Torah the one Jesus cites in the Sermon on the Mount, about an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. This norm was part of the principle consistently carried out in...

The Torah, like the Bible as a whole, never encouraged revenge and never urged anyone toward vindictiveness. There is, of course, among the laws of the Torah the one Jesus cites in the Sermon on the Mount, about an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. This norm was part of the principle consistently carried out in the legislation of the Book of Exodus: the principle of talion, the principle of repayment and compensation. But this principle, too, can be put into practice in different ways. One can, for example, adopt a law prescribing the payment of monetary compensation to the person who has been harmed. There are many such norms in the same Book of Exodus.

If a person causes someone personal or property damage, as a rule he is sentenced precisely to compensation for the harm done, often in multiple measure. In the case of personal injury, the one who caused it is obliged to pay for the victim's treatment and support him at his own expense until his ability to work is restored. And if that does not happen, the guilty party is obliged to support the injured person at his own expense for the rest of his days. The norm that follows the principle "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" was more a remnant of the past, when revenge was the only, or at least the main, way to regulate relationships and compensate for harm done.

Here the issue is more about limitation than prescription: that for one eye knocked out, both of the guilty person's eyes should not be knocked out, and that he should not lose all his teeth because the victim lost one. But even in this limited form, revenge still remained revenge. It is no accident that Jesus abolishes this norm, because it was an obvious concession to human sinfulness. And how the Torah actually regards revenge can easily be seen in the law that forbids taking it out on the property of one's enemy. One may not use a misfortune that has happened to a person as a way to harm him, even if he is your enemy.

In an extreme case, if there is no way at all to restrain oneself, one may inflict proportionate harm on him, especially if the matter involves, for example, a fight. But one may not take revenge even on one's enemy at every convenient opportunity. Such revenge without limits means only one thing: endless and unceasing hatred toward the one being avenged upon. Hatred with which it is impossible to live. And not even because, hating in this way, sooner or later you may kill the one you hate, but because by this hatred you kill yourself. Forever and irrevocably.

${currentDateString}