NOTES for Exo 23:1-33

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 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 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.

The names of gods, sacred names, have always played a special role in the life of both the Jewish people and other peoples of antiquity. The reason is that from very early times something special was associated with a name, whether the name of a person, a spirit, or even a domestic animal. The basis for this attitude is not hard to find in the Book of Genesis, in its second chapter, where it speaks about the creation of man and about how the man created by God in His image and likeness gave names to the animals (and the text is speaking above all about domestic animals) that God brought to him. The corresponding Hebrew word can denote either a designation, a common name, or a proper name, but in any case it speaks of the connection between the name and the meaning of the one named, and of the person's relationship with the one to whom he gives a name.

If God or another spirit reveals His (or its) name to a person, this means that He (or it) reveals Himself to the person, enters into contact with him, and permits him to address Himself (or itself). It is no wonder that so much attention was paid in antiquity to the names of gods, to sacred names: they were never sounded simply for nothing. When naming the name of a deity or spirit, one could always expect an answer, a response, an appearance. Yahwism adopts this attitude toward the sacred name: it is no accident that among the Ten Commandments there is one (the third) that forbids mentioning the name of God in vain. As for the names of pagan gods, against this background there appears a fully understandable demand not to mention them at all, to make sure they do not even accidentally slip from the tongue.

One might think that an accidentally dropped word - and in particular an accidentally mentioned name - does not count. But the Torah reminds us that there are no accidents in spiritual life: if someone's name is on the tip of our tongue, then deep in the soul our connection with the one who bears that name is strong enough. In that case there can be no normal spiritual life, because if so, then at the center of our life stands not God, but someone else. Then we will have to forget not only the third commandment, but the first one too. And the path of God as well.

Why are all the pronouns referring to the Angel whom the Lord sends us written here with a capital letter? Only God Himself is named this way. Then it turns out that He Himself goes before us, that before His face we must guard ourselves... What does this mean? His constant presence. His light, in which we live. One can close one's eyes. One can turn away. But He is here. Lift your eyes and you will meet His gaze. This is the answer to the question of how to live as a Christian. Can you look Him in the eyes? No? Right, for He is a consuming fire. But do you want to see His eyes? Yes? Then the day will come when you will see, for His gaze is full of mercy and love, and His deepest desire is meeting you, eye to eye. And this meeting will be possible in Eternity.