God’s laws can seem extreme to modern eyes. After all, we’re an advanced society that prides themselves on equitable justice and civility among all, right?
As I write this, the news about Charlie Kirk’s assassination is playing all over the news. People are making inflammatory comments denigrating Charlie Kirk, others are arguing for armed rebellion and insurrection, while some are advocating for a full-on civil war.
So yeah, I guess we’re not really that advanced after all. We still fight, we still argue, and we will always—always—have our differences.
God had a plan for this. In Leviticus 24:17-23, God details His “one standard” for all people who dwelt among the Israelites (native and sojourner). That one standard would be equal compensation for any injury done to another person. If someone plucked out your eye, you can, and should, pluck out their’s as well.
While this law may seem violent, Jewish teaching actually argues that, instead of literally plucking out someone’s eyes, the real idea is to gain compensatory damages instead.
That makes it the same as our legal code. If you’re hit by a drunk driver, you don’t get to hit their car back. Most likely, you’ll receive some sort of settlement that is equal to the loss sustained (or more, depending on your lawyer).
Legally speaking, the law in Leviticus 24 is called lex talionis, or the “law of retaliation.” But that word almost has a negative connotation. Retaliation is viewed similarly to revenge: “You hit me, so I’ll hit you back!”
In truth, this law was placed there to limit the blowback. If someone injures you, you’re legally entitled to injure them back. But that’s where it stops. You don’t get to tack on more punches because you feel angry or slighted about it.
This is such an important concept right now when you consider the state of our own political climate. Charlie Kirk’s assassination was met with an enormous response of anger. People are advocating for outright civil war, other people to lose their jobs, the rapid deportations of immigrants, and a host of other things.
My point is not to argue the merits of those approaches, but simply to state that they are all extreme reactions to the assassination. Under Jewish Law, we should put the the assassin to death, and that’s it. How we feel in response to that event would be irrelevant, legally-speaking. Any extra punishment would be outside the Law.
I get that these are trying times, but what God wants to achieve by these laws is taking emotions out of the picture. Yes, a lot of people are angry. Yes, a lot of people are devastated.
But we can’t afford to escalate the situation and make matters worse. When we take the objective Law into our own, subjective hands, innocent people get hurt. That collateral damage is where the real danger lies.
