Retributive justice

Thousands of years of hindsight make it easy to smugly look back on the Torah and think, “thank God we’re not like them.” This Sunday’s Gospel lesson is nearly impossible to not read through the lens of the Ghandi saying, “An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.” As more and more states do away with capital punishment for violent offenders, we start to feel better and better about living in America in the 21st century, believing that retributive justice only further exacerbates the cycle of violence. I’m thankful for the folks over at Luther Seminary who in their weekly Sermon Brainwave Podcast discussed this very topic.

While we get all self-satisfied with our place in history, assured of just how much smarter we are they those silly ancients, we assume that the law of “an eye for an eye” or “a tooth for a tooth” was intended to create a system of revenge. Instead, according to the Luther podcast, the intent behind these rules was actually to limit the cycle of violence. This was accomplished in two ways.

First, it put a limit on what sort of retribution was allowed. If you poke out my eye, I’m not allowed to kill you. If you break my nose, I can’t permanently maim you. The response to violence could only meet and never exceed the violence initially acted upon a victim.