Old Testament and New: Trump and “an eye for an eye”
Get ready for something unusual: I’m going to defend Donald Trump. At least, a little bit.
Yesterday Trump said something that was immediately pounced on by many listeners as being un-Christian:
WHAM 1180 AM radio host Bob Lonsberry asked the Republican front-runner if he had a favorite verse or story from the Bible that’s impacted his thinking or character.
“Well, I think many. I mean, you know, when we get into the Bible, I think many. So many,” he responded. “And some people””look, an eye for an eye, you can almost say that. That’s not a particularly nice thing. But you know, if you look at what’s happening to our country, I mean, when you see what’s going on with our country, how people are taking advantage of us, and how they scoff at us and laugh at us.”
“And they laugh at our face, and they’re taking our jobs, they’re taking our money, they’re taking the health of our country,” he continued. “And we have to be firm and have to be very strong. And we can learn a lot from the Bible, that I can tell you.”
Trump appears to be referring to a passage from Exodus 21-24, which lays out the Old Testament rules governing personal behavior.
“If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows,” the passage reads, in the King James translation. “But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.” [other quotes of a similar nature follow]…
But in Matthew (5:38-42) in the New Testament, Jesus repudiates even that notion. “Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also…
But I think Trump’s reply was one of the most honest things Trump has ever said. He has always been clear about the idea that a perceived insult or attack should be met with an attack in response.
In addition, like many other people who discuss the “eye for eye” Old Testament principle, he has sometimes showed a lack of understanding of what it’s actually about, which is that “Biblical scholars generally interpret ‘eye for eye,’ which was derived from the ancient Babylonian Code of Hammurabi, as a restriction on retaliation for personal injuries ”” in other words, only an eye for an eye.”
Trump’s form of it has actually tended to be even more extreme than the most extreme interpretations of the Old Testament prescription, because in the past Trump has indicated he thinks a person should sometimes strike back even harder. He has written this (and it’s not out of either Testament, Old or New):
For many years I’ve said that if someone screws you, screw them back. When somebody hurts you, just go after them as viciously and as violently as you can.
That’s from a 2004 book of Trump’s called How To Get Rich, so it’s not something he said a long long time ago. It seems to completely lack that restrictive function of the Old Testament “only an eye for an eye” statement, except in the practical sense of a restriction caused by your own physical limitations, or what you are able to get away with.
The Biblical Old Testament quote appears to be describing a rule of official justice, not personal retribution. Therefore it may also represent the substitution of an official response for an earlier private (retaliatory feuding) sort of extra-judicial response, and therefore the triumph of the courts over the private methods of retribution, a triumph that represented the march of what we call civilization.
[NOTE: I’ve noticed that Ben Howe at RedState gets it right.]
Your final paragraph captures the interpretation that is frequently ignored. People who invoke the Old Testament never include the part about the judicial role. Just doesn’t fit their template.
Presumably, when speaking as a Candidate, Trump is referring to International Affairs where law is weak or non-existent. So, his rhetoric appeals more than a more nuanced statement such as; “we will vigorously defend our national interests, and oppose tyranny whenever possible”.
Off topic. I have frequently wrestled with the words of Jesus. Well, and good that an individual should show personal restraint when attacked (to what extent?); but, should a Christian stand idly by while evil is done to innocents?
Here’s a discission of an eye for an eye by rabbinical scholars.
https://www.ou.org/torah/parsha/rabbi-goldin-on-parsha/when_the_torah_does_not_say_what_it_means/
The punishment was always monetery but the crime and punishment were described in terms that made clear the severity of the injury and not to minimize the injury as would be the case if the punishment were merely a fine.
I’m no biblical scholar, but I’ve always heard the eye for an eye passage interpreted as restrictive. Donald doesn’t dig into things very much.
My understanding of an “eye for an eye” is in line with Paul’s above. An eye for an eye is interpreted by rabbis as the monetary value of an eye in compensation for an eye, not an actual eye.
Are there any actual photographs of the Donald ever being in a church? If so, he must have slept through the service.
He must be following the inspiration of the One-derboy, who wrote in one of his books that the Reverend White was the “greatest spiritual influence in my life,” and then when it came out that the Reverend was a pathological anti-Semite and anti-American, said he never heard any of his sermons.
I think it was the Trump supporters of today who doomed Mitt Romney’s run. While Mitt was not my man, an honest technocrat in the Hoover mode would have been a good thing. Trump’s supporters (and many others) saw Mitt as the image of their boss. Donald who is a much worse business man than Romney, appears to be a tough guy who will break up something! I don’t think in his private moments Donald reflects on much of anything. Perhaps he is afraid to do it.
Paul,
I suspect that back when the Law was originally given, that an actual eye could have been demanded. Given that the Law was basically asking the aggrieved to forego taking justice into their own hands, there likely would have been situations in which the injured party felt that leniancy wasn’t enough (for instance, if the injury was due to gross negligence; or if the injured party suspected that the scope of the injury had been intentional). Later on, though, as people grew used to the idea of the authorities handling the punishment, the call for that sort of thing likely would have receeded.
Oldflyer –
In response to your last sentence, I would say no. We’re advised to turn the other cheek. I.E. when someone gives reason for offense, show humility instead of pride. But we’re not advised to be supine in the face of wickedness and evil. Remember that on one occasion, the Savior even fashioned himself a whip, and attacked people with it.
Biblical scholarship much lol?
Exodus 22:2: “If the thief is caught while breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there will be no bloodguiltiness on his account.”
…if you care to delve into a rational and well-reasoned biblical response to violence, try Dr. Joel McDurmon’s a biblical response to John Piper’s denial of the Right to Bear Arms.
Dr. McDurmon provides links to some of his other papers along the same vein that worth reading.
…if you don’t have time to read Durmon’s works, basically he provides a scriptural basis for reasons that in both the Old and New Testament’s there’s an inherent spiritual responsibility for Christians to meet violence with a rational [violent] response to protect yourself, your family, and your neighbor.
As for a suggestion the messiah was a pacifist: Jesus took a whip to the moneylenders, and drove them out of the Temple their greed defiled.
The Messiah wasn’t averse to meeting evil with violence (as the Canaanites – and many others who ended badly – could equally attest in their encounters with the manifestation of triune G_d they encountered).
Oh. And He had a bit to say about weaponry, too.
Your reasoning is solid, neo.
Jesus often used hyperbole, which was also much used in rabbinic teaching, to make his points, but it was not meant to be taken literally. A good example: “If your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it from you. It is better for you to enter life with one eye, than to have two eyes and be cast into the fiery hell.” — Matthew 18:9
Compare, s’il vous plaé®t:
“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.”
— Sen. Barack Hussein Obama (D, IL), June 13, 2008
Reading Neo’s defense of Trump reminded me of what my mother used to say, “with friends like those who needs enemies?” Of course I agree with Neo, that Trump has misinterpreted the Bible. He has taken Jesus’ statement and turned it on its head.
“For many years I’ve said that if someone screws you, screw them back. When somebody hurts you, just go after them as viciously and as violently as you can.”
This nugget from neo is not getting the attention it deserves.
We often hear Trump give “thinly veiled threats”, but if this is how he operates, given his low tolerance for even a minor disagreement, or challenge, we can bet violence will be at hand if he doesn’t get his way.
I would rather think not, but Trump doesn’t seem to be turning down his rhetoric. Of course, he doesn’t EXPLICITLY say so, but he hints enough that people (particularly the less stable of his supporters) eventually get the “message”.