Page 64 - Bus101FlipBook

5-6 Law, Business & Government [CH 5

private property can be taken by the state and given to other private parties for personal
economic gain, superseding the fifth amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Chapters XXI through XXIII of Exodus, the second book, contain a substantial
number of purely secular mandates. In Chapter XXI beginning at verse 12 begins the
judgments for personal injury. Chapter XX opens with the judgments for property rights,
and beginning in verse 16 and through Chapter XXXIII v9 are the judgments for crimes
against humanity.
Many recall the awesome decree in Chapter XXI v24 “Eye for eye, tooth for tooth,

hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.” It
seems like an ancient recipe for harshness that modern society has long ago outgrown. Not
so. Few biblical passages are as badly misunderstood as this one. The “eye for an eye”
maxim is not about harshness; it's about proportional retribution. Our society has certainly
not outgrown that. In fact, over the past several years, America has enacted a vast body of

harsh laws to “get tough on crime” and they have enjoyed widespread political support.
Our congressional senators and representatives, in fact every politician running for office
promise to write more laws that are “tough on crime” when they should require that the
laws on the books be enforced.
However, in ancient Canaan, offenses against one's honor were met with an escalating

response. If someone stole one of your sheep, the manly thing to do was to go and kill five
of his cows. If some careless individual trampled a row of your corn with his ox-cart, you
might go and set fire to his field. This is the “teach ‘em a lesson” approach to justice.
Restitution The eye-for-an-eye ethic restrained this escalating violence, insisting that punishment
To make one whole. To or restitution be proportional to the actual, demonstrable harm done, and that it not be
repair or return property determined by the rage of the party offended. For example, Leviticus 24:18 says, “And he
lost.
that killeth a beast shall make it good; beast for beast.” The eye-for-an-eye principle was to
place rational limits on retribution and punishment.
Assume that government enacts a law: “stealing a silver spoon shall be punished by 10
years in prison.” You may recall from your grade-school history lessons that, in colonial
America, this crime was punishable by death. The Judeo-Christian tradition condemns such

laws for the severity of the punishment exceeds the “eye-for-an-eye” guideline. A silver
spoon is simply not worth 10 years of a person's life. To enact such a law would be to
break a higher law that demands fairness and respect for human life.
One can easily see the common sense of these issues. Our modern legal system
developed in a similar manner, though today’s legislative bodies see themselves as the sole
source of law. Being the sole source of law abuses and threatens the “Rule of Law”,
supplanting it with the “Law of Rules” which tends towards excesses.

Cicero denouncing Catiline—by Cesare Maccari

Copyrighted Material