Neanderthal or Progressive?

Numbers 4-6:  http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers%204-6&version=NIV1984

            Leviticus 24:17-23 and Numbers 5:11-31 seem really harsh, even unjust.  In the first passage, we have the famous ‘eye for an eye’ passage.  What did one wag say?  “If we trade and eye for an eye, we’ll all go through life half-blind.”  It just seems kind of primitive.  If ‘an eye for an eye’ seems kind of primitive, Numbers 5 seems downright Neanderthal!  A woman is to be hauled before the priest if a ‘spirit of jealousy’ overcomes a husband and he suspects her of adultery.  Wow!  What about him?  What if he’s just a suspicious jerk?  What if she suspects him of adultery?  And the prescribed ritual smacks of the Salem witch trials. . .

            So, what shall we do with this kind of thing?  Here’s a case where we must be sensitive to the original historical context.  If modern ears hear ‘an eye for an eye’ as ridiculously vengeful, we have to re-tune those ears to the ancient Near East.  The ‘eye for an eye’ regulation in its original paragraph and in its original setting is a limitation on the amount of retribution that can be collected.  So, if you punch me in the eye, the Lord will allow me to punch you in the eye.  But I can’t gouge out both of your eyes, no matter how angry I am.  The original intention is to protect the guilty party from overly harsh punishment.  (Notice, too, that this regulation is for Israel under Moses’ covenant.  It might be good advice for all sorts of governments, but it’s specific to Israel as a nation.  In the New Testament, Jesus overturns it, Matthew 5:38ff.)

            The same thing is true with Moses’ regulation about divorce and testing for adultery.  In an oppressively patriarchal world, a man can’t just have his wife stoned (Lev. 20) on a whim—at least not in Israel.  In Israel there had to be proof of sin.  So, short of catching her in flagrante delicto, he had to go through a whole process to prove her faithlessness.  The system discouraged false or casual accusations.  So, while it seems unjust to us, in its context, this regulation is almost liberal in its provision for and protection of a woman from the whims of her husband.

--Reposted from 2/11/11