![]() Gill's Exposition of the Entire BibleEye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. This law therefore was only minatory, but so as it was literally to be inflicted, except the injuring party would give such satisfaction as the injured person accepted, or the judges determined. And indeed the payment of such a price as the loss of an eye, or hand, or foot required, though it might not so much satisfy the revenge of the party so injured, yet it was really more to his benefit. And when it is enjoined that no satisfaction shall be taken for the life of a wilful murderer, Numbers 35:31, it seems therein implied that satisfaction may be taken for lesser injuries. By comparing this with other laws, wherein a compensation is allowed in like cases, as Exodus 21:18,30. And how could a wound be made neither bigger nor less than that which he inflicted?Ģ. And this is a sure and righteous rule, Punishments may be less, but never should be greater than the fault. By the impossibility of the just execution of it in many cases, as when a man that had but one eye or hand was to lose the other, which to him was a far greater mischief than what he did to his neighbour, whom he deprived but of one of his eyes or hands. But though this might sometimes be practised in the letter, yet it was not necessarily to be understood and executed so as may appear,ġ. ![]() ![]() Matthew Poole's Commentary This is called the law of retaliation, and from hence the heathen lawgivers took it and put it into their laws. It is especially to be observed, that the execution of these laws was not put into the hands of private persons, and that they were not allowances for private revenge, but rules to regulate the magistrate’s decision, who might go thus far, if he judged the heinousness of the offence required it, but no further and, no doubt, might abate of this rigour when alleviating circumstances appeared to render it proper so to do. Indeed, the injustice of the literal execution of it, in many cases, is apparent as, when a man that had but one eye or hand, would be thereby condemned to lose it, which to him would be a far greater calamity than he had brought upon his neighbour, by depriving him of one of his eyes or hands. It seems probable, that it was not necessary always to take it strictly and literally, but that it might in some cases be satisfied with pecuniary mulcts, or with such satisfaction as the injuring party would give, and the injured accept. This is termed the law of retaliation and from hence heathen lawgivers took it, and put it among their other laws.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |