Disastrous Iterations of an Eye for an Eye

Recent events involving the unsettling atrocities by Hamas on the nation of Israel have set the world stage ablaze with discussions and debates regarding appropriate responses. Do not mistake my comments as a false equivalency. There is never justification for terrorists’ activities and, particularly the barbaric means with which the attacks were carried out last week. Nonetheless, such heinous acts unfortunately bring to mind the archaic principle of an eye for an eye that is historically rooted deeply in many ancient codes of justice, including the foundations of both Islamic and Jewish laws. This philosophy, though millennia-old, remains influential, coloring many contemporary conflicts. Yet the unending cycle of violence perpetuated by such a mindset underscores its ineffectiveness and potential dangers.

A closer look at religious traditions reveals a much more nuanced understanding than what the surface-level eye for an eye adage offers. Within Islamic and Jewish traditions, this law was initially implemented not as a mandate for revenge but as a limit to retribution. It ensured that punishments were proportionate to crimes. However, over time, the meaning has been contorted and used by some as a justification for revenge. This manipulation of the original intent is detrimental and results in the perpetuation of violence. Revenge will always bring counter-revenge.

Furthermore, it is essential to note that while many Christians also seemingly embrace this punitive philosophy, it contradicts the teachings of Jesus. He advocated for love, forgiveness, and understanding. He even admonished us to love our enemies. He beckoned society to a higher moral plane, urging followers to turn the other cheek rather than seek revenge. To pray for God’s Kingdom to be evident on this earth. Such teachings highlight the importance of breaking the cycle of retaliation and pursuing peace.

Personal reflections often magnify these broader observations. As a child my favorite Sunday school story was Joshua at the Battle of Jericho. This story’s drama, where trumpet blasts and shouts caused walls to tumble, was exhilarating. In the church of my youth, Jericho marches were common and used as a form of spiritual warfare or as a prayer procession. However, later revelations about the aftermath, where Joshua’s army eradicated with the sword not only soldiers but all men, women, children, and livestock in Jericho (save Rahab and her household, who assisted the efforts), struck a dissonant chord with my understanding. This historical episode mirrors contemporary instances where terrorists, under the pretense of faith, harm or kill innocent people in Israel and elsewhere.

It is vital to recognize that taking scriptural stories out of their contextual era can lead to misunderstanding. Nevertheless, we must address and re-evaluate narratives that promote or justify violence. To truly embrace the spirit of peace and understanding inherent in most religious teachings, we must transcend ancient modes of thinking.

The eye for an eye approach, as evident in the ongoing strife and countless historical episodes, is ineffective and perpetuates endless iterations of revenge and violence. To quote Mahatma Gandhi, “An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind.” To truly achieve lasting peace, humanity must rise above such reductive thinking, seeking out the more profound messages of love, compassion, and unity of my Christian tradition, as well as religious teachings and ethical philosophies worldwide. A belief that God has ordained the conquest of others as some form of retribution will undoubtedly keep this cycle of evil going.