Eye for an eye; tooth for a tooth

[John]

Eye for an eye; tooth for a tooth... Does thissound like the all-merciful YHVH?

Only through the eyes of Wisdom.

Let me build my case:

Deuteronomy 19:21 (King James Version)

21And thine eye shall not pity; but life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.

Matthew 5:38-39 (KJV)
38Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:

39But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

These scriptures seem to contradict each other. Theologians have dwelt on it for years. Islam says that this is proof Yeshua's message was distorted by his disciples. Rabbinic Judaism says this is proof for the same thing, or they may say that it is proof that Yeshua controdicted Torah.

But i think i've got it figured out.

When Deuteronomy says 'an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth' the Yisraelits immeadiately assumed it meant that if a person took your tooth, you had to punish him by taking their tooth or the equivilent of that.

But Yeshua had a slightly different teaching.

He said that if a man takes your tooth, let him and dont do anything about it. This does not contradict Torah. What Yeshua was explaining was that Torah was not giving the minimum of what you were to do, but he was giving you the maximum. Torah was limiting the amount of punishment you could put on a person for an evil act. YHVH was giving us limited power to judge, but Yeshua said the most righteous will not judge at all, but let YHVH be the judge.

He goes deeper than that; he told what was the maximum in Torah, now he gets into the minimum. He said that if a man asked for a coat that you should give him two. Giving him one coat is the minimum.

So Yeshua was not contradicting Torah; he clarified its meaning for us.

Yet, Yeshua was silent on sacrifices. Are they the minimum, or the maximum of what you are to do (to want to do if the Ruach HaKodesh resides in your heart)? Maybe he thought that the Nevi'im spoke of this enough so he didnt need to say anymore. But, If you have found out through the scriptures, tell me.

So, what do you think of my exegesis?



Shalom,
Yeshuafreak John

[Jeordin]

Ummmm, I left my Bible in my locker but isn't Deuteronomy in the Old Testament, before Christ. I just backspaced everything I was going to put but maybe I shouold still say it. Wasn't that before christ died to forgive our sins. Thats not exactly what I was going to say but basically it

[itiswritten]

From what I understand, there is no historical record of the Israealite people ever putting out eyes or teeth because someone else damaged one. For example: if the man sues the company over lost wages it will cost them "an arm and a leg." No one would interpret that statement literally. They would understand that as an expression for severe cost.

As you have pointed out John, the Torah was putting a maximum on damages that one was entitled to collect. If our courts followed Torah they would not award millions of dollars to a lady who burned her leg with hot coffee.

[Jeordin]

oh never mind what i said before. I feel like an idiot. forget that question I now get it. Last night I forgot about the fact that the Messiah was coming

[John]

i just got another opinion on "trun the other cheek."

my aunt, a pastor for MCC, said that in the culture at that time, it was HIGHLY disrespectful to hit someone with the back of your hand. so Yeshua said that if they did, turn the other cheek- this would force them to hit you with the pront part of the hand. you would be saying, through a humble twist of the face, "i deserve more."

this makes for a good drash, but on the peshat it does not make sense, as he is assesing the "eye for an eye" verse.

another interpretation is that Yeshua was simply telling us to forgive, not to sstay defenseless. the most righteous decisions are made in forgiveness. so, when we execute the penalty of the Law, we are not to do it in a cold heart and unforgiving manner.

shalom- john

[itiswritten]

Sept 1, 2009 10:28:13 GMT -5 John said:

i just got another opinion on "trun the other cheek."

my aunt, a pastor for MCC, said that in the culture at that time, it was HIGHLY disrespectful to hit someone with the back of your hand. so Yeshua said that if they did, turn the other cheek- this would force them to hit you with the pront part of the hand. you would be saying, through a humble twist of the face, "i deserve more."

this makes for a good drash, but on the peshat it does not make sense, as he is assesing the "eye for an eye" verse.

another interpretation is that Yeshua was simply telling us to forgive, not to sstay defenseless. the most righteous decisions are made in forgiveness. so, when we execute the penalty of the Law, we are not to do it in a cold heart and unforgiving manner.

shalom- john

I think that he is saying that though you may have the "right" to retribution, not to take it and to show forbearance in the face of insult. Y'shua had the "power" or some would even say the "right" to refute the claims of his accusers and to strike back as he was being beaten and abused. Though it may have appeared to the bystanders that he had given up, he was overcoming. Overcoming in a way that is opposite of the way the carnal man would have seen the situation.

[John]

yes. that is the interpretation that i expressed in the thread-post. i agree with any of the three interpretations listed, because any of them can be true. but i think the one that you , itiswriten, and the beg thred-post gave is the most likely one. Jesus was amking an halakhic decision.

as John Meier, writer of the Marginal Jew, says "the halakhic Jesus is the Historical Jesus" (Vol4)

shalom- john

[chesedv'emes]

When Deuteronomy says 'an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth' the Yisraelits immeadiately assumed it meant that if a person took your tooth, you had to punish him by taking their tooth or the equivilent of that.

This is not true. It was never taken literally...we don't go around blinding each other and
knocking out each others teeth. It was never about punishment, but about monetary
compensation. If one has been physically damaged, and that damage causes hardship,
it is only right and fair that the person who has caused such damage pays for it.
This is much the same as in modern law (from having talked to
rabbis who were also attorneys, it's amazing how much of
modern law comes from the Talmud....or is at least in agreement
with it)
The payment is the value of the tooth, eye, or whatever other damage has been done....and that is going to vary from person
to person.