Is there a defference between an eye for an eye and do to others what ou want done to

[This Charming Manc]

I understand it in light of most of the teaching of that passage of the sermon on the mount.

The Old Covenant taught proportionality in terms of retribution, this was to stop escalating blood feuds, an eye for an eye was not a demand but a limitation.

The mentality of a feud is usually escalation. as shown below

Ness: I want to get Capone! I don't know how to do it.
Malone: You wanna know how to get Capone? They pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. *That's* the *Chicago* way! And that's how you get Capone. Now do you want to do that? Are you ready to do that? I'm offering you a deal. Do you want this deal?

The OT law protected Jewish society from that kind of escalation.

When we come to this part in the sermon on the mount Jesus starts with.

Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

That whole section escalates holiness way beyond the law, this shows moral goodness and insight, but also shows that salvation by works in hopeless.

do not commit adultery becomes no not lust
do not murder becomes do not hate
eye for an eye becomes turn the other cheek
divorce becomes don't divorce

Its teaching that condemns the natural state of mans heart.

Is there a difference between the Old Covenant “eye for an eye” and the New Covenant “do to others what you want done to you”?


There is this passage from Leviticus

Leviticus 24:19-21New International Version (NIV) 19 Anyone who injures their neighbor is to be injured in the same manner: 20 fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. The one who has inflicted the injury must suffer the same injury. 21 Whoever kills an animal must make restitution, but whoever kills a human being is to be put to death.

Versus this passage from Luke

Luke 6:27-31New International Version (NIV) Love for Enemies 27 “But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. 29 If someone slaps you on one cheek, turn to them the other also. If someone takes your coat, do not withhold your shirt from them. 30 Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. 31 Do to others as you would have them do to you.

I say the two are mutually exclusive propositions. Eye for an eye is about punishment and retribution. If somebody hurts you, you hurt them back exactly the same way. It is very satisfying to our human nature and the exact opposite to what Jesus taught.


What Jesus taught is the exact opposite. If somebody hurts you, Jesus says you are to turn the other cheek. In short, if you don’t like getting hurt, don’t others even when they hurt you first. That is a very different and much higher standard than an eye for an eye.

 

[OCTOBER23]

Ephesians 4:13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith,

and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man,

unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

 

[OCTOBER23]

As the TESTATOR OF THE OLD COVENANT

AT HIS DEATH HIS WILL CHANGED.

It went from physical to spiritual.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

Is there a difference between the Old Covenant “eye for an eye” and the New Covenant “do to others what you want done to you”?


There is this passage from Leviticus

Leviticus 24:19-21New International Version (NIV) 19 Anyone who injures their neighbor is to be injured in the same manner: 20 fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. The one who has inflicted the injury must suffer the same injury. 21 Whoever kills an animal must make restitution, but whoever kills a human being is to be put to death.

Versus this passage from Luke

Luke 6:27-31New International Version (NIV) Love for Enemies 27 “But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. 29 If someone slaps you on one cheek, turn to them the other also. If someone takes your coat, do not withhold your shirt from them. 30 Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. 31 Do to others as you would have them do to you.

I say the two are mutually exclusive propositions. Eye for an eye is about punishment and retribution. If somebody hurts you, you hurt them back exactly the same way. It is very satisfying to our human nature and the exact opposite to what Jesus taught.


What Jesus taught is the exact opposite. If somebody hurts you, Jesus says you are to turn the other cheek. In short, if you don’t like getting hurt, don’t others even when they hurt you first. That is a very different and much higher standard than an eye for an eye.

:up:

 

[Eric h]

If somebody hurts you, Jesus says you are to turn the other cheek

And we see how Jesus loved all his neighbours as he loved himself, those who condemned him to death and nailed him to the dross.

He prayed, Father forgive them.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Bump

 

[genuineoriginal]

There is this passage from Leviticus

Leviticus 24:19-21New International Version (NIV) 19 Anyone who injures their neighbor is to be injured in the same manner: 20 fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. The one who has inflicted the injury must suffer the same injury. 21 Whoever kills an animal must make restitution, but whoever kills a human being is to be put to death.

Versus this passage from Luke

Luke 6:27-31New International Version (NIV) Love for Enemies 27 “But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. 29 If someone slaps you on one cheek, turn to them the other also. If someone takes your coat, do not withhold your shirt from them. 30 Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. 31 Do to others as you would have them do to you.

I say the two are mutually exclusive propositions. Eye for an eye is about punishment and retribution.

So far, you are correct.

If somebody hurts you, you hurt them back exactly the same way. It is very satisfying to our human nature and the exact opposite to what Jesus taught.

And you just jumped the shark on that one.

What Jesus taught is the exact opposite.

Not at all.

If somebody hurts you, Jesus says you are to turn the other cheek.

This was a specific commandment based on the way the Romans treated the conquered nations.
It was a way for the Jews to demand the Romans treat them as equals.

_____
Nonviolent resistance interpretation

The scholar Walter Wink, in his book Engaging the Powers: Discernment and Resistance in a World of Domination, interprets the passage as ways to subvert the power structures of the time. He says that at the time of Jesus, striking someone deemed to be of a lower class with the back of the hand was used to assert authority and dominance. If the persecuted person "turned the other cheek," the discipliner was faced with a dilemma. The left hand was used for unclean purposes, so a back-hand strike on the opposite cheek would not be performed. An alternative would be a slap with the open hand as a challenge or to punch the person, but this was seen as a statement of equality. Thus, by turning the other cheek the persecuted was demanding equality.
_____​

In short, if you don’t like getting hurt, don’t others even when they hurt you first.

That is not the message of Jesus.
The message Jesus gave is to treat others as equal to yourself and insist on the same treatment by demonstrating when people are not treating you as an equal.

That is a very different and much higher standard than an eye for an eye.

You are basing this on the misinterpretation by the Pharisees which claimed that the " an eye for an eye" was about personal retribution for harm.

When Jesus mentioned this, He said

Matthew 5:38 38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:​

The phrase "Ye have heard that it hath been said" is used by Jesus whenever he is correcting a false teaching of the Pharisees.
Your belief about what "an eye for an eye" means matches the false teachings of the Pharisees.

According to the Torah, "an eye for an eye", is about justice applied by the legal system.

The matching clause in the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is:
"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

The modern principle of "an eye for an eye" is "Let the punishment fit the crime"

This is not about revenge, like you and the Pharisees teach, it is about retributive justice where "the severity of penalty for a misdeed or wrongdoing should be reasonable and proportionate to the severity of the infraction".

Is there a difference between the Old Covenant “eye for an eye” and the New Covenant “do to others what you want done to you”?

Yes, "an eye for an eye" is about what is appropriate legal punishments for offenses, "do to others" is about maintaining equality in a world that is based on a class system, where you use passive resistance to make others to treat you as an equal and you make sure you treat others as equals in return.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Matthew makes direct reference to the Torah by quoting a portion. However the passage states, "You have heard that IT HAS BEEN SAID", and this clearly means that Yeshua speaks of what was being taught by the rulers and teachers of the people concerning those passages:

Matthew 5:39 KJV
38. Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
39. But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Yeshua is not saying he is changing or dissolving the statutes concerning this statement but rather that the rulers, teachers, and leaders of the people had misinterpreted the meaning.

Exactly.
Jesus is not changing the Torah or making the Torah void, he is correcting the false teachings of the Pharisees.

 

[genuineoriginal]

An eye for and eye, do unto others, and love your enemy all deal with how we treat each other. That is what this thread is limited to, how we treat each other.

You are mistaken in your interpretations and this thread is open to correcting your mistakes.

You can either learn from those that know better than you on this matter or you can continue to be an ignorant moron about it.

Your choice.

 

[genuineoriginal]

I understand it in light of most of the teaching of that passage of the sermon on the mount.

The Old Covenant taught proportionality in terms of retribution, this was to stop escalating blood feuds, an eye for an eye was not a demand but a limitation.

Yes.

 

[CabinetMaker]

You are mistaken in your interpretations and this thread is open to correcting your mistakes.

You can either learn from those that know better than you on this matter or you can continue to be an ignorant moron about it.

Your choice.

I am not mistaken. I am talking about dealing with each other as individuals and what Jesus said and taught deals with us as individuals, not governments. Government was not Jesus's top concern, I don't think it was in His top 100 concerns. Jesus did not come to teach governments, He came to save humans.

 

[CabinetMaker]

So far, you are correct.


And you just jumped the shark on that one.


Not at all.


This was a specific commandment based on the way the Romans treated the conquered nations.
It was a way for the Jews to demand the Romans treat them as equals.

_____
Nonviolent resistance interpretation

The scholar Walter Wink, in his book Engaging the Powers: Discernment and Resistance in a World of Domination, interprets the passage as ways to subvert the power structures of the time. He says that at the time of Jesus, striking someone deemed to be of a lower class with the back of the hand was used to assert authority and dominance. If the persecuted person "turned the other cheek," the discipliner was faced with a dilemma. The left hand was used for unclean purposes, so a back-hand strike on the opposite cheek would not be performed. An alternative would be a slap with the open hand as a challenge or to punch the person, but this was seen as a statement of equality. Thus, by turning the other cheek the persecuted was demanding equality.
_____​

That is not the message of Jesus.
The message Jesus gave is to treat others as equal to yourself and insist on the same treatment by demonstrating when people are not treating you as an equal.


You are basing this on the misinterpretation by the Pharisees which claimed that the " an eye for an eye" was about personal retribution for harm.

When Jesus mentioned this, He said

Matthew 5:38 38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:​

The phrase "Ye have heard that it hath been said" is used by Jesus whenever he is correcting a false teaching of the Pharisees.
Your belief about what "an eye for an eye" means matches the false teachings of the Pharisees.

According to the Torah, "an eye for an eye", is about justice applied by the legal system.

The matching clause in the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is:
"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

The modern principle of "an eye for an eye" is "Let the punishment fit the crime"

This is not about revenge, like you and the Pharisees teach, it is about retributive justice where "the severity of penalty for a misdeed or wrongdoing should be reasonable and proportionate to the severity of the infraction".


Yes, "an eye for an eye" is about what is appropriate legal punishments for offenses, "do to others" is about maintaining equality in a world that is based on a class system, where you use passive resistance to make others to treat you as an equal and you make sure you treat others as equals in return.

I rather expected this from you. I don't agree at all and I think you completely miss the message of Christ's Gospel.

 

[genuineoriginal]

I am not mistaken.

Of course you are mistaken.

I am talking about dealing with each other as individuals and what Jesus said and taught deals with us as individuals, not governments.

Then why are you acting like a Pharisee and deliberately confusing the verses that demand that governments do not impose excessive penalties for offenses with the way individuals are to treat others?

 

[genuineoriginal]

I don't agree at all

Of course you don't, because the truth doesn't fit with your agenda, whatever that might be.

I think you completely miss the message of Christ's Gospel.

Why don't you stop trying to blame Christ for you lack of wisdom and actually pray for wisdom instead?

James 1:5 5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.​

 

[CabinetMaker]

Of course you are mistaken.


Then why are you acting like a Pharisee and deliberately confusing the verses that demand that governments do not impose excessive penalties for offenses with the way individuals are to treat others?

Because Jesus did come to teach about government. Jesus did not command government to love their neighbor, He commanded us to love our neighbor as we love ourselves. You don't understand that and prefer to make it all about government.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Of course you don't, because the truth doesn't fit with your agenda, whatever that might be.

Rather, your overly legalistic teachings do not accurately represent the Gospel.

Why don't you stop trying to blame Christ for you lack of wisdom and actually pray for wisdom instead?

James 1:5 5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.​

Practice what you preach. Instead of seeking some sort of imagined justification from governments, seek wisdom from God. Love and care for others more. If somebody steals from you, give them more, forgive them and send them on their way. Faith is about serving people.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Jesus did not command government to love their neighbor, He commanded us to love our neighbor as we love ourselves.

When will you stop trying to confuse the Law that God gave for governments with what Jesus told to individuals?

Rather, your overly legalistic teachings do not accurately represent the Gospel.

Here is the part of the teaching of Jesus you seem to have missed, from the same Sermon on the Mount you have been referencing.

Matthew 5:17-19 17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.​

You seem to have gotten the mistaken impression that Jesus teaches lawlessness.

Matthew 7:22-23 NKJB 22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’​

 

[CabinetMaker]

When will you stop trying to confuse the Law that God gave for governments with what Jesus told to individuals?

when you understand that God did not give His law to a government, He gave it to His chosen people. The kings and Pharisees came much later. And the Pharisees grossly corrupted God's law and were routinely scolded for doing so.

Here is the part of the teaching of Jesus you seem to have missed, from the same Sermon on the Mount you have been referencing.

Matthew 5:17-19 17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.​

I believe that Jesus full filed all the requirements of the law with His death on the cross. That is why we do not face judgement under the law when we ultimately stand before God.

You seem to have gotten the mistaken impression that Jesus teaches lawlessness.

Matthew 7:22-23 NKJB 22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’​

I never said nor inferred any such thing. Jesus gave us two commandments that completely sum up the law if the prophets. Two. That is the "law" of the New Covenant that Jusus's blood ushered in.

According to Jesus, what should you do if somebody steals from you?

 

[genuineoriginal]

when you understand that God did not give His law to a government, He gave it to His chosen people. The kings and Pharisees came much later.

You still are having problems understanding.
God was the king who gave these laws to His people.
The King decreed that there was not to be excessive punishment for offenses, but that punishment would be limited to something equivalent to the offense, "an eye for an eye", etc.

And the Pharisees grossly corrupted God's law and were routinely scolded for doing so.

And yet here you keep going on abusing the law about non-excessive punishment as if it refers to personal retribution, which is the exact same abuse of the scripture that Jesus was correcting.

Jesus gave us two commandments that completely sum up the law if the prophets. Two. That is the "law" of the New Covenant that Jusus's blood ushered in.

The two commandments you are referring to are from the Old Covenant, not the New Covenant.

Matthew 22:36-40 36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?” 37 Jesus said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”​

Deuteronomy 6:5 5 You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength.​

Leviticus 19:18 18 You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord.​

I believe that Jesus full filed all the requirements of the law with His death on the cross.

If you think Jesus abolished the law through His death on the cross, then you have no reason to follow those two commandments.

Jesus was correcting the false teachings of the Pharisees about the Old Covenant in the Sermon on the Mount, so if you think Jesus abolished the law through His death on the cross, then you have no reason to keep the Old Covenant rule of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you", either.

You accuse me of excessive legalism because I have studied the Old Testament and actually know what it teaches.

Maybe you should find out what the Old Testament teaches before trying to teach what the New Testament says about the Old Testament.

 

[patrick jane]

The OP - Is there a defference ?

Full Definition of deference
: respect and esteem due a superior or an elder; also : affected or ingratiating regard for another's wishes