"An Eye for an Eye, a tooth for a tooth"--how does this reconcile with Thou Shalt not Kill?

[blaskoman]

Recently had a discussion with someone about capital punishment. I stated that the Commandment “Thou Shalt not Kill” had no exceptions. He retorted with the Old Testament passage…“An eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth” to justify vengence. I really didnt have an explanation for him, other that the Catholic Church strictly forbids and condemns capital punishment…Can someone please explain the significance of this Old Testament saying?

 

[CWBetts]

Recently had a discussion with someone about capital punishment. I stated that the Commandment “Thou Shalt not Kill” had no exceptions. He retorted with the Old Testament passage…“An eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth” to justify vengence. I really didnt have an explanation for him, other that the Catholic Church strictly forbids and condemns capital punishment…Can someone please explain the significance of this Old Testament saying?

First, the Catholic Church does not strictly forbid the death penalty. Allowances are made that it can be enforced under certain circumstances. But as for your question, The death penalty was applied for murder, various sexual sins, idolatry, and rebellion against legitimate authority. The former due to the gravity of the crime, and the others, because those are the ways in which Israel kept breaking the Covenant over and over again. Another thing to remember is that death is not the worst fate that can happen to you. Eternal separation from God is. Lastly, Israel was in a covenant relationship with the LORD, and this was a covenant bond that carried with it a death curse. This survives in wedding vows “Till death do we part”

 

[Kaninchen]

Recently had a discussion with someone about capital punishment. I stated that the Commandment “Thou Shalt not Kill” had no exceptions. He retorted with the Old Testament passage…“An eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth” to justify vengence. I really didnt have an explanation for him, other that the Catholic Church strictly forbids and condemns capital punishment…Can someone please explain the significance of this Old Testament saying?

It’s not about revenge it’s about reparation - God wouldn’t tell us to do illogical things, what for example, would happen if a toothless man knocked out somebody else’s teeth or blind man struck somebody and knocked out his eye?

It’s not punishment fitting the crime, it’s compensation fitting the crime - a sheep for a tooth or a flock of sheep for an eye, perhaps.

It was almost impossible to get yourself executed, even in Biblical times, by the way.

 

[JRKH]

So long as you try to argue using 2 OT quotes, (that is rules from the Old Covenent) it is more difficult to make your point. However, if you compare the OT teaching to the New Testement teaching you can make your case.

We need to look at the bible, not as a book written all at the same time. Some people do this.
The Books of the Bible were written over a long time and reperesent God, leading our fallen nature back into a state of grace.
Early on “vengence” was perfectly acceptable - Later, limits were put on it such that vengence became Justice which was limited and administered by law. - Later still, in the NT, Christ brings us out of the Old law and into the light of Love and forgiveness.

We live under the New Law of Love, not under the Old Law of Justice and Revenge.

Peace
James

 

[DOShea]

Those OT penalties were given by the same One who gave those laws. God was commanding those just punishments as part of His covenant with us.

There still IS eye-for-eye justice, it’s just that we are no longer charged with enforcing or enacting it. But rest assured God will require a full accounting for our actions and will punish according to His justice. That is why His mercy is so valuable; without it we don’t stand the proverbial snowball’s chance.

 

[juliamajor]

Thou shall not kill’ is more properly translated
“Thou shall not murder”
.Eye for eye was to prevent blood vengance for getting out of hand.It was a law of measure of measure.If tooth is damage in a fight you can’t take the life of another man , nor do any more damage then was done to you initially.equanimity-not cruel and unusual punishments- but punishments that fit the crime.

 

[Benadam]

Theology develops deeper understanding over time. In this case moral theology of such antiquity has become disconnected for the most part from it’s modern developement. ‘Eye for an eye’ developed into ’ Do unto others’.

 

[diggerdomer]

Recently had a discussion with someone about capital punishment. I stated that the Commandment “Thou Shalt not Kill” had no exceptions. He retorted with the Old Testament passage…“An eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth” to justify vengence. I really didnt have an explanation for him, other that the Catholic Church strictly forbids and condemns capital punishment…Can someone please explain the significance of this Old Testament saying?

This maxim is also found in other ancient sources e.g. the Code of Hammurabi (which likely predated the writing of Exodus).

The point is, most scholars would say, is that this was an attempt to limit or restrain “revenge” i.e. if someone steals your cow you don’t burn down their house. It’s not intended to mean that you MUST exact equivalent reparation but rather to LIMIT vengeance/reparation.

 

[Filius_Prodigus]

So long as you try to argue using 2 OT quotes, (that is rules from the Old Covenent) it is more difficult to make your point. However, if you compare the OT teaching to the New Testement teaching you can make your case.

We need to look at the bible, not as a book written all at the same time. Some people do this.
The Books of the Bible were written over a long time and reperesent God, leading our fallen nature back into a state of grace.
Early on “vengence” was perfectly acceptable - Later, limits were put on it such that vengence became Justice which was limited and administered by law. - Later still, in the NT, Christ brings us out of the Old law and into the light of Love and forgiveness.

We live under the New Law of Love, not under the Old Law of Justice and Revenge.

Peace
James

Which is not new… God treats mankind with compassion and forgiveness time after time in the O.T.

 

[Dan_Parker]

**Thou shall not kill’ is more properly translated
“Thou shall not murder” **
.Eye for eye was to prevent blood vengance for getting out of hand.It was a law of measure of measure.If tooth is damage in a fight you can’t take the life of another man , nor do any more damage then was done to you initially.equanimity-not cruel and unusual punishments- but punishments that fit the crime.

Dan:
Agreed!

Catholic Bibles:

1. 
   *]DRA Exodus 20:13 Thou shalt not kill.
   *]NAB Exodus 20:13 "You shall not kill.
   *]NJB Exodus 20:13 'You shall not kill.
   
   The New World Translation:
   1. 
      *]NWT Exodus 20:13 "You must not murder.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

LOL nice Dan. I would point out that the concept could certainly be deduced from a broader view of Scripture…

 

[JRKH]

Dan:
Agreed!

Catholic Bibles:

1. 
   *]DRA Exodus 20:13 Thou shalt not kill.
   *]NAB Exodus 20:13 "You shall not kill.
   *]NJB Exodus 20:13 'You shall not kill.
   
   The New World Translation:
   1. 
      *]NWT Exodus 20:13 "You must not murder.

1. 1. 
      A few others including a couple of “Literal Tranlations”
      
      Exodus 20:13 **
      The Holy Bible, New International Version®
      "You shall not murder.
      **
      The King James Version (Authorized)
      Thou shalt not kill.
      
      The New King James Version
      "You shall not murder.
      
      The New Revised Standard Version
      You shall not murder.
      
      The Douay-Rheims Bible
      Thou shalt not kill.
      
      The NAS Strong’s Version
      "You shall not murder.
      
      Young’s Literal Translation
      `Thou dost not murder.
      
      J.P. Green’s Literal Translation
      You shall not murder.
      
      Peace
      James

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Recently had a discussion with someone about capital punishment. I stated that the Commandment “Thou Shalt not Kill” had no exceptions. He retorted with the Old Testament passage…“An eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth” to justify vengence. I really didnt have an explanation for him, other that the Catholic Church strictly forbids and condemns capital punishment…Can someone please explain the significance of this Old Testament saying?

I really hate it when people say there are no exceptions to “Thou Shalt Not Kill” - it shows that people have not read the parts of Exodus to Deuteronomy which prescribe the death penalty; or the ritual for making Holy War: HW allows massacre, which is killing.​

Besides, “Thou Shalt not Kill” forbids murder - not all killing. “An eye for an eye…” limits vengeance to the exacting of injuries no more severe than those avenged; a very wise law, which prevents the practice of vendetta that has so disgraced some “Christian” countries. “An eye for an eye” is the reverse of vindictive; it restrains the exercise of the passion for revenge; it does not encourage it.

The Church raised no objections to the DP until very recently: it used to defend and practice it.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

This maxim is also found in other ancient sources e.g. the Code of Hammurabi (which likely predated the writing of Exodus).

The point is, most scholars would say, is that this was an attempt to limit or restrain “revenge” i.e. if someone steals your cow you don’t burn down their house. It’s not intended to mean that you MUST exact equivalent reparation but rather to LIMIT vengeance/reparation.

Not “likely” - definitely. At the most recent date possible, the Code goes back to 1698 BC, Hammurabi’s 31st year. Other chronologies would put it earlier. I don’t think anyone claims the Exodus was that early ​

 

[diggerdomer]

Not “likely” - definitely. At the most recent date possible, the Code goes back to 1698 BC, Hammurabi’s 31st year. Other chronologies would put it earlier. I don’t think anyone claims the Exodus was that early ​

I agree. I was just leaving the possibility open that there are some I’m not aware of who would argue differently. Thanks.