Does going from "eye for an eye" to "turn the other cheek" contradict the Bible?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Gift_from_God
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

Gift_from_God

Guest
I heard someone say that the Bible contradicts itself because it goes from being vengeful to being forgiving. Why is that? Was vengeance once right but Jesus changed the teaching? GAH!!! So confused :confused:

While we’re at it, Gandhi once said, “An eye for an eye makes the world blind.” Would you agree with this statement?
 
Gift_from_God said:
I heard someone say that the Bible contradicts itself because it goes from being vengeful to being forgiving. Why is that? Was vengeance once right but Jesus changed the teaching? GAH!!! So confused :confused:

While we’re at it, Gandhi once said, “An eye for an eye makes the world blind.” Would you agree with this statement?
Click to expand...
Yes I would. I once heard it said an eye for an eye meant a equal punishment. You would not kill someone for stealing a candy bar thhe punishment has to fit the crime. We also have the right to defend ourselves that would not contradict turn the other cheak
 
Odell said:
Yes I would. I once heard it said an eye for an eye meant a equal punishment. You would not kill someone for stealing a candy bar thhe punishment has to fit the crime. We also have the right to defend ourselves that would not contradict turn the other cheak
Click to expand...
In what instance then would one turn the other cheek (and the rest of what the Lord said in the Gospel)?
 
Christ came to fufill the law, not to abolish it. The proper punishment is an “eye for an eye.” That is justice. However, it is not the entire law. Jesus came to enrich that law, telling us to love one another as we love ourselves, and to have mercy and forgiveness for each other as well.

An “eye for an eye” is a fitting punishment, as God commanded. Also, God commands us to stone prostitutes. Christ came to expound upon that…“he who is without sin, cast the first stone.”

Therefore, if we have our eye poked out, and we are sinless, we should poke out the other person’s eye. But if we also deserve punishment for the things we have done, and yet are being shown mercy (by God or by others), we should be merciful as well. Turning the other cheek when we are insulted is a wonderful way to show others this mercy. It is a way to share the mercy God has shown us with others…a mercy we don’t deserve shared with other people who might not deserve it either.

Christ does not contradict the old law, but reveals it to us in greater fullness.
 
Most Christians don’t observe Sat as the holy day of the wk nor follow OT dietary laws, etc. Christ said you have heard it was said an eye for an eye but I say turn the other cheek. That means what it means. For instance if someone commits murder it does not mean as a punishment we exercise capital punishment and play God and take their life too. In other words 2 wrongs do not equal right.
 
Gift_from_God said:
I heard someone say that the Bible contradicts itself because it goes from being vengeful to being forgiving. Why is that? Was vengeance once right but Jesus changed the teaching? GAH!!! So confused :confused:/QUOTE

Jesus is giving us the counsel to turn the other cheek …

one has to understand this right. Perhaps read the Navarre Commentary on Matthew …

he does not forbid us the exercise of a right to self-defense or to justice via legit routes (ie the courts)
Click to expand...
 
doanli said:
In what instance then would one turn the other cheek (and the rest of what the Lord said in the Gospel)?
Click to expand...
I suppose when some one starts a fight walk away. Its the intent if some one goes to far and wishes to harm you you have the right to use moderate force to protect you your family or society that would be the moral thing to do. Never intend on harming anyone but if its a must you can live knowing you never intended to cause harm.
You have to remember the time people where using eye for eye to justify revenge and that gets us nowhere. Eye for eye does not constitute revenge I think Jesus pounded that message home with turn the other cheek
 
Gift_from_God said:
I heard someone say that the Bible contradicts itself because it goes from being vengeful to being forgiving. Why is that? Was vengeance once right but Jesus changed the teaching? GAH!!! So confused :confused:

While we’re at it, Gandhi once said, “An eye for an eye makes the world blind.” Would you agree with this statement?
Click to expand...
Does going from “eye for an eye” to “turn the other cheek” contradict the Bible?
Click to expand...
No
 
eye for an eye

That was punishment for sin. Jesus took our punishment, meaning that He ‘gave His eye’ instead of ours. It does not contradict Scripture, but it fulfills it. Since Jesus ‘gave His eye/life/tooth/etc.’ instead of the sinner, now the sinner has nothing left but to forgive, since he cannot punish the sinner since Jesus has already been punished in the stead of the sinner.

This is how I see it.
 
Cristian_B said:
eye for an eye

That was punishment for sin. Jesus took our punishment, meaning that He ‘gave His eye’ instead of ours. It does not contradict Scripture, but it fulfills it. Since Jesus ‘gave His eye/life/tooth/etc.’ instead of the sinner, now the sinner has nothing left but to forgive, since he cannot punish the sinner since Jesus has already been punished in the stead of the sinner.

This is how I see it.
Click to expand...
In the ancient languages, the terms redeemer and sacrifice is often use to described Christ. However, the meanings have been stripped from their roots over the 2000 years. Holocaust, or the object of sacrifice, is an offering. Redeemer is the family that comes to one’s aid. These are two terms that have been consistently used through Christianity to describe Christ and what He has done.

If we have these proper definitions of the word, then we can see that Christ is not fulfilling the scriptures by plainly being a scapegoat for humanity. In truth, as taught by 2000 years of Tradition, is that Christ came into humanity to join us so that we can join Him in His divine plan and be a perfect offering to the Father and share in His redemptive mission for the entire world.

Maybe that description might make some cringe and consider Catholics full of themselves to think that we can share in God’s salvific plan. In is very true that humanity cannot claim anything; instead it is God’s free gift as sanctifying grace that we are sent out in the world as missionaries of God’s work. As the saying goes, we are to be Christ for others. That means go out there and graft those we love onto the wine (evangelist and baptize into the Church) so that we can be all nourished by the Lord and bear good fruit.
 
Cristian_B said:
eye for an eye

That was punishment for sin. Jesus took our punishment, meaning that He ‘gave His eye’ instead of ours. It does not contradict Scripture, but it fulfills it. Since Jesus ‘gave His eye/life/tooth/etc.’ instead of the sinner, now the sinner has nothing left but to forgive, since he cannot punish the sinner since Jesus has already been punished in the stead of the sinner.

This is how I see it.
Click to expand...
sorrry no ofense but Jesus did not take our punishment. We deserved eternal hell fire and Jesus is eternaly in heaven. Jesus death on the cross did not replace us. His sacrafice gives us abundace of grace to do what he ought and what we where created to be. We are not covered but clensed.

jesus came to truly change our heart, change us from the inside. Not cover our (name removed by moderator)erfections. Remember he is the one who told the pharasis “you clean the out side of the cup but the inside is filthy.” He desires that change he wouldnt cover it!
 
Gift_from_God said:
I heard someone say that the Bible contradicts itself because it goes from being vengeful to being forgiving. Why is that? Was vengeance once right but Jesus changed the teaching? GAH!!! So confused :confused:

While we’re at it, Gandhi once said, “An eye for an eye makes the world blind.” Would you agree with this statement?
Click to expand...
One distinction that often gets lost in this debate is the fact that “an eye for an eye” refers to a judicial punishment supposed to be imposed by the community for the crime of putting someone else’s eye out. Furthermore, the one who carries out the punishment has not committed a crime; therefore, the supposed chain of eyes being put out ends there.

In contrast, the command to turn the other cheek is in the context of personal insult, not punishing crimes.

Ghandi was wrong. “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” does not make the whole world blind and toothless; it applies only to those who have criminally put out someone else’s eye or knocked out someone else’s tooth.

DaveBj
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top