U
upant
Guest
what do you think? an interesting take and an answer when questioned on it
- Status
G
Gorgias
Guest
Umm… they’re not talking about Jesus’ teachings, but rather, about the Mosaic law, which preceded Jesus’ earthly ministry by about 1500 years…
M
midori
Guest
Do you remember the story of the Rape of Dinah?
So, Dinah was the daughter of Jacob, the same guy whose twelve sons became the basis for the Twelve Tribes of Israel. Shechem was the son of a Canaanite prince. And he raped Dinah one day, and then got his father to go talk to Jacob about the possibility of marrying her. And so Shechem’s father went to Jacob and said, “Hey, your people and my people, we need to start intermarrying, and I’ll give you any amount of money you like.”
But the answer came back from her brothers-- “You can marry her, but we require you, and all the men in your city, to be circumcised, like we are.”
So the men of the city did, because they really wanted to marry into Jacob’s wealth---- and three days later, when all the men were sore and incapacitated from the procedure, Dinah’s brothers went and killed Shechem, killed his father, killed all the males of the city, rescued Dinah, plundered all the houses, and captured all the women and children.
When Jacob reprimanded them and said, “Um, you’re not helping our relationship with our neighbors,” his sons said, “Well, no one treats our sister like that.”
So, that’s an example of how “an eye for an eye” keeps revenge proportional. If you’re wronged, you don’t go and slaughter everyone, enslave their women and children, and plunder their city.
Once people were able to get the “eye for an eye” concept down, we were able to proceed on to “turn the other cheek”. But that took a few thousand years, and we still have trouble with it…
So, Dinah was the daughter of Jacob, the same guy whose twelve sons became the basis for the Twelve Tribes of Israel. Shechem was the son of a Canaanite prince. And he raped Dinah one day, and then got his father to go talk to Jacob about the possibility of marrying her. And so Shechem’s father went to Jacob and said, “Hey, your people and my people, we need to start intermarrying, and I’ll give you any amount of money you like.”
But the answer came back from her brothers-- “You can marry her, but we require you, and all the men in your city, to be circumcised, like we are.”
So the men of the city did, because they really wanted to marry into Jacob’s wealth---- and three days later, when all the men were sore and incapacitated from the procedure, Dinah’s brothers went and killed Shechem, killed his father, killed all the males of the city, rescued Dinah, plundered all the houses, and captured all the women and children.
When Jacob reprimanded them and said, “Um, you’re not helping our relationship with our neighbors,” his sons said, “Well, no one treats our sister like that.”
So, that’s an example of how “an eye for an eye” keeps revenge proportional. If you’re wronged, you don’t go and slaughter everyone, enslave their women and children, and plunder their city.
Once people were able to get the “eye for an eye” concept down, we were able to proceed on to “turn the other cheek”. But that took a few thousand years, and we still have trouble with it…
J
jcrichton
Guest
What seems to be lost is the actual value of deterrence that this law/command demanded.
Jesus turned it into, ‘do onto others as you would have them do onto you.’
Clearly, if a reasonable and sane person knew that he/she would be subjected to the same abuse as he/she dispenses onto others, he/she would reconsider harming his/her neighbor.
Now, has there been any historical discoveries where it has been unearth evidence of a Jewish town where people were suffering from missing limbs or have been found blinded from an eye or have been have their teeth forcefully removed?
It is close to Jesus’ Teaching that it is better for one to enter Heaven with one eye, foot, hand… than to retain his/her whole body and be cast into hell.
Maran atha!
Angel
Jesus turned it into, ‘do onto others as you would have them do onto you.’
Clearly, if a reasonable and sane person knew that he/she would be subjected to the same abuse as he/she dispenses onto others, he/she would reconsider harming his/her neighbor.
Now, has there been any historical discoveries where it has been unearth evidence of a Jewish town where people were suffering from missing limbs or have been found blinded from an eye or have been have their teeth forcefully removed?
It is close to Jesus’ Teaching that it is better for one to enter Heaven with one eye, foot, hand… than to retain his/her whole body and be cast into hell.
Maran atha!
Angel
R
RandomAlias
Guest
The title of the thread is provocative. At first glance I thought it was trolling.
I recall from my children’s history lessons that it was a good thing at the time, since it limited retaliation to proportionate measures. Now, thousands of years later, it should be History, but sadly we still sometimes see worse than an eye for an eye – disproportionate retaliation at the personal level, and at the international level as well.
I recall from my children’s history lessons that it was a good thing at the time, since it limited retaliation to proportionate measures. Now, thousands of years later, it should be History, but sadly we still sometimes see worse than an eye for an eye – disproportionate retaliation at the personal level, and at the international level as well.
Last edited:
J
jcrichton
Guest
That is why God Revealed that His Way is not our ways; we manage to mingle in our passions and lust with everything, even that we claim as “justice.”
That is why Jesus Taught certain mandates/absolutes: ‘unless your justice is greater than the scribes and Pharisees you cannot be My Disciples’ and ‘the greatest of all is Love God above All and your neighbor as yourself–in this the law and prophets are fulfilled.’ (paraphrased)
Maran atha!
Angel
That is why Jesus Taught certain mandates/absolutes: ‘unless your justice is greater than the scribes and Pharisees you cannot be My Disciples’ and ‘the greatest of all is Love God above All and your neighbor as yourself–in this the law and prophets are fulfilled.’ (paraphrased)
Maran atha!
Angel
D
dochawk
Guest
This.
An eye for an eye is not a call for or endorsement of vengeance, but rather a limitation on vengeance.
hawk
M
MaryEstelle2
Guest
The poster did not complete the entire passage. It is “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand…VENGENCE IS MINE SAYETH THE LORD.” The Lord is saying that it is not our privilege to take vengeance. To mete out vengeance requires judgment…good judgment. We often fail to weigh good judgment with justice and or mercy. I have often heard this passage used and usually, it is misused as a justification for the law and morality of the Old Testament which we now have in a sense have a better understanding of.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Pardon? Where do you see that?
I see the Mosaic law prescription “an eye for an eye” in a number of places (Ex 21:23–25; Lv 24:18–21; Dt 19:21), but in none of them does “vengence is mine” occur. In fact, that phrase occurs separately (Dt 32:35).
Would you mind pointing out where you see these two in the same passage?
Thanks!
M
midori
Guest
Ha! What a good catch, @Gorgias 
M
MaryEstelle2
Guest
sorry to get back to this, but I do have other stuff to do. There are about 40-45 references to the Lord’s dominion over vengeance. Not everything is clear-cut or word for word, but look at;
Romans 12;19
Duet.32;25 - 32;35
Hebrews 10:30
There are more. Don’t forget that some are lost in translation and may be cobbled together after a fashion. Also, the King James Version is slightly different. Most references are from the O. T. Peace.
Romans 12;19
Duet.32;25 - 32;35
Hebrews 10:30
There are more. Don’t forget that some are lost in translation and may be cobbled together after a fashion. Also, the King James Version is slightly different. Most references are from the O. T. Peace.
M
midori
Guest
Oh! No one’s arguing that point. Revenge belongs to God, because he’s the only one who can weigh souls properly and do it justly. And because all sin is not just an offense against the person who we wrong, but also is sin against God.
The point that’s being debated was your comment earlier—
The point that’s being debated was your comment earlier—
And it was pointed out that “Vengeance is mine sayeth the Lord” is pulled from Romans 12, and “eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth” is from Exodus. But you’re presenting them as “one entire passage”, which was what was being criticized.
M
MaryEstelle2
Guest
Sorry if I sound confusing. Please read all of Romans 12. Also, I did indicate some of the phrases were sort of cobbled together and some are translations of other translation.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Mary Estelle,
If we’re looking at it in the context of the Mosaic law, wouldn’t we – by definition – only look at the Old Testament, then, and not the New Testament?
What you’re saying, of course, is true – but it’s not relevant in the context of the present discussion… right? So… in the context of the discussion, then “eye for an eye” (which, as it turns out, isn’t about revenge so much as an attempt at justice) is, in fact, more fair than what they had in place before that time!
D
DaveBj
Guest
And Romans 13, which puts the execution of divine wrath in the hands of human officials.
As for the lex talionis itself, people are talking like it was something brand new at Mt Sinai. In fact, it predates the Law of Moses by several centuries, being first stated in the Code of Hammurabi, which dates from the middle of the 18th century B.C.
D
J
jcrichton
Guest
I concur. Often man’s judgment (and justice) is tainted by the lust of the heart/mind. We can see this even in the “supreme” court where people feign ignorance of conception on grounds that we cannot tell that a child is life inside of his/her mom’s womb till he/she is birthed.
We see this in the distribution of wealth, justice, and mercy by both the private and public sectors.
We even see this in the human experience in the family nucleus as a male child is preferred over a female child (or vice versa)… God stated it clearly: ‘My Way is not your way!’
Maran atha!
Angel
Last edited:
- Status