T
TantumErgo90
Guest
When Jesus spoke against the principle “eye for an eye”, was He speaking against making the punishment fit the crime?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
R
Robbinson
Guest
The contrast that is often made is “eye for an eye” v. “turn the other cheek”. I believe Jesus was encouraging us, in our personal relationships with others, to forgive those who sin against us (as the Father forgives us) and to be as charitable as possible with others. This does not mean that as a matter of civil law, we as a society can’t impose obligations of restitution for crimes, etc.When Jesus spoke against the principle “eye for an eye”, was He speaking against making the punishment fit the crime?
Blessings,
Brian
C
Catholic_Dude
Guest
Yes, and revenge against your enemies in general.When Jesus spoke against the principle “eye for an eye”, was He speaking against making the punishment fit the crime?
Also note that eye for eye was not always taken literally, it most often meant various punishments or fines could fit a given offense not necessarily taking out the eye of the guilty party.
M
mark_a
Guest
My understanding is that the OT “eye for an eye” was a commandment of moderation.When Jesus spoke against the principle “eye for an eye”, was He speaking against making the punishment fit the crime?
Without moderation, things could quickly escalate into “a life for an eye”.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
I wouldn’t call it “moderation”. I call it a deterrent. Think about it. If you knew that causing someone injury would resort in incurring the same injury, wouldn’t you think twice?!?My understanding is that the OT “eye for an eye” was a commandment of moderation.
Without moderation, things could quickly escalate into “a life for an eye”.
G
GladCatholic
Guest
Hah! I can’t remember where I just read this, but the gist was “an eye for an eye” was meant to NOT overly-severely punish someone for a crime, for instance, not to execute someone for stealing a loaf of bread, so your response was in line with what I just read (I tend to read pretty orthodox “stuff”).When Jesus spoke against the principle “eye for an eye”, was He speaking against making the punishment fit the crime?
Glad
M
Micholos
Guest
As I see it, like the poster above mentioned, it is not to overpunish the other person.
It is meant for one to give just what a person has been given, not more, not less, a fair exchange. (At least thats what I feel it was meant to be).
When Christ came to this earth, it was no longer necessary, because sins had or were soon to be redeemed unto Him.
The new covenant made us all family, between brothers, the Father should be the one dishing out punishment, lets just try we make amends before He gets back from work, shall we?
Jesus knew that God is the only one who has the right to judge.
Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone.
It is meant for one to give just what a person has been given, not more, not less, a fair exchange. (At least thats what I feel it was meant to be).
When Christ came to this earth, it was no longer necessary, because sins had or were soon to be redeemed unto Him.
The new covenant made us all family, between brothers, the Father should be the one dishing out punishment, lets just try we make amends before He gets back from work, shall we?
Jesus knew that God is the only one who has the right to judge.
Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone.
M
mark_a
Guest
That’s an interesting view from the other side of the fence. And it seems like it should work well.I wouldn’t call it “moderation”. I call it a deterrent. Think about it. If you knew that causing someone injury would resort in incurring the same injury, wouldn’t you think twice?!?
B
bpbasilphx
Guest
The lex talionis (“eye for eye”) was intended to LIMIT revenge, not allow judicial dismemberment. In other words, if you chopped off my hand, I couldn’t kill you in return.
It was always understood among Jews as compensatory damages for suffering, pain, medical costs, and loss of earning ability as a result of the injury.
When Jesus quoted this, He continued, “But I say unto you…” and continued to say we should not seek redress.
It’s on this basis that suffering wrongs gladly is considered a spiritual work of mercy.
It was always understood among Jews as compensatory damages for suffering, pain, medical costs, and loss of earning ability as a result of the injury.
When Jesus quoted this, He continued, “But I say unto you…” and continued to say we should not seek redress.
It’s on this basis that suffering wrongs gladly is considered a spiritual work of mercy.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.