Conflicting messages between God and Jesus?

curious mike said:

Hey guys, I can use some clarity on this please. Far as I am understanding God said "an eye for an eye" while Jesus said "turn the other cheek". God said to avoid strife or not associate yourself with anyone who brings strife into your life while Jesus said to always love and forgive. What gives??

Click to expand...

A very important point to make here is that Jesus is God. Let's take a little journey through the 1st chapter of John:
----------------------------
(John 1:1-3, 14) 1) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2) He was in the beginning with God. 3) All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 14) And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

Who is this Word? We start to find out in the very next verse.

(John 1:15) John bore witness of Him and cried out, saying, “This was He of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me is preferred before me, for He was before me.’”

Then, down in verses 29 & 30, John reveals of whom he is speaking about in verse 15, the same being the Word in verses 1-3 & 14.

(John 1:29-30) 29)The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! 30)This is He of whom I said, ‘After me comes a Man who is preferred before me, for He was before me.’

John bore witness of the Word (v 15). John said Jesus is the one of which he bore witness(vs 29-30). Jesus is the Word.

So,

(John 1:1, 14) 1. In the beginning was (Jesus), and (Jesus) was with God, and (Jesus) was God. 14. And (Jesus) was made flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

Jesus is the Word. The Word is God. Jesus is God.
--------------------------

Concerning the phrases "an eye for an eye" and "turn the other cheek", "an eye for an eye" is referring to the responsibility of the government and "turn the other check" is referring to the responsibility of the individual.

Question: "What does the Bible mean by 'an eye for an eye'?"

Answer: The concept of “an eye for eye,” sometimes called jus talionis or lex talionis, is part of the Mosaic Law used in the Israelites’ justice system. The principle is that the punishment must fit the crime and there should be a just penalty for evil actions: “If there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise” (Exodus 21:23–25). Justice should be equitable; excessive harshness and excessive leniency should be avoided.

We have no indication that the law of “an eye for an eye” was followed literally; there is never a biblical account of an Israelite being maimed as a result of this law. Also, before this particular law was given, God had already established a judicial system to hear cases and determine penalties (Exodus 18:13–26)—a system that would be unnecessary if God had intended a literal “eye for an eye” penalty. Although capital crimes were repaid with execution in ancient Israel, on the basis of multiple witnesses (Deuteronomy 17:6), most other crimes were repaid with payment in goods—if you injured a man’s hand so that he could not work, you compensated that man for his lost wages.

Besides Exodus 21, the law of “an eye for an eye” is mentioned twice in the Old Testament (Leviticus 24:20; Deuteronomy 19:21). Each time, the phrase is used in the context of a case being judged before a civil authority such as a judge. “An eye for an eye” was thus intended to be a guiding principle for lawgivers and judges; it was never to be used to justify vigilantism or settling grievances personally.

In the New Testament, it seems the Pharisees and scribes had taken the “eye for an eye” principle and applied it to everyday personal relationships. They taught that seeking personal revenge was acceptable. If someone punched you, you could punch him back; if someone insulted you, he was fair game for your insults. The religious leaders of Jesus’ day ignored the judicial basis of the giving of that law.

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus counters the common teaching of personal retaliation: “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you . . .” (Matthew 5:38–39). Jesus then proceeds to reveal God’s heart concerning interpersonal relationships: “Do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you” (Matthew 5:39–42).

In giving this “new” command, Jesus is not nullifying the Old Testament law (Matthew 5:17). Rather, He is separating the responsibility of the government (to punish evildoers justly) from the responsibility we all have on a personal level before God to love our enemies. We should not seek retribution for personal slights. We are to ignore personal insults (the meaning of “turn the other cheek”). Christians are to be willing to give more of their material goods, time, and labor than required, even if the demands upon us are unjust. We should loan to those who want to borrow, love our enemies, and pray for those who persecute us (verses 43–48). Enforcing “an eye for an eye” is the magistrate’s job; forgiving our enemies is ours. We see this played out today every time a victim stands up in court to publicly forgive a convicted criminal—the forgiveness is personal and real, but the judge still justly demands that the sentence be carried out.

Jesus’ limiting of the “eye for an eye” principle in no way prohibits self-defense or the forceful protection of the innocent from harm. The actions of duly appointed agents of the government, such as police officers and the military, to protect citizens and preserve the peace are not in question. Jesus’ command to turn the other cheek applies to personal relationships, not judicial policy. The principle of “an eye for an eye” is meant as a judicial policy, not as a rule for interpersonal relationships. The believer in Christ is guided by Jesus’ words to forgive. The Christian is radically different from those who follow the natural inclination to respond in kind.

www.gotquestions.org/eye-for-an-eye.html

There is a difference between the old covenant and the new one.

dreadnought said:

If someone kicks you in the shin every day, all you'll be thinking about is how to get him to stop kicking you in the shin.

Click to expand...

yet jesus tells us to offer the other shin

curious mike said:

Hey guys, I can use some clarity on this please. Far as I am understanding God said "an eye for an eye" while Jesus said "turn the other cheek". God said to avoid strife or not associate yourself with anyone who brings strife into your life while Jesus said to always love and forgive. What gives??

Click to expand...

The Torah was given to Israel for their covenant relationship to God as the covenant people and nation, and many of these commandments were given to prohibit excess and to curb evil (as the one of the chief uses of the Law is to curb evil), as such we find here the command "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" as a limit against retribution; it forbade excess and restricted retribution to limited tit-for-tat compensation. But Jesus teaches us that there is something better. Remember what St. Paul said? That the Law was a tutor? Jesus is the fullness and tells us that eye for an eye isn't enough, but that what is truly right and just is to turn the other cheek in mercy.

Also consider Jesus' words in Matthew 19:8, that Moses permitted divorce on account of hardness of heart. There is a better way, there is a higher way; and that is what Jesus gives us. He says that even to have anger against our brother is to violate the command against murder, to even gaze upon someone else lustfully is to violate the command against adultery. God's Law demands not merely minimal justice, but demands full justice, it demands complete righteousness. Which is also why the Law is incapable of making us righteous or just, but instead the Law condemns us in our sin. It is why our salvation, as sinners, can be found not in works of the law, but only by the grace of God which is for us in Christ Jesus our Lord.

-CryptoLutheran

Jesus is the second Person of the Godhead. Eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth is in regards to a justice system that was being setup. It was in regards to capital punishment. There is no conflict here.

CDF47 said:

Jesus is the second Person of the Godhead. Eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth is in regards to a justice system that was being setup. It was in regards to capital punishment. There is no conflict here.

Click to expand...

The Law doesn't have exceptions it is without mercy and has punishments per transgression. Its clear grace and mercy cam through Jesus not the law.(He came to save prompted by love for the world) The Father sent Jesus. And it was the Father living Him doing His work.

28When Jesus had finished saying these things, the crowds were amazed at his teaching, 29because he taught as one who had authority, and not as their teachers of the law.

The people of the day saw that Jesus interpretation of The Old Testament Living Word, was more accurate and beneficial to them than the Senhedrin, Shiria like court system.

The aspect of an eye for an eye for future generations best served as one to deter people, rather than acting upon it. Like a country who has nukes as a deterant, rather than the intent to use them. An eye for an eye was meant as a deterant, yet it turned out to be a money making pharisee barrister like court system, that God never intended it to be in the first place.

Jesus said it was said by the Living Word that it was a deterant, yet I am telling you to cut your loses and avoid the Sanhedrin, shiria style court system.

The people were amazed, because just like today's people who want retribution through the court system, end up feeding the lawyers and barristers. So Jesus much to the delight of people is instructing them, to not go that route.

The context of why the people responded the way they did is all too telling, in that they were convinced that his instructions were more beneficial than the Pharisees of the law who were sucking them dry through their court systems.

The Times said:

28When Jesus had finished saying these things, the crowds were amazed at his teaching, 29because he taught as one who had authority, and not as their teachers of the law.

The people of the day saw that Jesus interpretation of The Old Testament Living Word, was more accurate and beneficial to them than the Senhedrin, Shiria like court system.

The aspect of an eye for an eye for future generations best served as one to deter people, rather than acting upon it. Like a country who has nukes as a deterant, rather than the intent to use them. An eye for an eye was meant as a deterant, yet it turned out to be a money making pharisee barrister like court system, that God never intended it to be in the first place.

Jesus said it was said by the Living Word that it was a deterant, yet I am telling you to cut your loses and avoid the Sanhedrin, shiria style court system.

The people were amazed, because just like today's people who want retribution through the court system, end up feeding the lawyers and barristers. So Jesus much to the delight of people is instructing them, to not go that route.

The context of why the people responded the way they did is all too telling, in that they were convinced that his instructions were more beneficial than the Pharisees of the law who were sucking them dry through their court systems.

Click to expand...

25“Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to court. Do it while you are still together on the way, or your adversary may hand you over to the judge, and the judge may hand you over to the officer, and you may be thrown into prison. 26Truly I tell you, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny. (Matthew 5:25-26)

Randy777 said:

The Law doesn't have exceptions it is without mercy and has punishments per transgression. Its clear grace and mercy cam through Jesus not the law.(He came to save prompted by love for the world) The Father sent Jesus. And it was the Father living Him doing His work.

Click to expand...

This wasn't a vigilante system. This was the establishment of a civil justice system like we have in government today.

Albeit the Sanhedrin became more like how Sharia justice system is to Islam.

I mostly agree with your friend. Jesus' condemnation was in fact directed primarily at corrupt leaders. He was mostly about reconciliation. But many things people do actually do cause problems for people around them, even if they aren't leaders.

If you are pointing out people's sins because you think it's your duty, I think you're fighting a hopeless battle that is just going to frustrate you and poison your relationships. Jesus did, after all, tell us not to judge. But there are situations where I think it's natural to say something:

* Someone's actions are hurting someone else. If they are both strangers you probably don't have "standing," as the lawyers say, though there are situations serious enough that anyone who sees them is obligated to intervene. But if they are in your family or you're otherwise involved, it's easy to see situations like this where you need to intervene.
* You're a parent or mentor.
* The actions have an effect on you, e.g. they're smoking and you're bothered by the smoke, or you don't like hearing obscenities all the time. In that case it's not "you're a sinner," it's "when you do X it makes life unpleasant for me."

It is very true that Jesus focused on motivations and relationships and not on "sins." Mat 5 is an interesting example of this. He effectively overruled the Torah. In the case of divorce he even said that it wasn't what God originally intended. However his replacement, which focused on motivation and consequences on others rather than rules, actually was a stricter standard than the rules were.

I heard of Richard Rohr the Franciscan on this through Ps Shane Willard. It mentions the right cheek and the left because the Roman in the class system thinking himself superior would use his bottom wiping hand to strike the low class Hebrew. So it challenged him if he turned his left cheek to him after. And under Roman tax law, for the tax paying subject sake, he could only be expected to carry a heavy Roman soldier's kit one mile, before going back to work. So to keep going made problems for the Roman soldier.