Contradictions?

[SumTinWong]

Exodus 21:23-25 "But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."

Matthew 5:38-39 "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' 39 But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also."

Both commands are from God, at least according to the Bible, and yet they contradict each other. What say you?

 

[Sword-In-Hand]

To me it all has to do with God's new covenant He made. Also, I look at one as being under the Law and the other as being under Grace.

 

[ZiSunka]

Not a contradiction, an update. God allowed an eye for an eye because at the time, it was a very kind way to bring justice on someone. In that culture in that place at that time, "justice" would allowed revenge, so if someone poked out one of your eyes, you were allowed to poke out both of his. God said this was too much and only allowed a punishment that fit the crime, one eye for one eye, not two eyes and an ear.

Now Jesus was saying that God allowed this in the past, but it was not the way he wanted his people to handle things. He was saying that we are not to seek revenge or to take justice into your own hands. He was saying that his people shouldn't even yell at the ones who would attack them, but to patiently allow them to do what they will, because by doing this we are shown to be God's children and to have faith that the living God will do justice.

It was as extremely radical then as it is now. I doubt if you could find ten people here at CF who would not try to explain it away as not meaning what it says. I've even heard pastors say that Jesus was kidding when he made this statement, just to get people's attention so they would listen to the rest of his sermon.

 

[SumTinWong]

Not a contradiction, an update. God allowed an eye for an eye because at the time, it was a very kind way to bring justice on someone. In that culture in that place at that time, "justice" would allowed revenge, so if someone poked out one of your eyes, you were allowed to poke out both of his. God said this was too much and only allowed a punishment that fit the crime, one eye for one eye, not two eyes and an ear.

Did you really mean it when you said that this was a kind way of justice. Obviously it was kinder than poking out two eyes obviously but, there really is no kind way to take an eye out of an unwilling person now is there?

Now Jesus was saying that God allowed this in the past, but it was not the way he wanted his people to handle things.

He didn't just allow it LL He sanctioned it. Exodus 21:1 "Now these are the rules that you shall set before them." Why would God say it is "just" to take an eye for an eye in one period and tell people, not to do it in another?

Quick Question:
Do you think it is possible that the Hebrews then did not get what God was saying right, and Jesus corrected them in this passage?

It was as extremely radical then as it is now. I doubt if you could find ten people here at CF who would not try to explain it away as not meaning what it says. I've even heard pastors say that Jesus was kidding when he made this statement, just to get people's attention so they would listen to the rest of his sermon.

It is very radical, and something that is very hard to live up to I am very sure of that.

 

[ZiSunka]

Did you really mean it when you said that this was a kind way of justice. Obviously it was kinder than poking out two eyes obviously but, there really is no kind way to take an eye out of an unwilling person now is there?

A criminal doesn't have to be willing to take his punishment, does he? Do all people sentenced to prison go willingly??

He didn't just allow it LL He sanctioned it. Exodus 21:1 "Now these are the rules that you shall set before them." Why would God say it is "just" to take an eye for an eye in one period and tell people, not to do it in another?

He sanctioned a system for divorce, too, but Jesus said that it wasn't the way God intended it to be, but he allowed it because he knew their hearts, which I think means that God knew men would kill their wives if he hadn't given them a way to end unhappy marriages without bloodshed.

Quick Question:
Do you think it is possible that the Hebrews then did not get what God was saying right, and Jesus corrected them in this passage?

No, I think God allowed humans to do these things so they would be able to see that the human system of justice doesn't work, so they would seek grace instead of revenge. If I had to poke someone's eye out, I would think of a way to make things right without blood shed. Can you imagine how awful it must be to take a stick and poke someone's eye out while they are being held down screaming in pain? Horrible!

It is very radical, and something that is very hard to live up to I am very sure of that.

Yes, only the regenerate heart who wants to be as loving as God is can do it.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Exodus 21:23-25 "But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."

Matthew 5:38-39 "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' 39 But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also."

Both commands are from God, at least according to the Bible, and yet they contradict each other. What say you?

This standard is found throughout the Torah as just punishment that a fair judge should use in giving out sentences. Here are other locations where similar phrases are made.

Context is important to note in the one you quoted. The previous chapter, Exodus 20 is the ten commandments.

NASB - Exodus 21:1

Now these are the ordinances which you are to set before them:

NASB - Exodus 21:22-25

If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

NASB - Leviticus 17:17-23

If a man takes the life of any human being, he shall surely be put to death. The one who takes the life of an animal shall make it good, life for life. If a man injures his neighbor, just as he has done, so it shall be done to him: fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; just as he has injured a man, so it shall be inflicted on him. Thus the one who kills an animal shall make it good, but the one who kills a man shall be put to death. There shall be one standard for you; it shall be for the stranger as well as the native, for I am the LORD your God

NASB - Deuteronomy 19:15-21

A single witness shall not rise up against a man on account of any iniquity or any sin which he has committed; on the evidence of two or three witnesses a matter shall be confirmed. If a malicious witness rises up against a man to accuse him of wrongdoing, then both the men who have the dispute shall stand before the LORD, before the priests and the judges who will be in office in those days. The judges shall investigate thoroughly, and if the witness is a false witness and he has accused his brother falsely, then you shall do to him just as he had intended to do to his brother. Thus you shall purge the evil from among you. The rest will hear and be afraid, and will never again do such an evil thing among you. Thus you shall not show pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.

The resemblance of these passages to the Hammurabi Code is always an interesting study.

 

[SumTinWong]

By the way I am not trying to pick a fight here, just wanting to have a conversation, because these things bother me at times.

A criminal doesn't have to be willing to take his punishment, does he? Do all people sentenced to prison go willingly??

Forget I said anything about unwilling. Now do you think it really kind to take and eye for an eye? Never mind you answered that later. We are in agreement.

He sanctioned a system for divorce, too, but Jesus said that it wasn't the way God intended it to be, but he allowed it because he knew their hearts, which I think means that God knew men would kill their wives if he hadn't given them a way to end unhappy marriages without bloodshed.

Did he? Matthew 19:3-9 "And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?" 4 He answered, "Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh'? 6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate." 7 They said to him, "Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?" 8 He said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery."

So was it God or Moses who allowed divorce? Even in this case it seems that Jesus was letting them divorce on the occasion of sexual sins.

No, I think God allowed humans to do these things so they would be able to see that the human system of justice doesn't work, so they would seek grace instead of revenge. If I had to poke someone's eye out, I would think of a way to make things right without blood shed. Can you imagine how awful it must be to take a stick and poke someone's eye out while they are being held down screaming in pain? Horrible!

No I can't it is impossible for me to think of.

Yes, only the regenerate heart who wants to be as loving as God is can do it.

Amen

 

[SumTinWong]

This standard is found throughout the Torah as just punishment that a fair judge should use in giving out sentences. Here are other locations where similar phrases are made.

Agreed.

Context is important to note in the one you quoted. The previous chapter, Exodus 20 is the ten commandments.

I agree context is a general rule I follow, but was Jesus following the context?

Exodus 21:22-25 "When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman's husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23 But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."

Now it seems to me that on purpose or by accident men/man were fighting and a woman who was with child were to be struck, and a child were to come out, fines were levied unless there was physical harm I am assuming to the child.

Then fade in to Jesus:
Matthew 5:38-39 "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' 39 But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also."

So what in what context was Jesus speaking here? Was He referring to the preganant woman or all Christians?

The resemblance of these passages to the Hammurabi Code is always an interesting study.

I will take a look at that

 

[Crazy Liz]

The comparison with Hammurabi is important for a couple of reasons. First, a written law code was a way of establishing and publishing the legitimacy of a ruler's authority. The law may never have been followed, but a monument would be set up with the laws written in stone. In this sense, the Decalogue established God's rule, being written in stone. But the rest of the laws became known as the Law of Moses, legitimating his rule, as well.

Second, comparing the Law of Moses with that of Hammurabi, you see quite a different ethos - a much more merciful and egalitarian one than the one established by the written law codes of surrounding nations. For example, whereas Hammurabi's code says if a builder builds a defective house and it falls on the owner and kills him, the builder shall die. If it falls on the owner's son and kills him, the builder's son shall die. Under the Mosaic Law, the death penalty is never imposed on a surrogate - only on the offender himself. Hammurabi's code also provides some physical punishments that exceed the harm done. Under the Mosaic code, the physical punishment cannot exceed the harm done (for injury to another human) and monetary fines are limited to 4 times the actual damages, in the event of intentional wrongs, and equal compensation for negligent wrongs. Also, under the Mosaic code, women, children and slaves have much greater rights and social value than under Hammurabi. One could be punished for killing his own slave. A female slave is automatically promoted to all the rights of a wife if the master or his son has sex with her. Wives cannot be sold as slaves.

These are all examples of ways in which the Mosaic code was more progressive than the codes of the surrounding cultures. If we see a trend in scripture to curb evil by making the laws increasingly merciful, then Jesus' "but I say unto you..." statements can be seen as further progress in the same direction.

He sanctioned a system for divorce, too, but Jesus said that it wasn't the way God intended it to be, but he allowed it because he knew their hearts, which I think means that God knew men would kill their wives if he hadn't given them a way to end unhappy marriages without bloodshed.

Not quite. The divorce laws were not intended to curb murder, but abandonment and slavery. The man could not sell his wife, and he could not abandon her without giving her evidence of her freedom to marry someone else, as well as freedom of self-determination. While a virgin could not marry without her father's consent, a widow or a divorced woman consents to marriage for herself. This can be contrasted with Islamic Sharia, under which a divorced woman or widow becomes the ward of her closest adult male relative. She never has the right to self-determination.

 

[SumTinWong]

The comparison with Hammurabi is important for a couple of reasons. First, a written law code was a way of establishing and publishing the legitimacy of a ruler's authority. The law may never have been followed, but a monument would be set up with the laws written in stone. In this sense, the Decalogue established God's rule, being written in stone. But the rest of the laws became known as the Law of Moses, legitimating his rule, as well.

Second, comparing the Law of Moses with that of Hammurabi, you see quite a different ethos - a much more merciful and egalitarian one than the one established by the written law codes of surrounding nations. For example, whereas Hammurabi's code says if a builder builds a defective house and it falls on the owner and kills him, the builder shall die. If it falls on the owner's son and kills him, the builder's son shall die. Under the Mosaic Law, the death penalty is never imposed on a surrogate - only on the offender himself. Hammurabi's code also provides some physical punishments that exceed the harm done. Under the Mosaic code, the physical punishment cannot exceed the harm done (for injury to another human) and monetary fines are limited to 4 times the actual damages, in the event of intentional wrongs, and equal compensation for negligent wrongs. Also, under the Mosaic code, women, children and slaves have much greater rights and social value than under Hammurabi. One could be punished for killing his own slave. A female slave is automatically promoted to all the rights of a wife if the master or his son has sex with her. Wives cannot be sold as slaves.

That was incredibly interesting, and informative!!!

These are all examples of ways in which the Mosaic code was more progressive than the codes of the surrounding cultures. If we see a trend in scripture to curb evil by making the laws increasingly merciful, then Jesus' "but I say unto you..." statements can be seen as further progress in the same direction.

That makes sense to me. I now see that scripture in another light. Thanks!!!

 

[icxn]

In addition to what Liz said both laws had the same intention, i.e. to minimize crime. So the eye for an eye, etc was a command given not to the victim but to the offender so that through fear of suffering himself he would refrain from inflicting injury on anybody else. On the other hand, in the NT the command to not resist evil was given to the victim so that, through love for our enemy, the proliferation of evil, just or unjust would be minimized. So in effect these commandments are the two faces of the same coin.

 

[daveleau]

Exodus 21:23-25 "But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."

Matthew 5:38-39 "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' 39 But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also."

Both commands are from God, at least according to the Bible, and yet they contradict each other. What say you?

Exodus 21 is talking about the punishment of a person doing harm to an unborn baby. Matthew is talking about a general way of dealing with people from day to day.
Many of the contradictions or prohibitions have to be looked at to see if they are guidance for a governing body/ ruler or if they are guidance for people in general. The Sermon on the Mount was a set of guidelines for the people, while much of the Law was guidance for the judges. The Sermon on the Mount is the way we are to deal with people in the microcosm of our communities. This is often mis-used and applied to larger aspects, such as government, which is not the intent based on the context of the passage. Many of the commands here apply to both, but not all of them.

 

[jcright]

I've come across this one in a study before. Someone had proposed an interesting thought:

If you are slapped on the right cheek, then it is by someone who is left handed. Therefore, turn your check so that the left check is facing. By doing that, they cannot hit your cheek again with the same hand. Therefore, you aren't putting yourself in a position to be slapped again, but actually putting yourself in a position where you can defend yourself. Of course, that works best against people who aren't ambidextrous

 

[Gold Dragon]

Matthew 5:38-39 "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' 39 But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also."

Something else to consider is the structure of the phrase "You have heard that it was said ..... But I say to you ...." that is found throughout this sermon and in other places in the gospels.

Some Jewish scholars point out that this is not about creating/contradicting law but was a common Jewish rabbinical structure in Jesus' day to interpret a deeper meaning behind the law than the commonly understood meaning.

JESUS THROUGH JEWISH EYES: A RABBI EXAMINES THE LIFE AND TEACHINGS OF JESUS

...

Frequently, the formulation "You have heard it said,,..but I say to you...", found in the Sermon on the Mount, is presented as evidence of his opposition to the traditions. Actually, this statement reflects a rabbinic formula used to indicate that a particular interpretation of the Bible may not be valid in the fullest sense. In other words, it implies: "One might hear so and so ... but there is a teaching to say that the words should rather be taken in this sense." In fact, this is a phrase that Rabbi Ishmael—a contemporary of Yeshua and one of the foremost scholars cited in the Talmud—used frequently (cf. Mekilta 3a, 6a, et al.).[46] The point being made by the formula is that to some people Scripture appears to have a certain meaning, but that apparent meaning is an incomplete, or inaccurate understanding. So then the first part of the formulation implies a specific interpretation of Scripture held by some, and is not intended as a quotation of Scripture. As such, this is a rabbinic way of refuting an inaccurate or incomplete understanding.[47]


46. Solomon Schechter in Abrahams, vol. I, p. 16; Solomon Schechter, "Rabbinic Parallels to the Testament," reprinted in JUDAISM AND CHRISTIANITY, Jacob Agus, ed., Arno Press, York, 1973, pp. 427-428.
47. Daube, pp. 55-62; Schechter, "Parallels," pp. 427-428; Finkel, p. 166, note 3.

 

[Andyman_1970]

Exodus 21:23-25 "But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."

Matthew 5:38-39 "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' 39 But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also."

Both commands are from God, at least according to the Bible, and yet they contradict each other. What say you?

I thought I would comment on the OP before I looked at any of the other comments.

First a little background. Jesus was a Jewish rabbi. In the 1st century there were two different types of rabbi’s, Torah teachers (aka Teachers of the Law) and Rabbi’s with S’mikah. Rabbi’s with S’mikah were VERY rare, there were maybe about 10-12 rabbi’s that had S’mikah (authority) in the 1st century (John the Baptist was one). A Torah teacher had to teach and interpret the Torah as the community agreed he would. A Rabbi with S’mikah however, you teach a new interpretation of Torah. A Rabbi’s interpretation of Torah was known as that rabbi’s “yoke” – and Jesus says take my “yoke” upon you it is easy and light………..are the lights on your dashboard blinking yet?

Now to the passage in the OP. Anywhere you see Jesus saying “you have heard it said, but I tell you”, He is teaching a new interpretation of Torah (this is known as rabbinic binding and loosing). So Jesus is not contradicting the Torah, He had authority to teach a new interpretation of Torah.

 

[SumTinWong]

In addition to what Liz said both laws had the same intention, i.e. to minimize crime. So the eye for an eye, etc was a command given not to the victim but to the offender so that through fear of suffering himself he would refrain from inflicting injury on anybody else.

That does make sense but I think, and correct me please if I am wrong, that the law when handed down had to do with ore of an accident rather than a premeditated act. When reading that scripture I get the sense that men were fighting togther and by accident a woman was hit causing her to give birth ...

So you see this as a be careful not to injure anyone else because this could happen to you even if done by accident, right?

On the other hand, in the NT the command to not resist evil was given to the victim so that, through love for our enemy, the proliferation of evil, just or unjust would be minimized. So in effect these commandments are the two faces of the same coin.

I can see that now, thanks for your guidance

 

[SumTinWong]

Exodus 21 is talking about the punishment of a person doing harm to an unborn baby. Matthew is talking about a general way of dealing with people from day to day.

Many of the contradictions or prohibitions have to be looked at to see if they are guidance for a governing body/ ruler or if they are guidance for people in general. The Sermon on the Mount was a set of guidelines for the people, while much of the Law was guidance for the judges. The Sermon on the Mount is the way we are to deal with people in the microcosm of our communities. This is often mis-used and applied to larger aspects, such as government, which is not the intent based on the context of the passage. Many of the commands here apply to both, but not all of them.

So basically the law was set so that people would not break the law. Obviously people still did break the law and Jesus was saying, to those injured, the law says you have the right to do this, but consider this instead, right? Thanks dave.

 

[SumTinWong]

Some Jewish scholars point out that this is not about creating/contradicting law but was a common Jewish rabbinical structure in Jesus' day to interpret a deeper meaning behind the law than the commonly understood meaning.

I see so, this is in effect sort of like Andyman was saying that Jesus was considered a rabbi that could help better understand was was said? It makes sense if that is what you meant Thanks!

 

[SumTinWong]

First a little background. Jesus was a Jewish rabbi. In the 1st century there were two different types of rabbi’s, Torah teachers (aka Teachers of the Law) and Rabbi’s with S’mikah. Rabbi’s with S’mikah were VERY rare, there were maybe about 10-12 rabbi’s that had S’mikah (authority) in the 1st century (John the Baptist was one). A Torah teacher had to teach and interpret the Torah as the community agreed he would. A Rabbi with S’mikah however, you teach a new interpretation of Torah. A Rabbi’s interpretation of Torah was known as that rabbi’s “yoke” – and Jesus says take my “yoke” upon you it is easy and light………..are the lights on your dashboard blinking yet?

I had read the scriptures that referred to Jesus as a rabbi, but never made the connection that you made there. My lights are blinking, and I must explore this more, thank you!

Now to the passage in the OP. Anywhere you see Jesus saying “you have heard it said, but I tell you”, He is teaching a new interpretation of Torah (this is known as rabbinic binding and loosing). So Jesus is not contradicting the Torah, He had authority to teach a new interpretation of Torah.

So when he gave the authority to bind and loose to the disciples was he giving over the authority to teach new interpretations as well? Fascinating discussion.

 

[daveleau]

So basically the law was set so that people would not break the law. Obviously people still did break the law and Jesus was saying, to those injured, the law says you have the right to do this, but consider this instead, right? Thanks dave.

Yes, that's it pretty much. Romans 12:17-18 supports this:
Rom 12:17 Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men.
Rom 12:18 If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.

Live peacably with all men, but if they insist on not living peacably despite your efforts, we are not to be stand by and let them do evil. The Jewish culture spoke in absolutes as a figure of speech. They did not intend that in every single situation that we should turn the other cheek. We are to do so as much as we possibly can.

God bless,
Dave