Did Moses have the "eye for an eye" stuff wrong to begin with? If not why did Jesus contradict it?

[surreal_platypus]

Why did he change it from eye for an eye to turn the other cheek?
Did Moses misinterpret God to begin with and if not why did Jesus change it?

 

[Hammster]

What did Moses mean by “eye for an eye”? Start there.

 

[HTacianas]

Why did he change it from eye for an eye to turn the other cheek?
Did Moses misinterpret God to begin with and if not why did Jesus change it?

The term "eye for eye, tooth for tooth" literally means "dollar for dollar, penny for penny". It's a legality that pertains to civil awards for damages. It simply means if someone harms someone in some way he has to make restitution for it. Paul said as much to the Corinthians:

1Co 6:1 Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unrighteous, and not before the saints?

Paul chastised the Corinthians for going to a court of non-believers to resolve differences among themselves when they should have resolved it in the Church.

Turning the other cheek is a separate matter that more or less governs our personal conduct. If someone insults you don't insult them back.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Turning the other cheek is a separate matter that more or less governs our personal conduct.

That really cannot be. Jesus literally invokes "an eye for an eye" and then replaces it with turning the other cheek.

(Matthew 5)
Eye for Eye
38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

 

[Hammster]

That really cannot be. Jesus literally invokes "an eye for an eye" and then replaces it with turning the other cheek.

(Matthew 5)
Eye for Eye
38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.
— 1 Corinthians 2:14

 

[Friedrich Rubinstein]

When you read the "eye for an eye" passage in Leviticus you will notice that it is talking about jurisdiction. The court is supposed to be absolutely fair and punish a criminal in exactly the same amount that the criminal has harmed another person.

At the time of Jesus this phrase had long been taken out of context already though and people applied it to their personal behaviour. It became a validation for personal revenge instead of being limited to the government only.

Jesus didn't change what Moses said, he only fixed the application by emphasizing the intended meaning of Leviticus 24. The judicial system has the right to repay evil, but you as a civilian do not. You turn the other cheek instead.

 

[zippy2006]

The term "eye for eye, tooth for tooth" literally means "dollar for dollar, penny for penny". It's a legality that pertains to civil awards for damages. It simply means if someone harms someone in some way he has to make restitution for it.

[...]

Turning the other cheek is a separate matter that more or less governs our personal conduct. If someone insults you don't insult them back.

This is the received view, and I believe it is essentially correct. It is possible to probe deeper, but in general, unlike Moses, Jesus was not giving a class on the political order.

 

[dqhall]

Why did he change it from eye for an eye to turn the other cheek?
Did Moses misinterpret God to begin with and if not why did Jesus change it?

The Code of Hammarubi of Babylon was written close to 1800 BC. One of the laws was: “Code 196. If a man put out the eye of another man, his eye shall be put out.”
The Code of Hammurabi

Moses was not the first to write this law.

 

[Ligurian]

Jesus didn't change what Moses said, he only fixed the application by emphasizing the intended meaning of Leviticus 24. The judicial system has the right to repay evil, but you as a civilian do not. You turn the other cheek instead.

Matthew 19:3-8 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting Him, and saying unto Him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? ...[7] They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?[8] He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. (Matthew 5:19-20, Matthew 23:27-28)

Matthew 21:37-39 But last of all He sent unto them His Son saying, They will reverence My Son.[38] But when the husbandmen saw the Son they said among themselves, This is the heir: come, let us kill Him and let us seize on His inheritance.[39] And they caught Him and cast [him] out of the vineyard, and slew [him]. (Deuteronomy 18:18-19, John 12:48-50)

 

[Ligurian]

The Code of Hammarubi of Babylon was written close to 1800 BC. One of the laws was: “Code 196. If a man put out the eye of another man, his eye shall be put out.”
The Code of Hammurabi

Moses was not the first to write this law.

A lot of people seem to think that Hammurabi was Babylonian by birth. He wasn't.
The documents of the Hurrians at Nuzi also "explain" many of the OT laws.
I would love to have access to the burned Libraries at Alexandria...

 

[dqhall]

A lot of people seem to think that Hammurabi was Babylonian by birth. He wasn't.
The documents of the Hurrians at Nuzi also "explain" many of the OT laws.
I would love to have access to the burned Libraries at Alexandria...

Six of the ten commandments were in the Egyptian Book of the Dead as negative confessions one was supposed to make in order to gain life after death.

There is a Sumerian flood story similar to the story of Noah with only a family and some livestock escaping a flood by building a boat.

 

[Ligurian]

Six of the ten commandments were in the Egyptian Book of the Dead as negative confessions one was supposed to make in order to gain life after death.

There is a Sumerian flood story similar to the story of Noah with only a family and some livestock escaping a flood by building a boat.

I have a copy of the Book of the Dead... maybe I should get around to reading it.

People want to think that the flood stories are all legends carried... from a place that had no trees. Archaeology goes looking where they're told to find stuff. They looked for the Hittites, found the invaders of the Hittites in the first layer... and gave the Hittite name to them; and instead of rewriting the history books, they named the Hittites the Hatti. We might want to trust science, but trust no one is a better rule of thumb.

But which part of the world hasn't experienced the destruction of floods? Llyn Llion, the great deep in Welsh, is also the story of the flood. Probably there's flood story in Spain, where the Turdetani had an ancient alphabet even in Strabo's days... and maybe that flood would be of Atlantis.

I don't believe in a word-wide flood. Cain said he'd be driven from the face of the earth, and that wasn't literal. The known-inhabited-world... that makes sense.

 

[dqhall]

I have a copy of the Book of the Dead... maybe I should get around to reading it.

People want to think that the flood stories are all legends carried... from a place that had no trees. Archaeology goes looking where they're told to find stuff. They looked for the Hittites, found the invaders of the Hittites in the first layer... and gave the Hittite name to them; and instead of rewriting the history books, they named the Hittites the Hatti. We might want to trust science, but trust no one is a better rule of thumb.

But which part of the world hasn't experienced the destruction of floods? Llyn Llion, the great deep in Welsh, is also the story of the flood. Probably there's flood story in Spain, where the Turdetani had an ancient alphabet even in Strabo's days... and maybe that flood would be of Atlantis.

I don't believe in a word-wide flood. Cain said he'd be driven from the face of the earth, and that wasn't literal. The known-inhabited-world... that makes sense.

The Hyksos ruled in Egypt and Canaan. The Hyksos had a walled city with stone rampart at Jericho that was destroyed c. 1550 BC close to the time the Egyptians ousted the Hyksos leaders who once ruled the Nile delta region.

Ramesses II of Egypt fought the Hittites at Qadesh in Syria c. 1275 BC. Then the Egyptians controlled fertile parts of Canaan until the time of Ramesses III.

I think the Noah story is useful as it shows God can save people from natural disasters.

 

[Ligurian]

The Hyksos ruled in Egypt and Canaan. The Hyksos had a walled city with stone rampart at Jericho that was destroyed c. 1550 BC close to the time the Egyptians ousted the Hyksos leaders who once ruled the Nile delta region.

Ramesses II of Egypt fought the Hittites at Qadesh in Syria c. 1275 BC. Then the Egyptians controlled fertile parts of Canaan until the time of Ramesses III.

I think the Noah story is useful as it shows God can save people from natural disasters.

Some courageous people even said the Hyksos were Hurrians... aka Horites.
(The ones who want to keep getting published now, quote the party line.)
But the Hivites were called the Achaeans... and there were Gergeshites in the Troad.

 

[pc_76]

The term "eye for eye, tooth for tooth" literally means "dollar for dollar, penny for penny". It's a legality that pertains to civil awards for damages. It simply means if someone harms someone in some way he has to make restitution for it. Paul said as much to the Corinthians:

1Co 6:1 Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unrighteous, and not before the saints?

Paul chastised the Corinthians for going to a court of non-believers to resolve differences among themselves when they should have resolved it in the Church.

Turning the other cheek is a separate matter that more or less governs our personal conduct. If someone insults you don't insult them back.

So turning the other cheek doesn't apply for systemic oppression? I don't mean just insults.

I don't know how much it matters what Christ himself may have originally meant to teach, the ideas were ingrained in the Church for the past centuries or millennia.

 

[FireDragon76]

So turning the other cheek doesn't apply for systemic oppression? I don't mean just insults.

I don't know how much it matters what Christ himself may have originally meant to teach, the ideas were ingrained in the Church for the past centuries or millennia.

"Turning the other cheek" doesn't mean being indifferent to systemic injustice.

 

[Soyeong]

Why did he change it from eye for an eye to turn the other cheek?
Did Moses misinterpret God to begin with and if not why did Jesus change it?

Deuteronomy 5:31, Moses wrote down everything that God commanded without departing from it. In Deuteronomy 4:2, it is a sin to add to or subtract from the law, and Jesus was sinless, so he did not makes changes to it. The issue was that the command an eye for an eye was only given to judges to help ensure fair sentencing where the consequence did not escalate out of proportion to the offense, and vengeance belongs to the Lord, so it was not intended to be used in personal situation to justify people taking vengeance into their own hands. Rather, it personal situations, we are instructed not to repay in kind (Proverbs 24:17-19, Proverbs 25:21-22).

 

[pc_76]

Deuteronomy 5:31, Moses wrote down everything that God commanded without departing from it. In Deuteronomy 4:2, it is a sin to add to or subtract from the law, and Jesus was sinless, so he did not makes changes to it. The issue was that the command an eye for an eye was only given to judges to help ensure fair sentencing where the consequence did not escalate out of proportion to the offense, and vengeance belongs to the Lord, so it was not intended to be used in personal situation to justify people taking vengeance into their own hands. Rather, it personal situations, we are instructed not to repay in kind (Proverbs 24:17-19, Proverbs 25:21-22).

The problem I find with leaving sentencing or punishment in the hands of judges is that it sounds arbitrary. What if all of your so-called "judges" or government was unjust and enabled criminals? I believe everyone should be entitled to take things into their own hands if all other resorts fail.

 

[Whyayeman]

'An eye for an eye' is considered barbaric today. Historically human societies have practised dreadfully cruel punishments - but none have ever been carried out this measure in the literal meaning of Leviticus. Nearly all societies now find this repugnant.

I suggest that a reasonable interpretation of the Matthew quotation reflects the development of humane values in the area of justice. Few murderers are executed for their crime in modern societies because we have increasingly moved away from barbaric punishments.

Most of us are appalled when we hear of the severing of a thief's hand in countries like Saudi Arabia. It does not cut any ice with us that that is the nearest any court gets to Leviticus.