Law of Retaliation

[Dima 26]

The relevant passages are Exodus 21:24, 25, Leviticus 24:20, & Deuteronomy 19:21.

The question is whether this was to be understood in its literal sense or as a principle of establishing a fine system that as closely as possible would value the bodily loss in addition to providing for the loss of ones living, or whatever other non-literal method can be offered. I'm especially interested in how those who have a high view of the Mosaic Law and it's importance today understand this, since they are more likely to give a worthy response. (As a sidenote: I don't have any negative connotations towards your endeavor to understand this law correctly; I myself ain't happy with how this law of retaliation has come to denote the Mosaic Law as primitive and vengeful.)

But a fair follow up response one might have, should the literal sense be not necessary, is how exactly this might have look and what system would that be (the one I proposed is mostly mine conjecture). Historical Jewish practices and records would be helpful. We might be able to overlook the passages' stark literal propensity towards a literal sense for now.

 

[daq]

The relevant passages are Exodus 21:24, 25, Leviticus 24:20, & Deuteronomy 19:21.

The question is whether this was to be understood in its literal sense or as a principle of establishing a fine system that as closely as possible would value the bodily loss in addition to providing for the loss of ones living, or whatever other non-literal method can be offered. I'm especially interested in how those who have a high view of the Mosaic Law and it's importance today understand this, since they are more likely to give a worthy response. (As a sidenote: I don't have any negative connotations towards your endeavor to understand this law correctly; I myself ain't happy with how this law of retaliation has come to denote the Mosaic Law as primitive and vengeful.)

But a fair follow up response one might have, should the literal sense be not necessary, is how exactly this might have look and what system would that be (the one I proposed is mostly mine conjecture). Historical Jewish practices and records would be helpful. We might be able to overlook the passages' stark literal propensity towards a literal sense for now.

There is one way to understand this correctly.
First you must believe the following statement to be absolutely true:

Romans 7:14
14 For we know that the Torah is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.

The Torah is spiritual, and we wrestle not against flesh and blood, (Eph 6:10-17), and sin and evil are personified, (re: Rom 7:14-25). There are therefore commandments in the Torah which pertain to our interactions with other human beings, and commandments which pertain to spiritual things, both good and evil, such as sin, evil, and dark forces including the so-called evil inclination, which is essentially the old man natural or carnal minded nature. The old man is palaios anthropos, which tells us that sin and evil are not only personified but sometimes may even be personified as either a man or a woman, (perhaps depending on the temptation, the false prophetess spirit of Jezebel, etc., (Rev 2:20).

What therefore is the Master telling us in the following statement? Is he overturning or setting aside the commandment? Absolutely not: it is rather by the context that those of old time, (Mat 5:21), had misinterpreted and misunderstood the passages in question which you have referenced at the top of your opening post.

Matthew 5:38-42 KJV
38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also.
41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.

Note what he gives for examples: resist not evil, but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.

It is obvious that he is speaking of physical interactions with fellow human beings, friends, neighbors, family, and even anyone who would make himself/herself out to be your enemy, despite the fact that our true enemies are not flesh and blood. Therefore the commandments that deal with interactions between human beings are the ones related to what he says: love your neighbor as yourself, treat others as you would also like to be treated, be angry but let not the sun go down on your anger, you shall not murder-kill, if you forgive men their trespasses then your heavenly Father will forgive your trespasses, and so on and so on.

Therefore the commandment in question from the Torah passages pertains to spiritual dark forces.
From the very same passage-discourse:

Matthew 5:29-30 KJV
29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
30 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

Matthew 18:8-9 KJV
8 Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire.
9 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire.

Back to Romans 7 ~ sin dwells in the flesh, (Rom 7:18), and there is a war in our members, (Mat 5:29-30, Rom 7:14-25), and sin is personified even as a man, the palaios anthropos old man, (nature), which is not flesh and blood.

Zechariah 11:8-11 KJV
8 Three shepherds also I cut off in one month; and my soul lothed them, and their soul also abhorred me.
9 Then said I, I will not feed you: that that dieth, let it die; and that that is to be cut off, let it be cut off; and let the rest eat every one the flesh of another.
10 And I took my staff, even Beauty, and cut it asunder, that I might break my covenant which I had made with all the people.
11 And it was broken in that day: and so the poor of the flock that waited upon me knew that it was the word of the LORD.

Zechariah 11:15-17 KJV
15 And the LORD said unto me, Take unto thee yet the instruments of a foolish shepherd.
16 For, lo, I will raise up a shepherd in the land, which shall not visit those that be cut off, neither shall seek the young one, nor heal that that is broken, nor feed that that standeth still: but he shall eat the flesh of the fat, and tear their claws in pieces.
17 Woe to the idol shepherd that leaveth the flock! the sword shall be upon his arm, and upon his right eye: his arm shall be clean dried up, and his right eye shall be utterly darkened.

The eye is the illuminator-lamp of the body: if therefore your eye be single, your whole body shall be full of light. But if your eye be evil, your whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in you be darkness, how great is that darkness! (Mat 6:22-23). Soul for soul, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot: cut them off before they choke the Seed of the Word from the soil of your heart, (see Mrk 4:18-19).

There is a mountain of evidence more from where these things have come, the scripture: simply believe that the Torah is indeed spiritual, just as Paul states in Rom 7:14, and be mindful of this way of thinking offered here in this post as you prayerfully study the scripture.

 

[St_Worm2]

Exodus 21:24, 25, Leviticus 24:20, & Deuteronomy 19:21. I myself ain't happy with how this law of retaliation has come to denote the Mosaic Law as primitive and vengeful.

Hello Dima 26, these laws were given to the courts as limitations (that they were not allowed to go beyond), ~NOT~ as standards that they were (supposedly) required to mete out in each and every case. Quite frankly, we don't know if the limits of justice that the Law allowed for were ever used by the courts (in ancient Israel) because we have no record of them ever doing do.

The other important thing to remember is that these laws were meant exclusively for the courts, never for individuals outside of the courts.

As a for instance, if you were chopping wood and your axe head flew off, hit someone in the face and they lost their eye, even if the person you hit was some sort of ruler in Israel, "justice" (for the loss of their eye) was "limited" to the loss of your eye (IOW, the Law did not allow for something like capital punishment and/or the surrendering of all of your property instead .. or as well ).

So, the reason that the Mosaic Law is considered to be primitive and vengeful by some (rather than as it really is, merciful and gracious) is due to both the unintentional AND (sadly) the intentional misunderstanding of what it is really saying.

God bless you!!

--David

 

[St_Worm2]

Hello again @Dima 26, here are two articles that you may find interesting, the first addresses the topic of this thread (lex talionis), and the other concerns what the Lord Jesus meant when He spoke of "turning the other cheek". I believe that they also provide help in understanding why these two principles (one OT, one NT) are not opposed/do not contradict one another.

~What does the Bible mean by "an eye for an eye"? | GotQuestions.org (also see: What is the law of retribution? | GotQuestions.org)​

~What did Jesus mean when He instructed us to turn the other cheek? | GotQuestions.org​

--David

 

[Dima 26]

There is one way to understand this correctly.
First you must believe the following statement to be absolutely true:

Romans 7:14
14 For we know that the Torah is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.

The Torah is spiritual, and we wrestle not against flesh and blood, (Eph 6:10-17), and sin and evil are personified, (re: Rom 7:14-25). There are therefore commandments in the Torah which pertain to our interactions with other human beings, and commandments which pertain to spiritual things, both good and evil, such as sin, evil, and dark forces including the so-called evil inclination, which is essentially the old man natural or carnal minded nature. The old man is palaios anthropos, which tells us that sin and evil are not only personified but sometimes may even be personified as either a man or a woman, (perhaps depending on the temptation, the false prophetess spirit of Jezebel, etc., (Rev 2:20).

What therefore is the Master telling us in the following statement? Is he overturning or setting aside the commandment? Absolutely not: it is rather by the context that those of old time, (Mat 5:21), had misinterpreted and misunderstood the passages in question which you have referenced at the top of your opening post.

Matthew 5:38-42 KJV
38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also.
41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.

Note what he gives for examples: resist not evil, but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.

It is obvious that he is speaking of physical interactions with fellow human beings, friends, neighbors, family, and even anyone who would make himself/herself out to be your enemy, despite the fact that our true enemies are not flesh and blood. Therefore the commandments that deal with interactions between human beings are the ones related to what he says: love your neighbor as yourself, treat others as you would also like to be treated, be angry but let not the sun go down on your anger, you shall not murder-kill, if you forgive men their trespasses then your heavenly Father will forgive your trespasses, and so on and so on.

Therefore the commandment in question from the Torah passages pertains to spiritual dark forces.
From the very same passage-discourse:

Matthew 5:29-30 KJV
29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
30 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

Matthew 18:8-9 KJV
8 Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire.
9 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire.

Back to Romans 7 ~ sin dwells in the flesh, (Rom 7:18), and there is a war in our members, (Mat 5:29-30, Rom 7:14-25), and sin is personified even as a man, the palaios anthropos old man, (nature), which is not flesh and blood.

Zechariah 11:8-11 KJV
8 Three shepherds also I cut off in one month; and my soul lothed them, and their soul also abhorred me.
9 Then said I, I will not feed you: that that dieth, let it die; and that that is to be cut off, let it be cut off; and let the rest eat every one the flesh of another.
10 And I took my staff, even Beauty, and cut it asunder, that I might break my covenant which I had made with all the people.
11 And it was broken in that day: and so the poor of the flock that waited upon me knew that it was the word of the LORD.

Zechariah 11:15-17 KJV
15 And the LORD said unto me, Take unto thee yet the instruments of a foolish shepherd.
16 For, lo, I will raise up a shepherd in the land, which shall not visit those that be cut off, neither shall seek the young one, nor heal that that is broken, nor feed that that standeth still: but he shall eat the flesh of the fat, and tear their claws in pieces.
17 Woe to the idol shepherd that leaveth the flock! the sword shall be upon his arm, and upon his right eye: his arm shall be clean dried up, and his right eye shall be utterly darkened.

The eye is the illuminator-lamp of the body: if therefore your eye be single, your whole body shall be full of light. But if your eye be evil, your whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in you be darkness, how great is that darkness! (Mat 6:22-23). Soul for soul, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot: cut them off before they choke the Seed of the Word from the soil of your heart, (see Mrk 4:18-19).

There is a mountain of evidence more from where these things have come, the scripture: simply believe that the Torah is indeed spiritual, just as Paul states in Rom 7:14, and be mindful of this way of thinking offered here in this post as you prayerfully study the scripture.

Hello; I appreciate you taking the time to respond.

I want to say from the start that I agree with God's law (the one giving through Moses) being spiritual, holy, just, and good - them being Paul's own words. This should be hard to deny for anyone, seeing that these highly esteemed Christian tenets: to love the Lord your God with all your heart and your neighbor as yourself, to help and do good to your enemy and him that hates you, to not follow a multitude to do evil or succumb to the majority to pervert judgement, to not raise a false report (gossip implicated), to not bear a grudge against a brother, to not avenge oneself, and to relieve and defend the poor, fatherless, and widow (the weak and disadvantaged), the list being not exhaustive, appear first in the law given by God through Moses. (I do still think, however, that alot of the things were types and shadows of the better things to come that were fulfilled in the maturity in His Son.)

As such, I'm also with you on your second point of certain of the sermon on the mount teachings being radicalized by some due to not considering them as expounding the true meaning of God's eternal law and righteousness but rather as a new teaching meant to overwrite prior teaching, particularly Matthew 5:38-42 per the discussion. I'll consent that His use of strong language can make some of it hard to understand precisely, but with regard to the first part of Him contrasting "not resisting evil" with "eye for an eye", I've come to understand this in fact being a correction of a misconception that would seem not unlikely to occur with something like the law of retaliation. It was likely being used to justify vengeance in some form (being forbidden by God elsewhere in the law). Rather than it remaining as a principle of judgment/justice for cases justifying its application, people probably assumed that personal vengeance can therefore be permissible in some cases - as one might see fit. At the very least, one would think that the wrongdoer is now in debt to him before God and as such he would no longer owe him the treatment that is due to one's neighbor/brother - in this way bearing a grudge and taking vengeance. Of course, the scope of the wrong done is entirely important, but we're talking about personal vengeance and not what qualifies as something that should be brought to judgement; and this is probably because a lot of things aren't practical to bring to court anyways but bitterness and hatred sparing no opportunity to rise up regardless.

But with regard to the actual meaning of how the law of retaliation was to be applied, it sounds like you make it a matter of retaliation against the the body of sin (as Paul once referred to it). I'm not sure that I can see eye to eye on this; perhaps as a secondary application? What I liked about the Mosaic Law was that it is all reaching so as to give a wholesome testimony of truth, righteousness, mercy, judgement, justice, and holiness, and not just personal morality as we're more accustomed to hearing under the new covenant. As such, it gave a good idea of God's high view of justice and judgment, and I think, as seen pretty clearly from the context, that the laws of retaliation fall withing this scope; one such example being life for life in a system that we know had the death penalty. I'm not dispelling with mine original openness (if not desire for) to understand it in an non-literal sense, rather, I just thought the non-literal sense would still fall withing the boundaries of societal principles of court and justice.

On that note however, perhaps I may have misinterpreted some of what you said. If I understand correctly, how would you apply a spiritual sense to some of the other body parts and injuries mentioned there? The eye is more yielding to that sense than some of the others.

 

[Dima 26]

Hello Dima 26, these laws were given to the courts as limitations (that they were not allowed to go beyond), ~NOT~ as standards that they were (supposedly) required to mete out in each and every case. Quite frankly, we don't know if the limits of justice that the Law allowed for were ever used by the courts (in ancient Israel) because we have no record of them ever doing do.

The other important thing to remember is that these laws were meant exclusively for the courts, never for individuals outside of the courts.

As a for instance, if you were chopping wood and your axe head flew off, hit someone in the face and they lost their eye, even if the person you hit was some sort of ruler in Israel, "justice" (for the loss of their eye) was "limited" to the loss of your eye (IOW, the Law did not allow for something like capital punishment and/or the surrendering of all of your property instead .. or as well ).

So, the reason that the Mosaic Law is considered to be primitive and vengeful by some (rather than as it really is, merciful and gracious) is due to both the unintentional AND (sadly) the intentional misunderstanding of what it is really saying.

God bless you!!

--David

Hello,

Yes, certainly the laws served as a limiting factor as well, seeing how cruel and spiteful people could be, as well with this only being in the court of judgment. The one big problem with a literal interpretation, however, is if you actually try to imagine how eye for eye, tooth for a tooth, and so forth down the list, would have been actually applied to the offender... I say this not cause it's not technically "just", but rather seems impractical in its intend in the way injuries happen and how to repay exactly "like for like". If someone doesn't get what I mean, that's because I don't want to get into the details, unless perhaps someone wants me to. Basically, this would seem to be more applicable to the more depraved who intentionally plan to maim someone - which I'd image to be not as common. Note how in Exodus 21:18, 19 nothing is mentioned about the law of retaliation, where one might have thought it should be, although it does in Exodus 21:22-25.

Good point on this may have never even being truly applied in ancient Israel. I myself thought it interesting how nothing of the sort ever seems to be referenced anywhere in example.

I really don't think that this was intended in anyway for truly accidental injuries (fighting I don't believe qualifies as accidental). This is seen from the cities of refuge for the manslayer - answering to life for life.

Blessings

 

[daq]

Hello; I appreciate you taking the time to respond.

I want to say from the start that I agree with God's law (the one giving through Moses) being spiritual, holy, just, and good - them being Paul's own words. This should be hard to deny for anyone, seeing that these highly esteemed Christian tenets: to love the Lord your God with all your heart and your neighbor as yourself, to help and do good to your enemy and him that hates you, to not follow a multitude to do evil or succumb to the majority to pervert judgement, to not raise a false report (gossip implicated), to not bear a grudge against a brother, to not avenge oneself, and to relieve and defend the poor, fatherless, and widow (the weak and disadvantaged), the list being not exhaustive, appear first in the law given by God through Moses. (I do still think, however, that alot of the things were types and shadows of the better things to come that were fulfilled in the maturity in His Son.)

As such, I'm also with you on your second point of certain of the sermon on the mount teachings being radicalized by some due to not considering them as expounding the true meaning of God's eternal law and righteousness but rather as a new teaching meant to overwrite prior teaching, particularly Matthew 5:38-42 per the discussion. I'll consent that His use of strong language can make some of it hard to understand precisely, but with regard to the first part of Him contrasting "not resisting evil" with "eye for an eye", I've come to understand this in fact being a correction of a misconnection that would seem not unlikely to occur with something like the law of the retaliation. It was likely being used to justify vengeance in some form (being forbidden by God elsewhere in the law). Rather than it remaining as a principle of judgment/justice for cases justifying its application, people probably assumed that personal vengeance can therefore be permissible in some cases - as one might see fit. At the very least, one would think that the wrongdoer is now in debt to him before God and as such he would no longer owe him the treatment that is due to one's neighbor/brother - in this way bearing a grudge and taking vengeance. Of course, the scope of the wrong done is entirely important, but we're talking about personal vengeance and not what qualifies as something that should be brought to judgement; and this is probably because a lot of things aren't practical to bring to court anyways but bitterness and hatred sparing no opportunity to rise up regardless.

But with regard to the actual meaning of how the law of retaliation was to be applied, it sounds like you make it a matter of retaliation against the the body of sin (as Paul once referred to it). I'm not sure that I can see eye to eye on this; perhaps as a secondary application? What I liked about the Mosaic Law was that it is all reaching so as to give a wholesome testimony of truth, righteousness, mercy, judgement, justice, and holiness, and not just personal morality as we're more accustomed to hearing under the new covenant. As such, it gave a good idea of God's high view of justice and judgment, and I think, as seen pretty clearly from the context, that the laws of retaliation fall withing this scope; one such example being life for life in a system that we know had the death penalty. I'm not dispelling with mine original openness (if not desire for) to understand it in an non-literal sense, rather, I just thought the non-literal sense would still fall withing the boundaries of societal principles of court and justice.

On that note however, perhaps I may have misinterpreted some of what you said. If I understand correctly, how would you apply a spiritual sense to some of the other body parts and injuries mentioned there? The eye is more yielding to that sense than some of the others.

Let's take another instance of (apparent) retribution, Exodus 32 and the golden calf incident, where immediately following the incident we read the following account concerning how it was dealt with.

Exodus 32:25-29 KJV
25 And when Moses saw that the people were naked; ( for Aaron had made them naked unto their shame among their enemies: )
26 Then Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and said, Who is on the LORD'S side? let him come unto me. And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together unto him.
27 And he said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour.
28 And the children of Levi did according to the word of Moses: and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men.
29 For Moses had said, Consecrate yourselves to day to the LORD, even every man upon his son, and upon his brother; that he may bestow upon you a blessing this day.

The blessing of Mosheh upon the tribe of Levi:

Deuteronomy 33:8-11 KJV
8 And of Levi he said, Let thy Thummim and thy Urim be with thy holy one, whom thou didst prove at Massah, and with whom thou didst strive at the waters of Meribah;
9 Who said unto his father and to his mother, I have not seen him; neither did he acknowledge his brethren, nor knew his own children: for they have observed thy word, and kept thy covenant.
10 They shall teach Jacob thy judgments, and Israel thy law: they shall put incense before thee, and whole burnt sacrifice upon thine altar.
11 Bless, LORD, his substance, and accept the work of his hands: smite through the loins of them that rise against him, and of them that hate him, that they rise not again.

Who are the enemies of the people, (Exo 32:25), before whom the people were made naked?

How is it that the Most High blesses the Levites for physically murdering-killing their fathers, their mothers, their brethren, and their own children, (Dt 33:9)? and from Exo 32:27-29, their brethren, their close associate-companions, their neighbors, and their own sons, (Exo 32:27-29)? How can this be when just before the Exodus 32 passage the commandment "You shall not ratsach", (murder-kill), was just given and even spoken in the hearing of all the people in Exo 20:13?

I answered your post because, by way of your commentary in your opening post, you appear to love the Father and to be seeking the truth. Here is a truth concerning the above: anyone who loves the Father cannot view Exo 32:25-29 as speaking of literal-physical killing: for those who do teach and believe that this passage speaks of physical killing, (not saying you), I would suggest that a review of Rom 2:24 quoting Isa 52:5 (LXX) is in order.

H7523 ratsach = to (literal-physical) murder/kill, (re: Exo 20:13).
H2026 harag = to cut off, (re: Exo 32:27, (especially whenever a sword is mentioned in context)).

The answer to this passage comes once again from the Master who teaches the same:

Matthew 10:34-39 KJV
34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. [Mic 7:5-6 referring to Dt 13:6-11]
37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.
39 He that findeth his life [psuche-soul] shall lose it: and he that loseth his life [psuche-soul] for my sake shall find it.

These members of our households are not physical family members, close associates, or neighbors: they are spiritual evils, for the kingdom of Elohim is within us, (Luke 17:20-21). Anyone who dishonors their own literal-physical father or mother is a transgressor of the Torah, even the Ten, (Exo 20:12).

See also Luke 12:51-53, Luke 14:25-27, and Matthew 16:24-27.

 

[Dima 26]

Let's take another instance of (apparent) retribution, Exodus 32 and the golden calf incident, where immediately following the incident we read the following account concerning how it was dealt with.

Exodus 32:25-29 KJV
25 And when Moses saw that the people were naked; ( for Aaron had made them naked unto their shame among their enemies: )
26 Then Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and said, Who is on the LORD'S side? let him come unto me. And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together unto him.
27 And he said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour.
28 And the children of Levi did according to the word of Moses: and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men.
29 For Moses had said, Consecrate yourselves to day to the LORD, even every man upon his son, and upon his brother; that he may bestow upon you a blessing this day.

The blessing of Mosheh upon the tribe of Levi:

Deuteronomy 33:8-11 KJV
8 And of Levi he said, Let thy Thummim and thy Urim be with thy holy one, whom thou didst prove at Massah, and with whom thou didst strive at the waters of Meribah;
9 Who said unto his father and to his mother, I have not seen him; neither did he acknowledge his brethren, nor knew his own children: for they have observed thy word, and kept thy covenant.
10 They shall teach Jacob thy judgments, and Israel thy law: they shall put incense before thee, and whole burnt sacrifice upon thine altar.
11 Bless, LORD, his substance, and accept the work of his hands: smite through the loins of them that rise against him, and of them that hate him, that they rise not again.

Who are the enemies of the people, (Exo 32:25), before whom the people were made naked?

How is it that the Most High blesses the Levites for physically murdering-killing their fathers, their mothers, their brethren, and their own children, (Dt 33:9)? and from Exo 32:27-29, their brethren, their close associate-companions, their neighbors, and their own sons, (Exo 32:27-29)? How can this be when just before the Exodus 32 passage the commandment "You shall not ratsach", (murder-kill), was just given and even spoken in the hearing of all the people in Exo 20:13?

I answered your post because, by way of your commentary in your opening post, you appear to love the Father and to be seeking the truth. Here is a truth concerning the above: anyone who loves the Father cannot view Exo 32:25-29 as speaking of literal-physical killing: for those who do teach and believe that this passage speaks of physical killing, (not saying you), I would suggest that a review of Rom 2:24 quoting Isa 52:5 (LXX) is in order.

H7523 ratsach = to (literal-physical) murder/kill, (re: Exo 20:13).
H2026 harag = to cut off, (re: Exo 32:27, (especially whenever a sword is mentioned in context)).

The answer to this passage comes once again from the Master who teaches the same:

Matthew 10:34-39 KJV
34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. [Mic 7:5-6 referring to Dt 13:6-11]
37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.
39 He that findeth his life [psuche-soul] shall lose it: and he that loseth his life [psuche-soul] for my sake shall find it.

These members of our households are not physical family members, close associates, or neighbors: they are spiritual evils, for the kingdom of Elohim is within us, (Luke 17:20-21). Anyone who dishonors their own literal-physical father or mother is a transgressor of the Torah, even the Ten, (Exo 20:12).

See also Luke 12:51-53, Luke 14:25-27, and Matthew 16:24-27.

I stayed honest to mine original post in that what I disagreed with you about had not to do with embracing a literal sense - which non-literal sense I'm willing to embrace - but instead had to do with the fact that those law's fall not within the bounds of court, justice, and the retribution of wrong, but as it were, the retaliation against the body of sin. Because of this, the severe example you bring up about the Levites consecrating themselves upon their family and neighbors through the sword as an instance of something that cannot be taken literally isn't directly at odds with what I was speaking of, since I also am attempting to do the same with the law of retaliation. Even still, however, with this instance with the Levites slaying their brethren, I did always understand it literally (which is the traditional view as far as I know), but since it is one of the more severe instances that yields quite well to a spiritual sense (which explanations you provide from Micah and Jesus) I'm willing to change mine view if proven wrong. However, for your part, you except that the Law prescribed the death penalty for certain offenses (not only for murder) in real judicial terms, which in our case would be idolatry and worship of false god(s), right? What about Deuteronomy 13:6-11 and then right after that Deuteronomy 13:12-18? I understand that this is a very high standard for man (in its time) but that's besides the point of this being His commandment - or you also understand this figuratively? What about Numbers 25:1-13, which is also similar to your example but more even handed with slaying particularity those that were joined to Baal-peor. Did Phinehas not really slay the idolatrous man and women? The conquests of Canaan? In what state do you leave the Lord's judicial system for Israel then?

Now I get these are some violent stories of another age but people should be fair to the context the Law was given in and the Law itself if they're going to speak of it so highly today. If you're going to write it all off (the examples given) as spoken figuratively, the burden is on you to demonstrate whatever matrix that is your using and how this is not opening up a can of worms with so many other things in scriptures that might likewise be understood figuratively when convenient for us.