The Wisdom of "Eye for an eye" theology

[Ecumenicist]

I submit that the "eye for an eye" law was not meant to represent justice on
behalf of the injured party, for that would seem to endorse vengence or revenge
as a healing practice.

Rather, I submit that the wisdom of "eye for an eye," is from the perspective
of the one who inflicts injury. God has always held humanity accountable for
our actions, especially those which hurt others.

What better way to understand the pain inflicted upon another person than
to experience it yourself.

Eye for an eye, translated into the perspective of the perpetrator, becomes
Christ's golden rule, do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

When asked about the perspective of the injured party, Jesus told us to
forgive, not seek revenge.

The nature of God has never changed. Christ fulfilled the law by drawing
proper focus to the intent, the Spirit, of the law...



Dave Miller

 

[beanieboy]

That makes a lot of sense. I see nothing gained in paying back the person that wronged you.
And from a Buddhist point of view, that person has already set bad karma into motion, which will come back at them in the way that it was taken out on someone.

I believe that karma is less about punishment, and more about learning how to love, learning compassion.

 

[Nineveh]

And from each man, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man.

"Whoever sheds the blood of man,
by man shall his blood be shed;
for in the image of God
has God made man.

I'm glad God is Just and there is no shadow of turning in Him.

 

[Ecumenicist]

And from each man, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man.

"Whoever sheds the blood of man,
by man shall his blood be shed;
for in the image of God
has God made man.

I'm glad God is Just and there is no shadow of turning in Him.

Not sure if you're agreeing or disagreeing, Nin. We know how you feel about
capital punishment, which probably extends to corporal punishment, but the
subject is about NT / OT consistancy in viewing the role of punishment in God's
plan for humanity.

Dave

 

[Nineveh]

God is the same God of both OT and NT, dave.

 

[beanieboy]

So, God is going to kill us all, for killing his son?

 

[Nineveh]

No, bean, you are going to hell for rejecting Christ.

 

[beanieboy]

I submit that the "eye for an eye" law was not meant to represent justice on
behalf of the injured party, for that would seem to endorse vengence or revenge
as a healing practice.

Rather, I submit that the wisdom of "eye for an eye," is from the perspective
of the one who inflicts injury. God has always held humanity accountable for
our actions, especially those which hurt others.

What better way to understand the pain inflicted upon another person than
to experience it yourself.

Eye for an eye, translated into the perspective of the perpetrator, becomes
Christ's golden rule, do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

When asked about the perspective of the injured party, Jesus told us to
forgive, not seek revenge.

The nature of God has never changed. Christ fulfilled the law by drawing
proper focus to the intent, the Spirit, of the law...



Dave Miller

What is your opinion on this, Nin?

 

[Nineveh]

Dave is in need of serious thrological help. What sounds good on the outside of his words usually winds up being extremely debased just underneath.

In this case, justice is restitution for a wrong, not "revenge" and not so the guilty will gain "empathy".

 

[On Fire]

This passage came up in church this past weekend:

Today ‘an eye for an eye’ seems very barbaric, like a form of legalized revenge. But in reality, God gave this rule to the Jews as away to stop the revenge cycle. Before this law, if you poked out someone’s eye, his family might come back later and kill your whole family. This law limited payment to an eye for an eye. It was a good thing. But Jesus took it even further saying,“if someone strikes you on the right cheek”, this would have been an offensive backhanded slap, “Don’t put up a fight to exact revenge or protect your honor. Turn the other cheek.” Jesus was advocating using an unexpected response as a way to disarm your adversary and stop the cycle of violence. This was being a peacemaker. And in vs. 40 when Jesus says, “And if someone wants to sue you and take yourtunic, let him have your cloak as well,” he was again talking about unexpected action that would disarm your adversaries. People only wore two outer articlesof clothing then. Giving up both your tunic and your cloak would have left you practically naked. But according to Jesus, letting others take all you have, even if youare left naked, is worth the personal humiliation if it breaks the cycle ofretribution. Again, this is peacemaking.

 

[Ecumenicist]

This passage came up in church this past weekend:

Today ‘an eye for an eye’ seems very barbaric, like a form of legalized revenge. But in reality, God gave this rule to the Jews as away to stop the revenge cycle. Before this law, if you poked out someone’s eye, his family might come back later and kill your whole family. This law limited payment to an eye for an eye. It was a good thing. But Jesus took it even further saying,“if someone strikes you on the right cheek”, this would have been an offensive backhanded slap, “Don’t put up a fight to exact revenge or protect your honor. Turn the other cheek.” Jesus was advocating using an unexpected response as a way to disarm your adversary and stop the cycle of violence. This was being a peacemaker. And in vs. 40 when Jesus says, “And if someone wants to sue you and take yourtunic, let him have your cloak as well,” he was again talking about unexpected action that would disarm your adversaries. People only wore two outer articlesof clothing then. Giving up both your tunic and your cloak would have left you practically naked. But according to Jesus, letting others take all you have, even if youare left naked, is worth the personal humiliation if it breaks the cycle ofretribution. Again, this is peacemaking.

Amen bro...

This makes perfect sense from the perspective of the victim, but turning the
question around, what do you think Christ would say to a repentent sinner who,
a. stole a coat, or b. struck another person in the face?


Dave

 

[Ecumenicist]

Dave is in need of serious thrological help. What sounds good on the outside of his words usually winds up being extremely debased just underneath.

In this case, justice is restitution for a wrong, not "revenge" and not so the guilty will gain "empathy".

Restitution, revenge, how does losing an eye restore the sight of a victim?

 

[beanieboy]

Amen bro...

This makes perfect sense from the perspective of the victim, but turning the
question around, what do you think Christ would say to a repentent sinner who,
a. stole a coat, or b. struck another person in the face?

Dave

Karma would say that as a greedy, ungenerous person, that you live a life as a poor person, and as I said, learn from the experience. I'm not sure if I agree, but one can apparently reverse their karma by doing good for others. But I don't know. What do you think Christ would say? It seems the, "gee. Sorry or whatever" doesn't seem to be enough.

There is a scene in Crash where a white cop tries to free a woman from her car, and they both realize that he molested her the night before, so she resists. He gets his own karma, and realizes how it effected her.

 

[beanieboy]

Restitution, revenge, how does losing an eye restore the sight of a victim?

When I was a kid, my brother wrecked one of my toys out of anger. He was an angry kid. My father said that I could wreck on of his. He cried and said no. But I didn't see it as making my toy better, and in fact, would make me feel worse, because I would know that I had done something wrong as well.

It's like a man who cheats on his wife.
Does it make it ok for her to cheat on him to get even?

Or are they both hurt either way?

 

[Poly]

When I was a kid, my brother wrecked one of my toys out of anger. He was an angry kid. My father said that I could wreck on of his. He cried and said no. But I didn't see it as making my toy better, and in fact, would make me feel worse, because I would know that I had done something wrong as well.

Anybody ever noticed how beanie is always bragging about the good that he did/does?

 

[Nineveh]

Like I said, dave, you need some serious theological help. Do you realize you are advocting maiming people in the name of God for the sake of empathy? Probably. I'll just chalk this right up there with defining sin apart from God's standard and putting yourself in the position to forgive God, oh yeah, and God sins.

 

[wickwoman]

I have a bumper sticker by Ghandi on my car that says "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." Of course, it only makes everyone half blind, but anyway, it's catchy. But maybe it's time to get a new sticker since this makes sense to me Dave. And I liked on Fire's commentary too. It does put it into perspective.

Proverbs 26:27 (New International Version)

27 If a man digs a pit, he will fall into it;
if a man rolls a stone, it will roll back on him.

It doesn't say, someone will push him into the pit or someone will roll a stone over him. So it could be "the equal and opposite reaction" is what the "eye for an eye" scripture is referring to. And not a separate party executing judgment.

But, considering that, why God's need for a human sacrifice as repayment for our sin?

 

[On Fire]

Amen bro...

This makes perfect sense from the perspective of the victim, but turning the
question around, what do you think Christ would say to a repentent sinner who,
a. stole a coat, or b. struck another person in the face?


Dave

Not sure what you're getting at.

He would say "Why do you do the things I ask you not to do? Never mind - rhetorical question."

 

[On Fire]

Do you realize you are advocting maiming people in the name of God for the sake of empathy?

Did I miss something? Where did he say that?!

 

[beanieboy]

Anybody ever noticed how beanie is always bragging about the good that he did/does?

Actually, that has always been my nature.
I don't think I am all that good, really.
I'm just bad at being mean.

Do you feel any real satisfaction from revenge?
I never have. It never seems to be enough.
What you want is for things to be the way they were before it happened, and you can't get that back. You want to make the other person understand and feel what you feel, but that doesn't bring anything back.

If you burned my only baby picture, burning yours isn't going to make me feel better.
It's lost, and that will hurt even if I burn all of yours, and worse, I will feel bad, you will feel bad...

It serves no purpose. I don't have the picture no matter what I do, so it is better to simply face that, explain how that made me feel, and move on.