Eye for an eye: A civil statute?

[Robert]

Ellen White states,

• The rule, "Eye for eye, tooth for tooth" (Leviticus 24:20), was a provision in the laws given through Moses; but it was a civil statute. None were justified in avenging themselves.... [MB 70]

This is in response to Christ's admonition:

• You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also....[Matt 5:38,39]

So is Ellen stating that the "governing authorities" have the right to enforce the civil statutes of the O.T. as found in Exodus 21:15-17?

• “And he who strikes his father or his mother shall surely be put to death."

  “And he who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death."

  “And he who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death."

What do you think...should the State have the right to do the above?

[Anders Branderud]

A logical analysis (found here: www.netzarim.co.il) of the earliest manusscripts (including the logical implications of the research by Ben-Gurion Univ. Prof. of Linguistics Elisha Qimron of Dead Sea Scroll 4Q MMT) of “gospel of Matthew”, implies that Ribi Yehoshua was a Perushi (Pharisee). Ribi Yehoshua ha-Mashiakh (the Messiah) from Nazareth was called a Ribi and only the Perushim (Pharisees) had Ribis.

The logical implication of the fact that statements in the gospels contradicts Torah, is that a reconstruction of "Matthew" is needed.

(For words you don't understand please see the above websites; "glossaries")

In the reconstructed teachings Ribi Yehoshua said: “You’ve heard the Oral Law (Shemot 21:24; Va-Yigra 24:20; Devarim 19:21) concering: ‘Eye for eye’ and ‘tooth for tooth’; and I say to you (Tehilim 37:1), ‘Don’t compete with wrong-doers.’ If a man shall strike you on your cheek, extend the other to him. (…)”

From the notes to NHM: [Rib] Yehoshuas teaching here reflects the longstanding conflict between societal law and personal revenge, between a legal system of courts and vigilantism, between a just society and anarchy. ‘Eye for eye’ and ‘tooth for tooth’ - is nothing more and nothing less – than a reference to simple justice. When carried out by the court system in a just manner is no higher goal. When cited as grounds to wreak personal vengeance and vigilantism, it is a perversion of the principle of justice.

Yehoshua teaches two principles here which have been consistently overlooked:

The courts are commanded to dispense justice with rakhamim for the victim (not the predator), and individuals are commanded to dispense rakhamim above justice. (S)he is enjoined to show rakhamim where the predator has made genuine teshuvah (i.e. demonstrated by apology, restitution where possible, and changed behaviour).” (End of quote”)

"Eye for an eye" has always been interpreted and applied by the Bat•ei′ -Din (houses of law)) as monetary compensation.

The Beit Din is the Judaic court, which traces back in an unbroken chain to Mosh•ëh′ at Har Sin•ai′ (Shәm•ot (“Exodus”) ′ 18:19-26; and Dәvâr•im′ (”Deuteronomy”) 16:18; 17:9-13).

Regarding stoning of an obdurate son the Halakhah is explained here: http://bloganders.blogspot.com/2009/12/obdurate-son-jewish-free-rein-versus.html

It is written in Torah, Devarim (“Deuteronomy”) 13:1-6, that it is forbidden to add or remove mitzwot (commandments) from Torah. For example one mitzwah is that one shouldn’t eat pork and another one is that one should celebrate Shabat. According to Torah the person subtracting or adding mitzwot to Torah is a false prophet.

Torah describes the instructions of the Creator, and thus the mitzwot in Torah are the best way to govern a society.

Anders Branderud

[teresaq]

Ellen White states,

• The rule, "Eye for eye, tooth for tooth" (Leviticus 24:20), was a provision in the laws given through Moses; but it was a civil statute. None were justified in avenging themselves.... [MB 70]

What do you think...should the State have the right to do the above?

she states it as past tense, not present,

but i have no doubt that there would be many who would love to reinstate such laws

and especially the "heresy" ones

declare those they disagree with "heretics", as jezebel had done...

and stone them. but that is just based on certain things ive "seen". :)

[teresaq]

From the notes to NHM: [Rib] Yehoshuas teaching here reflects the longstanding conflict between societal law and personal revenge, between a legal system of courts and vigilantism, between a just society and anarchy. ‘Eye for eye’ and ‘tooth for tooth’ - is nothing more and nothing less – than a reference to simple justice. When carried out by the court system in a just manner is no higher goal. When cited as grounds to wreak personal vengeance and vigilantism, it is a perversion of the principle of justice.

Yehoshua teaches two principles here which have been consistently overlooked:

The courts are commanded to dispense justice with rakhamim for the victim (not the predator), and individuals are commanded to dispense rakhamim above justice. (S)he is enjoined to show rakhamim where the predator has made genuine teshuvah (i.e. demonstrated by apology, restitution where possible, and changed behaviour).” (End of quote”)

"Eye for an eye" has always been interpreted and applied by the Bat•ei′ -Din (houses of law)) as monetary compensation.

this is interesting. thank you for sharing it.

in my study of the ot it is pretty much the conclusion i had come to, except for the monetary part.

[oldsailor29]

What is this religion topic doing in town hall.

Eye for an eye is a misinterpretation of God's law. Jesus gave us the correct interpretation, turn the other cheek.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

One only has 4 cheeks..

[BobRyan]

Ellen White states,

• The rule, "Eye for eye, tooth for tooth" (Leviticus 24:20), was a provision in the laws given through Moses; but it was a civil statute. None were justified in avenging themselves.... [MB 70]

This is in response to Christ's admonition:

• You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also....[Matt 5:38,39]

...

“And he who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death."

What do you think...should the State have the right to do the above?

High up on the walls U.S Senate - (Washington D.C) are the side-view frescoes of famous law makers in world history - ringing ceiling near the top of the walls. The face of Moses by contrast is placed in the center of them all, and is a direct front-view of Moses' face.

The explanation for this distinction is given in that while other law makers of world history simply "made up" the laws that they are known for - Moses was "given the law by God".

in the stair well between the house and senate in that same capital building is a large mural painting of the signing of the constitution of the United States and in the foreground of the scene depected are several of the signers gathered around a large open Bible - open to Matthew 5.

There is little doubt that the Bible's Ten Commandments have formed the basis for legal code (as well as other Bible texts).

The correct religious liberty position is that the last 6 commandments may well be legislated in some form (hint that includes the 5th commandment) but not the first 4.

Laws regarding how one is to worship God - are not to be legislated. There is no other restriction nor is there a "Bible is odd" kind of rule that says that earthly governments cannot have laws patterned after the Bible.

in Christ,

Bob