|
|
|
|
|
by ars
2170 days ago
|
|
The meaning for the "eye for an eye" verse is well known, it's talking about proportionality in justice. It's a pretty strange choice to use when talking about "turn the other cheek". > to the legal norms of the time under which feuds and exacting revenge were commonplace. But that's exactly what "eye for an eye" attempts to stop. It's instructing people to seek appropriate justice, and not just attack people who hurt them. Using that verse, rather hurts his message amongst those who understand the verse. But it's a great way to show verses used out of context! > was probably not the first one to use this form of argumentation. He likely imitated other rabbis who had taught him to speak in this way. But they only spoke this way to other Rabbi's, never to people who did not already understand the meaning of the verse. |
|
> It's a pretty strange choice to use when talking about "turn the other cheek".
The phrase "an eye for an eye" puts an upper bound on retributive justice. That is, if you have been fouled, this is the maximum amount of punishment that you are allowed to inflict upon the perpetrator. Don't do as Lamech and kill the one who wounds you because that is not proportional.
Consider the context of Jesus speech. He was speaking to peasants in the Galilee for whom eternal feuds must have been commonplace. They must have been aware of the harmful effects of seeking revenge to everyone involved but unable to put an end to it. That is why one of his examples is a slap. There is and was no legal recourse for slap except for slapping back. Jesus asks his followers to "let it go."