Today we continue our study of the “Sermon on the Mount”. What does the Bible phrase "eye for an eye" MEAN? http://andnowyouknowmore.blogspot.com Does this Biblical verse "eye for an eye" mean that we can punish, or take revenge on, someone that has injured us? Some people feel that reciprocity is justified.
Jesus is quoting from this verse from Exodus 21:22.
Exodus 21:24-28 (KJV)
24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
25 Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
26 And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye 's sake.
In these verses God was giving a rule to regulate the decisions of judges. They were to take eye for
…show more content…
Leading up to it, the Bible discusses in verse 22 of chapter 21 the compensation a woman who was pregnant was to receive if she accidentally lost her baby due to men fighting (but she herself was not otherwise harmed). If a woman who is pregnant, however, not only miscarries but is also injured then God states what the punishment should …show more content…
If men strive and strike a pregnant woman, so that there is a miscarriage, and no harm follows, he shall surely be punished, according as the woman 's husband will lay upon him. And he shall pay as the judges determine. 23. And if any injury occurs, then you shall give life for life, 24. Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25. Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe (Exodus 21: 22 - 25, HBFV)
Let us assume for a moment that the literal meaning of the above verses is applied when YOU are the one responsible for someone harming themselves. What should you do if the neighbor 's child climbs your fence around your backyard and accidently drowns in your pool? Would or should you allow your neighbor to take one of YOUR children and drown him or her? What would you do if some financial advice you gave someone (whether as a professional or just a friend) was wrong and caused them to lose money? Would you allow them to withdraw the same amount of the loss from your bank account?
In context, Exodus 21:23 and 24 are NOT laying out a rule that individuals should personally use when they either cause or suffer loss. They delineate a principle on how the nation of Israel (or any government) should administer justice for its people as a whole. In the same chapter, just before the phrase we are studying is used, the Bible states, "Whoever hits his father or his mother is to be put to death" (verse
Much like the laws in the Old Testament, the law is God solving a problem before it occurs (Maxwell, 2010). As Reggie Joiner reminds us: “Relationship comes before rules” (Maxwell, 2010, 176). If a relationship forms, rules are easier to embrace. Rules are a tool to keep the ship and everyone on it going in the same direction. Shared systems of values strengthen partnerships minimizing the possibility of comprise. Values determine our actions. Our conscience can be a fickle thing if not tended to. A good study of 1 Timothy 1:5 will sharpen the cause for keeping the conscience in order and know that a good conscience is the product of a pure heart. Finally, we trust fully in God’s promises to comfort us, but need to share that same comfort through an empowerment to do so from God himself. Kept promises are the glue that holds all the guidelines together and shuttles them into the heart and soul of mankind by building
Although the Hebrews were influenced by many of the laws of their Assyrian, Sumerian, and Babylonian neighbors, all of which forbade abortion, the Hebrew scriptures had no laws forbidding abortion, not a single one. This was chiefly because the Hebrews placed a higher value on women than did their neighbors. There are, however, some references to the termination of pregnancy. Exod. 21:22-25 says that if a pregnant woman has a miscarriage as a result of injuries she receives during a fight between two men, the penalty for the loss of the fetus is a fine; if the woman is killed, the penalty is "life for life." It is obvious from this passage that men whose fighting had caused a woman to miscarry were not regarded as murderers because they had not killed the woman. The woman, undeniably, had greater moral and religious worth than did the fetus, which was nothing more than a worthless glob of tissue, a meaningless, lifeless conglomeration of cells - contrary to antichoice people who consider it "human life."
“Do to others as you would have them do to you (Luke 6:31).” And “Live by the sword, die by the sword (Gospel of Matthew 26:52)”
aim behind it is deemed reasonably immoral. One should then not inflict pain mainly just to
“Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth…” (Exodus 22:16) . In the Code of Hammurabi, it says, “If a man put out the eye of another man, his eye shall be put out” (HC 196) Both are in agreeance that what has been taken, should be given, and what is done, should be done to the other. In many regards, it is to be given back in double or triple fold. “If a man shall deliver unto his neighbour money or stuff to keep, and it be stolen out of the man’s house; if the thief be found, let him pay double,” as said in the law of Moses. (Exodus 22:7) An interesting aspect of the law of Moses are the sacrifices that can be performed to cleanse sins or transgressions. “And he shall put his hand upon the head of the burnt offering; and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him.” (Leviticus 1:4) These can be a mediator in cleansing past wrongs. On the other side, many laws like those listed in the previous paragraph are harsher in the Law of Moses versus Hammurabi’s code while ones like this code, “If any one steal the property of a temple or of the court, he shall be put to death.”(HC 6) In the law of Moses, only the law that though shall not steal along with some sub rules where you pay back are
Is murder ever truly justified? Many people might proclaim the adage, "Two wrongs don't make a right,” while others would argue that the Old Testament Bible states, "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" (Deuteronomy 19:21). Andre Dubus explores this moral dilemma in his short story, Killings. The protagonist, Matt Fowler, a good father and husband, decides to take revenge for his son's murder. Richard Strout is a bad man who murders his soon-to-be ex-wife's lover. These facts are complicated by the complexity of interpersonal relationships when seen through the lens of Matt’s conviction, Strout’s humanity, and ultimately Matt’s personal sacrifice on behalf of his loved ones. Though on the surface this tale might lead someone to think that Dubus is advocating for revenge, a closer look reveals that this a cautionary tale about the true cost of killing another human as readers are shown how completely Matt is altered by taking a life.
Therefore, the Lex Talionis is established. If a person commits a crime, an equivalent punishment is allowed to be executed. The Lex Talionis principle is a technique used to proportionate the punishment of the criminal. This principle is used to protect one’s life, family, and possessions. If a person causes a women a miscarriage, and the baby is harmed, the convict would be judged with the Lex Talionis principle. According to Exodus 21:22-25, the penalty for the baby’s death and the mother’s injury is the offender’s life (ESV). This established fair treatment is a guide for judges to assess the damage that has occurred. This principle signifies the importance of one’s life and how much it is
There are many scriptural references that make the point that the murderer must be punished. Nevertheless, biblical tradition is also replete with reminders that vengeance belongs to the Lord and that he enjoins the qualities of compassion and forgiveness on those believers in the biblical revelation of God. (Amo...
"An eye for an eye", this quote is used often among many diversities of people; however, Edgar Allan Poe took this quote to extremes in his story The Cask of Amontillado. Poe's usage of dramatic and verbal irony, foreshadowing and symbolism brings about a strong tale of revenge. Revenge is a feeling that has the ability to over come a person's grip on reality. The narrator, Montresor feels that he was greatly insulted by the unfortunate Fortunado. For this reason Montresor seeks revengeance on Fortunado for his heinous crime.
Sometimes we can not always give what they deserve but, giving them less than what they deserve is unfair. The bible believes in an eye for an eye. Meaning you can kill someone who has killed. I believe in punishing murders and they should get nothing less than what they deserve, but an eye for an eye, to me, is not always the correct punishment. I am in favor of proportional retributivism because it allows flexibility within a range of murder cases. It would allow a more heinous murderer to receive the death penalty and a less severe murder criminal to receive life in prison without violating
The term “eye for an eye” is derived from the Latin words lex talionis. In the words of Stephen Nathanson it means, “What people deserve as recipients of rewards or punishments is determined what they do as agents.” In my opinion, criminals take life, liberty, peace, goods, in order to reward themselves with undeserved benefits. Deserved punishment protects society. Once a person no longer abides by the laws which govern society, they are no longer entitled to the protection of the laws of society. Meaning, if you choose to break the law and kill a person, you no longer should have the same rights as those who respect law and authority and you are no longer protected under those said rights. There must be dire consequences for heinous crimes. There should be set standards of punishment. We as a society have an obligation to protect and seek justice for those who abide by social order. We must
“Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass” (Samuel 15:3). In this passage of the bible, God gives the order to kill and cause harm to men, women, and essentially any living being. Here harm is seen as acceptable and a reasonable action since God – the all-knowing, higher being, orders humans to kill. Evidently, in this passage, harm is interpreted differently than other times since it is seemed to be justified and wanted by
Forgiveness (Luke 6:37): " Do not judge others, and God will not judge you; do not condemn others, and God will not condemn you; forgive others and God will forgive you." The passage teaches us that we should forgive others and we will be forgiven. We should treat others, as we want to be treated. Jesus never judged or condemned others no matter what they did to him.
The rule of Biblical interpretation that has been broke here is that no doctrine is to entirely be based off one passage of Scripture from the Bible. Along with that no verse or phrase can or should be allowed to have a meaning when isolated that it would not have if it was kept in its original context.