Eye for an eye; tooth for a tooth

[yeshuafreak]

This is one of my early exegesis's. it talks about how Yeshua never meant to go against the "eye for an eye" thing of the old testament:

Eye for an eye; tooth for a tooth... Does thissound like the all-merciful YHVH?

Only through the eyes of Wisdom.

Let me build my case:


Deuteronomy 19:21 (King James Version)

21And thine eye shall not pity; but life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.



Matthew 5:38-39 (KJV)
38Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:

39But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.



These scriptures seem to contradict each other. Theologians have dwelt on it for years. Islam says that this is proof Yeshua's message was distorted by his disciples. Rabbinic Judaism says this is proof for the same thing, or they may say that it is proof that Yeshua controdicted Torah.

But i think i've got it figured out.

When Deuteronomy says 'an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth' the Yisraelits immeadiately assumed it meant that if a person took your tooth, you had to punish him by taking their tooth or the equivilent of that.

But Yeshua had a slightly different teaching.

He said that if a man takes your tooth, let him and dont do anything about it. This does not contradict Torah. What Yeshua was explaining was that Torah was not giving the minimum of what you were to do, but he was giving you the maximum. Torah was limiting the amount of punishment you could put on a person for an evil act. YHVH was giving us limited power to judge, but Yeshua said the most righteous will not judge at all, but let YHVH be the judge.

He goes deeper than that; he told what was the maximum in Torah, now he gets into the minimum. He said that if a man asked for a coat that you should give him two. Giving him one coat is the minimum.

So Yeshua was not contradicting Torah; he clarified its meaning for us.


So, what do you think of my exegesis?



Shalom,
John

[yeshuafreak]

Itiswritten replied to that with:

From what I understand, there is no historical record of the Israealite people ever putting out eyes or teeth because someone else damaged one. For example: if the man sues the company over lost wages it will cost them "an arm and a leg." No one would interpret that statement literally. They would understand that as an expression for severe cost.

As you have pointed out John, the Torah was putting a maximum on damages that one was entitled to collect. If our courts followed Torah they would not award millions of dollars to a lady who burned her leg with hot coffee.

[yeshuafreak]

I later updated the post with this:

i just got another opinion on "trun the other cheek."

my aunt, a pastor for MCC, said that in the culture at that time, it was HIGHLY disrespectful to hit someone with the back of your hand. so Yeshua said that if they did, turn the other cheek- this would force them to hit you with the pront part of the hand. you would be saying, through a humble twist of the face, "i deserve more." (meaning, more than a disrespectful back hand- i deserve your front hand)

this makes for a good drash, but on the peshat it does not make sense, as he is assesing the "eye for an eye" verse.

another interpretation is that Yeshua was simply telling us to forgive, not to sstay defenseless. the most righteous decisions are made in forgiveness. so, when we execute the penalty of the Law, we are not to do it in a cold heart and unforgiving manner.

shalom- john

[Josh]

I like your original explanation.

I don't see Jesus as contradicting the law, but advocating that his followers go beyond it.

In other words, we have a right to justice, but we are called to law down our rights and offer mercy and forgiveness.

[yeshuafreak]

Yes that is my favorite interpretation and most likely seeing as how Yeshua was raised Jewish himself.

shalom