Eye For an Eye/ Turn the Other Cheek

[Guest shiloh357]

Resist in the Greek is Anthistemi and means to stand opposed to.

Evil is Poneros, which is evil in the general sense, evil person is not an accurate translation.

Resist not evil, do not stand opposed to evil........seems like an odd saying and is contradicted by both Paul and James when they say:

Therefore take up the full armor of God so that you will be able to resist in the evil day.

Submit therefore to God. Resist the devil and he will flee from you.

It is not in contradiction when you understand that it is being used in different contexts.

In Matt 5, Jesus is saying not to resist evil in the way that evil was committed against you. You do not strike back at sin by committing another sin of your own. You are not answer a gossip by gossipping about them, for example. He is not saying that you do not have the right to go up to the person gossipping about you and hold them accountable.

Resisting the devil is another matter. Jesus was talking about personal relationships. Paul and James are talking about Spiritual Warfare. We are commanded to stand against the devil. He is our arch enemy. He is the enemy of God and all mankind. When we stand against the devil, we impair his abililty to spread sin, and destruction in the world. Why would we NOT want to resist that? Why would anyone see resisting Satan and thwarting his agenda as undesirable or unChristian? It is the primary duty of EVERY Christian to resist Satan.

You all are giving very thoughtful responses to this verse, it's still a stumbling block to me, as in context it is also alongside other verses such as Love Your Enemies and Bless those Who Persecute You.

It is possible to confront an evil person and do so in love. You can confront an evil doer and bless them as well. In fact when you don't confront evil, it is the same as saying its OK.

[Guest yod]

Often forgiveness of others allows them the grace to overcome perceived offenses. In other words, when someone has done wrong to you (and knows it) they will make excuses as a defensive mechanism of avoiding the confession of wrong doing.

They "justify" sin and expect a harsh response. But if we will show mercy and be gracious, it allows them a chance to see us differently (as a friend instead of an enemy) and then repent. Am I making sense here?

But there are consequences to sin even when we forgive offenses done against us....and God will not be mocked.

We can forgive someone for rape or murder...but that does NOT mean we should let them "get away with it". There is no incentive for them to stop if they are not confronted. Criminal behavior must be dealt with in order to protect the innocent from being harmed. Prosecuting a lawless act is an act of love!

The perpetrator, the victim, and the innocent all need justice on earth.

Praise God!

Through salvation the household of the faithful have escaped justice and entered into mercy....but those outside of faith need to understand justice in order to accept mercy/grace.

[apothanein kerdos]

Resist in the Greek is Anthistemi and means to stand opposed to. 

Evil is Poneros, which is evil in the general sense, evil person is not an accurate translation.

Resist not evil, do not stand opposed to evil........seems like an odd saying and is contradicted by both Paul and James when they say:

Therefore take up the full armor of God so that you will be able to resist in the evil day.

Submit therefore to God. Resist the devil and he will flee from you.

You all are giving very thoughtful responses to this verse, it's still a stumbling block to me, as in context it is also alongside other verses such as Love Your Enemies and  Bless those Who Persecute You.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think you're choosing to ignore the context that Shiloh and Yod have given you...make sure you pay attention to what they're saying.

As for the Greek:

The Greek word used is ponero. While the lexical form is poneros in the sentence it functions as a third person personal pronoun (I think). Thus it is accurate to put "person" after it. In fact, it fits within the context. It has the omega ending on it so to me it seems like this would be the case.

[borntorebel]

Shiloh357 says,

One thing to understand about the "eye for an eye" statement, is that it did not mean that if someone injures you, you get to injure them in like manner. 

It was always understood, even in ancient times, to refer to monetary compensation.  In other words, if you injured another person, you were bound according to Torah, to pay for all the damage that your injury caused.  So, if you damaged someone's property, you payed for the repairs.  If you caused bodily injury, either on purpose or accidentally, you pay for the medical cost, and any lost wages during their rehabilitation.

Let's see what the part of the law that Jesus was referring to says;

"And if a man cause a blemish in his neighbour; as he hath done, so shall it be done to him; Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again...and he that killeth a man, he shall be put to death." Lev. 24:19-21.

It's pretty cut and dry there. If you do something to another person that causes a physical problem, i.e. loosing a tooth, an eye, causes a blemish, the same will be done to him. It doesn't apply to any medical costs, medicine as we know it today wasn't even thought of then. Why do people keep changing what God's word says to satisfy their carnal desires?

Jesus was speaking to misinterpretations and misapplications of the "eye for an eye" commandment by certain religious leaders.  He was speaking against their misuse of the commandment to justify taking revenge (as Yod pointed out).  He never spoke against the Torah itself, only the against the hypocritical ways that it was being emmployed by some of the Pharisees and other religious leaders in Israel during the 1st century.

If this is what Jesus was saying, He would have said it that way. He didn't say "as you have falsely interpreted what is written...", and then quote a false interpretation of God's law, He said, "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time..." and then quotes exactly from scripture. In this part of the beatitudes, Jesus didn't just correct false interpretations, He made the law even more strict.

May God's power and peace be with you,

Ron

[borntorebel]

Shiloh357 says,

1.  We are not to resist evil in the sense that we are to answer one outrage with another.  We are not to take revenge.  That is really all that it can mean.  It does not apply to all evil or every sin committed against us, but rather with trifling injury such as comes from name calling, backbiting, and so on.

Let's look at this passage;

"Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away."

Christ uses several examples here, not just one. 'Resist' in the Greek means to oppose, so it says "oppose not evil". In other words, don't fight against evil. If someone takes you to court, don't get a better lawyer and try to get more from them than they want from you, but rather give them more than they are even asking for. If someone presses you into service and demands that go with them for one mile, do more than that and go with them for two miles. We are to go above and beyond what would be expected. We aren't to return evil for evil, but rather good for evil. Jesus isn't just speaking of "trifling injury" here.

"Ye have heard that it hath been said, 'Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, 'Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully us eyou, and persecute you." Mt. 5:443-44. Sounds like the opposite of the law to me. We are to love our enemies because then we will exemplify the attitude of our Father, who makes the sun to rise and the rain to fall on the evil and the just (v. 45).

Shiloh357 says,

The commandment concerning an eye for an eye was given to the magistrates.

Let's see if that is what God told Moses;

And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, 'Command the CHILDREN of Israel...'" Lev. 24:1.

So we see here that God wanted this spoken to the children of Israel, which means ALL the people of Israel, not just the leaders. Why must you continually change God's word? He doesn't take very kindly to that.

Shiloh357 says,

The Torah and Grace are not opposed to each other, but rather are two wings of the same bird.  You must have Torah, or you have anarchy.  You must also have grace or you have nothing but tyranny.

Again, let's see what God says;

"Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall be no flesh justified in his sight: for by the LAW is the knowledge of sin...Being justified freely (as opposed to not being justified) by his GRACE through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus...Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law." Rom. 3:20, 24, 28. Now the law isn't made void, but rather is established by faith (v.31). The law and grace aren't two wings of the same bird. The law can't justify, grace can. The law did nothing to cleanse our hearts, the grace of God opens the door that our hearts will be cleansed.

May God's peace and power be wth you,

Ron

[Adstar]

Matthew 5:38,39

You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth but I tell you not to resist and evil person.  But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.

How is it that the Scripture "eye for eye, tooth for tooth" which appears three times in the OT  Deut 19:21, Levitcus 24:20 and Exodus 21:24, is interpreted by Jesus to mean Resist not an evil person, turn the other cheek."

Jesus said early in Matthew 5:17,18, 19  "Do not think that I have come to destroy the Law or the Prophets.  I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.  For assuredly I say to you till heaven and earth pass away not one jot or tittle will pass from the law till all is fulfilled.  Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments...........

Surely when people were carrying out the eye for an eye tooth for a tooth judgements they believed that they were being obedient to the commandments in the Book of the Law. 

Why  is Jesus' command to "Resist not an evil person" such a seemingly complete opposite to the Law as it stood?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Before Jesus God required his people to carry out punishment for offenses.

After Jesus God changed not the Law or the punishment but He no longer requires his people to carry out the punishment judgement has passed from us to Him.

All praise the Ancient Of Days

[OneAccord]

I am borrowing this from another thread, this is the best answer I have seen to this query, praise God for being faithful in revealing His heart:

Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away. Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;" Mt. 5:21-22; 27-28; 31-44 KJV.

Now, as Jesus says, under the OT law, you could lust after a woman in your heart and not sin. You could hate your enemies and not sin. You could just give your wife a bill of divorcement to divorce her and not sin. You could be angry with your brother and not sin. You could swear by heaven to show you were truthful and not sin. You could avenge evil with evil, i.e. eye for an eye, and not sin. Now in the NT, Jesus tells us that the new 'spiritual' covenant is even more strict. If you even look at a woman with any amount of lust in your heart, you've sinned. If you hate your enemies, you've sinned. If you are angry with your brother, you've sinned. If you get divorced for any other reason than fornication, you've sinned. The bottom line is, it's all about the heart now. Under the old 'physical' covenant, God couldn't deal with the heart, or spirit. He had to deal with the natural or physical. Now, under the new 'spiritual' covenant, we are held to an even higher standard. Along with that however comes the even greater power of being saved from the bondage of sin. That couldn't happen under the old covenant. If one doesn't lust after another woman/man, they won't commit adultery. If one doesn't hate their enemies, they won't avenge out of a carnal attitude. What we have now is a new thing, the fulfillment of what God prophesied in the OT. What happened in the OT is an ensample (example) for us (2 Ptr. 2:6; 1 Cor. 10:11).

[Guest shiloh357]

Now, as Jesus says, under the OT law, you could lust after a woman in your heart and not sin. You could hate your enemies and not sin. You could just give your wife a bill of divorcement to divorce her and not sin. You could be angry with your brother and not sin. You could swear by heaven to show you were truthful and not sin. You could avenge evil with evil, i.e. eye for an eye, and not sin.

No that is not what Jesus was saying. Jesus, in each of those commandments was addressing how they had been misused and misapplied by 1 century religious leaders.

You could not seek revenge in the OT and be sinless. There is no provision in the Torah for revenge.

You could not "just" divorce your wife. There had to be valid reasons.

You could not be angry with your brother and not sin. The Torah does not say that you can hate your brother and not sin.

You could not lust in heart after a woman and not sin. That is called coveting and was a sin under the OT. Everything that was a sin in the NT, was a sin in the OT.

Now in the NT, Jesus tells us that the new 'spiritual' covenant is even more strict. If you even look at a woman with any amount of lust in your heart, you've sinned. If you hate your enemies, you've sinned. If you are angry with your brother, you've sinned. If you get divorced for any other reason than fornication, you've sinned.

No, Jeus was not making anything more strict. Jesus was restoring the proper understanding of the Torah as it was given at mount Sinai. He was combatting the hypocritical ways that some of the 1 century Rabbis had perverted the commandments.

The bottom line is, it's all about the heart now. Under the old 'physical' covenant, God couldn't deal with the heart, or spirit.

That is absolutely wrong. When Jesus was talking to Nicodemus about being born again, he upbraided Nicodemus for not understanding Him. Jesus fully expected Nicodemus to be able to understand from the Old Testament what being born again meant.

David called on God to create a clean heart and renew a right spirit within Him.

God called on the Israelites to circumcize their hearts. The heart and spirit were very much an issue under the OT. Unless your heart was right, your sacrifice was unacceptable.

Now, under the new 'spiritual' covenant, we are held to an even higher standard.

No, we are held to the original standard given at Sinai that we should have been following all along. The NT retores the standard; it does not create a new one.

That is all I have time to address right now.

[borntorebel]

No that is not what Jesus was saying.  Jesus, in each of those commandments was addressing how they had been misused and misapplied by 1 century religious leaders.

The why didn't He say "you have heard those things your religious leaders teach..."? He didn't, He referred to the sayings of old.

You could not seek revenge in the OT and be sinless. There is no provision in the Torah for revenge.

Then what does eye for eye, tooth for tooth, blemish for blemish mean? That's what Jesus is referring to, ar eyou saying Jesus didn't quite understand what he was saying?

You could not "just" divorce your wife.  There had to be valid reasons.

Let's see what the reasons were;

"When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it came to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement...and if the latter husband hate her..." Deut. 24:1 & 3.

Uncleanness is nakedness. So we see here the two reasons given were that the husband didn't find her to be gracious or favorable because of a problem with her nakedness or if the man just hated her, he could give her a bill of divorcement. Wow, yeah those are really strict reasons for divorcing your wife.

You could not be angry with your brother and not sin.  The Torah does not say that you can hate your brother and not sin.

Can you show me that in scripture? From the OT.

You could not lust in heart after a woman and not sin.  That is called coveting and was a sin under the OT.  Everything that was a sin in the NT, was a sin in the OT.

No it isn't the same thing. I can have lustful thoughts about a woman I see and never want to make her mine. Also, the two original words don't mean the same.

No, Jeus was not making anything more strict.  Jesus was restoring the proper understanding of the Torah as it was given at mount Sinai.  He was combatting the hypocritical ways that some of the 1 century Rabbis had perverted the commandments.

You could hate your enemies under the old covenant, but you can't under the new covenant. You can divorce your wife because you hate her under the old covenant, but only for fornication under the new covenant. Under the old covenant you were ok as long as you didn't have physical sexual relations with a woman, but under the new covenant even if you had a fleeting lustful thought about a woman you had sinned. Under the old covenant if someone caused a blemish or caused you to lose your eye or tooth, you could do the same while under the new covenant if someone hit's you in the face you are commanded to turn the other cheek. Sounds more strict to me.

That is absolutely wrong. When Jesus was talking to Nicodemus about being born again, he upbraided Nicodemus for not understanding Him.  Jesus fully expected Nicodemus to be able to understand from the Old Testament what being born again meant.

Jesus didn't upbraid Nicodemus, he responded to his question. You really should make sure you understand what is being said in scripture before you make such statements.

David called on God to create a clean heart and renew a right spirit within Him.

And you actually think God was going to do that? You really need to study Paul's writing's so you can understand the limitations of the old covenant.

God called on the Israelites to circumcize their hearts. The heart and spirit were very much an issue under the OT. Unless your heart was right, your sacrifice was unacceptable.

We're not talking about the heart being right, we're talking about God being able to change the heart by His spirit. This was made possible by Jesus and all that He did. You're really stretching things here. Do you have scripture to back up your claims? That would really help if you would use scripture. I really have no interest in your opinions, but God's word. Could you please give me scripture references for the claims you are making?

May God's power and peace be with you,

Ron

[Guest shiloh357]

QUOTE

No that is not what Jesus was saying.