Eye For an Eye/ Turn the Other Cheek

[Guest yod]

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.

I added some punctuation to that statement, OA. I'm not really sure I follow what you are saying.....but if you are saying what I "think" you are saying it's a bad analogy.

God never required "His people" to carry out punishment. There was a form of civil government which was responsible to make rulings and execute justice. This was never left up to an individual.

The Lord still expects civil authorities to rule justly in defense of the innocent and to rid society of the wicked.

Nothing changed in that regard from before or after the cross.

and rebel....you are looking at Shiloh's statements without understanding the foundation of them. The lectures and "digs" you slip into your remarks at Shiloh are completely unneccesary. I have found Shiloh to be pretty good at explaining hebraic idioms and concepts.

The Lord and His disciples should be understood from the context they lived and the context they spoke to. Their audience was entirely jewish (even Paul went to the jews first in every town he visited - romans 1:16)....and there are some concepts and nuances that do not translate to a Hellenistic (Greek) mindset very well.

On the other hand, I've found lots of hebraic concepts to be completely misunderstood by classic cultural christianity.

As this thread has already shown.

[hmh]

We are to be ambassadors for Christ, not doormats for him. If an ambassador to a country sees or feels a threat, does he just sit back and take it? No. He stands up for what is right. We as a country when we are attacked do we sit back and take it? OH **** NO! As we have seen in the last three years, we get hit, we stomp the tar out of them. What seems to be the prevailing attitude within Christianity is that we are not allowed to speak up or defend our selves, which is farther from the truth. We are to stand up for ourselves. There are times when speaking up and/or doing something may not be profitable, but if you are tuned in with God, you will know when those times occur.

[borntorebel]

shiloh357 says,

That commandment was given to the magistrates and religious leaders.  It was not a commandment that allowed for revenge.  All throughout Jewish history, from the days of Sinai until now, we have always understood that commandment to be a reference to monetary compensation.  If you damage someone's property, then you pay the appropriate cost for the repairs.  If you injure someone physically, then you pay the cost of their recuperation, and any wages lost as a result of the injury.  The "eye for eye" was not an allowance for you to "get someone back."

Sorry, but that is a false statement.

"So Moses went down unto the people and spake unto them..." Ex. 19:25;

And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, 'Command the children of Israel..." Lev. 24:1-2.

It says in both of these instances, before the statements about "eye for an eye, etc.", that the speaker is addressing the people of Israel, not the magistrates.

Where does it say in scripture that instead of "an eye for an eye, or life for life" the person is to pay for their recuperation or loss of wages?

shiloh357 says,

That is my point.  The Torah does not say you can hate your brother.  It makes no such allowance.  It says that you are to love your neighbor as yourself.  In Matt. 5:43, Jesus said, Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love they neighbor and hate thy enemy.  That is not in the OT.  Nowhere does the Torah say that.  That is a Rabbinic edict, not a statement from Scripture.  Jesus is not quoting Scripture, but incorrect rabbinic teachings.  That is why I said earlier that Jesus is addressing the misapplication of Scripture.  Jesus completely agrees with the OT at every point.  It is modern Christians who misunderstand what Jesus is condemning that try to paint Him as antagonistic to the OT.

Thank you shiloh for this correction. I found where Mt. 5:43 isn't an entirely direct quote from the OT law. I did find however that God told the Israelites to hate their enemies, and David, who God called a man after His own heart, said he hated God's enemies (which was anyone opposed to the Israelites). I will to do a more in-dpeth study of this subject. Thanks again for your correction.

shiloh357 says,

You are confusing Rabbinic missapplications of Scripture with Scripture itself.  God did not allow lust to slide in the OT, but changed His mind in the NT.  He did not allow it in one covenant and ban it in another.  Sin is the same no matter which covenant you are talking about.  You have a lot of studying to do.  The above paragraph illustrates that clearly.

Actually the OT law never says anything about lusting, so my statement on that stands.

shiloh357 says,

Yes he did upbraid Nicodemus.  You are forgetting part of their conversation.  In John 3:5-8 Jesus explains to Nicodemus about being born again and what it means.  Nicodemus is still confused in verse 9. In verse 10, Jesus says "Art thou a teacher of Israel and knowest not these things?  Jesus fully expected Nicodemus with is OT education to understand being born again.

Again, shiloh, thank you for your correction about upbraiding. I see now wher eit says that. Whether Jesus expected Him to understand I still am not sure, but Jesus definitely upbraided him. Possibly He was being sarcastic, attackiig the religious leaders pompous attitudes about knowing everything pertaining to God.

shiloh357 says,

God filled people with the Spirit in the OT.

Can you show me what scriptures you're referring to please?

shiloh357 says,

Pauls writings were based on OT understanding.

Sorry, but this is false. What God taught in his epistles was from the spirit of God. He counted all of his Hebraic religious teaching as dung. Everything that he one knew was subjected to the spirit of God for correction. Yes, Paul did refer to OT for his teachings, but it was to support the things God was showing him. Without God revealing His truth's to him, Paul could have taught nothing about the new covenant from the OT scriptures.

shiloh357 says,

The NT is a renewal of the OT, not a replacement of it.

This is also false;

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill." Mt. 5:17.

Fulfill - Strong's #4137 - plergo - from #4134; to make replete, i.e. (lit.) to cram (a net), level up (a hollow), or (fig.) to furnish (or imbue, diffuse or influence), satisfy, execute (an office), finish (a period or task), verify (or coincide with a prediction).

So we can see from this definition, the Greek word used by Jesus came to fill up, level up (replace what was missing), finish what was begun. The OT wasn't renewed by Jesus, or by the teachings He inspired through the holy spirit. It was completed, what was incomplete was now made complete.

"Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law...therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his (God's) sight. But now the righteousness of God WITHOUT the law is manifested..." Rom. 3:19, 20-21;

May Gods peace and power be with you,

Ron

[Guest shiloh357]

shiloh357 says,

QUOTE

That commandment was given to the magistrates and religious leaders.  It was not a commandment that allowed for revenge.  All throughout Jewish history, from the days of Sinai until now, we have always understood that commandment to be a reference to monetary compensation.  If you damage someone's property, then you pay the appropriate cost for the repairs.  If you injure someone physically, then you pay the cost of their recuperation, and any wages lost as a result of the injury.  The "eye for eye" was not an allowance for you to "get someone back."

Sorry, but that is a false statement.

"So Moses went down unto the people and spake unto them..." Ex. 19:25;

And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, 'Command the children of Israel..." Lev. 24:1-2.

It says in both of these instances, before the statements about "eye for an eye, etc.", that the speaker is addressing the people of Israel, not the magistrates.

Where does it say in scripture that instead of "an eye for an eye, or life for life" the person is to pay for their recuperation or loss of wages?

That is how it was always applied. I am not going to go into a long dissertation on Jewish history, but the Jewish people had a lot of common sense, and it was always known to be such. You can check any Jewish commentary.

Also even christian commentators agree with this assessment. I will quote as an example, Albert Barnes: Exo 21:22-25 -

The rule would seem to refer to a case in which the wife of a man interfered in a quarrel. This law,

[other one]

I bet they didn't have any problems with DWI. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'll bet they didn't. However, they had another advantage..... did you ever try and run a donkey into a brick wall or through a crowd. A horse might hurt a crowd, but donkeys are much smarter than a drunk and neither will run into a wall or bridge or another horse if they can help it. I wish my car was so smart..... not that I would drink and drive anyway