You know how some people say the "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" principle is barbaric? Isn't it proof of?

[wakeley58]

It's proof that ancient peoples had harsh laws and punishments.

That's all.

...

[delton]

It's proof that ancient peoples had harsh laws and punishments.

That's all.

...

What happened to turning the other cheek?

[adin55]

It just meant that justice would prevail.

[ruddy]

an eye for an eye leaves the whole world with poor depth perception.

[yago]

How about Live and Let Live !!

[barend31]

Yes, it was originally a LIMITATION on how much retribution could be exacted. And then it was seen as instruction for FINANCIAL COMPENSATION. Someone who injured another person had to compensate that person for loss of income.

An eye('s worth of compensation) for (the loss of) an eye.

Jesus appears to ignore this altogether. Maybe Matthew's Jesus was as lacking in substantial knowledge about Judaism as Matthew was. They both seem to work in superficial readings which miss the heart of the matter.

Matthew does something even stranger in 5:43. “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor[i] and hate your enemy.’ 'Love your neighbour' comes from Leviticus. That's ok. But 'hate your enemy' doesn't. Matthew's Jesus has set up a false 'saying' to knock down.

Why would someone do that?

[slaine]

By Rabbi Shmuley Boteach
I have often heard it said that the God of the Old Testament is vengeful, whereas Jesus’ teachings are more humane; that the Old Testament is about law, whereas the New Testament is about love. There are endless comparisons between the Hebrew Bible’s “eye for an eye” law (which has always been interpreted by the Jews to mean financial compensation rather than an eye itself) and Jesus’ magnanimous philosophy of “turn the other cheek.” It is undeniable that Judaism champions law above love, practice above faith, and religious service above theology and dogma, for which it has paid an enormous price in terms of popularity. Judaism maintains wholeheartedly that love without law is nothing more than meaningless sentimentalism, which will ultimately end in cruelty. As the popular saying goes, “He who is kind to those who are cruel will end up being cruel to those who are kind.”
…”Paul’s excoriation and condemnation of the law has directly influenced millions of people to see only oppression in the Torah.” “Judaism rejects these attacks. Law is the ultimate safeguard for love. The separation of law and religion has proved to be a great calamity for human civilization. First, it means that atrocities can be perpetrated in the name of God and no one can say that religious law forbids it. Furthermore, the Christian rejection of law as a religious discipline would guarantee religion’s divorce from the world and its realities. That religion has lost out to secularism as the mainstream guide to human life is a direct result of the detached role that religion began to play when Christianity abrogated the law. To say that religion cannot be about law is to say that religion is not designed to regulate human life!”
.

[motega]

That's another one of those odd verses in the Bible that makes one think that there could have been influences from other religions of the region.

Of course, what you say is right, it would prevent some overkill, but in what a horrible way! Two men get into a fight, one knocks out the tooth of another in the heat of battle, do we then deliberately knock out his tooth, even though we are not defending ourselves, but merely taking cold revenge?

However, if one thinks of this verse in light of Reincarnation, where souls are made to see the impact of their actions by living it in a different life, then this verse makes sense. It is no longer the villagers who take revenge, but a Divine cycle of greater understanding, bringing a soul into compassion by example.

Could the Hebrews have been influenced by nearby India, where early Aryans had already spoken of such things?

[chiram97]

You're right, Sasi: It isn't barbaric at all. An eye for an eye is an exemplary definition of justice. Whatever the criminal takes from his victim shall be taken from him.

Those who take this principle too literally will imagine cruel or unusual punishments. But in fact, just retribution is determined within the limits of humane and ordinary punishments, typically prison terms.

Jesus began his Sermon on the Mount discussion by saying he would not in any way change the Law of Moses. Thus, as a premise, he affirms an eye for an eye.

What he says is that we have to go beyond a demand for immediate justice in all our personal dealings. We are to suffer evils as long as they are sufferable without demanding retribution. The examples he gives--giving up a coat, carrying a soldier's pack--demonstrate that we are talking about fairly mild affronts. In cases of serious harm, the work of government is to exact a punishment that fits the crime, i.e., an eye for an eye or a tooth for a tooth, figured in humane penalties.

Cheers,
Bruce