![]() In the New Testament, Jesus is speaking not to the nation of Israel with regard to the covenant, but to individuals. Vengeance would most often greatly exceed this standard. The idea was to put the punishment into congruence with the actual offense. "Burn for burn"-not "whole villages aflame". ![]() One eye for one eye-NOT two eyes, one arm and a foot for one eye. The "eye for an eye" seems harsh to many people, but it was actually a law of restraint. ![]() The distinction between the Old Testament and New is that the Old Testament laws were given to the nation of Israel as part of the covenant between God and the people of Israel. What was the genuine opinion of the Lord God in the end? Or did his mind get changed? So it seems the 'an eye for an eye' law was agreed in the Old Testament, but disagreed in the New Testament, a contradiction! Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:īut 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 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. However, things changed in the New Testament: And if mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. In the Old Testament there is a scripture about an eye for an eye law: ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |