An Eye for an Eye: Bible Error

by JosephAlward 31 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  JosephAlward

  Many months ago I offered the "eye for an eye" conflict as evidence that the Bible cannot be trusted to provide non-contradictory moral guidance. Since that time many new people have joined this forum, so I present this Bible "difficulty" once again:

  Scripture teaches that one should destroy one's enemies, and take an eye for an eye: "Show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot." (Deuteronomy 19:20-22) However, according to the author of the book of Matthew, not only did Jesus not believe in fighting back against one's enemies, he even wanted his disciples to do good to the ones who hurt them:

  "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."(Matthew 5:38-39)

  and

  "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 use you, and persecute you." (Matthew 5:38-44)

  How can the teachings in Deuteronomy and Matthew each be true? On the one hand, one is supposed to show "no pity" in lashing out at those who harm you, but, on the other hand, one is supposed to "do good" to them. These teachings are utterly contradictory. For a those who would argue that the rules laid down by God in the Old Testament became invalid in New Testament times, let us not forget that Paul said that ALL scripture is useful for teaching:

  All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. (2 Timothy 3:16-17)
  
  Evidently Matthew was unaware that Paul thought ALL of scripture (and that would include Deuteronomy) was "useful for teaching," for if he had known that Paul evidently believed that the Deuteronomy teaching that one should fight back against one's enemies, he never would have had Jesus say that one should turn the cheek when one is harmed, and do good to the one who harms you.

  Thus, either Paul was wrong about all scripture being God-breathed and useful, or else Matthew was wrong about what Jesus said. Either way, the Bible is in error. Are there any forum members who will argue why this is not so?

  Joseph F. Alward
  "Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
  http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html
• 

  Yerusalyim

  Joseph,

  Here's my understanding of the issues at hand. Duet 19 is specifically addressing the issue of false witnesses. The basic line of reasoning would be that if someone KNOWINGLY bore false witness that they should receive the punishment that would have been metted out were the accussed party guilty. These lines of eye for eye, tooth for tooth have been seen by Rabbis to be restrictive rather than permissive. i.e. you can do this much, but no more.

  Apparently the common view in Jesus time was that these verses applied to revenge, whereas they actually don't. But even if they did the rabbis have seen and still see these as restrictive. These verses were legal issues, not revenge issues.

  Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy

  There is NO Law that commands hating enemy. Leviticus 19:18 indeed commands one to love neighbor, but no where in scripture is anyone commanded to hate their enemy. Again, the common saying of the day was Love Neighbor and Hate Enemy, Jesus was contradicting this unscriptural portion by ordering those to love enemy, he then illustrates that even "enemies" can also qualify as neighbor in the case of the Good Samaritan.

  Hope that helps.
• 

  JosephAlward

  Yerusalyim wrote:

  Here's my understanding of the issues at hand. Duet 19 is specifically addressing the issue of false witnesses. The basic line of reasoning would be that if someone KNOWINGLY bore false witness that they should receive the punishment that would have been metted out were the accussed party guilty. These lines of eye for eye, tooth for tooth have been seen by Rabbis to be restrictive rather than permissive. i.e. you can do this much, but no more.

  JOE ALWARD

  According to you, the "false witness" law in Deuteronomy 19 says that if a man had intended that you be harmed in some way by his false testimony, then it is your right to demand that he be harmed in that same way. I agree with you, but that does not remove the contradiction between Deuteronomy and Matthew. The author of the book "Matthew" claims that Jesus said that if harm is done to you--such as by someone giving false testimony against you, you should turn the other cheek, and do good for the person. Thus, according to Matthew, Jesus is essentially saying that the law in Deuteronomy 19 should not be followed, that the person bearing false witness should not be punished, but instead should have good things done for him. This doesn't make sense, so either Matthew was wrong about what Jesus said, or else Jesus disavowed scriptural law, and that doesn't make sense, either.

  Joseph F. Alward
  "A Skeptical View of Christianity and the Bible"
  http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html
• 

  Yerusalyim

  Joseph,

  I disagree with your assessment. The Duet 19 verses would be applied in cases brought before the priests, and it would be the priests, not the one agreived, who metted out justice. The Matthew 5 verses were dealing with the situation where by the common man had brought this verse into usage for the purposes of revenge, something it wasn't deigned to do. Jesus is addressing revenge in personal relations, Duet 19 actually applied to "court" cases.
• 

  JosephAlward

  Jerusalyim wrote:

  I disagree with your assessment. The Duet 19 verses would be applied in cases brought before the priests, and it would be the priests, not the one agreived, who metted out justice. The Matthew 5 verses were dealing with the situation where by the common man had brought this verse into usage for the purposes of revenge, something it wasn't deigned to do. Jesus is addressing revenge in personal relations, Duet 19 actually applied to "court" cases.

  JOE ALWARD

  So, do you believe that Matthew wanted us to believe that Jesus was saying, in essence, "Don't punish the transgressor yourself. Let the court do it for you." ??
• 

  Yerusalyim

  I think Matt was trying to bring out what Jesus was, and what Scripture says consistently, a fuller understanding of love thy neighbor is this, in context:

  "You shall not take vengeance or bear any grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself." Lev 19:18

  "Vengeance is mine says the Lord, I shall repay." Duet 32:35

  The Duet 19 verses dealt with "court" matters, Jesus was speaking to revenge issues as outlined above.
• 

  JosephAlward

  JOE ALWARD

  If it's not clear from the "eye for an eye" teaching in Deuteronomy 19 that it's all right for man to lash out against his enemies, then take a look at the story of the Lord obviously approving of King David destroying his enemies:

  David sang to the LORD the words of this song when the LORD delivered him from the hand of all his enemies...I call to the LORD, who is worthy of praise, and I am saved from my enemies..It is God who arms me with strength "I pursued my enemies and crushed them; I did not turn back till they were destroyed. I crushed them completely, and they could not rise; they fell beneath my feet. You armed me with strength for battle; you made my adversaries bow at my feet. You made my enemies turn their backs in flight, and I destroyed my foes. (2 Samuel 22: 1-41)

  This contradicts what the author of the gospel "Matthew" says that Jesus said:

  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." (Matthew 5:38-39)

  and

  "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 use you, and persecute you." (Matthew 5:38-44)

  Thus, 2 Samuel has God approving of David smiting his enemies, but Matthew has Jesus saying that it is not right even to hate your enemies, let alone do harm to them. This is an obvious contradiction. Either the author of 2 Samuel was wrong about what God allowed David to do, or else Matthew was wrong about what Jesus said. Either way, the Bible is in error.

  Joseph F. Alward
  "A Skeptical View of Christianity and the Bible"
  http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

  Edited by - JosephAlward on 10 October 2002 17:13:19

  Edited by - JosephAlward on 10 October 2002 17:14:0

  Edited by - JosephAlward on 10 October 2002 17:23:51

  Edited by - JosephAlward on 10 October 2002 17:43:49
• 

  thinker

  Here's an interesting explaination I heard once concerning "turn the other cheek":

  Most people believe this means to accept violence against you meekly, without returning the violence. It seems that in Jesus' day the custom was that a man slapped another man of equal social status with an open palm (right hand slaps left cheek of victim). However, when a man slapped a man of lower social status he would deliver a backhanded blow (back of right hand contacts right cheek of victim). This is the type of blow a master would give to his servant, for example. Jesus spoke to the lower class mostly, so when Jesus told his listeners "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." (Matthew 5:38-39) what He was saying is this: If your master strikes you as an inferior (on your right cheek) do not strike him back; instead turn your left cheek toward him and challenge him TO TREAT YOU AS AN EQUAL. This is a brilliant way to assert your equality without resorting to violence. A non-violent protest!

  In the old South , southern gentlemen settled their differences with a duel. Imagine that a slave in the old South was hit by his master. Then the slave challenges the master to a duel. If the master refuses he looks like a coward. If he accepts he is admitting the slave is an equal.
• 

  Satanus

  Was jesus excluding the priests from his teaching? Would his followers stop going to the priests for justice?

  SS

  Edited by - saintsatan on 10 October 2002 22:2:33
• 

  plmkrzy

  JosephAlward, gosh you must really hate the bible with all your heart.