Did you read the posts I wrote MM? It took time to write them. I thought both were filled with beautiful thoughts. Do you have any comment on them?

Regarding eye for an eye, Jesus said:



Ellen White comments:



When Jesus said, you have heard it said, eye for eye and tooth for tooth BUT I say unto you, if someone strikes you in the cheek, turn the other cheek, what do you think the purpose of the BUT is? Do you not understand that "eye for eye" is man's way, the justice of man, while "turn the other cheek" "give your shirt as well" "walk the second mile" is God's way, and the justice of God?

Regarding the sabbath provisions, I see this as the same thing as the divorce statute. God's ideal is seen in Jesus Christ. ALL that we can know about God was revealed in Jesus' life and character while here in the flesh, which is to say everything, nothing missing, nothing left out, the whole picture.

What was the principle that Jesus lived His life by? Was it eye for eye? Or was it turn the other cheek?

I say both. He turned the other cheek, and we slapped that one also. Then He put His eye in place of ours.

Arnold, nice comments.

"Eye for eye" means to retaliate. "Eye for eye" was a vast improvement over "life for eye." God limited the retaliation to the wrong that was inflicted. But this was never God's way. God's way was to extend mercy, to forgive, to turn the other cheek, to love the one doing the evil, to return kindness for harshness etc.

TE: Did you read the posts I wrote MM? It took time to write them. I thought both were filled with beautiful thoughts. Do you have any comment on them?

MM: I missed them. Sorry. Yes, beautiful thoughts. I agree Jesus demonstrated wonderful things about our heavenly Father. But I also happen to know He didn't come here in the flesh to judge sinners in accordance with the laws He established in the OT. NOr did He come here in the flesh to reward us according to our words and works. Instead, He came here to show us why and how to love and obey God, and to pay our sin debt of death.

TE: What was the principle that Jesus lived His life by? Was it eye for eye? Or was it turn the other cheek?

MM: He upheld both. Both are right and righteous. But while here in the flesh He did not execute justice in accordance with the laws He Himself established in righteousness. This He will do when He returns.

BTW, you didn't answer the following questions (based on what you've posted I assume your answers are - Yes):

So, you're not excusing God's order to kill the sabbath breaker. Does that mean you agree with it, that it was right for God to order his execution, that it was right not to be merciful and offer him forgiveness?

And, you also agree Jesus did not misrepresent God in the OT. Does that mean you agree with the laws Jesus established in the OT, that you think the "eye for an eye" principle correctly represents the character of God?

TE: Did you read the posts I wrote MM? It took time to write them. I thought both were filled with beautiful thoughts. Do you have any comment on them?

MM: I missed them. Sorry. Yes, beautiful thoughts. I agree Jesus demonstrated wonderful things about our heavenly Father. But I also happen to know He didn't come here in the flesh to judge sinners in accordance with the laws He established in the OT. NOr did He come here in the flesh to reward us according to our words and works. Instead, He came here to show us why and how to love and obey God, and to pay our sin debt of death.

You're omitting the primary reason for Christ's having come, which was neither of these things.

TE: What was the principle that Jesus lived His life by? Was it eye for eye? Or was it turn the other cheek?

MM: He upheld both. Both are right and righteous. But while here in the flesh He did not execute justice in accordance with the laws He Himself established in righteousness. This He will do when He returns.

These are two contrary forms of justice. One is human justice, and the other divine. That they are different, not harmonious systems, is brought out by Jesus' use of the word BUT (not AND, but BUT).

You have heard it said, "eye for eye" and "tooth for tooth" (the ways of human justice) BUT I say unto you, if someone strikes you on the cheek, turn the other cheek,... walk the second mile ... love your enemies .... pray for them that despitefully use you. (the ways of divine justice).

Let's take another look at Sister White's comment:



Why did Ellen White write "BUT it was a civil statute"? Because she was explaining the answer to the implied question of if "eye for eye" is not the way to go, if there is a better way, then why was it given in the first place? The BUT indicates that it is not a divine principle (which she gets to right after this sentence), but a human principle, a "civil statute."

Do you see the two different principles involved, one human and one divine? Do you see how the one system is but a civil statute, whereas the other is a divine principle by which Christ lived His life?

You will find no statement that says of "eye for eye" and "tooth for tooth" that this was a principle by which Christ lived His life. Why not? Because it is not divine justice. It is not a principle of God's kingdom. It is not a part of the divine character.

BTW, you didn't answer the following questions (based on what you've posted I assume your answers are - Yes):

So, you're not excusing God's order to kill the sabbath breaker. Does that mean you agree with it, that it was right for God to order his execution, that it was right not to be merciful and offer him forgiveness?

And, you also agree Jesus did not misrepresent God in the OT. Does that mean you agree with the laws Jesus established in the OT, that you think the "eye for an eye" principle correctly represents the character of God?

I addressed the sabbath commandment in saying that I see it to be the same thing in principle as the commandments relating to divorce. Much of the Mosaic law was an gracious accommodation of the part of God, due to "the hardness of their ("your" orig) hearts".

In now way does the "eye for an eye" principle correctly represent the character of God. The character of God is represented by Jesus Christ, and "eye for an eye" is nowhere to be seen in His life. Instead we read:



What is "this principle"? Not "eye for eye," but the other one, the principle that "eye for eye" was contrasted with.

The logic is easy to follow, MM.

a)Jesus said, you have heard it said, "eye for eye" and "tooth for tooth" BUT I say unto you (the contrasting principle of returning good for evil).

b)EGW points out that "eye for eye" was a civil statute, but Jesus lived His life not according to this principle but rather according to the other principle, the BUT principle, of His statement.

It's as clear as sunlight that these are two competing principles, one of which is human, the other divine.

Actually, the MB 70 quote tells me that it was not retaliation, but a punitive action by the civil govt. And since they were a theocracy, it was God meting out the justice. If so, then "eye for eye" is God's way.

BUT, the people were never placed in the position to make that judgment. "None were justified in avenging themselves," even in the OT.

But what happened? Well, people took it upon themselves to decide when to mete out punishment upon transgressors. They put themselves in the Judge's seat.

So Jesus straightened them out: You like to enforce "eye for eye." Stop it! That's not your job. Your job is to turn the other cheek.

Does that mean that God doesn't do "eye for eye" anymore? He does. In fact, He did "life for eye" - His Son's life for my eye! Here we find justice and mercy kissing.

So again, the God of the OT is the same as the God of the NT. Furthermore, His requirements in the OT were the same as the NT. It's just that we have a hard time meeting what He requires because we like to go our own way, trust our own judgment.

"Eye for eye" is obviously retaliation. What could be a clearer enunciation of the principle of retaliation than this? This isn't to say that retaliation is of necessity bad. Obviously human society could not function if there were no punishment for wrongdoers. But it's not a principle of the divine character. It's a human necessity, or accommodation.



It would be a huge mistake, IMO, to view Israel of the OT as God's ideal. God had to make all sorts of accommodations to deal with a backward, stubborn, people.



The whole point is that "eye for eye" is not a divine principle. This is not divine justice. If I had more time, I could go into more detail regarding this. Maybe later tonight.

If you look through the Old Testament, you will see that justice is viewed as acts of mercy, acts of goodness, such as feeding the hungry, taking care of the widow and the orphan, clothing the naked. Never is violence equated with justice, however, God takes issue with violence on a number of occasions, contrasting it with justice.

In Zechariah 7:9 we read:



Divine justice is administered by way of mercy and compassion, not by eye for eye.

I'm confused why you would classify "life for eye" as "eye for eye." "Life for eye" is not retribution, which is correct. Christ gave Himself for us. He died in our place. God so loved us that He gave His Son. None of these constructions are "eye for eye."



Our judgment is exactly the problem. Human judgment is "eye for eye." God's judgment is "life for eye" as you put it. It is turn the other cheek, walk the second mile, give the shirt off your back, love your enemy, etc. This is exactly the point Ellen White makes when she points out that the Old Testament said these very things.

Justice in the Old Testament is redemptive. It is restorative. It is administered by mercy and compassion.

Tom, neither Jesus nor Sister White abrogated the civil laws Jesus established in the OT. When Jesus ordered Moses to kill the sabbath breaker He was acting in harmony with the character of God. Nothing can be clearer.

Earlier on this thread someone questioned whether God considered us guilty of sinning if we were ignorant of it. Here is the answer: "Though he wist it not, yet is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity."

Leviticus
17And if a soul sin, and commit any of these things which are forbidden to be done by the commandments of the LORD; though he wist it not, yet is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity.

18And he shall bring a ram without blemish out of the flock, with thy estimation, for a trespass offering, unto the priest: and the priest shall make an atonement for him concerning his ignorance wherein he erred and wist it not, and it shall be forgiven him.

19It is a trespass offering: he hath certainly trespassed against the LORD.

This is a red herring.



It's a great pity you feel this way. This is no more an expression of God's character than the permission granted to divorce one's wife was a revelation of God's character. In Malachi, we read that God hates divorce (and anyone who knows God would know this). Why then did "Jesus order Moses" (to put things in your words) to allow divorce? Is this a revelation of God's character as one who divorces?

No, it was because of the hardness of their hearts, as Jesus explained.

God is not a killer! This is not His character. Consider the following:



This goes along with the following: