Eye for eye is not what most people think. It actually tempered how the other nations and peoples reacted to an injury. It is meant to levy a punishment that fits the injury. For example, if you stole my cow if not eye for eye I might seek that you be killed. Under eye for eye law, I am entitled to one cow.
[Eye for eye is not what most people think.]
JESUS revised the eye for an eye punishment. Tell THE DONALD. :)
38 “You have heard the law that says the punishment must match the injury: ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.’[o] 39 But I say, do not resist an evil person! If someone slaps you on the right cheek, offer the other cheek also. 40 If you are sued in court and your shirt is taken from you, give your coat, too. 41 If a soldier demands that you carry his gear for a mile,[p] carry it two miles. 42 Give to those who ask, and don’t turn away from those who want to borrow.
I believe under Levitical law you would be entitled to 4 cows. (shall repay fourfold)
That’s right. It was also to prevent clan feuds from going on from one generation to another.
In other words, a very early legal system to settle desputes.
That’s exactly right. It was a loosening of rigid punishments that many religions and cultures imposed at the time.
It’s a way of saying “let the punishment fit the crime.” So for example, a very strict punishment for stealing (imprisonment and disfigurement) was too extreme, and this mandate called for a more fair and just punishment (restitution, a fine, and/or some jail time).
This is very misunderstood in the modern era.
exactly. it’s actually a call for moderation. the alternative to an eye for an eye is death.
A more concise verse would be in Genesis 9:6..
Not quite.
Eye for an eye was only applied in one very special case. You struck a pregnant woman so she went into early labor. If both mother and child were not injured beyond that you had to pay a fine.
If either was injured beyond that then "eye for an eye" kicked in.
In the case of cow stealing, you were entitled to four cows back.