Thread by @Delafina777

So, the concrete versions of the "OT=bad, NT=good" assumption that I see most often contrasts "an eye for an eye" with "turn the other cheek," and I don't think those are actually as in conflict as people seem to think. (1/x)

That one seems to be the go-to example, both on TV and on the internet, of "OT" vengefulness (or in its softer framing, justice) vs. NT compassion (or mercy).

And it's not surprising that they get juxtaposed, because the NT has Jesus actually setting them in opposition ...maybe.

That is, in Mt 5:38-39, he says:

"You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also."

"An eye for an eye" is often characterized as "retributive justice" (lex talionis) and a lot of slippery slope arguments get made about it, that it will leave "the whole world blind."

The thing is, though, that these legal formulations (they exist in a lot of cultures) are intended to do the *opposite* of creating a perpetual, or even escalating, cycle of violence.

They're a *limiting* principle. They're also an *equality* principle.

The "eye for an eye" formulation says that if someone destroys your eye, you can't kill him in revenge. (Sorry, supervillains!) The *most* that can be done to him is what he did to you.

Moreover, it appears to be an attempt to actually ensure that there's *some* justice for the powerful. Hammurabi's code, which articulates a version of this, mandates maiming for the poor, and fines for the powerful. Not something we find palatable, but...

...it's at least attempting to ensure that the powerful can't just do to the poor as they please, without any consequences.

The Torah version is pretty clearly a direct rebuke to this version, since it specifies that you have the same law for *everyone*, poor or rich. (Sort of--if you're a slave, you get freed, which requires your former master to give you money as well.)

It also took handling these matters out of the hands of individuals and put them in the hands of a justice system.

Moreover, this legal principle very quickly came to mean monetary compensation, and likely *always* meant monetary compensation, not actual maiming. There aren't really procedures for maiming in the Torah, and as the rabbis note, in Leviticus, it's immediately followed by...

...insistence that the law applies equally to everyone. So it can't mean literal maiming, because in that case, it would be redundant if the offender is already blind or toothless.

It's also, in most cases, impossible to exactly replicate the injury--if someone loses a third of their eyesight in one eye, how would you ensure that no more than a third is lost to the offender?

Surrounding cultures with similar formulations also used monetary punishment.

So if there ever was any question that this indicated monetary compensation, by Second Temple times it should have been pretty settled.

(As a side note, if anything, replacing the value of a lost eye might be too lenient. The Torah specifies that if you steal property from another, you pay back, at minimum, twice its value.

For physical injury, which can't be replaced, plus *pain*, it seems like just paying whatever the value of an eye is determined to be, without additional damages, recompense for pain and suffering, etc. is something less than justice.)

But in any case, what we're talking about here is monetary recourse for being injured by another.

So, back to Jesus.

He brings up an eye for an eye, but the examples he gives are... not comparable. The Torah is talking about loss of a body part, and Jesus is talking about a slap.

He doesn't say, "If someone cuts off your hand, offer him the other one."

He's talking here about forgiving *insults,* not removing legal recourse for permanent injury.

He's saying, basically, that you don't need to legislate insults--and probably, living under brutal occupation, don't get shirty with the Romans.

Forgiveness is probably the better part of valor when you're dealing with people who might just murder you if you fight back when they insult you.

It's also notable that he finishes up with a conclusion that *reiterates* the Torah's laws, instead of upending them. Give to the poor and do not refuse to lend to them (Deut 15:8).

I hadn't made the connection, but yes, even "turn the other cheek" is actually a reference to the Tanakh (Lamentations), to what people who are repenting do:

3:30 He giveth his cheek to him that smiteth him:

https://twitter.com/drnelk/status/1454143694731456518

There are people asking about the various theories that this was a form of political protest (e.g. to slap the other cheek one has to do it with an open hand, as to an equal, rather than backhand, as to an inferior), and, well, short subthread:

https://twitter.com/Delafina777/status/1454147028670316549