Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The phrase "an eye for an eye makes the (whole) world blind" and other similar phrases has been conveyed by, but not limited to George Perry Graham (1914) on capital punishment debate argument, [38] Louis Fischer (1951) describing philosophy of Mahatma Gandhi, [39] and Martin Luther King Jr. (1958) in the context of racial violence. [40]
This verse begins in the same style as the earlier antitheses, that natural desire for retaliation or vengeance can be conveniently justified with a reference to the Old Testament: [1] An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth, known as the principle of lex talionis ("the law of retribution"), is an ancient statement of the principle of retributive punishment dating back to the Code of Hammurabi.
Matthew 5:39 is the thirty-ninth verse of the fifth chapter of the Gospel of Matthew in the New Testament and is part of the Sermon on the Mount.This is the second verse of the antithesis on the command: "eye for an eye".
Retributive justice is perhaps best captured by the phrase lex talionis (the principle of "an eye for an eye"), which traces back to the Code of Hammurabi. Criminal law generally falls under retributive justice, a theory of justice that considers proportionate punishment a morally acceptable response to crime.
It is a principle developed in early Mesopotamian law and is also present in the Bible as "an eye for an eye". It may also refer to: Law. Declaration of Lex Talionis — developed during the First English Civil War (1642–1646) as practical—rather than moral—mutual restraint by the parties to the war on how they treated prisoners of war
Schweizer notes that it specifically refers to the power of the Romans to demand that a local serve as a guide or porter. Later at Matthew 27:32 Simon of Cyrene will be forced by such rules to carry Jesus' cross, the only other time in the New Testament the word translated as compel is used. [ 2 ]
[6] Wilber goes on to argue that "the sense of 'fully doing' or 'revealing true meaning' fits this context better than the idea of 'completing.'" [6] Other interpreters, like Andy Stanley, suggest that Matthew intends the meaning of "bring to an end." As Stanley writes, "Jesus fulfilled—as in ended—the necessity of the Jewish law."
24. An eye in place of an eye, a tooth in place of a tooth, a hand in place of a hand, a foot in place of a foot. 25. A burn in place of a burn, a wound in place of a wound, a bruise in place of a bruise. 26. And if a man shall strike the eye of his manservant or the eye of his maidservant, and destroy it, he shall set him free in place of his ...