Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In the Torah We prescribed for them a life for a life, an eye for an eye, a nose for a nose, an ear for an ear, a tooth for a tooth, an equal wound for a wound: if anyone forgoes this out of charity, it will serve as atonement for his bad deeds. Those who do not judge according to what God has revealed are doing grave wrong.
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.
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] The Zealots loathed this practice, and their refusal to participate in such tasks was an important part of their philosophy and a cause of the First Jewish–Roman War.
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us
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".
And We ordained for them therein a life for a life, an eye for an eye, a nose for a nose, an ear for an ear, a tooth for a tooth, and for wounds is legal retribution. But whoever gives [up his right as] charity, it is an expiation for him. And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed - then it is those who are the wrongdoers.
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 ...
At the time of Jesus, says Wink, striking backhand a person deemed to be of lower socioeconomic class was a means of asserting authority and dominance. If the persecuted person "turned the other cheek," the discipliner was faced with a dilemma: the left hand was used for unclean purposes, so a back-hand strike on the opposite cheek would not be ...