As a practicing Catholic i have long pondered this passage and it's meaning.I hear some say that it means if one is killed then it is allright to retaliate with killing another,I don't believe this.Thalt shall not kill. Please elaborate or clear up what this really means for me. Peace be with you.......

-- Andrew m Tillcock (drewmeister7@earthlink.net), September 23, 2004

Answers

The phrase means exactly what you said it means - revenge. However, you have to look at the context in which it is mentioned in scripture. Jesus mentions the idea only in order to refute it! ... "You have heard it said, 'an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also. Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two. Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you. You have heard it said, 'you shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you" (Matt 5:38-44)

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), September 23, 2004.

Yes Paul, it is true Jesus called us to a higher morality. But I think Andrew is referring to the passage in the Old Testament where this rule was first given to the Jews. It’s not as bad as it sounds. It means the Jews had to LIMIT the punishment given to a wrongdoer to NO MORE THAN the damage he had inflicted. In contrast to the situation common in the ancient world, and in some places today, where one injury (perhaps accidental) led to an endless cycle of violent “paybacks” each one more extreme than the last.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), September 24, 2004.

I understand the the meaning of an eye for an eye more clearly now,But as Catholic's we are taught that murder is wrong even in revenge.I guess what i am asking to some degree is,>>>This was suggested to me the other day after the two americans were executed in iraq,That we should take the two iraqi women we have captive and do the same. I think this is wrong in the eye's of the church,isn't it? two wrongs don't make a right. And i am also under the belief that only God can take and give life. Also wouldn't murder even in the case of(an eye for an eye) be a sin of grave matter in the eye's of the church?

-- Andrew m Tillcock (drewmeister7@earthlink.net), September 24, 2004.

Yes, absolutely. Murder (which doesn't mean every act that results in the death of another person) is never morally justifiable.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), September 24, 2004.

I think part of the answer has to come after determining the proper meaning of "kill". People are "killed" in car accidents every day, for example, and just look at the legal code, you have "manslaughter", voluntary and involuntary; "homicide", "capital murder", etc.

I always thought that "Thou shalt not kill" refers to murder, as in "with malice aforethought"--lying in wait, for example. Personally, I think drunk drivers (indeed, anyone driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs) can and should be charged with murder, because they KNOW that what they're doing can cause someone else's death, oh, maybe not today, but perhaps tomorrow--the fact that they probably won't know the person they kill is immaterial.

As far as capital punishment, it is the only way to postively make sure that that particular criminal does no harm to anyone else--life in prison is not necessarily going to protect the other inmates from this person....

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), September 26, 2004.

Andrew, the trouble with "an eye for an eye...." to me lies in that it seems to allow for the punishing of innocent parties instead of the criminal. Punish the person who actually did the crime, don't go after the spouse or children, etc.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), September 26, 2004.

I guess the point is you can't just take an isolated injunction out of the Old Testament and try to apply it without seeing it in the light of the fulness of God's message given us by Jesus in the New Covenant.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), September 26, 2004.

"As far as capital punishment, it is the only way to postively make sure that that particular criminal does no harm to anyone else"

Irrelevant. The end does not justify the means. And all the more so when the end is merely theoretical (he "might" do harm to another inmate). Besides, there is solitary confinement for particularly dangerous inmates. State-sanctioned murder is never necessary or justifiable.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), September 26, 2004.

Surely, when Jesus rejected 'An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth' from the OT and taught 'Turn the other cheek' it was made irrelevant?

-- Jess B (twiggy5000@hotmail.com), October 20, 2004.

No. Jesus was teachign a pesonal ethic, not a legal requirement. The law will still, and shdl always, demand certain punishments for our actions, even if the person we wringed forgives us.

As an example, if I commit grand theft auto, the peopel I stol the car form may forgive me, but I may still have to serve jail time, unless charges where dropped.

Moses taght the Lqaw, Jesus taught a personal ethic.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), October 20, 2004.

It’s not as simple as that, Zarove. Jesus came to fulfil and perfect the Old Testament Law. Whether the civil government imposes a punishment for a crime against its own laws is a separate matter. As Christians we are BOUND to forgive all who trespass against us.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), October 20, 2004.

But we chose to be Christains, we do not always chose where we live and uner what civil law we are bound. That is the distinction...

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), October 20, 2004.