Views: 151

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

The blood atonement was not a Jewish origin, nor was it of Hebrew, Greco-Roman, Spanish, English, Trinidadian, or any of these! True, salvation is of the JEws, and yes GOD revealed Himself to the nation of Israel to be HIS priests on earth, but let me hit you with something: ALL CULTURES UNDERSTAND THE LEGAL CONCEPT OF "AN EYE FOR AN EYE, AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH"!

This was imparted into us LONG before the Hebrews came about, LONG before the great flood. Atonement was started in Eden, not Jerusalem, or have you forgotten?
Trevor,

Salvation is OF the Hebrews. It came from them, AND its understanding of it. Even when its given to Gentiles, we understand it within HEBRAIC CONTEXT. Im not denying that Yahweh reveals himself in all cultures, but you cannot expect to remove Yeshua from his own culture, and think you will understand the scriptures, and the words Yeshua says. Eye for eye, tooth for tooth deals with MONETARY issues, and not what you think it means according to Christianity. Also, there was no atonement for sin in the garden.
Oh you think there wasn't? The declaration of the atonement of sin was give by GOD directly to Eve. In the garden, GOD covered their nakedness. Have we overlooked these things that are a foreshadow of things to come?

Also, it wasn't based on just money. Go and re-read those scriptures.
Trevor,

Read the beginning of Exodus 21:20–27. You will see that its about monetary issues, and not literal tooth for tooth, etc, etc. Its about compensation. Its similar to what Yeshua said about the "good eye" : "bad eye" parable in one of the gospels. The good eye stands for being generous, and the bad eye stands for stingyness. As I said, without Torah foundation, and Hebraic understanding, your Christian, Hellenistic mind would only take over.
So I guess Leviticus 24means nothing to a man that so admittedly uphold the Torah?
Trevor,

One of the most notorious injunctions is the biblical teaching of "an eye for an eye," known in academic circles as lex talionis. Several times in the Torah this law is stated; the first instance is from Exodus 21:22-25:

When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman's husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

Rabbinic Judaism has always interpreted the "eye for eye" law not in its literal sense but rather as monetary compensation for the victim's loss. However, many see this as apologetic revisionism. The contention is that, in fact, the Torah intended the courts to literally extract an eye for an eye from the wrongdoer. This cruel, sadistic, wasteful punishment has probably been the most outstanding blemish on the biblical system of justice.

A careful look at the text will, I think, show most unequivocally that the clear intention of the Torah was never the sadistic interpretation commonly conceived. I will analyze this from several angles. First, a broader view of the text:

When men quarrel and one strikes the other with a stone or with his fist and the man does not die but takes to his bed, then if the man rises again and walks outdoors with his staff, he who struck him shall be clear; only he shall pay for the loss of his time, and shall have him thoroughly healed.(Exodus 21:18-19)

A few sentences later, we find out text:

When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman's husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.(Exodus 21:22-25)

Note that the first case is one of willfully inflicted harm, the second is of accidentally inflicted harm to the woman. By what logic could one explain that accidential harm is "recompensed" with an eye for an eye, while willful damage is punished by "only paying for the loss of time and he shall thoroughly be healed"! Certainly, if the intentional wrongdoer only has to pay for his victim's sick leave and medical expenses, then the hapless fellow who accidentially harmed this woman wouldn't be dealt with so vengefully.

There is a certain logic here which speaks for itself. A close look at the text itself also supports this idea. "But if there be harm you shall give (Hebrew: v'natatah) soul for soul, eye for eye...."

Were the text's intention to extract an eye from the villain, the use of the word "give" is inappropriate. The lex talionis punishment is meant to take from the guilty, not to give to the victim. Certainly the victim has no desire to receive a gouged-out eye. It should have said, "and you shall take an eye for an eye...." But it doesn't, it says "give." Giving implies something that is meant to reach the recipient. Monetary compensation fits that definition; handing over a dismembered limb doesn't.

Again we refer to the text, this time in the original Hebrew. "Eye for (tachat) eye." The crucial word is tachat. Here is an instance where noting similarities between different texts can help us better understand our text.

The word tachat appears many times in scripture, always meaning "in place of," or "on account of," and never "as identical substitution for."
Some examples"

"If he knocks out the tooth of his slave, male or female, he shall let the slave go free because of (tachat)his tooth"(Exodus 21:27).

"... and Abraham went and took the ram and brought it up for a burnt offering instead of(tachat) his son"(Genesis 22:13).

"And the men said unto her: 'Our life in place of yours(tachteichem), if ye tell not this our business...' "(Joshua 2:14).

The meaning of this last quote is that if the enemy tries to kill Rahab and her family, then these men will fight to the death, if necessary, in order to save her life. They will give their lives in place of her giving hers. The meaning is certainly not that if she dies they, too, will give their lives(tachteichem).

Likewise, in the earlier examples cited, the meaning of the word tachat is "in place of," or "on account of," but not as identical substitution for the person or object in question. By noting the similar word tachat in other passages of the scriptures and construing its meaning there, we are led to a more accurate understanding of its meaning in out text.

Logic, the text and our key to interpretation all lead to the same conclusion: an eye for an eye means to give something in place of the lost eye, that being monetary compensation.

- Avigdor Bonchek, Studying the Torah: A Guide to In-Depth Interpretation, Pgs: 64-68
JESUS Himself understood this to be just what GOD said, an eye for an eye, a life for a life. Therefore HE gave His life ransom for the lives of others. In one man all have sinned, yet in the last Adam all were redeemed. You are constantly looking at Torah while ignoring the N.T. revelation and fulfillment of Torah.
Trevor,

I am not ignoring the NT. I am simply shedding off all the bias and falseness of Christianity thats embedded in me. I am renewing my mind by reading, studying, and keeping Torah. I am studying Torah because its THEE foundation of the Prophets and New Testament. YOU are ignoring Torah & The Prophets. Therefore, your studies of the NT WILL BE INCOMPLETE. READ what I JUST posted.
Don't forget your Sabbath candles, Shalom
Evan,

Thats traditions, just like your christmas tree, cross wearings, and easter egg hunts.
A lot of what Jews do are merely traditional...

Easter Egg hunts and Christmas trees are different. They are for false gos, so please don't play and try to apply that.
Bani, I thank you for your wealth of wisdom and light and sharing it in the darkness. Please do not become despair because so many are turned away. We know it is not their fault. Your journey has taken you so much further than many of us who claim we know Truth and it most be lonely where you are but know that you are Abba's rare jewel and His Chosen to cast pearls before the lost. Some of us will cling to them. Others will continue to slush where they are. Continue to plant and continue to teach and reach. We are waking up but it is not easy for we do not want to leave who we know answers prayers to go where scriptures tell us not to go.... this is how many feel and I respect those fears and convictions with great esteem. Now, I will be in touch regarding one statement you made above for clarity on Ben Yosef opposed to Ben Yawid... I have notice this mindset with Torah only Jews. Well, discuss later.
Shabbat Shalom Elder Bani

RSS

© 2024   Created by Raliegh Jones Jr..   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service