For today’s post we will tackle the question the Skeptic Annotated Bible asked: Should you punish people with an eye for eye and a tooth for a tooth?
Here are the answers which the skeptic believes indicate a Bible contradiction:
Yes
“If someone injures his neighbor, just as he has done, so shall it be done to him: 20 fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; just as he has injured a person, so shall it be inflicted on him.” (Leviticus 24:19-20)
No
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ 39 But I say to you, do not show opposition against an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other toward him also.” (Matthew 5:38-39)
(All Scriptural quotation comes from the New American Standard Bible)
Here’s a closer look at whether or not there is a contradiction:
- When dealing with skeptics’ claim of Bible contradictions it seems one can never be reminded enough of what exactly is a contradiction. A contradiction occurs when two or more claims conflict with one another so that they cannot simultaneously be true in the same sense and at the same time. To put it another way, a Bible contradiction exists when there are claims within the Bible that are mutually exclusive in the same sense and at the same time.
- One should be skeptical of whether this is a Bible contradiction given the website’s track record of inaccurate handling of biblical passages. See the many examples of their error we have responded to here in this post: Collection of Posts Responding to Bible Contradictions. Of course that does not take away the need to respond to this post, which is what the remainder of the post will do. But this observation should caution us to slow down and look more closely at the passages the Skeptic Annotated Bible cited and see if they interpreted the passages properly to support their conclusion that it is a Bible contradiction.
- The skeptic tries to pit Leviticus 24:19-20 which the skeptic interpreted as teaching “You punish people with an eye for eye and a tooth for a tooth” against Matthew 5:38-39 which the skeptic interpreted as teaching “You should not punish people with an eye for eye and a tooth for a tooth”
- Context of these passages matter.
- In the context of Leviticus 24:19-20 this was to the sons of Israel after they left Egypt and the laws was given to the new nation under Moses leadership.
- In contrast the context for Matthew 5:38-39 is Jesus giving exposition of God’s Law in regards to Christian personal ethics under the upcoming Kingdom of God.
- Looking at the immediate context of Leviticus 24:19-20 we see this is talking about civil laws concerning how society is to respond to the sins of murder of human beings and unlawful killing of animals. Before the passage in Leviticus 24:17 it says “Now if someone takes any human life, he must be put to death.” After the passage in Leviticus 24:21 it says “So the one who kills an animal shall make restitution, but the one who kills a person shall be put to death.“
- In contrast to the context of Leviticus 24:19-20 the context of Matthew 5:38-39 is not applying the principle of not applying “eye for eye” isn’t with regards to matter that is life-threatening. Within verse 39 itself notice it deals with “slaps you on your right cheek,” and in verse 40 it is concern with losing your garment and verse 41 going the extra mile. None of these things are comfortable to lose or have happen to an individual but it isn’t about life-threatening and life-loss matters.
- Notice in Matthew 5:38-39 it actually does not contradict with Leviticus 24:19-20 but rather it is giving a commentary that Leviticus 24:19-20 is about civil law concerning matter of lost of life and Jesus in Matthew 5:38-39 is telling us that the principle of eye for eye is not suppose to be used for personal revenge; moreover there’s a principle that Christians in personal ethics are willing to look over a wrong done.
- There is no contradiction here. Seems the skeptic needs to learn of How to Handle Bible Contradictions. Or consider getting this free booklet: Review and Free E-Book: A Guide to Bible Study.
- We shouldn’t miss that worldviews are at play even with the skeptic’s objection to Christianity. The worldview of the author of the Skeptic Annotated Bible actually doesn’t even allow for such a thing as the law of non-contradiction to be meaningful and intelligible. In other words for him to try to disprove the Bible by pointing out that there’s a Bible contradiction doesn’t even make sense within his own worldview. Check out our post “Skeptic Annotated Bible Author’s Self-Defeating Worldview.”
This is it! “Jesus in Matthew 5:38-39 is telling us that the principle of eye for eye is not suppose to be used for personal revenge; moreover there’s a principle that Christians in personal ethics are willing to look over a wrong done.”
Blessings.
Thanks for reading this and commenting and supporting the blog’s ongoing project refuting the skeptic annotated Bible! I am grateful for your love and support
Thanks for this good rebuttal. I can see how atheists like Steve/Stephen Wells could ignorantly pit these two passages against each other as a Gotcha! “contradiction.” It’s sadly ironic that somebody like Wells spends enormous energy trying to discredit the Bible and the Savior he desperately needs.
Yeah it is sadly ironic that what Steve Wells is doing. It’s been 300 plus posts we have on our blog taking on Steve Wells. I am grateful for the steady stream of search engine hits on the blog from people looking for answers and no doubt good comments from those like yourself on these posts have been helping. Have you have more search results on your blog from people looking up answers to alleged Catholic proof texts? I pray you do, your blog is the only one I know dealing with Romanism weekly; blogs dealing with general apologetics are a dime a dozen but your blog is a niche. Yet the need is huge for response to Romanism!! Let me know!
Thank you for the encouragement and support, brother! In his weekly online newsletter, Martignoni featured links to my first four rebuttals in this series and his counter-arguments. I initially had MANY views and comments from zealous Martignoni disciples, but that’s since declined. I’m grateful Martignoni did that because it was probably the first time many of his followers viewed Biblical arguments against the RCC’s heresies.
Thanks for the rebuttal that points out the lack of contradiction.
Just as you point out, I have always been taught that Leviticus 24:19-20 was a limit when dealing with an escalating world. When following this model, at least there was no building of hostilities.
When it came to the model of grace set by Jesus, of course it surpassed it when it comes to levels of forgiveness. Still, that only builds on the initial notion of holding back the escalation.
Thanks brother for your insight. Especially insightful is your last paragraph that you shared. I appreciate you reading this and giving your own input brother!!
Good point
The literary form and context of Leviticus 24 is the pivot point for me with seeing why this is not a contradiction. Bible interpt was easily the most useful class I ever took. I am grateful my mom insisted I take it in Bible college.
Thanks for sharing that! You have a good mom! And a good class!!
thanks
Good point: “…Christians in personal ethics are willing to look over a wrong done.”
Indeed, I think this is a key to interpreting these passages. Grateful for you reading this and also for your response I appreciate your regular comment brother Frank!
This skeptic interpretation is an example of the either-or fallacy. He is also Misrepresenting a Biblicist Position and Ignore history and think there is no value in historical interpretation of a passage of the Bible.
Although the definition of biblicist can itself be a debated issue, for sake of simplicity, a biblicist tends to prioritize the Bible as the ultimate authority in matters of faith, morality, and daily living. It is entirely possible that a biblicist could downplay history and not care about historical interpretation, but most people who would be labeled as biblicists are attentive to the historical interpretation of theological positions. However, it is easier to attack biblicism if one can pigeonhole the viewpoint as a group that rejects history and doesn’t consider it at all in their interpretation. Yet, it is not intellectually honest.
I use to be a skeptic. Many have a naive oversimplified misunderstanding of the nature of the Word. The Bible contains all types of literature: didactic, poetic, symbolic, inferential, etc. We should be careful not to place demands on the Sciptures, but draw out from them what they reveal.
Thanks for reading this post! In answering the skeptics I hope that many would see the Bible In new light
There is not a Bible contradiction here which is an inconvenient and unwelcome truth but it doesn’t matter to them. After all they make up their own truths….. and genders and non-genders, etc.
This is spending to grieve over
Also: Liberal teachers who can’t even define the word “woman”… 🙄
And to add to the judgment is stumbling others away from the Bible!
Thank you! I’ve always noted that The Bible is partly written in metaphors. If we gouge out our eye or cut off our arm, we will bleed to death. Suicide is not God’s desire for any of us. But these beautiful scriptures are making POWERFUL points. Spiritual discernment is what we should pray for through Jesus Christ. ❤️
You touch on an important point that read the Bible read it into spiritual eyes. Yes, there is an electric element will read things according to a literary form still, there is a spiritual dimension. We must not forget thank you for reading this and for commenting! I really hope that these answers would help someone who stumble with what the skeptic annotated Bible has to say about The Bible. How are you?