Do Certain Verses Cross Each Other Out?

gregorytheSinner

I've read in a Coptic magazine that the Bible's verses don't oppose each other, but sometimes one of the verses is misunderstood and as a result they seem opposing.

I'm paraphrasing the verses, but i'm sure most of you know which ones I'm referring to, when I say:
"An Eye for an Eye" and "Turn the Other Cheek"



What I want to know is:
Does the fact that the latter verse is Jesus' command towards us, cancel the aforementioned verse,  because surely it doesn't promote it?

sodr2

Obviously it cancels... different commandments for different people, but God's plan always stays the same.

gregorytheSinner

thanks for the answer! lol.

that's exactly my point, the clearly cross each other out, however, if we take that as truth then that would mean that the basis of our religion has discrepancies =[

you get what i'm trying to say?
 

mabsoota

the one is the way the legal system should be run at that time, to show that if you harm someone you deserve to be harmed, the second is the way we as individuals can decide to show mercy to someone who deserves to be punished in the same way God showed mercy to us by forgiving our many sins.
definately no verses in the Bible are 'crossed out' by later verses. Jesus said 'I have not come to abolish the law but to fulfil the law'.
our Holy Book is complete and full of life, we do not have a bunch of contradicting ideas like some other religions who have to invent this excuse that the later verses 'cross out' the earlier ones.
with careful study it all makes sense, especially if you read the whole Bible several times and go to dar kitaab (Bible study) at church.
may God guide us all by His Spirit
:)

peterfarrington

mabsoota, you are very correct that these passages do not contradict each other.

We should not read the Bible like the Koran, as though it fell from the skies as a list of commandments. In fact the Old Testament is the record of the ongoing revelation of God to man, whom he had once walked with in the Garden of Eden, but who had been cast out of Paradise.

When the commandment is given, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth', this should not be understood in the sense of thinking 'how can such a violent command be given by God?', Rather we should understand that on the slow journey back to an awareness of God man was being raised from a very low state. This command does not insist on violence, but it restricts the violent response of a wronged man.

It says,

'You have had a cow stolen, do not think you can go and kill this man's wife'.

'Your tooth has been knocked out in a quarrel, the recompense you can demand must be proportionate to your injury and not exceed it'.

This is a great advance. It is a step on the way to the Christian life, which can only be lived in the grace of the Holy Spirit, and in which we fail so often even with such grace.

When Christ comes and teaches us to allow ourselves to be wronged he is not denying this earlier precept. If I have had something broken by someone then I am within my rights to demand proportionate compensation, and our secular societies are organised along these rules. If my 5 year old car is damaged I cannot claim 3 million pounds for it. But Christians have a choice. We can go beyond the very wise social rules which God established to preserve men from destroying each other and we can choose to just let it go. This is a better way, but it does not make the other way bad or contradict it.

We see on the TV... 'Buy NEW Bold 3-1 Cleaner, our new formula is better than ever'. Does this mean that the old formula didn't work at all? Or does it mean that this is an improvement on what was already good?

So it seems to me that the command to be proportionate in response to an injury was a very good and necessary commandment, and it was part of the process of God revealing himself and his ways to men. But it was not the last word. This does not mean the first word was wrong. The fact that around the world secular people conduct themselves according to such proportionality shows that it is a necessary part of the civilised way of living. But there is a more eschatological way of living and this is what Christ calls his own followers to.

In the same way, divorce was a concession to the Jews, and to many failed humans, even Christians, but the fact of divorce is not negated by Christ insisting that there is a better way. The better way does not negate the need for a less better but still God-ordained way. He knows that we are dust. The ritual in the temple is fulfilled in the Church, it does not mean the ritual was not God's way for that time. The food laws are fulfilled in the Christian life, this does not mean that these food laws were not God's way for that time. But these things were all necessary shadows of the reality that was to come.

God bless

Father Peter

childoforthodoxy

Welcome back, Fr. Peter.

aidan

Thanks for the clarity of your post Father.

Further to your comments, my mind has been engaged in trying to discern what is the purpose of civilised life in the light of Last Things.

I am a school teacher and work with wonderful humanistic people who try really hard to solve the problems of children and their families, as do I. But I am thinking in the short term, how to take skilful steps towards not being unhappy in a wordly sense. Our charitable acts may be about keeping company with a lonely person and going no farther.

Since good people cannot be saved without Grace, what is the benefit or even point of ordinary (and widely prevalent) goodness? Also, if our charity is about relieving material problems why should Our Saviour expect it of us?

We spend a lot of our time helping civilised life to flourish; one day Christ will come and rule. How should I, as a believer, view my everyday life that I share with all other people, of no-faith or faith?

It is hard writing brief questions since I'm not sure whether too much is said too soon