Can You Justify, “An Eye For An Eye, A Tooth For A Tooth”? Matthew 5:38?

Matthew 5:38 describes the "law" established in Moses time. It was both a command to punish but also places a limit on the punishment. The penalty must not exceed the crime.

According to the Old Testament, the authority for punishment was vested in the government, not in the individual.

A lifelong bible scholar and teacher told me the same thing that Born Again 05 posted.

In biblical times brutal punishments were meted out for minor offenses. The "eye for an eye" passage was meant to urge that punishments should change to better match the "crime.

The justification of this is not for us to decide. It should not be man who is taking action to exact this form of justice. The eye for an eye tooth for a tooth is justice in the eyes of god and he is the only one who should impose such justice on mankind.

I do not agree with man taking this action on another man therefore do not agree with the death penalty.

But I say to you, offer no resistance to one who is evil. ... So the precept, 'an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth,' instead of being ... On this view, utilitarian concerns can never justify the punishment of an .... and utilitarian goals.53 In 1996, implementing the Commission's recommendations, ..for further detail in . hubpages.com/hub/healthonweb.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.