There seems to have been a deliberate attempt by the liberal-left, and indeed liberal Christians, to denigrate the lex talionis (Eye for an eye principle of the Old Testament.)With the more politicised individuals this has been a rather lame attempt to portray the ideal as cruel, over the top and a pretence that the Scriptures are 'barbaric'.
The liberal christians use Matthew 5:39 somewhat disingenuously as grist to their mill by pointing out that Jesus told Christians to 'turn the other cheek' instead of seeking revenge.
The problem here is that Jesus clearly forbade all revenge and this has nothing whatsoever to do with legitimate punishments imposed by society. Clearly, even the liberal types believe in some level of social punishment and they choose to miss the point that the lex talionis was never about revenge in the first place. It was an attempt to ensure that social punishments were balanced. The lex talionis was instituted to prevent punishments that were greater (or less) than the level of crime committed.
If their arguments are followed to a logical conclusion - there could never be any earthly punishments of any type permitted by Jesus - which is fatuous nonsense.
No. The lex talionis is all a question of degree.
Again, to re-emphasise the point Jesus was talking to individual Christians about their personal attitudes. He was not removing a valid principle from the authorities but was teaching that 'we have no right to take the Law into our own hands' - which had clearly been the Jewish abuse of the principle.
Against this backcloth, it is necessary to distinguish between vengeance and retribution. The former is always wrong and is ultimately, personal. The latter is essentially neutral.
Retribution is desirable - it produces social vindication and in the final analysis, justice. Revenge is always negative. The individual cannot execute retributive justice on his/her own behalf.
.jpeg)
.jpeg)