William wrote: Murder is just one of those consequences as man covets that eternal life he is endowed with. Eliminate the inequity, iniquity goes along with it. An eye for an eye solves nothing.
William, the original poster specifically asked for a Scriptural response. You have only offered your "enlightened" opinion. Therefore, your response not only fails to answer the question, but it also serves as a stumbling block to the original poster's search. Obviously, that is not needed.
truth wrote:ex 21:23-25 But if a fatal accident should occur, then you must give soul for soul, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 branding for branding, wound for wound, blow for blow.
This is a good point; however, I do not believe it serves as a standard for today. Why?
- The authority of the Old Law has passed away. Therefore, this is no longer binding (Romans 7:1-7).
- The Old Law contained not only moral laws, but it also contained civil laws, intended to organize a theocracy. Since we do not live under such a government, such civil laws are not applicable. Remember, the above verse was directed toward those inflicting punishment. Are you suggesting that we become vigilantes? Obviously not, so it was clearly directed towards the Jewish government, not us as individuals.
- Jesus mitigated this verse Himself:
Matthew, recording Jesus, wrote:"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also. And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two. Give to him who asks you, and from him who wants to borrow from you do not turn away. (Matthew 5:38-42)
This would eliminate the Christian's search for personal justice. Again, such justice is relegated to the government's oversight (Romans 13:1-7).
- Finally, how would you suggest we apply the above verse? Should we extract the death penalty ourselves? Should the guilty kill themselves? If the government does not produce justice to satisfy Exodus 21, how would you suggest we satisfy it? These questions highlight practical absurdities in trying to satisfy this verse outside of government's oversight.
We do know that Paul was partially responsible for the unjust death of Christians (
Acts 26:9-11). I believe this would constitute "murder", yet He neither took his life nor did he offer it to the family of the slain. Instead, he lived his life for Christ.
My judgment would be that penitent person would recognize his sin against society and the government. He would gladly accept whatever punishment the government offered, because that is the institution that God entrusted with such a task (
Romans 13:1-7). Whatever is left of his life and resources beyond that, I would encourage him to spend it for Christ, as did Paul and as should any Christian.
Beyond that, if I were guilty of slaying the husband, father, or financial supporter of a home, I would fell obligated to try to offset that financial loss until the family found other means (for example, the wife remarries, the children reach financial independence, etc.). I think there would be no way to compensate for the sum loss, including emotional, spiritual, or physical damages. Ultimately, I think you must be content with the state's verdict, although I would personally be concerned beyond that sentence, as I just explained. I would consider these as
"works befitting repentance" (
Matthew 3:4-10).
