Burden of Proof

Ron,

I wrote:  �A problem I see in practice, however, is that if one were to follow your synthesis to its logical end, the Mosaic law (thesis) of exact and equal retribution would be in any case enacted, whether the victim himself or the police sought justice, and the perpetrator of the crime would be finally minus an eye or tooth.  And thus, it seems, would be negated Jesus� concept (antithesis), expressed elsewhere and throughout the New Testament, of �overcoming evil with good,� of giving a cloak in addition to a coat, and of pacifism in the face of aggression.�

You wrote:  �You're assuming that the "eye for an eye" thing cannot be considered good.  I happen to agree that it isn't good, but I'm not sure that Jesus would.  He didn't come to abolish the law, after all, so he must have considered it to be good.�

Actually, for purposes of this discussion, I am not assuming anything.  I accept both propositions as equal.  In the new, narrower synthesis I am seeking, I want neither the thesis (Moses) nor the antithesis (Jesus) to be negated or subsumed.  If possible, I want them to be reconciled.  As it reads, to my ear, in the Bible we have a thesis and an antithesis but no apparent synthesis.  At least, in my many years of Bible reading, I�ve never been able to find one.  At this point, that and only that is what I seek.

Shasta�sAunt,

Thanks for the input.  It is always welcome.

You wrote:  �It really doesn't matter how many theories are produced regarding synthesis of the two quite different approaches taken between Moses and Jesus ..�

I am actually aiming at something in particular by responding to Apollos and by raising this apparent conflict between Moses and Jesus as a single case in point.  The reason I am asking primarily Christians to offer, or produce, a synthesis is to provoke thought and logical inquiry.  I hope, after a time, to provide something in the nature of a �proof,� which might, just might, appeal to both Christians and Muslims alike.  Before I proceed, I want to ensure that I have allowed sufficient time for those who would to write a synthesis and to consider the matter.

Serv

Apollos,

You wrote:  �I think I provided a �synthesis� of these statements before you raised the question � or I do not understand what you mean.�

I think it is the latter.

You wrote:  �In the passage at hand Jesus refers to numerous written a verbal commandments the people knew of and then contrasted them with His admonitions/commandments.�

Agreed.

You wrote:  �It is clear to anyone reading these that He was either identifying the underlying principal of the previous commandment or He was creating a new commandment that took the old one to a new level. Either way, He was not reversing a commandment but amplifying it.�

Here, then, is a difference, and not one only of semantics.  I don�t think that negating the thesis amplifies it.   I think that negating the thesis creates the antithesis.  As I read it, Moses stated the thesis and Jesus stated the antithesis (see above).            

You wrote:  �So we don�t find Him saying we can kill people now, or that we can commit adultery now, etc. He says we can�t even have the thoughts that lead to such things.�

For purposes of brevity, I think it best if we continue to focus upon the single �eye for an eye� example.  But, to revisit your statement, we do, in fact, find Him reportedly and at least parenthetically (Mark 7:19) saying that we can not only think, for example, about pork chops, but that we can also grill and chomp a few of them if we so desire.

You wrote:  �So when we come to the statement about � an eye for an eye ��, we should expect Jesus to do just what He had with the preceding statements � amplify the old command not reverse it.�

Again, I don�t see, or read, what he said as an amplification; I read it as a negation.

You wrote:  �Looking at the intent of the old commandment we can see this is what He did; He did not reverse it but amplified it.�

Sorry, who�s the �we� ?  I cannot so clearly see this and never, for that matter, have I been able to see it in my years of being nourished in the Christian tradition.

Please allow me to put it in practical, logical rather than theological, but still hypothetical terms.  Forget all else and accept, for now, that there are two primary laws, or statements of law, on the books, one by Moses and the other by Jesus:

(Moses)�If anyone injures his neighbor, whatever he has done must be done to him: fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth.�

(Jesus)�You have heard that it was said [by Moses], �Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.� But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person.  If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.�

I am the aggrieved party (plaintiff) standing before you, the sole judge, jury and, if necessary, executioner.  The defendant has, hours before, in a fit of fury and for no legitimate reason, punched me in the face and knocked out one of my teeth.  How do you judge the case and dispense justice according to both Moses and Jesus (using these and related verses) and what, in the end, becomes of the defendant?  What, if any, punishment is meted to the perpetrator of the crime?  Answering that might provide a workable synthesis.

Thank you.

Serv