the comment of the fool and the statement of "an eye for an eye" can be seen as misunderstood by the person with their eyes closed..
in the ot law it was an equality of sorts. if a life is taken maliciously against another. an eye of the transgressor is required to equalised the imbalance. an eye for an eye, tooth for tooth, life for life.
but it changes in the nt. after the example of Jesus life for the life of the world. the expression eye for an eye becomes...a good eye for a bad eye. a good toothe for a bad tooth. a life for a death. mercy replaces judgement against the transgressor.
the misguided fool still believes the ot law.. bad eye for bad eye. when the ot is abolished and he doesnt know this.. the new law is mercy is exchanged for judgement without mercy.
the fool cant equate do unto others over against mercy exchanging justice. the fool remains blind in his misunderstanding...dave is deep as he points to truth.
the comment of the fool and the statement of "an eye for an eye" can be seen as misunderstood by the person with their eyes closed.. in the ot law it was an equality of sorts. if a life is taken maliciously against another. an eye of the transgressor is required to equalised the imbalance. an eye for an eye, tooth for tooth, life for life.
but it changes in the nt. after the example of Jesus life for the life of the world. the expression eye for an eye becomes...a good eye for a bad eye. a good toothe for a bad tooth. a life for a death. mercy replaces judgement against the transgressor.
the misguided fool still believes the ot law.. bad eye for bad eye. when the ot is abolished and he doesnt know this.. the new law is mercy is exchanged for judgement without mercy.
the fool cant equate do unto others over against mercy exchanging justice. the fool remains blind in his misunderstanding...dave is deep as he points to truth.