Rucki, Mirosław2024-12-192024-12-192013Scriptura Sacra, 2013, R. 17, s. 47-58.1428-72182391-9396https://theo-logos.pl/handle/123456789/25836It is often claimed, especially in popular Bible commentaries, that the principle “eye for eye” had constituted the ius talionis observed by Jews, which Jesus Christ has nullified. In the article, the effort was undertaken to understand what kind of law this principle really represented in Judaism, with references to rabbinic literature both found in Qumran and in use today. In that context, the Jewish commandment “not to revenge” was analysed, too. It was pointed also that the function of a “goel” (called “the revenger of blood” in KJV) is often confused with the revenge which is really not the case. It is the matter of fact, however, that if Jesus nullify the law on “goel” it would make His own mission of redemption baseless. So, keeping in mind His attitude to Torah, we should understand that Jesus Christ wasn’t able to nullify any law of Old Testament, and He didn’t mean it.plCC-BY-NC-SA - Uznanie autorstwa - Użycie niekomercyjne - Na tych samych warunkachprawo odwetumściciel krwizemstaJezus ChrystusStary TestamentNowy TestamentBibliaPismo Świętebiblistykaegzegezaegzegeza biblijnateologiateologia biblijnaodwetrękopisy z QumranrękopisymanuskryptyQumranzwoje znad Morza CzarnegoTorazemsta w TorzePięcioksiągright of retaliationrevenger of bloodavengeJesus ChristOld TestamentNew TestamentBiblebiblical studiesexegesisbiblical exegesistheologybiblical theologyretaliationmanuscripts from QumranmanuscriptsDead Sea ScrollsTorahretaliation in the TorahPentateuchArticle