That's a great example, because that verse is saying only punish an eye for an eye, and not a life for an eye. It's a verse requiring proportional punishment. (On top of that it means the value of an eye, not an actual eye.)

So quoting it that way actually does remove necessary understanding, which is making the OP's point.

My main point is that Jesus was probably not the first one to use this form of argumentation. He likely imitated other rabbis who had taught him to speak in this way.

It's a pretty strange choice to use when talking about "turn the other cheek".

> to the legal norms of the time under which feuds and exacting revenge were commonplace.

But that's exactly what "eye for an eye" attempts to stop. It's instructing people to seek appropriate justice, and not just attack people who hurt them.

Using that verse, rather hurts his message amongst those who understand the verse.

But it's a great way to show verses used out of context!

> was probably not the first one to use this form of argumentation. He likely imitated other rabbis who had taught him to speak in this way.

But they only spoke this way to other Rabbi's, never to people who did not already understand the meaning of the verse.

> It's a pretty strange choice to use when talking about "turn the other cheek".

The phrase "an eye for an eye" puts an upper bound on retributive justice. That is, if you have been fouled, this is the maximum amount of punishment that you are allowed to inflict upon the perpetrator. Don't do as Lamech and kill the one who wounds you because that is not proportional.

Consider the context of Jesus speech. He was speaking to peasants in the Galilee for whom eternal feuds must have been commonplace. They must have been aware of the harmful effects of seeking revenge to everyone involved but unable to put an end to it. That is why one of his examples is a slap. There is and was no legal recourse for slap except for slapping back. Jesus asks his followers to "let it go."

You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven.

--

So I think Jesus is agreeing with your comments. Interestingly verse quotations are prefaced with something like "It is written". Yet here 'hate your enemy' is not a biblical verse, and it is prefaced with "You have heard that it was said" -- Jesus was speaking to a crowd here, and contrasting what they had heard, with what his message

One of the implications is he is saying proportionality of justice is a start, but is not nearly enough. For instance, he ends:

If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect

--

> But they only spoke this way to other Rabbis

He extremely strongly disagreed with the Rabbis. See Matthew 5 for context

Somewhat related to this conversation but this reading is clear in my view if you continue to read what Jesus says in this passage :)