The principle of “an eye for an eye” is found in several passages in the Bible, including Exodus 21:24, Leviticus 24:20, and Deuteronomy 19:21. At its core, this principle calls for proportional punishment and retribution for crimes and offenses committed.
Origin and Meaning
The exact phrase “an eye for an eye” first appears in the Bible in Exodus 21:24, which reads: “eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot” (ESV). This verse comes in the context of laws given to the Israelites concerning personal injuries. If one person injured another, the penalty was to match the injury – no more, no less.
The principle behind “an eye for an eye” was one of proportional justice and retribution. The punishment had to fit the crime. This stood in contrast to disproportionate vengeance or letting an offense go unpunished. As explained in Leviticus 24:17-22, the principle meant that if someone injured their neighbor, they would suffer the same injury in return. No more injury would be inflicted than what had been suffered.
At the time, this proportional justice was meant to curb excessive retaliation and ongoing feuds between people and tribes. Without a law code in place, personal vengeance could quickly spiral out of control. “An eye for an eye” set a limit on escalating violence by ensuring the response matched the offense.
Old Testament Examples
There are several examples in the Old Testament where this principle of proportional justice is carried out:
– When the Pharaoh ordered the deaths of all newborn Israelite boys, God brought a plague that caused similar grief and loss among the Egyptians (Exodus 1:15-22, Exodus 12:29).
– After Joseph’s brothers sold him into slavery, Joseph repaid them in kind by holding one brother (Simeon) as ransom for another (Benjamin) when they came to Egypt seeking food (Genesis 37:28, 42:24).
– When David committed adultery with Bathsheba and arranged the death of her husband Uriah, God took the child produced by David’s adultery (2 Samuel 11:1-27, 12:13-19).
– After Queen Jezebel plotted the death of innocent Naboth, God ensured she suffered a similar bloody death (1 Kings 21:1-16).
In each case, the punishment was proportional to the offense committed. This strict justice tempered people’s inclination towards unrestrained vengeance.
Purpose and Limitations
The law of “an eye for an eye” had several purposes in ancient Israelite society:
1. It curbed unchecked retaliation by requiring proportionality. Without this limit, blood feuds and violence could quickly escalate.
2. It promoted equity before the law, since the same standard applied to all. High and low were held accountable alike.
3. It served as a deterrent against selfish behavior since people knew they’d suffer the same consequences they inflicted.
4. It supported basic retributive justice and the victim’s desire for requital. An offense didn’t go unpunished.
However, the law also had built-in limitations:
1. The victim couldn’t inflict more harm than they’d suffered. Excessive vengeance was forbidden.
2. Judges and courts were needed to administer the law justly, preventing vigilante justice.
3. Not all offenses were applicable, since some (e.g. murder) lacked strictly proportional responses. Other penalties applied.
4. The law focused on external actions over internal motives and attitudes. But God looks at the heart.
So “an eye for an eye” achieved its purpose when applied judiciously within its limitations. Although often misunderstood today, in its context it represented real progress.
Contrast with Pagan Codes
It’s worth comparing the “eye for an eye” principle with other ancient law codes. While it shares similarities with the Code of Hammurabi and other Near Eastern codes, there are some notable differences:
1. Many pagan codes applied lex talionis (literal “eye for eye”) unevenly. The rich and powerful often received lesser punishments for the same crimes. But God’s law applied equally to all Israelites.
2. Other law codes sometimes mandated excessively harsh punishments that went beyond the offense. For example, the Code of Hammurabi called for death in cases of robbery or accidental property damage. God’s law strictly limited retaliation to equality with the original offense.
3. Pagan codes focused mainly on property crimes and bodily injury. But God’s laws regulated moral behavior and sins against others as well. Justice was broader under God’s law.
4. The harshness of other codes stemmed from the whims of human rulers. But the proportional justice of “an eye for an eye” came from God himself. It balanced justice with mercy.
So while sharing similarities, Mosaic Law was more equitable, proportional, and ethically grounded than contemporaneous pagan codes. It tempered the cruelty of human vengeance with divine justice and mercy.
Old Testament Application
In practice, “an eye for an eye” was applied judiciously in ancient Israel. Though allowed, victims could choose to show mercy and forgo their right of retribution:
– Joseph chose not to retaliate against his brothers but instead forgave them (Genesis 50:15-21).
– David refused to kill King Saul despite opportunities for revenge (1 Samuel 24, 26).
– Elisha told King Jehoash to only strike the ground with arrows a few times when God would have allowed more (2 Kings 13:14-19).
– Isaiah encouraged Israel to pursue justice through repentance rather than retaliation (Isaiah 1:15-17).
Also, in many cases proper application of “an eye for an eye” required judges and courts to assess damages, penalties, and how to carry out proportional punishment:
– Moses appointed judges for this purpose (Exodus 18:13-26).
– The law mandated due process for determining guilt and innocence (Deuteronomy 19:15-21).
– Judges had discretion on how to impose penalties, as when David ordered his commander to repay fourfold for seizing sheep (2 Samuel 12:1-6).
So while available, victims rarely enacted literal “eye for eye” vengeance themselves. Proper Channels ensured just application of the law.
Old Testament Limits and Safeguards
Several regulations in Mosaic Law prevented abuses and placed limits on “an eye for an eye”:
– Cities of refuge were designated where people who accidentally killed others could flee for safety (Deuteronomy 4:41-43). The avenger of blood could not kill them there.
– The law distinguished between accidental and premeditated killings (Deuteronomy 19:4-6). Accidental deaths lacked proportional punishments.
– Allowances were made for unintended injuries to pregnant women (Exodus 21:22-25). The degree of harm determined the penalty.
– Damages for injuries had to be thoroughly investigated by judges rather than assumed (Deuteronomy 19:18-19). False accusations were punished.
– Various sins against God (idolatry, blasphemy, Sabbath-breaking) received set penalties rather than “eye for eye” punishments.
– God preferred repentance over retaliation (Ezekiel 18:21-23). Mercy and forgiveness were options for victims.
So while strict, proportional justice was allowed, Mosaic Law contained many provisions that limited abuse and made allowances for human weakness. “Eye for eye” was a maximum, not mandatory, penalty.
New Testament Perspective
While the “eye for an eye” principle brought order and justice in its time, Jesus brought a new perspective on retaliation, revenge, and forgiveness:
– In the Sermon on the Mount, he contrasted “eye for eye” with turning the other cheek and going the extra mile (Matthew 5:38-42).
– While not denying its validity under the law, he emphasized mercy, repentance, and forgiveness as better responses (Luke 6:27-36).
– He instructed his followers to forgive without limit and extend mercy to others as God extended mercy to humanity (Matthew 18:21-22).
The apostles continued this emphasis:
– Paul encouraged believers to overcome evil with good and refrain from vengeance (Romans 12:17-21). God would repay evildoers.
– Peter also told Christians to refrain from retaliation but repay evil with blessing (1 Peter 3:9). Christ left an example of suffering unjustly.
So the New Testament takes the OT principle and moves it to a fuller expression focused on grace, reconciliation, and spiritual transformation over retaliation. Believers have the higher calling of forgiveness.
Principles for Christians Today
While Jesus rejected personal retaliation, that doesn’t negate civil justice, punishment of crime, and the duty of rulers to restrain evil. But for Christians, these principles apply when wronged:
1. Follow Christ’s example and refrain from personal vengeance. Leave justice with God (Romans 12:19).
2. Aspire to forgive those who wrong you. Forgive as you’ve been forgiven by God (Colossians 3:13).
3. Seek the redemption and restoration of offenders over retaliation. Return good for evil (1 Thess 5:15).
4. Non-violent resistance of wrongdoing is permitted. There are other options beyond passivity or violence (1 Peter 2:19-24).
5. Support the judiciousness punishment of crimes by governing authorities (Romans 13:1-5). Lawlessness does not produce peace.
6. Balance justice with mercy as you desire God’s mercy towards your own wrongs (Matthew 5:7, James 2:13).
7. Pursue justice through proper channels. Avoid vigilante retaliation (Romans 12:19).
8. Ultimately each person will answer to God for their actions (2 Corinthians 5:10). God’s judgment is perfect.
So “eye for eye” finds its limitation and fulfillment in Christ. As victims, Christians forego retaliation and embrace grace. But as citizens, Christians support proportionate justice tempered by mercy.
Conclusion
The principle of “an eye for an eye” established an ethic of proportional justice and retribution in the Bible. While often misunderstood, in its Old Testament context this law curbed excessive vengeance and applied strict justice equally to all. Properly practiced, “eye for eye” punishment required due process and impartial judges rather than personal retaliation. Limits and safeguards prevented abuse. With the coming of Christ, believers have the higher calling of showing grace and forgiving enemies. But civil authorities still exercise discernment in punishing crimes proportionally. Ultimately, perfect justice rests with God alone.