Home Forums Blogs Articles Photos Videos Contact FAQ

An eye for an eye

An eye for an eye: Encyclopedia - An eye for an eye

The phrase "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" expresses a form of retributive justice also known as lex talionis (Latin, 'law of retaliation'). It may have originated in ancient near-Eastern and Middle Eastern law, such as Babylonian law. In societies not bound by the rule of law, if a person was hurt, then the injured person (or their relative) would take vengeful retribution on the person who caused the ...

Including:

An eye for an eye - Lex talionis in Judaism

An eye for an eye - Criticisms

An eye for an eye - External references

An eye for an eye, An eye for an eye - Criticisms, An eye for an eye - External references, An eye for an eye - Lex talionis in Judaism, Forgiveness, Turn the other cheek, Code of Hammurabi

An eye for an eye: Encyclopedia - An eye for an eye

An eye for an eye

This article is about the proverb. For the film, see Eye for an Eye (film).

The phrase "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" expresses a form of retributive justice also known as lex talionis (Latin, 'law of retaliation'). It may have originated in ancient near-Eastern and Middle Eastern law, such as Babylonian law.

In societies not bound by the rule of law, if a person was hurt, then the injured person (or their relative) would take vengeful retribution on the person who caused the injury. Often the retribution would be much worse than the crime; it was often death. Babylonian law put a limit on such actions, restricting the retribution to be no worse than the crime.

In the Hebrew Bible, God issues many denunciations of ancient near-Eastern morality and law; the Torah (Exodus 21:24) offers its own statement of "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth". Read in context of the surrounding verses, this version is clearly intended to limit vengeance, though up to this limit it also clearly permits it and perhaps mandates it. Modern Jewish teaching, based upon a critical interpretation of the original Hebrew text, is that this biblical concept entails monetary compensation in tort cases. Christian interpretation of it has been heavily influenced by the quotation of this verse in Jesus's Sermon on the Mount, see "Criticisms" below.

An eye for an eye - Lex talionis in Judaism

The oral law of Judaism holds that this verse cannot be interpreted as mandating exact physical retribution. The rabbis of the Talmud ask, "How can any person be certain that the punishment they inflict is definitely no worse than the initial injury?" They answer that this is one indication that the Bible, when stating "an eye for an eye," does not refer to physical retribution. They proceed to cite several more indicators for this thesis.

The Oral Law explains, based upon the biblical verses, that the Bible mandates a sophisticated five-part monetary form of compensation, consisting of payment for "Damages, Pain, Medical Expenses, Incapacitation, and Mental Anguish" - which underlie many modern legal codes. Some rabbinic literature explains, moreover, that the expression, "An eye for an eye, etc." suggests that the perpetrator deserves to lose his own eye, but that biblical law treats him leniently. - (Paraphrased from Union of Orthodox Congregations website [1])

It should be noted that Judaism, while not allowing physical retribution for torts, does contain provisions for corporeal and capital punishment to be carried out for certain crimes under rare circumstances.

Forgiveness, Turn the other cheek, Code of Hammurabi

An eye for an eye - Criticisms

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus of Nazareth urges his followers to turn the other cheek when confronted by violence:

You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth". But I say to you, do not resist an evildoer. If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. (Matthew 5:38-39, NRSV)

The passage continues with the importance of showing forgiveness to enemies and those who harm you. This saying of Jesus is frequently interpreted as criticism of the Old Testament teaching (an antinomistic disposition), and this has led to the idea that "an eye for an eye" implies an encouragement to excess of vengeance rather than an attempt to limit it. That is however a misunderstanding caused by taking the saying out of context. The saying is one of a series of six known as the Antitheses, in each of which Jesus quotes with approval provisions of the Jewish Law, but then calls on his followers to go further; for example Matthew 5:27-28 reads:

You have heard that it was said, "You shall not commit adultery". But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

And Matthew 5:33 reads:

Again, you have heard that it was said to those of ancient times, 'You shall not swear falsely'... But I say to you, Do not swear at all....

Jesus's treatment of "an eye for an eye" as inadequate has to be seen in the light of the introduction to the antitheses:

Do not think that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill (Matthew 5:17)

and the closing injunction of this part of the Sermon of the Mount:

Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect (Matthew 5:48).

Modern Christian scholarly commentary universally recognises that the original "eye for an eye" prescription had the intent of limiting vengeance, and regards this intent as humane (for examples, see references in the relevant section of The Text This Week); indeed, the legitimising of vengeance implied by the context of the saying in Exodus tends to be downplayed. More ancient Christian scholars, down to Calvin, tended to see "an eye for an eye" as simply another example of what they regarded as pharasaic legalism, rather than as implying an objectionable degree of vengefulness. Notoriously, Jesus's doctrine of perfection has been hard for Christians to live up to, and turning the other cheek is probably more often preached about rather than practised. The Jewish Law, with its more limited demands, sometimes seems more practical than the stricter Christian teachings.

However, many modern moralists have also felt that merely limiting vengeance is not enough as even limited retaliation continues a potentially endless cycle of violence; Mahatma Gandhi remarked that:

"An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth and the whole world would soon be blind and toothless."