Leviticus 24:20
This page isn't yet indexed by search engines.
While "eye for eye" might sound like a call for brutal revenge, it was actually a safeguard against excessive punishment. It meant the penalty should be proportionate to the harm done, not a life for an eye, but the equivalent value of the injury itself. This principle aimed to ensure justice wasn't arbitrary and that retaliation didn't spiral out of control.
fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; whatever injury he has given a person shall be given to him.
English Standard Version (ESV)
This "eye for an eye" principle arises immediately after a man curses God's name and is executed by stoning. It's part of a broader section addressing severe offenses, emphasizing that just as God demands the ultimate penalty for blasphemy, there are also established consequences for physical harm done to others within the community. This law, meant to guide justice and prevent excessive vengeance, follows the account of the blasphemer and precedes further regulations concerning sacrifices, showing a concern for both spiritual and social order.
The phrase 'eye for eye' sounds harsh, but was it always about literal, brutal payback?
This principle, known as lex talionis (the law of retaliation), is found in Exodus and repeated here in Leviticus. While it sounds like a call for vengeance, the ancient Near Eastern context suggests it was actually a principle of proportionate justice. It set limits on retaliation, preventing escalating blood feuds where a minor injury could lead to death.
Furthermore, scholars suggest that this law might not have always required literal dismemberment. Often, it meant financial compensation equivalent to the injury suffered. If someone lost an eye, they would receive compensation for the value of an eye, rather than the perpetrator literally losing their own.
It was a way to ensure justice was balanced and didn't spiral out of control.
Was this law only for Israelites, or did it extend to others living among them?
This section of Leviticus, which includes the incident that sparked the discussion about blasphemy, makes a crucial point: God's laws applied to everyone within the community, not just native-born Israelites.
Whether stranger or Israelite, the principle of justice was the same. If an Israelite harmed a foreigner, the law of retaliation applied. Conversely, foreigners living among the Israelites were also entitled to the protection of these laws and could seek justice for wrongs done to them. This demonstrates a radical inclusiveness in God's justice system for the time.
Ask a follow-up
This passage introduces the principle of 'life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth,' establishing the foundational concept of proportionate retribution that Leviticus 24:20 reiterates in a specific context.
Matthew 5:38-39Jesus directly addresses the 'eye for eye' principle, reinterpreting its application from literal retribution to a call for radical forgiveness and turning the other cheek, showing a profound development of this ancient law.
Romans 12:17-19Paul echoes Jesus' teaching, urging believers not to repay evil for evil but to leave vengeance to God, transforming the concept of justice from human retribution to divine responsibility.
Deuteronomy 19:18-19This passage details the judicial process for false witnesses, showing how the 'eye for eye' principle was applied to ensure that accusers faced the same penalty they sought to inflict upon the accused, highlighting its role in maintaining justice.
gillLeviticus 24:20: "Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again."
Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth,.... Which is not to be taken strictly or literally, but for the price or value of those, which is to be given in a pecuniary way; See Gill on Exodus 21:24 , Exodus 21:25 , as he hath caused a blemish in a man, shall it be done to him; unless he gives satisfaction, and pays a valuable consideration for it.
pooleLeviticus 24:20: "Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again."
No text from Poole on this verse.
While "eye for eye" might sound like a call for brutal revenge, it was actually a safeguard against excessive punishment. It meant the penalty should be proportionate to the harm done, not a life for an eye, but the equivalent value of the injury itself. This principle aimed to ensure justice wasn't arbitrary and that retaliation didn't spiral out of control.
This "eye for an eye" principle arises immediately after a man curses God's name and is executed by stoning. It's part of a broader section addressing severe offenses, emphasizing that just as God demands the ultimate penalty for blasphemy, there are also established consequences for physical harm done to others within the community. This law, meant to guide justice and prevent excessive vengeance, follows the account of the blasphemer and precedes further regulations concerning sacrifices, showing a concern for both spiritual and social order.
This "eye for an eye" principle arises immediately after a man curses God's name and is executed by stoning. It's part of a broader section addressing severe offenses, emphasizing that just as God demands the ultimate penalty for blasphemy, there are also established consequences for physical harm done to others within the community. This law, meant to guide justice and prevent excessive vengeance, follows the account of the blasphemer and precedes further regulations concerning sacrifices, showing a concern for both spiritual and social order.
"fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; whatever injury he has given a person shall be given to him." — While "eye for eye" might sound like a call for brutal revenge, it was actually a safeguard against excessive punishment. It meant the penalty should be proportionate to the harm done, not a life f…
Get the original Greek and Hebrew, verse-by-verse context, and related passages inside the app.
Last reviewed October 2026
