Leviticus 24:20
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 page isn't yet indexed by search engines.
This verse isn't just about strict physical retribution; it emphasizes restorative justice through compensation. The principle of "eye for eye" was often met through financial restitution, ensuring the injured party was made whole. It's a foundational principle for fairness and accountability within the community.
{ "studyTitle": "Justice, Not Vengeance: The Law of Retribution", "timeMinutes": 7, "concepts": [ { "title": "The Principle of Proportionality", "hook": "This verse sounds harsh – 'eye for eye.' But what was the purpose behind this ancient law? It wasn't about revenge, but about establishing a just society.", "teaching": "The phrase 'eye for eye, tooth for tooth' (often called the lex talionis) appears in several places in the Old Testament, including this passage in Leviticus. It might sound like a call for brutal revenge, but its primary function was to limit punishment.\n\nInstead of allowing unrestrained vengeance, this law set a strict boundary: the punishment must match the crime in its severity. It prevented a minor injury from leading to a devastating, life-altering retribution.\n\nThink of it as an ancient form of 'proportionality.' The goal was to ensure justice was served, but in a controlled and measured way, preventing escalation and chaos within the community. It was about restoring balance, not inflicting extra suffering.", "readItAgain": "Notice how the law specifies "fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; whatever injury he has given a person shall be given to him." The emphasis is on the exact injury given.", "reflectionPrompt": "How does the idea of 'proportionality' in justice challenge your initial reaction to the phrase 'eye for eye'?", "supportingReferences": [ { "reference": "Exodus 21:24", "connection": "This is where the principle is first introduced, showing its foundational role in Israelite law." }, { "reference": "Deuteronomy 19:21", "connection": "This verse reiterates the principle in the context of false witness testimony, highlighting its application to serious offenses." } ] }, { "title": "Restoration and Deterrence", "hook": "Beyond just limiting punishment, this law had a practical impact on how people treated each other. What was it designed to achieve?", "teaching": "The law of 'eye for eye' served a dual purpose: deterrence and restoration.\n\n* Deterrence: Knowing that a severe injury would result in a precisely equivalent loss served as a powerful disincentive against causing harm. It made people think twice before acting rashly or violently.\n* While modern legal systems often focus on fines or imprisonment, this law aimed at a form of restitution where the offender experienced a consequence directly related to their harmful action. This wasn't necessarily about physical mutilation in every case, but about acknowledging the severity of the offense and ensuring the victim's loss was addressed in a meaningful way.\n\nThis principle aimed to uphold the dignity and physical integrity of every person within the community, whether they were native-born Israelites or foreigners living among them.", "readItAgain": "Look again at Leviticus 24:20: "whatever injury he has given a person shall be given to him." This points to the direct consequence of one's actions.", "reflectionPrompt": "In what ways can the principle of 'experiencing the consequence of one's actions' apply to modern-day accountability?", "supportingReferences": [ { "reference": "Proverbs 22:3", "connection": "This proverb speaks to the wisdom of foreseeing danger and taking precautions, aligning with the deterrent aspect of the law." }, { "reference": "Romans 13:4", "connection": "This New Testament passage describes the governing authority as God's servant to execute wrath on the wrongdoer, reflecting the state's role in justice." } ] } ] }
Ask a follow-up
Ask Sola things like:
Live chat about Leviticus 24:20 is available in the Sola app.
The phrase "eye for eye" sounds harsh, like a demand for brutal payback. But was that the original intent?
This principle, known as lex talionis (the law of retaliation), is found in Leviticus 24:20.
Limiting Vengeance
Contrary to its modern, often brutal interpretation, the primary purpose of this law in ancient Israel was actually to limit vengeance. It prevented a person from seeking disproportionate revenge for an injury. Instead of allowing escalating cycles of violence, it dictated that the punishment should match the crime, no more and no less.
Restitution, Not Just Retribution
Commentaries suggest that this was often carried out through financial restitution rather than literal physical retribution. The value of the lost eye or tooth, or the cost of the injury, would be paid. This ensured accountability while also providing a path for reconciliation and avoiding excessive harm. It was about justice being proportionate, not punitive beyond the offense.
Did this strict law apply only to Israelites, or to everyone living among them?
Leviticus 24:20 and its surrounding context reveal that God's laws were intended to apply universally within the community, not just to native-born Israelites.
Including Strangers
The narrative preceding this law (Leviticus 24:10-16) involves a man with an Egyptian father who blasphemed. This incident led to the pronouncement of this judgment.
Equal Application
Commentaries highlight that such laws extended to foreigners living in Israel. Whether it was the benefit of the law, ensuring they weren't wronged unjustly, or the penalty of the law, holding them accountable for severe offenses like blasphemy or assault, all were subject to divine justice. This demonstrates God's concern for justice and order for every person within the community He established.
This passage in Exodus introduces the principle of 'eye for eye, tooth for tooth' as a judicial standard for punishment, setting the stage for its application and clarification in Leviticus.
Deuteronomy 19:21This verse explicitly states the purpose behind the 'eye for eye' principle, emphasizing that it is meant to prevent excessive vengeance and ensure justice is carried out fairly, mirroring the intent in Leviticus.
Matthew 5:38-39Jesus directly addresses the 'eye for eye' law, reinterpreting it to call for a radical, selfless response to evil that goes far beyond mere retribution, showing its ultimate spiritual significance.
Romans 12:17-19The Apostle Paul echoes Jesus' teaching, urging believers not to take revenge but to entrust vengeance to God and overcome evil with good, highlighting a profound shift from legalistic retribution to divine 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.
This verse isn't just about strict physical retribution; it emphasizes restorative justice through compensation. The principle of "eye for eye" was often met through financial restitution, ensuring the injured party was made whole. It's a foundational principle for fairness and accountability within the community.
{ "studyTitle": "Justice, Not Vengeance: The Law of Retribution", "timeMinutes": 7, "concepts": [ { "title": "The Principle of Proportionality", "hook": "This verse sounds harsh – 'eye for eye.' But what was the purpose behind this ancient law? It wasn't about revenge, but about establishing a just society.", "teaching": "The phrase 'eye for eye, tooth for tooth' (often called the lex talionis) appears in several places in the Old Testament, including this passage in Leviticus. It might sound like a call for brutal revenge, but its primary function was to limit punishment.\n\nInstead of allowing unrestrained vengeance, this law set a strict boundary: the punishment must match the crime in its severity. It prevented a minor injury from leading to a devastating, life-altering retribution.\n\nThink of it as an ancient form of 'proportionality.' The goal was to ensure justice was served, but in a controlled and measured way, preventing escalation and chaos within the community. It was about restoring balance, not inflicting extra suffering.", "readItAgain": "Notice how the law specifies "fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; whatever injury he has given a person shall be given to him." The emphasis is on the exact injury given.", "reflectionPrompt": "How does the idea of 'proportionality' in justice challenge your initial reaction to the phrase 'eye for eye'?", "supportingReferences": [ { "reference": "Exodus 21:24", "connection": "This is where the principle is first introduced, showing its foundational role in Israelite law." }, { "reference": "Deuteronomy 19:21", "connection": "This verse reiterates the principle in the context of false witness testimony, highlighting its application to serious offenses." } ] }, { "title": "Restoration and Deterrence", "hook": "Beyond just limiting punishment, this law had a practical impact on how people treated each other. What was it designed to achieve?", "teaching": "The law of 'eye for eye' served a dual purpose: deterrence and restoration.\n\n* Deterrence: Knowing that a severe injury would result in a precisely equivalent loss served as a powerful disincentive against causing harm. It made people think twice before acting rashly or violently.\n* Restoration: While modern legal systems often focus on fines or imprisonment, this law aimed at a form of restitution where the offender experienced a consequence directly related to their harmful action. This wasn't necessarily about physical mutilation in every case, but about acknowledging the severity of the offense and ensuring the victim's loss was addressed in a meaningful way.\n\nThis principle aimed to uphold the dignity and physical integrity of every person within the community, whether they were native-born Israelites or foreigners living among them.", "readItAgain": "Look again at Leviticus 24:20: "whatever injury he has given a person shall be given to him." This points to the direct consequence of one's actions.", "reflectionPrompt": "In what ways can the principle of 'experiencing the consequence of one's actions' apply to modern-day accountability?", "supportingReferences": [ { "reference": "Proverbs 22:3", "connection": "This proverb speaks to the wisdom of foreseeing danger and taking precautions, aligning with the deterrent aspect of the law." }, { "reference": "Romans 13:4", "connection": "This New Testament passage describes the governing authority as God's servant to execute wrath on the wrongdoer, reflecting the state's role in justice." } ] } ] }
{ "studyTitle": "Justice, Not Vengeance: The Law of Retribution", "timeMinutes": 7, "concepts": [ { "title": "The Principle of Proportionality", "hook": "This verse sounds harsh – 'eye for eye.' But what was the purpose behind this ancient law? It wasn't about revenge, but about establishing a just society.", "teaching": "The phrase 'eye for eye, tooth for tooth' (often called the lex talionis) appears in several places in the Old Testament, including this passage in Leviticus. It might sound like a call for brutal revenge, but its primary function was to limit punishment.\n\nInstead of allowing unrestrained vengeance, this law set a strict boundary: the punishment must match the crime in its severity. It prevented a minor injury from leading to a devastating, life-altering retribution.\n\nThink of it as an ancient form of 'proportionality.' The goal was to ensure justice was served, but in a controlled and measured way, preventing escalation and chaos within the community. It was about restoring balance, not inflicting extra suffering.", "readItAgain": "Notice how the law specifies "fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; whatever injury he has given a person shall be given to him." The emphasis is on the exact injury given.", "reflectionPrompt": "How does the idea of 'proportionality' in justice challenge your initial reaction to the phrase 'eye for eye'?", "supportingReferences": [ { "reference": "Exodus 21:24", "connection": "This is where the principle is first introduced, showing its foundational role in Israelite law." }, { "reference": "Deuteronomy 19:21", "connection": "This verse reiterates the principle in the context of false witness testimony, highlighting its application to serious offenses." } ] }, { "title": "Restoration and Deterrence", "hook": "Beyond just limiting punishment, this law had a practical impact on how people treated each other. What was it designed to achieve?", "teaching": "The law of 'eye for eye' served a dual purpose: deterrence and restoration.\n\n* Deterrence: Knowing that a severe injury would result in a precisely equivalent loss served as a powerful disincentive against causing harm. It made people think twice before acting rashly or violently.\n* Restoration: While modern legal systems often focus on fines or imprisonment, this law aimed at a form of restitution where the offender experienced a consequence directly related to their harmful action. This wasn't necessarily about physical mutilation in every case, but about acknowledging the severity of the offense and ensuring the victim's loss was addressed in a meaningful way.\n\nThis principle aimed to uphold the dignity and physical integrity of every person within the community, whether they were native-born Israelites or foreigners living among them.", "readItAgain": "Look again at Leviticus 24:20: "whatever injury he has given a person shall be given to him." This points to the direct consequence of one's actions.", "reflectionPrompt": "In what ways can the principle of 'experiencing the consequence of one's actions' apply to modern-day accountability?", "supportingReferences": [ { "reference": "Proverbs 22:3", "connection": "This proverb speaks to the wisdom of foreseeing danger and taking precautions, aligning with the deterrent aspect of the law." }, { "reference": "Romans 13:4", "connection": "This New Testament passage describes the governing authority as God's servant to execute wrath on the wrongdoer, reflecting the state's role in justice." } ] } ] }
"fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; whatever injury he has given a person shall be given to him." — This verse isn't just about strict physical retribution; it emphasizes restorative justice through compensation. The principle of "eye for eye" was often met through financial restitution, ensuring t…
Get the original Greek and Hebrew, verse-by-verse context, and related passages inside the app.
