eye for an eye?

Question

When the bible mentions "Eye for an eye" what does that mean?
"revenge".

Answer 1

It wasn't just revenge, though, it was also a proscrition for how far punishment could go. For instance, it was "An eye for an eye" not "A life for an eye". The Hebrew law system strived for balance.

Edit: Summer Breeze beat me to it. :)

Answer 2

The phrase "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth", a quotation from Exodus 21:23-27, expresses a principle of retributive justice also known as lex talionis (Latin for "law of retaliation"). The basis of this form of law is the principle of proportionate punishment, often expressed under the motto "Let the punishment fit the crime", which particularly applies to mirror punishments (which may or may not be proportional). At the root of the non-biblical form of this principle is the belief that one of the purposes of the law is to provide equitable retaliation for an offended party. It defined and restricted the extent of retaliation. This early belief is reflected in the Code of Hammurabi and in the laws of the Old Testament (e.g., Exodus 21:23-25, Leviticus 24:18-20, Deuteronomy 19:21).

Answer 3

A close reading reveals that it means damages.

A literal meaning in untenable. Where's the justice in revenge? How does it help a victim to do the same to his assailant? Thus, the real meaning is 'the value of an eye for an eye". And this is relative. For the value of a diamond-cutter's eye is far greater than a blind man's. While both suffer from similar pain, the diamond cutter loses his livelihood, while the blind man loses virtually nothing.

Answer 4

it was a biblical law stating that the punishment should fit the crime and not exceed it (as was common in ancient times), but neither should it be so lenient that justice did not get served by it either. the ancient sages who examined the phrase decided it could not be taken literally. they argued many cases to show this. for example, what if the criminal only had one eye? if his only remaining eye was taken out, that would leave him blind, and therefore the punishment would be excessive. what if the criminal was a worker who needed use of his hands, but the law said his hand should be cut off? this would make him unable to work and earn a living for himself and his family, and so in this case, justice would also not be served. this is why an "eye for an eye" is regarded as a principle of law.

as well, in lev 19:18, the bible forbids revenge.

Answer 5

The principle of justice that requires punishment equal in kind to the offense (not greater than the offense, as was frequently given in ancient times). Thus, if someone puts out another's eye, one of the offender's eyes should be put out. The principle is stated in the Book of Exodus as “Thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.”


Jesus referred to this principle in the Sermon on the Mount, calling on his followers to turn the other cheek instead.

God Bless You

Answer 6

Righteous Justice

Answer 7

I think it was meant to keep people from exacting a revenge that was out of proportion to the original offense. That is, if someone takes your eye, you take theirs, but you don't cut off their head.

Answer 8

Yes, but by giving/taking equal payment, life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. It's not "revenge" so much as justice.

Answer 9

What most think it meant was, don't go overboard on punishment. If someone causes you to lose an eye, don't remove his head as punishment. Jesus kind of overturned the whole saying anyway. He said, if someone sues you for your shirt, give them your coat too. The reason for this saying: if someone takes your shirt and coat, leaving you naked, they have caused your poverty and nudity, thus shaming them. By giving them this opportunity to remember that you are a person too, you most likely will prevent your poverty and their shame.

Answer 10

Matching eyes?