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.
This verse is part of a legal code God gave to ancient Israel through Moses, found in a section of Leviticus dealing with violent offenses. The principle of 'an eye for an eye' — known historically as lex talionis — was actually a revolutionary concept in its ancient context. In surrounding cultures, punishment was often wildly disproportionate, with the powerful able to exact devastating revenge against the weak. This law set a ceiling on punishment: the penalty must match the offense, no more. It was designed to bring proportionality and fairness to justice, protecting the vulnerable from excessive retaliation.
Lord, I confess I often want more than justice — I want to win. Teach me the difference between seeking what is right and feeding my own bitterness. Give me the courage to pursue fairness without revenge, and the grace to break cycles that hurt everyone around me. Amen.
We usually hear 'eye for eye' quoted by someone justifying revenge — and we assume the Bible is blessing that impulse. But here is the surprise: this law was actually restraint. In a world where a king could execute a man for a minor slight, God said, 'Enough. No more than equal.' This was not a license for vengeance — it was a lid on it. The law did not invite retaliation; it limited how far it could go. Jesus would later build on this in the Sermon on the Mount, calling his followers to turn the other cheek. He was not contradicting Leviticus — he was completing it. The old law capped retaliation. Jesus invited freedom from it altogether. When someone wrongs you, you carry a real choice: match it, exceed it, or refuse to play that game. Which one actually sets you free?
What was the original purpose of the 'eye for eye' principle in ancient Israelite society, and how does that differ from how most people understand it today?
Think of a time when you felt genuinely wronged — what was your first instinct: to match the offense, exceed it, or let it go? What was driving that response?
Jesus said to 'turn the other cheek' in Matthew 5. Does that mean injustice should go unanswered, or is there a difference between personal forgiveness and the need for public accountability?
How does the desire for 'equal' payback quietly shape your relationships with people who have hurt you — a coworker, a family member, a friend?
What would it look like this week to respond to a wrong done to you in a way that breaks the cycle rather than continues it — and what would that cost you?
Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
Exodus 21:24
Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
Exodus 21:25
And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,
Exodus 21:23
And thine eye shall not pity; but life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.
Deuteronomy 19:21
Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
Matthew 5:38
fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; just as he has injured a man, so shall the same be done to him.
AMP
fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; whatever injury he has given a person shall be given to him.
ESV
fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; just as he has injured a man, so it shall be inflicted on him.
NASB
fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. As he has injured the other, so he is to be injured.
NIV
fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; as he has caused disfigurement of a man, so shall it be done to him.
NKJV
a fracture for a fracture, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. Whatever anyone does to injure another person must be paid back in kind.
NLT
fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. What he did to hurt that person will be done to him.
MSG