Exodus 21:24–25

If there were bad results for the woman, the guilty party had to answer for it. The judgment would match the injury — "eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe" (vv. 24-25). Of course, plucking out a man's eye because he had blinded another's eye would not help the injured party. But he has a right to fair compensation.

This law contained moral directions for the life of each Israelite. It contained ceremonial directions — the laws of the offerings — so that the children of Israel could serve God. It also contained legal directions to regulate the daily life of the people. The principle of "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth" belongs to the last group. It is not a principle for the conscience of a particular individual, but a legal direction for the authorities and judges of Israel. This is clear from Exodus 21:22 and Deuteronomy 19:18, where the text names the judges. The direction rested on absolute fairness in repaying the deed. It was also meant to warn the people and keep them from such deeds.

Of course a judge must pass the sentence, not the offended party. If a man takes the law into his own hands, he will almost always inflict worse treatment than he received.

Under the old arrangement we find that the law laid down the principle, in righteousness, "An eye for an eye" (Ex. 21:24), and by it restrained the anger of man. Otherwise he would have demanded two eyes for one, in revenge.

The law provided for everything, upheld every interest, and met every claim. There was no partiality — no distinction made between the rich and the poor. God weighed each man's claim with divine accuracy, so no one had a just reason to complain of a decision. The pure robe of justice was not to be stained with bribery, corruption and favouritism.

The Lord had to make laws against certain crimes. That proves man is capable of committing them. If the capability and the tendency were not there, there would be no need of the enactments.

Here we find the true character of law. Grace is absent. It is eye for an eye, and tooth for a tooth. Law demands an exact equivalent — no more, and no less. Grace can cancel every claim. God has dealt with us in grace and cancelled our whole debt, so we must act on the same principle toward one another. But never forget: grace itself rests on a foundation laid deep in righteousness.

He quotes the principle of retaliation from the law to set it aside. It was wide open to abuse. And even applied with the strictest justice, and acting as a powerful check on the desire for revenge, how far it was from the mind of heaven! That mind is what Christ was showing on earth, and laying down as the only conduct fitting for the sons of His Father.

The Christian must not avenge himself. That duty in no way clashes with the government of God carried out by magistrates. They get their authority from Him to restrain and punish evil.

First, on God's part, we find Him making laws that show strict, even-handed, perfect justice. "Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe." Such was the character of the laws, the statutes and the judgments by which God governed His earthly kingdom of Israel. There was no partiality — no distinction made between the rich and the poor. The scales that weighed each man's claim were set with divine accuracy, so no one could justly complain of a decision.

Here, too, we see how amazingly low He stoops. He is the great God of heaven and earth, yet He judges between one man and another about the death of an ox, the loan of a garment, or the loss of a servant's tooth. "Who is like the Lord our God, who humbles Himself to behold the things that are in heaven and on earth?"

The principle of "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth" belongs to the legal directions that regulated the daily life of the people. It is not a principle for the conscience of a particular individual, but a legal direction for the authorities and judges of Israel. Exodus 21:22 and Deuteronomy 19:18 make this clear, since both name the judges. The direction rested on absolute fairness in repaying the deed. It was also meant to warn the people and hold them back from evil.

"An eye for an eye" is fully righteous repayment, expressing the firm inflexibility of the law. Of course the sentence must be passed by a judge, not by the offended party. If someone takes the law into his own hands, he will in practically every case inflict worse treatment than he received.

If in their law they were to exact "life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth… stripe for stripe," it was as the executors of God's governmental righteousness… No intelligent Christian can look at this trust given to Israel without seeing how completely it contrasts with the believer's position now. Is this, as some have argued, because the world has been educated to a higher level? Let us ask one question — has God been educated?

The first is that all these enactments show the tenderness of God in protecting the bodies of His people — and especially of those in a subject position. The second is that we find here the true character of law. Grace is absent… Our Lord points to these very rules to show how they contrast with grace… Law demands an exact equivalent — no more and no less. But grace can cancel every claim. God dealt with us in grace and cancelled our whole debt, so we must act on the same principle towards one another. Yet never forget: the foundation of grace itself is laid deep in righteousness.

The law of Moses said, "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." With the Christian it is quite different. God has dealt with him in grace, so he must also act in grace towards others. The word to him is "never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, 'Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.'"… This duty not to avenge himself in no way clashes with God's government through magistrates. They get their authority from Him to restrain and punish evil.