And if a man cause a blemish in his neighbour, as he hath done, so shall it be done to him;
This verse sits inside a real court case. A man had cursed God's name, and as God ruled on it He also set out penalties for injuries people do to each other. The rule is simple: the harm a man causes measures what he gets back. Two questions follow. Who could apply it, and what did Christ later do with it?
The verse belongs to a short list of penalties. One writer reads that list as law in its purest form: the punishment fits the crime, and nothing softens it.
If one killed an animal belonging to another, he must make this good by giving him an animal of the same value. If one injured another's body, he was to receive the same treatment himself: "fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth" (vv. 19-20). This is righteous law pure and simple, justice without mercy. Once again the law insists that a killed animal required repayment, but the killing of a human called for the death penalty (v. 21).
The placing of the rule matters too. It follows the sentence on the blasphemer and on a killer, and Leviticus is not the only book that carries it.
The sin of the man who cursed the name of the Lord stands here as a contrast. The Lord made His mind about him known, and he had to die. Verse 17 mentions killing a man, and cursing the Lord is as grave a sin as that, for death was the penalty for both. Here we also have lesser wrongs, and we get the law "eye for eye, tooth for tooth," which Exodus and Deuteronomy mention too.
Nothing here lets a wounded man go and wound back. The instruction speaks to those who try cases.
The principle of "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth" ... is not a rule for the conscience of a private individual. It is a legal direction for the authorities and judges of Israel. Exodus 21:22 and Deuteronomy 19:18 make this clear, since they name the judges. The direction rests on complete fairness in repaying the deed, and it was meant to warn the people and hold them back (Deut. 19:20).
Take that away and the rule collapses, because a man judging his own case never stops at equal.
Of course a judge must pass the sentence, not the offended party. If a man takes the law into his own hands, in almost every case he will inflict worse treatment than he received.
Read that way, the words are a ceiling rather than a demand.
Under the old economy we find that the law laid down the principle, in righteousness, "An eye for an eye" (Ex. 21:24), thereby restraining the wrath of man. Otherwise he would have demanded two eyes for one, in vengeance.
One writer asks what taking a man's eye would actually do for the person who lost his.
Of course, taking out a man's eye because he had blinded someone else's eye would not help the injured person. But that person has a right to fair compensation.
The verse also shows what law is, and what law is not.
We find here 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 towards one another. But never forget that grace itself rests on a foundation of righteousness.
In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus takes up this exact wording, and He gives His followers a different rule.
Here the Lord goes far beyond all Jewish, and indeed all human, thought. He tells His disciples to show patient grace under every kind of wrong done to them. He forbids them to resist it. He quotes from the law the principle of retaliation, like for like, and quotes it precisely to abandon it. That rule was wide open to abuse. Even when judges applied it with the strictest justice, and it held back human desire for revenge, how far it stood from the mind of heaven that Christ was showing on earth.
Giving up your own claim does not mean courts should give up theirs.
With the Christian it is quite different: having been dealt with in grace, he must act also in grace towards others. The word to him is "Never avenge yourselves ... for it is written, 'Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord'" (Rom. 12:19). A Christian's duty not to avenge himself does not clash at all with the way God governs through magistrates. Their authority comes from Him, and they use it to hold back and punish evil.
- Measure — the injury a man causes sets the penalty he receives. That is righteous law: no more, no less, and no mercy in it.
- Judge — God gave the rule to Israel's courts, not to the injured man. A man who judges his own case always goes too far.
- Limit — by fixing the penalty at one eye, the law capped a vengeance that would otherwise have claimed two.
- Grace — Christ quoted these very words to His disciples, and He quoted them to set them aside. He asks for patient grace under wrong instead.
- Government — giving up personal revenge does not touch the authority of judges. God still uses them to punish evil.
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.
Leviticus 24:20 closes a set of penalties given after a man in the camp cursed God's name, and it sets the scale for repaying injury. These famous words are also badly misused, so who was meant to apply them, and what did the Lord Jesus do with them?
The verse sits in a short list of rulings that price damage — to property, to a body, and to life itself.
If someone killed an animal belonging to another, he had to make it good by giving him an animal of the same value. If someone harmed another physically, he was to receive the same treatment himself — "fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth" (vv. 19-20). This is righteous law pure and simple, justice without mercy. For a second time the law insists that a killed animal required restitution. But the killing of a human called for the death penalty (v. 21).
But did this mean taking a literal eye? Writing on the same words in Exodus, Grant weighs what the injured man gains.
Of course, plucking out the eye of a man who had blinded someone would not help the injured party. But that injured party is entitled to fair compensation.
Israel's law gave several kinds of directions, and this rule sits in one class in particular.
This law contained moral directions for each Israelite's life. It contained ceremonial directions (the laws of the offerings) for serving God. And it contained legal directions for 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 one person's conscience. It is 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 to warn and deter the people (Deut. 19:20).
Grant weighs what happens when the offended man judges his own case.
"An eye for an eye" is fully righteous recompense, expressing the firm inflexibility of the law. Of course a judge must pass the sentence, not the offended party. If someone takes the law into his own hands, he will almost always inflict worse treatment than he received.
When Jesus repeated these words to His disciples, He set them aside as the rule for His own people.
Here the Lord goes beyond all Jewish, and indeed all human, thought. He asks His disciples for patient grace under every wrong done to them. To resist it is forbidden. He quotes the law's principle of talion, as it is called, or retaliation, and He does so precisely to abandon it. It was especially open to abuse. But even when judges applied it with the strictest justice, and even as a strong check on human revenge, how far it stood from the mind of heaven! Christ was showing that mind on earth, and laying it down as the only conduct proper to the sons of His Father.
The contrast between law and grace here is real. It is not a contrast between a harsh God and a kind one.
Here we find the true character of law. Grace is absent. It is eye for an eye, and tooth for a tooth... The law demands an exact equivalent — no more and no less. But grace can remit every claim. Never forget, though, that grace itself is founded deep in righteousness. So it reigns through righteousness (Rom. 5:21), on a basis that lasts forever and cannot change.
Refusing to repay an injury is not the same as saying wrongdoing should go unpunished.
The law of Moses laid down, "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'"... A Christian's duty not to avenge himself does not clash with God's government through magistrates. They get their authority from Him to restrain and punish evil.
- Measure. The penalty had to match the injury exactly — no more and no less. That is law working at its purest, and it is justice without mercy.
- Magistrate. The measure belonged to judges, not to victims. It was a legal direction for Israel's courts, meant as a warning and a deterrent.
- Misuse. A wronged man who applies the measure himself almost always repays worse than he received. That is why the rule belonged to a court.
- Master. Jesus quoted these very words to abandon them as the rule for His disciples. He calls them to patient grace under wrong instead.
- Ministry. Grace frees the Christian from taking revenge. It does not free the state from punishing evil. And grace itself rests on righteousness.