The Law of Retaliation in the Bible: Is "eye for eye" taken literally?

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind", or so the saying goes.

Many readers of the Old Testament are often shocked by prescriptions such as found in Deuteronomy 19:21, calling for punishment by taking "life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot". At first glance, these bring to mind harsh punishments like those meted out in ancient China, mutilations in some war-torn countries, or even images like the cutting off of hands for crimes like theft in some countries. Surely a good and loving God cannot be calling for such harsh punishments?

Is this Law of Retaliation (lex talionis) as barbaric and vicious as it sounds? Is "eye for eye" taken literally?

Proportionality: Qualitative and quantitative restraint

Context is important. Read contextually, it will be seen that the lex talionis prescriptions aim to lay down a principle of proportionality. Punishments are to be restrained both qualitatively and quantitatively.

Earlier in the Book of Genesis, we read about the violent man Lamech, who married two wives, Adah and Zillah. Genesis 4:23-24 records Lamech's vengeful boast:

Lamech said to his wives,

"Adah and Zillah, listen to me;
wives of Lamech, hear my words.
I have killed a man for wounding me,
a young man for injuring me.
If Cain is avenged seven times,
then Lamech seventy-seven times."

Lamech's responses are vastly disproportionate on two counts. Qualitatively, he killed a man for merely injuring or wounding him. Quantitatively, he avenges himself seventy-sevenfold.

The lex talionis therefore prescribes a qualitative and quantitative restraint upon such disproportionate conduct. Qualitatively, it is "eye for eye" instead of "life for eye". Quantitatively, it is "eye for eye" instead of "two eyes for an eye".

Paul Copan comments in his book, Is God a Moral Monster? Making sense of the Old Testament God:

The point of lex talionis is this: the punishment should fit the crime. Furthermore, these were the maximum penalties; punishments were to be proportional and couldn't exceed that standard. And a punishment could be less severe if the judge deemed that the crime required a lesser penalty.

Lex talionis not taken literally, except the death penalty

Furthermore, passages in the Bible show that the lex talionis was not taken literally, except in cases involving the death penalty (see, e.g., Exodus 21:12 and 14).

Exodus 21:22-25 is one such passage containing the lex talionis:

If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

Even as the prescription "eye for eye" and "tooth for tooth" is laid down, it is immediately followed by Exodus 21:26-27:

If a man hits a manservant or maidservant in the eye and destroys it, he must let the servant go free to compensate for the eye. And if he knocks out the tooth of a manservant or maidservant, he must let the servant go free to compensate for the tooth.

Taken together, these passages suggest that the laws of ancient Israel required compensation for non-fatal physical injury. Jonathan Burnside writes in God, Justice and Society: Aspects of Law and Legality in the Bible: 

Ultimately, the phrase "eye for eye, tooth for tooth" operates on two levels: it creates an initial presumption of physical mutilation but, at the same time, it functions as a symbol of some more general equivalence, which could be substitution or some other form of compensation. It is probable that in cases of nonfatal injuries resulting from a fight, the victim was entitled to threaten the offender with talionic punishment. But that punishment was always negotiable, and the further the circumstances were from the typical case, the less likely that talio would even be demanded, let alone enforced.

Ultimate emphasis on restraint

Ultimately, the emphasis is on restraint. Passages laying down the lex talionis emphasise a principle of qualitative and quantitative proportionality. Furthermore, "eye for eye" and "tooth for tooth" are not taken literally, except in cases involving the death penalty.

Hence, it can be seen that Jesus was not abolishing the Old Testament Law in the Sermon on the Mount (cf. Matthew 5:17), but instead correcting several abuses and misunderstandings of the Law when He said:

"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you." (Matthew 5:38-42)