Does Biblical law require a literal "eye for an eye"?
This is one of those questions that can only be answered "yes" and "no". Once you understand how the law is applied, you will see why this is the fairest solution to the problem of negligent injury. First, let's examine the original scripture:
22 “If men fight and hurt a pregnant woman so that she gives birth prematurely, and yet no harm follows, he shall be surely fined as much as the woman’s husband demands and the judges allow. 23 But if any harm follows, then you must take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burning for burning, wound for wound, and bruise for bruise. Exodus 21:22-25WEB
This is the first reference in scripture to the talion ("eye for an eye") principle[1]. The word talion comes from the Latin word talio, which means "like" or "such." It refers to the fact that God limits the legal punishment or penalty for intentional or negligent injury to be "like" the actual crime or injury. In the ancient world, within cultures that promoted vengeance, people would be tempted to exact a greater penalty than the original harm done. God both prohibited personal vengeance (Lev. 19:18) and set an upper limit (by equivalence) upon court-appointed retributive harm: "an eye for an eye, ...."
In practice, the literal equivalent would almost never be carried out. God allowed the penalty to be converted to monetary restitution (also called "ransom"). The amount of restitution would be established by a negotiation between the victim and the perpetrator. The Jewish historian Josephus explains how this was understood:
He that maims anyone, let him undergo the like himself, and be deprived of the same member of which he has deprived the other, unless he that is maimed will accept money instead of it; for the law makes the sufferer the judge of the value of what he has suffered, and permits him to estimate it, unless he will be more severe.[2]
Although it is possible that the injured victim could demand the literal application of this law, more often the victim would prefer monetary restitution, rather than the perpetrator's loss of an eye. The perpetrator would also be more interested in paying monetary restitution than in losing his eye. This clear confluence of interests allows the two parties to establish a "value equivalence": money for an eye. The self-interest of each party will either result in a negotiated ransom amount that is slightly below what the perpetrator believes his eye to be worth (and proportionate to his ability to pay), or if the negotiations fail, then the perpetrator simply loses his eye. Either way, justice is done.
It is interesting that this Biblical law stands in stark opposition to most other contemporary law systems on this point. Most law systems of the time set fixed prices for injury compensation, which allowed the rich to get away with injuring people at will.
For example, in the Code of Hammurabi:
(211) If he has made a commoner's daughter lose her unborn child by the violence, he shall pay five shekels of silver. (212) If that woman has died, he shall pay half a mana of silver. (213) If he has struck a man's slave-girl and made her lose her unborn child, he shall pay two shekels of silver. (214) If that slave-girl has died, he shall pay a third of a mana of silver.[3]
For more information on this issue see Doesn't the Code of Hammurabi "eye for an eye" concept predate Biblical law?
