| Back to gregoryharms.com |

October 11, 2025

Eye for an Eye

I have heard it many, many times. But lately for some reason I have been bumping into it with what seems an increased frequency. What has remained constant over the many years is the self-adulation with which this maxim is presented: “It says so in the Bible!”

This precept is called the Code of Hammurabi—in Latin, lex talionis. It is a principle of retributive punishment. The general and original meaning was to prevent excessive punishment. The penalty, the theory went, was to be equivalent to the harm caused.

Many people love to trot this out in an effort to sound sophisticated and deep. I guess quoting the Bible indicates one’s panache and worldliness. It indicates neither in this case.

One finds lex talionis in Exodus 21:24, Leviticus 24:20, and Deuteronomy 19:21 of the Old Testament. These three books of the Bible fall in what is called the Pentateuch. This is the first five books of the Bible: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. The Pentateuch is also known as the Torah. The Torah is a key element in Jewish rabbinical literature.

Now, one might ask our self-satisfied presenter if he or she is Jewish, on account of limiting him or herself to the Pentateuch. Yet, we should bear in mind that Jewish scripture is not in agreement with lex talionis. The Jewish faith reduces it to a monetary concept, where the injured party is remunerated equivalently for the damage done. The Jewish faith does not endorse retributive justice.

For that matter, Christ in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5–7) outright contradicts the Code of Hammurabi. He instead encourages his followers to love their enemies and proceed in life with compassion and forgiveness.

And in case the one who enthusiastically quotes scripture—and who has no apparent understanding of it—wanted to pivot and turn to Islam: they’re not entirely on board with it either. Now, the principle of “a life for a life, an eye for an eye, a nose for a nose” does appear in the Quran (5:45).

However, this passage should be understood in the context in which it was written. The point here is that the maxim removes social status from consideration of punishment, which it had hitherto been. Furthermore, the Quran emphasizes charity and “expiation” (atonement). Mercy and forgiveness are the priorities in Islam—not chopping people’s heads off.

So, our proud Biblical scholar is triangulated by the three major monotheistic faiths in how they do not entirely concur with the “eye for an eye” dictum.

My guess is the person is hinting they are in support of capital punishment. I taught capital punishment for years, now I teach the prison system as a whole. And I learned an interesting thing along the way: there are zero (zero) valid arguments for the death penalty. They all amount to blood lust and revenge. All the common assertions one hears regarding the death penalty are wrong: it’s cheaper, it discourages crime, it makes society safer, it’s justice—all nonsense.

So, the next time you hear someone pompously aver “an eye for an eye,” begin asking basic questions. And then listen to the crickets.



Blog Archive