Skip to content
Church.wiki

Leviticus 24:17–22

Bible verses · Also called: Leviticus 24:17-22, Lev. 24:17-22, Leviticus 24:17–22, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth (Leviticus)

17 And he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death.

18 And he that killeth a beast shall make it good; beast for beast.

19 And if a man cause a blemish in his neighbour; as he hath done, so shall it be done to him;

20 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 again.

21 And he that killeth a beast, he shall restore it: and he that killeth a man, he shall be put to death.

22 Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the stranger, as for one of your own country: for I am the Lord your God.

The text is the New Korean Revised Version (1998), shown under a licence from the Korean Bible Society. Wording may differ slightly from the Korean Revised Version and the Revised New Korean Standard Version. Read in the Korean Revised Version

A passage containing the law of retaliation, which requires that homicide and bodily injury be repaid in equal measure, together with the command that this law apply equally to the foreigner and the native-born. Because of the phrase "eye for eye, tooth for tooth," it is frequently cited in discussions of the Sermon on the Mount and of capital punishment.

Context

Leviticus 24:10–23 recounts an incident in which the son of an Israelite woman and an Egyptian man blasphemed the name of God during a fight in the camp. Moses placed him in custody and sought the will of the Lord. In response, the Lord commanded that the blasphemer be stoned (v. 16) and then gave regulations concerning homicide, the killing of livestock, and bodily injury (vv. 17–21). Verse 22 declares that this law applies equally to the foreigner living among the Israelites and to the native-born. Because these regulations are set in the middle of a case involving a man with a foreign father, many interpreters see the passage as tying the principle of judging everyone by the same law, regardless of origin, to the incident itself. The narrative concludes with the people bringing the man outside the camp and stoning him (v. 23).

Similar regulations appear in Exodus 21:23–25 and Deuteronomy 19:18–21. The term rendered "breach" in the King James Version (파상, 破傷, in the Korean Revised Version) refers to bodily injury such as a broken bone. The phrase "beast for beast" in verse 18 is closer in Hebrew to "life for life."

Interpretation

  • Reading as the law of retaliation: This view understands the passage as the principle of repaying harm in a measure equal to the injury inflicted, known in Latin as the lex talionis. Many commentators explain that its purpose was not to encourage endless vengeance. Rather, it was meant to limit punishment to the extent of the injury and to place such cases under the judgment of the community rather than of individuals. A similar principle is known to have existed in the Code of Hammurabi of the ancient Near East.
  • Reading in the Jewish tradition: Rabbinic literature is known to have understood "eye for eye" in cases of injury as monetary compensation rather than literal corporal punishment. The regulation concerning homicide, however, is not covered by this compensatory interpretation.
  • Reformed reading: Chapter 19 of the Westminster Confession of Faith holds that the judicial laws given to Israel expired together with the state of that people. It nevertheless teaches that the "general equity" contained in them remains relevant. From this perspective, the passage is read not as a provision of present-day criminal law but as a principle of just judgment.
  • Reading that focuses on verse 22: This view regards the command to apply the same law to foreigner and native-born alike as a basis for equality before the law and for the protection of sojourners. It is often cited together with Leviticus 19:33–34.

Controversies and Issues

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus quoted this principle and then taught, "That ye resist not evil" (Matthew 5:38–42). Churches understand the relationship between this teaching and the present passage in different ways.

  • Many denominations distinguish the two, holding that Jesus' words forbid personal retaliation, while the state's authority to punish is affirmed separately, as in Romans 13:3–4.
  • The peace church tradition rooted in the Anabaptist movement has applied this teaching more broadly, emphasizing nonresistance and nonviolence.

The passage is also cited in debates over retaining or abolishing the death penalty (Capital Punishment and the Church). Those who support retention point to verses 17 and 21 as grounds for grave accountability for taking human life. Those who advocate abolition point to the fact that these regulations belonged to the judicial law of ancient Israel and appeal to the teaching of Jesus.

In everyday speech, "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" is commonly used to justify revenge. Some observe that such usage takes the phrase out of context, since it originally belonged to a judicial regulation that limited punishment to the extent of the injury.

In the Korean Church

"An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" is a widely used idiom in Korean society as well. In the church, the passage is mainly presented as a point of contrast in sermons on love for enemies and nonretaliation in Matthew 5.

Related Passages

  • Exodus 21:23–25
  • Deuteronomy 19:18–21
  • Matthew 5:38–42
  • Romans 12:17–21
  • Leviticus 19:33–34

See also 8

First draft: AI · Last edited 2026-10-04

🚩 Is there a problem with this article? Report it

Log in to report. Reports are reviewed within 24 hours.

Discussion 0

Share your thoughts, other viewpoints or corrections for this article.

    Log in to join the discussion