Is the principle of retribution in Exodus 21:24 still applicable in modern Christian ethics? Retribution, Principle of (“Eye for Eye”) – Exodus 21:24 Canonical Text “Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot” (Exodus 21:24). Original Function within the Mosaic Covenant a. Judicial guideline, not private vendetta: The lex talionis (“law of equal retribution”) was handed to Israel’s judges (cf. Exodus 21:22 and Deuteronomy 19:18–21), functioning as a sentencing ceiling, not an incitement to personal revenge. b. Human dignity: By setting a fixed limit (“no more than the loss suffered”), the statute protected against escalating blood-feuds. c. Penal substitution possibility: Rabbinic tradition (m. B.K. 8:1) and Josephus (Ant. 4.280) record that monetary compensation usually satisfied the law, showing the principle’s flexibility while retaining proportionality. The Law’s Pedagogical Role Galatians 3:24 speaks of the Law as “our guardian until Christ came.” Retributive proportionality exposed sin (Romans 7:7) and foreshadowed a deeper satisfaction for offense—ultimately met in Christ’s atoning, substitutionary death (Isaiah 53:5; 1 Peter 2:24). Christ’s Teaching Matthew 5:38–39 : “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person…” Christ does not annul the judicial principle (cf. Matthew 5:17) but forbids disciples from invoking it for personal retaliation. He radicalizes love, calls for voluntary forfeiture of personal claims, and thereby distinguishes interpersonal ethics from state jurisprudence. Apostolic Application a. Personal sphere: “Never repay anyone evil for evil…leave room for God’s wrath” (Romans 12:17–19). b. Civil sphere: The state “does not bear the sword in vain” but is “an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer” (Romans 13:1–4). The apostle upholds proportional retribution as a divine mandate for government while excluding vigilante justice for believers. c. Ecclesial sphere: Church discipline is restorative (Galatians 6:1; 2 Corinthians 2:6–8), not retributive. Continuity and Discontinuity • Continues: The principle stands as a universal moral norm grounding civil proportionality, reflected in modern penal systems’ concepts of just deserts and measured sentencing. • Discontinues (transformed): Christ calls the redeemed to transcend retaliation in personal conduct, embodying grace that reflects God’s forbearance (Ephesians 4:32). Historical Christian Consensus Patristic writers (e.g., Tertullian, Apol. 37) viewed lex talionis as just for magistrates, not Christians seeking revenge. Augustine (Civ. Dei 19.17) integrated it into Just-War reasoning. Reformers (Calvin, Inst. 4.20.16) echoed the two-kingdom distinction, defending civil proportionality while preaching private forgiveness. This continuity traces to contemporary ethical statements, such as the Westminster Confession 23.1, affirming lawful magistrates’ right to punish. Ethical Ramifications Today a. Criminal Justice: Proportional sentencing, capital punishment debate (Genesis 9:6; Romans 13:4), victims’ rights balanced by due process. b. Self-Defense: Legitimate within civil law (Exodus 22:2), yet personal vengeance remains prohibited. c. Medical and Tort Law: Damages calculated by actual loss mirror the Mosaic calibration of restitution (Exodus 21:18–19, 33–36). d. Social Justice: Calls to oppose excessive or discriminatory penalties echo the command’s original leveling intent. Common Objections Answered • “Retribution is primitive.” – Scripture shows it was a curb on primitivism; Christ affirms its judicial validity while advancing personal ethics. • “Christian forgiveness nullifies punishment.” – Forgiveness is personal; justice remains a divine ordinance for the state (Acts 25:11). • “Love excludes retribution.” – Romans 13 weds love (v. 10) to governing authority’s retributive role (v. 4), harmonizing the two. Conclusion Exodus 21:24’s principle endures as the God-ordained, equitable foundation for civil justice systems, demanding penalties proportionate to offenses. For individual Christians, Christ’s New-Covenant ethic supersedes any personal claim to retaliatory rights, redirecting us toward forgiveness and gospel witness. Thus, the lex talionis is simultaneously upheld (in the public square) and surpassed (in personal discipleship), cohering perfectly within the unified testimony of Scripture. |
    |