Judaism
Exodus
“Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,”
← All parallels
ParallelsA comparative study
JudaismChristianityIslam
On Lex Talionis
Lex Talionis establishes proportional retribution as a legal standard across ancient Near Eastern and Abrahamic traditions. While Judaism and Islam codify this as enforceable civil law with provisions for equivalence, Christianity reinterprets the principle as a call to personal non-retaliation. Scholars debate whether the biblical formulation was originally punitive or a limitation on excessive vengeance. Islam uniquely integrates the talionic right with a spiritual incentive for forgiveness.
What every account tells.
- iRetributive justice must be strictly proportional to the injury inflicted.
- iiLegal systems codify limits on vengeance to prevent escalation.
- iiiPhysical harm warrants equivalent physical restitution.
How each tradition tells it.
Judaism
This tradition anchors the principle in civil law, emphasizing exact equivalence to maintain social order. Scholars note it likely functioned as a cap on vengeance rather than a mandate for mutilation.
Christianity
This tradition subverts the legal principle into a personal ethic of non-resistance and radical forgiveness. Scholars debate whether this represents a new law or a fulfillment of the prophetic spirit.
Islam
This tradition preserves the legal right to retribution but introduces spiritual merit for remission. Scholars observe the balance between state-enforced justice and individual piety.
Read the passages as one.
Judaism
Leviticus
“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.”
Christianity
Matthew
“But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.”
Islam
Surah 5: Al-Ma'idah (The Table Spread)
وَكَتَبۡنَا عَلَيۡهِمۡ فِيهَآ أَنَّ ٱلنَّفۡسَ بِٱلنَّفۡسِ وَٱلۡعَيۡنَ بِٱلۡعَيۡنِ وَٱلۡأَنفَ بِٱلۡأَنفِ وَٱلۡأُذُنَ بِٱلۡأُذُنِ وَٱلسِّنَّ بِٱلسِّنِّ وَٱلۡجُرُوحَ قِصَاصٞۚ فَمَن تَصَدَّقَ بِهِۦ فَهُوَ كَفَّارَةٞ لَّهُۥۚ وَمَن لَّمۡ يَحۡكُم بِمَآ أَنزَلَ ٱللَّهُ فَأُوْلَـٰٓئِكَ هُمُ ٱلظَّـٰلِمُونَ
“And We ordained for them therein a life for a life, an eye for an eye, a nose for a nose, an ear for an ear, a tooth for a tooth, and for wounds is legal retribution. But whoever gives [up his right as] charity, it is an expiation for him. And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed - then it is those who are the wrongdoers”
Where else this study appears.
Discussion
No one has written anything here yet. Some places to begin:
- Which tradition's framing of this idea felt strongest to you, and why?
- What's missing from this comparison — a tradition or a passage that should be here?
- Has reading these side-by-side changed how you'd read any of them alone?
Sign in to join the discussion.