Exodus 21:25 - burning for burning, wound for wound, and bruise for bruise.
Select Bible Verse
Filter Categories
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
R
S
T
U
V
W
What does "Exodus 21:25" mean?
Exodus 21:25, "burning for burning, wound for wound, and bruise for bruise," is part of a larger section (Exodus 21:18-27) outlining laws regarding physical assault and injury. This particular verse establishes the principle of retributive justice, also known as "lex talionis" or the "law of retaliation" (though interpretations of how it should be applied varied).
Here's a breakdown of what it likely meant in its historical context:
Burning for burning: If someone caused a burn to another person, they would be required to compensate the victim for the inflicted burn. This was likely not about literally burning the perpetrator in the same spot, but rather compensating the victim for the pain, suffering, medical expenses, loss of work, and any permanent disfigurement caused by the burn.
Wound for wound: Similarly, if someone inflicted a wound, they were obligated to compensate the injured person for the resulting pain, medical treatment, loss of earnings, and any lasting impairment. Again, this likely meant compensation rather than an identical wound being inflicted.
Bruise for bruise: Causing a bruise meant that you would have to pay whatever restitution was deemed appropriate for the pain, inconvenience, time off work, or humiliation suffered by the injured party.
Key Aspects and Interpretations:
Compensation, Not Literal Retaliation: While often interpreted as literal "eye for an eye," many scholars believe that within the legal system of ancient Israel, these phrases were more likely a cap on damages. It ensured that the compensation was appropriate to the injury, rather than allowing for excessive demands or blood feuds. It also acted as a deterrent. Instead of escalating violence through cycles of revenge, the principle of compensation created a legal and regulated framework for handling physical harm.
Proportionality: The principle emphasizes that the punishment or compensation should be proportional to the harm done. It aimed to prevent excessive punishment or revenge.
Limitations: It's important to note that this law applies to unintentional or accidental injury resulting from a fight between two people. It is NOT a call for personal vengeance. The application of the law would be determined by the judges or elders of the community, not the injured party.
Context of Covenant Law: This passage is part of the covenant law given to the Israelites after their exodus from Egypt. It established guidelines for a just and orderly society, based on the principles of fairness, righteousness, and responsibility.
New Testament Perspective: Jesus challenged the literal interpretation of "an eye for an eye" in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:38-42), advocating for a higher standard of non-retaliation and forgiveness.
In Summary:
Exodus 21:25 is a foundational legal principle that sought to establish justice, limit revenge, and create a framework for appropriate compensation in cases of physical harm. While the exact implementation may have been debated, it reflects a desire to create a fair and orderly society where individuals were held accountable for their actions.
Exodus 21:25 - burning for burning, wound for wound, and bruise for bruise.
What does "Exodus 21:25" mean?
Exodus 21:25, "burning for burning, wound for wound, and bruise for bruise," is part of a larger section (Exodus 21:18-27) outlining laws regarding physical assault and injury. This particular verse establishes the principle of retributive justice, also known as "lex talionis" or the "law of retaliation" (though interpretations of how it should be applied varied).
Here's a breakdown of what it likely meant in its historical context:
Burning for burning: If someone caused a burn to another person, they would be required to compensate the victim for the inflicted burn. This was likely not about literally burning the perpetrator in the same spot, but rather compensating the victim for the pain, suffering, medical expenses, loss of work, and any permanent disfigurement caused by the burn.
Wound for wound: Similarly, if someone inflicted a wound, they were obligated to compensate the injured person for the resulting pain, medical treatment, loss of earnings, and any lasting impairment. Again, this likely meant compensation rather than an identical wound being inflicted.
Bruise for bruise: Causing a bruise meant that you would have to pay whatever restitution was deemed appropriate for the pain, inconvenience, time off work, or humiliation suffered by the injured party.
Key Aspects and Interpretations:
Compensation, Not Literal Retaliation: While often interpreted as literal "eye for an eye," many scholars believe that within the legal system of ancient Israel, these phrases were more likely a cap on damages. It ensured that the compensation was appropriate to the injury, rather than allowing for excessive demands or blood feuds. It also acted as a deterrent. Instead of escalating violence through cycles of revenge, the principle of compensation created a legal and regulated framework for handling physical harm.
Proportionality: The principle emphasizes that the punishment or compensation should be proportional to the harm done. It aimed to prevent excessive punishment or revenge.
Limitations: It's important to note that this law applies to unintentional or accidental injury resulting from a fight between two people. It is NOT a call for personal vengeance. The application of the law would be determined by the judges or elders of the community, not the injured party.
Context of Covenant Law: This passage is part of the covenant law given to the Israelites after their exodus from Egypt. It established guidelines for a just and orderly society, based on the principles of fairness, righteousness, and responsibility.
New Testament Perspective: Jesus challenged the literal interpretation of "an eye for an eye" in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:38-42), advocating for a higher standard of non-retaliation and forgiveness.
In Summary:
Exodus 21:25 is a foundational legal principle that sought to establish justice, limit revenge, and create a framework for appropriate compensation in cases of physical harm. While the exact implementation may have been debated, it reflects a desire to create a fair and orderly society where individuals were held accountable for their actions.