Exodus 21:22-25

In this case verse 22 is quite clear. A damage award was given in this case. However, verses 23 through 25 present a different matter altogether. In this case, the lex talionis (the law of retaliation)—the "eye-for-an eye" principle—worked in this manner. Punishment must match, but not exceed the damage done. In other words, you do not have one-thousand dollars in damages and win one million dollars because of it.

Now if the injury brought about the death of either the child or the mother, the judges would determine whether it was accidental or premeditated, but sometimes the woman might have gotten into something she should not have gotten into and actually brought the problem on herself. In her desire to protect her husband she intervened where she should not have done, and so a judge has to decide. If that occurred and was not considered accidental, then the one causing the death must give his life, and still pay damages as set by the judges. This is further discussed in Numbers 35 and 31 which we did not read. If no death resulted, then damages must be paid by the injuring party according to the "eye-for-an-eye" principle.

Exodus 21:22-25

Now this is the basis for rendering court decisions or judgments. It is the safeguard of equal-handed, even justice: eye for eye, tooth for tooth. What it is saying is that crime and punishment must be equally balanced. Now, it is wrong to think that they literally gouged a person's eye out if that person indeed caused the loss of an eye in another person. That is not what they did. If somebody caused a person to break his leg, they did not put that person's leg over a stump and then whack it with a baseball bat and break his leg. They did not do that kind of thing.

They did basically the same things as we do in our courts. The judge made a decision based upon damage done that was equal to the damage done. That is, he fined the person, or he sentenced the person; he caused that person to have to pay a price or to be incarcerated, or whatever it was that they did. The person who was injured was compensated equal to what the judge felt the injury was worth.