Tendai Ruben Mbofana
This morning, I came across someone seemingly “thirsting for blood,” as he called for revenge for a terrible deed done to him.
To directly receive articles from Tendai Ruben Mbofana, please join his WhatsApp Channel on: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaqprWCIyPtRnKpkHe08
In his attempt to justify his eagerness for vengeance, he enthusiastically quoted the famous saying: “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.”
It’s a phrase that has been invoked for centuries — often by those seeking to legitimize retaliation.
I have heard it being quoted by powerful politicians here in Zimbabwe, calling for revenge after some of their followers were allegedly mistreated by rivals.
I have even heard it in personal relationships, where one partner, after being wronged — say, through infidelity — feels that the only fair response is to inflict the same pain.
The reasoning is simple but dangerous: “You hurt me, so I’ll hurt you back.”
Yet this is a gross misunderstanding of the term.
“An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” was never meant to justify vengeance or to promote cycles of retaliation.
Quite the opposite — it was a revolutionary call for justice, restraint, and fairness in a world where violence often escalated without end.
What began as one of the earliest written legal principles in human history was designed to limit revenge, not to license it.
The phrase originates from the Code of Hammurabi, a collection of 282 laws written around 1754 BCE by Hammurabi, King of Babylon.
This ancient code — one of the world’s oldest surviving legal systems — introduced the principle known as lex talionis, or “the law of retaliation.”
At first glance, its wording may sound cruel, but its intent was anything but.
Before Hammurabi’s laws, society was governed by unregulated retribution.
If one man injured another, that man’s family could take any form of revenge they pleased — even killing not just the perpetrator, but his entire clan.
In other cases, a minor theft could lead to entire villages attacking each other, destroying homes and crops in a cycle of escalating retaliation.
Justice was wild and limitless.
Hammurabi’s code sought to end this cycle of blood vengeance by enforcing proportionality: the punishment should match the crime, no more and no less.
If a person damaged another’s property, they would be required to compensate for the exact value — and nothing more.
If someone caused another person to lose a sheep, they would be obliged to replace it with one of equal value — and nothing beyond that.
The law restrained excess; it set a boundary on vengeance.
Importantly, the principle also marked a turning point in the idea of state-administered justice.
No longer was revenge to be taken by the offended individual or their family.
Instead, it became a matter for the legal system — overseen by judges, applied through evidence, and governed by law.
In other words, “an eye for an eye” was the beginning of civilization’s effort to replace personal vendettas with lawful justice.
Centuries later, the phrase reappeared in the Hebrew Bible — in the books of Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy — where it became part of the Mosaic Law that guided the Israelites.
Again, it was never a command for people to take revenge into their own hands.
In Exodus 21:23–25, the law reads: “If there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.”
To the modern ear, this may still sound harsh.
But in its historical context, it represented fairness and equality before the law.
Justice was to be measured, not impulsive; rational, not emotional.
The Hebrew prophets and legal scholars understood that the law was not a moral endorsement of cruelty, but a check against it.
It made sure that a punishment was neither arbitrary nor excessive.
It was also, in a way, egalitarian for its time — ensuring that the rich and powerful could not demand exaggerated retribution from the poor, nor could the poor exploit the system to destroy the powerful.
Justice had to be balanced, guided by proportion.
Later Jewish scholars, particularly those who compiled the Talmud, went even further.
They interpreted “an eye for an eye” as symbolic rather than literal.
To them, the idea was not to gouge out someone’s eye but to ensure fair compensation for the harm caused.
They reasoned that one person’s eye could not truly be equal to another’s — and that literal retribution could lead to greater injustice.
Instead, offenders were required to pay the value of the injury, along with medical costs, lost income, and pain suffered.
This interpretation shifted the principle from physical retaliation to restorative justice — emphasizing restitution and healing rather than revenge.
When we come to the teachings of Jesus Christ, we find yet another layer of understanding.
In Matthew 5:38–39, Jesus refers directly to the law, saying: “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’
But I tell you, do not resist an evil person.
If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other also.”
Many have mistakenly assumed that Jesus was rejecting the Old Testament law as unjust or cruel.
But in truth, He was not condemning its meaning; He was transcending its limits.
He recognized that “an eye for an eye” was already a moral advance over unrestrained revenge — but He called His followers to go further, to embrace forgiveness, mercy, and compassion.
Jesus did not reinterpret “an eye for an eye” as vengeance; He understood it as a principle of justice.
Yet, He offered a higher ideal — one that seeks not merely to balance wrongs but to overcome them through love.
He was essentially saying that true peace is not achieved by matching harm for harm, but by breaking the cycle altogether.
To forgive is not weakness; it is the most powerful act of moral courage.
The Islamic faith, too, reflects this balance between justice and mercy.
The Qur’an acknowledges the same principle of equivalence — qisas — prescribing that punishment should fit the crime.
Yet it also elevates forgiveness as the nobler choice: “But whoever overlooks from his brother anything, then there should be a suitable follow-up and payment to him with good conduct” (Surah Al-Baqarah 2:178).
In essence, Islam, like Christianity and Judaism, recognizes that justice must be guided by fairness — but perfected by compassion.
So when someone today shouts, “An eye for an eye!” as a rallying cry for revenge, they are echoing the words without understanding the wisdom behind them.
The original purpose of that ancient law was not to sanction bloodshed, but to contain it.
It was the beginning of a moral awakening — the idea that justice should be deliberate, not driven by rage.
To twist that phrase into a justification for retaliation is to betray its very meaning.
In our world today, still scarred by political intolerance, violence, and personal vendettas, perhaps we need to relearn what those ancient lawmakers were trying to teach.
Justice is not about getting even; it is about restoring balance.
Revenge may satisfy emotion for a moment, but it never repairs what was broken.
Justice, by contrast, seeks truth, fairness, and ultimately peace.
So please, let’s not be deceived.
“An eye for an eye” was never meant as a cry for vengeance.
It was humanity’s first step toward taming the wild heart of revenge — and transforming it into the calm reason of justice.
- Tendai Ruben Mbofana is a social justice advocate and writer. Please feel free to WhatsApp or Call: +263715667700 | +263782283975, or email: mbofana.tendairuben73@gmail.com, or visit website: https://mbofanatendairuben.news.blog/
The post Please, let’s not be deceived — “An eye for an eye” was never meant to be a call for vengeance, but for justice appeared first on Zimbabwe Situation.