TRV
- English
- King James KJV
- Complete Jewish CJB
- World English WEBM
- Berean Standard BSB
- American Standard ASV
- Geneva GNV
- Young's Literal YLT
- Douay-Rheims DRC
- International
- Shqip ALB
- العربية SVD
- বাংলা BN-IRV
- မြန်မာ Judson
- 简体文 CUV-S
- 繁體中文 CUV-T
- Čeština BKR
- Nederlands STVE
- Français LSG
- Deutsch SCH
- Ελληνικά Vamvas
- ગુજરાતી GU-IRV
- Hausa HCB
- עברית Hebrew
- हिन्दी HCV
- Magyar KAROLI
- Bahasa Indonesia INDO-TB
- Italiano Diodati
- 日本語 Kougo
- 한국어 Korean
- മലയാളം MAL
- मराठी MRCV
- Norsk DNB
- فارسی OPV
- Polski BG
- Português Almeida
- Română Cornilescu
- Русский Synodal
- Español RVG
- Kiswahili Neno
- Svenska SV1917
- Tagalog TAG-ADB
- தமிழ் TCV
- తెలుగు TSA
- ภาษาไทย THAI-KJV
- Українська Ohienko
- Tiếng Việt CADMAN
- Yorùbá YCB
See on the biblical-era map
Study This Verse
Public-domain commentary
Matthew Henry
From his Commentary on the Whole Bible. Henry comments on passages, not single verses — this entry covers Exodus 21:22–36. His three-level outline is real structure in the source text, so it is rendered as structure.
Observe here,
I.The particular care which the law took of women with child, that no hurt should be done them which might occasion their mis-carrying.
The law of nature obliges us to be very tender in that case, lest the tree and fruit be destroyed together, Exo 21:22, Exo 21:23. Women with child, who are thus taken under the special protection of the law of God, if they live in his fear, may still believe themselves under the special protection of the providence of God, and hope that they shall be saved in child-bearing. On this occasion comes in that general law of retaliation which our Saviour refers to, Mat 5:38, An eye for an eye. Now,
1.The execution of this law is not hereby put into the hands of private persons, as if every man might avenge himself, which would introduce universal confusion, and make men like the fishes of the sea. The tradition of the elders seems to have put this corrupt gloss upon it, in opposition to which our Saviour commands us to forgive injuries, and not to meditate revenge, Mat 5:39.
2.God often executes it in the course of his providence, making the punishment, in many cases, to answer to the sin, as Jdg 1:7; Isa 33:1; Hab 2:13; Mat 26:52.
3.Magistrates ought to have an eye to this rule in punishing offenders, and doing right to those that are injured. Consideration must be had of the nature, quality, and degree of the wrong done, that reparation may be made to the party injured, and others deterred from doing the like; either an eye shall go for an eye, or the forfeited eye shall be redeemed by a sum of money. Note, He that does wrong must expect one way or other to receive according to the wrong he has done, Col 3:25. God sometimes brings men's violent dealings upon their own heads (Psa 7:16); and magistrates are in this the ministers of the justice, that they are avengers (Rom 13:4), and they shall not bear the sword in vain.
II.The care God took of servants.
If their masters maimed them, though it was only striking out a tooth, that should be their discharge, Exo 21:26, Exo 21:27. This was intended,
1.To prevent their being abused; masters would be careful not to offer them any violence, lest they should lose their service.
2.To comfort them if they were abused; the loss of a limb should be the gaining of their liberty, which would do something towards balancing both the pain and disgrace they underwent. Nay,
III.Does God take care for oxen? Yes, it appears by the following laws in this chapter that he does, for our sakes, Co1 9:9, Co1 9:10. The Israelites are here directed what to do,
1.In case of hurt done by oxen, or any other brute-creature; for the law, doubtless, was designed to extend to all parallel cases.
(1.)As an instance of God's care of the life of man (though forfeited a thousand times into the hands of divine justice), and in token of his detestation of the sin of murder. If an ox killed any man, woman, or child, the ox was to be stoned (Exo 21:28); and, because the greatest honour of the inferior creatures is to be serviceable to man, the criminal is denied that honour: his flesh shall not be eaten. Thus God would keep up in the minds of his people a rooted abhorrence of the sin of murder and every thing that was barbarous.
(2.)To make men careful that none of their cattle might do hurt, but that, by all means possible, mischief might be prevented. If the owner of the beast knew that he was mischievous, he must answer for the hurt done, and, according as the circumstances of the case proved him to be more or less accessory, he must either be put to death or ransom his life with a sum of money, Exo 21:29-32. Some of our ancient books make this felony, by the common law of England, and give this reason, "The owner, by suffering his beast to go at liberty when he knew it to be mischievous, shows that he was very willing that hurt should be done." Note, It is not enough for us not to do mischief ourselves, but we must take care that no mischief be done by those whom it is in our power to restrain, whether man or beast.
2.In case of hurt done to oxen, or other cattle.
(1.)If they fall into a pit, and perish there, he that opened the pit must make good the loss, Exo 21:33, Exo 21:34. Note, We must take heed not only of doing that which will be hurtful, but of doing that which may be so. It is not enough not to design and devise mischief, but we must contrive to prevent mischief, else we become accessory to our neighbours' damage. Mischief done in malice is the great transgression; but mischief done through negligence, and for want of due care and consideration, is not without fault, but ought to be reflected upon with great regret, according as the degree of the mischief is: especially we must be careful that we do nothing to make ourselves accessory to the sins of others, by laying an occasion of offence in our brother's way, Rom 14:13.
(2.)If cattle fight, and one kill another, the owners shall equally share in the loss, Exo 21:35. Only if the beast that had done the harm was known to the owner to have been mischievous he shall answer for the damage, because he ought either to have killed him or kept him up, Exo 21:36. The determinations of these cases carry with them the evidence of their own equity, and give such rules of justice as were then, and are still, in use, for the decision of similar controversies that arise between man and man. But I conjecture that these cases might be specified, rather than others (though some of them seem minute), because they were then cases in fact actually depending before Moses; for in the wilderness where they lay closely encamped, and had their flocks and herds among them, such mischiefs as these last mentioned were likely enough to occur. That which we are taught by these laws is that we should be very careful to do no wrong, either directly or indirectly; and that, if we have done wrong, we must be very willing to make satisfaction, and desirous that nobody may lose by us.
Historical interpretation
Two Centuries of Reception
5 surviving comments on this verse. Each one is dated, so this reads as a timeline rather than a list.
Select a marker to jump to its quote. Markers stagger vertically where authors wrote within a few decades of each other.
But what parts of the law can I defend as good with a greater confidence than those which heresy has shown such a longing for—as the statute of retaliation, requiring eye for eye, tooth for tooth and stripe for stripe? Now there is not here any smack of permission to mutual injury. There is rather, on the whole, a provision for restraining violence. To a people which was very obdurate and wanting in faith toward God, it might seem tedious and even incredible to expect from God that vengeance which was subsequently to be declared by the prophet: “Vengeance is mine; I will repay, says the Lord.” Therefore, in the meanwhile, the commission of wrong was to be checked by the fear of retribution immediately to happen. So the permission of this retribution was to be the prohibition of provocation. In this way a stop might thus be put to all hot-blooded injury. By the permission of the second the first is prevented by fear. By this deterring of the first the second act of wrong fails to be committed.
Celsus does not quote any passages from the law which are apparently in contradiction to what stands in the gospel, so that we might compare them. He says, “And to a man who has struck one once one should offer oneself to be struck again.” But we will say that we are aware that “it was said to them of old time, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,’ ” and that we have read also the words “But I say unto you, to him that strikes you on one cheek offer the other one also.” However, I imagine that Celsus derived some of his vague notions from those who say that the God of the gospel is different from the God of the law and so made remarks like this. I would reply to his objection that the Old Testament also knows the doctrine that to him that strikes you on the right cheek you should offer the other one also. At any rate, it is written in the Lamentations of Jeremiah: “It is good for a man when he bears a yoke in his youth, he will sit alone and in silence when he has taken it on himself. He will give a cheek to the man who smites him and shall be filled with reproaches.” The gospel then does not lay down laws in contradiction to the God of the law, not even if we interpret literally the saying about a blow on the jaw. And neither Moses nor Jesus “is wrong.” Nor did the “Father forget when he sent Jesus the commands which he had given to Moses.” Nor did he “condemn his own laws, and change his mind and send his messenger for the opposite purpose.”
Not to exceed due measure in inflicting punishment, lest the requital be greater than the injury—that is the lesser justice of the Pharisees. And it is a high degree of justice, for it would not be easy to find a man who, on receiving a fisticuff, would be content to give only one in return and who, on hearing one word from a reviler, would be content to return one word exactly equivalent. On the contrary, either he exceeds moderation because he is angry, or he thinks that, with regard to one who has inflicted an injury on another, justice demands a penalty greater than the injury suffered by the innocent person. To a great extent, such a spirit is restrained by the law, in which is written the directive, “An eye for an eye” and “A tooth for a tooth.” Moderation is signified by these words, so that the penalty may not be greater than the injury. And this is the beginning of peace. But to have absolutely no wish for any such retribution—that is perfect peace.
The law does not forbid the retaliation of wrongs and revenge for injustices when it says, “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.” Grace wants our patience to be proven by a redoubling of the mistreatment and the blows that come upon us, and it commands us to be ready to endure double hurt when it says, “Whoever strikes you on your right cheek, offer him the other. And to him who wants to contend with you at law and to take away your coat, give him your cloak as well.” The former says that enemies must be hated, but the latter decrees that they are to be loved to such an extent that we must even pray to God continually on their behalf.
Such an enactment required a man not to injure others. Supposing him to have sustained an injury, his anger at the wrongdoer must not go beyond an equal retribution. But the general bearing of the legal mode of life was by no means pleasing to God. It was even given to those of old time as a schoolmaster, accustoming them little by little to a fitting righteousness and leading them on gently toward the possession of the perfect good. For it is written, “To do what is just is the beginning of the good way”; but finally all perfection is in Christ and his precepts. “For to him that strikes you on the cheek,” he says, “offer also the other.”
Continue studying Exodus 21:24 across the web’s major study libraries — every link below opens this exact verse, chapter, or book on the destination site.
Read & Compare
BibleGatewayThis verse in more than 200 translations and 70 languages.
Bible.comThe YouVersion reader — hundreds of translations, reading plans, and highlights.
ESV.orgCrossway's official English Standard Version reader.
NET BibleThe NET translation with 60,000+ translators' notes on every rendering decision.
STEP BibleTyndale House's free study tool — original text, vocabulary, and scholarly resources.
BibliaLogos Bible Software's free web reader.
USCCBThe New American Bible (Revised Edition) with the U.S. bishops' study notes.
Commentaries
BibleHub CommentariesDozens of classic commentaries on this verse, gathered on one page.
StudyLightMore than 100 commentary sets — the largest collection on the web.
BibleRefPlain-English commentary on what this verse means, verse by verse.
Enduring WordDavid Guzik's free commentary on this chapter, widely used by Bible teachers.
Bible Study ToolsVerse commentary alongside Greek and Hebrew study aids.
Original Language & Research
- BibleHub InterlinearThe verse word by word — original language, transliteration, and English.
- BibleHub LexiconEvery word's original-language definition and Strong's entry.
Blue Letter BibleDeep-study tools — Strong's numbers, concordance, and word studies.
SefariaThe Hebrew text with Rashi and centuries of Jewish commentary.
Sermons, Hymns & Audio
TrulyRandomVerse is not affiliated with these sites and doesn’t control their content. They’re linked because they’re genuinely useful.
Summary
Exodus 21:24, proclaiming "Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot," articulates the foundational principle of proportionate justice, known as Lex Talionis, within the Mosaic Law. This divine decree served not as a mandate for personal vengeance, but as a strict legal limitation on retribution, ensuring that penalties in ancient Israelite society were precisely commensurate with the harm inflicted. Its purpose was to prevent excessive punishment, curb escalating cycles of violence, and foster a just and orderly community under God's covenant, reflecting His character of equity and righteousness.
Context
Literary Context
This verse is deeply embedded within the "Book of the Covenant," a comprehensive legal code spanning Exodus 20:22-23:33. This section immediately follows the Ten Commandments, transitioning from broad moral imperatives to specific civil and criminal statutes designed to govern the daily life of the nascent Israelite nation. The laws concerning personal injury, property rights, and social responsibilities in Exodus 21 provide a detailed framework for a just society, establishing legal precedents for judges and elders. The Lex Talionis specifically addresses cases of physical harm, ensuring that the judicial response is measured and equitable, thereby reflecting God's holy and just character in the administration of His covenant people.
Historical & Cultural Context
The principle of Lex Talionis ("law of retaliation") was not unique to ancient Israel; similar concepts of proportionate justice are found in other ancient Near Eastern legal codes, such as the Code of Hammurabi (c. 1754 BC) and the Laws of Eshnunna (c. 1930 BC). However, a crucial distinction of the Israelite application was its primary function as a limitation on vengeance rather than an encouragement of it. In a world prone to escalating blood feuds and disproportionate retaliation (e.g., harming an entire family for an individual offense), this divine law set a precise ceiling for retribution. It was a legal standard for judges and authorities to administer justice in a courtroom setting, not a license for individuals to exact personal revenge. This principle aimed to prevent cycles of escalating violence, protect the vulnerable, and promote a measured, equitable system of justice, reflecting God's concern for fairness and the sanctity of human life within His community.
Key Themes
Exodus 21:24 contributes significantly to several key themes within the broader book of Exodus and the Pentateuch. Foremost is the theme of Divine Justice and Righteousness, demonstrating God's meticulous concern for equity and fairness in human affairs. The Lex Talionis underscores the Sanctity of Human Life and Bodily Integrity, recognizing the gravity of causing physical harm and demanding appropriate accountability. It also reinforces the theme of Covenant Fidelity, as adherence to these laws was a demonstration of Israel's commitment to their covenant relationship with Yahweh, who is inherently just. Furthermore, it speaks to Societal Order and Stability, providing a framework that prevents chaos and ensures a predictable legal environment where individuals are protected from arbitrary or excessive punishment, contrasting sharply with the often brutal and unchecked vengeance prevalent in surrounding cultures. This principle, therefore, serves as a cornerstone for establishing a holy and just community under God's rule, as detailed throughout the Law.
Exposition and Analysis
Key Word Analysis
This primitive word refers to the physical organ, but in this context, it functions as a metonym, representing the specific injury sustained. The repetition of "eye for eye" emphasizes the principle of exact equivalence. As the "eye of the landscape" can refer to a fountain, ʻayin can also metaphorically signify a source or point of origin, underscoring that the injury itself is the origin of the required compensation. Its use here highlights the precision demanded by the law in addressing specific bodily harms, ensuring that the penalty directly corresponds to the physical damage caused.
While literally meaning "hand" (the open one), yâd is a versatile word often used figuratively to denote "power," "means," "authority," or "agency." In the context of Lex Talionis, "hand for hand" refers to an injury to the hand, but the broader semantic range of yâd subtly reinforces the idea that the law addresses the capacity or ability lost due to the injury. It is not just the physical limb, but the power or function associated with it that is being compensated for, emphasizing the comprehensive nature of the restitution.
Derived from a root meaning "to sharpen," shên literally means "tooth." Like "eye," it represents a specific bodily part that can be injured. Its inclusion alongside eye, hand, and foot demonstrates the meticulousness of the law in accounting for various types of physical harm. The sharpness implied in its root might subtly hint at the sharp pain or severe impact of such an injury, thereby justifying the need for precise and equivalent compensation.
Verse Breakdown
"Eye for eye"
This foundational phrase establishes the core principle of proportionate justice. It dictates that if one person causes the loss or severe damage of another's eye, the compensation or penalty should be equivalent to the value of that loss. Crucially, this was generally interpreted in ancient Israelite legal practice as monetary compensation equal to the value of an eye, rather than literal physical mutilation of the offender, especially in cases of accidental injury or non-malicious intent.
"tooth for tooth"
Extending the principle, this applies to dental injuries. The recompense for a lost or damaged tooth must be equivalent to the value or impact of that loss. This reiterates the meticulousness of the law in addressing specific bodily harms, ensuring that no injury, however seemingly minor, goes without appropriate restitution.
"hand for hand"
This broadens the application to injuries affecting a hand. The severity of the injury to the hand (e.g., a broken bone, a severed limb, or loss of function) would dictate the precise nature of the "hand for hand" compensation, again emphasizing the principle of equivalence in terms of value or impact.
"foot for foot"
Similarly, injuries to the foot fall under this principle. The law ensures that for every specific injury to these vital body parts, there is a corresponding, precisely measured penalty or restitution. The cumulative effect of these phrases is to create a comprehensive, yet strictly limited, framework for addressing bodily harm within the Israelite legal system, preventing arbitrary or excessive punishment.
Literary Devices
The primary literary device at play in Exodus 21:24 is Parallelism, specifically a form of synonymous or climactic parallelism with a cumulative effect. Each phrase ("eye for eye," "tooth for tooth," "hand for hand," "foot for foot") repeats the same grammatical structure and legal principle, reinforcing the concept of exact equivalence. This repetition not only emphasizes the principle of proportionate justice but also demonstrates its broad and exhaustive application to various significant bodily injuries. Furthermore, Metonymy is evident, where the body part (e.g., "eye") stands in for the injury itself and, by extension, the subsequent compensation or penalty. This use of specific, tangible body parts makes the abstract concept of justice concrete and relatable, ensuring that the law's intent—to provide precise and limited retribution—is clearly understood and applied. The rhythmic repetition also lends itself to memorability, aiding in the dissemination and enforcement of the law.
Theological and Thematic Connections
The Lex Talionis in Exodus 21:24 profoundly reveals God's character as a God of perfect justice and divine order, providing a legal framework that prevented unchecked vengeance and promoted equity within His covenant community. It underscores the sanctity of human life and the importance of accountability for actions that cause harm, recognizing that every individual is made in God's image. While seemingly harsh to modern ears, this principle was revolutionary in its time, establishing a ceiling for retribution and ensuring that punishment would not exceed the crime, thereby curbing societal chaos and promoting a measured approach to justice. It reflects a divine concern for fairness and the protection of the vulnerable from disproportionate retaliation, ensuring that justice was not arbitrary but precisely administered.
Reflection and Application
Exodus 21:24, though rooted in an ancient legal system, offers profound and enduring insights for contemporary believers. It serves as a powerful reminder that God is a God of justice who cares deeply about fairness and accountability for harm caused. While modern legal systems have evolved beyond literal physical retribution, the underlying principle of proportionate justice remains foundational, informing concepts like equitable sentencing, civil damages, and the idea that consequences should match the offense. For us, this verse teaches that true justice is not about personal vengeance—which often leads to disproportionate and destructive outcomes—but about the measured, impartial administration of what is right. It calls us to trust in God's ultimate justice, whether through established authorities or His divine judgment, rather than succumbing to the impulse for personal retaliation. This principle challenges us to reflect on how we seek justice in our own lives and communities, always striving for fairness, restraint, and recognizing the higher call to grace, forgiveness, and reconciliation in personal interactions, as supremely exemplified by Christ. It urges us to participate in systems that uphold justice and to model a spirit of equity in all our dealings.
Questions for Reflection
FAQ
Did "eye for eye" mean literal physical retaliation in ancient Israel?
While the phrase "eye for eye, tooth for tooth" sounds like a mandate for literal physical retribution, biblical scholars and ancient Near Eastern legal experts largely agree that its primary application in Israel was as a legal principle for judges, often resulting in monetary compensation rather than physical mutilation. The purpose was to ensure that the punishment or restitution was precisely equivalent to the injury sustained, preventing excessive retaliation and ensuring fairness. For instance, if a person accidentally caused the loss of another's eye, the offender would typically pay the monetary value of an eye, not necessarily lose their own. This interpretation is strongly supported by other passages in the Book of the Covenant, such as Exodus 21:18-19, which clearly describe monetary compensation for injuries. The law served as a strict limitation on vengeance, ensuring fairness and preventing an escalating cycle of violence within the community.
Christ-Centered Fulfillment
The principle of "eye for eye" finds its profound Christ-centered fulfillment not in its abrogation, but in its elevation and reinterpretation through the person and redemptive work of Jesus Christ. While the Old Testament law established a necessary framework for societal justice and limited human vengeance, Jesus, in His Sermon on the Mount, moved beyond the legalistic application to a higher standard of personal ethics for His followers. He declared, "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also" (Matthew 5:38-39). Here, Jesus was not dismantling the civil law's role in society, but calling His disciples to a radical ethic of non-retaliation, forgiveness, and sacrificial love in personal interactions, even towards those who wrong them. This culminates in His own ultimate sacrifice on the cross, where He, the innocent Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world, took upon Himself the full "eye for eye" of humanity's sin and rebellion against God, offering boundless grace and redemption instead of demanding proportionate retribution from us. Through Christ, the principle shifts from demanding exact payment for injury to offering boundless mercy and calling believers to reflect God's own character of self-giving love, even to enemies (Luke 6:27-36). He fulfills the law by embodying the perfect justice and mercy that it foreshadowed, transforming a rule of equivalence into a call for redemptive grace that empowers us to overcome evil with good (Romans 12:21).