- 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
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 Leviticus 24:10–23. His two-level outline is real structure in the source text, so it is rendered as structure.
Evil manners, we say, beget good laws. We have here an account of the evil manners of a certain nameless mongrel Israelite, and the good laws occasioned thereby.
I.The offender was the son of an Egyptian father and an Israelitish mother (Lev 24:10); his mother was of the tribe of Dan, Lev 24:11.
Neither he nor his father is named, but his mother only, who was an Israelite. This notice is taken of his parentage either,
1.To intimate what occasioned the quarrel he was engaged in. The Jews say, "He offered to set up his tent among the Danites in the right of his mother, but was justly opposed by some or other of that tribe, and informed that his father being an Egyptian he had no part nor lot in the matter, but must look upon himself as a stranger." Or,
2.To show the common ill effect of such mixed marriages. When a daughter of Israel would marry an idolatrous malignant Egyptian, what could be the fruit of such a marriage but a blasphemer? For the children will be apt to take after the worse side, whichsoever it is, and will sooner learn of an Egyptian father to blaspheme than of an Israelitish mother to pray and praise.
II.The occasion of the offence was contention:
He strove with a man of Israel. The mixed multitude of Egyptians that came up with Israel (Exo 12:38) were in many ways hurtful to them, and this was one, they were often the authors of strife. The way to preserve the peace of the church is to preserve the purity of it. In this strife he broke out into ill language. Note, When quarrels begin we know not what mischief they will make before they end, nor how treat a matter a little fire may kindle. When men's passion is up they are apt to forget both their reason and their religion, which is a good reason why we should not be apt either to give or to resent provocation, but leave off strife before it be meddled with, because the beginning of it is as the letting forth of water.
III.The offence itself was blasphemy and cursing, Lev 24:11.
It is supposed that his cause came to be heard before the judges, who determined that he had no right to the privileges of an Israelite, his father being an Egyptian, and that, being enraged at the sentence,
1.He blasphemed the name of the Lord. He blasphemed the name, that is, he blasphemed God, who is known by his name only, not by his nature, or any similitude. Not as if God were a mere name, but his is a name above every name. The translators add of the Lord, which is implied, but not expressed, in the original, for the greater reverence of the divine Majesty: it is a shame that it should be found on record that the very name of Jehovah should be blasphemed; tell it not in Gath. It is a fond conceit of the superstitious Jews that his blasphemy was in pronouncing the name of Jehovah, which they call ineffable: he that made himself known by that name never forbade the calling of him by that name. It is probable that finding himself aggrieved by the divine appointment, which separated between the Israelites and strangers, he impudently reproached both the law and the Law-maker, and set him at defiance.
2.He cursed either God himself (and then his cursing was the same with blaspheming) or the person with whom he strove. Imprecations of mischief are the hellish language of hasty passion, as well as of rooted malice. Or perhaps he cursed the judges that gave sentence against him; he flew in the face of the court, and ridiculed the processes of it; thus he added sin to sin.
IV.The caution with which he was proceeded against for this sin.
The witnesses or inferior judges brought him and his case (which was somewhat extraordinary) unto Moses (Lev 24:11), according to the order settled (Exo 18:22), and Moses himself would not give judgment hastily, but committed the offender into custody, till he had consulted the oracle in this case. Note, Judges must deliberate; both those that give the verdict and those that give the sentence must consider diligently what they do, and do nothing rashly, for the judgment is God's (Deu 1:17), and before him there will be a rehearing of the cause. They waited to know what was the mind of the Lord, whether he was to be put to death by the hand of the magistrate or to be left to the judgment of God: or, rather, they wanted to know whether he should be stoned, as those were to be that only cursed their parents (Jdg 20:9), or whether, the crime being so much greater, some sorer punishment should be inflicted on him. Note, Those that sit in judgment should sincerely desire, and by prayer and the use of all good means should endeavour to know the mind of the Lord, because they judge for him (Ch2 19:6) and to him they are accountable.
V.Sentence passed upon this offender by the righteous Judge of heaven and earth himself:
Let all the congregation stone him, v. 14. God could have cut him off by an immediate stroke from heaven, but he would put this honour upon the institution of magistracy to make use of it for the supporting and vindicating of his own glory in the world. Observe, 1. The place of execution appointed: Bring him forth without the camp. To signify their detestation of the crime, they must thus cast out the criminal as an abominable branch, and separate him from them as an unclean thing and unworthy a place in the camp of Israel. 2. The executioners: Let all the congregation do it, to show their zeal for the honour of God's name. Every man should have a stone to throw at him that blasphemes God, reckoning himself nearly concerned in the reproaches cast on God, Psa 69:9. Thus also the greater terror would be cast upon the congregation; those that once helped to stone a blasphemer would ever after dread every thing that bordered upon blasphemy, that looked like it or looked towards it. 3. The solemnity of the execution; before the congregation stoned him, the witnesses were to lay their hands upon his head. The Jews say that this was used in the execution of no criminals but blasphemers; and that it was done with words to this purport, "Thy blood be upon thy own head, for thou thyself hast occasioned it. Let no blame be laid on the law, judges, juries, or witnesses; if thou scornest, thou alone shalt bear it."
VI.A standing law made upon this occasion for the stoning of blasphemers, Lev 24:15, Lev 24:16.
Magistrates are the guardians of both tables, and ought to be as jealous for the honour of God against those that speak contemptuously of his being and government as for the public peace and safety against the disturbers of them.
1.A great stress is laid upon this law, as in no case to be dispensed with: He shall surely be put to death; they shall certainly stone him. Those that lightly esteemed God's honour might think it hard to make a man an offender for a word (words are but wind); but God would let them know that they must not make light of such words as these, which come from malice against God in the heart of him that speaks, and must occasion either great guilt or great grief to those that hear.
2.It is made to extend to the strangers that sojourned among them, as well as those that were born in the land. God never made any law to compel strangers to be circumcised and embrace the Jewish religion (proselytes made by force would be no honour to the God of Israel), but he made a law to restrain strangers from speaking evil of the God of Israel.
3.He that was put to death for blasphemy is said to bear his sin, in the punishment of it; no sacrifice being appointed, on the head of which the sin might be transferred, he himself was to bear it upon his own head, as a sacrifice to divine justice. So his own tongue fell upon him (Psa 64:8), and the tongue of a blasphemer will fall heavily.
VII.A repetition of some other laws annexed to this new law.
1.That murder should be punished with death (Lev 24:17, and again Lev 24:21), according to an ancient law in Noah's time (Gen 9:6), and the very law of nature, Gen 4:10.
2.That maimers should in like manner be punished by the law of retaliation, Lev 24:19, Lev 24:20. Not that men might in these cases be their own avengers, but they might appeal to the civil magistrate, who should award suffering to the injurious and satisfaction to the injured as should be thought fit in proportion to the hurt done. This law we had before, Exo 22:4, Exo 22:5. And it was more agreeable to that dispensation, in which were revealed the rigour of the law and what sin deserved, than to the dispensation we are under, in which are revealed the grace of the gospel and the remission of sins: and therefore our Saviour has set aside this law (Mat 5:38, Mat 5:39), not to restrain magistrates from executing public justice, but to restrain us all from returning personal injuries and to oblige us to forgive as we are and hope to be forgiven.
3.That hurt done wilfully to a neighbour's cattle should be punished by making good the damage, Lev 24:18, Lev 24:21. Thus the divine law took not only their lives, but their goods also under its protection. Those beasts which belonged to no particular person, but were, as our law speaks, ferae naturae - of a wild nature, it was lawful for them to kill; but not those which any man had a property in. Does God take care for oxen? Yes; for our sakes he does.
4.That strangers, as well as native Israelites, should be both entitled to the benefit of this law, so as not to suffer wrong, and liable to the penalty of this law in case they did wrong. And, it should seem, this is it that brings in these laws here, to show how equitable it was that strangers as well as Israelites should be punished for blasphemy, because strangers as well as Israelites were punishable for other crimes. And there may be this further reason for the recognition of these laws here, God would hereby show what provision he had made for man's safety, in punishing those that were injurious to him, which should be an argument with magistrates to be jealous for his honour, and to punish those that blasphemed his name. If God took care for their comfort, they ought to take care for his glory.
VIII.The execution of the blasphemer.
Moses did, as it were, sign the warrant or it: He spoke unto the children of Israel to do it, and they did as the Lord commanded Moses, Lev 24:23. This teaches that death is the wages of sin, and that blasphemy in particular is an iniquity to be punished by the judges. But, if those who thus profane the name of God escape punishment from men, yet the Lord our God will not suffer them to escape his righteous judgments. This blasphemer was the first that died by the law of Moses. Stephen, the first that died for the gospel, died by the abuse of this law; the martyr and the malefactor suffered the same death: but how vast the difference between them!
Continue studying Leviticus 24:18 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
Leviticus 24:18 articulates a foundational principle of civil justice within the Mosaic Law, mandating equitable restitution for the killing of another's livestock. This concise decree, "And he that killeth a beast shall make it good; beast for beast," establishes a clear legal framework for property damage, emphasizing the necessity of full and proportional compensation. It reflects the ancient Israelite society's valuation of livestock as vital assets for livelihood and underscores the divine commitment to fairness, order, and the restoration of wholeness within the community, ensuring that victims of property loss receive just reparation.
Context
Literary Context
Leviticus 24:18 is strategically placed within a broader legal corpus (Leviticus 24:10-23) that meticulously outlines various civil and criminal offenses, transitioning from the most severe capital crimes to property damage. Immediately preceding this verse, Leviticus 24:17 decrees capital punishment for murder, stating, "And he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death." The deliberate juxtaposition of the ultimate offense against human life with the killing of an animal highlights a graded system of justice, yet maintains a consistent underlying principle of accountability and restitution for harm caused. Following this specific law, the text expands upon the principle of lex talionis—the law of equivalence ("eye for eye, tooth for tooth")—in Leviticus 24:19-20, applying it to bodily injury. This careful arrangement within the chapter underscores that while human life is paramount, the economic well-being and property rights of individuals are also divinely protected and subject to strict legal redress, establishing a comprehensive and coherent framework for communal justice and order.
Historical & Cultural Context
In ancient Israel, livestock—including cattle, sheep, and goats—represented a primary form of wealth and capital. These animals were indispensable for sustenance (meat and dairy), clothing (wool and hides), agricultural labor, and, crucially, for sacrificial offerings in the Israelite cult. The loss of even a single animal, particularly a valuable one such as an ox or a breeding ewe, could severely impact a family's economic stability, livelihood, and even its survival. Consequently, laws concerning property damage, such as those detailed in Exodus 21 and Exodus 22, were absolutely critical for maintaining social order and preventing cycles of personal vengeance. The "beast for beast" principle in Leviticus 24:18 reflects a system designed to provide equitable and proportionate compensation, ensuring that the victim was made whole without imposing excessive or insufficient penalties on the offender. This legal framework aimed to prevent private vendettas by providing a clear, divinely sanctioned method for resolving disputes over property, thereby promoting peace, stability, and justice within the tribal and communal structures of Israelite society.
Key Themes
Leviticus 24:18 contributes significantly to several overarching themes within the book of Leviticus and the broader Pentateuch. Foremost among these is the theme of Justice and Equity, demonstrating God's meticulous concern for fair dealings among His people. The principle of "making it good" underscores the divine standard that wrongs must be rectified and victims compensated, fostering a society built on fairness rather than unchecked vengeance or neglect. This law also highlights the theme of Holiness and Order, as God's covenant people are called to reflect His character in their societal structures, maintaining order through just laws. The economic implications of the law speak to the theme of Stewardship and Property Rights, emphasizing that while God is the ultimate owner of all things, He grants individuals stewardship over possessions, which are to be respected and protected. Finally, the restorative nature of the law, aiming to bring wholeness (derived from the root shālam) back to the injured party, connects to the broader theme of Restoration and Reconciliation, which ultimately finds its fullest expression in God's redemptive plan for humanity, as seen in passages like Leviticus 25 with its laws of release and restoration.
Exposition and Analysis
Key Word Analysis
From the primitive root H5221, this verb signifies "to strike" or "to smite," encompassing actions that range from a light tap to a severe blow, often resulting in injury or death. In this context, it specifically denotes the act of causing the death of an animal. The term implies responsibility for the fatal outcome, regardless of whether the act was intentional, negligent, or accidental. It highlights the direct causal link between the perpetrator's action and the loss incurred by the animal's owner, thereby establishing legal culpability.
Derived from H929, this noun properly refers to a "dumb beast" or, more commonly, to any large quadruped or animal, often used collectively for livestock. This term specifically distinguishes domesticated animals, such as cattle, sheep, and goats, from wild animals. Its use here underscores the economic and practical importance of these animals to the Israelite household, as they were integral to sustenance, agriculture, and the sacrificial system. The specific mention of bᵉhêmâh makes it clear that the law applies to valuable, owned livestock, whose loss would constitute a significant financial detriment requiring precise legal remedy.
From the primitive root H7999, this verb is rich in meaning, signifying "to be safe," "to be sound," "to be whole," or "to be completed." In a legal context, it specifically denotes making restitution, repaying, compensating for a loss, or rendering full payment to bring about a state of wholeness or completion for the injured party. It is the same root from which the Hebrew word shalom (peace, wholeness, completeness) derives, implying that justice, achieved through proper restitution, contributes to the overall well-being and harmony of the community by restoring what was broken or lost. The command to "make it good" is thus fundamentally restorative, aiming to reestablish the original state of the injured party.
Verse Breakdown
"And he that killeth a beast"
This opening clause clearly identifies the responsible party and the action that triggers the legal obligation. The phrase "he that killeth" (Hebrew, nâkâh) establishes the perpetrator's culpability for the death of the animal, whether the act was intentional, negligent, or accidental. The focus is on the outcome—the death of the animal—and the subsequent liability of the one who caused it, highlighting the legal principle that actions have consequences, particularly when they result in damage to another's property or livelihood.
"shall make it good"
This crucial phrase, derived from the Hebrew verb shâlam, mandates full and complete restitution. It is not merely about punishing the offender but primarily about restoring the victim to their prior state. The perpetrator is legally and morally obligated to compensate the owner for the loss, ensuring that the injured party is brought back to a state of wholeness or equivalence as if the loss had not occurred. This underscores a profoundly restorative dimension to Mosaic law, prioritizing the victim's recovery and the reestablishment of equilibrium within the community.
"beast for beast"
This concluding phrase specifies the exact nature and measure of the restitution required. It demands an equivalent replacement for the animal that was killed. This principle, often associated with lex talionis (the law of retaliation or equivalence), is applied here to property, ensuring proportionate justice. It prevents both under-compensation (which would leave the victim at a loss) and over-compensation (which would impose an undue burden on the offender). This precise standard establishes a clear, objective, and easily applicable measure for justice in cases of property damage, promoting fairness and preventing subjective or arbitrary judgments.
Literary Devices
The primary literary device at play in Leviticus 24:18 is Repetition, specifically the emphatic reiteration of "beast for beast." This repetition serves to underscore the principle of exact equivalence and proportionate restitution, leaving no ambiguity regarding the required compensation. The verse also functions as a concise Legal Formula, a succinct and memorable statement designed for easy comprehension and application in judicial settings. Its stark simplicity contributes to an authoritative and unequivocal tone, characteristic of legal pronouncements in the Mosaic Law. Furthermore, within the broader context of Leviticus 24, the placement of this verse, following the law for killing a man and preceding the "eye for an eye" principle, creates a form of Thematic Parallelism. This arrangement highlights a graded system of justice where the principle of equivalence, though applied differently, consistently undergirds both personal injury and property damage, demonstrating a comprehensive divine concern for justice across all spheres of life.
Theological and Thematic Connections
Leviticus 24:18, while a seemingly straightforward civil law concerning property, reveals profound theological truths about God's character and His desire for justice within His covenant community. It demonstrates that God is a God of order, equity, and restoration, who cares not only for human life but also for the economic well-being and property rights of His people. The principle of "making it good" reflects a divine standard where wrongs are to be rectified, and victims are to be compensated, fostering a society built on fairness rather than unchecked vengeance or neglect. This law, therefore, is not merely punitive but fundamentally restorative, aiming to bring wholeness (from the Hebrew root shālam) back to the injured party and maintain communal harmony. It underscores the sanctity of property as a means of livelihood, divinely protected, and highlights the accountability of individuals for their actions and their impact on others, reflecting God's own righteous nature.
Reflection and Application
The ancient law of Leviticus 24:18, though dealing with livestock in a pastoral society, carries timeless and universally applicable principles that resonate deeply with contemporary life. It calls us to a profound sense of personal responsibility for the consequences of our actions, whether those actions are intentional, negligent, or even accidental. In a world often quick to assign blame, avoid accountability, or seek minimal redress, this verse stands as a powerful reminder that true justice involves not just acknowledging wrongdoing but actively seeking to "make it good"—to restore, repair, or compensate for the harm caused. This principle extends far beyond material possessions, applying equally to relational damage, reputational harm, or even the misuse of time and resources entrusted to us. For believers, this foundational principle is rooted in the very character of God, who is just and righteous, and who calls His people to embody these attributes in their daily interactions. It challenges us to move beyond mere apology to tangible acts of restitution, fostering genuine reconciliation and demonstrating authentic care for those we may have wronged, thereby contributing to the wholeness and peace (shalom) of our families, communities, and the broader society.
Questions for Reflection
FAQ
Does "beast for beast" apply only to animals, or does it have broader implications?
While Leviticus 24:18 specifically addresses the killing of an animal, the phrase "beast for beast" encapsulates a broader legal principle known as lex talionis, or the law of equivalence. This principle is famously extended to human injury in Leviticus 24:19-20, stating, "breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth." Its primary purpose was not to encourage literal mutilation but to establish a ceiling for retribution, ensuring that punishment or compensation was proportionate to the offense, thereby preventing excessive vengeance and promoting a just and ordered society. Therefore, while the direct application in this verse is to property, the underlying principle of proportionate justice has wider implications for all forms of legal redress and ethical conduct, emphasizing fairness and equity in all dealings, whether in ancient Israel or modern contexts.
How does this law relate to modern concepts of restitution or restorative justice?
Leviticus 24:18 is a foundational text for understanding biblical principles of restitution, which align closely with modern concepts of restorative justice. The command to "make it good" (Hebrew shâlam) emphasizes restoring the victim to their original state or compensating them for their loss, rather than solely focusing on punishing the offender. This focus on repairing harm and bringing wholeness to the injured party is a cornerstone of restorative justice, which seeks to involve victims, offenders, and communities in finding solutions that promote repair, reconciliation, and reintegration. Unlike purely punitive systems, the Mosaic Law, as seen here and in passages like Exodus 22:1-15, often prioritizes the victim's recovery and the restoration of communal harmony through tangible acts of compensation, aiming to heal the breach caused by the offense.
Christ-Centered Fulfillment
While Leviticus 24:18 mandates restitution for property damage, foreshadowing a divine demand for justice and wholeness, its ultimate and profound fulfillment is found in Christ Jesus. The principle of "making it good" points beyond mere material compensation to the infinitely greater spiritual restitution accomplished by our Savior. Humanity, through sin, had not merely damaged but had "killed" its relationship with a holy God, incurring an infinite spiritual debt and facing eternal death. No amount of human effort, no "beast for beast" sacrifice, could ever truly "make good" this cosmic breach. However, Jesus, the perfect and spotless Lamb of God, willingly offered Himself as the ultimate, once-for-all sacrifice, paying the full and complete price for our sin. His atoning work on the cross fully satisfied divine justice, making complete restitution for humanity's spiritual bankruptcy and restoring what was lost (Romans 5:8). Through His sacrificial death and glorious resurrection, we are not merely compensated for our loss but are made truly whole, receiving spiritual life, reconciliation with God (2 Corinthians 5:18-19), and the promise of eternal shalom. Thus, Christ embodies the ultimate "making good," transforming the legal principle of restitution into a glorious reality of redemption and restoration for all who believe, demonstrating God's perfect justice and boundless love.