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
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 24:20 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 24:20 articulates a foundational principle of ancient Israelite jurisprudence known as the Lex Talionis, or "Law of Retaliation." This verse, stating "Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him [again]," establishes a standard for judicial punishment that demands a penalty precisely equivalent to the injury inflicted. Far from promoting personal vengeance, this divine statute served to limit retribution, ensuring that justice was proportionate, impartial, and prevented an escalating cycle of violence within the community, thereby fostering order and equity.
Context
Literary Context
Leviticus 24:20 is situated within a broader collection of laws and a specific legal case that profoundly underscores the sanctity of God's name and the principles of justice within the Israelite community. Immediately preceding this verse, Leviticus 24:10-16 recounts the dramatic incident of a man, the son of an Israelite woman and an Egyptian man, who blasphemes the name of the Lord and curses. This egregious act leads to his being brought before Moses, and after divine instruction, he is stoned to death outside the camp. This severe punishment for blasphemy sets a precedent for the gravity of offenses against God and the community, emphasizing the absolute necessity of upholding the divine covenant. Following the articulation of the Lex Talionis in Leviticus 24:20, the text continues with further regulations regarding damage to property and livestock in Leviticus 24:21, reiterating the principle of equal justice for both native-born Israelites and foreigners in Leviticus 24:22. The entire chapter culminates with the execution of the blasphemer in Leviticus 24:23, reinforcing the immediate application and seriousness of the judicial principles laid out. Thus, the "eye for eye" principle is presented not as an isolated rule, but as an integral component of a comprehensive legal framework designed to maintain order, holiness, and justice within the covenant community.
Historical & Cultural Context
The Lex Talionis was not unique to ancient Israel; similar principles of proportionate retribution are found in other ancient Near Eastern law codes, such as the Code of Hammurabi (c. 1754 BC). However, within the Mosaic Law, this principle served a distinct and transformative purpose. In a world where personal vengeance often led to disproportionate and escalating feuds (e.g., a family exacting multiple lives for a single death), the "eye for eye" rule was revolutionary in its limitation of retaliation. It was not a command for individuals to exact personal revenge, but rather a guideline for judges and courts to ensure that penalties were commensurate with the crime. This prevented both excessive punishment (e.g., executing someone for stealing a loaf of bread) and insufficient restitution, thereby curbing blood feuds and promoting societal stability. The principle aimed to establish a framework for fair and proportionate justice, ensuring that the punishment "fit the crime." This concept is also found in Exodus 21:23-25 and Deuteronomy 19:21, reinforcing its importance as a cornerstone of the Mosaic legal system. It underscored the divine concern for equity and the establishment of a just society under God's covenant, emphasizing the value of each individual's life and body.
Key Themes
Leviticus 24:20 contributes significantly to several major theological and narrative themes found throughout the book of Leviticus and the broader Pentateuch. Foremost among these is the theme of Divine Justice and Righteousness. The Lex Talionis reflects God's own character as a just and righteous judge who demands that wrongs be addressed fairly and that punishment be proportionate to the offense. It underscores the sanctity of human life and the body, implying that causing injury to another is a serious matter that demands a serious, divinely ordained response. This principle also highlights the theme of Order and Stability within the Covenant Community. By providing clear legal guidelines for retribution, it prevented chaos and unchecked vengeance, fostering a society governed by law rather than by individual passions. Furthermore, it speaks to the theme of Holiness, as a holy God requires a holy people who administer justice in a manner that reflects His own attributes, maintaining the purity and integrity of the community. The law's application to both native-born and foreigners (as seen in Leviticus 24:22) also emphasizes the theme of Impartiality in Justice, a hallmark of God's righteous rule.
Exposition and Analysis
Key Word Analysis
This word (שֶׁבֶר) literally means "a breaking," "a fracture," or "ruin." In the context of Leviticus 24:20, it refers to any severe injury or damage inflicted upon a person, encompassing more than just a literal bone break. It signifies a violation or a wound that causes significant harm, emphasizing the severity of the offense that warrants a corresponding penalty. The repetition "breach for breach" underscores the direct equivalence required.
The word (עַיִן) literally means "eye," but in this legal formula, it functions as a metonymy, standing for the specific injury to the eye or the loss of sight. It represents a precise and identifiable bodily harm, highlighting the exactness and specificity demanded by the law in determining the nature of the retribution. It also broadly refers to one's outward appearance or perception.
This word (מוּם) refers to a defect, stain, or physical imperfection, often used in Leviticus for ritual purity (e.g., an animal without blemish for sacrifice). Here, it refers to any permanent injury, defect, or disfigurement caused to a "man" (H120, ʼâdâm). The phrase "caused a blemish" implies an intentional or negligent act resulting in lasting physical harm, reinforcing that the Lex Talionis applies to significant, enduring injuries.
Verse Breakdown
"Breach for breach"
This opening phrase establishes the overarching principle of proportionate justice for any significant injury or damage. It means that whatever kind of severe harm or breaking one person inflicts upon another, a penalty of the same kind and degree must be applied to the offender by the judicial system. It sets the general rule before specific examples, emphasizing the concept of exact equivalence in consequence.
"eye for eye"
This is a specific application of the general principle, illustrating the exactness required in the judicial system. If a person causes the loss of an eye, the penalty exacted by the legal authority must be equivalent to the loss of an eye. This was not always about literally blinding the offender, but about ensuring the compensation or punishment was precisely measured to the injury, often through monetary restitution or a comparable physical penalty.
"tooth for tooth"
Similar to "eye for eye," this further specifies the principle, applying it to the loss of a tooth. It reinforces the idea of precise equivalence in retribution, demonstrating that even smaller, but significant, bodily injuries fall under this law of proportionate justice, requiring a commensurate response from the legal system.
"as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him [again]."
This concluding clause summarizes and universalizes the principle. It clarifies that the Lex Talionis applies to any "blemish" (מוּם, mum), meaning any permanent injury, defect, or disfigurement caused to another person. The phrase "so shall it be done to him [again]" emphasizes the reciprocal and exact nature of the judicial consequence, ensuring that the punishment mirrors the crime in kind and severity, administered by the legal authority, not by private vengeance.
Literary Devices
Leviticus 24:20 employs several significant literary devices to convey its legal principle with clarity, authority, and memorability. Repetition is prominently used with the structure "X for X" (e.g., "breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth"). This rhythmic repetition creates a powerful and memorable Legal Formula, characteristic of ancient law codes, making the principle easy to recall and apply. The concise, almost proverbial structure lends it an air of immutable truth and divine decree. Furthermore, Metonymy is at play, where "eye" and "tooth" stand in for the specific injuries or losses themselves, rather than literally demanding the removal of the offender's eye or tooth in all cases. While literal application might have occurred in some severe instances, the primary intent was often judicial compensation or a penalty of equivalent severity, underscoring the precise nature of the harm and the required justice. This use of specific body parts makes the abstract concept of proportionality concrete and understandable, serving as vivid examples of the broader principle. The verse functions as a Chiasm in its underlying structure, moving from a general principle ("breach") to specific examples ("eye," "tooth") and back to a general summary ("blemish... so shall it be done"), reinforcing the comprehensive nature of the law.
Theological and Thematic Connections
Leviticus 24:20, with its declaration of "breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth," is a profound statement about divine justice and the establishment of order within the covenant community. Theologically, it underscores God's commitment to fairness and equity, revealing that His character demands a just response to sin and injury. It reflects a radical move away from arbitrary or excessive vengeance, which was rampant in the ancient world, towards a system where punishment was measured and controlled by a higher, divine standard. This principle served to limit human retribution, preventing a cycle of escalating violence and ensuring that justice was administered impartially by designated authorities. It highlights the sanctity of human life and the body, as injuries to them demand a serious and equivalent response. While seemingly harsh to modern ears, the Lex Talionis was a progressive legal development for its time, laying the groundwork for a society governed by law rather than by unchecked personal rage, thereby reflecting the order and righteousness of God Himself.
Reflection and Application
The principle of "eye for eye" from Leviticus 24:20, though rooted in ancient judicial practice, continues to offer profound insights for reflection and application in contemporary life. It reminds us that God is a God of justice, who demands fairness and accountability, and that there are real consequences for actions that harm others. While modern legal systems have evolved beyond the literal application of Lex Talionis, the underlying principle of proportionality—that consequences should fit the offense—remains a cornerstone of ethical jurisprudence, guiding considerations of punishment and restitution. For believers, this passage challenges us to consider the delicate balance between justice and mercy, particularly in light of Christ's teachings. It compels us to resist the natural human urge for excessive personal revenge, recognizing that ultimate justice belongs to God. Instead, it calls us to cultivate a spirit of forgiveness and reconciliation in our personal interactions, understanding that while the law provides a framework for societal order, the gospel calls us to a higher standard of love and grace. This verse serves as a crucial historical marker, illustrating the progression of divine revelation from strict legal retribution to the transformative power of Christ's redemptive love and the call to non-retaliation for His followers.
Questions for Reflection
FAQ
Was "eye for eye" meant for personal revenge?
No, the principle of "eye for eye" (Lex Talionis) as stated in Leviticus 24:20 and elsewhere in the Old Testament (e.g., Exodus 21:23-25) was not a command for individuals to seek personal revenge. Rather, it was a judicial guideline intended for judges and courts in ancient Israel. Its primary purpose was to ensure that punishments were proportionate to the crime committed, thereby limiting excessive retaliation and preventing a cycle of escalating violence. In a world where victims or their families often exacted disproportionate vengeance, this law served as a restraint, setting a maximum limit on retribution and establishing a framework for fair and impartial justice administered by the community's legal authorities.
How does Jesus' teaching in the New Testament relate to "eye for eye"?
In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus directly addresses the "eye for eye" principle in Matthew 5:38-39. He quotes the law ("You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.'") and then provides a new, higher standard for His followers: "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." Jesus does not abolish the Old Testament law as a principle of judicial justice for society, but He reinterprets and elevates its application for personal ethics among His disciples. He calls believers to move beyond strict retribution in personal interactions, emphasizing radical love, forgiveness, and non-retaliation, reflecting the character of God's grace. This demonstrates a shift from a legal principle governing societal justice to a spiritual principle guiding personal conduct and relationships within the Kingdom of God, particularly for those who have experienced God's own boundless mercy.
Christ-Centered Fulfillment
Leviticus 24:20, with its demand for "breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth," finds its ultimate Christ-centered fulfillment not in a literal application of retribution, but in the profound spiritual justice and redemptive grace embodied by Jesus Christ. While the Lex Talionis established a just standard for human courts, limiting vengeance and ensuring proportionate punishment, Christ fulfills this law by perfectly upholding divine justice while simultaneously offering mercy that transcends human capacity. He is the one who took the ultimate "breach for breach" on the cross; our sin (the breach, the blemish, the injury against God) was laid upon Him, and in return, we receive His righteousness and reconciliation with God (the just exchange). As the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world, Jesus bore the full weight of humanity's "blemish" and "breach" against God, satisfying the demands of divine justice through His atoning sacrifice. He did not come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it (Matthew 5:17), demonstrating that true justice is met not merely by equivalent punishment, but by a perfect substitutionary sacrifice that pays the debt in full. Furthermore, in His teachings, particularly in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:38-48), Jesus elevates the principle from judicial retribution to a radical ethic of love, forgiveness, and non-resistance for His followers. He calls us to reflect God's character by extending grace even to those who wrong us, mirroring the boundless mercy God has shown us through Christ (Ephesians 4:32). Thus, Christ fulfills the Lex Talionis by perfectly embodying both the justice it demands and the mercy that ultimately redeems, inviting believers into a new way of living that reflects His self-sacrificial love.