मुख्य मजकुरावर जा

Leviticus 24:21

“Laws of Retribution and Justice”· Leviticus 24:17–23Read in context
King James Version
And he that killeth a beast, he shall restore it: and he that killeth a man, he shall be put to death.
KJV (with Strong's)
And he that killeth H5221 a beast H929, he shall restore H7999 it: and he that killeth H5221 a man H120, he shall be put to death H4191.
Complete Jewish Bible
He who kills an animal is to make restitution, but he who kills another person is to be put to death.
Berean Standard Bible
Whoever kills an animal must make restitution, but whoever kills a man must be put to death.
American Standard Version
And he that killeth a beast shall make it good: and he that killeth a man shall be put to death.
World English Bible Messianic
He who kills an animal shall make it good; and he who kills a man shall be put to death.
Geneva Bible (1599)
And he that killeth a beast shall restore it: but he that killeth a man shall be slaine.
Young's Literal Translation
`And he who smiteth a beast repayeth it, and he who smiteth the life of man is put to death;
मराठी · MRCV
जो कोणी प्राण्याची हत्या करतो, त्याने निश्चित त्याची परतफेड करावी, परंतु जो कोणी मनुष्याची हत्या करतो त्याला जिवे मारावे.
Translation
In the KJVVerse 3,468 of 31,102 · 11.2%

Study this verse

Summary

Leviticus 24:21 stands as a pivotal legal declaration within the Mosaic Law, precisely delineating the distinct consequences for the destruction of property versus the taking of a human life. It states, "And he that killeth a beast, he shall restore it: and he that killeth a man, he shall be put to death." This concise yet profound verse underscores the immeasurable value God places on human life, setting it apart from all other creation and establishing a principle of justice that demands an ultimate penalty for murder, contrasting sharply with the requirement of restitution for harm to animals.

Context

Literary Context

Leviticus 24:21 is strategically placed within a broader collection of civil and cultic laws, immediately following the dramatic narrative of a blasphemer's execution according to divine command, as detailed in Leviticus 24:10-16. This preceding incident vividly illustrates the severity with which God regards offenses against His holy name and the purity of His covenant people. The verses directly preceding 24:21, specifically Leviticus 24:17-20, introduce and elaborate upon the principle of lex talionis – "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" – emphasizing proportionate justice for various personal injuries. Verse 21 then applies this overarching principle to the most extreme cases of harm: the killing of an animal and, most significantly, the killing of a human being. By embedding the sanctity of human life within this framework of proportionate justice, the text highlights its supreme and non-negotiable value within the divine legal code, fundamentally distinguishing it from mere property.

Historical & Cultural Context

The laws presented in Leviticus were given to ancient Israel as an integral part of God's covenant with them at Mount Sinai, intended to establish a holy nation distinct from the surrounding pagan cultures. Unlike many ancient Near Eastern legal codes, which often treated human life, particularly that of slaves or lower classes, as mere property subject to compensation, the Mosaic Law consistently elevates the sanctity of all human life. This profound distinction is rooted in the foundational biblical truth that humanity alone is created in the image of God (Genesis 1:27; Genesis 9:6). Consequently, the unlawful taking of a human life was not merely a civil offense but an offense against God Himself, warranting the ultimate penalty. The requirement for restitution for animals reflects their status as property, while capital punishment for murder underscores the immeasurable, non-compensable value of a human being. This comprehensive legal framework was designed to foster a just and ordered society, reflecting God's own righteous character and His unwavering commitment to the protection of life within His covenant community.

Key Themes

Leviticus 24:21 contributes significantly to several overarching themes found throughout the book of Leviticus and the Pentateuch. Foremost among these is the Sanctity of Human Life, which is presented as uniquely sacred due to humanity's creation in the image of God. This verse firmly establishes that human life is distinct from and of infinitely greater value than animal life or property. Another crucial theme is Divine Justice and Righteousness, as the law reflects God's own character, demanding appropriate consequences for actions and ensuring that justice is meted out fairly within the community. The principle of Proportionate Justice (or lex talionis), introduced in the preceding verses, finds its ultimate application here, demonstrating that the penalty must fit the crime, with murder demanding the ultimate price. Finally, the verse reinforces the theme of Covenant Purity and Holiness, as the maintenance of a just society, free from bloodshed and violence, was essential for Israel to remain a holy people set apart for God. The severe penalty for murder emphasizes the need to purge evil from the community to maintain its covenant relationship with a holy God, as seen in passages like Numbers 35:33-34.

Exposition and Analysis

Key Word Analysis

killeth nâkâh' H5221

This Hebrew root (נָכָה) is a primitive verb meaning "to strike" or "to smite," encompassing both light and severe blows, and often leading to death. While it can describe accidental or intentional acts, in the context of legal pronouncements like this, especially when referring to taking life, it implies a culpable act resulting in death. Its usage for both animal and human killing highlights the physical action, while the differing consequences underscore the vast qualitative distinction in the value of the life taken.

restore shâlam' H7999

The Hebrew root (שָׁלַם) means "to be safe," "to be complete," or "to make whole." In the context of property, it implies making full amends, repaying, or rendering restitution. When applied to the killed beast, it signifies that the loss can be rectified through material compensation, such as replacing the animal or providing monetary payment. This term underscores that an animal, while valuable, is ultimately property, and its loss can be financially redressed, reflecting a system of justice where property damage requires equitable restitution.

put to death mûwth' H4191

This Hebrew root (מוּת) means "to die" (literally or figuratively) and, causatively, "to kill." In Leviticus 24:21, the phrase "he shall be put to death" is an emphatic Hebrew idiom, mot yumath (מות יומת), literally "dying he shall die." This reduplication of the verb "to die" is used throughout the Old Testament to signify an absolute, certain, and divinely mandated execution or capital punishment. It leaves no room for alternative penalties or ransoms for murder, underscoring the irreversible nature of the crime and the ultimate, non-negotiable penalty required by God's justice for the taking of a human life.

Verse Breakdown

"And he that killeth a beast, he shall restore it:"

This initial clause addresses the act of taking an animal's life. Within the Israelite legal framework, the killing of another's animal was considered damage to their property. The prescribed consequence is not a personal punishment of the killer but a mandate for restitution. The phrase "he shall restore it" signifies that the offender must make full compensation to the owner for the loss, either by replacing the animal with one of equal value or by monetary payment. This highlights the economic and property-based value of animals in ancient agrarian societies, where their loss could be materially compensated.

"and he that killeth a man, he shall be put to death."

This clause presents a stark and absolute contrast to the preceding one, emphasizing the immeasurable and sacred value of human life. The penalty for unlawfully taking a human life is capital punishment, expressed by the emphatic Hebrew idiom "mot yumath" ("dying he shall die"). This severe consequence underscores that human life is not property and cannot be compensated for or restored through material means. The act of killing a human being is viewed as an offense so grave that it demands the ultimate penalty, reflecting the Imago Dei (image of God) and the unique relationship between God and humanity. It signifies an irreparable loss that can only be addressed by the forfeiture of the perpetrator's own life, thus purging the land of the defilement of bloodshed.

Literary Devices

Leviticus 24:21 employs several potent literary devices to convey its message with clarity and forceful impact. The most prominent is Contrast, which is central to the verse's meaning. By juxtaposing the killing of a "beast" with the killing of a "man," and the respective consequences of "restore it" versus "put to death," the text dramatically highlights the qualitative difference between animal life and human life. This contrast is not merely legal but deeply theological, underscoring the unique sanctity of human beings as image-bearers of God. Furthermore, the verse utilizes Parallelism in its grammatical structure, presenting two clauses that are syntactically similar ("he that killeth X, he shall Y"). This structural parallelism serves to emphasize the stark divergence in outcomes, making the distinction between the two acts even more pronounced and memorable. The language itself functions as a Legal Pronouncement, characterized by its direct, declarative, and uncompromising tone, leaving no ambiguity regarding the prescribed penalties. Finally, the emphatic Hebrew idiom mot yumath ("dying he shall die") serves as a powerful device of Emphasis, ensuring that the severity and certainty of capital punishment for murder are unequivocally understood, leaving no doubt about the absolute nature of this divine decree.

Theological and Thematic Connections

Leviticus 24:21 is a cornerstone text for understanding the biblical doctrine of the sanctity of human life, rooted fundamentally in the Imago Dei. It unequivocally declares that human life possesses an inherent, non-negotiable value that distinguishes it from all other created life, demanding the gravest penalty for its unlawful taking. This principle of proportionate justice, where the penalty fits the crime, is not merely a legal convention but a profound reflection of God's own righteous character and His unwavering commitment to justice within His covenant community. The verse underscores that offenses against human life are ultimately offenses against God Himself, who alone is the giver and sustainer of all life. The shedding of innocent human blood defiles the land and demands a just recompense to restore purity and order.

Reflection and Application

Leviticus 24:21 continues to speak profoundly to contemporary society, affirming the enduring and non-negotiable value of every human life. In a world where human dignity is often devalued, whether through violence, abortion, euthanasia, or systemic injustice, this verse serves as a powerful reminder that human beings are uniquely created in the image of God and are therefore worthy of ultimate respect and protection from conception to natural death. It calls us to reflect on how we, as individuals and communities, uphold the sanctity of life, advocating for justice for the vulnerable and marginalized. Furthermore, the principle of proportionate justice challenges us to consider the gravity of our actions and the appropriate consequences, fostering a societal commitment to righteousness and order. This verse compels us to recognize God's unwavering commitment to justice and to strive for a world where the value of human life is consistently honored and defended, recognizing that true justice ultimately reflects the character of God.

Questions for Reflection

  1. How does the stark contrast in Leviticus 24:21 between the value of an animal and a human being shape your understanding of human dignity today?
  2. In what ways does our modern society, or even our personal attitudes, sometimes devalue human life, and how can we better align with the biblical principle of its sanctity?
  3. How does this verse inform your perspective on justice, particularly regarding the severity of crime and the appropriateness of punishment within a just society?

FAQ

Why is human life valued so much more than animal life in this verse?

The fundamental reason for the vast difference in value between human and animal life, as presented in Leviticus 24:21 and throughout the Bible, is the doctrine of the Imago Dei, or the "image of God." Genesis 1:27 states that God created humanity in His own image, a unique distinction not afforded to any other part of creation. This means that human beings possess a divine spark, a capacity for relationship with God, moral reasoning, and spiritual awareness that animals do not. To take a human life is therefore not merely to destroy a biological entity, but to deface God's image and violate His sacred design. Genesis 9:6 reiterates this principle after the flood, establishing capital punishment for murder precisely because "whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image." Animals, while part of God's good creation and worthy of humane treatment, are given to humanity for stewardship and use (Genesis 1:28), hence their loss can be compensated through restitution.

Does "put to death" always mean capital punishment for any killing, or is there a distinction for accidental killing?

While Leviticus 24:21 states "he that killeth a man, he shall be put to death" without explicit qualification, the broader Mosaic Law does indeed distinguish between intentional murder and accidental killing. For intentional murder, the penalty was unequivocally capital punishment, with no possibility of ransom or financial compensation (Numbers 35:31). However, for unintentional or accidental killing (manslaughter), the law provided for specific "cities of refuge" where the slayer could flee to avoid the immediate vengeance of the avenger of blood and receive a fair trial (Numbers 35:9-28). If found to be accidental, the slayer would remain in the city of refuge until the death of the high priest, after which they could return home. Thus, while Leviticus 24:21 sets the general principle for the gravity of taking human life, other laws elaborate on the specific circumstances and their corresponding legal responses, ensuring justice tempered with mercy for unintentional acts.

Christ-Centered Fulfillment

Leviticus 24:21, with its stark declaration of justice for the taking of life, finds profound Christ-centered fulfillment in several ways. Firstly, the verse underscores the infinite value of human life, a truth supremely affirmed in Christ's incarnation. God Himself took on human flesh, demonstrating that humanity, despite its fallenness, is worthy of divine identification and ultimate redemption (John 1:14). Secondly, the principle of proportionate justice, demanding death for death, foreshadows the ultimate consequence of sin: "the wages of sin is death" (Romans 6:23). Humanity, having sinned against a holy God, was under a spiritual death sentence, yet Christ, the perfect and sinless Lamb of God, voluntarily offered His own life as the ultimate restoration and payment for the "killing" effect of sin. His sacrifice on the cross was the perfect fulfillment of divine justice, absorbing the death penalty humanity deserved, thereby making reconciliation possible (2 Corinthians 5:21). Furthermore, Christ's future role as the righteous judge, who will ultimately bring perfect justice and hold every individual accountable for their actions, including the taking of life, echoes the uncompromising demand for justice found in this Levitical law (Revelation 20:12-13). In Christ, we see both the full weight of God's justice against sin and the boundless depth of His mercy, which offers eternal life where only death was due.

Copy as

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.

1662–1714 · 14 verses
Passage under commentLeviticus 24:10–23
I. II. Main points1. 2. Sub-points

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!

Copy as
Source: Quotations drawn from early Church Fathers and historical Christian theologians (AD 100–1500). Some quotes address the surrounding passage context rather than this verse alone.
Copy as

Continue studying Leviticus 24:21 across the web’s major study libraries — every link below opens this exact verse, chapter, or book on the destination site.

TrulyRandomVerse is not affiliated with these sites and doesn’t control their content. They’re linked because they’re genuinely useful.

Related study articles8