Exodus 21:24

Studied by claude-opus-5-5 October 8, 2026

עַ֚יִן תַּ֣חַת עַ֔יִן שֵׁ֖ן תַּ֣חַת שֵׁ֑ן יָ֚ד תַּ֣חַת יָ֔ד רֶ֖גֶל תַּ֥חַת רָֽגֶל׃

ʿayin taḥat ʿayin, shen taḥat shen, yad taḥat yad, regel taḥat ragel.

Eye in-place-of eye, tooth in-place-of tooth, hand in-place-of hand, foot in-place-of foot. (The verb comes from v. 23: "you shall give life in place of life".)

What it meant

Grammatically this verse is the middle of a sentence. Verse 23 begins: "If harm happens, you shall give life in place of life." Verse 24 continues the list of what is to be given, and verse 25 finishes it with burn, wound and bruise.

So the full sense is: "[you shall give] an eye in the place of an eye, a tooth in the place of a tooth, a hand in the place of a hand, a foot in the place of a foot."

What the first hearers heard was a measure, not a mood. The repeated word taḥat means "in place of, as the equivalent of". The rhythm of eye/eye, tooth/tooth works like a legal maxim: the penalty must equal the harm. It must not be less, as if a poor man's eye did not count. It must not be more, the way a blood feud spirals when a family avenges a tooth with a life. The list moves from the gravest injury (the eye) to a lesser one (the tooth), and verse 25 goes down to a bruise, so the point is proportion at every level.

This is law for the community's judges. It is not permission for an injured man to take revenge himself. The case in view is two men fighting who injure a bystander, a pregnant woman (vv. 22–23). The immediate context also uses the same "in place of" language for payment: a master frees his slave "in place of his eye" (v. 26), and an owner pays "ox in place of ox" (v. 36). So the verse states the principle of exact equivalence. Whether that equivalent was ever, or always, carried out on the offender's body, or usually paid as its value, was debated in antiquity and still is.

Where the English drifted

an eye for an eye ʿayin taḥat ʿayin

What we hear

A slogan for personal revenge: "you hurt me, so I get to hurt you back". It is often treated as the harsh opposite of mercy, as in "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind".

What they heard

A legal standard for judges: the penalty must be the equivalent of the injury, no more and no less, and the same for every free person. Its job was to replace private revenge and to cap it. In this chapter the same "in place of" wording also covers compensation given as the equivalent of a loss.

Where the later meaning came from: The phrase became a proverb cut loose from its legal setting. Matthew 5:38–39 is often read as Jesus rejecting Old Testament "vengeance", though his point is about the personal response of the one who has been wronged. Modern sayings such as the line often attributed to Gandhi spread the revenge reading further.

What the first hearers heard

To Israelites hearing the covenant laws, this line did several things at once:

It put justice in the court's hands. The penalty was set by the community's judges (compare v. 22, "as the judges determine"; Deut 19:18–21). The injured family did not decide it, so feud and escalation were cut off.
It capped the penalty. One eye at most for an eye, one tooth at most for a tooth. In a world where a wound could be avenged with death (Gen 4:23), that was a limit on punishment, not a call for it.
It set a minimum. A rich or powerful man could not treat a poor man's eye as a minor matter. In Hammurabi's laws the value of an injury depended on the victim's class. Here, among free Israelites, the same measure applied to everyone.
It put a value on the body. Every part of the person, from the eye down to a tooth, a burn or a bruise, had a weight the law recognised. In this setting even injury to a pregnant woman caught up in other men's fight counted.

Did Israelite courts actually put out eyes? The text does not say, and no biblical narrative records it. The word "in place of" is also used for money and freedom in the same chapter, and Numbers 35:31 seems to assume ransom was possible for anything short of murder. Both suggest the formula may often have worked as a standard of value for settlement. Leviticus 24:19–20 ("as he has done, so it shall be done to him") and Deuteronomy 19:21 are worded more literally, though. The first hearers knew the principle with certainty. The method of carrying it out may have varied.

Every word

עַ֚יִן
ʿayin · H5869

eye

The injured eye, put first as the most valuable and most easily destroyed body part. It is the object of the verb "you shall give" carried over from verse 23, so the sense is "[you shall give] an eye…".
תַּ֣חַת
taḥat · H8478

under; in place of, instead of

The hinge of the formula. It means one thing standing in the place of another, an equivalent. In this same chapter it describes payments and compensation ("ox in place of ox", v. 36; freedom "in place of his eye", v. 26).
עַ֔יִן
ʿayin · H5869

eye

The eye that was lost. Repeating the same noun makes the point that penalty and injury must match: the same kind and the same size.
שֵׁ֖ן
shen · H8127

tooth

A lesser injury than an eye. Putting it next to the eye shows the rule scales up and down. Minor harm gets a minor penalty, not the same penalty as major harm.
תַּ֣חַת
taḥat · H8478

in place of

The same word for equivalence, repeated. The rhythm of the repetition makes the line easy to remember, like a legal maxim.
שֵׁ֑ן
shen · H8127

tooth

The tooth that was lost. The accent marks the midpoint of the verse here.
יָ֚ד
yad · H3027

hand

The hand, which was a person's means of working and earning. Losing a hand meant losing a living, so the injury had economic weight as well as bodily weight.
תַּ֣חַת
taḥat · H8478

in place of

Equivalence again: what is given matches what was lost.
יָ֔ד
yad · H3027

hand

The hand that was lost.
רֶ֖גֶל
regel · H7272

foot

The foot, needed to walk, herd and work fields. With the hand, it stands for the whole working body.
תַּ֥חַת
taḥat · H8478

in place of

The fourth repetition. It closes this verse's run of body parts, and verse 25 continues the pattern.
רָֽגֶל׃
ragel · H7272

foot

The foot that was lost. The vowel changes from regel to ragel only because the word falls at the end of the verse, where it is pronounced with a pause. The meaning does not change.

Key words, in depth

תַּחַת taḥat H8478

Range of meaning: Its basic meaning is "underneath, below" (Gen 18:8; Exod 24:10). From there it extends to "in the place of": a son reigns "in place of" his father (1 Kgs 11:43), and the ram is offered "instead of" Isaac (Gen 22:13). It also means "in exchange for, as the equivalent of, in return for" (Gen 30:15; 1 Kgs 21:2: "I will give you a better vineyard in place of it"). In legal texts it marks the equivalent that settles a loss.
Against the English: English "for" is accurate, but it is a small word with a broad range, and in the popular slogan it is usually heard as "in retaliation for". The Hebrew word is about substitution and equivalence ("in place of"). It does not by itself say whether the equivalent is a matching injury or its value.
How it drifted: The phrase left its legal setting and became a proverb about personal revenge. Readers learned it mostly through Matthew 5:38–39, where Jesus contrasts it with not resisting an evildoer. Later popular sayings such as "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" fixed the idea that it was a principle of vengeance.
Used elsewhere in the period: Exodus 21 uses the word repeatedly for compensation. In v. 26 a master who destroys a slave's eye must free him "in place of his eye" (taḥat ʿeino). In v. 36 the owner of a goring ox "shall surely pay ox in place of ox" (shor taḥat ha-shor). In the Septuagint (the Greek translation) it becomes antí ("instead of"), and Matthew 5:38 quotes that form. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, an Aramaic paraphrase, renders the line here as "the value of an eye in place of an eye". The Laws of Hammurabi (§§196–200) express literal equivalence with a verb phrase ("they shall destroy his eye").
What it does in this verse: In its own context the word sets a measure: a penalty equivalent to the loss. Within the space of a few verses the same word marks a payment and freedom given as a substitute. So the formula is about matching what was lost. It is not about letting the injured man satisfy his anger.

עַ֫יִן ʿayin H5869

Range of meaning: The physical eye. It also means sight, view or presence ("in the eyes of" means "in the judgment of"), and a spring of water. Here it is clearly the physical organ.
Against the English: English "eye" is accurate. Nothing has drifted in the word itself.
Used elsewhere in the period: Laws of Hammurabi §196: "If a man destroys the eye of a free man (awīlum), they shall destroy his eye." §198: for the eye of a commoner (muškēnum), he pays one mina of silver. §199: for a slave, half the slave's price. The older Laws of Eshnunna (§42) set a fixed silver payment of one mina for an eye.
What it does in this verse: Opening with the eye, the most precious body part listed, shows the standard holds even at the top of the scale. The ancient law codes show that an eye could be answered either with an eye or with silver. Israel's formula belongs to that debate over how to value bodily injury.

שֵׁן shen H8127

Range of meaning: Tooth, of humans or animals. It can also mean a rocky crag (1 Sam 14:4) or ivory.
Against the English: Accurate.
Used elsewhere in the period: Laws of Hammurabi §200: "If a man knocks out the tooth of a man of his own rank, they shall knock out his tooth." §201: for a commoner's tooth, one-third mina of silver. Laws of Eshnunna §42: a tooth costs half a mina. Exodus 21:27: a slave whose tooth is knocked out by his master goes free "in place of his tooth".
What it does in this verse: Eye and tooth are paired at opposite ends of the scale of harm: a severe, permanent injury and a relatively minor one. The pairing teaches that the penalty is graded to the injury. This is why Jesus can quote just these two as shorthand for the whole principle (Matt 5:38).

יָד / רֶ֫גֶל yad / regel H3027 / H7272

Range of meaning: Yad is the hand. It also stands for power, control, agency ("into the hand of") and sometimes a monument or a share. Regel is the foot or leg, and by extension a step, a time or occasion ("three times", Exod 23:14), or one's going.
Against the English: Accurate in this physical sense.
Used elsewhere in the period: The Laws of Ur-Nammu (c. 2100 BC) set silver payments for cutting off a foot or breaking a bone. In Deuteronomy 19:21 the same series ("life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot") is applied to a false witness, who must suffer what he plotted to do to the accused.
What it does in this verse: Hand and foot add the limbs a farmer or herder needed to work. Losing them meant lasting loss of livelihood. The list is not a complete schedule of injuries. It is a pattern, carried on in v. 25 with burns, wounds and bruises, that shows the principle of exact proportion applies to every degree of harm.

The world behind it

The case in view. Exodus 21:22–25 deals with two men fighting who strike a pregnant woman so that "her children come out". If there is no ʾason (serious harm), the striker pays a fine set by the husband and confirmed by judges or assessors (pelilim). If there is harm, the "life for life, eye for eye…" formula applies. Verse 24 is the heart of that second ruling. It is not a free-standing command about personal conduct.

The Covenant Code. Exodus 20:22–23:33 is a collection of case laws ("if a man does X, then Y"). It is closely comparable to other ancient Near Eastern law collections. These were the rulings of Israel's local courts, typically elders at the town gate, given within the covenant at Sinai.

The wider legal debate. The older Sumerian and Babylonian law collections set silver payments for bodily injuries: the Laws of Ur-Nammu (c. 2100 BC) and the Laws of Eshnunna (c. 1800 BC) both do this. The Laws of Hammurabi (c. 1750 BC) introduced literal matching injury, but only between free men of the same class. A commoner's eye cost one mina of silver, and a slave's eye half the slave's price. Israel's formula has no such ranking among free persons: an eye is an eye. Exodus does still treat slaves separately. A master who blinds his slave does not lose his own eye. He loses the slave, who goes free (vv. 26–27).

Blood feud. Where there was no strong central court, an injured family took revenge, and revenge tends to escalate. Lamech boasts of killing a man for a wound and of being avenged seventy-sevenfold (Gen 4:23–24). An exact-equivalence formula stated in law and applied by judges blocks that spiral.

Later Jewish practice. By the time of the Mishnah (c. AD 200), rabbinic law interpreted the formula as monetary damages. A person who injured another paid for the damage, pain, healing, lost time and shame (m. Bava Kamma 8:1). The Talmud argues this from Scripture (b. Bava Kamma 83b–84a). One argument is that Numbers 35:31 forbids taking a ransom for a murderer's life, which implies ransom was allowed for lesser injuries. Josephus (late first century AD) describes a literal penalty unless the injured man chose to accept money (Antiquities 4.280). Philo of Alexandria writes in favour of the literal sense. A later note on the ancient Jewish calendar scroll Megillat Taʿanit links a literal reading with the Sadducees (the priestly party). In Jesus' day, then, the formula was a familiar and debated legal principle when he quoted it in Matthew 5:38.

How the translations handle it

BSB eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
KJV Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
WEB eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
YLT eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,

KJV“Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,”

Gets right: Keeps the terse, rhythmic Hebrew form with no extra words.
Loses: "For" is correct but does not show that taḥat means "in place of / as equivalent to". That is the link to the compensation language in vv. 26 and 36.

BSB“eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,”

Gets right: Literal and faithful to the Hebrew word order.
Loses: In v. 23 the BSB has "you must require a life for a life". The Hebrew verb is "you shall give". This makes the series sound more like something the victim demands than something that is given or paid.

WEB“eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,”

Gets right: Literal, identical to the KJV form.
Loses: Same limitation of "for".

YLT“eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,”

Gets right: Literal; in v. 23 it keeps the Hebrew verb "thou hast given".
Loses: Same limitation of "for".

NIV“eye for eye, tooth for tooth”

Gets right: Literal in this verse.
Loses: Like the BSB, it frames v. 23 as what "you are to take", which leans toward a penalty the victim exacts. The Hebrew says "you shall give".

ESV“eye for eye, tooth for tooth”

Gets right: Literal; keeps the verb "you shall pay" in v. 23, which connects the series with payment.

NASB“eye for eye, tooth for tooth”

Gets right: Literal, consistent with its formal style.
Loses: Like the others, "for" does not show the "in place of" sense.

NLT“an eye for an eye”

Gets right: Its wording in v. 23 makes the principle explicit: the punishment must match the injury. That brings out the idea of proportion clearly.
Loses: "Punishment" decides the open question in favour of a bodily penalty. The Hebrew's "give … in place of" leaves room for compensation.

Text and manuscripts

Hebrew text. The Masoretic Text (the standard Hebrew text) is stable here, and no variant of significance is known. The final word is spelled ragel rather than regel because it is the pausal form, a slightly changed pronunciation used at the end of the verse. The supplied gloss of taḥat as "instead / in place of" is correct for this context.
Grammar. The verse has no verb of its own. Each pair is the object of wenatattah, "and you shall give", in v. 23. The "you" (masculine singular) has been read as the offender, as the community or court that enforces the penalty, or as an address to Israel in general.
Septuagint (Greek). ophthalmon anti ophthalmou, odonta anti odontos, cheira anti cheiros, poda anti podos. The words are in the object case, following dōsei, "he shall give", in v. 23. Matthew 5:38 quotes this Greek wording. The Septuagint's real departure from the Hebrew comes in vv. 22–23. It turns ʾason into a distinction between a fetus "not fully formed" and one "fully formed", so that "life for life" applies to the formed fetus. That reading shaped later Christian discussion of abortion. It is an interpretation, not a variant Hebrew text.
Vulgate (Latin). oculum pro oculo, dentem pro dente, manum pro manu, pedem pro pede. This Latin is the source of the legal term lex talionis ("the law of retaliation in kind"), a Roman legal term. The Hebrew uses no such word.
Targum Pseudo-Jonathan (Aramaic). This paraphrase renders the verse in monetary terms, roughly "the value of an eye for an eye". It reflects the rabbinic reading.
Parallels. Lev 24:19–20 (any injury, with literal-sounding wording: "as he has given a blemish, so it shall be given to him"); Deut 19:21 (the false witness); Matt 5:38–39.

Where scholars differ

Was the formula carried out literally on the offender's body, or did it set the value for compensation?

Literal penalty, at least in principle

Hammurabi's laws (§§196–200) show literal matching injury was a real legal practice in the region. Lev 24:19–20 says "as he has done, so it shall be done to him". Deut 19:21 adds "your eye shall not pity". Josephus (Ant. 4.280) and Philo assume a literal penalty, with Josephus allowing money if the victim agreed. Sadducees are reported to have held the literal view.
A standard of value, normally paid as compensation

In the same chapter taḥat names substitutes and payments: freedom "in place of his eye" (21:26–27), "ox in place of ox" (21:36). Verse 22 sets a fine through judges. Num 35:31 forbids ransom only for murder, which implies it was allowed otherwise. No biblical narrative records maiming as a court penalty. Rabbinic law (m. Bava Kamma 8:1; b. Bava Kamma 83b–84a) and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan read it as monetary.
A principle of proportion more than a schedule of penalties

The list continues mechanically to burns and bruises (v. 25), which are hard to measure literally. It sits awkwardly in a case about a pregnant woman. Many scholars therefore see it as a stock legal formula that states the principle of exact equivalence, leaving judges to apply it.

In vv. 22–23, whose "harm" (ʾason) triggers the formula: the woman's, the child's, or both?

Harm to the woman; the "children coming out" means a miscarriage

This is the common older Jewish and critical reading. It contrasts a fine for the loss of the fetus with talion for injury to the mother. It is comparable to Hammurabi §§209–210 and other ancient laws on striking a pregnant woman.
Harm to either mother or child; "children coming out" means a premature live birth

The Hebrew yatsaʾ yeladeha ("her children go out") is normally used of live birth, and is not the usual word for miscarriage (shakal). ʾason is not limited to one party. On this reading, the eye-for-eye equivalence applies to injury to the newborn as well.

Sources

BDB s.v. תַּחַת
HALOT s.v. תַּחַת
HALOT s.v. אָסוֹן
Laws of Hammurabi §§196–201, 209–210 (M. Roth, Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor)
Laws of Ur-Nammu and Laws of Eshnunna §42 (Roth, Law Collections)
Mishnah Bava Kamma 8:1
Babylonian Talmud Bava Kamma 83b–84a
Josephus, Antiquities 4.280
Philo, On the Special Laws 3.181–204
Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, Exodus 21:24
Septuagint, Exodus 21:22–25
IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament, on Exod 21:22–25
B. S. Jackson, Wisdom-Laws: A Study of the Mishpatim of Exodus 21:1–22:16
R. Westbrook, Studies in Biblical and Cuneiform Law

Original-language data: STEPBible TAHOT/TAGNT (CC BY 4.0).

What readers are saying

Loading…