And if men strive together, and strike a woman with child, so that she be delivered, and no mischief happen, he shall in any case be fined, according as the woman's husband shall impose on him, and shall give it as the judges estimate.
Two men fight, a pregnant woman is hit, and her child comes out early. The law calls for a fine, but it names both her husband and the judges — so who really sets the penalty?
This chapter is a block of case law. These rules were not abstract ideas. They set how neighbours were to deal with each other day by day.
This chapter records various "judgments" or "fixed ordinances." The people were commanded to keep them. They were to shape their conduct in every dealing with each other, as fits those who are in covenant relationship with God. The penalties for any breach of them plainly match the character and principle of that relationship, which was law.
The penalty matches the outcome. The ESV says her children "come out"; the writer quoted here takes that as a miscarriage. He reads the further harm in the next verse as harm to the woman, and he shows that even the harsher penalties aimed at fair repayment.
If men are fighting and a woman suffers a miscarriage, the person responsible must pay some compensation. The woman's husband demands it, or a judge decides it. But if the woman herself was harmed, the guilty party had to answer for that too. The judgment then matched the injury — "eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe" (vv. 24-25). Of course, tearing out a man's eye because he had blinded another's eye would not help the injured person. But that person is entitled to fair repayment.
This verse names the judges, and that is the key to the famous "eye for eye" rule. It speaks to the courts, not to the injured man's own hand.
The principle of "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth" belongs to the legal directions that governed the daily life of the people. It is not a rule for one person's conscience. It is a legal direction for the authorities and judges of Israel. Exodus 21:22 and Deuteronomy 19:18 make this clear, because both name the judges. The direction rested on the principle of complete fairness in repaying the deed. It was meant to warn the people and hold them back (Deut. 19:20).
These rules can look like dry legal detail. One writer draws out what they say about God Himself.
All these laws reveal the tenderness of God in protecting the bodies of His people, and above all the bodies of those in a lower position.
The matching penalty works as a limit. Without it, anger would ask back more than it lost.
Under the old order we find that the law laid down the principle, in righteousness, "An eye for an eye" (Ex. 21:24), and by that it restrained the anger of man. Otherwise he would have demanded two eyes for one, out of revenge.
Jesus quoted this very standard when He taught His disciples. What He asked of them went past anything they had heard.
Here the Lord goes beyond all Jewish, and indeed all human, thought. He tells His disciples to bear every kind of wrong done to them with patient grace. They must not resist it. He quotes the law's principle of retaliation, as it is called, to set it aside. That principle was wide open to abuse. Even when judges applied it with the strictest justice, it acted as a strong check on the desire for revenge. Yet it was still far from the mind of heaven which Christ was showing on earth.
The same writer turns this contrast into a rule for how we treat others.
Law demands an exact equivalent — no more, and no less. But grace can cancel every claim. God dealt with us in grace and cancelled our whole debt, so we must act on the same principle towards one another. Never forget, though, that grace itself rests deep in righteousness, and so it reigns through righteousness (Rom. 5:21), on a foundation that never changes.
- Judgments. This verse is case law. It is a fixed rule for how God's covenant people treat each other, and its penalties fit that relationship.
- Judges. The husband may name a claim, but the court settles it. This verse shows that "eye for eye" was an order to judges, not permission for private payback.
- Measured. The matching penalty restrains anger, which would otherwise demand two eyes for one. It was fair repayment and a warning to all.
- Tender. Behind the legal detail is God's care for the bodies of His people, above all the weaker ones.
- Beyond. Christ quoted this standard and set it aside for His own. Law asks the exact equivalent. Grace can cancel the claim, because ours was cancelled first.
But if mischief happen, then thou shalt give life for life,
These case laws come right after the Ten Commandments, and this one covers a fight that injures a pregnant woman. It raises two questions: is "life for life" cruel, and how does it fit with the grace Jesus teaches?
The matching penalties say something about the Lawgiver, not only about the offender.
On God's part, we find Him making laws that show strict, even-handed, perfect justice… That was the character of the laws, the statutes, and the judgments God used to govern His earthly kingdom of Israel… There was no partiality — no difference made between the rich and the poor. God weighed each man's claim on a balance set with divine accuracy, so no one could fairly complain of a decision. The stroke of justice fell only on the head of the guilty, while God protected every obedient person in the enjoyment of all his rights and privileges.
The rule is not a slogan. It answers one specific injury, and the penalty rises or falls with the damage done.
If a fight causes a woman to lose her child, the person responsible must pay compensation, as the woman's husband demands, or as a judge decides. But if the woman herself suffered harm, the guilty party answered for it, and the judgment matched the injury… Of course, taking out a man's eye because he had blinded another's eye would not help the injured party. But he has a right to fair compensation.
Verse 22 has already put the matter before judges. That settles who may apply the measure.
The principle of "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth" belongs to the legal directions that regulated the daily life of the people. It is not a principle for the conscience of a private individual. It is a legal direction for the authorities and judges of Israel. Exodus 21:22 and Deuteronomy 19:18 make this clear, since both name the judges. The direction rested on absolute fairness in repaying the deed, and it served as a warning and deterrent to the people.
There is a practical reason the sentence had to come from a judge rather than the injured man.
"An eye for an eye" is fully righteous recompense, and it expresses the firm inflexibility of the law. Of course a judge must pass the sentence, not the offended party. If a man takes the law into his own hands, he will nearly always inflict worse treatment than he received.
When Israel applied this rule, the nation acted for God. Writers point out that the believer today does not stand in that place.
If in their law they were to exact "life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth…" (Ex. 21:23-25), they did it as the executors of God's governmental righteousness… No thoughtful Christian can look at this trust given to Israel without seeing how completely it contrasts with the believer's position today. Some argue that this is because the world has been educated to a higher level. Let us ask one question — has God been educated?… The Israelite was the agent of God's righteous government on earth; the Christian displays God's grace on earth.
Two things stand out here. God cares for the bodies of the weak. And law settles a claim exactly, with nothing added.
The first is that all these rules reveal the tenderness of God in protecting the bodies of His people — and especially those in a subject position. The second is that we find here the true character of law. Grace is absent… Our Lord especially cites these provisions to show how they contrast with grace (Matthew 5:38-39). Law demands an exact equivalent — no more and no less; but grace can cancel every claim. God has dealt with us in grace and cancelled our whole debt, so we must act on the same principle towards one another… Never forget, though, that grace itself rests on a deep foundation of righteousness.
The law's principle comes naturally to us. The attitude Christ calls for does not.
It sets out an attitude of mind that is very foreign to the flesh, which cries, "Life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth…" (Ex. 21:23-25). We can understand the law principle as men in the flesh… But grace — how slow we are to understand it, and slower still to practice it, though we owe everything to it!
- Measure. The penalty matches the damage exactly — no more, no less — and applies to rich and poor alike.
- Mother. The rule answers a real case. A pregnant woman is hurt in a fight, and the sentence rises only if lasting harm follows.
- Magistrate. This is direction for judges, not licence for the injured man. Anyone who avenges himself nearly always overpays.
- Ministry. Israel carried this out as God's agent of government on earth. The believer today stands elsewhere and displays God's grace.
- Mercy. Law demands the exact equivalent. Grace can cancel the claim — and grace itself rests on righteousness.
eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
This verse sits inside a set of case laws for daily life in Israel, including cases of people hurt in fights. Its famous phrase raises two questions: was God allowing revenge, and why did Jesus later set the rule aside?
The rule appears in a case where a woman is injured. The penalty had to match the harm done.
If there were bad results for the woman, the guilty party had to answer for it. The judgment would match the injury — "eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe" (vv. 24-25). Of course, plucking out a man's eye because he had blinded another's eye would not help the injured party. But he has a right to fair compensation.
The words were never handed to the injured man as permission to act. They belong to the courtroom.
This law contained moral directions for the life of each Israelite. It contained ceremonial directions — the laws of the offerings — so that the children of Israel could serve God. It also contained legal directions to regulate the daily life of the people. The principle of "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth" belongs to the last group. It is not a principle for the conscience of a particular individual, but a legal direction for the authorities and judges of Israel. This is clear from Exodus 21:22 and Deuteronomy 19:18, where the text names the judges. The direction rested on absolute fairness in repaying the deed. It was also meant to warn the people and keep them from such deeds.
In private hands the rule turns into something worse than the first wrong.
Of course a judge must pass the sentence, not the offended party. If a man takes the law into his own hands, he will almost always inflict worse treatment than he received.
The measure was a ceiling on what an injured man could claim.
Under the old arrangement we find that the law laid down the principle, in righteousness, "An eye for an eye" (Ex. 21:24), and by it restrained the anger of man. Otherwise he would have demanded two eyes for one, in revenge.
The same exactness runs through these laws, and it guards rich and poor alike.
The law provided for everything, upheld every interest, and met every claim. There was no partiality — no distinction made between the rich and the poor. God weighed each man's claim with divine accuracy, so no one had a just reason to complain of a decision. The pure robe of justice was not to be stained with bribery, corruption and favouritism.
These laws also say something uncomfortable about the people who received them.
The Lord had to make laws against certain crimes. That proves man is capable of committing them. If the capability and the tendency were not there, there would be no need of the enactments.
One thing is missing from all this fairness.
Here we find the true character of law. Grace is absent. It is eye for an eye, and tooth for a tooth. Law demands an exact equivalent — no more, and no less. Grace can cancel every claim. God has dealt with us in grace and cancelled our whole debt, so we must act on the same principle toward one another. But never forget: grace itself rests on a foundation laid deep in righteousness.
Jesus later quoted this verse to His disciples and gave them a different rule.
He quotes the principle of retaliation from the law to set it aside. It was wide open to abuse. And even applied with the strictest justice, and acting as a powerful check on the desire for revenge, how far it was from the mind of heaven! That mind is what Christ was showing on earth, and laying down as the only conduct fitting for the sons of His Father.
Giving up private revenge does not abolish public justice.
The Christian must not avenge himself. That duty in no way clashes with the government of God carried out by magistrates. They get their authority from Him to restrain and punish evil.
- Measure. The penalty matches the real injury — fair compensation, never more and never less.
- Magistrate. It is a direction for judges, not a rule for the victim's conscience. Private hands always strike harder than the wrong deserves.
- Muzzle. Far from licensing revenge, the exact measure caps it, holding back the man who would demand two eyes for one.
- Mirror. The law shows God's justice without favouritism. It also shows man able to commit the very crimes it forbids.
- Mercy. Law can only demand the exact equivalent. Grace can cancel the claim. The forgiven disciple lives by grace, while public justice still stands.
branding for branding, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
This verse closes a list of bodily injuries with one measure: the penalty matches the harm, item for item. Is that cruelty or restraint — and why did the Lord set His own teaching against it?
Commentators read the list as a picture of God's even-handed rule over Israel.
First, on God's part, we find Him making laws that show strict, even-handed, perfect justice. "Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe." Such was the character of the laws, the statutes and the judgments by which God governed His earthly kingdom of Israel. There was no partiality — no distinction made between the rich and the poor. The scales that weighed each man's claim were set with divine accuracy, so no one could justly complain of a decision.
A burn, a bruise, a knocked-out tooth are small matters in the running of a nation.
Here, too, we see how amazingly low He stoops. He is the great God of heaven and earth, yet He judges between one man and another about the death of an ox, the loan of a garment, or the loss of a servant's tooth. "Who is like the Lord our God, who humbles Himself to behold the things that are in heaven and on earth?"
The measure was addressed to those who tried cases, not to the person who had been hurt.
The principle of "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth" belongs to the legal directions that regulated the daily life of the people. It is not a principle for the conscience of a particular individual, but a legal direction for the authorities and judges of Israel. Exodus 21:22 and Deuteronomy 19:18 make this clear, since both name the judges. The direction rested on absolute fairness in repaying the deed. It was also meant to warn the people and hold them back from evil.
Take it out of the court's hands and the measure collapses at once.
"An eye for an eye" is fully righteous repayment, expressing the firm inflexibility of the law. Of course the sentence must be passed by a judge, not by the offended party. If someone takes the law into his own hands, he will in practically every case inflict worse treatment than he received.
Israel carried out this measure as God's agent on earth.
If in their law they were to exact "life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth… stripe for stripe," it was as the executors of God's governmental righteousness… No intelligent Christian can look at this trust given to Israel without seeing how completely it contrasts with the believer's position now. Is this, as some have argued, because the world has been educated to a higher level? Let us ask one question — has God been educated?
Two things stand out in these rulings.
The first is that all these enactments show the tenderness of God in protecting the bodies of His people — and especially of those in a subject position. The second is that we find here the true character of law. Grace is absent… Our Lord points to these very rules to show how they contrast with grace… Law demands an exact equivalent — no more and no less. But grace can cancel every claim. God dealt with us in grace and cancelled our whole debt, so we must act on the same principle towards one another. Yet never forget: the foundation of grace itself is laid deep in righteousness.
The believer's new rule does not cancel the state's right to punish crime.
The law of Moses said, "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." With the Christian it is quite different. God has dealt with him in grace, so he must also act in grace towards others. The word to him is "never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, 'Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.'"… This duty not to avenge himself in no way clashes with God's government through magistrates. They get their authority from Him to restrain and punish evil.
- Measure. The penalty matches the injury exactly — no more and no less — so no one, rich or poor, could complain of the verdict.
- Judge. God gave this measure to Israel's judges, not to the injured man. In private hands, repayment always runs past the injury.
- Care. God stoops to rule on a burn, a wound, a servant's tooth. He guards the bodies of His people, above all those under another's authority.
- Contrast. Law demands the exact equivalent. Grace can cancel the claim — and the Lord pointed to this very rule to show the contrast.
- Practice. God has dealt with the believer in grace, so he does not avenge himself but leaves vengeance to Him. Magistrates still carry their God-given task of punishing evil.