Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Exodus 21:24
Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
Verse 24. Eye for eye] This is the earliest account we have of the lex talionis, or law of like for like, which afterwards prevailed among the Greeks and Romans. Among the latter, it constituted a part of the twelve tables, so famous in antiquity; but the punishment was afterwards changed to a pecuniary fine, to be levied at the discretion of the praetor. It prevails less or more in most civilized countries, and is fully acted upon in the canon law, in reference to all calumniators: Calumniator, si in accusatione defecerit, talionem recipiat. “If the calumniator fall in the proof of his accusation, let him suffer the same punishment which he wished to have inflicted upon the man whom he falsely accused.” Nothing, however, of this kind was left to private revenge; the magistrate awarded the punishment when the fact was proved, otherwise the lex talionis would have utterly destroyed the peace of society, and have sown the seeds of hatred, revenge, and all uncharitableness.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
This is called the law of retaliation, and from hence the heathen lawgivers took it and put it into their laws. But though this might sometimes be practised in the letter, yet it was not necessarily to be understood and executed so; as may appear,
1. By the impossibility of the just execution of it in many cases, as when a man that had but one eye or hand was to lose the other, which to him was a far greater mischief than what he did to his neighbour, whom he deprived but of one of his eyes or hands. And this is a sure and righteous rule, Punishments may be less, but never should be greater than the fault. And how could a wound be made neither bigger nor less than that which he inflicted?
2. By comparing this with other laws, wherein a compensation is allowed in like cases, as Exo 21:18,30. And when it is enjoined that no satisfaction shall be taken for the life of a wilful murderer, Num 35:31, it seems therein implied that satisfaction may be taken for lesser injuries. And indeed the payment of such a price as the loss of an eye, or hand, or foot required, though it might not so much satisfy the revenge of the party so injured, yet it was really more to his benefit. This law therefore was only minatory, but so as it was literally to be inflicted, except the injuring party would give such satisfaction as the injured person accepted, or the judges determined.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. This is “lex talionis”, the law of retaliation, and from whence the Heathens had theirs; but whether this is to be taken strictly and literally, or only for pecuniary mulcts, is a question; Josephus d understands it in the former sense, the Jewish writers generally in the latter; and so the Targum of Jonathan paraphrases it;
“the price of an eye for an eye, c.”
Jarchi on the place observes, that,
“he that puts out his neighbour’s eye must pay him the price of his eye, according to the price of a servant sold in the market, and so of all the rest for not taking away of members strictly is meant, as our doctors here interpret it;”
in a place he refers to, and to which Aben Ezra agrees; and of the difference and dispute between the Jews concerning this matter,
[See comments on Mt 5:38] and indeed, though these laws of retaliation should, according to the letter of them, be attended to as far as they can; yet, in some cases, it seems necessary that they should not be strictly attended to, but some recompence made in another way, and nothing seems more agreeable than a pecuniary one: thus, for instance, this law cannot be literally executed, when one that has never an eye puts out the eye of another, as it is possible that a blind man may; or one that has no teeth may strike out the tooth of another; in such cases eye cannot be given for eye, nor tooth for tooth; and, as Saadiah Gaon e observes, if a man should smite the eye of his neighbour, and the third part of the sight of his eye should depart, how will he order it to strike such a stroke as that, without adding or lessening? and if a man that has but one eye, or one hand, or one foot, should damage another man in those parts, and must lose his other eye, or hand, or foot, he would be in a worse case and condition than the man he injured; since he would still have one eye, or hand, or foot; wherefore a like law of Charondas among the Thurians is complained of, since it might be the case, that a man with one eye might have that struck out, and so be utterly deprived of sight; whereas the man that struck it out, though he loses one for it, yet has another, and so not deprived of sight utterly, and therefore thought not to be sufficiently punished; and that it was most correct that he should have both his eyes put out for it: and hence Diodorus Siculus f reports of a one-eyed man who lost his eye, that he complained of this law to the people, and advised to have it altered: this “lex talionis” was among the Roman laws of the “twelve tables” g.
d Antiqu. l. 4. c. 33. 35. e Apud Aben Ezram in loc. f Bibliothec. l. 12. par. 2. p. 82, 83. g A. Gell. Noct. Attic. l. 20. c. 1.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Exo 21:24. Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, &c. See Lev 24:20.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Exo 21:24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
Ver. 24. Eye for eye. ] How the Pharisees had wrested that text. See Trapp on “ Mat 5:39 “ This kind of law, in use among heathens also, Aristotle calls and was given against private revenge.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Eye for eye, &c. Lex talionis, eight particulars for completeness (App-10), seven in separate category (verses: Exo 21:24, Exo 21:26). These laws made prisons unnecessary, and prevented crime.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Eye for eye
Lev 24:20; Deu 19:21; Mat 5:38-44; 1Pe 2:19-21. The provision in Exodus is law, and righteous; the N.T. passages, grace, and merciful.
Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes
This is the earliest account we have of the , tautopatheia, Lex Talionis, law of like for like. Exo 21:26, Exo 21:27, Lev 24:19, Lev 24:20, Deu 19:21, Jdg 1:6, Jdg 1:7, 1Sa 15:33, Mat 5:38-40, Mat 7:2, Luk 6:38, Rev 16:6
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Exo 21:24-25. Eye for eye, &c. This is termed the law of retaliation; and from hence heathen lawgivers took it, and put it among their other laws. It seems probable, that it was not necessary always to take it strictly and literally, but that it might in some cases be satisfied with pecuniary mulcts, or with such satisfaction as the injuring party would give, and the injured accept. Indeed, the injustice of the literal execution of it, in many cases, is apparent; as, when a man that had but one eye or hand, would be thereby condemned to lose it, which to him would be a far greater calamity than he had brought upon his neighbour, by depriving him of one of his eyes or hands. It is especially to be observed, that the execution of these laws was not put into the hands of private persons, and that they were not allowances for private revenge, but rules to regulate the magistrates decision, who might go thus far, if he judged the heinousness of the offence required it, but no further; and, no doubt, might abate of this rigour when alleviating circumstances appeared to render it proper so to do.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
21:24 {r} Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
(r) The execution of this law only belonged to the magistrate, Mat 5:38.