Matthew Henry on Leviticus 24:10–end
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…
Read the whole note in the consoleJamieson-Fausset-Brown on Leviticus 24:17
he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death--These verses contain a repetition of some other laws, relating to offenses of a social nature, the penalties for which were to be inflicted, not by the hand of private parties, but through the medium of the judges before whom the cause was brought.
Adam Clarke on Leviticus 24:20
Breach for breach - This is a repetition of the lex talionis, which See explained Exo 21:24 (note).
John Gill on Leviticus 24:20
Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth,.... Which is not to be taken strictly or literally, but for the price or value of those, which is to be given in a pecuniary way; See Gill on Exodus 21:24, Exodus 21:25,
as he hath caused a blemish in a man, shall it be done to him; unless he gives satisfaction, and pays a valuable consideration for it.
John Calvin on Leviticus 24:18–end
Leviticus 24:18, 21
18. And he that killeth a beast shall make it good; beast for beast.
18. Qui percusserit animam animalis, restituet illud: animam pro anima.
21. And he that killeth a beast, he shall restore it; and he that killeth a man, he shall be put to death.
21. Qui percusserit animal, reddet illud.
God here prescribes, that whosoever has inflicted a loss upon another shall make satisfaction for it, although he may not have turned it to his own profit; for in respect to a theft, its profit is not to be considered, but the intention to injure, or other cause of guilt; for it might happen that he who has killed another's ox should not deliberately desire to do him an injury, but…
