Exodus 21:27 Commentary: Tooth for Freedom

Exodus 21:27 belongs to a section of the Covenant Code (Exodus 21, 23) that governs relationships among free persons, slaves, and property. In the ancient Near East, slaves were legally defined as property with limited personhood. The famous law code of Hammurabi (c. 1750 BC, referenced by Cambridge Bible) distinguishes between injuries to free persons and slaves: putting out a free man’s eye costs the offender his own eye (§196), but putting out a slave’s eye costs only a fine (§199). Israel’s law takes a different path. Rather than a fine, the master loses the slave entirely, compulsory manumission.

The verb for “strikes out” (yappil, Hiphil of naphal H5307) literally means “he causes to fall.” It suggests a deliberate blow, not an accident. The master knocks the tooth out. The slave then goes free “for his tooth’s sake”, the Hebrew tachat shinno uses the preposition tachat (H8478), meaning “in place of” or “as compensation for.” The master’s right to the slave’s labor is traded for the slave’s permanent loss.

Matthew Henry’s comments on the broader passage note that the law protects those who are most vulnerable in society: the unborn, the poor, and now the slave. Surrounding verses address fights between free men (vv. 18, 19), the death penalty for the owner of a goring bull (vv. 28, 32), and compensation for property damage (vv. 33, 36). Sandwiched in between is this small, radical rule: a knocked-out tooth buys a person’s freedom. The law makes clear that even a slave’s body is not to be treated as worthless. The master’s absolute control is broken by a single act of violence.

The consulted sources note no significant textual variants for Exodus 21:27. The Masoretic Text is consistent across manuscripts. The verse is preserved identically in the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Septuagint, with only minor differences in word order in the later Greek versions.

Jewish tradition treated this law as the basis for a broader principle. The Mishnah (Bava Kamma 8:6) extended the requirement of freedom to permanent injuries of any of the twenty-four chief limbs. Medieval commentators like Rashi and Ibn Ezra (as cited by Gill) continued this trajectory. In Christian history, the verse was cited by early abolitionists to argue that slavery must have built-in limits. John Wesley used it to condemn the harsh punishments common in English slave colonies. More broadly, the verse has been read as part of the Bible’s “trajectory of freedom”, a seed that later grows into more explicit rejection of permanent servitude. Many modern sermons use it to reflect on how God cares for those without social power and how authority must be exercised with restraint.

Three-point outline

1. The law protects the vulnerable. This rule interrupts the household hierarchy. Slaves were at the bottom, but God gives them a legal way out when they are abused.
2. The compensation matches the loss. The master loses the slave’s labor forever. That is costly, and that cost discourages casual violence.
3. God values the body, even in a system that devalues people. A tooth seems small, but the law treats it as serious. No injury is too minor to overlook when a person is made in God’s image.

Five-point outline

1. Context: The lex talionis (vv. 23, 25) regulates injuries among equals. Slaves are not equals in law, so a different rule is needed.
2. Case: A master knocks out a tooth of his male or female servant (v. 27a).
3. Action: The master must set the servant free (v. 27b).
4. Reason: The loss is permanent and irreversible. Freedom is the only just replacement.
5. Implication: The slave’s body is not an object. Violence has consequences, even when the victim has no social power.

Illustration hooks

• The cracked phone screen: You drop a borrowed phone and crack the screen. The owner doesn’t make you break your own phone. Instead you pay for the repair, a loss of money instead of a loss of property. Here the master loses his property (the slave’s labor) instead of losing his tooth.
• The employment contract: An employer knocks out an employee’s tooth during a workplace argument. Instead of a fine that goes to the company, the employee gets a lifetime severance package. That is the kind of cost this law imposes.
• The parent and child: Strict parents sometimes say “I’ll give you a reason to cry.” This law says there is never a valid reason to cause permanent harm, even to someone under your authority.

Questions your congregation is asking

• Does this law apply to modern employer-employee relationships? How should Christians treat those who work under them?
• If God allowed slavery in the Old Testament, how can we say the Bible opposes oppression?
• Why would God include such a specific rule about a tooth? What does it say about His attention to small injustices?

This law shows that God does not overlook the small ways people are hurt by those who have power over them. Even a knocked-out tooth, not life-threatening, not fatal, triggers a serious consequence. As you read Exodus 21:26, 27 together, consider what this tells us about God’s view of human dignity and the cost of causing harm.

Discussion questions

1. Read Exodus 21:23, 25 first. What does “eye for eye” try to achieve? How is the rule in verse 27 different, and why?
2. What does the word tachat (“in place of”) tell you about how the law sees the tooth? Is freedom simply a fine, or something more?
3. Why do you think the law singles out the tooth and the eye (v. 26) but not a broken arm or a scar?
4. Adam Clarke says the law taught masters “caution and circumspection.” Does a law that costs the master something change his behavior more than a fine would? Why?
5. In what ways do people with authority today cause “small” harm to those under them? What would a modern version of this law look like?
6. Does this passage make you uncomfortable about the Bible’s acceptance of slavery? How do you reconcile that with God’s character as revealed in Christ?
7. What does this law imply about how much God cares for the bodies and dignity of people who are socially invisible?