Exodus 21

Exodus 21:2

Jerome: We read that every Hebrew keeps the same Passover, and that in the seventh year every prisoner is set free, and that at Jubilee, that is, the fiftieth year, every possession returns to its owner. All this refers not to the present but to the future. For being in bondage during the six days of this world, on the seventh day, the true and eternal sabbath, we shall be free. If we wish to be free, we will be free even while still in bondage in the world. If, however, we do not desire it, our ear will be bored in token of our disobedience. We shall, with our wives and children, remain in perpetual slavery if we prefer the flesh and its works to liberty. — AGAINST JOVINIAN 2.25

Exodus 21:5

Ambrose of Milan: That man is truly free, a true Hebrew, who is entirely God’s. Everything that he possesses shares in freedom. He has nothing in common with the man who rejects freedom and says, “I have loved my master.… I will not go out free.” The man who subjects himself to the world is returned not only to his master but also to his infirmity, because he loves the world or his mind, that is, his nous,the author of this desire. He is returned not only to his wife but even to those pleasures which make him so bound to household matters that he does not care for what is eternal. Thus “at his threshold and door his master shall pierce his ear,” in order that he might remember the decision by which he chose slavery. — Letter 7.14

Exodus 21:6

Richard Challoner: To the gods: Elohim. That is, to the judges, or magistrates, authorized by God.

Exodus 21:13

Ambrose of Milan: Even the person who unwittingly committed a murder was still within the ministry of God, since the law makes this statement regarding him: “God delivered him into his hands.” His hands therefore served as an instrument of divine punishment. The Levite is then the minister who remits, whereas the man who (in the example just cited) unwittingly and unwillingly struck another in a homicidal act became in fact an administrator of divine punishment. See to it that Christ is infused into the act of slaying an impious man and that sanctification accompany and be part of your attempt to abolish what is abominable. — CAIN AND ABEL 2.4.15

Athanasius of Alexandria: For there was a command under the law that cities of refuge should be appointed, in order that they who were sought after to be put to death might at least have some means of saving themselves. And when he who spoke to Moses, the Word of the Father, appeared in the end of the world, he also gave this commandment, saying, “But when they persecute you in this city, flee into another.” — DEFENSE OF HIS FLIGHT 11

Exodus 21:17

John Chrysostom: One who speaks ill of his mother or father will die the death. One who speaks well of them will have full enjoyment of the rewards of life. If our parents in the flesh should enjoy such good will from us, so much the more would this hold true for our parents in the spirit. — HOMILY 6.1

Mark (7:9-13): And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death: [Exodus 21:17] But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free. And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother; Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

Matthew (15:1-6): Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying, Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread. But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. [Exodus 21:17] But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.

Exodus 21:24

Augustine of Hippo: Not to exceed due measure in inflicting punishment, lest the requital be greater than the injury—that is the lesser justice of the Pharisees. And it is a high degree of justice, for it would not be easy to find a man who, on receiving a fisticuff, would be content to give only one in return and who, on hearing one word from a reviler, would be content to return one word exactly equivalent. On the contrary, either he exceeds moderation because he is angry, or he thinks that, with regard to one who has inflicted an injury on another, justice demands a penalty greater than the injury suffered by the innocent person. To a great extent, such a spirit is restrained by the law, in which is written the directive, “An eye for an eye” and “A tooth for a tooth.” Moderation is signified by these words, so that the penalty may not be greater than the injury. And this is the beginning of peace. But to have absolutely no wish for any such retribution—that is perfect peace. — ON THE LORD’S SERMON ON THE MOUNT 1.19.56

Cyril of Alexandria: Such an enactment required a man not to injure others. Supposing him to have sustained an injury, his anger at the wrongdoer must not go beyond an equal retribution. But the general bearing of the legal mode of life was by no means pleasing to God. It was even given to those of old time as a schoolmaster, accustoming them little by little to a fitting righteousness and leading them on gently toward the possession of the perfect good. For it is written, “To do what is just is the beginning of the good way”; but finally all perfection is in Christ and his precepts. “For to him that strikes you on the cheek,” he says, “offer also the other.” — HOMILIES ON THE GOSPEL OF Luke 29

John Cassian: The law does not forbid the retaliation of wrongs and revenge for injustices when it says, “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.” Grace wants our patience to be proven by a redoubling of the mistreatment and the blows that come upon us, and it commands us to be ready to endure double hurt when it says, “Whoever strikes you on your right cheek, offer him the other. And to him who wants to contend with you at law and to take away your coat, give him your cloak as well.” The former says that enemies must be hated, but the latter decrees that they are to be loved to such an extent that we must even pray to God continually on their behalf. — CONFERENCE 21.32.4

Origen of Alexandria: Celsus does not quote any passages from the law which are apparently in contradiction to what stands in the gospel, so that we might compare them. He says, “And to a man who has struck one once one should offer oneself to be struck again.” But we will say that we are aware that “it was said to them of old time, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,’ ” and that we have read also the words “But I say unto you, to him that strikes you on one cheek offer the other one also.” However, I imagine that Celsus derived some of his vague notions from those who say that the God of the gospel is different from the God of the law and so made remarks like this. I would reply to his objection that the Old Testament also knows the doctrine that to him that strikes you on the right cheek you should offer the other one also. At any rate, it is written in the Lamentations of Jeremiah: “It is good for a man when he bears a yoke in his youth, he will sit alone and in silence when he has taken it on himself. He will give a cheek to the man who smites him and shall be filled with reproaches.” The gospel then does not lay down laws in contradiction to the God of the law, not even if we interpret literally the saying about a blow on the jaw. And neither Moses nor Jesus “is wrong.” Nor did the “Father forget when he sent Jesus the commands which he had given to Moses.” Nor did he “condemn his own laws, and change his mind and send his messenger for the opposite purpose.” — AGAINST CELSUS 7.25

Tertullian: But what parts of the law can I defend as good with a greater confidence than those which heresy has shown such a longing for—as the statute of retaliation, requiring eye for eye, tooth for tooth and stripe for stripe? Now there is not here any smack of permission to mutual injury. There is rather, on the whole, a provision for restraining violence. To a people which was very obdurate and wanting in faith toward God, it might seem tedious and even incredible to expect from God that vengeance which was subsequently to be declared by the prophet: “Vengeance is mine; I will repay, says the Lord.” Therefore, in the meanwhile, the commission of wrong was to be checked by the fear of retribution immediately to happen. So the permission of this retribution was to be the prohibition of provocation. In this way a stop might thus be put to all hot-blooded injury. By the permission of the second the first is prevented by fear. By this deterring of the first the second act of wrong fails to be committed. — AGAINST MARCION 2.18.1