Exodus 21:24Meaning & Commentary from the Church Fathers

Why should we follow the example of those who devour each other and battle against their own kin? The Old Testament emphatically declares, "In the way of righteousness is life, but the way of those who do evil is death" (Proverbs 12:28). It also instructs, "Man harbors wrath against man, but from the Lord he asks forgiveness" (Sir. 29:3). While God has permitted the principle of retribution, "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth," why does He hold us accountable for it? This is because He has allowed it not for us to genuinely inflict harm on one another, but to encourage us to refrain from taking offense out of respect for the consequences. Additionally, such retribution stems from temporary anger, while a spirit of vengeance is characteristic of a heart consumed by wrath.

Among these directives was the principle of not causing offense to others, or ensuring that the resentment of the offended does not exceed the wrongdoing committed. Yet this civil regulation did not align perfectly with God's desires, as ancient understanding embraced the notion of a guide who gradually instructs individuals in righteousness, leading them toward the ultimate good. For it is written, "The beginning of a good way is to do righteousness" (Proverbs 16:5). True perfection, however, is found solely in Christ and His teachings: "To him who strikes you on the cheek, turn the other cheek also" (Luke 6:29).

The righteousness of the Pharisees is flawed: it aims to ensure that punishment does not surpass the injury inflicted, so that no one suffers more than they have wronged. This standard is challenging to uphold. It is rare to find someone who, after receiving a blow, responds with only a single blow in return, or someone who, upon hearing a curse, will only reply with one equivalent insult. More often than not, individuals retaliate with greater force, spurred by rage or the belief that the initial offender deserves even harsher treatment than the victim. Such behavior is often mitigated by the Law, which states, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, indicating that punishment should correspond to the offense. This principle serves as a foundation for peace. Nevertheless, the ideal existence is one in which there is no desire for retribution whatsoever.

Having quickly reached spiritual maturity, the righteous individual has fulfilled many years (Prem. 4:13). In contrast, the flawed soul is easily overwhelmed and can lose the conceived Word. However, woe to anyone who leads astray one of these little ones (see Luke 17:1-2). Woe to the person who harms a pregnant woman! If she delivers a stillborn child, a monetary compensation must be provided; but if the child is born alive, then there must be a life for a life, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand. Why the eye or the hand? The child possessed both an arm and an eye, for the fetus was already formed at birth, and the perpetrator must face judgment proportional to the injury inflicted.

It may be assumed that you are unaware that within the law, even what seems harsh emanates humility. It is not ruthless or inhumane to establish a standard of retribution, such as an eye for an eye; rather, at first glance, it reflects justice, and when fully comprehended, as I have noted, it is imbued with compassion. The Lawgiver justly set forth this standard so that those who carry it out might be motivated by the fear of personal suffering, thereby restraining malevolence. The phrases “an eye for an eye” and “a tooth for a tooth,” which were instituted for the people of Israel, were intended to convey a spirit of gentleness. This was not meant to promote mercilessness or cruelty in response to those who wrong them, as the Manichaeans assert in their denouncement of the Old Testament.

The law permits retaliation for insults and wrongs, stating, "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth." In contrast, grace calls us to respond to offenses with patience, urging us to endure further loss by instructing us: "Whoever strikes you on your right cheek, turn to him the other cheek also; and whoever wants to sue you and take your shirt, give him your outer garment also" (Matthew 5:39-40). While the law allows for hatred towards our adversaries, grace instructs us to love them and to continually pray to God on their behalf.

This commandment is not intended to allow for mutual wrongdoing but rather focuses on the prevention of violence. It recognizes that for a people deeply hardened in heart and faithless towards God, it may have seemed daunting or unlikely to anticipate His retributive protection. This divine judgment would later be proclaimed through the prophet, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay,” says the Lord (Deuteronomy 32:35; Romans 12:19; Hebrews 10:30). Therefore, the fear of immediate punishment was established to deter injustice, transforming a right to retaliate into a warning against incitement, thus ensuring that those who lived without fear of divine accountability would face an end to their actions (Deuteronomy 10:30; Romans 12:19; Hebrews 10:30).

In the Law of Judgment, Moses established that for offenses against the body, a proportional response should be made. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, a foot for a foot, a burn for a burn, a wound for a wound, a bruise for a bruise (Exodus 21:24-25). In contrast to this directive from the Mosaic law, Jesus Christ teaches in Matthew 5:38-39, "If anyone strikes you on the cheek, turn to him the other also."

In contrast to Leviticus 24:19-20, the principles articulated here regarding the law of retaliation, a right recognized throughout the ancient world, are not limited to a specific incident involving a pregnant woman being struck but broadly encompass all instances of harm. This principle of retaliation, which some ancients linked to Radamanthys, associated with the Phoenicians or the related Kaftorim tribe from Crete, is evident in nearly all ancient legal systems. It appears in the legal reforms of Solon, documented by Diogenes Laertius, in the Twelve Tables according to Aulus Gellius, and in the traditions of other civilizations, including those of the Etruscans in Italy as noted by Diodorus Siculus.