Exodus 21

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

Because the written law was a law of rigor, it not only approves the threefold obedience, but also punishes its transgressors. It punishes the rebellious servant, Exodus 21: He who strikes his servant or handmaid with a rod, if he survive for a day or two, he shall not be subject to penalty, because he is his property.

"But if two men should be fighting and strike a pregnant woman, and her infant should come forth not yet formed, he shall suffer loss, as much as the woman's husband shall impose, and he shall pay with honor. But if it be fully formed, he shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise." First of all, in these matters, I think we must inquire under what heading of the law statutes of this kind are reckoned. For it is not, as it seems to the simpler sort, that everything which is enacted is called "law"; rather, some things are indeed called law, some testimonies, others commandments and acts of righteousness, and some are called judgments. This the eighteenth Psalm teaches more plainly, gathering them together in one place, when it says: "the law of the Lord is blameless, converting souls; the testimony of the Lord is faithful, granting wisdom to little ones. The acts of righteousness of the Lord are upright, gladdening hearts; the precept of the Lord is clear, enlightening the eyes. The fear of the Lord is chaste, enduring unto the age of the age; the judgments of the Lord are true, justified in themselves." Since, then, these diversities exist among the things enacted in the law, the passage now in hand is written under the heading of acts of righteousness or justifications. For thus it says above: "and these are the acts of righteousness which you shall set openly before them." But it is not for the present occasion to set forth the differences of each of these, for we are called upon to explain the things which have been read. It should indeed be known that some portion of these matters, of which we must treat, is set down in the Gospel according to Matthew, the Lord speaking in this manner: "you have heard that it was said: eye for eye, tooth for tooth. But I say to you, do not resist evil. But if anyone strike you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." But perhaps one who reads the Scriptures more attentively may say that the words we have recalled as written in the Gospel are not taken from this passage of Exodus, but rather from Deuteronomy, where nonetheless certain things are recorded as written in this manner: "but if," it says, "an unjust witness should stand, bearing testimony against a man concerning impiety, both men who are in controversy shall be set before the Lord and before the priests and before the judges, whoever they may be in those days, and the judges shall examine diligently and investigate. And behold, they shall find that the unjust witness has testified unjustly, that he has risen up against his brother; and you shall do to him as he himself attempted to do to his brother, and you shall remove the malignant one from your midst, that the rest, hearing, may have fear, and may not go on further to do according to this evil word among you. Your eye shall not spare over him: life for life, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot." Similar things indeed seem to be said in both places; yet it is not plainly shown from which passage in particular the words set down in the Gospel seem to be taken, where he said: "you have heard that it was said: eye for eye, tooth for tooth."

Nevertheless, our discourse must now be turned to the things written in Exodus, where two men are fighting and strike a pregnant woman, and strike her in such a way that the infant comes forth from her either "already formed" or "not yet formed." First indeed let us consider concerning the one who has come forth "not yet formed": how is it that one of those who are fighting is commanded to be struck with a monetary loss, when by Scripture the guilt of the quarrel is referred not to one, but to both? What too is the meaning of the fact that the woman's husband "imposes" or lays it upon him and not upon them, and that he "shall pay" and not rather that they shall pay "with honor"? And what is this honor? But if the infant has come forth already formed, the pregnant woman having been struck by the fighting men, we easily understand that life is given for life, that is, that what was committed is avenged by death. But the things that follow are worth explaining: "eye for eye, tooth for tooth." For it does not seem possible that we should understand of the infant, which the struck woman has miscarried, even if it came forth formed, that it lost an eye in the womb, struck by the heel of a fighting man, for which he ought to be deprived of an eye by the judges. But grant that even this be so, since it is reported as already formed—what shall we say also about the tooth? Did it have teeth in the mother's womb, which the striker's blow could knock out? But if we refer these things to her who has miscarried, how again will it fit that a miscarrying woman should lose an eye or suffer pains in her teeth? But grant that she is said to be struck in the eye or in the tooth, and that from this the cause of casting out the infant arose; grant that she received a bruise, grant that she received a wound—what shall we say too about "burn for burn"? Could a woman standing by while men were fighting be burned, so that "burn for burn" be paid? Yet each of these particulars seems to me not to admit of an easy solution even in the passages of Deuteronomy, where similar things are recorded as written. For let us suppose there too that "an unjust witness has risen up" speaking false testimony against a man concerning impiety. Let both be brought to judgment, let the judges inquire diligently, let them detect that that accuser or witness has spoken falsely: how shall the judge, who ought not to spare the false witness and to condemn the life of the guilty party for the life of an innocent one—how, I say, shall he also be able to take out "eye for eye"? As though indeed the one who was being unjustly accused was to have been injured in his eye by the accuser, or in tooth or hand or foot. But these things have been said by us because we wish to show that in both passages the things written cannot easily be expounded. For it was fitting for us first to examine according to the history the things that are read, and thus, since "the law is spiritual," to seek the spiritual understanding in them.

But, as far as concerns the present, even that portion of allegory itself, which is always accustomed to lie more broadly open, is here forced into a narrow compass. Nevertheless, as far as we are able, we shall attempt to explain what seems to us in this passage. We have frequently said that in the Scriptures the members of the soul are named by the same words and the same functions by which the members of the body are used or called. For example, as when it is said: "you see the speck in your brother's eye, and behold, in your eye a beam lies beneath." For it is certain that he does not speak of the eye of the body, in which a beam lies, but of the eye of the soul. And when he says: "he who has ears to hear, let him hear," and: "how beautiful are the feet of those who bring good tidings of peace," and many things similar to these. Now we have set these things down beforehand for this reason, that the likeness in the names of the members may not disturb us. Let these two men, then, who are fighting, be two men disputing and inquiring with one another about the doctrines or questions of the law, and, to speak in the words of the Apostle, quarreling "about battles of words." Whence the same Apostle also, knowing that quarrels of this kind arise among brethren, gives command and says: "do not contend with words, for it is useful for nothing, unto the subversion of the hearers," and elsewhere: "but avoid the questions of the law, knowing that they beget quarrels. But the servant of God ought not to quarrel." Because, therefore, these men who quarrel over questions quarrel "unto the subversion of the hearers," for this reason they strike a pregnant woman and cast out her infant, whether already formed or not yet formed. The pregnant woman is said to be the soul which has recently conceived the word of God. Now concerning such a conception we read it written also in another place: "from fear of you, O Lord, we have conceived in the womb, and we have given birth." Those, therefore, who conceive and immediately give birth—these are to be reckoned not as women, but as men, and perfect men. Hear, finally, also the prophet saying: "if the earth has given birth in one day, and a nation has been born at once." This is the generation of the perfect, which is born immediately, on the same day, as soon as it has been conceived. But lest it seem new to you that we have said men give birth, we have already long since set forth how you ought to take the names of the members, that you may withdraw from bodily senses and grasp the understanding of the inner man. But if you wish that I satisfy you still further in this also from the Scriptures, hear the Apostle saying: "my little children, whom I again bring forth in travail, until Christ be formed in you." Perfect, therefore, and strong men are those who immediately, as soon as they conceive, give birth—that is, those who bring the conceived word of faith forth into works. But the soul which conceives and retains in the womb and does not give birth, this one is called a woman, just as the prophet also says: "the pains of childbirth have come upon her, and the power of giving birth is not in her." This soul, then, which now on account of its weakness is called a woman, when two men are quarreling with one another and in the contest bringing forth stumbling-blocks—which the contention of words is always wont to have—is struck and scandalized, so that it casts out and loses the word of faith which it had faintly conceived; and this is the quarrel and contention "unto the subversion of the hearers." If, therefore, the soul which has been scandalized casts out the word not yet formed, he who scandalized it is said to suffer loss. Do you wish to know that in some the word is formed, in some not yet formed? The word of the Apostle plainly teaches us, which we recalled above, when he says: "until Christ be formed in you"; but Christ is the Word of God. By this he shows that at the time when he was writing, the Word of God was not yet formed in them; if, therefore, it comes forth not yet formed, he shall suffer loss. Concerning the losses of teachers the Apostle also teaches, when he says: "but if anyone's work burns, he shall suffer loss. But he himself shall be saved, yet so as through fire." But the Lord too says in the Gospels: "for what does it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, but lose his own soul or suffer loss of it?" Whence it seems to be shown that certain sins pertain indeed to loss, yet not to destruction; because he who has suffered loss is nonetheless said to be saved—"he himself"—although "through fire." Whence, I believe, the Apostle John too in his epistle says that some sins are unto death, and some are not unto death. But what the kinds of sins unto death are, and what indeed "not unto death," but unto loss, I do not think can easily be discerned by any of men. For it is written: "who understands transgressions?" Nevertheless, from the things which are related in the Gospel through parables, we can in some part come to know of what sort those are which are named losses, since there we see certain things reckoned to gain which are said to have been acquired through trading. For example, when it is related that beyond five minas five others were acquired, or beyond two others two were acquired; or when a drachma or a denarius or a talent is set down and is named as a kind of money in the profit of works; but also when the householder is said to make a reckoning with his servants and there is offered to him one who owed ten thousand talents. Such, therefore, is a kind of reckoning of loss, so that, for example, one who was to receive ten minas for his wage receives not ten, but eight or six or even less; and he is said to be struck with this loss who has offered the occasion of stumbling to the weaker and womanly soul.

But he shall pay, it says, according to what "the woman's husband shall impose" or lay upon him, "and he shall pay with honor." The husband of the learning soul is its teacher; according, therefore, to what that husband shall impose—either Christ, who is the teacher of all, or he who in Christ's stead presides over the Church as teacher of souls—that man who "unto the subversion of the hearers" contends with words shall suffer loss for that soul which has cast out the "infant not yet formed." This can perhaps be taken of the scandal of a catechumen not yet formed. For it can come about that again the very one who caused the injury may instruct, repair, and restore to the soul the things which it lost, and may now do this "with honor," with modesty, with patience, as the Apostle says: "with meekness correcting those who resist"—not with quarreling, as before, when he brought in the scandal. "But if the infant be already formed, he shall give life for life." The "formed infant" can seem to be the word of God in the heart of that soul which has obtained the grace of baptism, or which has more plainly and more clearly conceived the word of faith. This soul, then, if, struck by the excessive contention of teachers, it casts out the word and is found to be of those of whom the Apostle spoke: "for already certain ones have turned back after Satan," "shall give life for life." Either it is to be understood as in the day of judgment before that judge "who is able to destroy both soul and body in Gehenna"; because elsewhere too the prophet says to Jerusalem: "I have given Egypt as your exchange, and Ethiopia and Syene for you." Or indeed perhaps this too can be fitted, that he who is conscious to himself of so great a scandal should lay down his own "life for the life" of that one whom he has scandalized, and should labor even unto death for how that one may return, may be repaired, may be restored to faith. Let him also lay down "eye for eye": if he has injured the eye of the soul, that is, has disturbed its understanding, let his own eye be taken from him by the one who presides over the Church, and let that turbulent and fierce understanding of his, which generates scandal, be cut away. But also if he has injured the tooth of the hearer, with which, receiving the food of the word, he was wont either to grind it small or to crush it with his molars, so as to transmit from these a refined sense to the belly of the soul—if he has vexed and torn out this tooth, so that by his contention the soul cannot subtly and spiritually receive the word of God, let the tooth be taken from him who does not rightly grind small and divide the foods of the Scriptures. For perhaps on this account it is said elsewhere too concerning the Lord: "you have shattered the teeth of sinners"; and elsewhere it is nonetheless written: "he who eats a sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge"; and elsewhere: "the Lord has broken the grinding teeth of lions." Thus, therefore, the soul is said to be injured and struck through its members. "Hand" too "for hand" and "foot for foot" is demanded. The hand of the soul is the power by which it can hold and grip something, as if we should say its action and strength; and the foot is that by which it walks toward good things or bad. Because, therefore, if the soul suffers scandal, it is cast down not only in faith but also in acts, which are signified by the hands and feet, there are taken from him who offered the stumbling-block the hands with which he does not work rightly, and the feet with which he does not walk rightly. He shall also receive back the "burn" with which he burned and handed the soul over to Gehenna. By each of these particulars this is shown, that this striker, cut off in all his members, is to be excised from the body of the Church, "that the rest," it says, "seeing, may have fear and may not do likewise." Therefore the Apostle too, when he describes the teacher of the Church, among other things commands "not a striker," lest, striking pregnant women, souls just beginning, he lay down "life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth." Such also are those souls which the Lord too weeps over in the Gospels, when he says: "woe to those who are pregnant and nursing in those days," in which there shall be scandalized, "if it be possible, even the elect." Yet it should be known that it is not for the perfect to be scandalized, but either for women or for little ones, just as the Lord too says in the Gospel: "if anyone shall scandalize one of these least little ones." He, then, is little and least who can be scandalized: "but the spiritual man judges all things" and "tests all things and, what is good, holds fast, and abstains from every evil kind." These things, as far as they could occur to us, we have said in the present passage. But let us ask of the Lord that he himself may deign to reveal to us the things that are perfect, through Jesus Christ our Lord, "to whom be glory and dominion unto the ages of ages. Amen."

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.

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."

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.

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."

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.