Exodus 21:24 Kommentar

The laws recorded in this chapter relate to the fifth and sixth commandments; and though they are not accommodated to our constitution, especially in point of servitude, nor are the penalties annexed binding on us, yet they are of great use for the explanation of the moral law, and the rules of natural justice. Here are several enlargements, I. Upon the fifth commandment, which concerns particular relations. 1. The duty of masters towards their servants, their men-servants (Exo 21:2-6), and the maidservants (Exo 21:7-11). 2. The punishment of disobedient children that strike their parents (Exo 21:15), or curse them (Exo 21:17). II. Upon the sixth commandment, which forbids all violence offered to the person of a man. Here is, 1. Concerning murder (Exo 21:12-14). 2. Man-stealing (Exo 21:16). 3. Assault and battery (Exo 21:18, Exo 21:19). 4. Correcting a servant (Exo 21:20, Exo 21:21). 5. Hurting a woman with child (Exo 21:22, Exo 21:23). 6. The law of retaliation (Exo 21:24, Exo 21:25). 7. Maiming a servant (Exo 21:26, Exo 21:27). 8. An ox goring (Exo 21:28-32). 9. Damage by opening a pit (Exo 21:33, Exo 21:34). 10. Cattle fighting (Exo 21:35, Exo 21:36).

INTRODUCTION TO EXODUS 21 In this, and the two following chapters, are delivered various laws and precepts, partly of a moral, and partly of a religious, but chiefly of a civil nature, respecting the commonwealth of Israel, and its political good. This chapter treats of servants, and laws relating to them; to menservants, how long they shall serve, and what is to be done to those who are desirous of staying with their masters after their time is up, Exo 21:1, to maidservants, and especially betrothed ones, either to a father or a son, Exo 21:7, likewise it contains laws concerning the slaughter of men, whether with design or unawares, Exo 21:12, and concerning the ill usage of parents, Exo 21:15, and man stealing, Exo 21:16 and of mischief that comes by men's quarrelling and fighting, Exo 21:18 and by smiting a man or maidservant, Exo 21:20, to a woman with child, that is, by means of men's striving and contending with each other, Exo 21:22 and of damages that come by oxen, or to them, Exo 21:28.

Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. This is "lex talionis", the law of retaliation, and from whence the Heathens had theirs; but whether this is to be taken strictly and literally, or only for pecuniary mulcts, is a question; Josephus (d) understands it in the former sense, the Jewish writers generally in the latter; and so the Targum of Jonathan paraphrases it;"the price of an eye for an eye, &c.''Jarchi on the place observes, that,"he that puts out his neighbour's eye must pay him the price of his eye, according to the price of a servant sold in the market, and so of all the rest; for not taking away of members strictly is meant, as our doctors here interpret it;''in a place he refers to, and to which Aben Ezra agrees; and of the difference and dispute between the Jews concerning this matter; see Gill on Mat 5:38 and indeed, though these laws of retaliation should, according to the letter of them, be attended to as far as they can; yet, in some cases, it seems necessary that they should not be strictly attended to, but some recompence made in another way, and nothing seems more agreeable than a pecuniary one: thus, for instance, this law cannot be literally executed, when one that has never an eye puts out the eye of another, as it is possible that a blind man may; or one that has no teeth may strike out the tooth of another; in such cases eye cannot be given for eye, nor tooth for tooth; and, as Saadiah Gaon (e) observes, if a man should smite the eye of his neighbour, and the third part of the sight of his eye should depart, how will he order it to strike such a stroke as that, without adding or lessening? and if a man that has but one eye, or one hand, or one foot, should damage another man in those parts, and must lose his other eye, or hand, or foot, he would be in a worse case and condition than the man he injured; since he would still have one eye, or hand, or foot; wherefore a like law of Charondas among the Thurians is complained of, since it might be the case, that a man with one eye might have that struck out, and so be utterly deprived of sight; whereas the man that struck it out, though he loses one for it, yet has another, and so not deprived of sight utterly, and therefore thought not to be sufficiently punished; and that it was most correct that he should have both his eyes put out for it: and hence Diodorus Siculus (f) reports of a one-eyed man who lost his eye, that he complained of this law to the people, and advised to have it altered: this "lex talionis" was among the Roman laws of the "twelve tables" (g). (d) Antiqu. l. 4. c. 33. 35. (e) Apud Aben Ezram in loc. (f) Bibliothec. l. 12. par. 2. p. 82, 83. (g) A. Gell. Noct. Attic. l. 20. c. 1.

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.

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.”

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.

Laws concerning servants. They shall serve for only seven years, Exo 21:1, Exo 21:2. If a servant brought a wife to servitude with him, both should go out free on the seventh year, Exo 21:3. If his master had given him a wife, and she bore him children, he might go out free an the seventh year, but his wife and children must remain, as the property of the master, Exo 21:4. If, through love to his master, wife, and children, he did not choose to avail himself of the privilege granted by the law, of going out free on the seventh year, his ear was to be bored to the door post with an awl, as an emblem of his being attached to the family for ever, Exo 21:5, Exo 21:6. Laws concerning maid-servants, betrothed to their masters or to the sons of their masters, Exo 21:7-11. Laws concerning battery and murder, Exo 21:12-15. Concerning men-stealing, Exo 21:16. Concerning him that curses his parents, Exo 21:17. Of strife between man and man, Exo 21:18, Exo 21:19; between a master and his servants, Exo 21:20, Exo 21:21. Of injuries done to women in pregnancy, Exo 21:22. The Lex Talionis, or law of like, Exo 21:23-25. Of injuries done to servants, by which they gain the right of freedom, Exo 21:26, Exo 21:27. Laws concerning the ox which has gored men, Exo 21:28-32. Of the pit left uncovered, into which a man or a beast has fallen, Exo 21:33, Exo 21:34. Laws concerning the ox that kills another, Exo 21:35, Exo 21:36.

Eye for eye - This is the earliest account we have of the lex talionis, or law of like for like, which afterwards prevailed among the Greeks and Romans. Among the latter, it constituted a part of the twelve tables, so famous in antiquity; but the punishment was afterwards changed to a pecuniary fine, to be levied at the discretion of the praetor. It prevails less or more in most civilized countries, and is fully acted upon in the canon law, in reference to all calumniators: Calumniator, si in accusatione defecerit, talionem recipiat. "If the calumniator fall in the proof of his accusation, let him suffer the same punishment which he wished to have inflicted upon the man whom he falsely accused." Nothing, however, of this kind was left to private revenge; the magistrate awarded the punishment when the fact was proved, otherwise the lex talionis would have utterly destroyed the peace of society, and have sown the seeds of hatred, revenge, and all uncharitableness.

LAWS FOR MENSERVANTS. (Exo 21:1-6) judgments--rules for regulating the procedure of judges and magistrates in the decision of cases and the trial of criminals. The government of the Israelites being a theocracy, those public authorities were the servants of the Divine Sovereign, and subject to His direction. Most of these laws here noticed were primitive usages, founded on principles of natural equity, and incorporated, with modifications and improvements, in the Mosaic code.

The mishpatim (Exo 21:1) are not the "laws, which were to be in force and serve as rules of action," as Knobel affirms, but the rights, by which the national life was formed into a civil commonwealth and the political order secured. These rights had reference first of all to the relation in which the individuals stood one towards another. The personal rights of dependants are placed at the head (Exo 21:2-11); and first those of slaves (Exo 21:2-6), which are still more minutely explained in Deu 15:12-18, where the observance of them is urged upon the hearts of the people on subjective grounds.