John Calvin Commentary Exodus 21:18

"And if men contend, and one smite the other with a stone, or with his fist, and he die not, but keep his bed;" — Exodus 21:18 (ASV)

And if men strive together. The punishment enacted here for wounds and blows is so slight that it might have served as an incitement to the mischievousness of those inclined to evil.

Since the Law of the Twelve Tables only inflicted a fine of twenty-five asses upon a man who had beaten another unjustly, there was a certain Lucius Veratius,³⁵ who, in mere wanton sport, did not hesitate to box the ears of anyone he met and then to command one of his slaves to pay the amount of the fine. Consequently, it was eventually thought better for the law to fall into disuse than to allow it to be so ridiculously abused.

The same thing might easily have happened among the Jews, since a person who had beaten his neighbor so severely that he had to lie in bed only had to pay for the injured man’s medical expenses. For who would not willingly enjoy the pleasure of knocking down his enemies on this condition, of providing for their subsistence while they lay in bed?

But we must remember the declaration of Christ that, on account of the perverse nature of the Jews, many things were allowed them “because of the hardness of their hearts” (Matthew 19:8 and Mark 10:5), among which this lenient provision is to be counted.

Still, God seems to have dealt more leniently with the man who had struck the blow, so that He might also chastise the other, who, though of inferior strength, had rashly engaged in the conflict. For both were to be punished equally for the violence unjustly inflicted. Equal leniency, therefore, seems to have been shown to both, since compensation is only made to the person struck for his private loss.³⁶

But the fact that God did not carry out the political laws to their perfection shows that by this leniency He wished to reprove the people’s perverseness, which could not even bear to obey so mild a law.

Whenever, therefore, God seems to pardon too easily and with too much clemency, let us remember that He intentionally deviated from the more perfect rule, because He had to deal with an intractable people.

³⁵ Aul. Gellius. Noct. Attic., 20:1.

³⁶ “Ainsi il semble bien que tous deux ont este supportez quant au delict public, quand il n’y a que le dommage particulier qui soit recompense;” thus it plainly appears that both were set free, as regarded the public offense, since it was only the private injury for which compensation was made. — Fr..