Origen De princ., 4.3.5

If now we approach the gospel in search of similar instances, what can be more irrational that the command, ‘Salute no man by the way’, which simple people believe that the Saviour enjoined upon the Apostles? Again, to speak of the right cheek being struck is most incredible, for every striker, unless he suffers from some unnatural defect, strikes the left cheek with his right hand. And it is impossible to accept the precept from the gospel about the ‘right eye that offends’; for granting the possibility of a person being ‘offended’ through his sense of sight, how can the blame be attributed to the right eye, when there are two eyes to see? and what man, supposing he accuses himself of ‘looking on a woman to lust after her and attributes the blame to his right eye alone, would at rationally if he were to cast this eye away?

Further, the apostle lays down this precept: ‘Was any called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised.’ Now in the first place anyone who wishes can see that these words have no relation to the subject in hand; and how can we help thinking that they have been inserted at random, when we remember that the apostle is here laying down the precepts about marriage and purity? In the second place who will maintain that it is wrong for a man to put himself into a condition of uncircumcision, if that were possible, in view of the disgrace which is felt by most people to attach to circumcision?