Regulations in Respect of Extreme Violence to Another (Exodus 21:12-21).
The following regulations all deal with extreme violence towards others. This came first in matters to do with behaviour towards each other.
We may analyse this passage as follows:
a Manslayers to die but a way of escape if innocent (Exodus 21:12-13).
b If a man slays with guile he is to be put to death (Exodus 21:14).
c He who smites father and mother to be put to death (Exodus 21:15).
d Kidnappers to be put to death (Exodus 21:16).
c He who curses father and mother to be put to death (Exodus 21:17).
b If one who contends smites another and he does not die he must pay costs (Exodus 21:18-19).
a Slayers of bondservants by beating to be punished, but escape if there is delay in dying (Exodus 21:20-21).
In ‘a' manslayers are to die if the slaying was deliberate, in the parallel bondservant slayers are to be punished if the slaying was seen as deliberate. In ‘b' to slay a man by guile was to be subject to the death penalty, but in the parallel where the person does not actually die costs must be paid. In ‘c' the one who smites father and mother must be put to death, in the parallel the one who curses father and mother is to be put to death.
“He who smites a man so that he die shall surely be put to death. And if a man does not lie in wait, but God delivers him into his hand, then I will appoint for you a place where he may flee. And if a man come presumptuously on his neighbour, to kill him by guile, you will take him from my altar that he may die.”
For the deliberate murderer there was only the death penalty (there were no prisons in which he could be incarcerated long term). For such there could be no refuge. Even if he sought sanctuary at the altar (compare 1 Kings 2:29 with 1 Kings 2:31) it would do him no good for his blood guilt deprived him of the right. But in the case of an accidental killing a place will be provided to which that person can flee. Initially this would be to find sanctuary at the altar until satisfactory recompense could be found. Later on places would be provided called Cities of Refuge (Numbers 35).
The penalty would be carried out by the avengers of blood (Numbers 35:19). These were members of the same family as the victim (compare Genesis 4:14; Genesis 9:6), theoretically at least acting on behalf of the community. It was their responsibility to bring a murderer to justice. But, if the killer sought refuge, vengeance could only take place once the courts had agreed that the killing was deliberate (Numbers 35:24-27).
“God delivers him into his hand.” That is, the death was accidental. It is ‘an act of God', not deliberate. This law brings out the sanctity of human life. The deliberate intent to kill cannot be excused.
“And he who smites his father or his mother shall surely be put to death.”
In a patriarchal society the leader was father of the clan, and then authority went downwards to the fathers of sub-clans or family groups until the lowest authority was reached, the father of the family. Each was seen, within his sphere, as standing, as it were, along with his wife, in the place of God. That is why the command to honour father and mother received such prominence (Exodus 20:12). To smite such was like striking a judge or even God. It was to hit at recognised authority and demanded the death penalty. By this the authority of the parents was firmly established. It is the principle that is important. Not every father would demand the death penalty for his son, circumstances would be taken into account.
In the Code of Hammurapi a son who lifted up his hand against his parents was to have his hands cut off.
“And he who steals a man, and sells him, or if he is found in his possession, he shall surely be put to death.”
This refers to kidnapping. The enforced illicit enslavery of people within the community was punishable by death. That this is the central statement in the chiastic arrangement demonstrates its importance. Hittite law judges kidnapping more severely than murder. It was quite clearly looked on with horror.
“And he who curses (reviles) his father and mother shall surely be put to death.”
This is on the same principle as Exodus 21:15. The word for ‘reviling' or ‘cursing' is very strong, far stronger than just grumbling or complaining about, or even railing at. For the word see, for example, 2 Samuel 16:5; 2 Kings 2:24; Genesis 12:3; Genesis 8:21. It suggests intention to do grievous harm. This is spoken of someone rebelling against all authority.
“And if men contend and one smites the other with a stone, or with his fist, and he does not die but is laid up in bed, if he gets up again and walks out using his staff, then he who smote him will be free of any charge, only he will pay for his loss of time from work (literally ‘for his ceasing') and ensure he is fully healed.”
Where men have a disagreement, injury caused which is serious enough to put one in bed for some time must be compensated for, but as long as the wounded person is not permanently bedridden, that is all that is required. The victim must not suffer financial loss for it and the aggressor must pay his medical bills.
In the Code of Hammurapi the aggressor has to take an oath that he did not intend to kill and must compensate for loss of time. Hittite law requires that a third party be paid to do the injured man's work.
“With his fist.” The word for ‘fist' is rare (here and Isaiah 58:4) and may indicate a tool or instrument.
“And if a man smite his bondman or his maid with a stick, and he die under his hand, he shall surely be punished. Notwithstanding if he continue alive for a day or two he shall not be punished. For he is his wealth.”
Vicious treatment by a master of a bondman with a stick that might cause death is to be punished where death results within a day or two. That this punishment is usually death is not stated but might be suggested by the fact that this law is placed among laws which continually relate to the death penalty, which cease at Exodus 21:23 (but see Exodus 21:29 also. However redemption is possible there). Possibly it depended on the level of provocation which could be considered by the judges.
Otherwise, if the bondman survives for two days and then dies, consideration is given to the fact that the master has lost his services for good, which has cost him the equivalent in silver. The fact that the man does not die immediately suggests that the death was not intended. Permanent injury such as loss of an eye or a tooth will result in the bondman being released (Exodus 21:26-27).
Other law codes outside Israel have less concern for bondmen. They are more concerned about compensation to the master if an outsider wounds the bondman. So this is outstandingly humane for the time and treats bondmen as human beings and not as mere chattels.