Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Exodus 21:12
He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death.
12. Murder. The same general principle is laid down in P, Gen 9:6, Num 35:30 f., and in H, Lev 24:17.
shall be put to death ] The execution of this penalty was the duty not, as in communities in which a more advanced stage of civilization has been reached, of the State, but of the ‘Avenger of blood,’ i.e. of the nearest kinsman of the murdered man, upon whom, according to primitive ideas, the duty of vindicating his rights devolved, 2Sa 14:11, Deu 19:6; Deu 19:12, Num 35:19; Num 35:21; Num 35:27 (P). See Goel in DB. or EB.
12 17. Capital offences. In v. 12 is laid down the general principle that death is the punishment for killing a man. If the act is unpre-meditated (manslaughter), the penalty is modified ( v. 13), but retained in full in the case of the act being evidently intentional ( v. 14). Kidnapping a fellow Israelite, and smiting or cursing a parent ( vv. 15 17), are also treated as capital offences.
The case of murder of a free man and of a bondman. See Exo 21:20 note. The law was afterward expressly declared to relate also to foreigners, Lev 24:17, Lev 24:21-22; compare the marginal references. Exo 21:12-14
Shall be surely put to death.
Cases of homicide
Capital crimes in the Mosaic code
Complaint has been made against Moses on account of the number of crimes made capital in his code. But great injustice has been done him in this particular. The crimes punishable with death by his laws were either of a deep moral malignity or such as were aimed against the very being of the state. It will be found, too, on examination, that there were but four classes of capital offences known to his laws–treason, murder, deliberate and gross abuse of parents, and the more unnatural and horrid crimes arising out of the sexual relation. And all the specifications under these classes amounted to only seventeen; whereas it is not two hundred years since the criminal code of Great Britain numbered one hundred and forty-eight crimes punishable with death–many of them of a trivial nature, as petty thefts and trespasses upon property. But no injury simply affecting property could draw down upon an Israelite an ignominious death. The Mosaic law respected moral depravity more than gold. Moral turpitudes, and the most atrocious expressions of moral turpitude, these were the objects of its unsleeping severity. (E. C. Wines, D. D.)
He that smiteth a man knowingly and wilfully, as appears by the next verse, neither the friends of the party slain, nor the magistrate, shall give him a pardon, or accept a ransom for him, Num 35:31. He that smiteth a man, so that he die,…. The Targum of Jonathan is, that smites a man or daughter of Israel with the sword; but there is no need to restrain the words either to persons of any certain nation, nor to any instrument with which a person may be smitten as to die: but any human person, man, woman, or child, of whatsoever nation, and they smitten with anything whatever, that issues in their death:
shall surely be put to death; by the order of the civil magistrate, and by the hand of such as shall be appointed by him; for this is the original law of God, Ge 9:6.
Still higher than personal liberty, however, is life itself, the right of existence and personality; and the infliction of injury upon this was not only prohibited, but to be followed by punishment corresponding to the crime. The principle of retribution, jus talionis , which is the only one that embodies the idea of justice, lies at the foundation of these threats.
Exo 21:12-13
A death-blow was to be punished with death (cf. Gen 9:6; Lev 24:17). “ He that smiteth a man and (so that) he die (whether on the spot or directly afterwards did not matter), he shall be put to death.” This general rule is still further defined by a distinction being drawn between accidental and intentional killing. “ But whoever has not lain in wait (for another’s life), and God has caused it to come to his hand ” (to kill the other); i.e., not only if he did not intend to kill him, but did not even cherish the intention of smiting him, or of doing him harm from hatred and enmity (Num 35:16-23; Deu 19:4-5), and therefore did so quite unawares, according to a dispensation of God, which is generally called an accident because it is above our comprehension. For such a man God would appoint places of refuge, where he should be protected against the avenger of blood. (On this point, see Num 35:9.).
Exo 21:14-17
“ But he who acts presumptuously against his neighbour, to slay him with guile, thou shalt take him from Mine altar that he may die.” These words are not to be understood as meaning, that only intentional and treacherous killing was to be punished with death; but, without restricting the general rule in Exo 21:12, they are to be interpreted from their antithesis to Exo 21:13, as signifying that even the altar of Jehovah was not to protect a man who had committed intentional murder, and carried out his purpose with treachery. (More on this point at Num 35:16.) By this regulation, the idea, which was common to the Hebrews and many other nations, that the altar as God’s abode afforded protection to any life that was in danger from men, was brought back to the true measure of its validity, and the place of expiation for sins of weakness (cf. Lev 4:2; Lev 5:15, Lev 5:18; Num 15:27-31) was prevented from being abused by being made a place of refuge for criminals who were deserving of death. Maltreatment of a father and mother through striking (Exo 21:15), man-stealing (Exo 21:16), and cursing parents (Exo 21:17, cf. Lev 20:9), were all to be placed on a par with murder, and punished in the same way. By the “ smiting ” ( ) of parents we are not to understand smiting to death, for in that case would be added as in Exo 21:12, but any kind of maltreatment. The murder of parents is not mentioned at all, as not likely to occur and hardly conceivable. The cursing ( as in Gen 12:3) of parents is placed on a par with smiting, because it proceeds from the same disposition; and both were to be punished with death, because the majesty of God was violated in the persons of the parents (cf. Exo 20:12). Man-stealing was also no less a crime, being a sin against the dignity of man, and a violation of the image of God. For “a man,” we find in Deu 24:7, “a soul,” by which both man and woman are intended, and the still more definite limitation, “of his brethren of the children of Israel.” The crime remained the same whether he had sold him (the stolen man), or whether he was still found in his hand. (For – as a sign of an alternative in the linking together of short sentences, see Pro 29:9, and Ewald, 361.) This is the rendering adopted by most of the earlier translators, and we get no intelligent sense if we divide the clauses thus: “and sell him so that he is found in his hand.”
12 He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death. 13 And if a man lie not in wait, but God deliver him into his hand; then I will appoint thee a place whither he shall flee. 14 But if a man come presumptuously upon his neighbour, to slay him with guile; thou shalt take him from mine altar, that he may die. 15 And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death. 16 And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death. 17 And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death. 18 And if men strive together, and one smite another with a stone, or with his fist, and he die not, but keepeth his bed: 19 If he rise again, and walk abroad upon his staff, then shall he that smote him be quit: only he shall pay for the loss of his time, and shall cause him to be thoroughly healed. 20 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. 21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money. Here is, I. A law concerning murder. He had lately said, Thou shalt not kill; here he provides, 1. For the punishing of wilful murder (v. 12): He that smiteth a man, whether upon a sudden passion or in malice prepense, so that he die, the government must take care that the murderer be put to death, according to that ancient law (Gen. ix. 6), Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed. God, who by his providence gives and maintains life, thus by his law protects it; so that mercy shown to a wilful murderer is real cruelty to all mankind besides: such a one, God here says, shall be taken even from his altar (v. 14), to which he might flee for protection; and, if God will not shelter him, let him flee to the pit, and let no man stay him. 2. For the relief of such as killed by accident, per infortunium–by misfortune, or chance-medley, as our law expresses it, when a man, in doing a lawful act, without intent of hurt to any, happens to kill another, or, as it is here described, God delivers him into his hand; for nothing comes to pass by chance; what seems to us purely casual is ordered by the divine Providence, for wise and holy ends secret to us. In this case God provided cities of refuge for the protection of those whose infelicity it was, but not their fault, to occasion the death of another, v. 13. With us, who know no avengers of blood but the magistrates, the law itself is a sufficient sanctuary for those whose minds are innocent, though their hands are guilty, and there needs no other. II. Concerning rebellious children. It is here made a capital crime, to be punished with death, for children either, 1. To strike their parents (v. 15) so as either to draw blood or to make the place struck black and blue. Or, 2. To curse their parents (v. 17), if they profaned any name of God in doing it, as the rabbies say. Note, The undutiful behaviour of children towards their parents is a very great provocation to God our common Father; and, if men do not punish it, he will. Those are perfectly lost to all virtue, and abandoned to all wickedness, that have broken through the bonds of filial reverence and duty to such a degree as in word or action to abuse their own parents. What yoke will those bear that have shaken off this? Let children take heed of entertaining in their minds any such thought or passions towards their parents as savour of undutifulness and contempt; for the righteous God searches the heart. III. Here is a law against man-stealing (v. 16): He that steals a man (that is, a person, man, woman, or child), with design to sell him to the Gentiles (for no Israelite would buy him), was adjudged to death by this statute, which is ratified by the apostle (1 Tim. i. 10), where men-stealers are reckoned among those wicked ones against whom laws must be made by Christian princes. IV. Care is here taken that satisfaction be made for hurt done to a person, though death do not ensue, Exo 21:18; Exo 21:19. He that did the hurt must be accountable for damages, and pay, not only for the cure, but for the loss of time, to which the Jews add that he must likewise give some recompence both for the pain and for the blemish, if there were any. V. Direction is given what should be done if a servant died by his master’s correction. This servant must not be an Israelite, but a Gentile slave, as the negroes to our planters; and it is supposed that he smite him with a rod, and not with any thing that was likely to give a mortal wound; yet, if he died under his hand, he should be punished for his cruelty, at the discretion of the judges, upon consideration of circumstances, v. 20. But, if he continued a day or two after the correction given, the master was supposed to suffer enough by losing his servant, v. 21. Our law makes the death of a servant, by his master’s reasonable beating of him, but chance-medley. Yet let all masters take heed of tyrannizing over their servants; the gospel teaches them even to forbear and moderate threatenings (Eph. vi. 9), considering with holy Job, What shall I do, when God riseth up? Job xxxi. 13-15. Verses 12-15:
The penalty for willful murder: death. God instituted capital punishment, as a principle of justice, and as a deterrent to crime.
If one were guilty of involuntary manslaughter, taking the life of another with no malice or premeditation, there was provision for sparing his life. God provided in the Land, six “cities of refuge,” to which the man slayer might flee to escape the “avenger,” the near kinsman whose right it was to execute vengeance (see Nu 35). Another provision was: the man slayer might flee to the Temple (Tabernacle), and grasp the “horns of the altar” with a plea for sanctuary. In both instances, if deliberate murder were proven, the guilty was to be executed.
The smiting of a parent was a capital offense. No mercy was allowed. This strongly emphasizes parental dignity and authority.
12. He that smiteth a man, so that he die. This passage, as I have said, more clearly explains the details, and first makes a distinction between voluntary and accidental homicide; for, if a stone or an axe (Deu 19:5.) may have slipped from a man unintentionally, and struck anybody, He would not have it accounted a capital crime. And for this purpose the cities of refuge were given, of which brief mention is here made, and whose rights will be presently more fully spoken of, and where also the mode of distinguishing between design and ignorance will be laid down. But it must be remarked, that Moses declares that accidental homicide, as it is commonly called, does not happen by chance or accident, but according to the will of God, as if He himself led out the person, who is killed, to death. By whatever kind of death, therefore, men are taken away, it is certain that we live or die only at His pleasure; and surely, if not even a sparrow can fall to the ground except by His will, (Mat 10:29,) it would be very absurd that men created in His image should be abandoned to the blind impulses of fortune. Wherefore it must be concluded, as Scripture elsewhere teaches, that the term of each man’s life is appointed, (29) with which another passage corresponds,
“
Thou turnest man to destruction, and savest, Return, ye children of men.” (Psa 90:3.)
It is true, indeed, that whatever has no apparent cause or necessity seems to us to be fortuitous; and thus, whatever, according to nature, might happen otherwise we call accidents, ( contingentia;) yet in the meantime it must be remembered, that what might else incline either way is governed by God’s secret counsel, so that nothing is done without His arrangement and decree. In this way we do not suppose a fate (30) such as the Stoics invented; for it is a different tiling to say that things which of themselves incline to various and doubtful events, are directed by the hand of God whithersoever He will, and to say that necessity governs them in accordance with the perpetual complication of causes, (31) and that this happens with God’s connivance; nay, nothing can be more opposite than that God should be drawn and carried away by a fatal motive power, or that He tempers all things as He sees fit.
There is no reason to follow the Jews here in philosophizing more deeply, that none are delivered to death but those in whom God finds cause for it. It is indeed certain, that with God there always exists the best reason for His acts; but it is wrong to elicit from thence that those who by tits guidance meet with death must be guilty of some offense. Nor even if God should take away an innocent man, would it bc lawful to murmur against Him; as if His justice were naught, because it is concealed from us, and indeed incomprehensible.
(29) No reference is here given, but it is probably to Job 14:5, — “Thou hast appointed his bounds that he cannot pass.”
(30) “Une necessite fatale.” — Fr.
(31) “Une necessite confuse selon des causes entortillees;” a confused necessity according to complicated causes. — Fr.
MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.Exo. 21:12-14
CASES OF HOMICIDE
A rude state of society requires rough measures for the repression of crime and for the preservation of social order; and in considering the stern severity of the Mosaic code, we must try to project ourselves into that aboriginal state of society, and pronounce our judgments accordingly. Laws which were required in those early times ought not to be needful in these days. It is well that, through the spread of Gospel principles, justice is being more and more tempered by mercy. But mercy must not be allowed to supplant justice. And there is a danger lest in our pity for the man we restrain justice with regard to the criminal. II. Homicide by mistake.If a man kill his fellow, not in consequence of an angry blow, but by reason of a stroke given through mischance, then there is to be merciful provision for his safety. It a man kill his fellow through misadventure, then the city of refuge is to be opened for his reception. And cities of refuge were afterwards provided. Into those cities the avenger of blood could not enter. And in the final adjustment of human affairs, merciful consideration will be dealt out to those who have done vast mischief by mistake; upon sins of ignorance will fall the blessed light of Divine mercy. Embrace the glorious truth that through the sternest code the Divine love cannot help revealing its gracious tendencies.
III. Homicide by design.The last mentioned, in verse fourteen, is a case of real murder. Here are all the marks of the murderer. There is the breaking through, in ebullient rage, the sacred restraints which protect ones neighbour as Gods image. There is to be no hope for such a man. He is even to be torn away from Gods altar. Death is to be his portion. It is a strange fact that through all times, with very few exceptions, the Mosaic law of death for death has so largely prevailed. A few monarchs have abolished capital punishment; but soon the stern decree has been re-enacted. It is sad to hang a man, but in saying this we seem to forget that it is a sadder thing to murder a man. The sufferer of capital punishment has not such severe measure dealt out to him as the victim who has suddenly been deprived of life. The repression of crime, and not revenge, is the purpose of wisely-constructed and justly-administered penal codes; and if the abolition of capital punishment tend to the diminution of murder, then we do not see that the Bible stands in the way of such a course. Learn the exceeding preciousness of life. How awful to kill the body! More awful still the conduct of those who go about destroy moral life! It is dreadful to be a soul murderer. Life is Gods most sacred gift. He bestows largely for its unfolding. He provides many safeguards for its preservation.W. Burrows, B.A.
SUGGESTIVE COMMENTS ON THE VERSES
Exo. 21:12-14. The life of man is dear to God to preserve it; man is Gods image.
Pride, presumption, and treachery, make men truly murderers.
MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.Exo. 21:12-17
GODS INDIGNATION AGAINST THE UNFILIAL SPIRIT.Exo. 21:15-17
Nothing is more marked, in Old Testament and New Testament alike, than the imperative character of parental claims and filial duties. A special law incorporated in the moral code deals with this subject. These rights and duties arise from the peculiar relation in which parents stand between their children and God. God, through the parent, gives existence to the child, and makes through the same medium provision for its protection and nurture, and the supply of its moral, intellectual, and physical necessities. Parents must be regarded, therefore, as Gods delegated authorities, and must be respected as such. Offences against them God treats as offences against Himself, and punishes them as such. Our text deals with
(1) the unfilial spirit in two aspects; and I. The unfilial spirit in two aspects.
1. He that smiteth his father or his mother (Exo. 5:15).
(1.) A child may smite his parent literally, as in the case of those brutes we read of in the newspapers every week.
(2.) A child may smite his parents authority by rebellion in thought, word, or deed; e.g., Absalom.
(3.) A child may smite his parents wealth by extravagance or carelessness; e.g., ancient and modern spendthrifts.
(4.) A child may smite his parents character by an incautious revelation of domestic secrets.
(5.) A child may smite his parents health and, by misconduct, bring their grey hairs with sorrow to the grave; e.g., Josephs brethren.
(6.) A child may smite his parents heart, and break it by disobedience and wilfulness; e.g., sons of Eli
In all these instances (26) a child may effectually smite his parents without lifting a finger.
2. He that curseth (lit. revileth) his father or his mother.
(1.) A child may revile his parents by an assertion of personal independence; as in the case of the prodigal demanding his portion of goods and taking his journey into a far country.
(2.) A child may revile his parents by speaking of them in a careless and irreverent way. What else is it when a youth refers to his father as the governor, and to his mother as the old lady?
(3.) A child may revile his parents by speaking to them in a familiar or impertinent way.
(4.) A child may revile his parents by treating their counsels with contempt; and II. The uniform punishment of the unfilial spirit.Shall surely be put to death. The letter of this condemnation is now repealed, but its spirit lives on through the ages.
1. An unfilial child dies to the respect of civilised society. All the unwritten codes of humanity agree in condemning it as an unpardonable sin to treat ones parents with disrespect.
2. An unfilial child is morally dead. If the sign of the moral life is love of the brethren, how dead must he be in whom filial respect and love is extinct! It would be easy to show
(1) how all that deserves the name of intelligence, In conclusion
(1.) A word to parents. Provoke not your children unto wrath. Dont do anything calculated to excite those distempers which may express themselves in smiting or reviling; but train them up in the way they should go, in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. PARENT-SMITERS AND MEN-STEALERS
We do not observe any deep metaphysical or psychological reasons for the order and number of these laws. There does not seem to be any great regard for logical order in the Hebrew spirit. We may simply discover the instructive and very suggestive circumstance that the three crimes mentioned in these verses are placed in the same category, and have meted out to them the same awful penalty. Thus, it appears that the man who curses his father or his mother is no better than the man-stealer. And in this respect the social code of Christian England is scarcely equal to the moral code of the Mosaic economy. It is not indeed to be deplored that the penalty of death is less frequently inflicted in these times than in the days of the past; but it is to be lamented that reverence for parents is not now-a-days a virtue very strenuously insisted upon. We should not now think of placing the curser of parents, or even the smiter of parents, on the same level with the man-stealer. Those who make a trade of kid-napping are now reprobated; but cursers of fathers and of mothers are at least not regarded as criminals, if indeed they are not welcomed into good society. There is, however, a similarity of spirit in the two characters. There is a closer connection between the curser of parents and the man-stealer than we may at first imagine. Let us study them together, as placed before us in Holy Writ, and learn to avoid the evils. II. The crime of smiting father or mother. The man who curses his parents is the man who is prepared to smite them when the occasion arises. That father cannot safely trust himself to that grown-up son who has ventured to curse, and thus shown his contempt for the parental authority. Under certain circumstances it may be right for the father to smite his son. There may be too much leniency, as well as too much severity, in the family; some modern fathers appear to have lost faith in the wisdom of Solomons proverbs. They spare the rod, and by bitter experience find that the child is spoiled. The father who never smites his son may thank God if that son never smites him. However, never use the rod in anger. Administer chastisement in the spirit of prayer, for the childs good, and for the maintenance of authority. But it is not right for the son to smite the father. The son had better suffer undeserved physical injury than venture to smite his father or his mother. The reasons adduced for the condemnation of those who curse their parents, are still more cogent when applied to those hardened children who smite their parents. What a wretch is he who smites the mother that has given of her life for the promotion of his life; who has poured out all the vast wealth of her nature in order to nurture up to glorious manhood. The penalty of death for this crime has no place in our civil code; but the man who smites his father or his mother will find that the stroke has a recoil sooner or later. Years may elapse between the act of smiting and the fact of being smitten. But the return stroke, though long delayed, at last shall come with fearful pains. Better suffer thy right hand to be amputated than use it to strike thy father or thy mother.
III. The crime of man-stealing. We have seen that slavery was allowed to continue; but man-stealing was made subject to the penalty of death. Even in those rude states of society God taught the great lesson that He had made of one blood men of different nations, as well as men of the same nation. It is a crime to steal a mans property. It is a crime to steal a mans character by villanons slander. But the crime of crimes is to steal a mans person. It is a striking fact that this Mosaic enactment has been exerting a powerful influence from age to age; and it has so worked that the kidnapper has never for long occupied a respectable position in society; and the time is fast hastening when the word may be eliminated from our language, and kindred words from all other languages. So great is this crime that the Apostle Paul numbers the men-stealers amongst those lawless and disobedient ones with special reference to whom the law is made. So great is this crime that there is in every rightly-constituted natureyea, in every man not deeply sunk in sin and thoroughly hardened by iniquityan instinctive horror of and shrinking from the man-stealer. Executioners appointed by human governments may not now put the man-stealer to death; but his doom is sealed. Fearful is the outlook. Unless he truly repent and forsake his way, his lamp too shall go out in fearful darkness. And the man who smites his father or his mother without any feeling of remorse, and without an earnest effort to restrain himself, is quite prepared to become the man-stealer when the opportunity presents itself; his depravity is sufficiently great to avail himself of the offered power of kidnapping his fellows.
Lessons.
(1.) These three crimes taken together are suggestive of the genesis of crime. There is the indulgence of evil thinking, then this grows into evil speaking, and then comes evil acting. Inward cursing grows into outward cursing, and this culminates in crime of physical violence. The man who permits himself to curse his father inwardly, will not be long before he curses outwardly. In this respect cursing and smiting follow closely upon one another. And the man who smites his father or his mother is prepared to smite anybody else if there be provocation sufficient and no dread of consequences. The children who forsake their parents, when those parents are God-fearing, commence a downhill course from which return is difficult.
(2.) Gives a word of caution to parents. So live, and work; and pray that your children may not curse you, but have good reason to bless your memories. And, parents, remember that in after years children may think they have reason to curse you for being too indulgent as well as for being too severe.
(3.) Gives a word of caution to children. The wrongdoing of parents is no justification for the wrongdoing of children. Most likely a more severe penalty awaits the child who has been favoured with many privileges and has abused them, than the child whose privileges have been few, and who has accordingly gone astray. Do not dwell upon what your parents might have done for you if they had been different or had acted differently; but reflect upon the more pleasing part of their dealings with you. And try to make the best of unpropitious circumstances. He is the best general who knows how to retrieve mistakes. He is the worlds hero who fights his way through and surmounts difficulties, and achieves moral victories.W. Burrows, B.A.
ILLUSTRATIONS
BY Homicide! Exo. 21:12. Pause and look for a moment on these drops of gore that stain the fresh greensward of earth. It rests silent, but how significant, upon the ground! It lies there a memorial of the curse which God had pronounced on man, Thou shalt surely die. It lies a mirror, wherein sin may see its foul features most accurately represented, and whence the homicide may start back appalled at his own image. It is an awful thing to send any man into eternity, still more awful if he is unprepared. Anger is too often the fruitful cause of staining the human hand with the red rain. All perfumes will not sweeten this hand!
Will all the mighty ocean wash this blood Gilfillan.
Parricide! Exo. 21:15. This was by the Roman law punished in a much severer manner than any other kind of homicide. After being scourged, the delinquents were sewn up in a leather sack with a live dog, a cock, a viper, and an ape, and then cast into the sea. Solon, in his laws, made none against parricide, conceiving it impossible that any one should be guilty of so unnatural a crime. And yet we are told that Tullia, the wife of Tarquin, drove over the corpse of Tullius, her own father; the wheels of her chariot, dashing through the pool of gore, besprinkling the garments of the parricide with a baptism of blood. By the order of Antipater, in his very presencesome say with his own handshis mother Thessalonica was put to death because he thought she favoured his brother. When a Tahitian became tired of his aged parent, he would either place him in a separate hut to die of starvation, or thrust him through with a spear. Recently, in the south of France, a young man killed and buried his widowed mother in order to be owner of the little farm.
Blood of the soul! Can all earths fountains Sigourney.
Slave-Taking! Exo. 21:16. Men defended the modern slave-trade by Scripture allusions; but there was little or no analogy between the two. Ancient heathen nations made slaves either
(1) by sentence of courts for breach of the laws of the land; or Proudly on Cressys tented wold
The lion-flag of England flew;
As proudly gleamed its crimson fold
Oer the dun heights of Waterloo;
But other lyres shall greet the brave; Selling Slaves! Exo. 21:16. The Koran justifies slavery on two grounds only:
1. A religious war; Dear as freedom is, and in my hearts
Just estimation prized above all price, Slave-Sellers! Exo. 21:16. The Banians of Zanz bar figure prominently in the literature connected with the East African slave-trade. These men are Hindus, i.e., natives of India. They are to be found in large numbers in Kattywar; but their stronghold is Pylitana. There they have beautiful temples, to which bauds of pilgrims periodically flock from other countries. They possess the most tender feelings for animals, and would run any risk to prevent cruelty to them. But though they have an elaborate system for the protection of even noxious creatures, they have no regard for human life. These arealong with the Bhatiasthe slave-dealers in Zanzibar; and when they have acquired by this nefarious traffic a competency, they return to their native laud. Thus
Theres naught so monstrous, but the mind of man, Lillo.
(12-14) He that smiteth a man, so that he die.Homicide had been broadly and generally forbidden in the sixth commandment. But something more was necessary. Laws are for the most part inoperative unless they are enforced by penalties; and for every case of homicide the same penalty would not be fitting. Accordingly we have here, first, the assignment of the death penalty for homicide of the first degree, i.e., murder; and secondly, the provision of a refuge for homicide of the second degree, i.e., manslaughter, or death by misadventure. The death penalty for murder had already received Divine sanction in the injunctions given to Noah (Gen. 9:6). Tradition, backed up by conscience, had made it an almost universal law. The Sinaitic legislation adopted the law into the national code, and lent it additional force by the proviso, which we know to have been carried out in practice (1Ki. 2:28-34), that the
Murderer was even to be torn from Gods altar, if he took refuge there.
12. Smiteth a man, so that he die This is a general law for intentional murder, and demands the punishment declared in Gen 9:6. See also notes on Exo 20:13.
Regulations in Respect of Extreme Violence to Another ( Exo 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 (Exo 21:12-13).
b If a man slays with guile he is to be put to death (Exo 21:14).
c He who smites father and mother to be put to death (Exo 21:15).
d Kidnappers to be put to death (Exo 21:16).
c He who curses father and mother to be put to death (Exo 21:17).
b If one who contends smites another and he does not die he must pay costs (Exo 21:18-19).
a Slayers of bondservants by beating to be punished, but escape if there is delay in dying (Exo 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.
Exo 21:12-14
“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 1Ki 2:29 with 1Ki 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 (Num 35:19). These were members of the same family as the victim (compare Gen 4:14; Gen 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 (Num 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.
Exo 21:15
“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 (Exo 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.
Exo 21:16
“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.
Exo 21:17
“And he who curses (reviles) his father and mother shall surely be put to death.”
This is on the same principle as Exo 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, 2Sa 16:5; 2Ki 2:24; Gen 12:3; Gen 8:21. It suggests intention to do grievous harm. This is spoken of someone rebelling against all authority.
Exo 21:18-19
“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 Isa 58:4) and may indicate a tool or instrument.
Exo 21:20-21
“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 Exo 21:23 (but see Exo 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 (Exo 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.
Concerning Murder and Bodily Injuries
v. 12. He that smiteth a man, v. 13. And if a man lie not in wait, v. 14. But if a man come presumptuously upon his neighbor, to slay him with guile, v. 15. And he that smiteth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death. v. 16. And he that stealeth a man and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death. v. 17. And he that curseth his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. v. 15. v. 18. And if men strive together, v. 19. if he rise again, and walk abroad upon his staff, then shall he that smote him be quit, v. 20. And if a man smite his servant or his maid, v. 21. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two v. 22. If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, v. 23. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, v. 24. eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, v. 25. burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. v. 26. And if a man smite the eye of his servant or the eye of his maid that it perish, he shall let him go free for his eye’s sake. v. 27. And if he smite out his man-servant’s tooth or his maid-servant’s tooth, he shall let him go free for his tooth’s sake. Exo 21:12. He that smiteth a man, &c. See Gen 9:6. It appears from Lev 17:16 that this law was not confined to the murder of Israelites, but extended to strangers, and all men in general; contrary to the shameful glosses of some of the Rabbis.
In these verses here is a distinction made between willful murder and unintentional manslaughter. Gen 9:6 .
Exo 21:12 He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death.
Ver. 12. Shall be surely put to death. ] See Trapp on “ Gen 9:6 “
Exo 20:13, Gen 9:6, Lev 24:17, Num 35:16-24, Num 35:30, Num 35:31, Deu 19:11-13, 2Sa 12:13, Mat 26:52
Reciprocal: Gen 9:5 – every Deu 17:8 – between blood Deu 27:24 – General 2Sa 3:28 – guiltless 2Sa 3:39 – I am 2Sa 4:11 – require 1Ki 20:37 – Smite me 2Ki 14:5 – that he slew Eze 16:38 – shed Eze 18:10 – a shedder Mat 5:21 – and
Exo 21:12-13. He that smiteth a man Knowingly and wilfully, as appears from the next verse; shall be surely put to death Neither the friends of the person slain nor the magistrate shall give him a pardon, or accept a ransom for him, Num 35:31. If God deliver him into his hand As the Scriptures teach us to acknowledge God in every thing that falls out, so when a man is killed by what we call accident, without any intention of the agent, he is said to have been delivered into his hand by God, without whose divine foresight and permission the event could not have happened. I will appoint thee a place whither he shall flee It is probable, that while the Israelites were in the wilderness the place of refuge was the camp of the Levites or the altar. Afterward, it is well known, certain cities were appointed for that purpose.
Exo 21:12-17 E. Capital Offences.This group, varying in form from the main body of the Judgments, is here regarded as a part of the smaller Book of the Covenant (p. 184). The punishment of murder was death (Exo 21:12), inflicted in Israel, as elsewhere, according to the widespread custom of blood-revenge, by the next-of-kin as avenger of blood (2Sa 14:11). For accidental homicide, not distinguished in Homer from murder, a place of asylum, a sanctuary of special rank, was provided (Exo 21:13, cf. Num 35:9-34* P, Deu 19:1-13*, Joshua 20*). But a murderer could be dragged from the horns of the altar (Exo 21:14, cf. 1Ki 1:50; 1Ki 2:28). Smiting or cursing a parent was also (Exo 21:15; Exo 21:17) punishable with death, Bab. and Gr. law being less severe; and so was kidnapping, as in Bab., Gr., and Roman law.
Homicide 21:12-17
The Torah upheld capital punishment for murder (Exo 21:12), which God commanded of Noah (Gen 9:6) and people in the Near East practiced from then on. It did not permit capital punishment in the case of manslaughter (unpremeditated murder, Exo 21:13), which the Code of Hammurabi allowed. [Note: Code of Hammurabi, section 229, in Pritchard, pp. 163-80.]
In the ancient East whoever sought sanctuary in a sacred place was safe from punishment even if he or she had deliberately murdered someone. The Torah removed that protection in the case of murder. God regarded the sanctity of human life greater than the sanctity of a place (Exo 21:4).
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
I. Homicide in effect. He that hateth his brother is a murderer. Anger in the heart gives unconscious malicious power to the will. The man is responsible for the effects of his anger, even though these effects are more disastrous than he intended.
II. Homicide by mistake. Cities of refuge. And in the final adjustment of human affairs, merciful consideration will be dealt out to those who have done vast mischief by mistake; upon sins of ignorance will fall the blessed light of Divine mercy. Embrace the glorious truth that through the sternest code the Divine love cannot help revealing its gracious tendencies.
III. Homicide by design. Death is to be his portion. Life is Gods most sacred gift. He bestows largely for its unfolding. He provides many safeguards for its preservation. (W. Burrows, B. A.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
I. Homicide in effect.The first case is that of the man who strikes his fellow; strikes in anger, but not with a murderous intention, and yet death is the result of the angry blow. Such a man shall be surely put to death. This is one of the most severe cases of punishment in those early periods. But it is a stern practical comment upon the New Testament words, He that hateth his brother is a murderer. Let us then learn to avoid angry feelings towards our brother men. Anger in the heart gives unconscious malicious power to the will. The blow directed by an angry man may be more severe than his better self would approve. The man, then, is responsible for the effects of his anger, even though these effects are more disastrous than he intended. The preservation of the physical life is important, but much more the preservation of the moral life in all its purity.
(2) with its uniform punishment. Some excellent remarks on this subject and the Rabbinical treatment of it will be found in an article by Dr. Ginsburg in Cassells Bible Educator, vol. i. pp. 153.
(5.) Alas! a child may revile his parents by cursing them to their face.
(2) veneration,
(3) natural affection, and all the higher faculties of the soul, are utterly destroyed before a man can smite or revile his father or his mother.
3. An unfilial child, inasmuch as he breaks a moral law, and a law that partakes of the qualities of both tables and combines them, dies in a more terrible sense. The soul that sinneth (sin is the transgression of the law) it shall die.
(2.) A further word to children. Obey and honour your parents in all things in the Lord. If there is anything you may deem objectionable, remember (a) your own inexperience, and (b) your indebtedness to those who have given you life and who have preserved and provided for it till now.
I. The crime of cursing father or mother. The order now proposed for discussion as logical is to commence with cursing father or mother, then smiting father or mother, and then man-stealing. This crime of cursing father or mother is one of the letters of the Mosaic economy that has been in too large a measure dropped out of the moral alphabet of modern society. There is a needs be that it stand out in brighter colours. It is not by any means a desirable circumstance that, practically, we are behind the Jews, the Greeks, the Romans, and the Egyptians in this particular. We read out to our children the words, Honour thy father and thy mother, but society does not on a large scale reprobate those who curse their fathers and their mothers. There are fathers and mothers who entail upon their children a heritage of woe; and we must feel pity for such children, and not be very much surprised if there is a tendency to curse their parents. It is difficult for us to be hard upon those children whose parents, either by their folly or by their wickedness, have entailed upon them a depraved physical or moral nature. Oh, let us be gentle in our speech towards those whose parents have been vile, reckless, and worthless! What a severe lot it is for those children whose homes are the abodes of wretchedness, or the hotbeds of crime! Still, crime in others is no excuse for our crimes. Cursing father or mother is to be condemned under all circumstances. (a.) It is to be condemned, for it is a reflection upon the human authors of our being. And thus it is in a sense a reflection upon God Himself. Instead of thanking God for our creation, we are practically cursing God that ever we were born. There is a great deal in life for which to be thankful; and most shun the process of giving up life. Why, then, should we curse those who have brought us into life? Why should we curse the dear mother whose gentle voice has hushed our sorrowful wailing into peaceful slumbers? Why should we curse the father whose strong hand has shielded from danger and ministered to our necessities? (b.) It is to be condemned, for it is a disparagement of Gods vicegerent. If there is any being in this world placed by God in a position of authority, it is the father. He is the type of the eternal Father. He is Gods true representative on earth. The house is his kingdom, and the children are his subjects, and he has an undoubted right to sway the sceptre of a divinely-constituted authority. How great, then, is the crime of that child who curses his father; who despises Gods representative; who resists the lawful control of Gods vicegerent! Is it much to be wondered at that the penalty for this crime in that early society was death? (c.) It is to be condemned, for it is a subversion of the good order of society. The family constitution is the primal form of government. All true governments are but its development. The true ideal of a nation is that of a family of which the king is the head and father. And our kingdom is established for this, among other reasons, that the throne is built upon the thrones set up in happy English homes. Rightly conducted family life is essential to national life and national prosperity. Rebellion in the household is rebellion in the nation. Cursing the father leads to cursing the king. Anarchy in the home means anarchy in the state, and destruction to the community. We have regretted the fact that we seem behind some other nations in not branding the cursing of parents as a crime of deepest dye; but we have to rejoice in the salutary influence of so many Christian homes, which have been the safeguard of our nation; and we are extremely jealous lest the safeguard should be removed or its power diminished.
REV. WILLIAM ADAMSON
Clean from my hand?
No; this my hand will rather
The multitudinous seas incarnadine,
Making the green one red.
Make thy dark stain disappear!
(2) by capture of soldiers in battle; and the Jews may have acted similarly. But there is no warrant for slave-hunting; and such pictures of the pursuit of African villagers as modern writers have lined in pathetic language, would have aroused emotions of horror in the Hebrew heart. In Africa, petty wars were got up. Slave-hunting parties were organised for the express purpose of surprising peaceful villages in the interior, capturing the inhabitants, and dragging them into perpetual slavery. These parties were generally headed by base Portuguese, who were assisted in their nefarious enterprise by such depraved negroes from the coast as would enlist for such service. England has, however, secured treaties with Egypt and Zanzibar and Malagasy, empowering her cruisers and soldiers to put down this iniquitous traffic with resolute hand.
Sing now, that we have freed the SLAVE.
2. Captives in such war. The Sultan of Turkey declares that man is the most noble of all the creatures God has formed in making him free, therefore selling people is contrary to the will of the sovereign Creator. The Pasha of Egypt has also denounced slavery in the strongest terms. The Shah of Persia raised some religious objection to the abolition of the slave-trade, but he was met by the opinion of six of his chief Mollahs that selling male and female slaves is an abomination. It is worthy of remark that Mahomet strove to ameliorate the condition of the slave, and gradually to extirpate slavery itself, which from old times had taken root in Arabia as well as in many other countries.
I would much rather be myself the slave,
And wear the bonds, than fasten them on him.
In some condition, may be brought to approve.
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)