Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Exodus 21:18

And if men strive together, and one smite another with a stone, or with [his] fist, and he die not, but keepeth [his] bed:

18. contend ] or dispute, wrangle in words: rendered strive, Gen 26:20-21, contend, as here, Neh 13:11; Neh 13:17.

fist ] Isa 58:4 . So LXX. Vulg. Di.: the Heb. ’egrph has also this sense in the Talm. The meaning spade or hoe, which Ryssel in Di.2 argues for, would be possible etymologically (for the root signifies to scoop or sweep away, Jdg 5:21): but it does not suit Isa 58:4. The rend. of the Targums, club or cudgel, would suit both passages, but lacks philological justification.

and he die not ] for, if he did, the case would be regulated presumably by the mishp of v. 12.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

18, 19. Bodily injury inflicted in a quarrel.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

18 27. Bodily injuries caused by human beings. Four cases are taken, two arising out of a quarrel, and two out of rough treatment of a slave ( vv. 22 25 would more naturally follow vv. 18, 19). In fixing the penalties, consideration is taken of the status and sex of the persons involved, as also of the character of the injury, and the consequences following from it.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

18 36. Bodily injuries, caused ( a) by human beings, vv. 18 27; ( b) by animals, or through the neglect of reasonable precautions, vv. 28 36.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

Exo 21:18-19

If men strive together.

Lessons

1. Passions and contentions breed many sad events among neighbours.

2. Smitings, and wounds, and sickness, and death are usual effects of sudden passions.

3. In case it proceed not to death, God will not suffer injuries unpunished by men.

4. Not only the death, but the hurts of men, are in Gods heart to prevent (Exo 21:18).

5. It is just with God that he who wounds must look to thorough healing of his neighbour.

6. Mans loss of time, as well as health, God will have recompensed by the injurious.

7. Security and prosperity of creatures is the end cf Gods judgments against violent men (Exo 21:18-19). (G. Hughes, B. D.)

Human strife

Are our little personal strifes noted in heaven? Yes, every one of them. But can men strive together? Properly looked at that would seem to be the harder question of the two. Coming suddenly upon a line of this kind we should exclaim in surprise, The assumption is impossible. We must begin our criticism of a statement of this kind by rejecting its probability, and, that being done, there is no case left. How can men strive together? Men are brothers, men are rational creatures, men recognize one anothers rights, and interests, and welfare; society is not a competition, but a fraternal and sacred emulation; therefore, the assumption that men can strive together is a false one, and, the foundation being false, the whole edifice totters down. That would-be fine theory, that would be sweet poetry, it might almost be thrown into rhyme, but there are the facts staring us in the face. What are those facts? That all life is a strife, that every man in some way or degree, or at some time, begrudges the room which every other man takes up. The tragedy of Cain and Abel has never ceased, and can never cease until we become children of the Second Adam. Great degrees of modification may, of course, take effect. The vulgarity of smiting may be left to those who are in a low state of life–who are, in fact, in barbarous conditions; but they who smite with the fist are not the cruellest of men. There is a refined smiting–a daily, bitter, malignant opposition; there is a process of mutual undermining, or outreaching, or outrunning, in the very spirit of which is found the purpose of murder. But mark how beneficence enters into the arrangement here laid down. Not only is the man who smote his brother to pay for the loss of his brothers time; that would be a mere cash transaction. There are men ready enough to buy themselves out of any obligation; a handful of gold is nothing. Their language is, Take it, and let us be free. That would be poor legislation in some cases, though heavy enough in others. To some men money has no meaning; they have outlived all its influences; they are so rich that they can bribe and pay, and secure silence or liberty by a mere outputting of the hand. But the beneficence is in the next clause, and shall cause him to be thoroughly healed. The man must be made as good as he was before, therefore he must be inquired about; he must be taken an interest in; he must become a quantity in the life of the man who injured him, and, however impartial the man who inflicted the injury may become under such chafing, the impatience itself may be turned to good account. Some men can only be taught philanthropy by such rough and urgent schoolmasters. (J. Parker, D. D.)

Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell

With a stone, or any other instrument fit for such a mischievous purpose. A usual synecdoche.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

And if men strive together,…. Quarrel and fight, and wrestle with and box one another:

and one smite another with a stone; which lying near him he might take up, and in his passion throw it at his antagonist:

or with his fist; with his double fist, as we express it, with his hand closed, that it might come with the greater force, and give the greater blow:

and he die not, but keepeth his bed; does not die with the blow of the stone or fist, yet receives so much damage by it that he is obliged to take to his bed; or, as the Targum of Jerusalem paraphrases it, is cast on the bed sick; or, as the Targum of Jonathan, falls into a disease, as a fever, or the like, through the force of the blow, so that he is confined to his room and to his bed.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

Fatal blows and the crimes placed on a par with them are now followed in simple order by the laws relating to bodily injuries.

Exo 21:18-19

If in the course of a quarrel one man should hit another with a stone or with his fist, so that, although he did not die, he “ lay upon his bed, ” i.e., became bedridden; if the person struck should get up again and walk out with his staff, the other would be innocent, he should “ only give him his sitting and have him cured, ” i.e., compensate him for his loss of time and the cost of recovery. This certainly implies, on the one hand, that if the man died upon his bed, the injury was to be punished with death, according to Exo 21:12; and on the other hand, that if he died after getting up and going out, no further punishment was to be inflicted for the injury done.

Exo 21:20-21

The case was different with regard to a slave. The master had always the right to punish or “chasten” him with a stick (Pro 10:13; Pro 13:24); this right was involved in the paternal authority of the master over the servants in his possession. The law was therefore confined to the abuse of this authority in outbursts of passion, in which case, “ if the servant or the maid should die under his hand (i.e., under his blows), he was to be punished ” ( : “vengeance shall surely be taken”). But in what the was to consist is not explained; certainly not in slaying by the sword, as the Jewish commentators maintain. The lawgiver would have expressed this by . No doubt it was left to the authorities to determine this according to the circumstances. The law in Exo 21:12 could hardly be applied to a case of this description, although it was afterwards extended to foreigners as well as natives (Lev 24:21-22), for the simple reason, that it is hardly conceivable that a master would intentionally kill his slave, who was his possession and money. How far the lawgiver was from presupposing any such intention here, is evident from the law which follows in Exo 21:21, “Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two (i.e., remain alive), it shall not be avenged, for he is his money.” By the continuance of his life, if only for a day or two, it would become perfectly evident that the master did not wish to kill his servant; and if nevertheless he died after this, the loss of the slave was punishment enough for the master. There is no ground whatever for restricting this regulation, as the Rabbins do, to slaves who were not of Hebrew extraction.

Exo 21:22-25

If men strove and thrust against a woman with child, who had come near or between them for the purpose of making peace, so that her children come out (come into the world), and no injury was done either to the woman or the child that was born,

(Note: The words are rendered by the lxx and the corresponding clause by ; consequently the translators have understood the words as meaning that the fruit, the premature birth of which was caused by the blow, if not yet developed into a human form, was not to be regarded as in any sense a human being, so that the giver of the blow was only required to pay a pecuniary compensation, – as Philo expresses it, “on account of the injury done to the woman, and because he prevented nature, which forms and shapes a man into the most beautiful being, from bringing him forth alive.” But the arbitrary character of this explanation is apparent at once; for only denotes a child, as a fully developed human being, and not the fruit of the womb before it has assumed a human form. In a manner no less arbitrary has been rendered by Onkelos and the Rabbins , death, and the clause is made to refer to the death of the mother alone, in opposition to the penal sentence in Exo 21:23, Exo 21:24, which not only demands life for life, but eye for eye, etc., and therefore presupposes not death alone, but injury done to particular members. The omission of , also, apparently renders it impracticable to refer the words to injury done to the woman alone.)

a pecuniary compensation was to be paid, such as the husband of the woman laid upon him, and he was to give it by (by an appeal to) arbitrators. A fine is imposed, because even if no injury had been done to the woman and the fruit of her womb, such a blow might have endangered life. (For roF( to go out of the womb, see Gen 25:25-26.) The plural is employed for the purpose of speaking indefinitely, because there might possibly be more than one child in the womb. “ But if injury occur (to the mother or the child), thou shalt give soul for soul, eye for eye,…wound for wound: ” thus perfect retribution was to be made.

Exo 21:26-27

But the lex talionis applied to the free Israelite only, not to slaves. In the case of the latter, if the master struck out an eye and destroyed it, i.e., blinded him with the blow, or struck out a tooth, he was to let him go free, as a compensation for the loss of the member. Eye and tooth are individual examples selected to denote all the members, from the most important and indispensable down to the very least.

Exo 21:28-30

The life of man is also protected against injury from cattle (cf. Gen 9:5). “ If an ox gore a man or a woman, that they die, the ox shall be stoned, and its flesh shall not be eaten; ” because, as the stoning already shows, it was laden with the guilt of murder, and therefore had become unclean (cf. Num 35:33). The master or owner of the ox was innocent, sc., if his ox had not bee known to do so before. But if this were the case, “ if his master have been warned ( , lit., testimony laid against its master), and notwithstanding this he have not kept it in, ” then the master was to be put to death, because through his carelessness in keeping the ox he had caused the death, and therefore shared the guilt. As this guilt, however, had not been incurred through an intentional crime, but had arisen simply from carelessness, he was allowed to redeem his forfeited life by the payment of expiation money ( , lit., covering, expiation, cf. Exo 30:12), “ according to all that was laid upon him, ” sc., by the judge.

Exo 21:31-32

The death of a son or a daughter through the goring of an ox was also to be treated in the same way; but that of a slave (man-servant or maid-servant) was to be compensated by the payment of thirty shekels of silver (i.e., probably the ordinary price for the redemption of a slave, as the redemption price of a free Israelite was fifty shekels, Lev 27:3) on the part of the owner of the ox; but the ox was to be killed in this case also. There are other ancient nations in whose law books we find laws relating to the punishment of animals for killing or wounding a man, but not one of them had a law which made the owner of the animal responsible as well, for they none of them looked upon human life in its likeness of God.

Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament

Verses 18, 19:

“If men strive together” implies a personal quarrel. If death were to occur, this would not be murder but manslaughter. Use of fist or stone implies no premeditation or design to kill. If the injured person recovered sufficiently to get about with use of a staff (cane), the one inflicting the injury must pay compensation for his lost time. In this case the score was regarded as settled.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

18. And if men strive together. The punishment here enacted for wounds and blows is so slight, that it might have served as a provocative to the mischievousness of the ill-disposed. 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 any one he met, and then to command one of his slaves to pay the amount of the fine, so that it was at length thought better that the law should fall into desuetude, than to suffer it to be thus ridiculously abused. The same thing might easily happen among the Jews, since a person, who had so beaten his neighbor as that he should lie in bed, only had to pay what the unhappy man had expended on his cure. For who would not willingly enjoy the pleasure of knocking down his enemies on this condition, of providing for their subsistence whilst 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,” (Mat 19:8, and Mar 10:5,) amongst which this indulgent provision is to be reckoned. Still God seems to have dealt more leniently with the man who had struck the blow, that He might also chastise the other, who, though of inferior strength, had rashly engaged in the conflict; for both were to be alike punished for the violence unjustly inflicted. Equal lenity seems, therefore, 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 recollect that He designedly deviated from the more perfect rule, because He, had to do 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.

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.Exo. 21:11-19

GODS DISAPPROBATION OF BRUTE FORCE.Exo. 21:22-25

I. One of the great underlying principles and fundamental axioms of the Mosaic legislation was the sanctity of human life. Hence the number of hedges and guards by which it was surrounded.

1. Life is everywhere regarded as the gift of God. It is therefore taken for granted that He alone has a right to interfere with it or take it away.

2. Life is everywhere regarded as given for the express purpose of promoting the Creators glory, and fulfilling those duties which He has laid down. To injure or destroy that life, therefore, is to make it fail of the end for which it was given.

3. Life, therefore, is to be protected from

(1) attacks which would inflict a temporary injury upon it, under the penalty of remuneration for loss of time and medical attendance (Exo. 21:18-19); or, according to the lex talionis (Exo. 21:22-25), and which might become

(2) murder, in which case the punishment was death.

4. Life, however, was so precious that even the manslayer, if his crime was accidental, might have an opportunity for clearing himself (Exo. 21:13); thus in the wilderness, anticipating the cities of refuge (Numbers 35; Deuteronomy 4; Deuteronomy 19; Joshua 20)

5. But life was so sacred that even the sanctuary was no protection to the deliberate murderer (Exo. 21:14.) (See 1Ki. 1:50; 1Ki. 2:28; Lev. 4:7).

II. This principle, properly applied, means the extinction of all strife, whether between individuals or nations. There may be circumstances under which personal encounter or national war may be justifiable, as when rights are invaded or the helpless oppressed. But, in the great majority of cases, quarrels may be settled by arbitration or mutual concession. At any rate, this grand principle of the sanctity of human life, if acted on all round, would discourage all violence and inaugurate the era of universal peace and good will towards man.

GOD DISAPPROVES OF BRUTE FORCE

I. Because it is beneath the true dignity of man. Such contests as described in the text are the outcome of the animal and lower part of our nature (Jas. 4:1-2), and reduce man to the level of the beast. But God has given man reason, discretion, self-control; and fighting degrades the man. This applies

(1) to what, by a solemn irony, is described as the noble (?) art of self-defence;
(2) to the vast majority of those wars undertaken to gratify an individuals or a nations lust of glory, revenge, or spoil.

II. Because it is unnatural. Humanity is a brotherhood. God has made of one blood all the nations of men. Therefore men should be prepared

(1) to make concessions;
(2) to forgive;
(3) to live in peace and unity together.

III. Because it is dangerous

1. To the victor in the struggle.

(1.) He may disable his adversary, and have to pay a heavy indemnification (18, 19).

(2.) He may have to pay with his life the murderers forfeit (Exo. 21:12).

2. To the vanquished. It may mean (a) serious injury, or (b) death.

IV. Because no worthy object is gained. Strength, time, skill, money, and, it may be, life are expended for what? Merely the ascendency of the strongest and the compulsory subjection of the weak.

V. Because it is eminently unchristian. God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by His Son.

1. It is contrary to the example of Christ, who, when he was reviled, reviled not again (1Pe. 2:23), and who did not strive.

2. It is contrary to the precept of Christ. Love one another; Love your enemies; They that use the sword shall perish by the sword; My kingdom is not of this world else would My servants fight.

3. It is contrary to the whole body of Christian teaching. Paul (2Ti. 2:24; Heb. 12:14); Peter (1 Epis. Exo. 3:8-11); James (Exo. 3:13-16), Jude (Ep. 9); and as for John every chapter in his epistles is against it. This principle applies (I.) To the dogmatist. (II.) To the controversialist. The instrument need not be fist or stones. God disapproves of the employment of(i.) force of intellect; (ii.) fluency of speech; (iii.) power of lung when exerted against moral principles.J. W. Burn.

STRIVERS AND SMITERS.Exo. 21:18-27

There is in this passage no punishment appointed for the mere striver. He is simply held responsible for any evil consequences that may ensue from the strife. So that he who would be on the safe side, as regards either the being injured or being the cause of injury to another, must learn to walk honestly, as in the day;not in strife and envying. For mental strife stirreth up anger; and this leadeth to physical strife; and this to violent smiting; and this sometimes terminates in death. He loveth transgression that loveth strife.
I. The striver who injures his opponent. The man smitten with a stone in a contention, and forced to take to his bed, is entitled to compensation. The smiter must pay for the loss sustained during enforced absence from work, and must also be responsible for all the injured mans medical requirements. Acts have consequences, and men are to be held responsible for such consequences. On this principle we still proceed in great measure; and especially is this true when the consequences are immediate. Move with caution. Let every deed be the result of prayerful deliberation. Who can tell what the deed of to-day may produce in the far off to-morrow?

II. The smiter who injures his servant. The man who smites his servant or his maid with a rod, and causes death, is to be surely punished. It is plain that capital punishment is not to be inflicted on this smiter; for it is left to the discretion of the judges to award the damages. If capital punishment were intended, it is strange that it is not stated, as in the foregoing passages. Perhaps the term rod is here employed designedly; for where an iron was used malicious intention was supposed, and death was the punishment where death was caused. If, however, the injured servant continue a day or two, the striker shall not be punished; for the servant is the masters money. The master suffers the loss of his servants services, and therefore receives sufficient punishment. If the servant or the maid lose either an eye or a tooth, through being struck by the master, then the servant or maid so suffering is entitled to liberty as a compensation. Such is the merciful provision for the slaves physical welfare. A tooth is but a small price to pay for liberty. Many slaves have risked their lives in order to purchase the precious boon of freedom. Even the physical part of mans nature is important. A slaves body is Gods workmanship, and must be treated with respect.

III. The striver who injures a pregnant woman. Very often women meddle with the strifes of husbands or brothers. It is natural that women should seek to separate the contending parties. And if such women get injured in their efforts, we sometimes say it serves them right for interfering. But the Mosaic code did not so affirm; and we think rightly. Strivers should be held responsible for the results of their quarrels. It would greatly alter the condition of things if warlike strivers could be held responsible for the results of their contentions. As the result of the pregnant woman suffering permanent injury we have an enforcement of the law of retaliation. In rude states of society we may proceed on the principle of an eye for an eye, &c; but we may aspire to and work up to a state of society, thoroughly permeated with Gospel principles, where all the members of the state will be members of Christs mystical bodywhen this law shall vanish, and the higher laws of Christian love and forbearance shall be in full operation. It will then be an easy thing not to resist evil, for this will be reduced to a minimum. And, till those Elysian days appear, Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God; the powers that be are ordained of God. If thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain; for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

W. Burrows, B.A.

SUGGESTIVE COMMENTS ON THE VERSES

Exo. 21:18-27. Passion and contention breed very bad events amongst neighbours.

Not only death, but the injury of man, God desires to prevent.
It is just with God that he who wounds must look to the healing of his neighbours.
Security and prosperity of creatures is the end of Gods judgments against violent men. The lives and comforts of the poorest slaves are dear to God, and secured by Him.

ILLUSTRATIONS

BY
REV. WILLIAM ADAMSON

Homicide! Exo. 21:20. Dr. Leland writes concerning the Spartans, that nothing could exceed their cruelty to their serfstheir helots, as they called them. Not only did they treat them in their general conduct with great harshness and insolence, but it was part of their policy to massacre them on several occasions in cold blood, and without provocation. Several authors have mentioned their kruptiaso called from their lying in ambuscade in thickets and clefts of rocks, from which they issued out upon the serfs, and killed all they met. Sometimes they set upon them in the open day, and murdered the ablest and stoutest of them as they were in the fields at work. But English and American writers have been forced to admit the record of many such homicides in more modern times. Murdered Uncle Toms are no myth.

Ah! for the tale the slave could speak,

Ah! for the shame of Englands sway;

On Africs sands the maddend shriek,

Neath southern suns the burning day;

Ye sounds of guiltye sights of gore

Away! for slavery is no more.

Slave-Sorrows! Exo. 21:23-25. All honour Livingstones righteous indignation against the cruelties which he was obliged to witness as he travelled amid the horror of the slave-traffic. On the Luongo, he describes an incident in words which show this feeling. Six men were singing as if they did not feel the weight and degradation of the slave-sticks. I asked the cause of their mirth, and was told that they rejoiced at the idea of coming back after death, and hunting and killing those who had sold them. Some of the words I had to inquire about; for instance, the meaning of the words to hunt and kill by spirit power. Then the song started afresh: Oh! you sent us off to the sea-coast, but the yoke is off when we die, and back we shall come to haunt and to kill you. Then all joined in the chorus, which was the name of each seller. The strain told not of fun, but of the bitterness and tears of such as were oppressed.

O for a lodge in some vast wilderness,
Some boundless contiguity of shade,
Where rumour of oppression and deceit
Might never reach me more.

Cowper.

Eye for Eye! Exo. 21:25. Selden says that this does not mean that if I put out another mans eye, therefore I must lose my own (for what is he better for that?), though this is commonly received. It means that I must give him what satisfaction an eye shall be janlged to be worth. Accordingly, Cruickshank relates the case of a slave, who appealed to a traditionary law which entitled him to freedom for the loss of an eye, in his masters service, from the recoil of a branch of a tree. Compensation, then, and not retribution, is the essential element in this law. Substitution is here, and not revenge.

You satisfy your anger and revenge;
Suppose this, it will not
Repair your loss.

Massinger.

Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell

(18) With a stone, or with his fist.Comp. The difference made under the English law between wounding with a sharp or a blunt instrument.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

(18, 19) Severe assault, endangering life, but not actually taking it, is placed under the same head with homicide, as approaching to it, but is not to be punished in the same way. If death ensues in such a case, the crime is, of course, murder or manslaughter, according to the attendant circumstances; but if death does not ensue, it is aggravated assault only. In such cases punishment could not be inflicted by retaliationthe usual penalty under the Mosaic Law (Exo. 21:24-25)without a risk of killing the man, which would have been an excessive punishment. The law therefore imposed a fine, which was to be fixed at such an amount as would at once compensate the sufferer for the loss of his time (Exo. 21:19), and defray the cost of his cure.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

18, 19. He die not, but keepeth his bed Observe in this statute the careful purpose to maintain equity and right . He who smote and injured his fellowman in personal contest was responsible for all losses or damage resulting therefrom.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

The apostle hath the best comment upon these precepts. Eph 6:9Eph 6:9 .

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

Exo 21:18 And if men strive together, and one smite another with a stone, or with [his] fist, and he die not, but keepeth [his] bed:

Ver. 18. If men strive together. ] This is counted manhood, when indeed it is doghood rather: heathens condemned it; a and yet Navarrus, a Popish casuist, Caedem recte admitti putat, ut alapa vitetur, et ad honorem recuperandum.

a Qui ulciscitur, excusatius peccat. – Ibid.

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)