THE BOOKThe passage is taken from the book of Exodus which forms the second book in the Pentateuch. The name “Exodus” comes from the Greek Septuagint translation of the Old Testament and means “exit” or “departure”. This name was also retained by the Vulgate, the Latin version, by the Jewish author Philo, and by the Syriac version. The name of the book in Hebrew is taken from the first words of the text: “And these are the names of” (
We’elleh Shemoth) or simply
Shemoth. The Pentateuch (i.e., “the five books) is in the Hebrew known as Torah, which means “Law”, “instruction”, “teaching”.
[1]AUTHORThe traditional belief is that Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible (i.e., the Pentateuch). The NT writers believed that to be true (Lk.2:22-23; Jn.7:19; Acts 3:22).
[2]DATE AND PLACE OF WRITINGThe date of writing can be inferred to between Moses’ eightieth birthday and his one hundred and twentieth birthday, when he died, just as the wilderness wandering was drawing to a close (Deut. 34:7).
[3] It was, then written in the wilderness, about 1406 B.C.
RECEPIENTSWithout any doubt, the Israelites in the wilderness on their way to Canaan.
THE CONTEXTThe passage is from the section called as the Book of the Covenant (Ex.20:22-23:33). The people of Israel are on the way to Canaan after a miraculous deliverance from the bondage of Egypt. They have seen the hand of God in all these and have seen it as more powerful than the gods of Egypt. God went before them and continued to provide them with bread, meat, and water. They had also fought a battle with the Amalekites and won it (17:8-13). About seven weeks after the Exodus (Ex.19:1) they arrived at the desert of Sinai, “the desert in front of the mountain”. This desert is called
er-Raha (meaning “the palm [of a hand]”) in that it is a flat plain about five thousand feet above sea level and stretches over four hundred acres almost like an amphitheater with additional areas in adjoining valleys. It is a matter of controversy as to which mountain Moses refers to when he speaks of the Mount Sinai. Most scholars prefer to identify Sinai with Gebel Musa because of its relation to the plain (20:18 “they stayed at a distance”) and because of its imposing granite formations.
[4] There in that mountain God gave to Moses the Ten Commandments and commanded him to speak to the Israelites what came to be known as the Book of the Covenant. The whole mountain was enveloped with smoke and quaked greatly; there were thundering and lightning and an increasing sound as of a trumpet. Here God gave His people a law, so that they may not become lawless and depraved, a law that distinguished them from the rest of the people of the world, in that this law proceeded and was given by God Himself by revelation. And the foremost commandment was to worship YHWH God alone and bow down before no other gods. This Book of Covenant and adherence to it would determine a lot the standing of the Israelites in relation to their God. It should be noted that the Law is for the people of Israel, as a community, nation, and people.
THE TEXT"
12Anyone who strikes a man and kills him shall surely be put to death.
13However, if he does not do it intentionally, but God lets it happen, he is to flee to a place I will designate.
14But if a man schemes and kills another man deliberately, take him away from my altar and put him to death.” (Exo 21:12-14, NIV)
EXEGESISThe Crime : Homicide
Penalty : Death
The law demands that the murderer be “surely” put to death. The KJV, Amplified, NASV, and the NIV include the word “surely”
; whereas, the RSV omits the word.
The presence of the word “surely” is significant; it means “without any question or doubt,” “certainly”. The meaning the author intended may all be in this one word.
- “The murderer must without doubt be put to death” would reflect the law of retaliation embedded in every man. It may even be called knowledge a priori (before any experience) though it seems and finds its expression after the experience. The evidence may be traced to the account of Abel’s murder and Cain’s fear of seeming retaliation (Gen.4:14); though there may be variance in interpretations. But the law is made evident in Gen.9:4-6; the reason is given, “man man made in God’s won image” – the crime of homicide is against even the desire of God: that men be fruitful and increase in number. If verse 12 were understood in this line [with an understanding of God’s covenant with Abraham and as such the importance of the law in the community of Israel] the meaning may be inferred as: “12That life must be paid with life is axiomatic and without doubt certain, the murderer must surely be put to death. 13But…” and what would follow would be an answer to the ethical question: “How much is a man guilty and responsible for an offence?” “Who would actually deserve capital punishment?” It should be noted that this Law endorses capital punishment.
Verse 12 then may mean a statement of veracity and endorsement, of non-contradiction, of the law embedded in the very nature of man. The law is presented in an unconditional way but its applications to specific situations and thus its relativity will be discussed in verses 13,14.
- The second approach to construe the verse can be with reference to the existing law codes of the then existing people groups and the significance of the law in the Israelite community.
One thing in common among the already existing law codes of the people around Israelites at that time, as distinct to the Mosaic Law Code, is their overstatement or understatement of penalty for crime. The Mosaic Law Code prescribes the principle of equal justice for all. That is, the penalty must match the crime. The penalty must not be more than the crime merits; thus, life is to be repaid with life. Secondly, and most importantly is the relationship of the Law and the people with God. God, in contrast to the heathenic tribes, is the source of this law for His people. The Law, therefore, is intended to fulfill His purpose and will, in contrast to the autonomous law systems of the pagans.
[5] God’s word is authoritative and infallible: man’s reason, finite and fallible.
Then verse 12 would be the statement of God’s will and true justice. The people of Israel as a whole will be held accountable for the implementation of justice. There must be no trifling, exaggerating, and carelessness concerning the Law. The murderer, for the sake of justice (not merely consequences),
ought to die and must
surely be put to death. And thus keeping justice (as God’s approval and Will – He is the Ultimate Judge) in mind, the following verses 13,14 would be what God describes as the implementation of this true law of justice to people and situations: Where does it apply? To whom?
NOTE: The word “strikes” is relative to the dignity value of the person in view; so that if a man strikes his parents he is liable to death (v 15), which is the just penalty in correspondence to the act and the dignity value of the man to the parent.
Verse 13 and 14, in contrast to verse 12, can be referred to as casuistic law. That is, instead of making a generalization, a casuistic law addresses itself to a specific situation.
[6] The condition is seen in the word “if”.
The two key phrases are: “did not lie in wait for him” (NASV), “does not do it intentionally” (NIV); and “God let
him fall into his hand” (NASV), “God lets it happen” (NIV).
Unintentionality: “Additional expressions of unintentionality are found in Numbers 35:22-23: “unintentionally” (
belosediyyah, lit., “without design”); “without seeing” (
beloreo’th, “without knowledge”).
[7] A murder that is caused unintentionally does not fall under the law of equal retaliation, as a matter of fact consideration; for murder to be murder fist must proceed “out of the heart” and be intentional (cp. Mark 7:21). The will of man as involved in a n action and, thus, his responsibility to the act is given importance here.
God lets it happen (
weha ‘elohim innah leyado) is an event beyond human control (“an act of God”).
[8] The meaning is that what is done unintentionally is not crime in fact (indeed); but is what God lets to happen (not what chances to happen—that’s human perspective); and therefore, God gives the solution to this situation. It should be noted that this law is much expanded in Numbers 36:10-33, where in v.27 we see that if the “avenger of blood” (it may be the victim’s relative or friend) slays the murderer (though the murder be unintentional) finding him without the city of refuge, the place God has designated for him, he will not be guilty of murder. For the avenger, as it can be construed, would be functioning according to the law of retaliation triggered by his own emotions and reasons; and thus from his own perspective the act would be justified: for the Law prescribes the solution, safety is only in the place God has designated, and outside the city of refuge the man is responsible for his life—he has not kept himself under the limits of security. The person must remain in that place for protection until duly tried and if found to be guilty, he will be handed over to death (v.14).
NOTE: Moses’ concept of the will of man and the sovereign will of God. What happens not by man’s intentions happens by the will of God; and yet man is responsible for the act (in the sense that if he is slain without the city of refuge, he who slays it for vengeance is not guilty of his blood). But where an act is intentionally done, the man becomes directly responsible and is accountable to the court of God.
Two key words are “schemes” and “deliberately”. This is an inference to cold-blooded murder; well-plotted act of crime. That that murderer is dangerous to society is self-evident, but even more is the kind of nature he inherits, the nature of the crime, and his total rebellion against the will of God. This kind of man has no reverence, neither for God nor for his fellowmen. He must be eliminated.
Secondly, this kind of murderer must not be let go without justice being done. The avenger will slay him so that the law of retaliation be fulfilled.
The phrase “take him away from My altar” can be interpreted as an expression of God’s hatred for such kind of crime, God’s intolerance of the presence of such criminal near His altar. The altar was a place of protection to which the accused would flee for protection (cp. 1Kgs.1:50). “No sanctuary—even at the altar itself (cf.1Kgs.1:51; 2:28)—was to be given to the deliberate murderer.”
[9]The application of this passage will become much easier to a Christian with an understanding that the Law was for the people of Israel as a nation and community, and so was inevitable for justice on earth, peace on earth. The New Testament perspective, however, is a greater one: the avenger is no longer man but God (Rom.12:19). The concept of forgiveness and repaying evil with good (Mat.6:12; Rom.12:17,21) is of greater order since its aim is heaven, its kingdom. The Christian looks up and therefore doesn’t demand his rights.
Secondly, the attitude and nature of forgiveness and good-willing is a reflection of God’s sovereign act of mercy and forgiveness through Christ. The Law given to the Jews was not wrong so that it should be replaced by a new order: the Law was good, good for peace in society, but its significance must be seen in relevance to their society, religion and faith—there must be an elimination of evil so that evil may not increase. In the Church this law is present but with an higher order of understanding based on the cross of Christ. The trespasser will be counseled if the act is in ignorance or because of immaturity, and if still he doesn’t repent, must be excommunicated from the Church. There should, however, be an attitude of forgiveness and acceptance in case the man repents and returns. But when it comes to acts of direct rebellion against the Law of God (e.g. deliberate murder of innocent persons or anyone without the approval of God), the person is to be excommunicated and handed over to Satan (note: not “put to death”). God will be the judge in this matter and not human reason. For justice is what God wills as the Judge. The Christian is accountable to the Court of God first, but also to the law of government, secondly. In the vocabulary of a Christian, the words “justice”, “vengeance”, “penalty”, “forgiveness”, “mercy”, etc are, therefore, founded in the love of God through the Cross and aim at the kingdom of heaven, the salvation of souls, and the Judgment Day of God (Mat.7:1,12; Rom.13:1-14).
© Domenic Marbaniang, October 1998. [1] The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, V.2. (Zondervan Publishing House, 1990), p.287
[2] Ibid, p.288
[3] The Expositor’s…, p.288
[4] Ibid, p.415
[5] Victor P. Hamilton,
Handbook on the Pentateuch (Michigan, Baker Book House, 1995), pp.218-221
[6] Ibid, pp.211-212
[7] The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, p. 432
[8] Ibid, p. 432
[9] Ibid, p.432
________________________________________________________
Comment by Instructor, Dr. Bill Pankey:Does the N.T. teach the death penalty? Rom.13:1ffRomans 13:1-5(1) Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.
(2) Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves.
(3) For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same.
(4) For he is God's minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil.
(5) Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience' sake.
