Israel's Rights under God's Authority

The foundation for the ordinances we looked at last week, and continuing today, is the Ten Words, i.e. the Decalogue, or Ten Commandments. Some of the ordinances are clearly giving examples of how the Commandments might be worked out in the complexities of ordinary life. The Law says, “You shall not kill” — granted. But people get killed in different circumstances, not always as a result of premeditated intention. What kind of distinctions are needed?

We can see that many of the ordinances, functioning just like case law, are providing some sample legal guidelines for interpreting and applying the implications of the fifth to tenth commandments.

3. Guidance for cases of fatal or non-fatal injuries, 21:12-36.

This section begins with a short series of more absolute statements about offenses that must be treated with the greatest severity — the death penalty. The first three ordinances we are looking at are three such capital offenses.

1) Homicide, 21:12-14.

v. 12 - The consequence of breaking the 6th commandment for one who strikes another in such a way as to kill him is given here.

“shall surely be put to death” is emphatic in Hebrew. But there is a distinction...

v. 13 - “But . . . , but (or) God let him fall into his hand ...” The Hebrew text here speaks of an unpremeditated killing — it was not accidental, but it was not planned. The translation “or” instead of “but” connecting the two phrases would cover three types of homicide:

premeditated, for which there is no asylum.

unpremeditated, asylum available.

accidental, asylum available.

note 1 Samuel 24, especially vs. 4 (men), vs. 6 (David), and vs. 10, 18 (David and Saul).

[Principle: Circumstances alone, even those assumed to be created by God’s sovereignty, did not by themselves determine David’s ethical choice.]

Note that God would appoint a place of asylum. V. 14 suggests it was the LORD’s altar; later, it would be cities of refuge God appointed in the land the Israelites were about to enter which were located within easy travel distance.

v. 14 - The man described here is one who has become heated, seething with passion and has cunningly planned out his action against his neighbor. For such a one, there is no place of asylum.

2) Injuries to Parents, 21:15, 17.

In verses surrounding verse 16, we have the consequences of breaking the 5th commandment, condemning two forms of dishonoring parents, not just the father, but the mother as well (ct. Code of Hammurabi, where dishonoring only the father brought judgment).

There is a close relationship in vs. 15 and 17.

Verse 15 uses the term “strikes,” a physical blow, possibly killing; the emphatic statement at the end of the verse gives the end results.

Looking at verse 17, the one who curses his parents, speaking an evil word of reproach, which would have the effect of a physical blow, results in the same judgment as v. 15. Point: To curse the parents, who gave one life, is to curse the sovereign LORD who made them.

These two verse reinforce the 5th commandment.

Remember, anything that threatened either the status of the parents or the sexual integrity of marriage (the 7th commandment) was treated as a crime against the LORD and the covenant.

3) Kidnapping, 21:16.

Kidnapping was a capital offense in Israel, the only act of theft in Israel for which a death penalty was specified. Kidnapping is an act of stealing; moreover, it is treating persons in God’s image more as a commodity to be bought or sold.

Text “found in his possession” could refer to being in the buyer’s possession. Remember that even though a form of slavery did exist within Israel’s economy (21:1-11), Israelites themselves were stringently prohibited by this ordinance from engaging in slave trading as captors and vendors. This in itself was a major subversion of the whole practice of slavery.

The emphasis now changes to guidelines dealing with injuries:

4) Non-fatal Injury, 21:18-19.

Violence used to settle disputes is never condoned. In the case of a non-fatal injury, the one injured was to be reimbursed for the time he could not work AND all of his medical needs/costs would be taken care of “until he is completely healed.”

5) Fatal, non-fatal injuries to slaves, 21:20-21, 26-27.

These verses give us an example of balancing the rights of a master with the remarkable rights of a slave.

v. 20 - a man strikes his male or female slave and they die at his hand, he shall be punished; that is, the master has by his actions exposed himself to divine vengeance brought by the LORD or by His agents, who will execute that…in this context, the community leaders/elders.

v. 21 - but there is a set limit, which provides protection for a master against a claim from family that the slave’s death was the result of some previous beating. The limit (a day or two) makes it easier to investigate the claim by the elders/community leaders. In this example, no vengeance will be taken; however, implied in the closing phrase is that the master will take care of him “until he is completely healed” for “he is his property. This is a truly unique ordinance in that it is balancing the the slave’s property value with the infinite value of human life.

Jumping down to verses 26-27, we find here another truly unique ordinance in that ONLY Israel had a law about a man injuring one of his own male or female slaves.

Slaves in Israel were not merely property, but also were to be treated as fellow human beings.

Implication: No slave could be injured with impunity.

Note “eye .... tooth ...” Here we see an echo of what is called lex talionis, called “the law of retribution.” In actuality, students of ancient NE laws have come to understand it as the law of proportional punishment. In these verse, what was deemed proportional for physical injury is freedom! This would make a master think soberly before acting violently toward a slave in Israel.

Implication: Slaves in Israel could have legal standing as over against their master. This enabled them to bring a case against a violent master to the elders/community leaders for judgment.

Did this ever happen? see

Job 31:13–15 NASB95

“If I have despised the claim of my male or female slaves When they filed a complaint against me, What then could I do when God arises? And when He calls me to account, what will I answer Him? “Did not He who made me in the womb make him, And the same one fashion us in the womb?

6) Injury to a pregnant woman, 21:22-24.

This describes collateral damage to a third-party — a pregnant woman who “gives birth prematurely” as a result of actions by the first two parties.

There are two possible interpretations of the phrase, “give birth prematurely”

(1) premature but viable birth? there should be some kind of compensation for the distress and anxiety caused (v. 22). But if serious injury, to either the baby or mom (including her death), there is to be a proportional penalty (vs. 23-25).

(2) miscarriage, but no serious injury to mother? There must be financial compensation for her loss. If mom is seriously injured or dies as a result, then lex talionis applies (vs. 23-25).

I lean toward the second interpretation, but this does not justify abortion by placing a monetary value on the fetus, thereby said by some that it is treated as less than human. This law is dealing only with the accidental and unintentional death of a fetus, not with the intentional killing of a fetus by the mother’s or father’s own choice.

Let’s talk about lex talionis. What it does is

(1) limits the amount of punishment a person might demand or inflict for personal injury, preventing unlimited retribution, personal vendetta, or excessive retaliation.

This limit is precisely the kind of thing Lamech boasted of in Genesis 4:23-24.

Genesis 4:23–24 NASB95

Lamech said to his wives, “Adah and Zillah, Listen to my voice, You wives of Lamech, Give heed to my speech, For I have killed a man for wounding me; And a boy for striking me; If Cain is avenged sevenfold, Then Lamech seventy-sevenfold.”

This law restricts vengeance. It does not promote it.

(2) expresses in a formula (life … bruise) proportional punishment in legal penalties. Except in the case of life for life, the rest of the list was most probably not intended to be inflicted literally and physically. An example is in the verses following, where the loss of an eye or loss of a tooth because of injury to a slave by a master did not require the master to lose an eye or a tooth; rather freedom of the slave was the judgment.

This principle of proportionality in legal penalties is still today a fundamental principal of criminal justice.

7) Fatal injury by a goring ox/bull, 21:28-32.

A bull that fatally gores a human being is to be stoned to death. The animal cannot be held “guilty in the same way as a human murderer. The action against the animal points to the high value God places on any human life without distinction.

Genesis 9:5–6 NASB95

“Surely I will require your lifeblood; from every beast I will require it. And from every man, from every man’s brother I will require the life of man. “Whoever sheds man’s blood, By man his blood shall be shed, For in the image of God He made man.

Note also that a slave (as both property and yet also a human life) is gored to death, recompense from the owner for the slaves owner is required, but the ox must still be stoned for its murder of a human life.

Now if an owner had received due warning but failed to take preventative measures and the ox inflicted a fatal goring, the owner is guilty of homicide and his life is forfeit. But because he is guilty of only indirect homicide by negligence, his death penalty can be commuted to a monetary fine as a way to “ransom” his life. The language here in v. 30 reinforces the seriousness of his culpable negligence.

Even the goring of a son or daughter would bring the same penalties. This would be distinct from other Ancient NE laws, where negligence that killed another’s child is punished by the execution of one of his own children.

Deuteronomy 24:16 NASB95

“Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin.

8) Fatal injury to a domestic animal, 21:33-36.

The two ordinances here cover the death of a working animal cause by either human negligence (vs. 33-34) or by another animal (vs. 35-36). These are simple and sensible rules of appropriate compensation that are provided.

The principle here is pretty straightforward:

We bear some responsibility even for the indirect results of our actions or inaction — if your negligence results in damage to someone else’s property, then you are required to make good the loss.

Wrapping it up:

Life Is of More Value Than Property

No theft of property is punishable by death, but no intentional murder of a person is punishable only by monetary compensation. And theft of a person is a capital offense. Simply put, people matter more than things.

Damage and Injury Require Careful Compensation

In most of the laws dealing with injury or damage, it is interesting that more attention is given to appropriate restitution to the victim of the offense than to the punishment of the offender. Both are important, of course, but it is easy for society to adopt a corporate thirst for vengeance against wrongdoers and overlook the suffering of their victims.

Justice Should Be Proportional

The fact that some monetary payments vary shows that not all offenses merit the same punishment or compensation. Any claims of damages or retribution must be carefully assessed according to the injury or loss suffered. The proper administration of the law should function to protect even wrongdoers from escalating and avenging violence.

Equality before the Law

In most ancient Near Eastern legal collections, the nature and quantity of punishment or compensation varied according to the social status of the victim of the offense. There were major differentiations between wrongs done to a slave, a commoner, an upper-class person, or a royal or court person. In Old Testament law there are no such distinctions, with the sole exception of the difference between the slave and others in some specific cases. Later this principle of equality before the law will be explicitly applied also to foreigners and Israelites (Lev 19:33–34). All are to be treated the same before the law.