Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Exodus 21:22

22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

We are told that if a pregnant woman was struck and lost her child, that the man who caused the miscarriage would now be punished, both by the demands of the husband and the judges. The exact penalty was therefore determined on a case-by-case basis, rather than as a single, predetermined sentence. In any case, it seems like death would not have been the typical punishment.

Some may take this lesser penalty as evidence that the child growing in the womb was not considered a spirit-quickened soul, but such a conclusion isn’t certain at all. It could also be that the penalty was less because the situation described in these verses would be an accidental death. It tells of two men who are struggling with one another, who in the course of their struggle accidentally shove up against the woman. This would therefore amount to manslaughter at the most, and not murder, and we have already seen how the Lord took a more lenient view towards manslaughter than murder.

What would be more conclusive is if we had a law relating to the intentional causing of a miscarriage, but that particular situation isn’t spelled out in the books of Moses. Perhaps to the ancient Israelite that situation was considered to have already been covered by the other laws we have read.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Exodus 21:18-21

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:

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.

Today we have rules for a killing that was not directly intended, but which did arise from violence. The killer was not so innocent as if he had carelessly dropped a brick off a roof when a man walked underneath, but he was not so guilty as if he had carried out a premeditated murder.

Forceful violence always has the chance of causing death, but it is not a sure thing. So, too, the attacker’s fate would remain unsure until the outcome of his actions fully played out. If the man that he struck survived, then the attacker would have to pay to cover the man’s lost time and see him thoroughly healed. If the victim should die, though, then the attacker would be put to death, the same as a murderer, for that is what fate determined him to be.

These same punishments are then echoed for a master who beat his servant. Note that verse 20 only says that the master would be “punished” for killing a servant, without specifying what that punishment would be. In the Talmud, though, it is specified that the punishment was still death, the same as against a free man. Also, since the servant or his family would have already been paid for his service, then the master would simply eat the cost for his own brutality. The servant would not lose any earnings for the missed days’ labor.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Exodus 21:12-14

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.

We now transition to laws of murder and capital punishment. Verses thirteen and fourteen makes a clear distinction between manslaughter and murder. The description of a man not lying in wait, but having another delivered into his hand by God, is generally understood to mean killing another by happenstance, not by malice aforethought.

We will read later how a man guilty of manslaughter could still legally be executed, but there were certain cities of refuge he could retreat to where it would be illegal to kill him. Thus, he was a man with a foot in two worlds, not entirely guilty but not entirely innocent, and the law was designed to reflect that nuance. But if the man was guilty of premeditated murder, not manslaughter, then there was no question what his outcome would be, the Lord commanded that such a man should be put to death.

This covers two of the most common forms of killing, but not all. What about killing another man in self defense? Verses 18-19 of this chapter, and also verses 2-3 of the next chapter, will give some more details on lawful and unlawful killing, but nothing concrete on self-defense. From the verses in the next chapter it seems like a man might have been justified in slaying an intruder who came into his abode during the dark of knight (when murderous intent was more likely), but not during the day (when thievery was more likely).