Exodus 21:15-17

The Code of Hammurabi specified that the person who struck his father should have his hands cut off. [Note: Ibid., section 195.] The Torah took a stronger position requiring the death of the person who struck either parent. The reason seems to be that by doing so the striker did not honor his parents but revolted against God’s ordained authority over him or her (Exodus 21:15; cf. Exodus 20:12).

"In the first place age is not a factor in the determining of a delinquent in the ancient Near East: age is never mentioned in the [non-biblical] texts. A minor, for all intents and purposes, was one who was living in his or her parent’s house. There he or she has duties and responsibilities which place him directly under the authority of the parent. Responsibility for a minor’s behavior rested solely with the parent. Any anti-social act committed by the minor was considered also an offense against the parent who dealt with it accordingly. When proceedings are initiated against a minor, as we shall see, it is the parent, not the courts, who institutes the proceedings. . . .

"In ancient times no provision was made for a minor committing a criminal act, that is, there was no special protection extended to juveniles convicted in criminal cases: the penalty for both an adult and a minor was the same. This represents a striking difference from our judicial system whereby a minor is not held to be as criminally responsible for his conduct as an adult. In effect he is granted a certain amount of protection by the courts, and his sentence is not as severe as an adult’s would be in a similar case. It is curious that in the few examples we have of felonies committed by minors in the ancient Near East the opposite situation prevails. A minor receives a more severe sentence than an adult would in a comparable case. . . .

"At this point we should not get too exercised over whether or not these punishments were ever carried out. It is considered today most unlikely that these types of punishments, or talionic punishment in general, were ever put into practice in the ancient Near East. [Note: Encyclopaedia Judaica, s.v. "Cuneiform Law," by J. Finkelstein, 16:1505i.] What is important here is the severity accorded these offenses in the light of other offenses listed in the same legal corpus. It is most significant that in both cases the assault is against a parent. Assault against another person would subject the minor to a lesser penalty. In Mesopotamian law a minor striking someone other than his parent would not have his hand cut off; depending on his status he would be fined or flogged. [Note: Code of Hammurabi, sections 202-4.] Likewise, in ancient Israel he would be fined and not subject to the death penalty (Exodus 21:18-19). Thus we have a situation where striking a non-parent makes one subject to regular criminal law, but striking a parent makes one subject to a ’juvenile delinquent’ law which carries a more severe penalty." [Note: David Marcus, "Juvenile Delinquency in the Bible and the Ancient Near East," Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of Columbia University 13 (1981):32-34.]

Kidnapping was also a capital offense (Exodus 21:16; Exodus 20:15; Genesis 37:28) as was cursing (dishonoring) one’s parents (Exodus 21:17; cf. Exodus 20:12). Exodus 21:15 deals with a criminal offense, but Exodus 21:17 describes a civil offense (cf. Leviticus 20:9; Deuteronomy 27:16; Proverbs 20:20; Proverbs 30:11). Marcus went on to distinguish this type of offense as follows.

"Turning now to non-criminal acts, civil or status offenses, we review the salient points of the modern definition of a juvenile delinquent as one who is incorrigible, ungovernable, or habitually disobedient. The operative word in most modern definitions is ’habitual.’ An isolated occurrence does not make a child delinquent. Note that the New York State definition speaks of the child as being ’habitually disobedient,’ and the California one terms the delinquent as one who ’habitually refuses to obey.’ We shall see that a number of ancient Near Eastern legal texts make this distinction as well. This is important because it enables us to distinguish what is clearly delinquency from what is only what we call ’generation gap’ disagreements. The ancients were well aware of this generation gap between parents and children." [Note: Ibid., pp. 35-36. For an evaluation of modern American penological philosophies in the light of the Mosaic Law, see Gary R. Williams, "The Purpose of Penology in the Mosaic Law and Today," Bibliotheca Sacra 133:529 (January-March 1976):42-55.]

All of these crimes worthy of death (in Exodus 21:12-17) were serious in God’s eyes. They either violated a basic right of a human being created in God’s image or were expressions of rebellion against God’s revealed authority in the home, the basic unit of society.

"Life, in essence, is the property of God; the possession of it is leased to human beings for a number of years. This lease can be extended or contracted in accordance with God’s will. (Cf. 1 Kings 21:27-29; 2 Kings 20:1-6; Job 1:12-19.) When a man arrogates to himself the right of ownership in the life of human beings and interferes with the right of enjoyment of life by taking it away-that is, killing it-he has violated one of the essential laws of God and therefore forfeits his own right to the possession of life." [Note: Davis, p. 221.]