21:12–14 The first three stipulations address killing. The first gives the general rule: whoever kills another person has committed a capital offense (v. 12). Because human beings bear God’s image, they are of immeasurable value. To destroy a life of such worth is to forfeit one’s right to one’s own (Gen. 9:6). But the community may not apply this penalty lightly, and other laws make clear that at least two witnesses are necessary in murder cases (Num. 35:30; for the capital penalty today cf. note 397 within comment on 20:13).

The second and third stipulations address related subcases. In the second the killer “did not lie in wait, . . . but God let [the victim] fall into his hand” (Ex. 21:13). What does this mean? If the focus is on premeditation (the killer did not plan the killing in advance), this leaves room for a crime of passion, what would be classified today as second-degree murder. If the focus is on intention (the killer did not mean to kill), this leaves room only for accidental death, what we know today as manslaughter. The fullest law that treats the same subject elsewhere appears to assume the second, manslaughter (Num. 35:16–25). This is perhaps also the best way to understand the words “but God let [the victim] fall into [the killer’s] hand,” that is, it was “an act of God,” for which there is no human liability.471 In such cases the killer is able to flee to a place of refuge, which at this point in time is perhaps a sanctuary (cf. Ex. 21:14). Once Israel enters the land, the Lord will establish cities of refuge to which an unintentional killer could flee (Num. 35:9–29; Deut. 4:41–43; 19:1–13; Joshua 20). This arrangement would protect the killer from any relatives seeking blood vengeance and also protect the land from being defiled by the slain person’s blood (Num. 35:31–34). The unintentional killer would remain there “until the death of the high priest” (Num. 35:25), at which point he would be allowed to go free. As many commentators observe, the high priest’s death appears to function as an atoning sacrifice, his blood being taken as a substitute for that of the unintentional killer and cleansing the land of innocent blood.472

The third stipulation returns to a case in which “a man willfully attacks another to kill him by cunning” (Ex. 21:14). In contrast to verse 13, the killing in this verse is intentional, and the phrase “by cunning” suggests some form of premeditation, what would be classified today as first-degree murder. This does not necessarily mean crimes of passion are not included. The point of describing it as premeditated may be simply to emphasize that it is not an accident, in support of which is the fact that the fullest treatment of such cases elsewhere (Num. 35:16–25) seems to distinguish only in terms of whether or not the death is accidental.473 In such nonaccidental cases of murder the killer is to be executed. As Exodus 21:14 goes on to explain, this applies even to one who goes and clings to the altar, an act that would normally guarantee someone’s safety, perhaps because it was thought that contact with God’s property gave the person God’s protection (cf. 1 Kings 1:50–53). In the case of guilty murderers, however, such protective measures do not apply (cf. 1 Kings 2:28–34).

21:15 Biblically speaking, God has established a structure within the family in which parents are in the position of authority. As such, he commands that they be honored and revered (Ex. 20:12; Lev. 19:3), meaning their instruction is to be heeded and they are to be shown respect and care, especially as they age and are less able to care for themselves (cf. comment on 20:12). Such respect and care are also in keeping with God’s vision for a flourishing society, central to which are healthy families (cf. Response section).

The very opposite of such respect and care is to strike one’s parents, causing them physical harm and expressing utmost contempt for their authority. This is not only an act of treachery against those who have cared and provided for a child (cf. 1 Tim. 5:4); it is also an act of treason against the Lord, since it is a rejection of his express covenant command (Ex. 20:12) and an attack on the type of society that his command is to help establish. Just as treason is a capital offense in many countries to this day, so also here, with adult children particularly in view (cf. comment on 21:17). If this strikes us as overly severe, it may be worth asking if part of the reason is because we live in a society with too low a view of the family, of parental authority, and of the elderly.474

21:16 “Kidnapping, presumably with the intention of selling the victim into slavery, was apparently tantamount to taking a life [cf. 21:12] and is punished similarly.”475 As noted above, had earlier generations paid attention to such a verse, the slave trade of most of human history would have been decimated.

This verse’s translation is debated. The ESV assumes more than one guilty person could be described here: the kidnapper and the purchaser (although they could be the same person). Most translations and commentators assume the kidnapper is described both times, e.g., “He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death” (NASB 1995).476 In either case both kidnapping and human trafficking are considered capital offenses.

21:17 The honor and care due to parents have been discussed at verse 15.477 That verse addresses the opposite of such respect and care from a physical perspective: striking them. This verse addresses the opposite of such respect and care from a verbal perspective: cursing them.

The word “to curse” (qillel) can refer to abusive or dishonoring speech in general [2 Samuel 16:6–7] or to uttering a formal “curse” in particular [Deuteronomy 23:4; 1 Sam. 17:43]. Though the option in view here is unclear, either way, the point is the same: to curse someone is to treat him as an enemy and wish great harm on him [see Josh. 24:9; 2 Sam. 16:13; 2 Kings 2:24]. . . . While this law applies directly to verbal curses, it would apply equally to actions that communicate the same. In short, it describes those who have shown by word or deed that they wished their parents were dead. Note this verse does not have in mind young children and their typical disobedience. In light of . . . other commands to honor and revere parents (which apply especially to adult children who are to care for their aging parents),478 this verse has adult sons or daughters in view, those who are old enough to bear the responsibility of caring for aging parents but have scorned their parents’ words and their parents’ needs.479

For further discussion on the penalty cf. comment on 21:15.