‫יּומת‬

ָֽ ‫֥מֹות‬
and Lex Talionis:
A Biblical Theology of Judicial
Imposition of Death

In Partial Fulfilment of the Course

Biblical Theology

Submitted to:

Dr. Athena Gorospe

Submitted by:

Moises Yao Acayan

Asian Theological Seminary

54 Scout Madrinan St.

South Triangle, Q.C.

December 23, 2016

 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ……………………………………………………………. 3

Social Reason for the Paper

Aims, Limitations, & Methodology

DISCUSSION………………………………………………………………… 7

Mot Yumat

Exodus 21:12-17 & 22: 18-20

Exodus 31:14-15 & Numbers 15:32-36

Leviticus 20: 2, 9, 10, 15

Leviticus 24: 10-16

Numbers 35: 9-28 & 30-34

Lex Talionis

Exodus 21: 22-27

Leviticus 24: 17-22

Deuteronomy 19:15-21

Matthew 5:38-39

SYNTHESIS………………………………………………………………………..……31

CONCLUSION ……………………………………………………………. 33
 3

I. INTRODUCTION:

Social Reason for the Paper:

“Bloody Presidency” has been the tag-line of President Rodrigo Duterte’s administration.

Prior to being elected to office, he had consistently claimed that once he becomes the president

of the Philippines, blood will be shed because he will go after the criminals, especially the drug

lords and drug users.1 In one occasion, when Duterte was still the mayor of Davao City, he

claimed that in order to address criminality “it has to be a bloody one”.2 He also said that “if you

are a drug addict or a pusher, I will hang you. If you are part of the authorities, I will even use a

steel wire on you.”3 When he was elected into office, President Duterte’s attitude towards

criminals had not changed. It has been reported that “extrajudicial killings” became rampant and

some people claim to have been mistakenly accused of being drug pushers and drug users. As of

December 18, 2016, there have been “over 6,100 deaths, both from legitimate police operations

and vigilante-style or unexplained killings”.4 According to police authorities, the victims

allegedly fought back (nanlaban) which prompted them to shoot the victims.5 Though there had

been no concrete evidences that would connect President Duterte to these extrajudicial killings,

nonetheless, his all out support for the police in their anti-drugs operations appears to be a

blanket authority for them to be merciless.

1
http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2016/02/21/1555393/duterte-admits-bloody-presidency-if-he-wins (last accessed
December 18, 2016).
2
http://www.rappler.com/nation/politics/elections/2016/98306-duterte-fight-crime (last accessed December 18,
2016).
3
Ibid.
4
http://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/iq/145814-numbers-statistics-philippines-war-drugs (last accessed December
18, 2016).
5
http://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/rich-media/147589-newsbreak-reads-nanlaban-sila-duterte-war-drugs (last
accessed December 18, 2016).
 4

Aside from a violent style of addressing criminality, President Duterte likewise moved

for the re-imposition of death penalty. He claims that “the death penalty is not to instill fear, not

to deter. Whether you like to commit a crime or not, that's not my business. Death penalty to me

is the retribution”.6 He also justified his clamor for the re-imposition of death penalty by

asserting that death penalty will ensure justice for the victims in case “God does not exist”.7 He

added that “Every president along the way didn’t impose it only because the Catholic Church

and all the bleeding hearts would say that only God could kill. But what if there is no God?”8 In

order to materialize his desire for the re-imposition of death penalty, the president met with his

allies in both houses of Congress for the passage of a law that would seek to revive death penalty

for heinous crimes, especially for drug traffickers.9

On June 30, 2016, House Bill No. 1 entitled “An Act Imposing the Death Penalty on

certain Heinous Crimes, repealing for the purpose Republic Act No. 9346, entitled “An Act

Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines and Amending Act No. 3815, as

amended, otherwise known as the Revise Penal Code, and other special penal laws”10 was filed

before the House of Representatives. In its explanatory note, it was stated that “there is no

denying the scourge of illicit drugs have foisted upon our society, and neither is there any

denying the audacity with which malefactors, whether under the influence or otherwise, have

6
http://www.rappler.com/nation/137292-duterte-death-penalty-retribution (last accessed December 18, 2016).
7
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/819219/duterte-death-penalty-for-heinous-crimes-in-case-theres-no-god (last
accessed December 18, 2016).
8
Ibid.
9
http://www.rappler.com/nation/139237-duterte-meets-lawmakers-death-penalty (last accessed December 18,
2016).
10
http://www.congress.gov.ph/legisdocs/basic_17/HB00001.pdf (last accessed December 18, 2016).
 5

perpetuated the most perverse and atrocious crimes in the most repugnant of manners”.11 It

added that “the imposition of the death penalty for heinous crimes and the mode of

implementation, both subjects of repealed laws, are crucial components of an effective

dispensation of both reformative and retributive justice.”12

House Bill No.1 intends to impose death penalty for the following crimes13:
 Treason;
 Qualified piracy;
 Qualified bribery;
 Parricide;
 Murder;
 Infanticide;
 Rape;
 Kidnapping and serious illegal detention;
 Robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons;
 Destructive arson;
 Plunder;
 Importation of dangerous drugs and or controlled precursors and essential chemicals;
 Sale, trading, administration, dispensation, delivery, distribution and transportation of
dangerous drugs and or controlled precursors and essential chemicals;
 Maintenance of drug den;
 Manufacture of dangerous drugs and or controlled precursor and essential chemicals;
 Possession of dangerous drugs;
 Cultivation or culture of plants classified as dangerous drugs;
 Unlawful prescription of dangerous drugs;
 Criminal liability of public officer for misappropriation, misapplication or failure to
account for the confiscated seized or surrendered drugs;
 Criminal liability for planting evidence; and
 Carnapping

Further, it proposed the following modes of execution:

 Hanging;
 Firing squad; and
 Lethal injection

11
Ibid.
12
Ibid.
13
Ibid.
 6

House Bill No. 1 was sponsored by the following lawmakers: Fredenil H. Castro, Pantaleon

D. Alvarez, Rodolfo C. Fariñas, Rolando G. Andaya, Jr., Michael John R. Duavit, Carlos O.

Conjuangco, Elisa T. Kho, Raneo E. Abu, Benhur L. Salimbangon, Danilo E. Suarez, and Rodel

M. Batocabe.14

On December 7, 2016, the House Justice Committee approved the proposed bill.15

Aims, Limitations, and Methodology of the Paper:

With the proposal for the reinstatement of the death penalty, some evangelical Christians,

especially Senator Manny Pacquiao who claims to be an evangelical, manifested their support to

House Bill No. 1 without any reservations. During his first privilege speech, Senator Manny

Pacquaio even quoted Exodus 21:12 to justify that the Bible supports death penalty.16 The

question that we have to answer is, “Does the Bible support death penalty?” and that “Does the

Bible teach that death penalty should strictly be applied?”

This paper aims to survey portions of the Bible as to whether death penalty is warranted

in all crimes, and whether it should be strictly imposed upon individuals who have committed

heinous crime/s. It will also seek to critic the instances contemplated in House Bill No. 1 as to

whether these situations warrant the imposition of death penalty vis-à-vis the biblical passages

subject of this paper.

14
http://www.congress.gov.ph/legisdocs/basic_17/HB00001.pdf (last accessed December 18, 2016).
15
http://news.mb.com.ph/2016/12/08/explainer-house-bill-on-death-penalty-revival/ (last accessed December 18,
2016).
16
http://www.rappler.com/nation/142371-senator-manny-pacquiao-first-privilege-speech-death-penalty (last
accessed December 18, 2016).
 7

With regard to methodology, we shall study the issue through the occurrences of the

form or judgment formula ‫יּומת‬

ָֽ ‫( ֥מֹות‬for he will surely die) and lex talionis as shown by the form

‫(עיִ ן‬eye
ַ֔ for an eye)/ ὀυθαλμὸν ἀντὶ ὀυθαλμοῦ (LXX). The passages where ‫יּומת‬
ָֽ ‫ ֥מֹות‬occurred in

the following passages: Exodus 21:12-17; 22:18-20; 31:14-15; Leviticus 20:2,9,10,15; 24:10-16;

Numbers 15:32-36; 35:9-34. Moreover, with regard to the form ‫(עיִ ן ַּ֣תחת ַ֔עיִ ן‬eye
ַ֚ for an eye)/

ὀυθαλμὸν ἀντὶ ὀυθαλμοῦ, the following passages will be discussed: Exodus 21:24-25, Leviticus

24: 20, Deuteronomy 19:21, and Matthew 5:38. These passages were chosen because of the

occurrences of these forms, and the judicial import of death as a penalty that these passages

show. As to the corpus of the research, we will be focusing on the following genre, namely, the

Law and Narratives found in the Pentateuch and the Gospel of Matthew.

We note that the study limits itself with the occurrences of the said forms. Other forms or

words connected or which may denote the imposition of death penalty are not discussed, such as

yumat ( ‫יּומת‬
ָ֑ ָ ), yamutu (‫יָמתּו‬
ֻֽ ), and Cherem (‫ ) ֵ֫ח ֶרם‬We also acknowledge that there are biblical

passages where death as a penalty was discussed, but the aforesaid judgment formulae are not

mentioned. While they may be pertinent to the current discussion, they will not be discussed

since the focus of our study is limited to the occurrences of the judgment formula and Lex

Talionis.

II. DISCUSSIONS:

“Mot Yumat” (‫יּומת‬

ָֽ ‫)מֹות‬
֥ passages
 8

The form mot yumat connotes judicial sentence or judgment.17 It also demonstrates an

act-consequence prescriptions attached to casuistic laws.18 The said form appeared in different

context such as in the Book of the Covenant, Leviticus 20, and Numbers 35.19 It is believed to

be of nomadic origin, and usually denotes that the person who committed the crime deserves to

be meted with death penalty.20

A. Exodus 21: 12-17 & 22:18-20

Chapter 21 is preceded by the giving of the Ten Commandments in chapter 20: 1-17.

Afterwards, the people pleaded for Moses to speak on behalf of God for fear of the thunder and

flashes of lightning that they witnessed (vv. 18-19). Then, Moses spoke to the Israelites and

reiterated the command not to worship other god except Yahweh. He also warned them that they

should not make any altar except that which will be established for Yahweh. Further, he made

known Yahweh’s instruction on how to create a worship altar (vv. 22-26).

Aside from the Ten Commandments, Moses continued to provide a long list of

ordinances which scholars coined as Covenant Code or Book of the Covenant.21 The exact

delineation of the covenant code had been the subject of discussions.22 Nonetheless, most

scholars suggest that it begins with 20:22, and ends with 23:33.23 It has also been suggested that

the Covenant Code can be divided into four parts, to wit: 21:2–22:16 which covers variety of

civil and criminal matters.24 They are couched in casuistic style that is typical of all ancient Near

17
G. Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-Josef Fabry, eds., Theological Dictionary of the Old
Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 8: 200.
18
Ibid., 201.
19
Ibid., 201-202.
20
Ibid., 202-203.
21
Douglas K. Stuart, Exodus, New American Commentary (Nashville, TN: Holman Reference, 2006), 473.
22
Ibid.
23
Ibid.
24
Nahum M. Sarna, Exodus: The JPS Torah commentary (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1991),
117 .
 9

Eastern collections of laws.25; 22:17–23:19 couched in apodictic style, and covers wide topics

with emphasis on humanitarian considerations.26; 23:20–33 provides for the affirmation of the

divine promises to Israel and warning against idolatry.27; lastly, chapter 24 narrates the

ratification of the covenant, and the inscription of the Decalogue in stone.28

The laws set forth in the Book of the Covenant serve as a guideline, and seek to describe

a life under a covenant relationship with Yahweh.29 Moreover, these laws must not be separated

from its narrative setting such as the Exodus event because these laws are Yahweh’s

requirements for those who will become part of his special people.30 Though these laws may

have been stated in one part of the book, and expanded or explained in another, thus being

presented in a disorganized manner, the laws and their explanations are deemed authoritative

because Yahweh is their source, and that his people are expected to observe them.31

In chapter 21, Moses gave several laws that seek to regulate the civic life of the Israelites.

These ordinances involve laws on the treatment of slaves, compensations and penalties for

injuries, property law, rape, fairness in dealings with others, and worship.32 With regard to

interpersonal injuries (vv. 12-32), verses 12 to 17 provide for instances where death penalty is to

be imposed, except for accidental homicide (v13), to wit: murder (v12), murder (v14), striking

and cursing parents (vv 15 and 17), and Kidnapping (v 16). These cases are presented in

25
Ibid.
26
Ibid.
27
Sarna, Exodus, 117.
28
Ibid.
29
John I. Durham, Exodus, Word Biblical Commentary (Waco, TX: Thomas Nelson, 1987), 317.
30
Ibid.
31
Ibid., 318.
32
Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart, How to Read the Bible Book by Book (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2002), 40.
 10

apodictic form, hence, consistent with the form of the “stated principles” found in the Book of

the Covenant.33

The murder case contemplated in verse 12 refers to an instance where a person smites

another, and the “striking” led to the death. The word ‫ נכה‬can mean to strike dead, to hit or

injure.34 It also denotes a situation wherein malice has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.35

As to how guilt or malice is established is governed by the other passages of the Old Testament

such as Leviticus 24:17, 21; Numbers 35: 30-31; and Deuteronomy 19: 15.36 Further, verse 12

is couched in general terms so as not to provide any discrimination in terms of class, gender, age,

or status.37 Death is to be imposed for murder because of the value given to a person as the

image bearer of God.38

Moreover, verse 13 provides for a scenario wherein a man accidentally kills another. The

scenario states that if anyone who “did not lie in wait” for him ( ‫) ֹ֣לא ָצ ָ ָ֔דה‬, accidentally hits

another, and that due to a fortuitous event, the other person dies. In this situation, the manslayer

is allowed to flee to an appointed place for asylum or refuge. Some of the possible scenarios

covered by phrase “did not lie in wait for him” ( ‫ ) ֹ֣לא ָצ ָ ָ֔דה‬are “fatally running over someone

with a wagon, fatally hitting someone with a tool, unintentionally killing an ally in battle in what

today would be called a “friendly fire incident,” and the like”39 Another interesting point made

33
Durham, Exodus, 322.
34
Ludwig Köhler, Walter Baumgartner, M. E. J. Richardson, Johann Jakob Stamm, Benedikt Hartmann, G. J.
Jongeling-Vos, and L. J. de Regt, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994),
697-698.
35
Sarna, Exodus, 121.
36
Ibid.
37
Stuart, Exodus, 485.
38
Walter C. Kaiser Jr, Exodus, The Expositor's Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990), 432.
39
Stuart, Exodus, 485.
 11

by verse 13 is the phrase “but God let him fall into his hand” ( ‫ֹלהים ִא ָנֹ֣ה ְליָ ָ֑דֹו‬
ִ֖ ִ ‫ )וְ ָה ֱא‬Some noted

the possible theological assumption that the accidental death was due to divine providence.40

This interpretation would then take the victim’s death as a deserved punishment, and within the

purview of Yahweh’s control.41 However, it will be better to take the phrase “but God let him

fall into his hand” ( ‫ֹלהים ִא ָנֹ֣ה ְליָ ָ֑דֹו‬

ִ֖ ִ ‫ )וְ ָה ֱא‬as an idiomatic expression to refer to a fortuitous

event.42 What then should be done to the manslayer? The last part of verse 13 provides that he

can flee to the place to be appointed by the Lord for his protection. This provision for the

manslayer is held in contrast to the blood feud practices of Israel’s neighboring countries.43 In

the “blood feud” phenomenon, the avenger of blood, generally the nearest relative of the victim

of homicide is duty-bound to seek revenge44, whether the cause of death was intentional or not.45

To prevent the proliferation of the personal vengeance, a ‫ ָמ ָ֔קֹום‬or a holy place will be

established where the manslayer can seek refuge, until such time the legal process can determine

the case.46 During asylum, the movement of the accused is restricted. However, upon

vindication, the accused is then free to move.47 The appointment of the sacred place ( ‫) ָמ ָ֔קֹום‬

anticipates the establishment of cities of refuge.48 However, prior to the establishment of such

40
Sarna, Exodus, 122.
41
R. Alan Cole, Exodus, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP Press, 1973), 175.
42
Kaiser, Exodus, 432.
43
Sarna, Exodus, 122.
44
Ibid.
45
Stuart, Exodus, 485.
46
Stuart, Exodus, 486.
47
Durham, Exodus, 323.
48
Ibid.
 12

cities, it is said that the temporary sanctuary would be the altar of Yahweh. 49 In the ancient near

east, an altar or its surrounding temple protected an accused criminal from his accusers.50 The

establishment of such sanctuaries highlights the concern for the protection of human life.51

With regard to premeditated killing, verse 14 provides that even the altar of Yahweh

cannot serve as his refuge. He should be punished with death. The word “in/with craftiness” (

‫ ) ְב ָע ְר ָ ָ֑מה‬denotes that the killing itself was done in a cunning manner or with trickery.52 Further,

the word ‫ ָע ְר ָ ָ֑מה‬denotes malice.53 Should the killer be proven to have premeditated the killing

with trickery, even if he takes refuge in Yahweh’s altar, the law requires that he should be

removed from such place and be punished with death.

Verse 15 and 17 provide for scenarios wherein one would strike (‫ )נכה‬and curse (‫)קלל‬

either their father or mother. It is interesting that in the Septuagint, we can read verse 15 being

followed by verse 17, unlike in the Hebrew Bible where verse 16, which involves the crime of

kidnapping, is sandwiched in between these verses.54 The said placement may have been made

due to the fact that both verses 15 and 17 cover the same victims. The word strike in verse 15 is

the same word that was used in verse 12 which is ‫נכה‬. However, the difference between verses

12 and 15 lies in the fact that mere physical assault against the parents warrants death ( ‫יּומת‬
ֻֽ ָ ‫֥מֹות‬

49
Cole, Exodus, 175.
50
William H.C. Propp, Exodus 19-40, Anchor Yale Bible Commentary (New York: Anchor Bible, 2006), 208.
51
Sarna, Exodus, 122.
52
Köhler, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament,886.
53
Propp, Exodus 19-40, 208.
54
Durham, Exodus, 323.
 13

).55 The parents need not die as a consequence of the physical assault unlike in verse 12. On the

other hand, the crime of “cursing” one’s parents may involve a scenario wherein the accused

“publicly, perhaps by an oath spoken in the name of Yahweh, assert that he wanted never again

to have anything to do with his parents and would not respect or serve them any longer as their

child, wishing only harm for them”.56 This type of cursing attitude is aggravated by the

pervading cultural norms in the ancient near east that pronouncement of curses possesses power

and force that can cause devastation to others, especially if uttered in the name of God.57

However, this proscription against striking or cursing one’s parents only applies to adult

children, and that it does not require that both parents be the victims.58 These crimes are

punished because the law seeks to maintain the integrity of the family unit as an indispensable

element for an orderly society.59

Another case that would demand death ( ‫יּומת‬

ֻֽ ָ ‫ ) ֥מֹות‬is kidnapping (v. 16). Verse 16

contemplates two scenarios, to wit: kidnapping then selling the victim ( ‫ּומ ָכ ֛רֹו‬
ְ ‫)וְ ג ֵ֙נב ִ ִ֧איׁש‬, and

kidnapping but has not yet sold the victim ‫ וְ נִ ְמ ָ ֥צא ְביָ ִ֖דֹו‬. The word ‫ גנב‬denotes stealing but can

also refer to kidnapping60, while the word ‫ מכר‬denotes the selling of a stolen property.61 The

55
Stuart, Exodus, 487.
56
Stuart, Exodus, 489.
57
Sarna, Exodus, 123.
58
Propp, Exodus, 211.
59
Sarna, Exodus, 122.
60
Köhler, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, 198.
61
Ibid., 581.
 14

motive for kidnapping is to subject the victim to servitude, and be sold for a profit. 62 However,

verse 16 does not only punish the actual kidnapping-selling situation, but it also seeks to punish

those who are found with the kidnapped victim. Hence, one cannot escape punishment by

simply raising the fact that one is just a “middle-man” who merely detained that person without

selling him.63 It has been asserted that the prevalence of slave trade prompted the “legislation”

of death penalty for kidnapping.64 Moreover, the ratio for the severe penalty for kidnapping is

because God treats the act of forcefully abducting, detaining, and taking a person away from his

family, for purposes of gain, as vile and horrendous.65 Furthermore, some scholars consider

verse 16 as an example of a violation of the eighth (8th) commandment because both use the

66
word ‫גנב‬.

Lastly, in Chapter 22, verses 1-17 regulate property rights while the subsequent verses

deal with the social and religious requirements (vv. 18-40). With regard to the social and

religious requirements, verses 18-19 mentioned three (3) instances where death penalty can be

imposed. These instances are sorcery, bestiality, and sacrifices made to idols. Though the three

(3) instances mandate the imposition of death penalty, it is only the case of bestiality where the

judgment formulae “for you shall surely be put to death” ( ‫יּומת‬

ֻֽ ָ ‫ ) ֥מֹות‬appeared. Chapter 22:19 is

written in apodictic style67, and seeks to punish one who “lies” (‫ )ׁשכב‬with an animal with the

penalty of death ( ‫יּומת‬

ֻֽ ָ ‫) ֥מֹות‬. To lie with an animal contemplates having sexual intercourse with

62
Sarna, Exodus, 123.
63
Stuart, Exodus, 488.
64
Sarna, Exodus, 123.
65
Stuart, Exodus, 488.
66
Durham, Exodus, 323.
67
Ibid., 327.
 15

an animal.68 Aside from being a digression from natural relationship, the practice itself is

associated with Canaanite fertility practices.69 Hence, the prohibition is intended to replace such

pagan practice with the saving truth of God’s covenant.70

The Book of the Covenant contains apodictic and casuistic laws that intend to govern the

relationship between Yahweh and Israel, and between and among the people. These laws were

given in the context of a cutting of a covenant after Israel was rescued out from the land of

slavery. Moreover, these laws serve as a guiding principle for the Israelites on how they are to

go about their civic life under the Lordship of Yahweh. Also, there are those laws that impose

death penalty, as shown by the formulae “for he shall surely die” ( ‫יּומת‬
ֻֽ ָ ‫) ֥מֹות‬. The crimes

punishable by death are premeditated killing, striking/cursing one’s parents, kidnapping, and

bestiality. Though death is to be imposed in these crimes, nonetheless, we can see that, at this

instance, these laws did not mention how the execution shall be done, and by whom.

B. Exodus 31:14-15 and Numbers 15:32-36

Both Exodus 31:14-15 and Numbers 15:32-36 involve infractions of Sabbath regulations

which impose death penalty ( ‫יּומת‬

ֻֽ ָ ‫ ) ֥מֹות‬as a consequence.

After the presentation of the Book of the Covenant and its reception by the Israelites

(chap. 20-24), instructions for the building of Tabernacle were given (chap. 25-31). Chapter 31

68
Ibid., 328.
69
Stuart, Exodus, 514.
70
Ibid.
 16

begins with the instructions for the craftsmen (vv. 1-11), followed by a reminder to keep the

Sabbath (vv. 12-17).

The command to observe the Sabbath in Exodus 31:12-17 is set in the context of the

construction and establishment of the Tabernacle.71 In this context, the “no-work” rule is not

about the performance of one’s weekly occupation, but pertains to the work to be done for the

building of the Tabernacle.72 Verse 13 states that the Sabbath is a sign between Yahweh and the

Israelites. Interestingly, the word sign ‫ ֵ֙אֹות‬appeared in verses 13 and 17, hence, the existence of

an inclusio which highlights the importance of Sabbath keeping. The Sabbath is a sign of

covenantal obedience.73 Those who observe the Sabbath publicly declares that one is in

covenantal relationship with Yahweh. Moreover, its observance can be described as “an

affirmation that Israel is a holy nation not inherently but by an act of divine will”.74 Hence,

whether it be the daily occupations or works to be performed in and for the Tabernacle, the

Israelites are mandated to observe Sabbath, following the pattern of rest that the Lord did after

the works of creation. Accordingly, the defiance of the Sabbath observance calls for the

imposition of death penalty.

Furthermore, Numbers 15: 32-36 illustrates the consequence of failing to observe the

Sabbath, i.e. death. A man was caught gathering woods on the Sabbath day. He was brought to

Moses, Aaron, and the rest of the congregation. The man was placed in temporary custody

71
Durham, Exodus, 412.
72
Ibid.
73
Stuart, Exodus, 655.
74
Sarna, Exodus, 201.
 17

because the people do not know what to do with him ( ‫)לא פ ַרׁש ַמה־י ָע ֶשה לֹו‬. The issue is not on

how the wood gatherer should be executed, but as to whether wood gathering on a Sabbath day

constitute an infraction of the Sabbath keeping regulation.75 For this reason, the congregation

is awaiting for instructions on how to resolve the issue. The Lord then instructed Moses to put

the man to death (‫יּומת‬

ַ ‫)מֹות‬. The matter was adjudged to be a violation of the Sabbath ordinance

because the overt act of gathering woods is considered to be a preparatory act for the kindling of

fire,76 thus, manifesting a culpable intent to violate the Sabbath ordinance.77 Thereafter, the

wood gatherer was brought outside the camp to be stoned to death. It is asserted that stoning was

the manner of execution because it does not shed blood, and thus does not bring blood-guilt upon

the community.78 The entire community is involved in the execution in order to show communal

disdain for the offence.79

The penalty of death is imposed for violation of Sabbath ordinances because Sabbath itself is

a sign of the covenant between Yahweh and his people. To repudiate Sabbath observance is

tantamount to rejecting the God of the Covenant. Interestingly, Numbers 15:32-36 noted that the

offender was not immediately killed but was placed under temporary custody because the people

wanted to know what to do with him. This seems to imply that the crimes or offenses were

resolved on the case-to-case basis, rather than just applying the penalty crudely.

75
Timothy R. Ashley, Numbers, New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI:
Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1995),291.

76
Philip J. Budd, Numbers, Word Biblical Commentary (Waco, TX: Thomas Nelson, 1984), 177.
77
Ibid.
78
Ashley, Numbers, 292.
79
Gordon J. Wenham, Numbers, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Nottingham, England.: IVP Academic,
2008), 147.
 18

C. Leviticus 20: 2,9,10,15

Leviticus 17:1-25:55 is described by scholars as the Holiness Code.80 It is thus coined as

the Holiness Code because it demands holiness on the part of the Israelites.81 Just as the

prominent theme in chapters 1-17 is atonement, so is the word holiness prominent in chapters 17-

25.82 In this code, we can see God addressing the nation in the first person “I am the Lord your

God” (‫יכם‬
ֶ ‫)אנִ י יהוה ֱאֹלה‬,
ֲ an expression that shows a divine urgency for the people to comply with

the commandments.83 These laws on purity and holiness reminded the people that God will be

with them in the camp, and that God himself will be dwelling at the center of their camp.84

Hence, they are to exhibit God’s character of purity before God and their fellow Israelites. 85

The different sections of the Holiness Code are as follows86: Leviticus 17:1 to 20:27

focuses on Israel’s personal and social holiness in their daily life. It begins with a prohibition on

non-regulated sacrifices (17:1-16) to counter the Canaanite practices, followed by rules for

sexual behaviors (chapter 18), then on how to show love towards one’s neighbours (chapter 19).

Chapter 20 provides for the punishments for the serious crimes mentioned in chapter 18.

Moreover, chapters 21-25 reiterated the theme of holiness and lay down precepts in the aspect of

religious observances.

80
Fee and Stuart, How to Read the Bible Book by Book, 47.
81
Mark F. Rooker, Leviticus, New American Commentary (Nashville, TN: Holman Reference, 2000), 231.
82
Ibid.
83
Ibid.
84
Fee and Stuart, How to Read the Bible Book by Book, 45-46.
85
Ibid.
86
Fee and Stuart, How to Read the Bible Book by Book, 47-48.
 19

Chapter 20: 1-16 describes the capital offenses which merit the penalty of death, while

verses 17-27 tackle certain crimes which do not warrant the imposition of death.87 The penalty

to be imposed in verses 17-27 is to be “cut off” from the community. The laws laid down in this

chapter are casuistic style, unlike in the previous chapters which were in an apodictic style.

Apodictic laws describe the crime but does not provide for the penalty in the event of infraction.

On the other hand, casuistic laws describe not only the crime sought to be punished but also

provides for its appropriate penalty.

In chapter 20, the instances wherein the judgment formula “for he shall surely die” ( ‫֥מֹות‬

ֻֽ ָ ) appeared in the following cases: Molech worship (v.2), cursing one’s parents (v.9),
‫יּומת‬

adultery (v.10), and bestiality (v.15).

The prohibition for Molech worship extends not only to the Israelites ( ‫)איׁש ִמ ְבני יִ ְש ָראל‬
ִ

but also to resident aliens in the land of Israel ( ‫ן־הגר ַהגָ ר ְביִ ְש ָראל‬
ַ ‫)ּומ‬.
ִ Molech worship had been

previously outlawed in chapter 18:21 because it involves the offering or sacrificing one’s child to

Molech.88 Should any of the Israelites or strangers living with them be found to be practicing

human sacrifices to Molech, that person should be put to death ( ‫יּומת‬

ֻֽ ָ ‫ ) ֥מֹות‬by stoning. The

Molech worshipper is not only penalized by death to be imposed by the community but he also

faces the judgment of the Lord by being “cut off” from the community (verse 3). The reason for

doing so is because the offender has defiled the Lord’s sanctuary and has profaned his Name.

Moreover, those who would conspire, collude, tolerate or conceal such horrendous act would

87
Baruch A. Levine, Leviticus, JPS Torah Commentary (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 2003), 135.
88
R. Laird Harris, Leviticus, Expositor's Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids, Mi: Zondervan, 1990), 609.
 20

also face the judgment of the Lord. In short, God would actively seek for the offender’s

punishment even if the community fails to address such crime.89 Consequently, God’s judgment

will extend not only against the conspirators but their families (‫ ) ִמ ְׁש ָפ ָחה‬as well. The reason for

the extension of such judgment to family members is the fact that the most natural persons to

know such vile practice would be the family members and their failure to deal with such crime

warrants their punishment as well.90 Loyalty and Devotion to the Covenant God takes

precedence over one’s loyalty to the family.91

Chapter 20: 9 reiterates the imposition of death against those who would curse their

parents. This crime has been mentioned in Exodus 21:17. Old Testament penal laws are

considered to be more lenient than that of its neighboring countries, except for laws regulating

the family and religious life,92 hence, the strict application of the law against cursing one’s

parents and adultery. Moreover, the crime of cursing one’s parents is punishable by death

because of the premium given to maintaining the structure of the family, and to curse one’s

parents is akin to cursing God, which is blasphemy, since parents represent the Lord.93

As to the crime of bestiality (v.15), this crime likewise merits death, and has been

proscribed in Exodus 22: 19.

With regard to the imposition of the death penalty, it has been opined that the penalties

provided for by Old Testament casuistic laws represent the maximum and not the minimum.94

89
Rooker, Leviticus, 267.
90
Gordon J. Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, New International Commentary On the Old Testament (Grand
Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1979), 278.
91
Ibid.
92
Wenham, Leviticus, 279.
93
Ibid.
94
Ibid.
 21

The laws on purity have been provided so that the native-born Israelites, and resident

aliens would exhibit a holy life because the Holy Covenant God is living in their midst. A

lifestyle inconsistent with a holy life could merit a death penalty. Molech worship, Cursing

one’s parents, Adultery, and Bestiality are among the crimes which would merit the imposition

of death (‫יּומת‬
ַ ‫)מֹות‬.

D. Leviticus 24:10-16

Leviticus 24: 10-16 involves a half-breed Israelite who left his encampment and went to

the Israelite camp. The man is not born of both Israelite parents, but of an Egyptian man and an

Israelite woman. It appears that he is living outside the main Israelite camp, and went to the

main Israelite camp.95 While he was in the Israelite camp, and in the middle of a fight with

another Israelite, he slandered (‫ )נקב‬and cursed (‫ )קלל‬the name of the Lord. The words (‫)נקב‬

and (‫ )קלל‬are considered as hendiadys, hence, the act of man can be interpreted as uttering the

covenant name of the Lord in a disparaging manner.96 As a result of such incident, those who

heard it brought him to Moses and placed him under temporary custody, until such time that they

would know how to deal with the matter before them. The issue is not whether he committed a

crime but the proper penalty to be imposed for such offense.97 Some suggest that the fact that

the appropriate penalty is yet to be determined, through divine revelation, shows that Old

Testament laws were not exhaustive or comprehensive, but only offer principles for direction.98

The Lord then instructed them to bring the blasphemer outside the camp to be executed by

95
John Hartley, Leviticus, Word Biblical Commentary, Revised ed. (Dallas, TX: Zondervan, 2015), 408.
96
Ibid.,409.
97
Ibid.
98
Rooker, Leviticus, 296.
 22

stoning (v14). Then, those who have heard the blasphemer should lay their hands on his head.

This gesture meant that they acknowledged that this person was guilty.99 There are also those

who assert that such act is necessary because blasphemy contaminates its hearers, and such

gesture of placing one’s hand upon the head of the offender implies that the contamination is

transferred back to the offender.100

Leviticus 24: 10-16 illustrates the consequence for violating the Fourth (4th)

Commandment which is not to use the Lord’s name in vain. Based on the case of the half-breed

Israelite, death is the expected penalty for such violation. Moreover, the fact that the penalty is

yet to be determined proves the fluidity of the Old Testament laws, and they merely serve as

guiding principles, unlike the modern criminal laws.

E. Numbers 35: 9-28; 30-34

The statutes in chap. 35 were enacted to preserve the wholeness, holiness, and purity of

the Promised Land.101 This echoes the law mentioned in Exodus 21:13 about the holy site or

maqom (‫)מקֹום‬.
ָ Cities of refuge will be designated for the protection of the “manslayer that

killed any person unintentionally” (v11). The city will serve as an asylum place, in order to

protect the manslayer from the avenger, until the conclusion of the court trial (v12). These cities

are necessary due to the prevalence of blood feud in the ancient near east.102 It has been observed

that Israel’s laws on homicide and its system of asylum cities presuppose the following basic

99
Hartley, Leviticus, 410.
100
Rooker, Leviticus, 296.
101
R. Dennis Cole, Numbers, New American Commentary (Nashville, TN: Holman Reference, 2000), 549.
102
Jacob Milgrom, Numbers, JPS Torah Commentary (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 2003), 291.
 23

modifications in the prevailing practice, to wit: 103 (1) Only the guilty party is involved; thus, no

other member of his family may be slain. (2) Guilt is determined by the slayer’s intention: The

involuntary homicide is not put to death. (3) No ransom is acceptable in place of the death of the

murderer. (4) The verdict of deliberate or involuntary homicide is made by the state and not by

the bereaved kinsman, and to this end asylum cities for the homicide are established. (5) His trial

is by a national tribunal and not by the kinsmen of either party. (6) The deliberate homicide is

executed by the goʾel, and the involuntary homicide is banished to the asylum until the death of

the High Priest.

Further, the instrument used and the intention of the offender are determined whether the

manslayer can avail of the asylum privileges.104 The instruments mentioned in verses 16 to 18

are iron, stone, and wood. If the manslayer is found to have intentionally employed these

materials to kill another,105 then the avenger of blood is allowed to execute death upon the

manslayer. The determination of malice is said to be held at the entrance to the gate of the

refuge city where the city’s elders and judges who had been given the responsibility to settle a

variety of judicial cases render their decision. Upon determination that a given case was

accidental, the congregation of the city would offer asylum and sanctuary for the perpetrator of

manslaughter.106

Interestingly, the manslayer admitted into the city of refuge has to live in the said city

until the death of the High Priest of the city. It has been observed that murderers cannot ransom

his life for money, so a manslayer cannot purchase freedom because both have caused the death

103
Ibid.
104
Cole, Numbers, 551.
105
Cole, Numbers, 553.
106
Ibid.
 24

of another man, and it is only the death of a man that can atone for the killing.107 Also, it is not

the exile of the manslayer but the death of the High Priest that expiates for the crime of

unintentional killing.108

With regard to cases of intentional murder, it is required that a man should not be put to

death on the basis of the testimony of the lone person, and that no ransom shall be allowed in

such cases. The prohibition against the taking of monetary payment in lieu of death penalty is

“to avoid giving the rich who could afford such payments a loophole to commit murder at will,

or a method of making an incident of human death an occasion for enrichment”.109 The said

prohibition for ransom is held in contrast to the prevailing practice in the ancient near east of

allowing ransom for cases of murder.110 In addition, no ransom or payment may be received

from one who sought for an asylum in a city of refuge in exchange for his early release from the

said city (v.32).

The creation of the cities of refuge and death imposition on the murderer restrains the

contamination of the land. With the cities of refuge, blood-feuds are controlled, while the

imposition of death for premeditated murders expiates for the loss of life. The Lord will be

dwelling with his people, and it is unthinkable for a holy God to live with contaminated people

(vv.33-34).

Numbers 35:1-34 proves to us that life is valuable for the Lord. In cases of killings, due

process is to be observed. The unintentional manslayer is not executed for lack of malice on his

107
Gordon J. Wenham, Numbers, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Nottingham, England.: IVP Academic,
2008), 265.
108
Milgrom, Numbers, 294.
109
Ashley, Numbers, 656.
110
Milgrom, Numbers, 295.
 25

part. However, on the one who has premeditated the killing, no amount of monetary

compensation can rescue him from the impending death penalty.

Lex Talionis (Talion Law):

The Talion law pertains to the principle that the penalty for the injury should be

commensurate to the damaged done.111 The law itself as expressed through the words “life for

life”, “eye for eye”, or “tooth for tooth” should not be taken literally, except for the “life for life”,

and that there are no recorded evidences that they were taken literally.112 The expression “eye

for eye” is an idiomatic expression to mean that the penalty to be imposed upon the offender

should be the same “hurt” that one should experience when one’s personal eyes are ruined.113

The goal of the talion law is justice and serves as a guide for judges in the imposition of the

proper penalty.114 Some legal anthropologist opined that monetary compensation was an

accepted practice as payment for the wrong done, during the ancient near east.115 Further, there

is doubt whether physical mutilation was indeed practiced.116

A. Exodus 21:22-27

As part of the casuistic laws on injuries in chapter 21, the passage contemplates a

scenario wherein two men were in the middle of a fight (‫ )נצה‬and one of them inadvertently hits

a pregnant woman ( ‫שה ָה ָרה‬

ָּׁ֤ ָ ‫) ִא‬, thereby causing her to give birth prematurely, and that there is

no injury on either the mother or the baby. Then the offender shall be liable to pay the husband a

monetary damage, to be determined by a judge. However, if there be injury on the mother or the

111
Stuart, Exodus, 492.
112
Ibid.
113
Ibid.
114
Ibid.
115
Sarna, Exodus, 126.
116
Dale Patrick, Old Testament Law (Atlanta: John Knox Pr, 1985), 77.
 26

child, then the talion law shall be enforced (vv.23-24). The penalty should be fit to the injury

caused to the injured party. If death ensues from the attack, then the offender should pay with his

own life.

Moreover, we continue to see a non-literal application of the talion law, when a master

has smitten the eyes of his slave, and ruins them, then the master should release the slave as a

consequence. The same is expected when the tooth is involved. Instead of the master bearing

the same extent of damage, the master loses his right over the services of his slave.117 This

scenario seeks to deter masters from excessively disciplining their slaves.118 Though the slave

may have been considered as the property of the master, nevertheless, the master’s property

rights are not absolute.119 Again, the application of the talion law in this scenario is merely

paradigmatic than as an exhaustive description of crime and punishment.120

B. Leviticus 24: 17-22

After laying the precedent of death penalty for the crime of blasphemy (vv. 10-16), verse

17 continued by stating that if a man kills another human being, then his life shall also be taken

from him. However, if anyone kills an animal, then he should repay or make restitution (‫)ׁשלם‬

for such lost. Further, it states that the person who causes injury to another should likewise be

penalized with the same injury that one has inflicted upon the other. Verse 21 reiterates that if

one kills an animal belonging to another, the offender should recompense for such lost, but the

one who kills another man, no compensation is allowed but the life of the offender. Verse 22

then concludes that the same rule or norm will be observed by both Israelites and resident aliens.

117
Stuart, Exodus, 494.
118
Sarna., 127.
119
Stuart, Exodus, 494.
120
Ibid.
 27

C. Deuteronomy 19: 15-21

After the discussion on the establishment of cities of refuge (vv. 4-13) and the prohibition

against moving a neighbor’s boundary mark, verses 15-21 prohibits false testimony and states

the consequence for such crime. Verse 15 lays down the principle that in the resolution of any

litigation, there must be at least two witnesses. The procedure to be observed in the case is that

the complaint is forwarded to the sanctuary to be heard by the priests and judges who are holding

office in the sanctuary.121 However, there are some who hold that the phrase “stand before the

Lord” ( ‫הוָ֑ה‬
ָ ְ‫ ) ִל ְפנֹ֣י י‬should not be taken literally as referring to the sanctuary, but to refer to

judges as God’s representatives, and that God is with the judges when they adjudicate. 122 If the

judges learn that the witness or complainant is giving a false testimony, then his punishment

would be determined on the basis of the penalty of the crime which one seeks to charge.123 They

are mandated to “do to him just as he had intended to do to his brother” (v.19). Further, the

adjudicating judge should not show pity, and impose the penalty pursuant to the talion law. It

has been asserted that the call “not to show pity” (v.21) implies that the “court might be reluctant

to impose punishment as severe as that which the law requires if the lie were discovered in time

and no harm actually befell the slandered party”.124 Moreover, such attitude can deter others

from committing the same crime.125

121
Peter C. Craigie, Deuteronomy, The New International Commentary On the Old Testament, 2nd ed. (Grand
Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1976), 270.
122
Jeffrey H. Tigay, Deuteronomy, JPS Torah Commentary (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 2003),
184.
123
Craigie, Deuteronomy, 270.
124
Tigay, Deuteronomy, 184.
125
Eugene H. Merrill, Deuteronomy (Nashville, TN: Holman Reference, 1994), 280.
 28

D. Matthew 5:38-39

Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount did not repeal or amend the Old Testament laws. It also did

not enact new legislations in lieu of the old. It simply described the kind of life under God’s

reign.126 It was “to establish a “greater righteousness,” a different understanding of how we

should live as the people of God with an alternative set of values”.127 Moreover, Jesus’ concept

of law-keeping is not whether one is able to comply with the strictest letter of the law, but that

the principles or implications of the law be known and applied in daily lives. 128 Jesus then

confronts the popular understanding of the religious leaders of his day and exposes the absurdity

and limitation of their “wooden-literal” interpretation of the laws.129 Though a literal

interpretation of the law implies a willingness to obey God’s commands, nevertheless, such

practice places a limitation upon their observance and application. By protesting against such

practice, Jesus shows forth authoritatively on how these laws are to be understood.130

Moreover, Jesus also claimed that he did not come to abolish the Law or the Prophets, but

to fulfil them (5:17). This statement of the Lord Jesus is to be understood as Jesus exhibiting in

his life the quality of life that the Law and Prophets demand.131 In short, Jesus is claiming that he

is faithful to the Scriptures.132

Verse 38 : “You have heard” Formula

Verses 38-42 is the fifth of the six antitheses found in chapter 5. The introductory

formula of verse 38 is similar to that of the second antithesis on Lust and sixth antithesis on

126
Robert H. Mounce, Matthew, New International Biblical Commentary (Peabody, Mass: Paternoster Press,
1995), 36.
127
Leon Morris, The Gospel According to Matthew (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1992), 218.
128
Leon Morris, The Gospel According to Matthew, 112.
129
Ibid.
130
Ibid.
131
Mounce, Matthew, 43.
132
Keener, Matthew,
 29

loving one’s enemy, where it lacks the phrase “to those of ancient times”.133 The introductory

formula “You have heard” connotes a chain of transmission and communal appropriation.134 It is

then followed by a quotation from the Old Testament, “eye for an eye” and “tooth for a tooth”

(ὀυθαλμὸν ἀντὶ ὀυθαλμοῦ καὶ ὀδόντα ἀντὶ ὀδόντος v.38). This quotation pertains to the concept

of lex talionis.135

The concept of lex talionis or principle of equal retaliation dates as far back as

Hammurabi, an eighteenth-century B.C. king.136 It provides that the guilty party should suffer the

same harm inflicted upon the injured party.137 Further, the intention of this principle was not to

sanction revenge, but to prevent the excesses of the blood-feud for the legal punishment must not

exceed the crime.138 Moreover, it meant equal protection of the law without respect to persons,

affluence, or social status in society.139 In Israel and other cultures, it was only the judicial court

that can enforce the principle of Lex Talionis.140 This principle appeared thrice in the Old

Testament, namely, in Exod. 21:24–25; Lev. 24:20; Deut. 19:21.141

Verse 39: The Jesus’ Antithesis

After stating the quotation, Jesus elucidates the implication of the quotation. He said “Do

not resist the one who is evil”. Jesus was not concerned with the appropriateness of the judicial

rule of lex talionis for he was concerned with the inappropriateness of such a principle to

133
Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 1-13, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas, TX: Thomas Nelson, 1993), 130.
134
John Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Bletchley: Eerdmans,
2005), 229.
135
Ibid.
136
Mounce, NIBC, 48.
137
David Noel Freedman, ed., The Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol. 4 (New York: Yale University Press, 1992), 321.
138
R. T. France, Matthew: an Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers
Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1986), 130.
139
Morris, The Gospel According to Matthew, 126.
140
Craig S. Keener, The Ivp Bible Background Commentary: New Testament, 02 ed. (Downers Grove, IL: IVP
Academic, 2014), 60.
141
France, Matthew, 130.
 30

interpersonal relationships.142 This principle took from the realm of private vengeance the power

to impose punishments.143 Moreover, the judicial system during the time of Jesus allows for

monetary compensation in lieu of physical mutilation.144 Further, the courts in Jesus’ time

seldom impose lex talionis.145 However, there was a brewing re-application of principle of lex

talionis to personal blood feud.146

Jesus said that we should not “resist” the evil one (μὴ ἀντιστῆναι τῷ πονηρω). The

Louw-Nida Lexicon defined the term ἀνθίστημι as “to oppose someone, involving not only a

psychological attitude but also a corresponding behavior”147 or “to resist by actively opposing

pressure or power”.148 Jesus then exhorts his listeners not to exhibit a hostile or antagonistic

behavior against “the evil”. The term “evil” (τῷ πονηρω) has been interpreted differently by

scholars. There are some who would refer to it as pertaining to an “evil deed” 149, thus,

translating the word as do not resist an “evil deed”. On the other hand, some would interpret it

as referring to an evil person.150 Nonetheless, all would agree that this word does not refer to

Satan. Personally, we interpret the term τῷ πονηρω to refer to an evil person because of the

context, the use of the relative pronoun “whoever” (ὅστις) in verses 39 and 41, and the use of the

dative article (τῷ ) in verses 40 and 42 as referring to a person rather than to an act. In other

142
Ibid., 217.
143
Morris, The Gospel According to Matthew, 126
144
France, Matthew, 219.
145
DA Carson , The Expositor's Bible Commentary: with the New International Version (Grand Rapids, MI:
Zondervan, 1995), 155.
146
Morris, The Gospel According to Matthew, 126.
147
Johannes Louw and Eugene Nida, eds., Introduction and Domains, 2nd ed., vol. 1 of Greek-English Lexicon of
the New Testament: Based On Semantic Domains (New York: United Bible Societies, 1989), 491.
148
Ibid., 494.
149
Hagner, WBC, 131.
150
Carson, Expositors’ Bible Commentary, 155.
 31

words, Jesus is telling his listeners not to be hostile against an evil person. He is exhorting them

not to repay evil with evil.151

III. SYNTHESIS:

Base on the discussions made on the passages where the judgment formula “for he shall

surely die” (‫יּומת‬

ַ ‫ )מֹות‬and lex talionis, we can see that the Bible gives premium to human life.

Human life cannot be compared to any tangible property that can be measured by monetary

considerations. In fact, it is prohibited to take monetary compensation for the crime of murder.

One has to pay with life for the life taken. Moreover, the judgment formula “for he shall surely

ַ ‫ )מֹות‬is not about being a specific legal penalty but of being a divine authorization.152
die” (‫יּומת‬

This implies that the act of taking life requires God’s approval, and that no individual or

community could take the responsibility upon itself.153 It is only the Lord of life who can

sanction the taking of the life.154

On the other hand, Lex Talionis serves as the guiding principle in adjudicating murder

and injury cases. This principle assures that the penalty to be imposed to the murderer or

tortfeasor should be commensurate to the damage that one has committed. It restrains excessive

penalty to be imposed for a crime of lesser damage or injury.

Further, we have seen that Old Testament Laws are different from our modern day

criminal laws. These laws are not exhaustive and comprehensive written laws. Rather, they are

mere guiding principles appealing to a sense of justice, and are not strict rules for specific

151
Hagner, WBC, 130.
152
Patrick, Old Testament Laws, 74.
153
Ibid., 74-75.
154
Ibid., 75.
 32

cases.155 In biblical ancient Israel, the Old Testament laws were not always in the form of hard

and fast statues intended to be applied to the letter in formal courts. Rather, judges operated

more informally with precedents and paradigms guided by tora and their own wisdom,

experience and integrity.156 In fact, Israelite judges were not expected to consult the legal codes

in order to arrive at a decision.157 Moreover, apodictic laws are more like moral precepts,

addressed to the moral agents, and their import is to elicit conformity to the fundamental norms

of social order.158 At the same time, casuistic laws were laid down in order to instruct the judges

and the community about the legal concepts and procedures inherent in the unwritten law.159 In

short, casuistic laws are manifestations or exercises of legal reasoning.160 In addition, the

penalties imposed by casuistic laws are the maximum penalty that could be reduced at the

discretion of the elders after the hearing of the case.161 However, as we have noted earlier, the

life of the murderer is required in murder cases.

The crimes punished by apodictic and casuistic laws, where the judgment formula had

been attached, such as for cursing/striking one’s parents and establishment of cities of refuge,

appears to be obsolete when applied in our modern age. Nonetheless, we should understand that

these cases are discussed in the context of Israel’s covenantal relationship with Yahweh.

Yahweh rescued Israel out of the land of slavery and established them to be his special nation.

Israel is to live its life consistent to the holy character of the covenant Lord and differently from

its neighboring countries. In sum, the crimes covered by the judgment formula are restricted

155
Ibid., 190.
156
Christopher J. H. Wright, Old Testament Ethics for the People of God, 10.2.2011 ed. (Downers Grove, IL: IVP
Academic, 2011), 406.
157
Patrick, Old Testament Laws, 191.
158
Ibid., 198.
159
Ibid., 200.
160
Patrick, Old Testament Laws, 200.
161
Wright, Old Testament Ethics for the People of God, 406.
 33

only for Israel and for their period of time. To use a modern legal concept, these laws are pro

hac vice i.e. applicable only to their particular case yet they reveal certain values which the

modern day law can adopt. On the basis of these values, modern legislations can be enacted162

with the guidance of the talion law.

IV. CONCLUSION:

It cannot be denied that capital punishment appears and is taught in the Bible. However,

capital punishment is not expected to be strictly applied in all cases due to the nature of Old

Testament laws and the discretions given to the judges in the resolution of cases set before them.

Further, judges are guided by the Talion law which assures that the penalty to be meted out to the

offender should be commensurate to the injury committed. From our discussion163, it appears

that the crime of murder is the only justifiable case wherein death penalty can be imposed.

Comparing our synthesis with House Bill No.1, it can be observed that the proposed law goes

against the values enunciated by the Bible, specifically in the Talion Law. House Bill No. 1

seeks to punish crimes which are related to the sale of illegal drugs. It can be seen that the act of

selling illegal drugs do not involve the taking of a person’s life. We can just surmise that these

crimes were included in House Bill No. 1 to advance the political agenda of the current

administration.

162
Ibid., 407.
163
Subject to the limitations stated in this paper.
 34

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books:

Ashley, Timothy R. The Book of Numbers. New International Commentary On the Old
Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1993.

Botterweck, G. Johannes, Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-Josef Fabry, eds. Theological Dictionary
of the Old Testament. Vol. 8. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996.

Budd, Philip J. Numbers. Word Biblical Commentary. Waco, TX: Thomas Nelson, 1984.

Carson, D.A. Matthew. The Expositor's Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan,
1984.

Cole, R. Alan. Exodus. Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries. Downers Grove, IL: IVP
Academic, 2008.

Cole, R. Dennis. Numbers. Nashville, TN: Holman Reference, 2000.

Craigie, Peter C. The Book of Deuteronomy. The New International Commentary On the Old
Testament. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1976.

Durham, John I. Exodus. Word Biblical Commentary. Waco, TX: Thomas Nelson, 1987.

Fee, Gordon D., and Douglas Stuart. How to Read the Bible Book by Book: a Guided Tour.
Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2014.

France, R.T. The Gospel of Matthew. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2007.

Freedman, David Noel, ed. The Anchor Bible Dictionary. Vol. 4, K-n. New York: Yale
University Press, 1992.

Hagner, Donald A. Matthew 1-13. Word Biblical Commentary. Dallas, TX: Thomas Nelson,
1993.

Harris, R. Laird. Leviticus. Expositor's Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1990.

Hartley, John E. Leviticus. Word Biblical Commentary. Dallas, TX: Thomas Nelson, 1992.

Kaiser Jr., Walter C. Exodus. The Expositor's Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1990.

Keener, Craig S. The Ivp Bible Background Commentary: New Testament. 02 ed. Downers
Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2014.
 35

Köhler, Ludwig, Walter Baumgartner, M. E. J. Richardson, Johann Jakob Stamm, Benedikt

Hartmann, G. J. Jongeling-Vos, and L. J. de Regt, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of
the Old Testament. (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994),

Levine, Baruch A. Leviticus. JPS Torah Commentary. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication
Society, 2003.

Merrill, Eugene H. Deuteronomy. Nashville, TN: Holman Reference, 1994.

Milgrom, Jacob. Numbers. JPS Torah Commentary. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication
Society, 2003.

Morris, Leon. The Gospel According to Matthew. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1992

Mounce, Robert A. Matthew. Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson Publishers, 1991.

Nolland, John. The Gospel of Matthew: a Commentary On the Greek Text. Bletchley: Eerdmans,
2005.

Patrick, Dale. Old Testament Law. Atlanta: John Knox Pr, 1985.

Propp, William H.C. Exodus 1-18 (The Anchor Yale Bible Commentaries). New York City: Yale
University Press, 1999.

Rooker, Mark F. Leviticus. Nashville, TN: Holman Reference, 2000.

Sarna, Nahum M. Exodus. JPS Torah Commentary. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication
Society, 1991.

Stuart, Douglas K. Exodus. Nashville, TN: Holman Reference, 2006.

Tigay, Jeffrey H. Deuteronomy. JPS Torah Commentary. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication
Society, 2003.

Wenham, Gordon J. The Book of Leviticus. New International Commentary On the Old
Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1979.

Wenham, Gordon J. Numbers. Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries. Nottingham, England.:

IVP Academic, 2008.
 36

Wright, Christopher J. H. Old Testament Ethics for the People of God. Downers Grove, IL: IVP
Academic, 2011

Websites:

http://www.congress.gov.ph/legisdocs/basic_17/HB00001.pdf (last accessed December 18,

2016).

http://news.mb.com.ph/2016/12/08/explainer-house-bill-on-death-penalty-revival/ (last accessed

December 18, 2016).
http://www.rappler.com/nation/142371-senator-manny-pacquiao-first-privilege-speech-death-
penalty (last accessed December 18, 2016).

http://www.rappler.com/nation/137292-duterte-death-penalty-retribution (last accessed

December 18, 2016).

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/819219/duterte-death-penalty-for-heinous-crimes-in-case-theres-no-
god (last accessed December 18, 2016).

http://www.rappler.com/nation/139237-duterte-meets-lawmakers-death-penalty (last accessed

December 18, 2016).

http://www.congress.gov.ph/legisdocs/basic_17/HB00001.pdf (last accessed December 18,

2016).

http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2016/02/21/1555393/duterte-admits-bloody-presidency-if-he-
wins (last accessed December 18, 2016).

http://www.rappler.com/nation/politics/elections/2016/98306-duterte-fight-crime (last accessed

December 18, 2016).

http://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/iq/145814-numbers-statistics-philippines-war-drugs (last
accessed December 18, 2016).

http://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/rich-media/147589-newsbreak-reads-nanlaban-sila-duterte-
war-drugs (last accessed December 18, 2016).