5 reasons why it does not.

”And he who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death.“ (Exodus 21:17 LSB)

I’ve seen this passage used by critics as an attempt to defame the moral character of God.  After all, how could cussing at one’s parent or parents warrant the death penalty? 

In one online debate group I frequent, this passage was presented followed with the question: “Is there any context where this is ok?” The inclusion of is there any context where this is ok is interesting because many internet skeptics seldom consider the scriptural or historical context of any passage they call into question.  And, as always, knowing context is the key factor in understanding any given text. Neither misunderstanding, nor misapplication provide the moral high ground of any argument.  And, if we do not understand the setting, meaning, and application of any difficult passage then we become guilty of fallacious thinking.  

Here are 5 things to consider when discussing Exodus 21:17 (or other like passages):

First, we have no Biblical record of either Jews or later Christians implementing the text as presented by skeptics (which goes to the subject of contextual understanding).  If the passage meant exactly as modern skeptics take it, then why do we have this lack of historical record?  It is not as though this is an obscure passage.  It follows after the 10 Commandments (Exodus 20), is repeated in Leviticus 20:9-10 and Deuteronomy 27:16, is referenced in the book of Proverbs (20:20; 30:11,17), and mentioned by Jesus (Matthew 15:3-6; Mark 7:10-11).  With such biblical support we would expect to find records of children being put to death by their parents simply for cursing at them.  Unless, neither the ancient Israelites nor the early Christians understood this text as do modern skeptics who are seeking to find fault with God and biblical theism.  Simply put, the lack of application of the text by those who received it is evidence that the passage means something other than what critics claim.

Second, we need to understand the nature of the Mosaic Law.  Some of the Torah concerns moral laws, laws that are absolute and applied before Moses and continue today.  These would be things such as murder, adultery, thievery, coveting – those things which we know are right or wrong because God has written them on the tablets of our hearts (Jeremiah 31:33, Romans 2:14-16).  We call these laws “objective morality” because they are true regardless of where or when and are unchanging.  They are grounded in the source of morality, the person of God.  

Then there were ceremonial laws. These would be customs regarding temple worship or rights of marriage or religious practices.  

Finally, there were civil laws – laws given to the people of Israel as how they were to live in the land they were given to them by God.  Laws that dealt how the Israelites were to live as they approached a cruel and harsh peoples currently inhabiting their land.  At the time they were given there were no prisons in Israel, no social programs set up to guide offenders into correct social mores, no collaboration with other nations to seek the general welfare of all.  Life was hard and cruel, and Israel was at a state of war when these laws were first given. Therefore, civil laws were subject to change as a nation was built and as civilization came and grew.  

These civil laws (which include Exodus 21) were not decided by individual Jews or offended parents, or mob rule. Instead, they were decided and enacted by judges (Exodus 18:17-22) who knew and considered the totality of the Law. In fact, it is where we get our modern system of jurisprudence. Cilvil laws bring civilization, and these laws were decided by experts in all facets of the Law of Moses, by those who throughly knew and respected the Law, and not by individual critics seeking to find a prooftext in order to disavow the whole of biblical legality.

Third, we need to understand the nature of Hebrew literature – a fact often overlooked by many scholars and skeptics alike.  This does not negate literalism, but literalism must be understood in light of literary style.  And one of the favorite styles of Hebrew literature is chiasm and parallelism.  For those who do not know, a chiasm is a style which provided cadence and aids in memorization.  Shakespeare uses chiasm which help makes memorization applicable, even when to those who are unfamiliar with them seem impossible.  The word comes from the Greek letter “Chi” which looks like the letter X.  As one looks at the X they can see that the line moves towards the center, and then away forming a > (which we often use to mean “greater than.”)  So a chiasm would look something like this:  

A

   B

      C

         D

         D

      C

   B

A

The A lines would have something that repeats, as would be B lines, the C lines, and so forth.  It is extremely common to find this ABCCBA type pattern in the Hebrew (and even Greek) Scripture.

Here is an example consider Psalm 44:4-8 (LSB):

4). You are my King, O God;
Command salvation for Jacob.
 5). Through You we will push back our adversaries;
Through Your name we will tread down those who rise up against us.
6). For I will not trust in my bow,
And my sword will not save me.
7). But You have saved us from our adversaries,
And You have put to shame those who hate us.
8). In God we have boasted all day long,
And we will give thanks to Your name forever.

 The Hebrew reader would see the chiasm:

A. You are my King, O GOD; Command salvation for Jacob. (vs.4)

     B. Through YOU we will push back OUR ADVERSARIES; (vs.5)

          C. And my sword will not SAVE ME.(vs 6)

          C. But YOU HAVE SAVED US (vs.7)

     B. from OUR ADVERSARIES, (vs 7)

A. In GOD we have boasted . . . (vs 8)

This is not the exception – this is the rule we find in all the books of Hebrew scripture. (A list can be seen at https://www.chiasmusxchange.com/explanatory-notes).

Exodus 21 is no exception.  The website, Biblical Chiasm Exchange lists Exodus 21:1-23:19 as:

A. Relationships relating to servants and families

     B. Capital Offenses 

          C. Non-Capital bodily assaults 

               D. Death/Injuries from animals 

                    E. Loss of property due to accident 

                    E. Loss of property due to theft

               D. Death/Injuries/loss relating to animals

          C. Non capital offence

    B. Capital Offenses

A. Relationships relating to strangers, widows and orphans and the poor

see: https://www.chiasmusxchange.com/2017/02/14/exodus-211-2319/

Such literary styles should be considered if we are to properly evaluate any given passage.  For the ancient mind, style was as important as substance.

There is also a parallelism between Exodus 20:12 and Exodus 21:17. One of the 10 Commandments tells us to honor our parents and in so doing Yahweh will grant “prolonged” life in the land (this is a promise given to Israel which I will address below). Thus a blessing. The passage in dispute is just the opposite. If one offers a curse to their parents, there is death.

Another aspect of literary style involves the Jewish teachers, the Rabbis. They saw aspects of Torah as fences around theological truths. The emphasis was not on the judgments, but on the moral truths so as to keep one close to God. We see this in the teachings of Jesus. For example, when Christ said, “You have heard it said, ‘thou shalt not commit adultery. But I say to you that whoever looks on a woman with lust has committed adultery already in his heart.” Jesus was building a fence around the moral values of faithfulness and the marriage commitment. It is preventative. Extra steps to keep one faithful. So we can see in Exodus 21 the capital offenses as preventive. A moral fence to keep one honoring and respecting their parents. And, isn’t that what laws are meant to do – to prevent one from doing wrong?

Fourth, the text of Exodus 21:17 is in the context of various capital offenses, all of which involve taking of life.  Each of these crimes result in capital punishment because they involve taking life (either by murder, liberty, or curse).  Exodus 21:15 says, “And he who strikes his father or his mother shall surely be put to death.”  This follows verse 12 which states, “He who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death.”  The context of verse 15 and the word “strike” means more than hitting, it means hitting with the intent to kill and resulting in murder.  

Exodus 21:16 says that kidnapping (taking a person from their land) and selling them into slavery, as chattel slavery, is taking away their life – their freedom.  This too is a capital offense and was not to be done in Israel (see my blog post on Did God Approve of Slavery?).  In America, we fought a Civil War to put an end to such treatment of others.  In Israel no such war was needed because they followed this commandment.  (As a side note: The Slave Bible, which was printed for literate slaves in the antebellum south, did not contain this passage – or any other passage which showed slavery in a negative light.)

This then brings us to our text in Exodus 21:17 where if someone curses their father or mother it was a capital offense.  But again, we have to consider the whole context.  Why would saying bad words (which is how skeptics understand it) to our parents the same as “striking a man so that he dies” (vs. 12), or killing our neighbor by deceit (vs. 14), striking/killing either parent (vs 15), or human-trafficking (vs. 16) which ends lives (either by freedom denied or lifespan shortened), the same as cursing?  The answer is, it isn’t.  The context is about “eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, bruise for bruise, wound for wound” (vs. 24-25).  So how do we reconcile equality of punishment?

The answer is that cursing mother or father in verse 17 has more to do with it than just saying bad words.  In Israel blessings and curses were very real and associated with God (Yahweh) or demons.  The Canaanites, who dwelt in the promised land of Israel and who either needed to be removed or assimilated into Jewish culture, were extremely wicked invoking demons (fallen elohim) to carry out their curses (see my blogs Was Yahweh a tribal god of the Canaanites? and Saul and the Amalekites for a better understanding of the type of people Israel had to deal with.)  It is reasonable, and within the understanding of ancient Israel, to argue that “cursing” one’s parent or parents involved invoking demons who in turn harmed or killed their parent/parents for them.  Just as today hiring a hitman to kill someone is just as culpable as killing them directly, so “hiring” demons to kill one’s parents is the same as doing it yourself.  It was a capital crime (taking a life) the resulted in a capital punishment (death).

Fifth, we should also consider the phrase, “shall be put to death.”  This actually ties in with what we have already seen in blessings and curses.  In ancient Israel, blessings and curses were taken very seriously.  Moses told the people of Israel when they entered the Promised Land they were to offer blessings on Mount Gerizim and curses on Mount Ebal (Deuteronomy 11:29).  These were vows in which one committed themselves to God (by seeking blessings or promising if they failed to obey they were seeking curses on themselves).  But in either case (blessings or curses) they were brought about by Yahweh.  In Deuteronomy 27 and 28 there are several types of activities for which one could be cursed by God.  One of which plainly states, “Cursed is he who dishonors his father or mother,’ And all the people shall say, “Amen.” (Deuteronomy 27:16).  This is opposed to blessings which, for Israel, resulted in life.  In fact, God tells His chosen people to “choose life” (Deuteronomy 30:19-20), not death.

Additionally, in Hebrew the phrase, “shall be put to death” is יוּמָֽת (yu-mat) and is translated as “put to death” or “slain” or “die”.  It can mean exclusion by either my men or by God (Genesis 38:10; Deuteronomy 32:39; 2 Kings 5:7).  Since the passage is a parallel to Exodus 20:12 where God blesses with longer life for those in ancient Israel who honor their father and mother; so it very well could be God who ends the life of those who invoke demons to kill their father or mother.  Since God is holy, and God is the Author of Life and Death, it would certainly be within His right and moral character to do so.  Further, as stated in Leviticus 20:9 if one does curse their father or mother, their “bloodguiltiness is upon him” (LSB) who does the cursing.  In other words, they brought it upon themselves.

All of this points to the fact that Exodus 21:17 does not mean if a child says bad words they are to be killed.  Nor does it mean that speaking badly towards one’s parents means they would be taken to court, sentenced, and executed.  It does mean that:

1. We have no biblical record of children being put to death because they said bad words to their parents, therefore it was not the context of Exodus 21:17 and the critics are misapplying the text.
2. The Mosaic Law has three aspects to it, and cilvil law is not the same as God’s moral law, and Exodus 21:17 was a cilvil law in the establishment of Israel as a nation.
3. The Hebrew Scriptures use various literary devices such as chiasm and parallelism which need to be considered for proper context for Exodus 21:17.
4. The context of Exodus 21:17 reveals the cursing involved more than bad language towards parents, but involved death of one’s parents – either directly or indirectly through covenant with demons as the heathen nations who occupied the Promised Land did.
5. While Exodus 21:17 could result in capital punishment through judges, it also could have been capital punishment issued by God who gives life and can remove that life.

So does the Bible teach it’s okay to kill children who curse at their parents? No, it does not. It does teach us to honor or parents, and to allow God to punish those who do not.