Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Exodus 21:33-36

33 And if a man shall open a pit, or if a man shall dig a pit, and not cover it, and an ox or an ass fall therein;

34 The owner of the pit shall make it good, and give money unto the owner of them; and the dead beast shall be his.

35 And if one man’s ox hurt another’s, that he die; then they shall sell the live ox, and divide the money of it; and the dead ox also they shall divide.

36 Or if it be known that the ox hath used to push in time past, and his owner hath not kept him in; he shall surely pay ox for ox; and the dead shall be his own.

The final verses of this chapter discuss what is to be done if a man destroys the livestock of another. If the man has directly caused the death of the animal, such as by digging a pit that the creature falls into, or by leaving his known-to-be-violent ox in the vicinity of the other animal, then he will be compelled to buy the dead creature. He must pay the value of the creature as if it were still alive, though, either with money or with his own still-living livestock, and all he would gain in return is the dead creature’s meat. Thus, the owner who had lost his livestock would be restored, and the difference between hurt and whole would be laid upon the man who was responsible for the harm.

There is another situation covered in these verses also, where an ox kills another but it was unprecedented for the creature to do such a thing, so the owner had no reason to expect this would happen. In this instance the man is innocent of any malfeasance, but still his neighbor has been deprived. There is not guilt in this scenario, only ill fortune, and the solution provided by the law is an exactly equal distribution of that ill fortune. The living ox would be sold and the two men would split the money from that, and also they would split the meat from the dead creature. They would share in the fruits of life and death in equal measure.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Exodus 21:28-32

28 If an ox gore a man or a woman, that they die: then the ox shall be surely stoned, and his flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall be quit.

29 But if the ox were wont to push with his horn in time past, and it hath been testified to his owner, and he hath not kept him in, but that he hath killed a man or a woman; the ox shall be stoned, and his owner also shall be put to death.

30 If there be laid on him a sum of money, then he shall give for the ransom of his life whatsoever is laid upon him.

31 Whether he have gored a son, or have gored a daughter, according to this judgment shall it be done unto him.

32 If the ox shall push a manservant or a maidservant; he shall give unto their master thirty shekels of silver, and the ox shall be stoned.

Today’s verses consider a situation where a person was killed, but there was even less culpability than in the case of manslaughter. What if a man did not directly cause the death of another, but an ox under his possession did? This matter takes us to the very limits of homicidal responsibility.

God’s solution depends on whether the ox already had a reputation for goring other things or not. If the ox had never been known to attack other animals, then the creature would be killed and its flesh wasted. The owner would gain no benefit, he would simply be out the value of the creature.

If, however, the ox had been known to gore other creatures, and the owner neither put the animal down nor provided adequate protection from it, and the creature killed another person, then the ox would again be put to death, but now the man would be consigned to death also. However, this is the one instance of the death penalty where a ransom price could also be put on the life of the owner, and if the owner paid that ransom he could go free.

We have therefore seen four levels of homicidal culpability, with fitting punishments for each.

  1. Direct, intentional homicide: death penalty.
  2. A violent scuffle that escalated into unintended manslaughter: death penalty, unless the man abandons his home and goes to a city of refuge.
  3. Accidental death via an animal that the owner knew was dangerous: loss of the animal and a ransom to be paid, or else the death penalty.
  4. Accidental death via an animal that the owner did not know was dangerous: loss of the animal.

The Lord showed Himself to be well aware of all the nuances and complexities of human life, how the same unlawful outcome might require different punishments based on the varying contexts. In this we see how He did not judge man by the outer appearances, but by the heart (1 Samuel 16:7).

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Exodus 21:26-27

26 And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye’s sake.

27 And if he smite out his manservant’s tooth, or his maidservant’s tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth’s sake.

We have some more verses of the law meant to protect a servant under his master’s care. If a master were found to have abused a servant so that the servant lost an eye or a tooth, then the servant would go free, while still retaining all of the money that was initially paid for his service. The abusive master would simply lose out on any of the six years that remained in the servant’s term.

We have already mentioned how the servanthood described here in Exodus was fundamentally different from—and morally superior to—our more modern conception of slavery. We have also discussed how this sort of paid servitude may have been necessary, given the economic state of the newly-freed Israelites, providing both an opportunity to the poor and a surety to the higher class.

But to be sure, the servants of Israel were still in a vulnerable position, and that reality is well-recognized within the law. Note that we have not seen any laws that would protect or compensate the master should he have an unproductive servant, but we have already seen multiple laws that would protect the servant should he have a cruel master. There is a common narrative in our culture that the Old Testament God was cruel and championed the oppression of the weak, but such claims are disingenuous, ignoring how His laws were deliberately tilted in the favor of the most vulnerable. The care of His heart is made manifest in the guardrails of His law.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Exodus 21:23-25

23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,

24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,

25 Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

These verses contain the root of what might very well be the most famous phrase in all of Hebrew law: “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.” As we see here, though, that is only the beginning of the saying. Hand, foot, burning, wound, stripe, and even life all are to be returned in equal measure upon the afflicter. Any harm that a man causes to another, shall be caused back on himself in return.

This is a good and fair law, it is consistent and equal to all. It is designed to deter the guilty, protect the innocent, and provide justice when all else fails. As I have stated elsewhere, when Jesus taught the higher law of turning the other cheek, he was not dissolving this principle of fair recompense, but rather teaching the other side of the same concept. Moses gave the half of justice that condemns the guilty, Jesus gave the half the exalts the holy. We need both.

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 21:15-17

15 And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death.

16 And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.

17 And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.

We have a couple more crimes for which the punishment is death. Verses 15 and 17 both have to do with one’s actions towards their father and mother. If one were to smite a parent, or even if only to curse them, then they would face a death penalty. This is demanding a higher level of respect to one’s parents than for any other person. That being said, the commandment does not require one to actively show love and affection to the parents, but it does deny showing active malice towards them. Perhaps one’s parents behaved so reprehensibly that the child cannot show them sweet devotion, the child would be justified by the law in withholding that, but the child would not be justified in harming or cursing the parent.

As a separate matter, if anyone tried to force another man into slavery, the perpetrator would also be sentenced to death. Recall that a key difference between Israelite servitude and our modern conception of slavery was that the serving party willingly elected to enter that station in return for a price. It was freely entered into, would freely be departed from after six years, and received due compensation. It was entirely different from the sorts of historical slavery where people were kidnapped, carried from their homeland, and forced into lifelong oppression. As we see in today’s verses, that form of slavery was never supported by the Lord, in fact He demanded the death of any who participated in it.

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).

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Exodus 21:7-11

7 And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.

8 If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.

9 And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters.

10 If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.

11 And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.

There were manservants who were purchased to perform the labor of household, but there were also maidservants who were betrothed to be married to the master of the house or one of his sons. Obviously, since the woman was to be a wife, she would not “go out as the menservants” after six years, she would remain a permanent fixture of the dwelling, and she was to be treated the same as a daughter who was born naturally under that household.

If, however, the master of the house changed his mind, he was very limited in what he might do about his marriage contract. If he wished to take another wife, he could, but he could not decrease her own inheritance. Or, he could release her back to where she had come from, but in that case he would receive no return of the price he had paid for her betrothal. It would only come at a loss for him.

I suppose that this arrangement could make an honest man vulnerable to women of ill intent. A young lady could behave kind and charming in order to secure a betrothal from a wealthy man, but once she entered the man’s household she could deliberately make herself bitter, frustrating, and unreasonable until the man just wanted to be rid of her. Then she could be released from her betrothal and play the scam again. However, it makes sense that if there was any asymmetry in the law that it would be tilted in favor of the weaker sex. It was up to the man to be prudent and shrewd, knowing that the woman would be the most protected by the law.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Exodus 21:4-6

4 If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master’s, and he shall go out by himself.

5 And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free:

6 Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl; and he shall serve him for ever.

In the last verses we heard that a servant would go free after six years of labor, however if he took a wife of his master’s slaves, and had children with her, the wife and children would remain with the master after the servant went free. Of course, the wife would also be freed after her six years of service had transpired if she was a Hebrew, so it would seem that this rule was only applicable when the spouse was a foreigner. In such a case, the man’s union to the woman would have been permitted, but not sanctified. The marriage would not have been a covenant before the Lord to such a degree that the husband and wife were to “cleave to one another, and be one flesh.”

As mentioned in the last post, though, the privileges of Israelite nationality was openly-exclusive. The Lord had already related how any foreigner might become a part of the chosen people, so presumably the foreign wife could take on the Hebrew covenants and be counted among the Lord’s people, and then be eligible for freedom from her servitude and remain with her husband.

Or, if she would not, the husband would also have the opportunity to make himself as a foreigner, testifying before the judges that he would rather remain in servitude than go free, and the master would perform a ritual where he fastened the man to his door, making the man a permanent fixture of his household.