Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Exodus 22:29-31

29 Thou shalt not delay to offer the first of thy ripe fruits, and of thy liquors: the firstborn of thy sons shalt thou give unto me.

30 Likewise shalt thou do with thine oxen, and with thy sheep: seven days it shall be with his dam; on the eighth day thou shalt give it me.

31 And ye shall be holy men unto me: neither shall ye eat any flesh that is torn of beasts in the field; ye shall cast it to the dogs.

In these laws the people are reminded of their obligation to offer their firsts to the Lord. The first of their fruit, of their liquor, of their oxen and sheep. Even offering the firstborn of their sons as priests.

The general understanding among scholars as to why verse 30 says the firstborn cattle would remain with their mothers for a week is so that they could give their mothers relief by drawing the milk from the udder. It would also allow them to be stable, strong, and clean before being brought to the Lord.

Verse 31 is a quick aside that tells the people that they must not eat carrion. Late on we will hear more on the dietary restrictions of the Mosaic law, but the carcass of even a clean animal would not be fit for human consumption, only for the feeding of one’s dogs. This is, of course, a very practical law, one that would safeguard the Israelites from consuming spoiled or infected meat.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Exodus 22:28

28 Thou shalt not revile the gods, nor curse the ruler of thy people.

This notion that the Israelites should not revile “the gods” may be surprising, since we know that they would be many times commanded to break down the groves and idols to the false gods, driving their influence out with extreme prejudice. The general consensus among scholars is that the translated word “gods” is not accurate here, and that mortal rulers and leaders were originally intended, which indeed is matched by the second half of the verse, “nor curse the ruler of thy people.”

The word that has been translated into “the gods” is elohim, which is accurately translated as “gods” throughout the rest of the Bible, but perhaps it is used here to emphasize that the priests, judges, and teachers are stand-ins for God, his representatives, the plurality of God that extends from the one. As such, their station and their mantle is to be respected as the divine, though they themselves are just men.

There is evidence that this was the original intention of this commandment in the book of Acts, chapter 23. Here, Paul is teaching to the people and the High Priest orders him to be struck on the mouth! Paul shoots back an angry retort and the people are shocked at him, pointing out that he is speaking ill of the High Priest himself! Paul immediately apologizes, explaining he did not know the man was the High Priest and that he certainly wouldn’t have said what he did if he had known. He even references this exact verse in Exodus in his apology. Thus Paul, an ancient Israelite, certainly seems to have taken this verse to be speaking about local leaders, not idolatrous gods.

Paul’s attitude, and the imperative within this verse, reflect a strong level of respect for authority, one that is hard to imagine in our culture today. To show reverence to our leaders requires great nuance. On the one hand, we must hold to our testimony of the truth, even when those in authority are misaligned and advocate for lies, yet we also need to respect those who stand imperfectly as God’s representatives. Perhaps it is the difficulty of this nuance that so often leads us to fall to one side or the other, either continuing with evil leaders no matter how low their depravity sinks, or else making open mockery and ridicule of leaders who are genuinely trying their best. The true disciple will seek a way to respect lower leaders who have gone astray, even while having their first allegiance to God and the truth.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Exodus 22:25-27

25 If thou lend money to any of my people that is poor by thee, thou shalt not be to him as an usurer, neither shalt thou lay upon him usury.

26 If thou at all take thy neighbour’s raiment to pledge, thou shalt deliver it unto him by that the sun goeth down:

27 For that is his covering only, it is his raiment for his skin: wherein shall he sleep? and it shall come to pass, when he crieth unto me, that I will hear; for I am gracious.

The special considerations for the poor and vulnerable continue in these verses. Usury means interest, and so God is stating that any money loaned to a poor man must not carry any interest. The poor man would pay back the same amount that he borrowed, no more. Why would anyone give a loan without interest? Presumably as an act of aid and kindness. If a person wanted to be kind, why not simply give the money in full? Perhaps to protect the honor of the borrower, or because having one’s money returned back allows for helping even more people with the same resource over and over.

It is further stated that if a neighbor offers his cloak as collateral on something, you must not keep it from him overnight. He will use it to keep warm through the night, and presumably give it back as continued collateral in the morning until he has returned the goods or money that it stands for.

In both of these laws, we see compassion, not greed, as the basis for loaning to the poor and one’s neighbor. It is to let someone be helped out for a little bit with what you have, at no loss to them. These laws show that even if we are not doing a full-blown charity, we can still help, expecting nothing in turn.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Exodus 22:22-24

22 Ye shall not afflict any widow, or fatherless child.

23 If thou afflict them in any wise, and they cry at all unto me, I will surely hear their cry;

24 And my wrath shall wax hot, and I will kill you with the sword; and your wives shall be widows, and your children fatherless.

The passion in God’s words is palpable in these verses! We have been hearing of laws and penalties that were to be applied by the Israelite judges, but now God is claiming judgment and retribution in this matter for Himself. The widow and the fatherless are not to be afflicted “in any wise,” and God will be actively listening for their cries of distress and punishing anyone who raises his hand against them.

As has already been noted in the rules related to the betrothal of women and the treatment of servants, God’s law shows a keen understanding of which people are in the most vulnerable of positions, and He is fiercely protective of them. In verse 24 He promises that He will raise up foreign armies to kill any Israelite men who abuse and take advantage of the widow and the fatherless.

And why would He do that? He explains it is to make the wives of those men widows, to make the children of those men fatherless. It all goes back to the principle of justice and retribution. If you would hurt or profit over those who lack a husband and father, then your own family will be made to lack a husband and father. Not only should we do unto others as we would have others do unto us, but also do unto others as we would have others do unto those under our care.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Exodus 22:21

21 Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.

The next several verses speak against harming those who are most vulnerable and indefensible. Today’s verse in particular focuses on the stranger, or foreigner, who lived among the Israelites. Someone who was a part of the population, even if they were not themselves Hebrew. And though this person had chosen not to follow the doctrine of the Lord, still that person was put under the Lord’s protection. God required that such a person be not vexed or oppressed, the reason given was because the Israelites were also a strange people in Egypt, and Egypt did oppress and vex them.

This is an early indication of the flip side of an eye-for-an-eye, which is the golden rule that would later be taught by Jesus, “do unto others as you would have others do unto you.” Because Israel would like to have been treated fairly while in a strange land, they should also treat their own strangers fairly also.

The logic of the golden rule is completely sound. Indeed, the best metric to consider the fairness and justice of any social policy is, “would this behavior destroy its own advocates if wielded by all other parties?” If one party has a principle that allows them to denigrate and destroy others, then that same party would also be denigrated and destroyed by other parties holding the same principle. Thus, the principle is self-defeating. A party that holds a principle of respecting the liberty of strangers, on the other hand, would see that same party having their liberty respected by all strangers who shared the same principle. It is therefore self-affirming. Thus, only the policies that meet the metric of “do unto others as you would have others do unto you” are logical.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Exodus 22:18-20

18 Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.

19 Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death.

20 He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed.

We now shift back to a series of rapid-fire laws, which feel more akin in tone to the ten commandments. In fact, in tomorrow’s verses we will hear the Lord speak in the first person, making promises of divine punishment for transgressors of certain laws.

All of the crimes mentioned in today’s verses carry a death penalty. Two of them have to do directly with forms of idolatry. The witches mentioned in verse 18 were female mystics who would use strange mutterings and sell enchantments as an alternative to relying upon the Lord, and obviously anyone sacrificing to a god other than the Lord was abandoning the true faith to pursue false deities. The other commandment that warrants a death penalty, having sexual relations with a creature, might have also been related to pagan rituals.

But why do these commandments warrant the law’s ultimate punishment? Why the death penalty as opposed to a fine or expulsion? We have already seen some death penalties, but they were reserved for the most extreme transgressions against other people. In every one of today’s laws, however, they are transgressions against God and nature. The target of the offense, I believe, is the reason for the harsh penalty.

Of course, there are those who choose to interpret the Old Testament’s strong punishments upon the heretics as evidence that God is insecure and narcissistic. If God is the Supreme Being of the universe, then why does He get so bent out of shape when we mock him? I think that these arguments are erring on the side of making God too personified. Not to say that it is wrong to think of God in a personified way, but that shouldn’t be the only way we conceive of our creator.

God is also synonymous with truth and right and good. Perhaps it becomes easier to understand the harsh penalties given in today’s commandments when we think of God in these more abstract terms. The people being described in these verses are acting in defiance of truth itself. They are trying to destroy the truth, to pervert it, to replace it with a lie, and it is hard to imagine a faster way to bring suffering and destruction to a people than declaring war directly on the truth itself. The laying of lies and idolatry at our foundation corrupts things at such a fundamental level that it can claim far more lives and souls than any other crime, hence the strong motivation to cut that trend off immediately.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Exodus 22:16-17

16 And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife.

17 If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.

These verses deal with what should happen if a man seduces a maiden. Interesting to note is that while there is an option for the woman to not become the man’s wife, it is not to be available to that man. He has already committed himself by his own indiscretion, and he does not have the option to surrender his duty. It was the woman’s father who may use his own wisdom and experience to refuse the marriage if he deems the man to be an unworthy husband.

If the marriage is declined, though, the man who seduced the young woman must still pay a dowry, because once again, he has already committed himself by his indiscretion. And, once again, contrary to modern notions that the Bible is sexist, notice that the law is skewed to the benefit of the more vulnerable woman in this situation. Knowing where life presented more challenges to a particular group, God balanced the scales by tilting His laws in their favor. If anyone had to be shrewd and careful now, it was the man, for he could find himself sleeping with a maiden who he thought he would marry, only to discover it was all a scam to get a dowry from him, and then she could go on to seduce another man thereafter.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Exodus 22:13-15

13 If it be torn in pieces, then let him bring it for witness, and he shall not make good that which was torn.

14 And if a man borrow ought of his neighbour, and it be hurt, or die, the owner thereof being not with it, he shall surely make it good.

15 But if the owner thereof be with it, he shall not make it good: if it be an hired thing, it came for his hire.

These verses conclude the matter of a man’s goods being lost, stolen, or destroyed while loaned to another man. Verse 13 is still speaking specifically for an animal that is loaned and then destroyed. It states that if the animal is torn to pieces by a wild creature, producing the remnants of the body shows that the borrower of the animal has not stolen, sold, or butchered the animal. It has been utterly wasted, with no profit to the borrower, and so that man is guiltless. It is the same as if the unfortunate act had destroyed the beast while still under the original owner’s care.

That idea is further advanced in verses 14 and 15, where it is pointed out that if one man is borrowing the animal, but at the time of wounding or death the original owner is also present, then there is no restitution to be made. This makes sense, as the original owner’s interest over the creature and protective sense to it would still be in force, even while the other man was borrowing it, and so if the animal was compromised anyway it was either because the original owner was being neglectful or because there was nothing that could have been done to prevent the harm. If, for example, the borrower wanted to make a beast of burden carry a particularly heavy load, and the owner was there and allowed it, and then the animal collapsed, it would be the owner’s fault for allowing it to happen. But if the owner is not there, then it was solely the borrower’s poor judgment that is to blame, and so he must make restitution.

The nuance and breadth of provision in these laws is very impressive. They show a deep understanding of human life, and the many different manners and forms in which misfortune occurs, and a clear recognition of where blame rests for each instance. While there will always be unique, in-between situations, a simple examination of the two laws that stand on either side of that situation would give the judge the proper limits of justice. He could then exercise his personal judgment between those bounds, and the potential for malpractice would therefore be limited.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Exodus 22:10-12

10 If a man deliver unto his neighbour an ass, or an ox, or a sheep, or any beast, to keep; and it die, or be hurt, or driven away, no man seeing it:

11 Then shall an oath of the Lord be between them both, that he hath not put his hand unto his neighbour’s goods; and the owner of it shall accept thereof, and he shall not make it good.

12 And if it be stolen from him, he shall make restitution unto the owner thereof.

Yesterday’s verses mentioned how a judge would have to decide between two conflicting testimonies, trying to find the truth of the matter according to his own observation and reason. Thus, there would be a human element in matters of justice, which means there would be flawed results. Surely, sometimes the guilty would be deemed innocent and set free, while the innocent would sometimes be deemed guilty and unfairly punished.

Today’s verses answer this dilemma. They state that if a man is accused of causing the death of an animal that he had on loan, that he could defend his innocence by making a solemn oath to the Lord. This appeal to the divine is the ultimate endpoint of every legal system. While we will always have lawsuits and trials where the truth cannot be verified, where lies prevail, where the wrong judgment is administered; the sense of justice yet finds its answer in the divine. If a man would make a lying oath before the Lord, then it would become the purview of the Lord to administer justice Himself. Until recently, my own country’s court system similarly required those that testified to swear on the Bible, invoking a divine oversight upon their words. From that point on, a person may yet lie and deceive, but it is most assuredly upon their own head.

Even if a man makes no formal pledge before God, it is still essential that the people believe that God still sees and knows all, and that the unresolved wrong runs contrary to His nature, and that He will make it right in this life or the next. If such were not the case, then there would be times where evil would surpass good, where lies would triumph over truth. It would mean that if one were clever and bold enough, they could wrest the universe to their will to the harm of others, and there would be no justice to ever set things right. And if that were the case, then the entire concept of law, and right and wrong, and justice, would all be vain illusions.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Exodus 22:5-9

5 If a man shall cause a field or vineyard to be eaten, and shall put in his beast, and shall feed in another man’s field; of the best of his own field, and of the best of his own vineyard, shall he make restitution.

6 If fire break out, and catch in thorns, so that the stacks of corn, or the standing corn, or the field, be consumed therewith; he that kindled the fire shall surely make restitution.

7 If a man shall deliver unto his neighbour money or stuff to keep, and it be stolen out of the man’s house; if the thief be found, let him pay double.

8 If the thief be not found, then the master of the house shall be brought unto the judges, to see whether he have put his hand unto his neighbour’s goods.

9 For all manner of trespass, whether it be for ox, for ass, for sheep, for raiment, or for any manner of lost thing, which another challengeth to be his, the cause of both parties shall come before the judges; and whom the judges shall condemn, he shall pay double unto his neighbour.

The first two verses address the restitution if one man is indirectly responsible for the destruction of another man’s crops. Whether the perpetrator left his beast to feed in the other man’s field, or if he kindled a fire that burned the crops down, he must make restitution. What is notable, however, is that he must make the restitution from the best of his own vineyard. This might be in part because the quality of the destroyed crops can no longer be ascertained, so the courts will just assume the highest value of destruction, and it may be in part a punishment for being so careless as to cause the destruction in the first place. If this penalty is skewed in any way, it is skewed to the benefit of the victim.

Verses 7 through 9 have to do with if a thief steals items or livestock that were being loaned from one man to another. If the items were stolen, and the thief is known, then obviously the thief will have to make restitution. But what if the person who was borrowing the things is only claiming that they were stolen? And what if the neighbor who loaned the things doesn’t believe that story? Then it really is a matter of one man’s word against another, and we are told that it rests upon the judges to determine who is in the right and who is in the wrong. This is the first time we have seen in the law the need for testimony and investigation. There is always going to be a need for some human judgment to resolve uncertain matters, which means there will be the potential for incorrect ruling. This is a necessary shortcoming that has applied to every law ever made. Law is still a good thing as a general concept, but we must recognize that it is never perfect.

Or, at least, it is imperfect for now. There is an eventual perfect solution as it turns out, which the Biblical record will turn to in tomorrow’s verses.