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.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Exodus 22:2-3

2 If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him.

3 If the sun be risen upon him, there shall be blood shed for him; for he should make full restitution; if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.

These verses explain the laws relating to a burglar. The phrase “breaking up” is more often translated as “breaking in,” meaning the thief is coming directly into one’s home to commit his foul deeds.

A burglar presents far more danger than a thief who picks a pocket or grabs something unattended on the streets. Breaking into a home in the dead of night significantly raises the likelihood of encountering the victim in his most vulnerable position, and so deadly force is more likely to transpire. Accordingly, the law states that a man who strikes a burglar such that he dies shall have no punishment upon him, so long as this did occur in the night. Verse 3 states that if the burglary occurs in the day, lethal force against the intruder is not permitted, presumably as the situation is far less uncertain and dangerous.

If, however, the daytime burglar is captured, there will still be a punishment upon him. As with the prior laws of theft, he must return what he stole twofold. Of course, the man may not be able to pay that fine. He may be able to return what he stole, but not the same value again a second time. In such an instance, we are told that “he shall be sold.” Presumably this means that he will be sold as a servant, but the payment that would normally go to him or his family for his service will instead be given to his intended victim. If he is an Israelite, or converts to the Israelite faith, presumably he will be freed after six years as per the previously stated laws.

I would imagine one side-effect of the Mosaic legal system is that there was much less need for prisons than in our current system. Murderers were put to death, and thieves were only fined, or else served their time as servants in other households.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Exodus 22:1, 4

1 If a man shall steal an ox, or a sheep, and kill it, or sell it; he shall restore five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep.

4 If the theft be certainly found in his hand alive, whether it be ox, or ass, or sheep; he shall restore double.

In the previous chapter we heard all the laws related to killing. These laws covered both the killing of people and of livestock, and both the intentional and the unintentional variances of each. Today’s verses now shift from killing to stealing, and there are some interesting moral lessons to be gleaned here.

The first that stands out to me is that the penalty for the deliberate theft of an animal is substantially greater than the penalty we already read for the accidental killing of an animal. It is a key moral principle that the penalty is not based only on what the outcome was (the loss of the animal), but what the underlying motivation behind that outcome were. The penalty is according to the man’s guilt more than the deprivation that was suffered.

Also, note how in the second verse it says that a thief found with the animal still alive is required to return the creature, and then one also of his own. We already heard the principle of an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, and this is consistent with that. Since this man had sought to reduce his neighbor’s livestock by one, now he shall experience what it is to have one of his herd reduced by one instead.

And finally, note how the penalty is even worse if the thief has already sold the creature away, or killed it, before he is caught. Now, instead of returning the creature and being out one of his own, he must now give up four or five of his animals. I assume the significantly more severe punishment is because the thief stole with the intention to destroy. He didn’t just take from the rightful owner, he took it out to where it could not ever be given back to the owner. That is a darker sin than to have taken, but to have left the door open for remorse and restoration.

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.