← Back to sermon library

We're in Exodus chapter 21. Exodus 
chapter 21, we're considering the laws concerning homicide 
and bodily injury. So that section is found in chapter 
21 at verse 12 to verse 32. And then there's laws concerning 
property damage and theft from 21, 33, and following. Remember, 
these are concrete applications of the general principles of 
the Ten Commandments found in Exodus chapter 20. Exodus chapter 
21, one begins with this statement. Now these are the judgments which 
you shall set before them. So then it gets into these applications 
of the commandments for life in Israel, for life in the civil 
polity. They will ultimately go into 
the land of Canaan, and they have a law to regulate their 
conduct while they are in that land. So I'll read verses 12 
to 32, and then our focus tonight will be 22 to 32. So verse 12, 
he who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to 
death. However, if he did not lie and wait, but God delivered 
him into his hand, then I will appoint for you a place where 
he may flee. But if a man acts with premeditation against his 
neighbor to kill him by treachery, you shall take him from my altar 
that he may die. And he who strikes his father 
or his mother shall surely be put to death. He who kidnaps 
a man and sells him, or if he is found in his hand, shall surely 
be put to death. And he who curses his father 
or his mother shall surely be put to death. If men contend 
with each other, and one strikes the other with a stone or with 
his fist, and he does not die but is confined to his bed, if 
he rises again and walks about outside with his staff, then 
he who struck him shall be acquitted. He shall only pay for the loss 
of his time, and shall provide for him to be thoroughly healed. 
And if a man beats his male or female servant with a rod, so 
that he dies under his hand, he shall surely be punished. 
Notwithstanding, if he remains alive a day or two, he shall 
not be punished, for he is his property. If men fight and hurt 
a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely, yet 
no harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly, as the 
woman's husband imposes on him, and he shall pay as the judges 
determine. But if any harm follows, then 
you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, 
hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, 
stripe for stripe. If a man strikes the eye of his 
male or female servant and destroys it, he shall let him go free 
for the sake of his eye. And if he knocks out the tooth 
of his male or female servant, he shall let him go free for 
the sake of his tooth. If an ox gores a man or a woman 
to death, then the ox shall surely be stoned, and its flesh shall 
not be eaten, but the owner of the ox shall be acquitted. But 
if the ox tended to thrust with its horn in times past, and it 
has been made known to his owner, and he has not kept it confined, 
so that it has killed a man or a woman, the ox shall be stoned, 
and its owner also shall be put to death. If there is imposed 
on him a sum of money, then he shall pay to redeem his life, 
whatever is imposed on him. Whether it is gore to son or 
gore to daughter, according to this judgment it shall be done 
to him. If the ox gores a male or female servant, he shall give 
to their master thirty shekels of silver, and the ox shall be 
stoned. Amen. Well, as I said, these 
are laws concerning homicide and bodily injury. There's a 
big difference between life in Chilliwack, British Columbia 
in the 21st century versus life in Israel in this second millennium. So, there's going to be some 
things I simply don't understand, some of the stuff that deals 
with servants and slaves, some of the other particulars involved, 
but we're just going to do an overview to try to get the gist 
out of these concrete applications of the Ten Commandments in the 
judicial laws of Moses. Remember our confession of faith 
speaks to the law of God. It says that the moral law is 
that which was communicated by God to Adam in the Garden of 
Eden, and then it was codified at Sinai in the Ten Commandments. So that moral law is binding 
upon all men everywhere. It doesn't matter what covenant 
you're under, you're under the moral law. The Ten Commandments 
are for everybody, everywhere, at all times. But to Israel he 
also gave ceremonial laws which were typical and prefigured and 
foreshadowed the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ. Those were 
fulfilled by him and therefore abrogated in this new covenant 
arena for the people of God. There were also judicial laws 
and that's what we're studying here. The application of the 
Ten Commandments to civil society. Our Confession speaks to this 
and it says that this Law is no longer binding on the people 
of God in the New Covenant because of the nature of the theocratic 
situation that Israel found themselves in. That is no longer the case, 
so therefore judicial law that governed Israel in the land is 
no longer binding. The confession does go on to 
say that the general equity is of use. So that means the principle 
involved that is applicable to our present situation, we can 
apply with earnestness from the Old Testament. So as we looked 
last week, we saw the prohibition against murder in verses 12 to 
14. There we saw the distinction 
between murder and manslaughter, or murder and accidental homicide. And the primary emphasis with 
reference to murder is lying in wait. premeditation, hatred, 
some sort of a malice of forethought involved on the part of one person 
to take the life of another. There's accidental homicide, 
and the Bible makes that distinction. Not here specifically. It highlights 
the premeditation in verse 14, but when you look at Numbers 
and you look at Deuteronomy, the concrete example is the axe 
head. If I went out to the forest to 
chop wood with Mac and my axe head flew off into his head, 
then I would not be held liable for murder. I had no malice in 
my heart toward Mac. I had no hatred or premeditation. 
However, there would be still punishment for me. I would have 
to go to one of these cities of refuge and bide my time there 
for a season. The reason for that was to discourage 
that kind of behavior. In other words, when you live 
in a civil polity, you're to exercise responsibility. We see 
that same sort of an emphasis tonight, or we will, with reference 
to the goring ox. So we've got this distinction 
between murder and manslaughter. And then in verses 15 to 17, 
you had the prohibition against parental assault and kidnapping. So parental assault is covered 
in verse 15, kidnapping in verse 16, and then back to parents 
in verse 17. But in terms of the kidnapping, 
look at verse 16. He who kidnaps a man and sells 
him, or if he is found in his hand. So he can't say, well, 
you know, I was just going to move him along. I'm just trafficking 
in him, but I'm not going to actually hold on to him. Either 
way, any involvement that somebody had in this act of kidnapping 
was indeed a capital offense. So with reference to murder, 
it's a capital offense. With reference to the assault 
of parents, whether the parent dies or not, that is such a grievous 
act that it demanded execution. Kidnapping, of course, to steal 
a man's liberty, is akin to stealing a man's life, and that's what 
the scripture sets forth. And then, of course, somebody 
who would curse his father or his mother. Probably not going 
to be a contributing member of society. Probably not going to 
be an asset to the body politic if he has that kind of a waywardness 
with reference to his parents. Then we move to the laws concerning 
bodily injury. Verses 18 and 19. The injury 
sustained in a fight. If two men fight, one of them 
gets injured, the only thing he has recourse to is time lost 
at work until such time that he is healed and able to go back 
to work. And then the servant law in verses 
20 to 21. Injuries sustained by slaves. 
Again, difficult in terms of our orientation with reference 
to our experience or the most that we know of of slavery as 
the shadow slavery that we saw take place in America and Africa, 
with reference to verses 20 and 21, the essence of the law is 
that a master was culpable, he was responsible. However, if 
the servant remained alive, then it was obvious that he never 
intended to murder that particular servant, so there is that stipulation 
involved. Now we move on to the threat 
to a mother and her children in verses 22 to 25. Next, the 
punishment of a vicious master in verses 26 to 27. And then 
finally, the goring ox of verses 28 to 32. A great name for a 
heavy metal band, the goring ox. But if you look first of 
all, and this is a passage I hope you're all familiar with, I typically 
preach on it, or around it, or at least include it on Sanctity 
of Life Sunday, because this does in fact cover not only a 
pregnant woman, but the baby in the womb. I was surprised 
today to learn that it's International Safe Abortion Day. Didn't know 
there was an International Safe Abortion Day, but our Prime Minister 
tweeted that with some degree of glee and with the absolute 
promise to always protect a person's right to choose, which seemed 
a bit ironic in light of the COVID mandates to get vaccines 
if you didn't want them. But this passage speaks with 
specificity to the issue of abortion. So notice in the first place 
the specific situation that is occurring. We already had in 
verse 18, if men contend with each other, we drop down to verse 
22, we see these same sorts of men in the civil polity that 
get into a fight. They get into a fist fight. It 
says, if men fight and hurt a woman with child so that she gives 
birth prematurely. So most likely she's a pregnant 
woman that's a wife of one of the two fools that's out there 
brawling on the street. Most likely she could have been 
a passerby, but probably one of the guy's wives. So these men fight and they hurt 
a woman with child. Now there's a translation issue 
that I typically cover when we look at this verse on Sanctity 
of Life Sunday. Some of the English translations 
translate it this way. If men fight and hurt a woman 
with child so that she miscarries, yet no harm follows. At that 
point, the yet no harm follows only applies to the woman. No 
longer is there a baby because she's miscarried the baby. But 
if we understand the passage correctly, we'll understand that 
the law specifically speaks not only to the mother, but it speaks 
to the baby as well. So if men fight and hurt a woman 
with child so that she gives birth prematurely, this is a 
good translation, yet no harm follows. So she's given birth 
prematurely. So now you've got a mother and 
you've got her baby. And no harm follows to either 
mother or her baby, then there's a monetary fine affixed to the 
particular individual that did that activity. So the text specifically, 
or literally, is if man fight and hurt a woman with a child 
and her children, it's plural, there was the potential of twins 
or triplets or whatever it goes on from there, four, five, six, 
a whole heap of children could be in there. If, and her children 
come out, yet no harm follows. So the if, or so it goes on to 
say later on in verse 23, but if any harm follows. So we're 
dealing again with two people. You've got a mother, you've got 
her child. There is a specific Hebrew word for miscarriage. 
That's not in this passage. That's not the language that's 
used. There's also a specific Hebrew word for the product of 
a miscarriage, or one that is untimely born. Again, that word 
is not present in this particular passage. So to translate it as 
miscarriage, or to translate it as one untimely born, would 
be wrong or incorrect. The language used here is that 
used elsewhere for childbirth. So again, if a man fight and 
hurt a woman with child, and her children come out, that language 
of coming out is something that you see throughout scripture 
in terms of the birth of babies. You can turn to Genesis 35. We'll 
go to the ones that we've looked at in the past. Genesis chapter 
25. Genesis chapter 25, same sort 
of language that's involved here. And again, it's very important 
because you've got some English translations that blur the distinction 
here, and then basically have a law that protects the woman, 
but doesn't protect the pre-born baby, the baby that is born prematurely. If you notice in Genesis chapter 
25, at verse 22, The children struggled together 
within her. Interesting that the Bible refers 
to them as children. And she said, if all is well, 
why am I like this? So she went to inquire of the 
Lord. And the Lord said to her, two nations are in your womb. 
Excuse me, two peoples shall be separated from your body. 
One people shall be stronger than the other, and the older 
shall serve the younger. So when her days were fulfilled 
for her to give birth, indeed there were twins in her womb. 
And the first, notice the language, came out red. That's the exact 
and precise language that's seen in the judicial law in Exodus 
chapter 21. You've got children coming out. You've got the potential or possibility 
for twins or triplets to be in a woman's womb. And those children, 
because of the result of this fight, she's struck, there's 
some sort of trauma, and she goes into labor, and these children 
come out, or the child comes out. So the first came out red. He was like a hairy garment all 
over, so they called his name Esau. Afterward, his brother 
came out, and his hand took hold of Esau's heel. So his name was 
called Jacob. You see the same thing over in 
chapter 35. chapter 35 at verse 11. The promise made to Abraham, 
and to Isaac, and to Jacob in terms of the extension of the 
kingdom of God through the seed of Abraham, which is Christ ultimately. So 3511, also God said to me, 
I am God Almighty, be fruitful and multiply. A nation and a 
company of nations shall proceed from you, shall come out from 
you. That's the language that is employed 
with reference to childbirth. You see it in chapter 38. Chapter 
38, specifically at verses 28 to 30. Chapter 38 at verse 27. Now, it came to pass at the time 
for giving birth that, behold, twins were in her womb. And so 
it was, when she was giving birth, that the one put out his hand, 
and the midwife took a scarlet thread and bound it on his hand, 
saying, This one came out first. Then it happened, as he drew 
back his hand, that his brother came out unexpectedly, and she 
said, How did you break through? this breach be upon you." Therefore, 
his name was called Peres. Afterward, his brother came out, 
who had the scarlet thread on his hand, and his name was called 
Zerah. So, going back to chapter 21 
in the book of Exodus, the Scripture uses language that is conspicuous 
here to refer to the birth of children. And so, what you have 
is a law that protects not only the woman that is struck, but 
the child or children that proceed from her womb. Going back to 
the law, we see if men fight and hurt a woman with child so 
that she gives birth prematurely, yet no harm follows to the woman 
or to the new baby, he shall surely be punished accordingly 
as the woman's husband imposes on him, and he shall pay as the 
judges determine. It's obviously a traumatic experience. That's obviously undue duress. It is definitely distressful 
for that particular woman. They didn't have the nursery 
set up. Perhaps they didn't have the crib yet. They were still 
looking at paint colors and that sort of thing. So there was a 
lot of things involved. And so this moron has to pay 
because he's caused this kind of a hardship upon this particular 
family. But if harm does follow, notice 
in verse 23, but if any harm follows, again, to the mother 
or to the child that has come out, or the children that have 
come out, he then invokes what's called the law of retaliation, 
or the lex talionis. Now, that is inserted here, obviously, 
for this incident, with reference to the two men fighting that 
strike a mother, a woman, that is pregnant, but it's also for 
the rest of the law code. So it's there, and it does double 
duty. It does business with this particular 
situation in verses 22 and 23, but it also sets forth a particular 
and abiding principle in terms of penal sanction. So it says, 
if any harm follows, then you shall give life for life. Now 
notice that, with reference to the unborn baby that comes out 
prematurely, if there is harm to that baby or to that mother, 
that baby is as much covered in this law as is the mother. Again, it's a law that speaks 
with great specificity to the act of abortion. So if any harm 
follows, then you shall give life for life. And it's intriguing 
because this would be accidental homicide. These two guys fighting 
didn't intend to hit a woman. The two guys fighting didn't 
intend to cause her to have a premature birth. The two guys fighting 
didn't intend for any harm to come to this pregnant woman's 
baby. And when we look up in the passage before us, accidental 
homicide is usually met with a trip to the city of refuge. 
If I let my axe head fly off, it falls into my neighbor's head, 
I've killed him, that's wrong, but I'm not a murderer, and so 
I'm allowed to go to the city of refuge and I keep my life. 
But in this instance of accidental homicide, there is the demand 
for execution. There is the demand for that 
penal sanction of life for life. And then it goes on in terms 
of this law of retaliation to speak to other things. Eye for 
eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for 
burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. Now, when we consider 
this Lex Talionis, it's probably curious to us to wonder if there 
was a particular squad in Israel that had as their job the gouging 
out of eyes and the breaking out of teeth. Most likely, that 
probably didn't happen. More likely, it's the principle 
that is enjoined by this particular statement of law. This giving 
of life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, 
foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe, 
demands that the punishment must fit the crime. The punishment 
must fit the crime. If you look at verses 26 and 
27, in the case of a vicious master, the servant doesn't get 
to poke out his eye or break out his tooth. The servant gets 
to go free. He doesn't have to oblige that 
contract that says he's in servitude for six years. So that's one 
indicator. But with reference to this principle, 
if it were applied literally, there was a great potential for 
imbalance. If a one-eyed man gouged out 
the eye of another man, then it would be cruel and unusual 
punishment ultimately to gouge out the other eye of the criminal 
in that particular instance. If it was the case that somebody 
burned somebody or gave a stripe, it would be hard to replicate 
that just so. with reference to the victim. If the victim had the opportunity 
for financial remuneration or the joy of seeing his offender, 
the guy who victimized him, if he'd rather have his eye poked 
out or his teeth his tooth yanked out. I'm pretty sure that most 
likely what is going on here is that emphasis on the punishment 
must fit the crime. Matthew Poole makes the observation, 
this is a sure and righteous rule. Punishments may be less, 
but never should be greater than the fault. So if a one-eyed man 
poked out your eye, and then in return you poked out his last 
remaining eye, he'd be a whole lot worse off than the punishment 
that was fit for him at that particular point. Some of the 
older commentators get into this in detail. I think it's worth 
reading because I think it's a very helpful discussion to 
have. But in terms of this lex talionis, or the law of retaliation, 
it was designed to do double duty. In the first place, it 
would ensure that we wouldn't have too lenient of sanctions, 
right? It would be the case, or it could 
be the case, that somebody would get off without due recompense. I think we see that happening 
all the time, and I think that that only institutes a challenge 
to the morale of the civil polity. So with reference to the law 
of retaliation, it would have been a check against leniency 
in punishment. Again, too severe is not enjoined 
by the law, but leniency is certainly frowned upon. But it would check 
severity in punishment as well. When Modern says that far from 
promoting unbridled vengeance, the lex talionis prohibits excessive 
retaliation. And we can be guilty, maybe you 
can't, I shouldn't include you in my sin, I can be guilty of 
wanting excessive retaliation. I can be guilty of wanting excessive 
punishment for individuals. Now again, that's not necessarily 
the worst thing if it is requisite in terms of the violation. But 
we need to make sure that we understand that there are principles 
of justice and righteousness and equity built into the law 
of God, and we're not supposed to be too lenient, but we're 
also not supposed to be too harsh either. And so, cruel and unusual 
punishment is not honoring to God. In fact, if you turn to 
the book of Deuteronomy, Deuteronomy chapter 25, you see an instance 
of this. Deuteronomy chapter 25. this is the infliction of corporal 
punishment upon a criminal offender in the civil polity of Old Cops 
Israel and it demands attention because it demands very much 
notice in verse 1 of chapter 25 if there is a judge, the judges 
may judge them and they justify the righteous and condemn the 
wicked of corporal punishment before we get to people sanctioned 
there has to be a proper trial You can't punish people without 
a trial. You can't punish people if they 
haven't been indicted and arraigned and arrested and read their rights. All those things have to obtain 
before you throw somebody into solitary confinement, before 
you throw somebody into jail, before you inflict corporal punishment 
upon them, or before you inflict capital punishment on them. I 
mean, the purges of the Soviet Union under Stalin are famous, 
right? I mean, the trial was at the 
end of a barrel. That was about all you got, and 
that was it. So there had to be a proper trial, 
and we notice that there's also proper supervision. They come 
to court, that the judges may judge them. They justify the 
righteous and condemn the wicked. Notice in verse 2, then it shall 
be, if the wicked man deserves to be beaten, that the judge 
will cause him to lie down and be beaten in his presence, notice, 
according to his guilt, with a certain number of blows. Okay, 
you couldn't be overly excessive. Couldn't say, well, you know, 
the spirit overtook me. I know we're at 25 and we weren't 
supposed to go past that, but yeah, I just got a fresh burst 
of energy, so I gave you 15 more. That's unlawful. That's ungodly. It's unrighteous, brethren. Even 
at some base level of our hearts, we might rejoice in the reality 
that a notorious criminal got perhaps more than he deserved. 
We have to abide by the law of God when it comes to these things. 
So there is proper proportion. He is beaten in his presence 
according to his guilt, and then there is a limitation imposed 
upon the punishment with a certain number of blows. And then it 
says in verse 3, 40 blows he may give him and no more. And 
then notice the rationale, lest he should exceed this and beat 
him with many blows above these, and your brother be humiliated 
in your sight. So the man still retains the 
character of an image bearer. The man still has intrinsic dignity 
even as a criminal that's being punished corporally for a particular 
crime. And a crime that was probably 
pretty bad if he's getting up to 40 lashes with a whip. So this man nevertheless is an 
image bearer, he hasn't forfeit that, he hasn't become an animal, 
and he does deserve the proper trial, proper supervision, proper 
proportion that his punishment deserves, a proper limit with 
reference to that punishment, and then dignity maintained on 
his behalf. So 40 blows he may give him and 
no more, lest he should exceed this and beat him with many blows 
above these, and your brother be humiliated in your sight. 
We never stop being the creature of God. We never stop being the 
image bearer of God. We cannot get to that place of 
the animal where we just rejoice in bloodlust and forget all manner 
of consistency and discipline relative to the punishment of 
criminal offenders. So going back to the law code 
in the book of Exodus, we have the lex talionis appended to 
or attached to these men fighting and hurting the woman that is 
with child, and she gives birth prematurely. So the law protects 
the woman, the law protects the baby or babies that come out 
of her, and the law does so in a manner that in some sense even 
exceeds accidental homicide that is spoken to previously in the 
chapter. Not an exceeding in the sense 
of, it is a compromise or jeopardizing dignity and justice and all of 
that sort of thing. It's just underscoring that protective 
nature of God relative to the vulnerable and the weak that 
are in society. And then notice in the second 
place with reference to the punishment of a vicious master in verses 
26 and 27. If a man strikes the eye of his 
male or female servant. Notice it's male or female. This isn't just a You know, if 
the man gets hurt, well, that's all there is to it. No, the male 
or the female. We've got the man, the woman, 
and the ignoring ox laws. We've got the child, boy or girl. We've got the slave, the servant. 
All of us, all persons, were covered under the provision of 
God's law. It wasn't a two-tier society. 
It wasn't, well, you know, if you happen to have money, you're 
going to be okay. If you don't have money, well, 
tough on you. No, the law spoke with equity to various people 
groups within Old Covenant Israel. And in verses 26 and 27, we know 
or we already have the assumption based on verses 20 and 21, that 
it was legit, or the Bible at least recognizes the chastisement 
or the discipline of a servant by a master. And so verses 26 
and 27 function as a check to that. You can discipline your 
servant, but you cannot be excessive. If you are excessive in that 
discipline, if you jeopardize the servant's life, if you endanger 
that person, if you gouge out an eye, or if you break out a 
tooth, you're going to be liable for that. And it's going to affect 
you financially. male or female servant and destroys 
it, he shall let him go free for the sake of his eye. Remember, 
he was obliged to serve for six years, according to chapter 21, 
verses one to six. There were rules there governing 
the servant-master relationship, and ultimately it was a contractual 
obligation wherein the master had the prerogative to provide 
room and board and all things necessary to govern the life 
of his, or to sustain the life of his servants. Now, when we 
look at these particular laws, it's probably the case that most 
servants wouldn't jeopardize their property this way. I used 
the illustration of a John Deere tractor last week. You wouldn't 
pour sand into the gas tank. You wouldn't go out and buy that 
beautiful, wonderful machine for, I'm guessing, billions and 
billions of dollars and take it home and pour sand in it. 
Why would you jeopardize a piece of property that is going to 
be useful to you in terms of the management of your land? 
Well, why would anybody in their right mind do that with their 
servant? Why would you gouge out his eye? Why would you break 
out his tooth? But the law is there in the eventuality 
that somebody does break that. So we could look at this and 
say, wow, that's terrible. There was servanthood in Old 
Covenant Israel. Remember last week or last time, 
two weeks ago, we considered why were people servants in Old 
Covenant Israel? Well, you certainly had foreigners 
or pagans or heathens that you would bring into that service. 
But within this context, at least in the first part of chapter 
21, it seems to be the persons within Israel. Why would an Israelite 
be in a servant situation? One, if he was a thief. 22.3 
tells us, if a man is caught stealing and he doesn't have 
anything to pay back with, then he sells himself into slavery, 
indentured servitude, to work off that debt. But as well, a 
man could be poor. And if he was poor, he would 
sell himself into indentured servitude for a six-year contract. It's not a lot different than 
working at an Amazon distribution center. It's not a lot different 
than working at, you know, Canada Post. It's a contractual obligation 
wherein we get something for services rendered. So this particular 
law, we could say, wow, it's terrible that they had servants 
in Old Covenant Israel. Yeah, but it's amazing that God 
Most High, the living and the true God, has laws built into 
His law code to protect them, to keep them, to watch over them, 
and to make sure that if there was a vicious master, that God 
is jollies out of gouging out eyes and breaking out teeth from 
servants, that man would be financially ruined. And so the law speaks 
specifically to that particular situation. Even though a servant 
was the money of his employer in the sense of being his contractually 
obligated property, the right of a master to enforce his contract 
with his servant was not absolute. This is Stewart. He says, human 
rights were more important. So that's what that text or that's 
what that law sets out before us. It's already said that he 
is his money or he is his property in chapter 21 at verse 21. So if it is his property, then 
he does have that contractual situation with him, but if he 
breaks that or he breaks the guy's tooth or gouges out his 
eye, then that invalidates that contractual obligation and the 
man gets to go free. And then as well, we've got the 
goring ox. So the general law or the general 
principle is verse 28. If an ox gores a man or a woman 
to death, then the ox shall surely be stoned and its flesh shall 
not be eaten, but the owner of the ox shall be acquitted. This 
kind of goes back to Genesis chapter 9, prior to the statement 
concerning capital punishment for humans. In 9.6, 9.5 tells 
us, Surely for your lifeblood I will demand a reckoning. From 
the hand of every beast I will require it, and from the hand 
of man." So if an ox gores a man, and again, this probably wouldn't 
happen on a regular basis. I mean, most farm animals are 
pretty docile and they do what they're supposed to do, but if 
you had one that wasn't castrated and He had a bit of a nasty streak 
about him and he saw something that looked intriguing to him. 
Well, that just might happen. So again, you're dealing with 
a law code where it's most likely the case that people aren't wandering 
around day by day poking out eyes and breaking off teeth and 
letting their oxen out so they can go gore people. Probably 
wasn't like that, but you needed laws on the books for that instance, 
or for that particular situation, so you're not left sort of scratching 
your head. And of course, these are general 
laws as well, from which you could extrapolate other principles 
into other specific situations. So, if an ox gores a man or a 
woman to death, then the ox shall surely be stoned, its flesh shall 
not eaten. But notice, the owner of the 
ox shall be acquitted. He didn't kill anybody. He didn't 
do it maliciously. He didn't open the gate or send 
his ox on a mission of hatred and destruction. Go take out 
the Jones family next door. He didn't do that. It was an 
accident. It was accidental on his part. Now, why doesn't he get to eat 
the animal? Well, probably twofold reason. 
One, the death of the animal ensured that the animal wouldn't 
gore again. And two, probably punishment. If, you know, there 
was some irresponsibility on his part, this would hopefully 
discipline it right out of him when he lost that money, when 
he lost that meat, when he wasn't able to avail himself of his 
capital investment. But the bottom line is, he's 
not criminally responsible. But now notice the repeat offense 
in verses 29 and following. But if the ox tended to thrust 
with its horn in times past, and it has been made known to 
his owner, and he has not kept it confined, so that it has killed 
a man or a woman, the ox shall be stoned and its owner also 
shall be put to death. Notice again, the law covers 
man and woman. How many times have you heard, 
oh, the Old Testament. Oh, it's so chauvinistic. Oh, 
women are second class citizens. That's simply untrue. That's 
not the case. We've got the protection of men 
and women in the body politic. But in this particular instance, 
you've got this one fly that's driving me nuts and flying around 
my head here. In this particular instance, 
this ox tended to thrust. In times past, it's the case, 
what are you going to do? You're going to guard the ox. 
You're going to keep it so that it doesn't get out to kill the 
next door neighbor. In this particular instance, 
you kill the ox at 29. Its owner also shall be put to 
death. This would be a case of criminal 
negligence. This would be an instance where 
you had knowledge that there was a problem with your particular 
animal, which this is what the law ultimately speaks to. As 
a human being who owns animals, you're supposed to own those 
animals and use them in a responsible manner. When you're dealing with 
however many pound beasts that have the ability to gore people 
to death, there's a certain amount of responsibility that you have 
to own for that. So in this instance, he could be executed. He could 
be put to death. But then notice the turn in verse 
30. The decision of a fine could be made in lieu of execution. There might be mitigating circumstances. So verse 30 builds into the law 
a provision for the judges in the future. It may not be a cut 
and dry case where the guy had the ox, the ox got out last week, 
it gored a neighbor, that ox was, you know, for whatever reason 
brought back and nobody found out about it except for the, 
they never got the judges involved, and then it got out again and 
killed somebody. the eventuality was, or another situation was, 
is that time had passed, and that this ox was loaned out to 
somebody, and the owner did not give the apparent warning, and 
yet, there was a recklessness on the part of the person. Let 
me just read Stuart, I think he gets this. It says, the second 
part of the verse gave necessary leeway to the judges in complicated 
cases. Suppose the bull had tried to 
gore someone only once, many years previously. Tried to. If it had, it would have been 
dead. Tried to. Many years previously. And someone 
had borrowed the bull against the owner's advice and had mistreated 
the bull and then was gored to death. Under such circumstances, 
a judge might well decide, and this law gave him the freedom 
to do so, that the death penalty for the bull's owner would not 
be fair, a fine being more appropriate to the actual level of culpability. 
Again, when you're dealing with laws, not everything is cotton 
dry. It's not always, you know, the black and white situation. 
I'm sure that's a challenge to modern judges and modern attorneys 
and all that sort of thing. there are things that aren't 
always as clear cut. And I think that's the transition 
between 29 and 30. If it is a clear cut of criminal 
negligence, the man will be executed. If it's not a clear cut case 
of criminal negligence, the man may not be executed, but he's 
going to be held responsible financially. It's going to cost 
him so that he learns his lesson and that he does not do that 
sort of a thing again. So 29, if it does, if it tended 
to thrust in times past, it was known, the man could be executed. If there are mitigating circumstances, 
the judges may impose on him a sum of money. In verse 30, 
then he shall pay to redeem his life, whatever is imposed on 
him. And then the law again goes to cover those whom we wouldn't 
normally think of. You'd think of the adults, you'd 
think of the man, you'd think of the woman. But whether it is gore 
to son or gore to daughter, according to this judgment, it shall be 
done to him. There were other cultures that 
didn't regard children. Perhaps they didn't get the rights, 
they didn't get the protection. There wasn't equal protection 
under the law for the pre-born or for little children. And then 
it goes on to deal with the servant. In verse 32, if the ox gores 
a male or female servant, he shall give to their master thirty 
shekels of silver, and the ox shall be stoned. Again, some 
difficulty in terms of the whole idea of the arrangement of having 
a servant, but the law speaks to the protection of even servants 
in Old Covenant Israel in the eventuality that an ox would 
gore them and kill them. Now from here on out, we've got 
property damage and theft. So again, some of this stuff 
is a bit difficult on this side of it, but hopefully we're getting 
the gist of it. The sixth commandment is central 
to the commands in this particular section in terms of murder and 
manslaughter. When we turn to the next section 
concerning property damage and theft, it'll be the eighth commandment. When you get to the laws concerning 
sexuality, it's the seventh commandment. You get the general principle, 
do not murder. Well, what does that look like 
in society? Well, it looks like a man premeditatively sitting, 
you know, hiding in a man's bush and murdering him with hatred 
in his heart. It looks like criminal negligence 
when you have an ox that has the tendency to gore people and 
you didn't secure the fence, the leash, or whatever it was 
necessary to keep that ox from engaging in that particular activity. 
So the general principles are most excellent, it is a reflection 
of God's holy will, it is for all men everywhere at all times, 
but this gives us that application in terms of civil society. So 
from this particular section, or this vantage point, we learn 
at least a few things. First, the need for responsible 
citizenship. If you're going to live in a 
civil polity and you decide to fight on the streets, realize 
there are repercussions for that. We are not animals. We don't 
just break out in fights without any regard for persons around 
us. In verses 18 and 19, if you beat 
someone up in a fight and you put him out of work, you might 
have some financial responsibility in terms of his inability to 
work. If you fight and you hurt a woman that's pregnant and she 
gives birth prematurely, that may cost you your life. And so 
responsible citizenship is a most important element in terms of 
civil society. Obviously, as well, the risk 
involved in owning an ox. Oh yeah, it's going to do a lot 
of work on the farm, it's going to help you immeasurably, but 
with that privilege comes the necessity of tending to it in 
such a way that it doesn't hurt or harm another person. We see 
in this section as well the potential criminality of negligence. You 
could extrapolate this to a whole host of things in our own generation. 
I mentioned the whole idea of putting a fence around your swimming 
pool so that your neighbor doesn't die, your neighbor kid doesn't 
die. Drunk driving. Somebody drinks and drives and 
they get caught and then they do it again. Well, you're in 
the arena of the goring ox. If you have done this in the 
past and you do it again, there's criminal negligence there that 
may render you in a world of hurt. So with reference to negligence, 
so responsible citizenship, but as well this idea of not being 
negligent, spending the few moments to make sure your axe head is 
sufficiently attached to the axe handle. making sure that 
the fence that surrounds your prize-winning ox with the horn 
that is able to bring down armies, make sure that you secure that 
beast or else you're going to be in trouble. And then, of course, 
we see in all of this the justice and the wisdom of God. Justice 
in terms of the reality that in a civil society, there can't 
be two or three tiers of justice. There must be law that covers 
all men everywhere. There must be law applied consistently 
and regularly in a manner that is responsive to the reality 
of the needs of civil society, but as well as wisdom. Mentioned 
last week, if I was going to plan how to do civil polity, 
probably would have never thought of the goring ox. Just going 
to tell you the honest truth. Never would have thought of some 
of the things that are built in here on this side of the land 
of Canaan and their life in the land when this would come to 
full fruition and operation. Certainly prior to the actual 
entering into the land and taking it and dividing it and all that 
sort of thing, they'd have need for a detailed law code. But 
all of this reflects the wisdom of God. Not Moses. Moses was 
the mediator. This is God's law. This is God's 
will. This is God's mind. relative 
to the civil polity in Old Covenant Israel. Well, I'll pray, and 
then if there's any questions, we can deal with that. Our God 
and our Father, we thank you for your word, we thank you for 
its clarity, we thank you for the consistency that we find 
in both the Old and the New Testament in terms of an emphasis on law. 
We know that we're not animals, we are governed, we are regulated, 
we have a lawgiver that has called us to a particular type of activity 
as creature and as new creatures in Christ Jesus. So help us to 
embrace these things, help us to delight in your law, and help 
us to glorify you. And we ask through Jesus Christ 
our Lord. Amen. Any questions or comments? to both children and the womb. If you show us the ear, the same 
as you do with the legs, it shows how God thinks of that. He said, 
child, well, you have your womb, but that other passage, too, 
just sort of struck me that, you know, it says he chose to 
give life for life, which means it was a life in the womb. Yeah. Oh, yeah. You know, contrary 
to what these people argue nowadays, that's not until it's born. That's 
right. Oh, yeah. No, absolutely. Positively. Yeah. Just the use of the phrase, with 
child, in the history of the English language. I think there's 
the emphasis on using the word pregnant. That seems to be a 
more recent convention. Because even with child, you 
see that in Shakespeare, prior eras. So it's just our language 
has shifted. And I think it was last Saturday, 
I think it was the African young lady that spoke. Oh, you've already 
had lunch in it. But there was a luncheon after 
the Walk for Life. There was a couple of kids with 
scholarships that had presented essays or wanted some sort of 
essay context. There was an African girl who read her paper, and 
she alluded to how in some cultures somewhere, they didn't even have 
a word for abortion until Westerners came into play. They didn't even 
have a word for the concept. until people from the outside 
brought the concept that doesn't practice. So it's to say that 
words matter, language matters in this arena of pro-life ethics. And exactly, the dehumanization 
of the babies is what we're dealing with. Yeah, they like to use 
the word fetus. And the joke's on that. It means 
pre-born baby. Yeah, I'm just following the 
link on Newsome's sign that goes to abortion.ca.gov and it talks 
about, it ties to abortion, talks about removing pregnancy tissue 
from your uterus. There's actually billboards 
in California right now that say, if you need an abortion, 
come to California, and then quotes a scripture verse. Quotes Jesus. Quotes, love your 
neighbor as yourself. If you'd have told me a year 
ago that they'd be using scripture to justify abortion, even a year 
ago, I'd have said, come on. That's nuisance. It's interesting 
in Korea, when a baby's born, it's already one year old. So 
they mark birthdays. Makes sense. Well, there's probably more coffee 
if anybody wants to have a coffee.