← Back to sermon library

Our hope is to get from 12 to 
21. But this section deals with the 
laws concerning homicide and bodily injury. Remember chapter 
21 verse 1. Now these are the judgments which 
you shall set before them. So the principles, the general 
principles of the Ten Commandments are given in chapter 20. that's 
the moral law of God, and then chapters 21 to 23 are called 
the Book of the Covenant, well, chapters 21 to 24, but 21 to 
23 contain what's called the judicial law, where the application 
of those general principles in the life of Israel as they possess 
the land. So, laws concerning homicide 
and bodily injury are covered here in verse 12 to verse 32. So, I'll pick up reading in chapter 
21 at 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 the thrust with its horn in times past, and it 
has been made known to its 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. As I said last week, we're 
dealing with an ancient law code and the application of the general 
principles of the Decalogue in society. Some of this is a bit 
difficult, this far on the other side of the civil polity in the 
Commonwealth of Israel. So some of the the things I especially 
the stuff dealing with slaves and servants and injuries done 
to them and the identification is the slave as property or his 
money are a bit difficult to get our minds wrapped around 
so I don't know that I can exhaustively explain all of those particular 
things but hopefully we can get a good overview of what's happening 
in this particular section. Again, the laws concerning homicide 
and bodily injury have, first of all, the prohibition against 
murder in verses 12 to 14. Secondly, the prohibition against 
parental assault and kidnapping in verses 15 to 17. Thirdly, 
the laws concerning bodily injury in verses 18 to 32. So you have 
first the injury sustained in a fight, verses 18 to 19. Second, 
the injury sustained by slaves. God willing, that's where we'll 
get to tonight. And then next, you have that woman, threat to 
a woman and her pre-born baby. And then you have the punishment 
for a vicious master in verses 26 to 27. And then the laws concerning 
the goring ox in verses 28 to 32. All of those instances again 
causing bodily injury upon innocent victims. But let's take up first 
the prohibition against murder in verses 12 to 14. The prohibition 
is pretty clear. Verse 12, he who strikes a man 
so that he dies shall surely be put to death so obviously 
this is the application of the sixth commandment which in exodus 
20 verse 13 says simply you shall not murder and again verse 12 
he who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to 
death it is a capital offense in fact all of the crimes in 
this particular section are capital in nature and with reference 
to this law notice he who strikes a man Stuart is a commentator 
that I've been using with profit. He's a modern commentator, and 
he makes this observation concerning ancient Near Eastern law codes. 
He says, in other ancient Near Eastern law, murder was punished 
by death only when a person murdered someone of an equal or higher 
class. Murder of someone of a lower 
class was punished either by the payment of a fine or by putting 
to death someone in the murderer's household who was of the same 
class as the person murdered. This kind of class distinction 
is never allowed in biblical law, which represents a quantum 
leap in fairness over the prevailing attitudes in all societies outside 
of Israel." That was an interesting point. to be observed there in 
verse 12. He who strikes a man. There's 
no basis for a particular class or social strata or anything 
like that. If you murdered somebody, you 
are liable to capital punishment, liable to the death penalty. 
And obviously, this isn't the first instance that the death 
penalty is introduced. You can turn back to the book 
of Genesis in Genesis chapter 9. We see the giving of the Noahic 
Covenant, and one of the things that prevailed prior to the flood 
was an earth that was exceedingly corrupt and filled with violence. So when Noah and his family comes 
out of the ark, it shouldn't surprise us that God provides 
redress or God provides a remedy for the violence that obtained 
on the earth. And one of those means was the 
execution of murderers. And you see that specifically 
in Genesis 9. At verse 6, whoever sheds man's 
blood, again the same sort of an emphasis, whoever, there's 
no class distinction, there's no sort of, you know, only if 
it's somebody that's in your economic level, but it's whoever 
sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the 
image of God he made man. Now, the Noahic Covenant is applicable 
to all creation at all times. It's not simply given to Israel, 
and one of the ways that we know that is Romans chapter 13. Romans 
chapter 13 obviously is a call by the Apostle Paul to let every 
soul be subject to the governing authorities. He then says, For 
there is no authority except from God, and the authorities 
that exist are appointed by God. Therefore, whoever resists the 
authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist 
will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers are not a terror to 
good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of 
the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from 
the same. For he is God's minister to you for good. But if you do 
evil, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain, for 
he is God's minister and avenger to execute wrath on him who practices 
evil." Now, the sword represents the civil government's power 
to engage in the death penalty. It doesn't mean that every single 
crime is capital in nature, but if there is a crime that's capital 
in nature, then the government has the prerogative, the duty 
under God, to execute that offender. So when we go back to Exodus 
21, we see the application of the Sixth Commandment in society 
as a whole. And the book of Numbers underscores 
the necessity for the death penalty for the specific crime of murder. 
Now, there's other crimes. Again, in this particular context, 
we see other capital offenses, but the Mosaic Code entails or 
covers many capital offenses. But with reference to the crime 
of murder, it is absolutely mandated that there is the execution of 
the criminal offender. In Numbers 35, specifically at 
verse 31, it says, Moreover, you shall take no ransom for 
the life of a murderer who is guilty of death, but he shall 
surely be put to death. So it's not just a suggestion 
by God in terms of, you know, this is the better way to do 
society. It is mandated by God. And again, it's a Noahic covenant 
issue. We see it operative in the New Covenant as well. So 
it's not something relegated to the Old Covenant, to the Mosaic 
addenda, that is only operable for that particular time. For 
sure, the crime of murder is always to be punished by execution. So he who strikes a man so that 
he dies shall surely be put to death. But in verses 13 and 14, 
we see qualification given, a necessary distinction built into the law. 
Not every time somebody dies at the hand of another is it 
necessarily murder. And so the scripture makes that 
distinction. Notice in verse 13, However, 
if he did not lie and wait, That's the crucial aspect that defines 
murder. It is premeditation, it is malice 
aforethought. That is the distinction given 
to us in the law, if you look specifically at verse 14. But 
if a man acts with premeditation against his neighbor, you see 
the same sort of distinction made in Numbers 35, 16 to 24, 
and then Deuteronomy 19, verses four to seven. And we'll look 
at those passages in a bit, Because if you look at verse 13, it says, 
So Numbers 35, Deuteronomy 19 indicate those cities of refuge. 
And again, what is in view there is that if it's an accidental or an unintentional homicide, 
that man has not committed murder. Therefore, he should not be executed 
for that particular misdeed. Now, it's obviously a bad thing. 
When you go into the forest to chop wood, you should make sure 
your axe head doesn't fly off and find its way into your neighbor's 
head. but at the same time it wasn't premeditated, it wasn't 
malice aforethought, and so the avenger of blood does not have 
the prerogative to execute that particular person for the crime 
of murder. So the distinction is built into 
this law, however, if he did not lie in wait, but then it 
goes on to say, but God delivered him into his hand. In the providence 
of God, sometimes ax heads do fly off handles and find their 
way into person's heads. That is the providence of God. 
I think that's the emphasis here. But God delivered him into his 
hand for whatever reason, whatever prerogative God most high in 
his sovereignty had for that, you know, sort of innocent or 
hapless soul to wander into the to the woods with his buddy who 
had an axe head that was faulty, that's just the way, you know, 
the cookie crumbles in terms of God's world. So it's the distinction 
being made between murder and accidental or unintentional homicide. And then as it says, then I will 
appoint to the cities of refuge, then I will appoint for you a 
place where he may flee. You can turn to Deuteronomy 19, 
where it spells this out in detail. Deuteronomy chapter 19. Again, 
Numbers 35 deals with the same material, gives essentially the 
same information. We'll just pick up the text in 
Deuteronomy 19, specifically at verse 4. And this is the case 
of the manslayer who flees there that he may live. We'll back 
up. When the Lord your God, verse one, has cut off the nations 
whose land the Lord your God is giving you, and you dispossess 
them and dwell in their cities and in their houses, you shall 
separate three cities for yourself in the midst of your land, which 
the Lord your God is giving you to possess. You shall prepare 
roads for yourself and divide into three parts the territory 
of your land, which the Lord your God is giving you to inherit, 
that any manslayer may flee there. When you get to the book of Joshua, 
in Joshua chapter 21, combine Joshua and judges there, Josh's, 
Joshua 21 gives us those cities of refuge. And it is intriguing 
on this side of the entrance into the promised land, God is 
legislating things that are going to be issues. God is giving us 
concrete applications of the law because no doubt there's 
sinful men, there's accidents that happen, there's homicides, 
unintentional homicides, there's all these things that are going 
to take place when a large group of people occupy a particular 
area. And so God in His wisdom gives 
laws to regulate the conduct of persons that find themselves 
in that particular situation. So in verse 4 it says, and this 
is the case of the manslayer who flees there, that he may 
live. Whoever kills his neighbor, notice, unintentionally, not 
having hated him in time past. And then the illustration of 
verse five. As when a man goes to the woods with his neighbor 
to cut timber, and his hand swings a stroke with the ax to cut down 
the tree, and the head slips from the handle and strikes his 
neighbor so that he dies, he shall flee to one of these cities 
and live. Lest the avenger of blood, while his anger is hot, 
pursue the manslayer and overtake him, because the way is long, 
and kill him, though he was not deserving of death. Notice the 
last part of verse 6, since he had not hated the victim in time 
past. You have to establish that for 
the crime of murder. Malice of forethought, premeditation, 
some sort of motive that was operative in the heart of the 
murderer to get rid of the man that's murdered. Verse 7, therefore 
I command you saying, you shall separate three cities for yourself. 
Now if the Lord your God enlarges your territory, as He swore to 
your fathers, and gives you the land which He promised to give 
to your fathers, and if you keep all these commandments and do 
them, which I command you today, to love the Lord your God, and 
to walk always in His ways, then you shall have three more cities 
for yourself besides these three. Now notice verse 10, lest innocent 
blood be shed in the midst of your land, which the Lord your 
God is giving you as an inheritance, and thus guilt of bloodshed be 
upon you. So if the avenger of blood prevails 
upon the manslayer who engaged in this unintentionally or accidentally, 
then the avenger of blood actually sheds innocent blood. And so 
this city of refuge principle is absolutely crucial to prevent 
the spilling of innocent blood upon the land. And then notice 
in verse 11, but if anyone hates his neighbor, lies in wait for 
him, rises against him and strikes him mortally so that he dies, 
and he flees to one of these cities, then the elders of his 
city shall send and bring him from there and deliver him over 
to the hand of the avenger of blood. that he may die. Your eyes shall not pity him, 
but you shall put away the guilt of innocent blood from Israel, 
that it may go well with you." So that's what the law is sort 
of foreshadowing in Exodus 21 at verse 13. So, however, if he did not lie 
in wait, but God delivered him into his hand, then I will appoint 
for you a place where he may flee. So those cities of refuge 
were another sort of barricade against the shedding of innocent 
blood. You could see why the Avenger 
of Blood, who would be a kinsman to the person, the victim that 
was killed, the victim that suffered at the hands of the person that 
didn't have his axe head fitted on securely, you could see why 
he'd be outraged. I mean, that was my brother, 
that was my cousin, that was my relative, and your carelessness 
brought him to the place of death. You can see where that avenger 
of blood would want to prevail upon the person, but that city 
of refuge was in place to build another barricade against the 
shedding of innocent blood. The man did not commit murder. 
The issue of intentionality, the issue of premeditation, those 
things were absent, so therefore the crime of murder was not engaged 
in. So having given that qualification, 
the text returns to murder in verse 14, but If a man acts with 
premeditation against his neighbor to kill him by treachery, there's 
that idea of hatred, there's that idea of planning. Notice 
what it says in verse 14, you shall take him from my altar 
that he may die. Now, the Geneva Bible has a good 
comment here. It says the holiness of the place 
ought not to defend the murderer. So the idea being is that the 
murderer would go to the altar and lay hold of the horn of the 
altar thinking that that holy place would be sanctuary and 
therefore he would be exempt from capital punishment. Stewart 
again makes the observation. He says the Israelites at Sinai 
were well aware of the ancient practice of seeking sanctuary 
at a sacrifice altar. The practice is not endorsed 
in the Bible, though it is twice described as taking place. It 
happens in 1 Kings 1, in verse 50, Adonijah tries to do that, 
and then it happens in 1 Kings 2, verse 29, Joab tries to do 
that. So the idea being, I'm in a holy 
place, the altar is set apart, it's a place where God is met 
with by his people, so persons shouldn't come in here to do 
the unholy task of executing me for my crime." He goes on 
to say, its logic ran as follows, the altar represented God's acceptance 
of the transfer of sin from people to animals and was therefore 
a place of forgiveness as well as a specially sanctified most 
holy object. Those seeking a fugitive criminal 
would not want to risk angering God by approaching it improperly 
because of the prohibitions about approaching an altar casually. 
And so God is heading off that mindset at the pass. Robert Alter, 
a Jewish commentator, makes the same observation. Israel would 
have known of that. Israel would have understood 
that. In the world around them, this would have been the tactic 
to take to try to avoid the eventuality of being punished capitally for 
the crime that you had committed. So God says, no, you shall take 
him from my altar that he may die. And Solomon uses that specific 
language relative to Joab in 1 Kings 2. So we have the prohibition 
against murder, the necessary distinction between murder and 
accidental or unintentional homicide. There are penalties attached 
to unintentional or accidental homicide. You have to leave your 
home, you have to leave your family, and you have to go to 
the city of refuge. Hopefully in that time, when 
you're in the city of refuge, you'll learn to figure out to 
make sure that your axe head is attached carefully to your 
handle before you go out chopping wood again with a neighbor or 
with a friend. Now notice, secondly, the prohibition 
against parental assault and kidnapping in verses 15 to 17. Verse 15 is assault against parents. He who strikes his father or 
his mother. So this is an obvious contrast 
with the fifth commandment in Exodus chapter 20 at verse 12. Honor your father and your mother. 
The word honor there means to treat them as heavy, like with 
God. You don't treat them in a casual 
or in a light manner, but rather you esteem God as the one who 
is sovereign and the one who is over us. The same is stipulated 
with reference to parents. Honor your father and your mother 
that your days may be long upon the land which the Lord your 
God is giving you. So in the case law application, verse 15 
of chapter 21, he who strikes his father or his mother shall 
surely be put to death. Now notice the inclusion of both 
parents, not just the father, but the father and the mother. 
Leviticus 19.3 specifies a crime against parents, and the mother 
comes first. So the mother is equally protected 
under the law, just like the father is, with reference to 
these ethics. As well, notice the demand of 
the law or the punishment involved in this particular crime. He 
who strikes his father or his mother shall surely be put to 
death. Now the seriousness of the offense 
is underscored by the seriousness of the punishment. Notice that 
the particular prohibition does not necessarily involve the death 
of the parent. Now the parent may die as a result 
of having been assaulted by his son or daughter. The parent may 
be incapacitated, but that's not what the text says. The text 
says, he who strikes his father or his mother shall surely be 
put to death, irrespective of whether or not that mother or 
father dies. In other words, it's a horrific 
thing for a child to attack or assault their parents. It's a 
wretched thing. So the parents are attacked, 
not necessarily killed. The parents are protected above 
the general population. You look at verses 18 and 19. 
There's injury there, but it's not mandated that the injured 
or the injurer is executed. And then with reference to servants 
or slaves, verses 20 to 21. So the parents are in a class 
that is distinct from the general population or the servant class. And then the heinousness of the 
offense. I mean, think about it. If somebody is going to attack 
their parents, what kind of a person is that going to be in society? I'm not sure that I want to hang 
out with persons that have the wherewithal to physically assault 
their father or their mother. John Gill said this crime was 
made capital to show the heinousness of it, how detestable it was 
to God, and in order to deter from it. In other words, if you 
heard this, hopefully you would hear and fear and never think 
to raise your fist against your parents. Matthew Poole says, 
nor will any think this law too severe that considers that this 
is an act full of horrid impiety against God, who hath so expressly 
and emphatically commanded children to honor their parents. of highest 
and most unnatural ingratitude and utterly destructive to human 
society." I think he's right. It is utterly destructive to 
human society that a person would raise their fist against the 
father or the mother indicates that that person is in a bad 
state or is in a bad condition. They're going to do that at home. 
They're going to do that to the person that they have the most 
natural affection for or should. What will they do to somebody 
who cuts them off in traffic? What will they do to somebody 
who gets in their face in the grocery store? That person is 
volatile and that person is in fact a danger or a threat to 
society. Notice as well the crime of kidnapping, 
another capital offense according to verse 16. It is the unlawful 
taking of another man and selling him, or the unlawful taking of 
another man and keeping him. Either way, you are guilty of 
kidnapping and thus deserve to die. Deuteronomy 24.7 specifies 
the same prohibition as does Paul in 1 Timothy 1. 1 Timothy 
1 verses 8-10, the apostle says we know that the law is good 
if one uses it lawfully. And then he runs through the 
Ten Commandments. He does so according to couplets, 
he does so according to the very gravest expression of the command 
in play, but he does so nevertheless consistent with what we find 
here. Kidnapping is a wretched thing. So the kidnapper is guilty 
of a capital offense. Notice again verse 16, he who 
kidnaps a man and sells him or if he is found in his hands, 
whether you're just trafficking him in order to get him to his 
final destination or you're keeping him, either way you have committed 
a capital offense and thus you are worthy of the death penalty. Stuart again says kidnapping 
is a capital crime. God regards taking someone away 
from home and family by force for relocation elsewhere, usually 
to be sold into slavery, as sufficiently horrendous that it requires kidnappers 
or slave traders to be put to death when apprehended. He says, 
people's freedom from such oppression is important to God. Note that 
a slave trader cannot escape capital punishment by arguing 
that he was merely a middle man, holding a kidnapped person whom 
he had not yet resold. That is, that he had not actually 
done much harm to the man kidnapped. The law condemns to death anyone 
trafficking in slaves, whether or not the original captor. Perhaps 
you saw Don Lemon's little interview. Some woman from Britain asked 
him about, or no, he asked about the payment of reparations to 
black people that had been affected by slavery. And this British 
woman says, I absolutely, positively agree with you. We should start 
at the source or at the origin point. right back in Africa with 
the persons that sold them. Everybody along the way should 
be guilty as well, but we don't neglect the persons from the 
originating point that were involved in that trafficking also. As 
well, that southern border that is open to just about anybody 
and everyone They are speculating a gross amount of child sex trafficking 
happening in the United States, which is absolutely, utterly 
detestable and loathsome. That persons would engage in 
that kind of activity, and that a government would allow such 
an activity to go unchecked? Certainly, what we see is a violation 
of kidnapping. We see a violation of the law 
of God at the point of depriving a man from liberty. And if you 
look at this particular implication, or you look at this particular 
law, there is that obvious implication. To steal a man's liberty is right 
up there with taking a man's life. If you take another man's 
liberty, you are liable to capital punishment just like if you had 
taken that man's life. And that is an inescapable implication 
from this particular law. And then back to parents, the 
crime of cursing parents. So not only the assault against 
parents, but to curse his father or his mother according to verse 
17. He who curses his father or his 
mother shall surely be put to death. This again is the antithesis 
to the fifth commandment. You're supposed to honor your 
father and your mother. You're supposed to revere them. 
You're not supposed to speak ill against them. And you're 
certainly not supposed to repudiate their authority or their rule 
in your life. That's probably what's in view 
here. The act of the repudiation of a parent. no obedience to 
the parent, no care for elderly parents, and no concern for parents 
in general. Remember Paul in 1 Timothy chapter 
5 says that the family bears the first responsibility to care 
for widows. The family has a vested interest 
in their older members also. When we think of 1 Timothy 5.8, 
if a man does not provide for his own, he's worse than an infidel, 
we typically apply that to the deadbeat dad who doesn't buy 
his kids new shoes. but it's also the deadbeat son 
that doesn't provide for his elderly parents when they are 
in need. The apostle says that the people 
of God, in terms of the Christian church, the family is the first 
line of responsibility to care for aging parents. If there are 
no family members to care for aging parents, then the church 
steps in and the church offers that aid creates a widow's list 
so that the widows in the church can make sure that they can eat 
and whatnot. So this particular law underscores 
the reverence, the kindness, and the love that is to be afforded 
to parents. Those who curse them are liable 
for the death penalty. Leviticus chapter 20. Verse 9 
repeats this, for everyone who curses his father or his mother 
shall surely be put to death. He has cursed his father or his 
mother, his blood shall be upon him. It's an unthinkable crime, 
brethren, when you really knock it all down and when you start 
to sort of wade through things. What is the most basic and fundamental 
building block in all of society? It is the family. And if the 
family has deteriorated to such a point where the child repudiates 
or curses their own parents, again, that child is likely not 
going to be a great citizen when he enters into the workforce. 
Turn over to Proverbs. Proverbs repeats this particular 
law in a couple of places. Proverbs chapter 20. And verse 
20, whoever curses his father, this is 2020, excuse me, whoever 
curses his father or his mother, his lamp shall be put out in 
deep darkness. And then over in chapter 30, 
Perhaps I was the barbaric parent who threatened my kids with the 
Bible, but I often, well, I don't know if it was often, but once 
in a while I referred to not just verse 11, but verse 17. Notice in Proverbs 30, 11, there 
is a generation that curses its father and does not bless its 
mother. Let's just follow out that train. 
There is a generation that is pure in its own eyes, yet is 
not washed from its filthiness. There is a generation, oh, how 
lofty are their eyes and their eyelids are lifted up. There's 
a generation whose teeth are like swords and whose fangs are 
like knives to devour the poor from off the earth and the needy 
from among men. So, verse 11, if that generation 
curses its father, it doesn't take a lot to realize that this 
is the generation that's going to devour the poor from off the 
earth and the needy from among men. And then dropping down to 
verse 17, I used to warn my kids, you know, watch out for the ravens 
if you're not on good behavior with your parental units. 3017, 
the eye that mocks his father and scorns obedience to his mother, 
the ravens of the valley will pick it out and the young eagles 
will eat it. So going back to the law code 
in Exodus chapter 21, you see that God takes seriously the 
fifth commandment. God takes seriously the sixth 
commandment, and if we jump into this new covenant setting, where 
we understand from our confession of faith that we are not obliged 
to the judicial laws of Moses with the same obligation that 
the theocratic nation of Israel bore under direct rule by God 
in the land that he gave them. Nevertheless, there is a general 
equity principle. If we move into the new covenant 
era with that general equity principle, I would suggest we've 
got big problems in society when there's an utter disregard for 
the sixth commandment that we see so flagrantly, but as well 
for the fifth commandment, parental authority not being respected 
in the home. Parental authority not being 
enforced in the home. Not all the blame lies in the 
wretched kids, a lot of the blame lies in the wretched parents 
that don't take seriously their responsibility as God's vice-regent 
to bring up these children in a manner that is consistent, 
not with conversion, we can't change their hearts, but is consistent 
with restraint and consistent with those things that God condemns 
and those things that God forbids. So this antithesis to the fifth 
commandment results in capital punishment, according to Exodus 
chapter 21 at verse 15, for the one who assaults his parental 
units, or in verse 17, those who curse their father or mother. So those are laws concerning 
homicide. Now notice the laws concerning 
bodily injury. The first is the injury sustained 
in a fight in verses 18 and 19. So if men contend with each other 
and one strikes the other with a stone or with his fist, again 
brethren, look at the wisdom of God. If I was going to develop 
a law code, I don't know that I'd be thinking down the the 
road to two morons getting in a fist fight in the street. I 
mean, I would now because I have the Bible, but I'm not sure I 
would then if I was going to, you know, regulate life on an 
island. Well, we're going to have to make sure that, you know, 
anybody that gets in a fist fight on the way to the grocery store, 
we need to have a law in place to be able to deal with that 
particular thing. You do see the wisdom of God in the application 
of those general principles in the civil polity in Israel. So verse 18, 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. 
So you have two men engaged in a fight, with or without a weapon, 
signified here by fist or stone. So either he has a fist or no 
weapon, or he has a weapon. One of the men is injured. I would call him the loser in 
this particular fight. The winner hurts the loser, and 
the loser is confined to his bed. Notice, if the man recovers, 
according to verse 19, if he rises again and walks about outside 
with his staff, then he who struck him shall be acquitted. In other 
words, he's not guilty of the crime of murder, he's not incapacitated 
the man, he has not rendered him inoperative or ineffective 
in terms of his work. But there is a financial recompense 
or remuneration involved. He shall only pay for the loss 
of his time and shall provide for him to be thoroughly healed. 
He pays for the loss of time, presumably he can't go to work 
because you whooped him in a fight and he needs to recover in his 
bed. So those days that he missed at work, you need to pay for 
that and you need to make sure that he's compensated until he's 
thoroughly healed. But beyond that, he doesn't get 
several sessions at his local therapist because now he's mentally 
harmed or he's got a loser mindset and he needs to get back into 
therapy. That stuff, the pain and suffering 
and all of that rigmarole, that's not involved here. And again, 
I think Stuart is right here. He says, behind the logic of 
this law appears to be the assumption that people who choose to fight 
choose to take the risk of injury and cannot expect compensation 
beyond their actual out-of-pocket expenses for injuries they incur 
in fighting. If you're gonna go ahead and 
go to blows, you gotta understand, you may lose, you may be incapacitated. So you can't charge that guy 
who won you, who bested you for two years of therapy because 
you got bested in a brawl. He says there is no assumption 
of premeditation in this law. And so essentially what you have 
is a law with reference to bodily injury, and it basically says 
that the man who is injured in the fight is compensated to the 
point where he lost time and he is provided until he's thoroughly 
healed. And then finally, the injury 
sustained by slaves. Again, all of these passages 
dealing with slaves, we wrestled a bit with this last time in 
chapter 21, verses 1 to 11, are difficult. They are tough. This 
is not the slavery that we saw that happened in the U.S. taking persons, kidnapping persons 
from Africa and bringing them back and putting them into slavery 
here. So there's something different 
here in terms of the origin point. Some commentators speculate that 
what's in view here are foreign slaves. If you turn to Leviticus 
chapter 25, There's some warrant or merit for that particular 
reading, that what Exodus 21 is dealing with are foreign slaves. Leviticus chapter 25, specifically 
at verse 39. And if one of your brethren who 
dwells by you becomes poor and sells himself to you, you shall 
not compel him to serve as a slave. As a hired servant and a sojourner, 
he shall be with you and shall serve you until the year of jubilee. So there does seem to be a distinction 
in terms of those that were within Israel. And remember, we saw 
last time that somebody could, yes, sell themselves into slavery. We'd call that indentured servitude. 
They don't have enough money, so they put themselves in that 
position, and they serve, they're provided room, they're provided 
a board, they do so for a period of six years, and then they're 
free to go. With reference to the thief that 
is found out and does not have the wherewithal to pay his debt, 
chapter 22 verse 3 deals with that situation. If the sun is 
risen on him, there shall be guilt for his bloodshed. He shall 
make full restitution. If he has nothing, then he shall 
be sold for his theft. So those were at least two instances 
as to why an Israelite would become a servant to another Israelite. Either A, he was too poor to 
make a living on his own, or B, he was a thief and he needed 
remediation. He needed remedial training and 
to pay back the debt that he incurred in his crime or his 
life of crime. So going back to this particular 
situation, We notice in verse 20, if a man beats his male or 
female servant with a rod so that he dies under his hand, 
he shall surely be punished. So the discipline of a slave 
resulting in the death of the slave, or the discipline of the 
slave by the master. The assumption is, and this is 
a tough assumption, especially for us in the 21st century, that 
a master had the right to discipline his slave. Now, Stewart again, 
I'm going to lean on him here with reference to corporal punishment. 
I think he makes a good point, and a point that obviously would 
cause everybody outside this room to lose their minds. So 
let's just kind of try to keep it together, at least in this 
room. Corporal punishment remains widely in use in the modern world, 
being built into the familial and even formal legal structures 
of many nations. It was virtually universally 
practiced in the ancient world and predominated in the modern 
Western world until the latter part of the 20th century. I don't 
think that's inaccurate. I think that's right on. It's 
only been in the last generation or so where we have this outrage 
against the infliction of corporal punishment, especially with reference 
to the family. It can be reported or ratted 
out. to social services, your children can be taken away from 
you for simply doing what the Bible commands us to do. The 
Bible is not silent with reference to disciplining children. Well, 
obviously the Bible isn't silent with reference to a master disciplining 
a servant. He goes on to say, although many 
modern Westerners would today regard slapping, spanking, caning 
to be forms of abuse, it should be noted that their opinions 
are not historically grounded. So maybe revulsion because we 
just can't envision it, or it might be something that is so 
contrary to our modern thought But if you look at the history 
of the world, up until the latter part of the 20th century, it 
was pretty commonplace for persons to be spanked, or slapped, or 
caned, or other forms of corporal punishment in order to deal with 
their infractions, to deal with their issues. And again, it's 
not to abuse them, to go wild against them, and to just inflict 
the most pain you can. Chapter 21, 26 to 27 applies 
the lex talionis, to a vicious master of a servant. If the master knocks out a tooth, 
then the servant goes free. If the master pokes out an eye, 
then the servant goes free. So there were laws in place to 
protect the servant class, the slave class, and that's precisely 
what's happening here in 2120. Again, it seems offensive to 
us, but let's just try to jump back into the theocratic situation. 
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." The old King James has it, the ESV 
has it, and it is literally, for he is his money. It's his 
possession. He spent the money for this particular 
servant or this particular slave. and therefore he is not held 
criminally responsible with reference to murder in this particular 
instance. Again, it seems offensive and 
it seems difficult, but it does protect the servant and it does 
protect the master. And I would say practically, 
I don't know many people that have tools in their business 
and they try to sabotage them. You don't go out and buy a John 
Deere tractor, not that I have any concept of this, but if I 
did, I wouldn't put sand in the gas tank. I wouldn't do anything 
to purposefully disable that piece of equipment. From what 
I understand, a John Deere tractor is pretty expensive, and you 
wouldn't do things that would depart or deprive you of that 
capital investment. I can't imagine that a conscientious 
slaveholder in Old Covenant Israel would haphazardly beat his servants 
or beat his slaves any more than I can imagine a farmer putting 
sand in the gas tank of his John Deere. So again, some of these 
laws are in place to protect you know, the vicious master, 
the one general sort of exception to the rule. But for the most 
part, as I would imagine, most people would probably want to 
secure and protect their investment, secure and protect those things 
that made them money and that was or were tools in their hands 
to accomplish the particular tasks that they had at hand. So again, tough, dealing with 
servant-slave situation here, verses 20 and 21. Verses 26 and 
27, God willing, we'll look at next week, but it's a lot more 
cut and dry. It simply demands the punishment 
of a vicious master who is that, perhaps, exception to the general 
rule of a responsible master taking care of his slave or servant 
in such a way that everybody's happy. Remember in chapter 21, 
verses 1 to 11, the master had a vested interest in what happened 
in terms of his home, he provided the room, he provided the board, 
he provided all those things that were necessary to sustain 
the life of the servants and so therefore he had interest 
in making sure that everything went well and according to plan. In conclusion, as I said, with 
reference to the general equity of these laws, With the exception 
of the servant laws, the slave laws, we have a pretty cut and 
dry application of general equity. Somebody that has absolute disregard 
for parental authority is probably going to have absolute disregard 
for the police, they're going to have absolute disregard for 
teachers, they're going to have absolute disregard for employers, 
should they even get jobs. These are laws that I think should 
have application in our society today and of course the whole 
idea of murder and specifically if the crime of murder is to 
be punishable by death and our civil government is absolutely 
contrary to that way of thinking. You know, I've said it before, 
when I look at our Prime Minister's Twitter feed, I see a lot about 
climate, I see a lot about equity, I see a lot about all kinds of 
things, but nothing about justice, nothing about crime, nothing 
about punishment, nothing about the actual job that is given 
by God to the civil government. They do not bear the sword in 
vain. That's the specific purpose. It isn't to feed us. It isn't 
to educate us. It isn't to give us health care. 
It isn't to do all those things that they've undertaken. It is 
to make sure that criminal offenders don't run rampant on our streets, 
raping, pillaging, and destroying everybody and everything they 
see. if the civil government has a particular task she is 
coming up very short in our own generation when everything else 
concerns the government besides the actual punishment of criminal 
elements within society We know the train is off the tracks, 
and we know that there are bad things happening, and we ought 
to pray that they not only do those things, which, you know, 
we might have a vested interest in, more this, more that, more 
this, more that, but pray that they do the thing that God commands 
them to do. We have an epidemic, a pandemic 
of crime on our streets, and those things are running rampant, 
and we need redress for those things. So the heinousness of 
the particular crimes, the capital offenses, murder, parental assault 
and cursing, and kidnapping. And then the justice of capital 
punishment, it's assumed. It is assumed based on that statement 
given by God to Noah in Genesis 9. We see it reaffirmed in the 
New Covenant under Paul in Romans 13. Whether there's a whole litany 
of crimes that should be punished by the civil state, we can at 
least say this much. The crime of murder demands the 
execution of the criminal offender, because if not, we are in rebellion 
against the living and true God. Well, let's pray, and then if 
there's any questions... We'll try to deal with those. 
Father in heaven, we see your wisdom as revealed in the law 
code here. We see your justice and your 
righteousness, your concern for innocent parties, innocent victims 
and crimes. And God, we see in our own generation, 
our own society, something what Solomon writes of in Proverbs 
chapter 30. That is dangerously close to what we witness each 
and every day, Lord God. We pray that you would be merciful 
With reference to our civil government, we pray that you would grant 
them wisdom, grant them that prudence necessary to do the 
actual job they've been instituted by God to do. I pray as well, 
Father, that you would cause us, as your people, to think 
your thoughts after you in terms of prayer. in terms of our civic 
involvement and those things that we seek to be as citizens 
in this body politic. And we just pray that you would 
be merciful, send forth your glorious gospel. We pray that 
more and more people would be saved by grace through faith 
in our Lord Jesus Christ.