It's good to worship with you again this morning in a new location for the same church family.
And if you are new, my name is Sean. I'm one of the pastors of Trinity Cambridge Church.
And we have been going through a series in the book of Exodus.
If you don't have a Bible, if you raise your hand, we can get you a copy of the Bible you can use.
And if everybody would please turn to Exodus chapter 21.
And we'll be looking at verse 33 to the end of that chapter to chapter 22, verse 15.
21, 33 to 22, 15.
Let me pray for the reading and preaching of God's word.
Heavenly Father, we gather in your name under the authority of your word every week.
Because we are your people.
And in you alone is life.
And as you always do, we ask that you address us from your word.
Teach us.
Speak to us.
From your timeless word.
Into the specific places and seasons of our own individual lives.
That we might be challenged.
Comforted.
And transformed to be more like Jesus, our Savior.
It's in his precious name we pray.
Amen.
If you would please stand for the reading of God's word.
I will read it out loud for us.
Exodus 21, verse 33 and following.
When a man opens a pit.
Or when a man digs a pit and does not cover it.
And an ox or a donkey falls into it.
The owner of the pit shall make restoration.
He shall give money to its owner and the dead beast shall be his.
When one man's ox butts another's so that it dies.
Then they shall sell the live ox and share its price.
And the dead beast also they shall share.
Or if it is known that the ox has been accustomed to gore in the past.
And its owner has not kept it in.
He shall repay ox for ox.
And the dead beast shall be his.
If a man steals an ox or a sheep.
And kills it or sells it.
He shall repay five oxen for an ox.
And four sheep for a sheep.
If a thief is found breaking in.
And is struck so that he dies.
There shall be no blood guilt for him.
But if the sun has risen on him.
There shall be blood guilt for him.
He shall surely pay.
If he has nothing.
Then he shall be sold for his theft.
If the stolen beast is found alive in his possession.
Whether it is an ox or a donkey or a sheep.
He shall pay double.
If a man causes a field or a vineyard to be grazed over.
Or lets his beast loose.
And it feeds in another man's field.
He shall make restitution from the best in his own field.
And in his own vineyard.
If fire breaks out and catches in thorns.
So that the stacked grain or the standing grain.
Or the field is consumed.
He who started the fire shall make full restitution.
If a man gives to his neighbor money or goods to keep safe.
And it is stolen from the man's house.
Then if the thief is found he shall pay double.
If the thief is not found.
The owner of the house shall come near to God.
To show whether or not he has put his hand to his neighbor's property.
For every breach of trust.
Whether it is for an ox.
For a donkey.
For a sheep.
For a cloak.
Or for any kind of lost thing.
Of which one says.
This is it.
The case of both parties shall come before God.
The one whom God condemns.
Shall pay double to his neighbor.
If a man gives to his neighbor a donkey.
Or an ox.
Or a sheep.
Or any beast to keep safe.
And it dies.
Or is injured.
Or is driven away.
Without anyone seeing it.
An oath by the Lord shall be between them.
Both.
Between them both.
To see whether or not he has put his hand to his neighbor's property.
The owner shall accept the oath.
And he shall not make restitution.
But if it is stolen from him.
He shall make restitution to its owner.
If it is torn by beasts.
Let him bring it as evidence.
He shall not make restitution for what has been torn.
If a man borrows anything of his neighbor.
And it is injured or dies.
The owner not being with it.
He shall make full restitution.
If the owner was with it.
He shall not make restitution.
If it was hired.
He came for its hiring fee.
This is God's holy.
Authoritative word.
You may be seated.
Every society has to come up with some rules for governing property.
Whether it's natural resources like land, forests, or water.
Or manufactured goods like cars and computers.
Or the means of producing those goods.
Like machinery or whatever it might be.
Because without rules governing property.
Cooperating together with other people.
Well producing and trading with other people would be virtually impossible.
And it will inevitably lead to conflict.
I can demonstrate this from the children's playroom.
If you put even young children in a playroom together.
You'll inevitably hear these cries.
That's mine.
Or I had it first.
No, that's my birthday present.
There needs to be some kind of rules in place.
To regulate how people relate to property.
And to one another's property.
Because without it society cannot function.
Ancient Israel was no exception.
As we see here in this passage.
But is there a distinctly biblical.
And Christian ethic.
When it comes to the governance of property.
And this passage shows us that indeed there is.
Especially when we understand and apply this passage through the lens of Jesus who fulfilled all of scriptures.
And the main point that I want to drive home this morning is this.
That as those to whom God has bestowed the riches of his grace.
We should live with sacrificial generosity toward our neighbors.
And I'm going to get to that point.
Bring that main point home with three sub points.
One is respect for private property.
Second, reverence for human life.
And third, riches of God's grace.
First, we see a general respect for private property here in this passage.
21.33 to 22.4 deal with farm animals.
And then 22.5 to 6 deal with farms and fields.
And they tell us what is to be done when damage is done to a neighbor's property.
Let's first look at what the Bible prescribes regarding the farm animals.
And here the Bible clearly distinguishes.
One, damage caused by accident.
Two, damage caused by negligence.
And three, damage caused by malice.
First category is damage caused on another's property by accident.
We see an example of this in verse 35 of chapter 21.
When one man's ox butts another's so that it dies.
And they shall sell the live ox and share its price.
And the dead beast also they shall share.
So the owner of the ox that butted this other ox does not have full control over the ox.
And this particular ox does not have a history of goring other beasts.
And so this owner is therefore not held responsible for the death of the other animal.
In cases of accidental damage to a neighbor's property like this,
the two parties absorb the loss equally.
The live ox is sold and any financial value gained from both the live ox and the dead ox
are shared equally between the two.
And the leniency is due to the fact that the damage was caused by accident.
And the second category is the damage caused by negligence.
There are two examples given here of this in verses 33 to 34.
It says,
When a man opens a pit or when a man digs a pit and does not cover it,
and an ox or a donkey falls into it, the owner of the pit shall make restoration.
He shall give money to its owner and the dead beast shall be his.
This is a case of negligence.
The man dug a pit and it's a big enough pit for that an ox can fall into it.
And he could not have predicted that a neighbor's ox would fall into it,
but he did know that there was a risk.
That's a pretty big hole on the ground and some ox could unwittingly fall into it.
He was aware of the risk.
He had knowledge to do something about it,
and yet he chose not to do anything about it.
And because of that, it is considered negligence.
He did not do what he could have done to prevent damage to someone else's property.
And in that case, he needs to make restoration and pay for the price of the dead animal.
But since he has paid the price of the dead animal, he gets to keep the dead beast.
And he can sell its hide or meat for whatever he wants.
Now, maybe he cooks and eats it.
Imagine, maybe for a more modern example, a construction crew that is repaving a road,
and there's a huge gaping hole on the road.
And they neglected to put orange cones around it and signs around it to prevent cars from driving into it.
And you don't know anything about it, and you drive your car straight into it,
and then you blow out your tires and damage your car.
Then that construction crew would be guilty of damaging your property by negligence.
And they should have something to do with making restitution for you.
Now, verse 36 is another example of this.
Or if it is known that the ox has been accustomed to gore in the past,
and its owner has not kept it in, he shall repay ox for ox, and the dead beast shall be his.
So this ox, unlike the previous ox that we looked at, does have a history of goring.
And so because, again, this owner now had knowledge,
he was aware of the risk, and he could have done something about it, and he didn't.
It is considered negligence.
It's not a simple accident.
So that the damage that the ox does, that he must pay for it,
and he gets to keep the dead ox, the dead beast, but he must repay the price.
Because he neglected to contain his own animal.
Now, the scenario escalates starting in chapter 22, verse 20.
It says,
So, by the way, the Hebrew word for sheep here can refer to a sheep or a goat.
And this verse establishes a general principle that sets the precedent,
that they apply to all kinds of similar contexts.
So this here is no longer damage done by accident.
It's not damage done by negligence.
It's actually damage done by malice with evil intent.
Because someone stole the ox or the sheep.
And then they killed it and sold it, presumably to conceal their theft and get away with the crime.
In such a case, the punishment is far more severe.
If the thief is caught, it says he shall pay five oxen for an ox,
and four sheep for a sheep.
So if you killed your neighbor's ox due to negligence, you just paid a full price for one ox.
But in this case, because you stole out of malice,
you're supposed to pay five times the value of the ox.
The severe punishment serves as a deterrent so that people don't steal.
But that's not the only reason why I think the punishment is so severe here.
So if you think about it this way,
the ox, because this is largely an agricultural pastoral society,
is a productive resource.
It produces value.
It provides services.
For example, in a farm.
So when someone steals your ox,
for that however many months it is that people are looking and trying to find this thief,
the culprit,
you're missing your ox and you're not able to get value
from the work that it would have been doing for you on the farm.
So an ox can draw a plow and prepare the soil for sowing.
An ox can go over the grain that had been harvested to thresh it,
to separate the wheat from the husk, the grain from the husk.
They're a very useful animal and you don't get any of that.
And consider also that you're not getting any milk during that time from the ox,
which would have provided valuable nutrients, right?
Protein and calcium for ancient people who didn't have multivitamins like we do from Costco.
And they could have also, after they're done using the ox for labor,
they could have slaughtered the ox,
sold a hide to make leather products with it,
and eaten good beef.
And all of that is gone, right?
You're missing all of that while the ox is missing.
Sheep is similar, right?
It's also a productive resource.
It's not as productive as the ox
because most of the time it just lounges around and grazes and eats your food in your field.
But once it gets hairy enough,
you could shear the wool and you could use it to sell and make things.
And so it is a productive resource in that sense.
And so because of that and because of the loss of value during that time,
it's missing what the thief is being searched for.
I think there's a higher price here, a higher penalty.
If your neighbor accidentally kills or negligently kills your ox,
they could immediately pay you back and you could get an immediate replacement.
But when you're looking for a thief, that could take months.
That could take a long time,
especially if they've tried to conceal what they've done by killing the ox or selling it.
And so the punishment is more severe.
And the difference between the sheep and the ox,
the sheep is fourfold, the ox is fivefold,
probably because of the relative value of the two animals.
Like I said, the ox is a much more productive animal.
And so here, even here, we see the law of Talion that we talked about a couple weeks ago,
the law of eye for eye principle at work.
The severity of the punishment must be proportional to the severity of the crime.
And now contrast this with the Code of Hammurabi,
a contemporary ancient Near Eastern law code
that is often compared to the Book of the Covenant in Exodus.
It says this,
If anyone steals cattle or sheep or an ass or a pig or a goat,
if they belong to a god or to the court,
the thief shall pay thirtyfold therefore.
If they belong to a freed man of the king,
he shall pay tenfold.
If the thief has nothing with which to pay,
he shall be put to death.
This is a comparable law in a similar time.
And according to this law,
if the ox is stolen from a temple official or from a government official,
the thief has to pay thirtyfold,
which does not quite seem proportional.
If from a free citizen it is taken,
you have to pay back tenfold.
And so it doesn't treat people as having equal value and worth as Scripture does.
It gives them different value depending on their social status.
And if the thief cannot repay,
the thief is put to death.
And the Bible never treats stealing as a capital crime
because human life is more important than property,
which we're going to talk about in the next point.
I'm going to skip most of verses two, three for now
because it's a parenthetical remark
about what to do when a thief is caught
and killed in the middle of stealing.
But I'll come back to that later.
But at the end of verse three,
it stipulates that the thief must repay everything.
The thief shall surely pay.
He shall surely pay.
If he has nothing,
then he shall be sold for his theft.
He's not given the death penalty.
Instead,
he becomes a debt slave.
So he has to labor for six years
until he pays off his debt
and then he goes free
according to these rules in the book of the covenant.
And then it says in verse four,
if the stolen beast is found alive in his possession,
whether it is an ox or a donkey or a sheep,
he shall pay double.
So this is different
because the thief has stolen it,
but instead of killing it and selling it to hide it,
he has kept it alive.
And if the animal is found alive,
the thief only pays double.
In this case,
it's being treated like a common theft
because the other common theft of other goods,
you only paid double
because it's much easier to catch a thief
who keeps the beast alive
since the live beast can only go so far.
And it's not as bad
as when the thief kills or sells the ox
because you can recover your own animal.
Now in verses five to six,
we move on from damage done to farm animals
to damage done to fields and harvest.
It says in verse five,
if a man causes a field or vineyard to be grazed over
or lets his beast loose
and it feeds in another man's field,
he shall make restitution from the best
in his own field and in his own vineyard.
So in this case,
the intent is not perfectly clear.
A man's beast has grazed from a neighbor's field.
He's kind of stealing,
his ox is stealing his neighbor's field,
the food, the grains.
But did he know that his livestock
was stealing from his neighbor's field or not?
Right?
It's impossible to say.
And if they deny it,
it's hard to prove it.
But he certainly should have been more vigilant
and he could have prevented his ox
from grazing in a neighbor's field.
And so this case is similarly considered
a damage by negligence.
The owner of the beast must repay
what his beast consumed
from the best of his own field or vineyard,
which is a wise additional detail
because it would be unfair
if the animal happened to be
a very picky animal about the grain
and he went over to his neighbor's field
and grazed on all the premium barley.
And then the owner repaid him
with very average barley.
That wouldn't be fair.
Right?
So he's to give from the best of his crops.
Verse six is similar.
A fire breaks out and catches in thorns
so that the stacked grain
or the standing grain
or the field is consumed.
He who started the fire
shall make full restitution.
This is not an accidental fire
from extreme heat and dry climate
like it happens in California sometimes.
It says someone started the fire.
But it's also not arson
because it wasn't malicious.
The fire got out of hand
and caught in thorns nearby
and then it spread to a neighbor's
stacked grain or standing grain in the field.
So farmers sometimes do
what they call slash and burn
or prescribed burn.
It's their way of intentionally putting
remaining chaff from the harvest
on the field on fire
to burn it all off
and prepare the soil
for fresh sowing again
in the new season.
It's one of the most economical way
to do it
although it's not popular nowadays.
And so this is a case
of damage caused by negligence again
when the man must make full restitution
because he could have done more
to prevent the fire from spreading
and damaging his neighbor's field
but he didn't.
And so he must make full restitution.
So we see a pattern emerging here.
When there is an accident
shared payment.
When there's negligence
full payment.
If there's malice
double payment.
Unless the damaged property
is a livestock
or some kind of productive resource
then you also have to account
for the loss of productivity
and livelihood.
So this is very practical
and relevant
if you think about it.
What if you discover
that you have been causing
flooding damage
to your downstairs neighbor's unit?
Determine whether or not
it's due to accident
negligence
or malice.
Was it an unclogged toilet
or an overflowing bathtub?
What if a tree in your yard
was felled in a storm
and it landed
on your neighbor's car?
That's an accident.
So you can share
the loss
and absorb
the damage together.
But what if
you damage
your neighbor's
parked vehicle
by ramming it
with your car
while you were
driving and texting?
That's
damage by negligence.
Then you should pay
in full
for the damage done
to the other person's car.
But what if you
hated your neighbor
so much
that you took an axe
and you hacked
your neighbor's
vehicle
into smithereens?
Or
you tried to steal
his car.
Well that's malice
and you should pay
double
for the damage
of the car.
And what if that neighbor
is an Uber driver?
So his car
is actually
his livelihood.
It was a productive
resource
producing income
for him.
Well then
you need to
take account
of all the lost
income during that time
when he couldn't work
because of the damage
you did to his car.
It's very practical.
A lot of these things
nowadays our insurance
companies take care
of it for us.
We don't have to worry
about it.
But the principles
of justice are here
so that we can treat
our neighbors fairly
and love our neighbors
as ourselves.
And so
these are valuable lessons
and the ultimate
principle here is that
we ought to love
our neighbors
and we love our neighbors
in part by respecting
their property,
caring for their livelihood,
and requiring fair
and proportional restitution
for property damage.
But what about
more ambiguous cases
where it's difficult
to ascertain the truth
or the intent?
It says in verses 7 to 15
it addresses the topic
of bailment
and borrowing.
A bailment
is when you
entrust
your own personal property
to someone
not so that they could
use it
which is borrowing,
not so that they could
use it for a period
of time for payment
which is leasing,
but just for safekeeping
that's bailment.
You just keep it,
can you keep this
for me for a time?
Don't do anything
with it,
you don't have to use it,
just keep it for me
for a limited time.
That's bailment.
Now,
so if you are the one
that's entrusting
your property
to someone else,
you're the bailer
and the person
who receives it
and takes possession
of your property
for a time for safekeeping
is the bailee.
And this is different,
as I said,
from borrowing
and leasing it.
We're going to see
all three of these cases
out there addressed.
First,
Baal in verse 7
is straightforward.
It says,
if a man gives
to his neighbor money
or goods to keep safe
and it is stolen
from the man's house,
then if the thief
is found,
he shall pay double.
So what if you
were entrusted
with safekeeping
your friend's
Stradivarius violin
or an heirloom
diamond jewelry
or a Celtics hat,
cap,
signed by Jason Tatum?
Right?
So you're,
some valuable property
that they were not
willing to part with.
They were like,
everybody knows
I have this in the house.
Everybody knows
in the neighborhood
that I'm going to be
gone for months.
I am not leaving it
in an empty house.
Here,
you're a friend of mine.
I trust you.
Can you hold on to this?
Keep this in safe.
Keep things in safe
while I'm gone.
But while your friend
is gone,
someone breaks
into your house
and steals the items.
What do you do?
Well,
I didn't steal it.
You tell them
you didn't steal it.
But if the thief is found,
you could breathe
a sigh of relief
because,
well,
the thief is found
and that thief
is responsible
for double payment
for what was stolen.
But what if the thief
is never found?
What if your friend
starts suspecting
something?
Well,
you seem to have
a lot more
cash
than you used to.
You know?
It says in verses
eight to nine,
if the thief
is not found,
the owner of the house
shall come near to God
to show whether or not
he has put his hand
to his neighbor's property.
For every breach
of trust,
whether it is
for an ox,
for a donkey,
for a sheep,
for a cloak,
or for any kind
of lost thing
of which one says,
this is it.
The case of both parties
shall come before God.
The one whom God
condemns
shall pay double
to his neighbor.
And so if your friend
comes to your house
and sees something
and says,
hey,
that's mine.
You took that
from me.
And he's suspecting you,
then you bring the case
to God
and you make
a solemn oath
and you wait
for God's answer
or you accept
the oath
if God does not
give a clear answer
or does not punish
the person
who took a false oath
and you move on
with that.
So you see
an example of how
this was applied
in verse 11.
It says,
an oath by the Lord
shall be between them
both to see
whether or not
he has put his hand
to his neighbor's property.
The owner shall accept
the oath
and he shall not
make restitution.
So when there's
lingering suspicion
between you
and your friend
that is difficult
to reconcile,
you can go
to God together
and maybe you can
go to a priest
or a pastor
to serve as a witness
or a mediator
that you can spend
some time praying
asking God to answer
and you can take
a solemn oath
testifying,
no,
I did not steal
your property,
my friend
and you ask God
to reveal the truth
and apart from
sudden divine judgment
or our hand
clearly indicating
that he is taking
a false oath
and he is lying,
then you are to
accept your friend's oath
and require
no restitution.
Verse 10
is a similar situation
but this time
with the livestock.
It says,
if a man gives
to his neighbor
a donkey or an ox
or a sheep
or any beast
to keep safe
and it dies
or is injured
or is driven away
without anyone
seeing it.
So livestock
are known
to stray
from time to time
so you have
lost the livestock
under your care
but there is no
negligence on your part.
Well in that case
then you can go
before God again
and take an oath
and you don't have
to pay restitution.
It wasn't your fault.
If you are watching
your neighbor's cat
and your neighbor
usually lets the cat
roam free
in the backyard
but this time around
your cat actually
ran away
and never came back.
It would not be
your responsibility
if there was
no negligence
on your part.
But it says
in verse 12
if it is stolen
from him
he shall make
restitution
to its owner.
So if you are
entrusted
with someone else's
livestock
but that livestock
was stolen
while you were
watching it
then you are
responsible
by negligence
because you didn't
either properly
lock the door
lock the gates
or you didn't
put the ox
in the barn
at night
like something
happened
so you assume
some kind
of negligence
then you do
need to pay
restitution.
But if it is
torn by beasts
verse 13
let him bring it
as evidence
he shall not
make restitution
for what has
been torn.
It's a very
possible scenario.
A lot of people
in our church
have dogs
and you guys
let each other
watch one another's
dog sometimes
when you're
traveling.
Let's say that
your friend
leaves her dog
with you
in your care
while she is
traveling
and then you
take the dog
with you
to Nahant.
Have you guys
been to Nahant?
Yeah.
So Nahant
is a small town
north of Boston
Massachusetts
and I read
an article
last this month
that there was
a there's a dozen
coyotes
who are roaming
Nahant
and apparently
over the last
two years
they've killed
two dozen
pets
in Nahant
and so they
recently hired
a sharpshooter
a federal sharpshooter
to come and kill
some of these coyotes.
So if you have
small dogs
don't take them
to Nahant.
Now so let's say
imagine that you
take your friend's
dog while she is
traveling away
you go to Nahant
then you go to the
beach and you're
having a good time
and then you realize
all of a sudden
your dog is gone
or your friend's
dog is gone
and then you
to your dismay
find the dog's
carcass later.
A coyote
devoured it.
Well good news
for you is
you take the
photo of the
carcass
and show your
friend
I didn't do
it.
It was a coyote
it was not my
fault and then
you don't have to
make restitution
if it's torn
by a wild animal.
It's funny but
these are the kind
of things that
happen in real life
right?
Then lastly
verses 14 to 15
you deal with
borrowing and
leasing.
If a man
borrows anything
of his neighbor
and his integer
dies the owner
not being with
it he shall
make full
restitution.
If the owner
was with it
he shall not
make restitution.
If it was
hired it
came for
its hiring
fee.
This is
really insightful
and helpful.
Imagine your
friend lets you
borrow his
portable speakers
for a backyard
party you're
hosting and it
breaks while
you're using
it.
Then you
should buy
your friend
a replacement
portable speaker
but if your
friend who
let you borrow
the portable
speaker happened
to be with
you at the
party while
you were using
it and it
breaks well
then you
actually don't
have to buy
him a new
portable speaker.
Why?
Because the
owner was there
to watch to
make sure that
the item was
not being
misused or
abused.
He saw that
you were not
using the
portable speaker
as a drum
against the
rock.
He saw that
you did not
spill water on
the portable
speaker.
He saw that
you were just
responsibly using
the portable
speaker and all
of a sudden
something went
and it just
stopped working.
That's not your
fault.
Then you don't
have to pay
that back.
Now, so if
your friend was
with you, you
don't have to
pay but if your
friend wasn't
there with you
then you should
pay that back
in full.
That's the case
of borrowing but
leasing is a
different scenario.
If it was
hired, it came
for its hiring
fee.
If you paid
your friend to
lease his car
for a period of
time and you
damaged that car
while it's
under lease,
that was a
risk that your
friend assumed
when he leased
it to you and
he should not
make you pay
for that repair.
It should have
been factored
into the leasing
fee so you
don't have to
pay for the
damage in that
case.
It's similar to
how car rental
companies make
you pay for
insurance when
you rent out a
car.
But if you're
just borrowing
your car, your
friend's car, and
your friend's not
with you and you
wreck it, you
should pay for
it.
Or at least
someone's insurance
will pay for it.
All that to
say the Bible
teaches us to
have a healthy
respect for
private property
because it's an
aspect of loving
our neighbor.
If we love our
neighbor, we will
treat their
properties with the
care that they
deserve.
But as we'll see
next week, because
respect for private
property is ultimately
about loving our
neighbor, the Bible
doesn't want us to
treat our own
property as if it
were some sacrosanct
and inviolable
thing that we
must protect at
all costs.
For example, later
in verses 26 to
27, it says that
if you have taken
your poor neighbor's
cloak and pledge,
even if he had not
repaid the debt, you
should return the
cloak to him because
it says, return it to
him before the sun
goes down for that
is his only covering
and it is his cloak
for his body.
In what else shall
he sleep?
And if he cries to
me, I will hear for
I am compassionate.
You are legally
entitled to keep
the man's cloak
because he hasn't
repaid your debt.
But it's the poor
man's only covering
in the chill of
night.
And so instead of
insisting on your
right and taking
that and keeping
that cloak as your
own property, you
should be
compassionate because
God is compassionate.
While we need
these property laws
for the sake of
justice out in
society, remember
that the ultimate
goal for the
Christian is not
just justice for
these things.
You're trying to
love your neighbor
as yourself.
So we know that
property rights, the
protecting property
rights is not the
ultimate goal of
this passage from
its even higher
reverence for human
life.
Last week we
already covered the
case where a
goring ox kills a
man or a woman,
but we find more
goring ox cases in
our passage today.
And why is that?
Why didn't Moses just
lump all the case
laws dealing with
goring oxes together?
He separated them
because one deals
with killing humans
and the other one
deals with damaging
property and those
two are very, very
different things.
And he intentionally
classifies them
separately.
According to 21-29,
if the ox was
accustomed to gore in
the past and such a
gore kills a man or
woman, that ox was
supposed to be put to
death and the owner
of the ox was guilty
of murder.
But in the case
here in 21-36, the
ox that has been
accustomed to gore in
the past, gore is
another animal to
death.
In this case, the
ox who gored the
animal to death is
not killed and the
owner is not guilty
of murder because
human life is far
more valuable than
animal life.
Both have the breath
of life in them,
but only a human is
created in the image
of God.
So this principle
comes up again and
again throughout the
Exodus.
We've seen it from
Genesis 9.
And for your life
blood, I will require
a reckoning.
From every beast, I
will require it and
from man.
From his fellow man, I
will require a
reckoning for the
life of man.
Whoever sheds the
blood of man, by man
shall his blood be
shed.
Why?
For God made man in
his own image.
That's why.
That's the reason why
human life has
in esteemable value.
Far greater than any
property, no matter
how rare or how
expensive it is.
And we see this
principle very clearly
in 22 verses 2 to 3,
which we skipped over
earlier.
So it says, if a thief
is found breaking in
and is struck so that
he dies, there shall
be no blood guilt for
him.
But if the sun has
risen on him, there
shall be blood guilt
for him.
He shall surely
die.
If he has nothing,
then he shall be sold
for his theft.
So this is a
parenthetical remark
with a case of theft.
If a homicide occurs
when a thief is in the
middle of breaking in,
someone kills the thief.
Verse 2 specifically
says that if a thief
is found breaking in
and is struck so that
he dies, there shall
be no blood guilt for
him.
Well, so that could be
misinterpreted because
we could think, well,
then if someone's
breaking into my house,
then he's fair game.
I can take him out and
do whatever I want.
I can kill him.
That's without any
consequence.
That's not what this
means because look at
what it says right after
that.
But if the sun has
risen on him, there
shall be blood guilt
for him.
So verse 3 assumes
that the thief in this
hypothetical scenario
was struck dead while
breaking in at night.
If the thief was killed
while breaking in at
night, then the property
owner is not liable for
murder.
But if the thief was
killed while breaking in
during the day, then the
property owner is liable
for murder.
But why this distinction
between nighttime and
daytime?
Well, it's because nighttime
is when criminals with the
most sinister intentions are
active.
And because it's difficult to
discern the true objective
of a thief in the middle of
the night when you can't see
him properly.
So Job 24, 13 to 14 notes
that a thief in the night has
particularly evil intentions.
It says there are those who
rebel against the light, who
are not acquainted with its
ways and do not stay in its
paths.
The murderer rises before
it is light, that he may
kill the poor and needy and
in the night he is like a
thief.
This is why other ancient
laws from different cultures
also have reserved more
severe punishment for
nighttime thievery.
So at night, the owner of
the house cannot see whether
the thief is armed or not.
So the owner doesn't know,
wait, is this guy here to
kill me, kill my wife, or
kill my kids?
Or is he just here to steal?
You can't really tell because
you can't see anything.
You don't know if he's
armed or not.
It is conceivable that in
the confusion and chaos and
surprise of the night, a
frightened property owner who
is unable to cry out for
help because it's in the
middle of night and the
neighbors are asleep, he
strikes the thief dead while
defending himself or trying to
stop the stealing.
In this case, the property
owner is given the benefit of
the doubt and he's not charged
with murder.
Especially according to
scriptural principles, you have
to have at least two or three
witnesses to convict someone
of murder.
It also would be nearly
impossible to convict this
owner, even if you tried
because there would be no
witnesses.
However, if he kills the
thief during the day, then the
law does not excuse him,
protect him.
It holds him accountable for
murder.
Because why?
During the day, you can
observe the thief clearly.
You can tell whether he is
armed or not.
If he's not armed, he's
probably not here to kill you.
He's probably just going to
steal some stuff.
You could also tell during
the day what the thief looks
like.
Maybe they're masked, maybe
not.
You could observe him
carefully and try to track
him down and find him later.
If during the day, you could
also call to your neighbors
for help because they're
awake and they can see and
you could have witnesses.
So basically during the day,
you have many recourses that
can help you to avoid a fatal
confrontation with the thief.
But if you don't take those
other recourses and you kill
the thief during the day, then
you are guilty of murder.
This precedent shows very
clearly that according to
scripture's valuation, people,
even if they are thieves and
knaves, are more valuable than
property.
Contrast this again with the
code of Hammurabi, which
stipulates that all thieves that
break into a house should be
put to death.
Regardless of their intent,
whether it happens in daytime
or nighttime.
Other ancient Near Eastern laws
do not consistently value human
life over property.
In fact, they often value property
more than human life, especially
if that property belongs to an
upper class citizen.
But that's not the case in
scripture.
When you're in a crash with
another car, is your first
impulse and concern for the
health and well-being of the
passengers and the drivers?
Or is it for your damaged
vehicle?
When your kid drops and
shatters your favorite teapot,
is your concern primarily for the
child?
He's not cut.
Or are you more upset about your
shattered mug?
In the New Testament, we see how
radically Jesus' life, death, and
resurrection transformed the way we
relate to property.
Let me briefly share a few examples.
In Luke 19, verse 8, when Zacchaeus,
who was a wealthy tax collector,
who was famous in town for stealing
from his fellow Jews and defrauding
them, when he encounters Jesus and
is converted, he repents of his sin
and he says, behold, Lord, the half of
my goods I give to the poor, and if I
have defrauded anyone of anything, I
restore it fourfold.
According to Exodus 22, Zacchaeus was
only required to pay double because he
had defrauded and he had stolen common
goods.
But he voluntarily says, I will pay back
fourfold, twice the required amount.
And he certainly did not have to pledge
half of his goods to the poor, but he
does.
Why does he do that?
Because he has found a far greater
treasure in Jesus and his gospel.
In 1 Corinthians 6, 7, Paul is
mediating between two Christian
brothers.
One has defrauded the other.
The other one is now suing the other
one to get his money back.
And Paul says to have lawsuits at all
with one another is already a defeat
for you.
Why not rather suffer wrong?
Why not rather be defrauded?
It's getting back your money so
important that you're willing to sue a
Christian brother in front of an
unbelieving judge.
What does that do for your Christian
witness?
It's getting your money and getting
your rights, getting your property
more important than the witness that
you bear to your unbelievers around
you.
Paul's saying it is not.
Because we now have an eternal
perspective and we know that we have
an imperishable inheritance in heaven,
we do not live like money and things we
own are the be all and the end all of
life.
In Victor Hugo's classic novel,
Les Miserables, John Valjean is a poor
man who serves a 19-year prison sentence
for stealing a single loaf of bread,
which, by the way, would not be
proportional punishment.
After he is released, he doesn't know
how else to live and he steals valuable
silver forks and spoons from a Christian
bishop named Muriel who shows him
hospitality.
But while John Valjean is running away
in the night, the way he's running away
arises a suspicion of the police officers
and they apprehend him and discover that
he's carrying very suspiciously this
silverware, valuable silverware, and
assume that it's stolen.
And he says, no, no, no, I didn't steal it.
This man gave it to me.
And they drag him back to the bishop's
house.
They knock on the door and the bishop
opens the door, sees the three police
officers.
Was it three?
I don't remember.
And he sees the man and he sees John
Valjean and he immediately remembers,
he figures out what's going on.
This is what he says.
Oh, here you are.
As if we're expecting John Valjean.
And he continues, I'm glad to see you.
Well, but how is this?
I gave you the candlesticks too,
which are of silver like the rest.
And for which you can certainly get 200
francs.
Why did you not carry them away with
your forks and spoons?
As the bishop's insistence that the
silverware really is a gift to the
man, the officers are dumbfounded and
they depart.
And John Valjean is stupefied.
He can't believe what is happening.
He's not going to be apprehended.
He's not going to go back to prison.
He's trembling all over.
And before John Valjean leaves,
Bishop Muriel takes a step forward to
him, draws near and whispers in his
ears.
Do not forget.
Never forget that you have promised to
use this money in becoming an honest
man.
John Valjean, my brother, you no longer
belong to evil, but to good.
It is your soul that I buy from you.
I withdraw it from black thoughts and
the spirit of perdition.
And I give it to God.
This is what Christ has done for us.
And so much more.
According to 2 Corinthians 8, 9.
For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus
Christ, that though he was rich, yet for
your sake he became poor so that you by
his poverty might become rich.
We were all thieves.
Why?
Because as David acknowledges in 1 Chronicles
29, 14, after bringing an offering to God, all
things come from you.
And of your own we have given you.
Everything we have is God's.
Everything you see belongs to God.
And we have lived like it's ours.
Instead of living like we are borrowers and
stewards, using these resources that God's given
us for God's glory, we have lived for ourselves and
used them and spent them and stolen them for our own
benefit.
We're all thieves.
That's what we have done.
But instead of arresting us and condemning us, he offers us the
free gift of righteousness through Jesus Christ.
He promises as a heavenly inheritance through Jesus Christ.
Bishop Muriel purchased John Valjean's earthly freedom with
silver.
But Jesus purchased us for God and freed us from our slavery to
sin with his own life.
It says in 1 Peter 1, 8 to 9, we were ransomed not with perishable
things such as silver or gold, but with the precious blood of
Christ like that of a lamb without blemish or spot.
You could imagine Satan, our professional accuser, just going
apoplectic over all this.
He's a thief.
Thief.
He does not deserve your heavenly inheritance.
He does not deserve to be adopted as a child of God.
He does not deserve eternal life.
The only thing he deserves is to rot and writhe in pain in hell.
But Jesus, our redeemer, replies, he's a thief no longer because I purchased
him for God.
When I died on the cross for sin, I gave him my righteousness.
I gave him the right to sonship.
I gave him to be rich in heaven with all the inheritance out of the riches of
God's grace.
And it's because Jesus, who was rich, became poor.
So by his poverty, we might become rich.
That we can now have a transformed relationship with property.
That we can now live with sacrificial generosity toward our neighbors.
Let's pray together.
Yes, Father, it is true.
There is nothing good that we have that is our own.
They have all been gifts from you.
Thank you.
And the most precious gift you gave us, the gift of your own son.
We thank you for him.
Thank you for securing our freedom through his life, death, and resurrection.
Help us now as Christians to live in a manner that gives evidence of our heavenly inheritance,
of our eternal perspective.
May the way we safeguard our neighbor's property and love them,
and the way we sacrificially give out of what you have given to us and entrusted to us.
May it bring glory to your name, Lord.
And show the world how precious you are,
and how precious is the gift of your only son, Jesus.
It's in his name we pray.
Amen.