Good morning, everyone. If you have your Bibles with you, please turn in them to Exodus chapter 21.
If you don't have a Bible, please raise your hand and we'll have someone grab one cup and bring it over to you that you can use.
Exodus 21, we're going to be in verses 12 to 32.
Let me pray for the reading and preaching of God's Word.
Heavenly Father, we honor you this morning by inclining and submitting ourselves to your Word.
Address us now. Speak to us.
Impress upon us the inestimable value of human life that you speak of here in this passage.
And renew in us a sense of wonder at the precious life of your Son, Jesus, who gave us life that we might live.
Give us understanding as we go through this complex passage.
Help me to speak clearly.
Give us all focus and understanding.
In Jesus' name we ask. Amen.
If you are able, please stand for the reading of God's Word from Exodus 21, verses 12 to 32.
Whoever strikes a man so that he dies shall be put to death.
Whoever strikes his father or his mother shall be put to death.
Whoever steals a man and sells him and anyone found in possession of him shall be put to death.
Whoever curses his father or his mother shall be put to death.
When men quarrel and one strikes the other with a stone or with his fist and the man does not die but takes to his bed,
then if the man rises again and walks outdoors with his staff, he who struck him shall be clear.
Only he shall pay for the loss of his time and shall have him thoroughly healed.
When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged.
But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money.
When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman so that her children come out, but there is no harm,
the one who hit her shall surely be fined as the woman's husband shall impose on him,
and he shall pay as the judges determine.
But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth,
hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
When a man strikes the eye of his slave, male or female, and destroys it,
he shall let the slave go free because of his eye.
If he knocks out the tooth of his slave, male or female, he shall let the slave go free because of his tooth.
When an ox gores a man or a woman to death, the ox shall be stoned, and its flesh shall not be eaten.
But the owner of the ox shall not be liable.
But if the ox has been accustomed to gore in the past, and its owner has been warned but has not kept it in,
and it kills a man or a woman, the ox shall be stoned, and its owner also shall be put to death.
If a ransom is imposed on him, then he shall give for the redemption of his life whatever is imposed on him.
If it gores a man's son or daughter, he shall be dealt with according to the same rule.
If the ox gores a slave, male or female, the owner shall give to their master 30 shekels of silver, and the ox shall be stoned.
This is God's holy and authoritative word. Please be seated.
In case you're visiting for the first time, just so you know, I didn't look through the Bible and then decided,
this is the passage I want to preach on today.
We've been going through a book called Exodus.
We've been going through it from the beginning to the end.
We believe that every passage of Scripture is inspired by God, and so we don't skip passages,
and we believe this one too has something to teach us.
So last week we began this series, kind of a mini-series in this section of the book called
The Book of the Covenant, which details some of the laws, the practical laws,
fleshing out the Ten Commandments that were covered in Exodus 20.
So we covered labor laws last week.
We talked about slavery in ancient Israel times,
and this week we're talking about personal injury laws with focus on capital crimes.
And as I mentioned last week, because these rules and regulations are historically and culturally situated
for Jews living in the 15th century BC in ancient Near East,
and under a theocratic government, under the Old Covenant,
we can't lift these laws out of context and apply them directly to our 21st century U.S. context.
Because Jesus, as the new Israel, fulfilled the entire law,
we now need to interpret and apply every passage of Scripture through the lens of Christ
in light of how Christ has fulfilled it in the New Covenant.
So the principle of justice that we can still learn from this is this,
that we must safeguard human life, which has inestimable value,
and trust in Jesus who died so that we might live.
So that's what we're going to talk about today.
So we'll talk first about crimes punishable by death,
and then assault and battery, and then involuntary manslaughter.
Let's first look at crimes punishable by death.
If you look at verses 12 to 17,
you might notice that the phrase,
shall be put to death, is repeated again and again at the end of each case law.
Whoever does so and so shall be put to death.
So that tells us that this section is dealing with capital crimes.
You can tell what a society values by looking at what it prohibits.
What does it enforce?
What does it punish?
You can tell what it cherishes and protects by looking at its laws.
And so these laws here reveal what the Bible deems fundamental
to a just society in a fallen world.
While all the sins mentioned in verses 12 to 17
are bad enough to warrant a death penalty,
they're organized in a descending order of importance
with the worst crime being listed first.
So the order is murder, then assaulting one's parents,
and then stealing and selling a person,
and then fourth, cursing one's parents.
So let's look at these in turn.
First, verse 12 prohibits murder.
It says,
Whoever strikes a man so that he dies shall be put to death.
This is now unpacking the sixth commandment,
which was you shall not murder.
And violation of the sixth commandment is here enforced with capital punishment.
And then verses 13 to 14 address the issue of intent behind the killing.
It says,
But if he did not lie in wait for him,
but God let him fall into his hand,
then I will appoint for you a place to which he may flee.
But if a man willfully attacks another to kill him by cunning,
you shall take him from my altar that he may die.
Here's a wise distinction between accidental killing and intentional killing.
Bible provides some specific examples of this in Numbers 35 and also in Deuteronomy 19.
It says in Deuteronomy 19.5 that when someone is cutting down a tree in a forest with an axe,
and then the axe, the head of the axe, the sharp part of the axe flies off the handle and injures someone or kills someone,
that that would be considered accidental killing.
And the person is not responsible for the death of his neighbor in that case.
So these kinds of accidental homicides are what's in view here in verse 13.
So in our modern day, accidental discharge of firearms could fall into this category in certain situations.
And notice it says that God let him fall into his hand,
meaning it was from a strictly human perspective, a chance event.
Though, as this verse tells us, all such chance events still happen under God's sovereign control.
That's why it says God let him fall into his hand.
Since it was out of the man's hands completely,
a person who accidentally struck someone dead is to flee to a place that will be appointed.
This is an anticipation of cities of refuge that will be established later on in Numbers 35 and Deuteronomy 19.
And under Israel's justice system, there's no active police force.
If there is a murder, it was the responsibility of the kinsman redeemer or the avenger of blood,
the nearest kin of the deceased person, to avenge the death of his relative, to enforce that penalty.
But because the Bible wants to prevent kind of this cycle of revenge killings,
in the event of an accidental homicide like this,
there's a city of refuge set aside to where these people who have accidentally killed someone could flee.
So that they have immunity there and are protected from the wrath of the avenger of blood.
However, there is no city of refuge for a murderer.
It says in verse 14,
But if a man willfully attacks another to kill him by cunning,
you shall take him from my altar that he may die.
The word willfully communicates intent.
And this is not an accidental killing, it's an intentional killing.
And the word cunning conveys deliberation.
Our modern laws distinguish between intent and premeditation.
For example, when someone kills a person in the heat of anger without planning,
having planned to kill before, they distinguish that.
So they call that voluntary manslaughter,
but it's not murder because there was no premeditation.
Now, the Bible does not make those kind of distinctions.
The Bible takes murder more seriously,
and it takes manslaughter more seriously.
And so it doesn't distinguish between intent and premeditation.
Whether you had two years to premeditate and to plan a killing,
or whether you had a split second to plan a killing in your heat of anger,
if you intended to do it,
the Bible considers it murder and enforces it that way.
And that's because giving and taking away life is God's prerogative.
And a murderer takes someone else's life into his own hand,
presuming to arrogate this divine prerogative.
For such a person there is no refuge.
Verse 14 speaks of taking the murderer from the altar that he may die.
That's an allusion to the ancient practice of where a fugitive can run and take hold of the horns of the altar
as a way of basically confessing their sins and pleading guilty.
And they're pleading guilty and saying,
Have mercy on me.
I'm going to hold on to the horns of the altar.
Now, you find examples of this in 1 Kings chapters 1 and 2.
After a failed coup, Adonijah and Joab are both afraid of how the newly appointed King Solomon is going to punish them.
And so they flee to the tent of the Lord and take hold of the horns of the altar, not at the same time.
And what's fascinating is that Solomon promises Adonijah, who was the first one to hold on to the altar,
that he's not going to punish him.
He's not going to kill him for his treason.
However, in the next chapter, when Joab does the exact same thing, Solomon says,
Take him down and kill him.
So what's going on?
So why does the altar work for one person but not the other?
And here's the reason that Solomon gives.
He says,
Do as he has said.
Strike Joab down and bury him.
And thus take away from me and from my father's house the guilt for the blood that Joab shed without cause.
The Lord will bring back his bloody deeds on his own head because without the knowledge of my father David,
he attacked and killed with the sword two men more righteous and better than himself.
Abner, son of Ner, commander of the army of Israel, and Amasad, son of Jether, commander of the army of Judah.
So if you know the story, Joab had killed in peace times and avenged the death of his loved ones during peace time
by killing these two commanders of their respective armies.
And so that was innocent blood that was shed that was still on Joab's hands.
And it's because he was a murderer that he could not take refuge at the horn of the altar.
He's taken away from the altar to be killed.
So this distinction between accidental homicide and deliberate homicide teach us a very important truth about God.
Namely that God cares not only about what we do, but about why we do them.
God judges us not only by our actions, but also by the intentions of the heart.
For example, stealing is objectively wrong.
It is sinful to steal.
But there is a difference between a selfish, malicious thief who steals to enrich himself at the expense of others
and a thief who steals out of desperation to feed his kids.
God sees.
He sees into the human heart.
There's an objective dimension to sin and a subjective dimension to sin.
And God, who alone sees the inner workings of the human heart,
will take everything into account and judge with perfect justice.
Having delineated the general law concerning murder,
verses 15 to 17 list off a few more crimes that warrant the death penalty in Israel.
Both verses 15 and 17 deal with the way children treat their parents.
So they're unpacking the fifth commandment, which is honor your father and your mother.
Verse 15 says,
Whoever strikes his father or his mother shall be put to death.
And verse 17 says,
Whoever curses his father or his mother shall be put to death.
The word curse here doesn't mean formally to invoke a curse down upon your parents.
It also does not mean to utter obscenities or expletives at one's parents.
It's a general word here that's translated curse that means to make light of someone.
It's actually the exact antonym of the word to honor in the fifth commandment,
to honor your parents, to consider your parents weighty, to give weight to them, to honor them.
But this word, to curse, translated curse here is to make light of someone,
to slight someone, to belittle someone, to dishonor someone.
And so it certainly includes uttering obscenities and expletives,
but it's not limited to that.
It's more comprehensive than that.
So striking one's parents is more severe than simply dishonoring them
because you're not only damaging their reputation and feelings,
but also damaging them physically.
However, both the striking of the fist and the lashing of the tongue warrant the death penalty.
For some of us, that probably seems like overkill.
And as I mentioned before, that you can tell what a society cherishes
by what it enforces and punishes.
And these verses reveal just how much emphasis the Bible places
on proper relationship between parents and children.
If you want to hear a little more about that,
you can go back and listen to my sermon on the fifth commandment from Exodus 20.
But I'll summarize briefly why it's so important in the Bible.
It's because the children are the future of our society.
And because healthy parent-children relations are essential for the health and growth of children,
it's not an overstatement to say that parent-child relations are foundational to a functioning society.
And so if that parent-child relationship is subverted,
it's destructive for society as a whole.
So to prevent this, Scripture has severe punishment to deter people from this kind of sin,
to stop this contagion of rebellion and contempt toward fathers and mothers
from spreading throughout the society of Israel.
And not only that, because parents are the first authority figures that children interface with,
the way they treat their parents have implications
for how they relate to authority figures throughout society.
And that connection is illustrated by the fact that throughout the Bible,
not only the literal biological mothers and fathers,
but also other leader figures like judges and priests and prophets
are referred to as fathers and mothers.
And so this includes even the authority of God.
God reveals Himself to us as a heavenly Father.
God reveals His Father.
And because of that, earthly parents are patterned after our Heavenly Father.
So similar to how God creates man in His own image,
He says in Genesis 1.27 and Genesis 5.3
that Adam fathered a son in his own image.
So parents are literally copying and imitating what God did in creating people.
And so parents image God in their begetting and rearing of children.
And because parents are instituted by God,
appointed by God to exercise authority over their children,
when they dishonor their parents,
and that has implications.
It affects the way they perceive the authority of God.
It affects the way they perceive the fatherhood of God.
That connection is seen clearly in Exodus 22.28.
If you skip forward a little bit to verse 28 in chapter 22,
it says,
You shall not revile God, nor curse a ruler of your people.
That word translated revile there is actually the exact same Hebrew word
that was translated curse in verse 17 of chapter 21.
Whoever curses his father or his mother shall be put to death.
So if you slight your parents,
if you dishonor your parents,
if you slight God,
dishonor God,
if you slight your ruler,
a leader of your people,
the three people,
the categories of people,
God,
the society's rulers,
and your parents are all objects of the same command
because they represent different levels of authority
over the home,
over society,
and over the entire visible and invisible world.
This demonstrates the interconnectedness of these commands
and why God places such a premium
on the honoring of one's parents.
The erosion of one authority erodes all other authorities.
Now,
interposed between the two stipulations concerning parents is verse 16,
which prohibits man stealing.
It says,
Whoever steals a man and sells him,
and anyone found in possession of him shall be put to death.
The Bible never prescribes the death penalty for stealing property
because people are more important than property.
However,
it does prescribe the death penalty for man stealing
because a man is not supposed to be property
regardless of the complexion of their color
or gender or age
or socioeconomic status.
And so,
as I mentioned last week in my sermon on slavery
and labor laws in ancient Israel,
this verse alone,
if rightly understood and applied in our context,
would have dealt a singular death blow
to the transatlantic slave trade
and to slavery and modern-day slavery in general
because all that was sourced through man stealing,
kidnapping,
and then selling a man.
And so,
it's a powerful verse
that has huge implications for society.
So,
those are all capital crimes.
Now,
let's look at verses 18 to 27,
which turn to assault and battery.
Now,
these laws offer details
for how to govern cases of violence
that do not lead to death.
It says in verses 18 to 19,
when men quarrel
and one strikes the other with the stone
or with his fist
and the man does not die
but takes to his bed,
then if the man rises again
and walks outdoors with his staff,
he who struck him shall be clear.
Only he shall pay for the loss of his time
and shall have him thoroughly healed.
So,
these men are in the,
are tossed,
they're in the midst of a quarrel
when one strikes the other.
And,
it's not,
it's not strictly speaking,
you know,
accidental,
right?
Because it's in,
they're fighting,
there's hostile intent.
So,
this is an intentional one.
But,
the strike does not end in death.
It,
it,
it ends in a serious injury
that causes the man to be bedridden
and need to rest and recover.
In a case like this,
the man who struck him
shall be clear,
meaning,
he's clear of the guilt of murder
because he did not kill him.
However,
it says in,
it says in the following verses,
only he shall pay for the loss of his time
and shall have him thoroughly healed.
In other words,
the man who struck him
is financially responsible
for the injured man's loss of time,
all the money that he would have earned
if he hadn't been injured
by doing his normal work.
And also,
he is responsible for the man's healing,
for his medical expenses,
all the money that takes,
it comes out of the offender's pocket.
Now,
keep this case in mind
as we look at verses 20 to 21,
which deals with another case of battery,
but this time,
it's an altercation
between a master and his slave.
It says,
when a man strikes his slave,
male or female,
with a rod,
and the slave dies under his hand,
he shall be avenged.
But if the slave survives a day or two,
he is not to be avenged,
for the slave is his money.
Explain what this means.
Verse 21 is structurally parallel
to verses 18 and 19
and follows the same logical order.
So, first,
if the slave that was struck
dies under his hand,
he shall be avenged.
The word avenged
doesn't necessarily mean to kill,
but in this context,
it does refer to the death penalty
because if you look at Jeremiah 50, 15,
it explains exactly
what this word avenged means,
and it means to do to her
as she has done.
So, it's to render
proportional punishment,
reciprocal punishment.
And so, if he kills the slave,
then he shall be avenged,
meaning he is subject
to the death penalty,
even though it's his slave.
Now, but if he survives,
the slave survives a day or two,
he's not to be avenged,
for the slave is his money.
Now, if you come to Scripture
with suspicion,
seeking confirmation,
that sounds really wrong, right?
The slave is his money.
What does that mean?
So, like, if this,
does that mean that
the master can treat his slave
however he wants?
Maybe can he kill him?
Well, obviously not,
because if he kills him,
he'll be subject to death penalty.
Well, then can he beat him
as much as he wants?
Of course not,
because as we see
in the later verses,
verse 26, 27,
if the master maims the slave,
he has to let the slave go free.
If he destroys his eye
or knocks out his tooth,
he has to let the slave go free.
So, it's not saying
that the slave is his money,
meaning he can do to him
whatever he wants.
That's not what this is saying.
Rather, the verse is parallel
to verses 18 and 19
that we saw
dealing with the injury
of the man that was bedridden.
So, if the slave is bedridden,
if the slave is injured
and is bedridden,
who is responsible
for his medical expenses?
It's the master.
The slave has no money
to his account.
If the slave is bedridden
and the slave,
all the labor that the slaver does
makes money for the master,
who is losing money
during the time
that the slave is bedridden?
It's the master.
So, all the money
that the slave needs
for his recuperation,
for his medical expenses,
and for the loss of time
that the Bible guarantees
for an injured party,
it all comes out
of the master's pocket.
That's what it means
when it says
that the slave is his money.
And so, even though
he is to be avenged,
if he kills the slave,
if he is injured,
the master is already punished
through the loss of time
and through the medical expenses
that come through the slave.
And so, he is not to be avenged
on top of that
is what this verse is saying.
Does that make more sense?
Yeah.
So far,
in terms of personal injury laws,
we've covered
intentional killing
and accidental killing,
as well as intentional
assault and battery.
now we cover collateral damage.
When injury is inflicted
incidentally on a person
that was not the intended target.
It says in verse 22,
when men strive together
and hit a pregnant woman
so that her children come out,
but there is no harm,
the one who hit her
shall surely be fined
as the woman's husband
shall impose on him,
and he shall pay
as the judges determine.
This is a fascinating case
because,
on the one hand,
the battery is not
exactly accidental.
The men were,
you know,
tussling in public.
Surely they understand
that people nearby
are at risk,
that they pose a threat
to people around them.
So it's not accidental,
but it's also not intentional
because they weren't trying
to hit the pregnant woman.
They were trying
to hit each other.
And so,
it's very similar,
I think,
to the case
of a goring ox
that we'll see later on.
It's probably an injury
inflicted on someone
by negligence.
So,
the interpretation
of this verse
is highly debated
because there are
some problematic translations
that has produced
some incorrect interpretations.
So,
to give an example,
the Revised Standard Version,
RSV,
translates verses 22 to 23
this way.
It says,
When men strive together
and hurt a woman with child
so that there is a miscarriage,
and yet no harm follows,
the one who hurt her
shall be fined,
according to the woman's husband,
shall lay upon him,
and he shall pay
as the judges determine.
If any harm follows,
then you shall give
life for life,
eye for eye,
tooth for tooth,
hand for hand,
so on.
So,
according to this translation,
the tussling men
have caused
a woman's miscarriage,
and yet,
it is nevertheless possible
that no harm is done.
So,
that's how they're
interpreting this passage.
So,
if they interpret it that way,
then the harm
must refer only to the harm
that comes upon the woman.
So,
it doesn't matter
what happens to the baby,
that's not harm,
as long as nothing happens
to the woman,
but if something happens
to the woman,
you know,
then you pay life for life.
So,
some people
who are looking
for justification
in Scripture
to not consider
the baby in the womb
a human
use this passage
that way.
But,
this is a bad translation
and an even worse
interpretation
of these verses.
And,
here are the reasons.
The Hebrew expression
in verse 22
is literally
so that her children
come out,
exactly the way
the ESV translates it.
It does not say
so that there is
a miscarriage
as the RSV has it.
That's an over translation.
When the Hebrew word
for come out
is used to refer
to children
in the womb
in other contexts
of the Bible,
it always refers
to live births
and not to a stillbirth.
So,
in Genesis 25,
in Genesis 38,
when Jacob and Esau
are born
and when Zerah is born,
it simply says
that they came out.
Moreover,
there is a specific
Hebrew word
that means miscarriage.
And,
there is a specific
Hebrew word
that means stillborn.
And,
neither of these words
are used
in this verse.
the word
that is used here
is simply
that they came out.
And so,
verse 22
is not referring
to a miscarriage
but to a premature birth,
which is exactly
what reputable
translations
like the CSB
and NIV
render it.
So then,
when two men
who are fighting
with each other
unwittingly strike
a pregnant woman
so that she gives birth
prematurely
to her baby,
if both the mother
and the baby
are healthy
and there is no harm,
then the punishment
for the man
who hit her
is merely a fine
for causing
the distress
and the scare
of the premature labor
that he induced.
And,
the woman's husband
who is the head
of the household
and is responsible
for the care
of his wife
will impose a fine
and then that fine
will be deliberated on
by the judges
and they will ultimately
give a verdict
to determine
how much
the man should pay.
But,
if there is harm
and since the object
of the harm
is not specified,
I would assume here
that it involves
both the child
and the mom,
if there is harm
to either,
it says,
you shall pay
life for life,
eye for eye,
tooth for tooth,
hand for hand,
foot for foot,
burn for burn,
wound for wound,
stripe for stripe.
This is the famous
legal principle
called lex talionis
which is translated
law of retaliation.
This principle
is articulated
in this way
to be memorable
for rhetorical purposes,
life for life,
eye for eye,
but it's not intended
to be applied,
enforced literally.
It's making the point
that the punishment
should be commensurate
with the crime.
The punishment
should be proportional
to the crime,
not that the punishment
should be identical
to the crime.
Do you understand
the difference?
So, for example,
in,
to give you some examples,
in November 2021,
a man who smuggled
and sold copies
of the Netflix series
Squid Game
was sentenced to death
by firing squad
in North Korea.
A student who purchased
the drive
with the show
downloaded on
and received
a life sentence,
six other students
who just watched
the video
were sentenced
to five years
of hard labor.
Now,
the punishment
was excessive
and not proportional
to the crime.
this is not life
for life,
but life for I
or worse.
Or consider this example
from 1983
when a British judge
sentenced a man
to 12 months
in prison,
eight of which
were suspended.
So this man
only served
four months
in prison
for assaulting
and raping
a six-year-old girl,
which was considered
too lenient
at the time
and it caused
widespread outrage
leading to some
legal changes.
That's not life
for life.
That's tooth
for life.
Or worse,
both of those
are unjust.
We know that
lex talionis
was not meant
to be applied
literally
from the following
verses.
Look at verses
26 to 27.
When a man
strikes the eye
of his slave,
male or female,
and destroys it,
he shall let the slave
go free
because of his eye.
If he knocks out
the tooth
of his slave,
male or female,
he shall let the slave
go free
because of his tooth.
So immediately
after articulating
the principle
of eye for eye
and tooth for tooth,
here are very clear
specific examples
of when literally
an eye is destroyed
and a tooth
is knocked out
and the punishment
is not that you
poke out his eye
and knock out his tooth.
No.
You let the slave
go free.
The idea is
proportional justice,
proportional punishment,
not identical punishment.
The slave
is compensated
by his freedom
and the master
is punished
by the loss
of his slave's labor.
And this is
unprecedented
actually because
if you search
other ancient
Near Eastern
legal collections
and there's
quite a few of them,
you find no law
addressing abusive
behavior by masters.
There are laws
that provide
some protection
for slaves
from other people,
but there are
no protections
for slaves
from their own masters
in other ancient
Near Eastern laws.
Only here in Scripture
do you find that.
And as that example
shows,
the eye-for-eye
principle in Scripture
was not intended
to be applied
literally.
We find another
confirmation of that
in verses 18 to 19.
Remember when the man
was struck
and injured
and he was bedridden?
What's the punishment?
Strike the other guy,
make him bedridden?
No.
It was to pay
for the loss of time
and to pay
for his medical expenses.
Proportional punishment.
This is in contrast
to other ancient
law codes
that apparently
enforced this kind
of justice literally.
So for example,
the Code of Hammurabi,
a Babylonian legal text,
which is often compared
to the Book of the Covenant,
says this,
If a son strike his father,
his hands
shall be hewn off.
If a man put out
the eye of another,
his eyes shall be put out.
If a man knocks out
the teeth of his equal,
his teeth shall be
knocked out.
The wording is so specific
that it gives the impression
that this was literally enforced,
which I think is quite,
what's the word?
It's severe, barbaric.
Furthermore,
the Code of Hammurabi
did not offer equal protection
to people of inferior social status,
like slaves,
as the Bible does.
For example,
in the Code of Hammurabi,
if a property-owning citizen
puts out the eye
of another property-owning citizen,
his eye is literally put out.
But if he puts out the eye
of a lower-class free person
who does not own property,
a poor person,
well, then he only needs
to pay one gold miner.
Okay?
And if he puts out the eye
of someone else's slave,
well, then he only needs
to pay half of the slave's value,
which must not have been much
because the same Code stipulates
that the man whose ox
kills a slave only needs
to pay one-third of a miner,
and the ox doesn't even get killed.
So the proportional punishment
was only guaranteed
to upper-class citizens
in these other ancient Near Eastern laws,
and they enforced
the eye for eye principle
with great literally.
And that's in stark contrast
to the Book of Exodus
and the Book of the Covenant,
where the principle
of proportional punishment
is applied wisely
and consistently
to masters and slaves alike.
So, so far,
we've looked at
personal injury laws
governing crimes
committed by humans.
Now we turn to cases
of involuntary manslaughter.
This is not like
what a normal sermon is like,
so just so you guys know,
it's kind of dense
because of the nature
of the passage,
but you guys have been
very patient,
and you're listening
really, really well.
So it says in verse 28,
when an ox gores a man
or a woman to death,
the ox shall be stoned
and its flesh shall not be eaten,
but the owner of the ox
shall not be liable.
An ox that gores a human to death
is without exception killed.
But that's not only
for the sake of preventing
similar incidents in the future,
yet it's also for the sake
of justice,
because Genesis 9.5 says
that any beast that kills a man,
that God will require a reckoning
for that lifeblood.
So it doesn't matter
how ignorant the beast is,
because it took the life,
it dared to take the life
of a human being
created in the image of God.
Its own life,
therefore, is forfeited.
Once again,
this sets Exodus apart
from other ancient
Eastern law codes,
because there is
an exact parallel
where an ox gores
someone to death,
and the ox is never killed
in those other texts.
The sanctity of life,
the Bible places supreme value
on the sanctity of human life.
And according to this text,
not only is the ox
to be stoned,
after it's dead,
its flesh
shall not be eaten.
Why?
Because it would be
inappropriate
to have a feast
thanks to an ox
that gores someone
to death.
The flesh
of the dead ox
is considered
unclean,
unfit
for human consumption.
So this also serves
to punish
the owner of the ox.
Though it was
an accident,
though it was
not him
that killed someone,
it was his ox,
the owner himself
is not guilty of murder,
and yet he is still punished
in some sense
because he loses
the valuable labor
of a farm animal,
and he does not
get to feast on it.
It's not
fit for consumption.
However,
it says in verse 29,
if the ox
has been accustomed
to gore in the past,
and its owner
has been warned
but has not kept it in,
and it kills a man
or a woman,
the ox shall be stoned
and its owner
also shall be put
to death.
So this is again
a case of
negligent homicide.
The owner
himself did not kill,
but by his
criminal negligence,
he has allowed
his ox
to kill another person.
There may not
have been
any malicious intent,
but there was
irresponsible
negligence.
So there was
a known
significant risk
related to this ox
and he did nothing
to prevent
the goring.
And that's why
he is liable
for the death
because if it weren't
for his negligence,
the person would
still be alive.
So you might be
wondering how all
of this applies
to us
since none of us
own any oxen,
but maybe some
of you did.
I think some of you
actually did.
Yes, Laura
did own an oxen
in the past.
Yes.
Well, even if you
don't have oxen,
many of us own
pets, right,
which are also
very expensive.
They're not as
valuable as work
animals, but we
own pets.
And they too
can be dangerous.
Only two weeks
ago, a family's
Siberian husky
killed their
four-day-old baby
girl in Arkansas.
A few months
ago in Memphis,
Tennessee, two
pit bulls attacked
their owners,
killing a two-year-old
girl and a five-month-old
boy and hospitalizing
their mother.
If you have a dog
that is known to
bite, you should
have your dog
leashed at all
times when you're
in the presence
of other people.
Not only that,
cars that we drive
are very much like
the oxen of the
ancient world.
They're expensive,
they're dangerous,
and you need it
to work in a lot
of cases.
At least you get
to work.
And there are
examples of
negligence related
to that as well.
Drunk driving,
texting while
driving,
speeding,
reckless driving.
This is convicting
for me as well.
We should value
human life so
much more than
our convenience
and our time
and our desire
to appear
responsive to
people who have
texted us
or our desire
to appear
punctual to
an appointment
that we're going
to.
We should value
human life so
much more than
that we don't
do this kind
of thing.
That's negligent
homicide.
Here's another
example.
If you are
aware that you
are carrying
a deadly
and highly
transmissible
disease,
you should take
care not to
infect other
people with it,
especially the
most vulnerable
members of
our society.
Obviously,
we need to be
wise and careful
in applying
this principle
and I'm not
trying to comment
necessarily on
COVID because
we need to
acknowledge that
people's assessment
of risks
differ.
It varies.
However,
we need to use
our discernment
and we need to be
considerate toward
others.
All of this
ultimately boils down
to loving our
neighbors as
ourselves.
when it comes
to negligent
homicide,
the book of
the covenant
did not strictly
enforce the
death penalty
because while
negligence is
bad,
it's still not
the same as
murder and
intentional killing.
And so that's
why there's a
provision for a
ransom in
verses 30 to
32.
If a ransom
is imposed on
him,
then he shall
give for the
redemption of
his life whatever
is imposed on
him.
If it gores a
man's son or
daughter,
he shall be
dealt with
according to
this same
rule.
If the
ox gores a
slave,
male or
female,
the owner
shall give
to their
master 30
shekels of
silver and
the ox shall
be stoned.
Since in
verse 22,
the judges
determine the
amount of
the fine in
consultation with
the victim's
family,
I assume that
the same applies
in this context.
After considering
the circumstances
of the negligent
homicide,
the family of
the victim and
the dolly
appointed judges
may choose
instead of
enforcing the
death penalty
to impose
a ransom.
The ransom
price was
decided on a
case-by-case
basis except
in the case
of a slave,
there was a
fixed ransom
price, 30
shekels of
silver, which
is interestingly
enough the
price that the
chief priest
paid Judas
is scary in
Matthew 26,
16 for the
selling out of
Jesus to send
him to his
death on the
cross.
Imposing a
ransom was a
form of leniency.
It was a
show of mercy
in cases of
involuntary
manslaughter.
But the
Bible explicitly
forbids such
leniency and
ransom in
cases of
intentional
killing,
of murder.
It says in
Numbers 35,
31 to 34,
you shall
accept no
ransom for
the life of
a murderer
who is guilty
of death,
but he shall
be put to
death.
No atonement
can be made
for the land,
for the blood
that is shed
in it,
except by
the blood
of the one
who shed
it.
The only
acceptable
atonement
for murder
is the death
of the murderer
because God
has decreed
in Genesis 9,
6,
whoever sheds
the blood
of man,
by man
shall his
blood be
shed.
For God
made man
in his
own image.
That's where
the value
of a human
life comes
from,
that we are
made in
the image
of God.
We represent
God.
So the
value of
the man's
life,
of a human's
life,
is so
inestimably
high that
there is
no possible
money amount
that you
can pay
to atone
for him
except for
the life
of another.
So imagine
what it's
like to be
on death
row in
ancient Israel
for murder.
You've been
sentenced to
death for a
crime for
which there
can be no
ransom.
Doesn't matter
how rich
you are.
You cannot
get out.
With the
crushing
certainty
of doom
weighing on
you ever
heavier and
drawing nearer,
imagine that
desperation.
Because that's
where we have
all been.
We've all
in fact been
in those
exact shoes.
Because Romans
6.23 says
the wages of
sin is death.
We've all
sinned against
an infinitely
worthy God
by rebelling
against him
and living
for ourselves.
And the
just punishment
for that
is death.
It's the only
just punishment.
And we cannot
possibly afford
a ransom
to escape
our death.
Psalm 49
says,
Truly no man
can ransom
another or
give to God
the price
of his life
for the
ransom of
their life
is costly
and can
never suffice
that he
should live
on forever
and never
see the pit.
Only thing
costly enough
for a
person's life
is life.
Another
human life
only
fitting
punishment
for us
is death
and eternal
damnation.
But knowing
that full
well
God the
Father
loved us
and sent
his only
son,
the son of
God
and the
son of
man
to be
the
substitute
for us
to take
our place
to die
on the
cross
for our
sins
and in
our
place
the innocent
one
the righteous
one
dying
freely
giving his
life
on the
cross
so that
we
who are
convicts
on death
row
can be
atoned
for
and go
free.
Only
death
can atone
for our
sins
and only
the death
of the
perfect
sinless
son of
God
can atone
for all
of our
sins
and that's
what Jesus
did.
And Jesus
willingly
and gladly
paid
that
price
so that
people who
have no
hope of
freedom
no hope
of atonement
can live
can have
eternal
life.
So let's
safeguard human
life
because it's
valuable
and let's
trust in
Jesus who
has died
to give
us life.
Let's pray
together.
Father,
when we
see just
how
precious
human
life is
from this
passage,
we more
rightly
understand
and appreciate
the true
price you
paid,
the
preciousness
of the
life of
your son
Jesus
Christ
and why
that price
was necessary.
Father,
thank you
for being
willing to
pay the
unspeakable
price out
of your
love for
us.
And
Jesus,
thank you
for your
loving sacrifice
on our
behalf.
Help us
to now
live our
lives
knowing
the worth
and value
of our
own lives
purchased
by the
precious
blood
of the
Son of
God.
In
Jesus'
name we
pray.
Amen.