Exodus 21
THE BOOK OF THE COVENANT
(Con’t)
v. 1 – “Now these are the judgments which
thou shalt set before them.” - The term
“judgment” applies
most properly to the decisions of courts and the laws founded
upon them. No doubt the laws contained in the “Book of the Covenant” were to a
large
extent old laws, which had been often acted on; but we
should do wrong to suppose that
there was nothing new in the legislation. The Hebrew mishphat is used with some vagueness.
LAWS CONNECTED WITH THE RIGHTS OF PERSONS - (vs. 2-32). The
regulations of this section concern —
Ø Slavery (vs.
2-11);
Ø Murder and
other kinds of homicide (vs. 12-15 and 20-21);
Ø Man-stealing
(v. 16);
Ø Striking or
cursing of parents (vs. 15, 17);
Ø Assaults
and injuries to the person not resulting in death (vs. 18-19,
and 22-27),
both in the case of free men and of slaves; and
Ø Injuries
done by cattle both to free men and to slaves (vs. 28-32). The
chief
bodily injury whereto women are liable is not mentioned. A later
enactment
(Deuteronomy 22:25-29) made it expiable by marriage, or
else a
capital offence. There are no other remarkable omissions.
LAWS DEALING WITH SLAVERY
Slave laws
belong to all communities, and not to some only, slavery being really a
universal
and not a partial institution.
vs. 2-11 – “If thou buy an Hebrew servant” - Slavery, it is clear, was an existing
institution.
The law of Moses did not make it, but found it, and by not
forbidding, allowed it. The Divine
legislator was content under the circumstances to
introduce mitigations and alleviations into
the slave condition. Hebrews commonly became slaves through
poverty (Leviticus 25:35, 39),
but sometimes through crime (ch. 22:3). “six years he
shall serve: and in the seventh
he shall go out free for nothing.” Not in the Sabbatical year, but at the
commencement
of the seventh year after he became a slave. If the jubilee
year happened to occur, he might
be released sooner (Leviticus 25:40); but in any case his
servitude must end when the sixth
year of it was completed. This was
an enormous boon, and had nothing, so far as is known,
correspondent to it in the legislation of any other
country. Nor was this
all. When he
went out free, his late master was bound to furnish
him with provisions out of his flock,
and out of his threshing floor, and out of his
winepress (Deuteronomy 15:12-14), so
that he might have something
wherewith to begin the world afresh. The humane spirit
of the legislation is strikingly
marked in its very first enactment. “If he came in by
himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out
with him. If his master have given him a wife, and she
have born him sons or
daughters; the wife and her children shall be her
master’s, and he shall go out by
himself. And
if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and
my children; I will not go out free” - Masters are
admonished to treat their slaves
“not as bond-servants, but as
hired servants or sojourners,” and again “not to rule
over them with rigour” (Leviticus 25:39-40, 43). Then
his master shall bring him unto
the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and
his master
shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve
him for ever. And if a man
sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she
shall not go out as
the menservants do.
If she please not her master, who hath
betrothed her to himself, then
shall he
let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a
strange nation he
shall have no power,
seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her. And if
he have betrothed her unto his
son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters. If he
take him another
wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.
And
if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go
out free without money.”
·
EXTENT OF ANCIENT SLAVERY. The slaves
in ancient states were
almost
always more numerous than the freemen. At
to more
than four-fifths of the community. Every free person was a slave
owner, and
some owned hundreds of their fellow-creatures. Perpetual
insecurity
was felt in consequence of the danger of revolt; and this fear
reacted on
the treatment of slaves, since it was thought necessary to break
their
spirit by severities. The evil effects of the institution pervaded all
classes of
the community, fostering pride and selfishness in the masters,
dissimulation,
servility, and meanness in the slaves.
·
GROUNDS ON WHICH ANCIENT SLAVERY RESTED. Ancient
slavery did
not necessarily imply any mental or moral fault in the slave.
Some reached it through mental
defect, as our lunatics; some through
crime, as
our convicts (see <022203>Exodus 22:3). But the great majority were
either born
in the condition, or became slaves through the fortune of war.
Thus slavery was not commonly a
deserved punishment, but an undeserved
misfortune.
Men found themselves, without any fault of their own, the
goods and
chattels of another, with no political and few social rights,
bound to
one who might be in all respects inferior to themselves, but who
was their
lord and master. A sense of injustice consequently rankled in the
bosom of
the slave, and made him in most cases dangerous. Slave revolts
were of
frequent occurrence.
·
TREATMENT OF SLAVES IS ANCIENT STATES. Some
considerable
differences may be observed between the treatment of slaves
in
different communities; but there are certain features which seem to have
been
universal.
ü Slaves were
for the most part the property of individuals, and
depended largely on the caprice of individuals, who might be
harsh or
mild, brutally tyrannical, or foolishly indulgent.
ü Slave
families might at any time be broken up, the different members
being
sold to different masters.
ü Slaves
might everywhere be beaten, and unless in case of serious injury,
there
was no inquiry.
ü Very severe
labor might be required of them; they might be confined in
workshops,
which were little better than prisons, made to toil in mines,
or
chained to the oar as galley slaves.
ü They might
be badly lodged, badly clothed, and badly fed, without the
law
taking any notice.
ü In most
places there was no redress for any injury that a slave might
suffer
short of death; and in some the law took no cognisance
even of
his
murder. The Mosaic legislation, finding slavery established under
these
conditions, set itself to introduce ameliorations, without
condemning
the institution altogether. It divided slaves into two
classes,
Hebrew and foreign, changing the slavery of the former into a
species
of apprenticeship for six years, and guarding, not merely the life,
but
the members and organs of the latter. It acknowledged the family tie
in
the case of the slave, and laid down rules tending to check the
separation
of wives from husbands. It protected slave concubines from
the
caprice of a sated husband. It absolutely forbade the practice of
kidnapping,
whereby the slave-market was largely recruited in most
countries,
putting men-stealers on a par with murderers, and requiring
that
they should suffer death. We may gather from the Mosaic legislation
on
the subject —
·
THAT IF UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES SLAVERY HAS TO
BE MAINTAINED, ALL POSSIBLE
AMELIORATIONS OF IT
SHOULD BE
INTRODUCED WITHOUT DELAY. The slave is entitled
to be protected
in life and limb, to be decently lodged, fed, and clothed, to
have the
enjoyment of the Sunday rest, to be undisturbed in his family
relations,
to have the honor of his wife and daughters respected, to have an
appeal from
his master if he regards himself as in any way wronged. The
efforts of
missionaries and other humane men in uncivilized communities,
should be
directed primarily to the introduction of such reforms as these
into the
systems which they find established there.
·
THAT, WHERE DOMESTIC SERVICE HAS SUPERSEDED
SLAVERY, THERE IS STILL ROOM FOR
AMELIORATIONS IN THE
CONDITIONS OF
SERVICE. It is not the masters of slaves only who are
hard and
tyrannical. In all service there is room for the exhibition on the
part of the
master, of indulgence on the one hand, or strictness and severity
on the
other. We at the present day may either oppress our servants, or
deal kindly
with them. True, they may leave us if we oppress them; but a
good
servant will not readily leave a respectable place, and a good deal of
tyranny is
often borne before warning is given. It is the duty of masters, not
only to “give to their servants that which is just
and equal” (Colossians
4:1), but to show them sympathy and
kindness, to treat them with
consideration,
and avoid hurting their feelings. More warmth and
friendliness
than are at all usual in the present treatment of servants, seem
to be
required by the fact that they are our brethren in the Lord, joint-heirs
of
salvation with us, and perhaps to be preferred above us in another
world. Compare Paul’s conduct when he sent Onesimus back to Philemon
(Philemon 1:12,16)
LAWS
AGAINST HOMICIDE
vs. 12-14 – “He
that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely
put to death.
This
reiterates the Sixth Commandment, and adds to it a temporal penalty — “he shall
surely be put to death.” The substance of this law had already been
given to Noah in
the words,
“Whoso sheddeth
man’ s blood, by
man shall his blood be shed”
(Genesis
9:6). “And if a man lie not in
wait, but God deliver him into his hand;
then I will appoint thee a place whither he shall flee.” - Places
were appointed,
whither the shedder
of blood might flee, and where he might be safe until his cause
was tried before the men of his own city (Numbers 35:22-25),
and afterwards, if the
judgment were in his favor. Some particular part of the
camp was probably made an
asylum in the wilderness. When we first hear of the actual appointment,
the number
of the places was six — three on either side of
compare Numbers 35:10-15, and Deuteronomy 19:2.) Thus there
was always a city
of refuge at a reasonable distance But, if a man happened suddenly upon his enemy,
without having sought the opportunity, and slew him (v.
13), then the
case was one not of
murder, but at most of manslaughter, or possibly of justifiable homicide. No legal
penalty was assigned to such offenses. They were left to the rude justice of established
custom, which required “the avenger of blood” to visit them with due retribution.
According
to the general practice of the Eastern nations, he might either insist on life
for life or take a money compensation. With this custom, deeply
ingrained into the
minds of the Oriental people, the law did not meddle.
It was content to interpose
between the avenger of blood and his victim the chance
of reaching an asylum.
“But if a man come presumptuously (or
“proudly,” “arrogantly.”) upon his
neighbor, to slay him with guile; thou shalt take him
from mine altar, that he
may die.” - Real murder, with deliberate
intent, was under no circumstances to be
pardoned. The murderer was even to be torn from the altar,
if he took refuge there,
and relentlessly punished (ver. 14).
See the case of Joab (I Kings
2:28-34).
Here again,
in the time of Moses, a custom, regarded as of absolute obligation upon all,
held possession of the ground; and nothing was
practicable but some modification of it.
The
next-of-kin was “avenger
of blood,” and was bound to pursue every homicide to
the bitter end, whether it was intentional and premeditated (i.e., murder),
or done
hastily in a quarrel (i.e., manslaughter), or wholly
unintentional (i.e., death by
misadventure). Moses distinguished between deliberate murder, which the state was
to punish capitally (vs. 12-14) and any other sort of
homicide, which was left to the
avenger of blood. In mitigation of the blood-feud, he
interposed the city of refuge,
whereto the man who had slain another might flee and be
safe until his cause was
tried. And in the trial of such persons he introduced
the distinction between
manslaughter and death by misadventure, allowing the avenger
of blood to put the
offender to death in the former case, but not in the
latter. (Numbers 35:16-25.)
Mercy and truth thus went together in the
legislation.
·
TRUTH The primary truth is the sacredness of man’s
life. In rude times,
where it is
everywhere “a word and a blow,” very severe laws were
necessary,
if human life was not to be continually sacrificed; and so
manslaughter
was placed on a par with murder, made a capital offense; the
sudden
angry blow which caused death, though death might not have been
intended,
was to receive as its due punishment death at the hands of the
“avenger of blood.”
·
MERCY. The “avenger of blood” was not allowed to be judge in his
own cause.
Cases of unpremeditated homicide were to go before the
judges, who
were to decide whether the death was intentional or by
mischance.
Mercy was to be shown to the man who had blood on his hands
through
accident. He was to be safe within the walls of the “city of refuge.”
Cities of refuge were multiplied,
that one might be always within easy
reach. Legislation
should always seek to combine mercy with justice.
Draconian enactments defeat their
own purpose, since over-severe laws are
sure not to
be carried out. The moral sense revolts against them. Thus,
when in our
own country forgery was a capital offense, juries could not be
got to
convict of forgery. Laws should be in accordance with the
conscience
of the community, or they will cease to command respect.
Good men will infringe them; and
even courts will be slow to enforce
obedience
when they are infringed. Wise legislators will ever aim at
embodying
in the law the judgments of the more advanced conscience, and
making it
thus an instrument’ for elevating the moral sentiments of the
community.
OTHER
CAPITAL OFFENSES
The
unsystematic character of the arrangement in this chapter is remarkably shown
by this
interruption of the consideration of different sorts of
homicide, in order to introduce offenses
of quite a different character, and those not
very closely allied to each other — e.g.,
Ø Striking
a parent;
Ø Kidnapping;
Ø
Cursing a parent.
vs. 15-17 – “And he that smiteth
his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to
death.” - To “smite” here
is simply to “strike” — to
offer the indignity of a blow —
not to kill, which had already been made
capital (v.12), not in the case of parents only,
but in every case. The severity of the law is
very remarkable, and strongly emphasizes
the dignity and authority of parents. “And he that stealeth
a man, (kidnapping) We
may gather from Deuteronomy 24:7, that the Mosaic law was
especially leveled against
this form of the crime, though the words of the
present passage are general, and forbid
the crime altogether – “and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely
be put to death. And he
that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely
be put
to death.”
Blasphemy against God, and imprecations upon parents, were
the only two
sins of the tongue which the law expressly required
to be punished with death
(Leviticus
24:16). In later times analogy was held to require that “cursing the ruler of
the people” (ch. 22:28) should be visited with the same penalty (II Samuel
19:22;
I Kings
2:8-9, 46). The severity of the sentence indicates that in God’ s sight such sins
are of the deepest dye. The command
to honor father and mother (ch. 20:12), which is
enough for the conscience, and which, if obeyed, would
render all further laws upon the
subject unnecessary, is here reinforced by two important enactments,
intended to restrain
those who do not scruple to disobey mere moral
laws. The penalty of death is affixed to
two crimes:
God to us, that they are in a real
sense authors of our being, that they
protect and
sustain us for years during which we could do nothing for
ourselves,
and that nature has implanted in our minds an instinctive
reverence
for them, the punishment of parent-strikers by death will not
seem
strange or excessive. A son must have become very hardened in guilt,
very
reckless, very heartless, very brutal, who can bring himself to lift a
hand
against a father, not to say a mother. There is as much moral guilt in a
light blow
dealt to one whom we are bound to love, honor, and protect
from hurt,
as in the utmost violence done to a stranger. However,
according
to the Talmud, it was not every light blow that was actually
punished
with death, but only a blow which caused a wound; and, of
course, the
punishment was only inflicted upon the complaint of the party
aggrieved,
who would be unlikely to take proceedings, unless the assault
was of
grave character. Probably the law had very seldom to be enforced.
What it did was to invest
parents with a sacred and awful character in their
children’ s
eyes, and to induce them to submit to chastisement without
resistance.
strike one.
All
cursing is unsuitable to such a being as man — so full
of
faults
himself, so liable to misjudge the character and conduct of others;
but to
curse those to whom we owe our existence is simply horrible. The
sin is akin
to blasphemy, and is awarded the same punishment. At the
present
day, when the Mosaic law is no longer in force, and when on this
point no
echoes of the Mosaic legislation are to be traced in existing codes,
it is
specially incumbent on conscientious persons to observe the spirit
of
the Mosaic
enactments, and (as it were) make a Christian use of them.
ü “Smite not a
parent,” said the law, “or die the death.” “Grieve not a
parent” is
the Christian paraphrase. “Grieve him not by disobedience, by
idleness,
by extravagance, by misconduct of any kind. Do not discredit his
bringing up
by misbehaviour. Do not stab his heart by
ingratitude. Do not
wither up
his nature by unkindness.” A child may easily, without lifting a
finger, “bring down the grey hairs” of his
father “with
sorrow to the
grave.” (Genesis
42:38) - He may “smite” him in
half-a-dozen ways
without
touching him. Let Christian men beware of such “smiting” of their
parents,
and dread the “eternal
death” which may follow in the place of
Moses’ temporal
death.
ü “Curse not a
parent,” said the law again. We do not now, unless we
part
with religion altogether, curse any one. But we too often break
the
spirit of this law, notwithstanding. We speak slightingly of our
parents;
we join in disrespectful comments on their manners or
behavior;
we use language to them, face to face, which is wanting in
reverence
and unsuitable. If we would act in the spirit of the law,
“curse
not a parent,” we must avoid all disrespectful words, all
disrespectful
thoughts towards them or concerning them; we must
give
them the honor due to parents; we must seriously consider their
counsels,
and as a general rule follow their advice. As temporal death
was
awarded to those who “cursed” parents by the Jewish law
(v.17), so eternal death
will be the portion of such as are
determinately
“disobedient to
parents” under the Christian
dispensation.
good name is a serious one; but the worst robbery of
all is to steal his person.
Civilized, refined,
polished, intellectual men, happy in the enjoyment of
freedom, wealth, honor, domestic happiness, have gone to
sleep in comfort,
peace, and fancied security, to wake up in the grip of
lawless man-stealers, who
have bound
them and carried them into a hopeless captivity, far from any
relative or
friend, to become familiar with every sort of ill-usage and
indignity. Death was certainly a punishment not one whit
too severe for this
atrocious
crime, by which the happiest of the human race might become
suddenly
one of the most wretched.
SEVERE
ASSAULT
Assault was
punishable by the law in two ways. Ordinarily, the rule was that of strict
retaliation’ ‘ Eye
for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for
burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe” (vs. 24-25;
compare Leviticus 24:20,
and Deuteronomy
19:21). But where the assault was severe, causing a man to take to
his bed, and call in the physician’s aid, something more was needed. The Rabbinical
commentators tell us that in this case he was arrested, and sent to prison until it
was
ascertained whether the person hurt would die or no. If he died, the man was tried
for murder; if he recovered, a fine was imposed. This was fixed at such a sum as
would at once
compensate the injured man for his loss of time and defray
the
expense of
his cure. A similar principle is adopted under our own law
in many cases
of civil
action.
vs. 18-19 – “And if men strive together, and
one smite another with a stone, or
with his fist, and he die not, but keepeth his bed: If
he rise again, and walk
abroad upon his staff, then shall he that smote
him be quit: only he shall pay for
the loss of his time, and shall cause him to
be thoroughly healed.” One
way of
atoning for wrong is to seek in every way in our
power to undo the mischief we have
caused. This, alas! cannot
always be accomplished. Not always is “thorough healing”
— whether bodily, mental, or moral — possible. So far as it is
possible we are bound
to attempt it.
HOMICIDE
OF SLAVES
The Mosaic
legislation must be regarded as having greatly ameliorated the condition
of the native slave population. Hebrew bondmen it placed
nearly upon a par with hired
servants (Leviticus 25:40); foreign slaves, whether
prisoners taken in war, or persons
bought in the market, it protected to a very great
extent. By the law given in vs. 26-27,
it largely controlled the brutality of masters, who had to
emancipate their slaves if they
did them any serious injury. By the law laid down in v. 20, it
gave their lives the same
protection, or nearly the same, as the lives of freemen. “Smiting” was allowed
as a
discipline, without which slavery cannot exist; but such
smiting as resulted in death
was, as a general rule, punishable like any other
homicide. The only exception was,
if the slave did not die for some days (v. 21). In that case
the master was considered
not to have intended the slave’s death, and to be sufficiently
punished by the loss of
his property.
vs. 20-21 – “And if a man smite his servant,
or his maid, with a rod, and he die
under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a
day or two, he shall not be punished: for he
is his money.”
ASSAULT
PRODUCING MISCARRIAGE
Women in
all countries are apt to interfere in quarrels of men, and run the risk of
suffering injuries which proceed from accident rather
than design, one such
injury being of a peculiar character, to which there
is nothing correspondent among
the injuries which may be done to man. This is abortion, or miscarriage. The Mosaic
legislation sought to protect pregnant women from suffering
this injury by providing,
first, that if death resulted the offender should
suffer death (v. 23); and, secondly, that
if there were no further ill-result than the miscarriage
itself, still a fine should be paid,
to be assessed by the husband of the injured woman with the
consent of the judges
(v. 22). The mention of “life for life,” in v. 23, is followed by an
enunciation of the
general “law of retaliation,” applied here (it would
seem) to the special case in hand,
but elsewhere (Leviticus 24:19-20) extended so as to be a
fundamental law, applicable
to all cases of personal injury.
vs. 22-25 – “If men strive, and hurt a woman
with child” – a chance hurt is clearly
intended, not one done on purpose – “so that her fruit depart from her, and yet
no
mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according
as the woman’s husband
will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the
judges determine. And if any mischief
follow, then thou shalt
give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth
for tooth, hand for
hand, foot for foot, Burning for burning, wound
for wound, stripe for stripe.”
At an
early age, in every society, the law of retaliation has given way to the law
of pecuniary compensation, even among the
Hebrews. (Compare Christ’s
teaching – Matthew 5:38-43). The principle here
enunciated is that of the jus talionis.
Stripped of
its concrete form, it is simply the assertion of the dictate of
justice, that
when a wrong has been done to anyone, and through him to
society, an adequate
compensation ought to be rendered. So rendered,
it is the principle underlying every
system of criminal jurisprudence.
We need not suppose that (in Jewish society) it
was ever literally acted upon. Commutations of various
kinds would be admitted
(cf. v. 30). As a rule for courts of
justice, therefore, this principle must remain. But
error arises when this rule, intended for the
regulation of public justice, is transferred
into private life, and is applied there to sanction
the spirit of revenge. This is to pervert
it from its proper purpose. So far from sanctioning
private retaliation, the object of this
aw is to set limits to the passion for
revenge, by taking the right to avenge out of the
hands of private individuals altogether, and committing
it to public officers. In
contrast with the retaliatory disposition, our Lord
inculcates on His disciples a
forbearing and forgiving spirit; a spirit which seeks to
overcome by love; a spirit,
even, which is willing to forego legal rights,
whenever by doing so, it can promote
the good of a fellow man.
ASSAULTS
ON SLAVES
The
general law of retaliation was not made to extend to slaves. For ordinary blows
the slave was not thought entitled to
compensation, any more than the child. They
were natural incidents of his condition. In
extremer cases, where he was permanently
injured in an organ or a member, he was, however,
considered to have ground of
complaint and to deserve a recompense. But for him
to revenge himself upon his
master by inflicting the same on him was not to
be thought of. It would have put the
slave into a false position, have led to his
prolonged ill-treatment, and have been an
undue degradation of the master. Therefore, compulsory emancipation was made
the penalty of all such aggravated assaults,
even the slightest (v. 27).
vs. 26-27 – “And if a man smite the eye of
his servant, or the eye of his maid,
that it perish; he shall let him go free for
his eye’s sake. And if he smite out
his manservant’s tooth, or his maidservant’s tooth;
he shall let him go free for
his tooth’s sake.” The “eye” seems to be selected as the most precious of our
organs, the “tooth” as that the loss of which is of least consequence. The principle
was that any permanent loss of any part of his frame entitled the
slave to his liberty.
A very
considerable check must have been
put on the brutality of masters by this
enactment.
INJURIES
DONE BY CATTLE TO SLAVES AND FREEMEN
For the
purpose of inculcating as strongly as possible the principle of the sanctity
of human life, the legislator notices the case where mortal
injury is done to a person
by a domesticated animal. The ox is taken as the example,
being the animal most likely
to inflict such an injury. In accordance with the declaration
already made to Noah (Genesis
9:6), it is
laid down that the destructive beast must be killed. Further, to mark the
abhorrence
in which murder ought to be held, the provision is made, that
none of the creature’s flesh
must be eaten. The question then arises, is the
owner to suffer any punishment? This is
answered in the way that natural equity points out — “If he had reason to know the
savage temper of the animal, he is
to he held responsible; if otherwise, he is to go
free.” In the
former case, the Hebrew law assigned a higher degree of responsibility
than accords with modern notions; but practically
the result was not very different.
The neglectful
Hebrew owner was held to have been guilty of a capital offence, but
was allowed to “redeem his life” by a fine. His modern counterpart would be held
to have been guilty simply of laches or neglect
of duty, and would be punished by fine
or imprisonment
vs. 28-32 – “If an ox gore a man or a woman,
that they die: then the ox shall be
surely stoned” - He shall
suffer the same death that would have been the portion of a
human murderer – “and his flesh shall not be
eaten” - The animal was regarded as
accursed, and therefore, as a matter of course, no
Hebrew might eat of it. According to
the Rabbinical commentators, it was not even
lawful to sell the carcass to Gentiles.
“but the owner of the ox shall be quit. But if the ox were wont to push with his
horn in time past, and it hath been testified to his owner, and he
hath not kept
him in, but that he hath killed a man or a woman; the ox shall be stoned, and
his owner also shall be put to death. If there be laid on him a sum of money, then
he shall give for the ransom of his life
whatsoever is laid upon him. Whether he
have gored a son, or have gored a daughter,
according to this judgment shall it
be done unto him. If the ox shall push a manservant or a
maidservant” – (the
same sacredness was made to attach to tthe life of the slave as of the freeman) - he
shall give unto their master thirty shekels of silver, and the ox shall be stoned.”
LAWS
CONNECTED WITH RIGHTS OF PROPERTY
From
the consideration of injuries to the person, the legislator proceeds to treat
of
injuries to property, and, as he has been speaking
of cattle under the one head,
places cattle in the fore-front of the other. In
this chapter two enactments only are
made — one providing compensation in the case
of a man’s cattle being killed by
falling into the pit, or well, of a neighbor (vs.
33-34); and the other making provision
for the case of one man’s cattle killing the
cattle of another (vs. 35-36)
vs. 33-36 – “And if a man shall open a pit,
or if a man shall dig a pit, and not
cover it, and an ox or an ass fall therein; The
owner of the pit shall make it good,
and give money unto the owner of them; and the
dead beast shall be his. And if
one man’s ox hurt another’s, that he die; then
they shall sell the live ox, and
divide the money of it; and the dead ox also they
shall divide. Or if it be known
that the ox hath used to push in time past, and
his owner hath not kept him in;
he shall surely pay ox for ox; and the dead
shall be his own.” Sins of
omission
are thought lightly of by most men; but God holds us answerable
for them, as much as
for sins of commission. The Psalmist defines the wicked man as
one who neglects to
“set himself in any
good way.” (Psalm 36:4) - The neglect of the Israelites to cover
their wells, or keep their cattle from goring others was to be heavily punished. Neglect
and carelessness are
culpable:
MALICE AND EVIL
INTENT. Carelessness and neglect of precautions
may set a
town on fire and burn hundreds in their beds. Or it may spread a
loathsome
and dangerous disease through a whole district. Or it may
destroy the
cattle of a whole county. Or it may
allow moral evil to have
free course, until an entire nation is sunk in corruption. (Is this
not
what is
happening in the
endanger
our own lives, or destroy our souls. It is a question whether more
evil does
not actually result from carelessness than from deliberate intent.
Youth is naturally careless. Desultory
habits intensify carelessness. A
deficient
sense of the seriousness of life encourages and fosters it.
Advanced civilization, with its
foppishness and superciliousness, develops
its growth.
The present age asks, “Is anything worth caring about?” — and
is deaf to
the Prophet’ s words, “Tremble and be
troubled, ye careless
ones” (Isaiah 32:11).
AND CALCULATION
OF CONSEQUENCES, WHICH WERE INTENDED
TO PREVENT OUR BEING CARELESS AND NEGLIGENT. Man
differs
from the lower animals chiefly in the possession of reason;
and it is an essential
part of human reason to look to the future, to forecast
results, and calculate the
balance of ultimate advantage and disadvantage.
We know instinctively that our
happiness depends on our actions; and it is
therefore wholly unreasonable to be
careless about how we act. If we have faculties which we
might use and refuse to
use them, God will be righteous to punish us for despising
His gifts.
CARELESS, AND
EXHORTED US TO PRUDENCE AND FORETHOUGHT.
“I will send a fire among them that dwell carelessly,….and
they shall know
that I am the Lord” – said the
Lord by Ezekiel (ch. 39:6). “Rise up, ye
women
that are at ease; hear my voice, ye careless daughters;
give ear unto
my speech; many
days and years shall ye be troubled, ye careless women,”
are God’ s
words by Isaiah – (ch. 32:9-10). “Go to
the ant, thou sluggard,”
exclaims the wise
man, “consider her
ways and be wise.” (Proverbs 6:6)
And again “Ponder
the path of thy feet, and let all thy ways be
established –
(– “keep
thy heart with diligence — remove thy feet from evil.” (Proverbs
4:23,26-27) A careful cautious walk through the dangers and
difficulties of
life is
everywhere enjoined upon us in the Scriptures; and we are plainly
disobedient
if we are careless.
"Excerpted
text Copyright AGES Library, LLC. All rights reserved.
Materials
are reproduced by permission."
This
material can be found at:
http://www.adultbibleclass.com