Just Laws for a Fallen World: Property Laws

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.

Exodus 21 · chapter mention

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.

Exodus 21:33

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,

Luke 19:8

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.

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.

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.