Just Laws for a Fallen World: Personal Injury Laws

Good morning, everyone. If you have your Bibles with you, please turn in them to Exodus chapter 21.

Exodus 21 · chapter mention

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.

Exodus 21:12–32

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.

1 Kings 1 · chapter mention

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.