Morning repost: Exodus 21: The Judgments- The Law Concerning Servants
1 “Now these are the judgments which you shall set before them:
"In this chapter we enter upon the fifty seven precepts of the civil law of the Hebrew nation.” (Benson) These judgments give the Hebrew nation particularly... and other nations, possibly, examples of justice for violations of God’s Commandments. These judgments are "rules for regulating the procedure of judges and magistrates in the decision of cases and the trial of criminals. The government of the Israelites being a theocracy, those public authorities were the servants of the Divine Sovereign, and subject to His direction.” (Jamieson-Fausset-Brown)
2 If you buy a Hebrew servant, he shall serve six years; and in the seventh he shall go out free and pay nothing.
"Every Israelite was free-born; but slavery was permitted under certain restrictions. An Hebrew might be made a slave through poverty, debt, or crime; but at the end of six years he was entitled to freedom, and his wife, if she had voluntarily shared his state of bondage, also obtained release.” (Jamieson-Fausset-Brown) "This law was an enormous advance upon anything previously known in the slave legislation of the most civilised country, and stamps the Mosaic code at once as sympathising with the slave, and bent on ameliorating his lot. It has been thought strange by some that slavery was not now abrogated; but even Christianity, fifteen hundred years later, did not venture on so complete a social revolution. (Ellicott's Commentary) Remember this was of the man's own doing. Yet, Israel was not to act as the other nations did. They should show mercy!
3 If he comes in by himself, he shall go out by himself; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. 4 If his master has given him a wife, and she has borne him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master’s, and he shall go out by himself. 5 But if the servant plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,’ 6 then his master shall bring him to the judges. He shall also bring him to the door, or to the doorpost, and his master shall pierce his ear with an awl; and he shall serve him forever.
After paying the price for his wrongdoing, the man would go back to his former state. However, what if his master had been the one to give him his wife... and thus children? They still belong to the master! What then? I would say that he owed a debt of gratitude to his master. And in a public ceremony, he was permitted to declare his love and loyalty to his master and his family. And he could remain a servant of this master FOREVER. Thus, when the year of his release came- the seventh year, "he could choose to forfeit his privilege and abide as he was. A formal process was gone through in a public court, and a brand of servitude stamped on his ear (Ps 40:6) for life...” (Jamieson-Fausset-Brown)
Later, for members of the congregation of Israel, at-large. Yahweh initiated the year of Jubilee. It seems that in it, even these arrangements could be nullified. It was a year "of emancipation and restoration to be kept every 50 years. For Israel, the seventh year expressed at length the values of the seventh day Sabbath (Lv 25:1- 7). When a series of seven years reached the perfection of seven sevens, the 50th year was heralded by the trumpet of jubilee and a whole additional year was set aside as belonging to the Lord.” (Tyndale Bible Dictionary)
But today is the year of Jubilee of which this judgment was only a type. So Jesus "went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and stood up to read. And He was handed the book of the prophet Isaiah. And when He had opened the book, He found the place where it was written: 'The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, because He has anointed Me to preach the gospel to the poor; He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed; to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord.’ [Isaiah 61:1, 2] Then He closed the book, and gave it back to the attendant and sat down. And the eyes of all who were in the synagogue were fixed on Him. And He began to say to them, 'Today this Scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.' So all bore witness to Him, and marveled at the gracious words which proceeded out of His mouth. And they said, 'Is this not Joseph’s son?’” (Luke 4:16-22)
And after six thousand years of world history, Jesus will come again and set at liberty His redeemed creation forever. Let us go before the elders in the Church- the house of God-- and says with the saints, "I love my Master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free," and then allow our Master / Mediator to bring us before the Judge of all the earth... And pierce our ears (signifying hearing) with an awl that we may serve Him forever.
Exodus 21: Law for Maidservants.
7 “And if a man sells his daughter to be a female slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do.
If a man sells his daughter to be a slave- not as part of a concubine. "The daughter of an Israelite, who had been sold by her father as a maid-servant (לאמה), i.e., as the sequel shows, as a housekeeper… stood in a different relation to her master's house. She was not to go out like the men-servants, i.e., not to be sent away as free at the end of six years of service; but the three following regulations... were to be observed with regard to her… for there can hardly have been any thought of redemption on the part of the father, as it would no doubt be poverty alone that caused him to sell his daughter (Leveticus 25:39).” (Keil & Delitzsch Commentary)
8 If she does not please her master, who has betrothed her to himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has dealt deceitfully with her.
NOT PLEASE HER MASTER, not sexually- as this was strictly forbidden by the moral code until marriage. The master was allowed to marry the maiden himself or, if he so desired, to give her to his own son as a bride. But if for some reason the master "became displeased with her, he was to allow someone (an Israelite) to redeem her (set her free by the payment of a price)." (Thomas Constable)
NOT SELL TO A FOREIGN PERSON, “To sell her unto a strange nation (i.e., to any one but a Hebrew), he shall have no power…"(Keil & Delitzsch)
9 And if he has betrothed her to his son, he shall deal with her according to the custom of daughters. 10 If he takes another wife, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, and her marriage rights. 11 And if he does not do these three for her, then she shall go out free, without paying money.
HE MUST STILL TREAT HER AS A DAUGHTER, not as a slave. "Should she have been betrothed to him or his son, and either change their minds, a maintenance must be provided for her suitable to her condition as his intended wife, or her freedom instantly granted." (Jamieson-Fausset-Brown)
If the master does not provide for her as such,,, and the case was proved before the elders of Israel, the woman would then go out free without the necessity of someone redeeming her from the situation.
Exodus 21: The Law Concerning Violence Against One’s Neighbor.
12 He who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death. 13 However, if he did not lie in wait, but God delivered him into his hand, then I will appoint for you a place where he may flee. 14 But if a man acts with premeditation against his neighbor, to kill him by treachery, you shall take him from My altar, that he may die.
“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’ (Gen 9:6). Real murder, with deliberate intent, was under no circumstances to be pardoned.” (Pulpit Commentary) The permanence of the law was displayed in the inclusion of it in the Commandments; it is the sixth. The eternal death sentence will be exacted at the end of this age against those who know not God, having no regard for Him or His eternal kingdom. This temporal death serves as a reminder to others that they too are mortal beings.
The right for the state to execute judgment is also stated in the New Testament (Romans 13:3-4). But therein, hate is paramount to murder. It is the root. Yet, says Yahweh, if a death is not premeditated- if hate is not involved- if "God delivered him into his hand [for administration of justice or self-defense]. That is, he proved the stronger in the fight, and his opponent died of his bruises....”, (Sutcliffe Commentary) then the subject may flee to the horns of the altar where their case may be heard by the elders.
"The supplicant would catch hold of the projecting 'horns' of the altar... This was tantamount to dedicating himself to [or throwing himself on the omniscience of] YHWH, like any animal sacrifice bound with ropes to the altar horns." (Cole) There he could make his case for manslaughter or justifiable homicide. But if he loses the case, the murderer was to be torn from the altar and executed. "See the case of Joab (1 Kings 2:28-34).” (Pulpit Commentary) Even then salvation from the second death can be obtained if true repentance is received and the offender turns to Christ.
15 And he who strikes his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. 16 He who kidnaps a man and sells him, or if he is found in his hand, shall surely be put to death. 17 And he who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death.
"Striking a parent. Notice that the mother is placed on an equality with the father…smiteth- simply, without killing: the murder of a parent would fall under the general rule of v. 12.” (Cambridge Bible Notes) Even hitting a parent, those responsible for your religious training, is punished by death.
Kidnapping. In those days it was for the purpose of monetary gain to sell for slave labor... or for oneself. This violates the entirety of the Spirit of the second TABLET of the Commandments- love for fellow man. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. "Through poverty the Israelites sometimes sold themselves or their children; magistrates sold some persons for their crimes, and creditors were in some cases allowed to sell their debtors who could not pay. But man-stealing, the object of which is to force another into slavery, is ranked in the New Testament with the greatest crimes.” (Matthew Henry) It too is punished by death.
Cursing a parent. “By the law of God, it was death not only to strike them, but even to curse or outrageously revile them, Exodus 21:17, and Matthew 15:4. The reason of this law is, that such crimes are a sign of most audacious wickedness. It appears, however, from Deuteronomy 21:18, that children were not to be put to death for the first offence of this kind, but if, after repeated admonitions from their parents, they still persisted in their undutiful carriage, without hope of reformation, then, upon the accusation of their parents, they were to be put to death.” (Benson) "Let children hear the sentence of God's word upon the ungrateful and disobedient; and remember that God will certainly requite it, if they have ever cursed their parents, even in their hearts, or have lifted up their hands against them, except they repent, and flee for refuge to the Saviour.” (Henry)
Fifth Commandment- "Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which Yahweh your God is giving you." (Exodus 20:12) Here is a Commandment with a promise attached!
18 If men contend with each other, and one strikes the other with a stone or with his fist, and he does not die but is confined to his bed, 19 if he rises again and walks about outside with his staff, then he who struck him shall be acquitted. He shall only pay for the loss of his time, and shall provide for him to be thoroughly healed.
What if there is a fight, but death does not ensue? "Care is here taken, that satisfaction be made for hurt done to a person, though death do not follow. The gospel teaches masters to forbear, and to moderate threatenings, Eph 6:9, considering with Job, What shall I do, when God riseth up? Job 31:13,14.” (Matthew Henry) How about when we rise for judgment!
Exodus 21:20 And if a man beats his male or female servant with a rod, so that he dies under his hand, he shall surely be punished.
If Yahweh “has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth” (Acts 17:26), why would He be a discerner of person here."The homicide hitherto considered has been that of freemen; but the Mosaic Law was not content to stop at this point. Unlike most other codes, it proceeded to forbid the homicide of slaves. Hitherto, throughout the East, and also in many parts of the West, slaves had been regarded as so absolutely their master’s property that he was entitled to do as he pleased with them. Now, for the first time—so far as we know—was the life of the slave protected. The exact extent of the protection is uncertain. According to the Talmud, the master who killed his slave was put to death;[this is my view but] according to some modern Jews, as Kalisch, he had merely to pay a fine. In any case, the killing was an offence of which the law took cognisance. Later on it appears that even assaults on slaves, if they reached a certain intensity, were unlawful, and involved the slave’s compulsory emancipation (Exodus 21:26-27).” (Ellicott's Commentary)
21 Notwithstanding, if he remains alive a day or two, he shall not be punished; for he is his property.
"The notion is, that unless the death follows speedily it must be presumed not to have been intended; and this might be especially presumed in the case of a man killing his slave, since thereby he inflicted on himself a pecuniary loss."(Ellicott) "As other people, slaves also enjoyed protection from murderers (Exodus 21:20; cf. Exodus 21:12). However, the slave owner likewise experienced protection from execution if his punishment of a slave was not the direct cause of the slave's death... [for he is his property] In this case the law regarded the loss of the slave as sufficient punishment of the master (Exodus 21:21).” (Thomas Constable)
22 If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely, yet no harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman’s husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23 But if any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
26 If a man strikes the eye of his male or female servant, and destroys it, he shall let him go free for the sake of his eye. 27 And if he knocks out the tooth of his male or female servant, he shall let him go free for the sake of his tooth.
"This is an example of a case of retribution, where a pregnant woman was injured in a conflict, and she gave birth prematurely. A penalty was only to be assessed if there was lasting damage... If no lasting damage resulted, there are no damages awarded. Perhaps this was recognition that the law cannot address every loss or consequence, and that only permanent consequences are justly compensated… But if any harm follows: If lasting damage resulted - short of death, which was covered by another law - there was retribution or restitution due. 'For the accidental assault, the offender must still pay some compensation, even though both mother and child survived.The fee would be set by the woman's husband and approved by a decision of the court.’ (Kaiser) But if any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye: If lasting damage resulted, the eye for eye principle always limited retribution. This law was meant to block man's natural desire for vengeance. It was not given as a license for revenge.” ” (David Guzik)
"Thus we conclude that the defendant must surrender to the deceased child's father or wife's husband the monetary value of each life if either or both were harmed." (Kaiser) There was a special addendum for loss of eye or tooth which indicates more than the simple law of retribution. "This law was made to deter masters from using their servants with cruelty, since though humanity and goodness [morality) would not restrain them from ill usage of them, their own profit and advantage by them might.” (John Gill)
Eye for eye- tooth for tooth—"The law which authorized retaliation (a principle acted upon by all primitive people) was a civil one. It was given to regulate the procedure of the public magistrate in determining the amount of compensation in every case of injury, but did not encourage feelings of private revenge. The later Jews, however, mistook it for a moral precept, and were corrected by our Lord (Mt 5:38-42)" (Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary)
Morning Repost: Exodus 21: Law of Retribution- not Retaliation
20 And if a man beats his male or female servant with a rod, so that he dies under his hand, he shall surely be punished.
As I go through the Mosaic law given by the mouth of God, I am amazed by it's justice and mercy. This is so contrary to the non-biblical, mainstream beliefs about this body of legislation.
If Yahweh “has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth” (Acts 17:26), why would He be a discerner of persons here?! "The homicide hitherto considered has been that of freemen; but the Mosaic Law was not content to stop at this point. Unlike most other codes, it proceeded to forbid the homicide of slaves. Hitherto, throughout the East, and also in many parts of the West, slaves had been regarded as so absolutely their master’s property that he was entitled to do as he pleased with them. Now, for the first time—so far as we know—was the life of the slave protected. The exact extent of the protection is uncertain. According to the Talmud, the master who killed his slave was put to death; [this is my view but] according to some modern Jews, as Kalisch, he had merely to pay a fine. In any case, the killing was an offence of which the law took cognisance. Later on it appears that even assaults on slaves, if they reached a certain intensity, were unlawful, and involved the slave’s compulsory emancipation (Exodus 21:26-27).” (Ellicott's Commentary)
21 Notwithstanding, if he remains alive a day or two, he shall not be punished; for he is his property.
"The notion is, that unless the death follows speedily it must be presumed not to have been intended; and this might be especially presumed in the case of a man killing his slave, since thereby he inflicted on himself a pecuniary loss."(Ellicott) “The slave owner likewise experienced protection from execution if his punishment of a slave was not the direct cause of the slave's death. In this case the law regarded the loss of the slave as sufficient punishment of the master (Exo 21:21).” (Thomas Constable)
22 If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely, yet no harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman’s husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23 But if any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
26 If a man strikes the eye of his male or female servant, and destroys it, he shall let him go free for the sake of his eye. 27 And if he knocks out the tooth of his male or female servant, he shall let him go free for the sake of his tooth.
"This is an example of a case of retribution, where a pregnant woman was injured in a conflict, and she gave birth prematurely. A penalty was only to be assessed if there was lasting damage... If no lasting damage resulted, there are no damages awarded. Perhaps this was recognition that the law cannot address every loss or consequence, and that only permanent consequences are justly compensated… But if any harm follows: If lasting damage resulted - short of death, which was covered by another law - there was retribution or restitution due. 'For the accidental assault, the offender must still pay some compensation, even though both mother and child survived.The fee would be set by the woman's husband and approved by a decision of the court.’ (Kaiser) But if any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye: If lasting damage resulted, the eye for eye principle always limited retribution. This law was meant to block man's natural desire for vengeance. It was not given as a license for revenge.” ” (David Guzik)
Moreover, there was a special addendum for loss of eye or tooth of slaves, which indicates more than the simple law of retribution. Morality cannot be inbred. YET "It was a noble law that obliged the unmerciful slaveholder to set the slave at liberty whose eye or tooth he had knocked out. If this did not teach them humanity, it taught them caution, as one rash blow might have deprived them of all right to the future services of the slave; and thus self-interest obliged them to be cautious and circumspect." (Adam Clarke)
Why did the loss of eye or tooth also win freedom-- and not the foot or hand? A blow to the head- thus eye and tooth, is aimed to inflict death, in contrast to a blow to the foot or hand, which is intended to correct behavior.
Eye for eye- tooth for tooth—The injured party was not required to seek restitution at all. The law which authorized retribution "was a civil one. It was given to regulate the procedure of the public magistrate in determining the amount of compensation in every case of injury, but did not encourage feelings of private revenge. The later Jews, however, mistook it for a moral precept, and were corrected by our Lord (Mt 5:38-42)" (Jamieson-Fausset-Brown) Jesus said: “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ [Exo 21:24] But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also. And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two. Give to him who asks you, and from him who wants to borrow from you do not turn away.”
Morning Repost: Exodus 21: Law of Injuries
Done by Cattle to Slaves or Freemen.
28 If an ox gores a man or a woman to death, then the ox shall surely be stoned, and its flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall beacquitted. 29 But if the ox tended to thrust with its horn in times past, and it has been made known to his owner, and he has not kept it confined, so that it has killed a man or a woman, the ox shall be stoned and its owner also shall be put to death. 30 If there is imposed on him a sum of money, then he shall pay to redeem his life, whatever is imposed on him. 31 Whether it has gored a son or gored a daughter, according to this judgment it shall be done to him. 32 If the ox gores a male or female servant, he shall give to their master thirty shekels of silver, and the ox shall be stoned.
"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 (Gen 9:6) [concerning murder], 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.” (Pulpit Commentary)
"An ox killed by stoning would not be bled in the usual way, and would be ‘unclean' food for Hebrews. According to the Rabbis, the flesh might not even be disposed of to the Gentiles, but had to be buried. If this were so, the object must have been to mark strongly that whatever creature took human life was accursed." (Ellicott's Ciommentary)
"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.'" (Pulpit Commentary)
If guilty and sentenced to death, “… with the consent of the aggrieved family, [the owner] might pay a sum of money as compensation instead (Exodus 21:30)." (Ellicott) "If there be laid on him a sum of money, &c.—Blood fines are common among the Arabs as they were once general throughout the East. This is the only case where a money compensation, instead of capital punishment, was expressly allowed in the Mosaic law.” (Jamieson-Fausset-Brown) for the welfare of the victim's family.
"In the case of a slave, the sum was fixed at what was regarded as the standard price of a slave (Leviticus 25:44-46; Leviticus 27:3), viz., thirty silver shekels." (Ellicott) And at this price they "valued the life of our blessed Lord; see Zechariah 11:12, Zechariah 11:13; Matthew 26:15….” (Adam Clarke)— Yahweh of Glory. "Then I said to them, 'If it is agreeable to you, give me my wages; and if not, refrain.' So they weighed out for my wages thirty pieces of silver. And Yahweh said to me, 'Throw it to the potter'—that princely price they set on me. So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the house of Yahweh for the potter.” (Zech11:12-13)
"Then one of the twelve, called Judas Iscariot, went to the chief priests and said, 'What are you willing to give me if I deliver Him to you?' And they counted out to him thirty pieces of silver. 16 So from that time he sought opportunity to betray Him…Then Judas, His betrayer, seeing that He had been condemned, was remorseful and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, saying, 'I have sinned by betraying innocent blood.’ And they said, 'What is that to us? You see to it!’ Then he threw down the pieces of silver in the temple and departed, and went and hanged himself. But the chief priests took the silver pieces and said, 'It is not lawful to put them into the treasury, because they are the price of blood.' And they consulted together and bought with them the potter’s field, to bury strangers in. Therefore that field has been called the Field of Blood to this day. Then was fulfilled what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, saying, 'And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the value of Him who was priced, whom they of the children of Israel priced, and gave them for the potter’s field, as the Lord directed me.'[Jer 32:6–9] (Matthew 26:14-16; 27:3-10)
If the rulers of this age had known, "they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.” (1 Corinthians 2:8)- the Redeemer of Israel.
"Who is this King of glory? Yahweh strong and mighty, Yahweh mighty in battle. Lift up your heads, O you gates! Lift up, you everlasting doors! And the King of glory shall come in. Who is this King of glory? Yahweh of hosts,He is the King of glory. Selah"(Psalm 24:7-10)
Morning Remix: Exodus 21: Law of Friendly Hazard
33 And if a man opens a pit, or if a man digs a pit and does not cover it, and an ox or a donkey falls in it, 34 the owner of the pit shall make it good; he shall give money to their owner, but the dead animal shall be his.
Our discussions pass from human life to oxen (or animals of burden). The sanctity of human life is an unquestionable doctrine of Scripture. And Yahweh God cares for animals as well, but here it is the creature as a blessing to mankind's labor that is at the center--"'the most important possession of the Israelites, is first of all secured against destruction through carelessness."(Keil & Delitzsch)
In Jesus' day, the religious leaders were more concerned with their business (as revealed in their own rules about Sabbath keeping) than restoring human life. "Now it happened, as He went into the house of one of the rulers of the Pharisees to eat bread on the Sabbath, that they watched Him closely. And behold, there was a certain man before Him who had dropsy. And Jesus, answering, spoke to the lawyers and Pharisees, saying, 'Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?'
But they kept silent. And He took him and healed him, and let him go. Then He answered them, saying, 'Which of you, having a donkey or an ox that has fallen into a pit, will not immediately pull him out on the Sabbath day?' And they could not answer Him regarding these things.” (Luke 14:16)
They valued money over human life, as shown by their Sabbath tradition; but in the law of Moses, the concern for righteous living is foremost. If a man opens a pit or digs it: "More likely for grain storage than water storage. Pits were also used as traps for animals (2 Sam 23:20) or prisons for men (Gen 37:24)." (Cole)
The friendly hazard is in the place of commerce-- "in a public way, as the reason of the law shows; for if it were done in a man’s own house or ground, there was no danger of such an accident, except the beast transgressed his bounds, and then the man was not culpable." (Matthew Poole's Commentary)
“These specific cases doubtless served as precedents for other similar cases.” (Thomas Constable)
"The requirements here have been considered just and righteous in all ages.” (Coffman Commentary)
"the owner of the pit shall make it good; he shall give money to their owner, but the dead animal shall be his." (v 34) "Having paid the full value of the live animal, the owner of the well was entitled to make what he could by the carcass.” (Ellicott) "The carcass would be of value for its hide [and possible sale to Gentiles]: but... ‘that which died of itself’ was forbidden as food (Deuteromy 14:21; cf. Leviticus 17:15)…” (Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges) for Israelites. But the main concern here is the injured man and his family. "To a struggling Israelite farmer, fair payment for the death of an ox might mean the difference between life and death, or at least between freedom and slavery for debt." (Cole)
"Most criminal codes of jurisprudence seem more intent on the punishment of crimes than on preventing the commission of them. The law of God always teaches and warns, that his creatures may not fall into condemnation; for judgment is his strange work, i.e., one reluctantly and seldom executed, as this text is frequently understood." (Adam Clarke)
Morning Repost: Exodus 21: Law of Fights Between Oxen
35 If one man’s ox hurts another’s, so that it dies, then they shall sell the live ox and divide the money from it; and the dead ox they shall also divide. 36 Or if it was known that the ox tended to thrust in time past, and its owner has not kept it confined, he shall surely pay ox for ox, and the dead animal shall be his own.
Today, people want more than they deserve. They want a windfall-- to be compensated for mental stress and unseen injury. They bring all sorts of factors into court. And the motive is often greed… and other times revenge.
BUT: "‘If this admirable statute were faithfully administered now, it would prevent many angry, and sometimes fatal, feuds between herds-men, and at the same time would be a very fair adjustment of the questions of equity that grow out of such accidents’ (Thomson...). It is now the ‘custom of the desert’ (Doughty...).” (Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges)
"Where no blame attached to the owner, the loss was to be equally shared. Where the dangerous character of the animal was, or ought to have been, known, the man whose ox was killed received its full value.” (Ellicott)
If the statues of the law of the land were regarded by all, every case would be settled out of court. Why not use the Mosaic code given by Yahweh for the children of Israel… and let the elders of the church decide?
“Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unrighteous, and not before the saints? Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world will be judged by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Do you not know that we shall judge angels? How much more, things that pertain to this life? If then you have judgments concerning things pertaining to this life, do you appoint those who are least esteemed by the church to judge? I say this to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you, not even one, who will be able to judge between his brethren? But brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers!
Now therefore, it is already an utter failure for you that you go to law against one another. Why do you not rather accept wrong? Why do you not rather let yourselves be cheated? No, you yourselves do wrong and cheat, and you do these things to your brethren! Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.”(1 Corinthians 6:1-11)
We cannot affect what the world does, nor what the church does, only what we do?
Let us take our case to the priest- our pastor, even our High Priest of the faith and wait for an answer… and then leave the matter at the altar, both forgiving the responsible party and absolving them of future compensation... or ill feeling, as the Spirit enables.
Perhaps you are at odds with someone. Jesus said: "But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, 'You good-for-nothing,' shall be guilty before the Supreme Court; and whoever says, 'You fool,' shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell. Therefore if you are presenting your offering at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your offering there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and present your offering." (Matthew 5:22-24)