“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 be acquitted. 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. If there is imposed on him a sum of money, then he shall pay to redeem his life, whatever is imposed on him. Whether it has gored a son or gored a daughter, according to this judgment it shall be done to him. 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.
“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.
“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 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." (Ex. 21:28-36 NKJV)
The first observation to be made about this text is that it exemplifies both a high view of property rights, as well as responsibilities, as it pertains to human life. In keeping with the sanctity that is placed on human life throughout the Torah, even an animal is required to suffer the death penalty if it kills a human being. This is keeping in line with the theology of common grace that appears in the Noahic covenant. Recall that God said to Noah:
"But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. Surely for your lifeblood I will demand a reckoning; from the hand of every beast I will require it, and from the hand of man. From the hand of every man’s brother I will require the life of man." (Gen. 9:4,5 NKJV)
Some may argue that this is cruel to the animal, in that animals often kill human beings without intent, and certainly aren't aware of the concept of "murder." However, it must be recognized that in the Biblical worldview animals are subordinate to man, yet still valuable as creatures of God (as we will see later in the law). The law is primarily about our duty to God and man, and underneath our duty to man is the assumption that man is God's unique image bearer, who is the crown of his creation. Therefore, it is appropriate in the Scriptural worldview for the life of man to be placed over the life of animals in virtually all circumstances. Therefore, a rampaging animal was made a subject of capital punishment in light of the life that was taken and other lives which could be spared by putting the creature down. The latter point (the protection of other lives) is implied by verse 29 where the owner becomes responsible if this is a known behavior that he has failed to prevent. In that case, the owner of the animal is legible for the death penalty. In other words, the Bible here upholds what we commonly refer to as laws against manslaughter. That is, the reckless taking of human life, without evidence of premeditation or evil intent. This is consistent with the doctrine of the Imago Dei as introduced in Genesis 9. In a modern context, texts such as these legitimize consumer advocacy which seeks to regulate the sale of goods and services to the end that they be safe for human use/consumption. Unfortunately, in our day, in the name of "libertarianism" many Christians have opposed such activism and laws, even though their concern can be perfectly in line with the general equity of the Law. So the law has a very high standard to protect all of human life. But what about when the text says, "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"? Are slaves not as valuable as non-slaves?
As I pointed out in the first post of the series, and have repeatedly reiterated, Old Testament slavery must be viewed in its ancient near-eastern context. Biblical slavery is non-Chattel, debt-bondage slavery, which was limited by term and basic rights given to the slaves (ie freedom and payment if they were physically abused). However, while they were given basic rights and a limit of term, God did not ordain slavery as an institution that was to be made attractive. After all, God had redeemed his people from slavery in Egypt. They were not to be lifelong slaves to debt, as most people are today. So while the Torah places sanctity on human life, along with that it also upholds a high view of justice in human relationships. Debtors were to be slaves to their masters, until the debt was paid. And until that debt was paid, their identity and life revolved around the fact that they were indebted. Hence why they were to participate in the institution of slavery. Therefore, the number one thing hanging over their heads was the property which was to be restored to its rightful owner (who presumably had loaned it to them with no interest). Of course the creditor could always forgive the debt, but in unstable agrarian economies of the ancient near-east, this was unlikely. The whole economy would be effected by mismanaged debt, as our own was recently, but in a much more dramatic fashion. So while slaves were protected, and still viewed as human, the debt hanging over their head was of number one concern. This can be observed in the text, where the animal is stoned for killing a human (the slave is still above animals), but the punishment for the anima'ls careless owner is 30 pieces of silver rather than his life. That was a hefty sum which would easily compensate for the lost of labor/wealth from the slave who is no longer able to replace it. But what is interesting in the text is the juxtaposition that is made between sons/daughters and slaves. The text says, "Whether it has gored a son or gored a daughter, according to this judgment it shall be done to him. 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." The loss of a child required a loss of life from the animals owner, but the loss of life of a slave required 30 shekels of silver. Now observe what Paul says in Galatians 4:1-7:
"Now I say that the heir, as long as he is a child, does not differ at all from a slave, though he is master of all, but is under guardians and stewards until the time appointed by the father. Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world. But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born[a] of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons. And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying out, “Abba, Father!” Therefore you are no longer a slave but a son, and if a son, then an heir of[b] God through Christ."
As Paul tells us in Philippians 2, Christ took on the form of a servant (slave), even though he was the eternal Son of God. And he took on the form of a servant to pay the debt that we all owe as fallen image bearers of God. Christ fulfilled the positive righteousness that we owed to God, as well as taking the covenant sanctions of the eternal wrath of God upon Himself, on the cross. When Christ was handed over the price was thirty pieces of silver.
"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. So from that time he sought opportunity to betray Him." (Mt. 26:14-16 NKJV)
The chief priests paid the price of a slave to Judas, as they were about to hand Jesus over to the Roman beast, to be trampled under foot. Because of that, Christ has paid our debt, so that we receive the adoption as sons of the Most High. So again, we see the context for the Gospel being formed through the stipulations of that "archaic" Old Testament law. God's law prepares the way for His grace in Christ.
The rest of the text deals with the issue of animals and property and expands upon the notion of justice as it applies to animals killing each other, or facing accidental death on property of someone else. Again, the principle here appears to be "eye for an eye," or a strong "equivocal" view of justice. However, nothing here contradicts the notions of justice common to most societies, or the precepts of the rest of God's Word. In our next installment we will look closely at some more examples of property rights out of the book of Exodus and how it applies to our contemporary justice system.
No comments:
Post a Comment