More People to Kill

Exodus 22:16-31

This section seems to be a random set of other laws the people were to follow. The NIV has the heading "Social Responsibility" but you might also use "Smite These Folks Too" or "Other People to Not Have Over for Dinner".

Here we go:

If a man seduces a virgin and sleeps with her- he has to pay the going rate for marrying a virgin. If the father of the potential bride wants no part of this guy, the marriage doesn't happen, but he still has to pay the bride price. I wonder how often this happened, I'm guessing that the odds of the deflowered daughter finding a mate (and bringing in further profit) weren't so good. But I guess the creepy guy hitting on young women might not make for the best son-in-law either.

Sorceresses...die.

Interesting that gender is specified here. Does that mean sorcerers also die? Just can't join the PTA? Can perfrom card tricks but no sawing ladies in half? I'm sure they weren't in good favor either, but the distinction is certainly interesting.

Bestiality? Death... and lots of embarassment for the guilty party's family (I infered the last part).

Those who sacrifice to other gods...destroyed. Maybe significance in the choice of words here. Not just killed- but destroyed.

Treat aliens right- remember you were aliens in Egypt. In the midst of all the harshness- this one feels pretty New Testament-ish. It's the same God here that loves us with so much mercy today.

Don't take advantage of widows or orphans. If they cry out- I'll hear them- and I won't be happy. In fact, I'll kill you with a sword- your wife will be a widow and your children will be orphans, just like these people you took advantage of.

If you loan money to the needy- don't charge interest (hear that Mastercard?) If you take a cloak from your neighbor as a pledge on that loan- return it by sundown- he'll want it when it gets cold- and if he needed to borrow from you, he probably doesn't have much else to keep him wam. I'll hear him when he cries out because I'm compassionate.

Don't blaspheme God or curse your ruler. The God part is pretty easy to swallow- but cursing the ruler a bit tougher. I think there's a big difference though between cursing and totally abhorring every choice made- even to the point of protest. Maybe the key for us is to maintain love and compassion in the midst of our indignation.

Don't hold back offerings from graineries or vats. Give me your firstborn sons. Also, on the 8th day of their lives, give me the firstborn cattle and sheep. OK- give back to God, I get that- but are sons a reference to some animal? I don't think that he's ordering an Isaac-like sacrifice, but the command is a bit odd. Just not much context for it.

I want you holy- so don't eat meat that an animal has ripped apart- instead give it to the dogs. This seems to jive with some earlier commands about not eating meat.

And that's it. This set seems to be largely about protecting the helpless- the poor, the widows, the orphans, aliens, and the young (or at least virginal). There's also much about respect for God and His power- anti-sorcery, blaspheming, worshippers of false gods. And finally purity- sexual law, and eating tainted meat.

While the penalties are really harsh- and the specifics might be culturally different- these principles are still things God seems to hold dear- help the helpless, respect God, and don't do gross stuff- or try to keep yourself pure.

My Stuff

Exodus 22: 1-15

Here are laws dealing with property.

If someone steals oxen or sheep- and they sell them or kill them- they must repay five head of cattle for each ox and four for each sheep. I'm not sure why a distinction is made between animals- if stealing oxen was more taboo- or more highly discouraged.

So let's say a thief breaks into your house- and you fight back and kill him- the defender is not guilty of bloodhshed unless it's after daybreak. After that he is guilty. This is a little puzzling too. So if it's during the day they would have more access to less violent defense? Maybe they wouldn't have been awakened from sleep and should be in more control of their faculties and better able to prevent killing the intruder? Seems totally arbitrary.

The thief must make restitution (I'm assuming if he doesn't die) - but if he doesn't have anything, he may be sold to make up for it.

If a stolen animal is found alive- you repay double. Why the distinction here? If the thief reconsiders before sale or slaughter he gets off a little easier?

If your animals graze in someone else's field- you pay them from the best of your field.

If a fire burns grain, the person who started the fire pays for the grain.

If you're holding silver or valuables for your neighbor and a thief steals these valuables from your home- the thief pays back double, but if he's not caught, you have to go before the court to make sure you weren't in on it.

If there's a squabble about who owns an ox, donkey, sheep, garment, or any other property- go before the court. Whoever is wrong pays double to the rightful owner.

Now if you're caring for a neighbor's animal and he dies, is injured or "taken away while no one is looking"- the neighbor takes an oath saying "I didn't do it"-and the owner is to accept it and get over it. If the animal was stolen (different than taken away...?) the neighbor makes restitution.
If he was torn to pieces by a wild animal, the owner brings in the torn carcass as evidence (what a lovely trip to the courthouse) and he doesn't have to repay.

If a man borrows an animal and the animal dies or is injured- the borrower repays for it- unless the owner is present- in which case, nothing is required in repayment. If the animal was hired out, the cost of the rental covers the damage.

These laws seem pretty harsh- not a lot of grace. The guy who didn't have money for the ox in the first place has to find money for four of them to repay for his mistake. It seems like one indiscretion could lead you down a path that was hard to recover from. Which maybe is the point- without Christ- we can't get back to ok.

Under this law, I'm doomed. How would a recovering thief remember how much to pay back to each person? How could a wayward youth turn his life around? Seems like the poor would stay poor and the rich would stay rich.

These laws puzzle me a little. Are these laws from the perspective of God? You pay back four times or you stand condemned before Me? Or are they from simply a legal standpoint- ok citizen x, you've been wronged, you're entitled to so much if you're so inclined...

And what does all of this mean for us? Is it supposed to signal the need to make more than amends for everything we do wrong? If so, how do you do it? Or is it supposed to contrast with the grace and forgiveness of Christ's sacrifice.

I'm hoping for the second. And Christ's mercy toward the woman caught in adultery may suggest the same. He still doesn't want us to sin- but the way to be ok with him is not to be stoned to death or repay fourfold, or bring in the torn carcass- but to change your ways and be merciful to each other.

Somebody Done Somebody Wrong

Exodus 21: 12-36

The rules continue- these regarding personal injury.

If somebody kills someone on purpose- he's to be removed from the altar and put to death. If it's an accident, there's an out- they flee to a safe zone. The language here is interesting to me- if it's not on purpose "God lets it happen"- implying that man's schemes can trump God. I don't think this is at all the intention of Moses here- but it kind of reads that way. It may just be an accomodating way of expressing chance or fate.

Even if you don't kill them- if you attack your mother or father, you face death.

Kidnapping with or without the end result of human sale? Death.

Cursing your father or mother? Yep, death.

Beat the tar out of someone with a rock? Not death- as long as they live and can walk with a staff- you've got to pay them worker's comp and make sure they get better.

If you beat your slave to death- you are punished (doesn't say killed) - but if after a day or so they're ok, no punishment- after all, they're your property. This one is a little troubling. I think the comment to the last post addresses some of it, but it still feels a little odd.

So let's say you're fighting- and maybe you inadvertantly knock a pregnant woman- and let's say this causes her to give birth prematurely- if there's no serious injury- you pay a fine determined by the mother's husband as long as the court agrees to the amount. Now- if there's serious injury, you return equal harm to the convicted fellow, "life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."

If you knock out your servant's tooth or destroy his or her eye- you have to let them go free to make up for it.

Now I know what you're thinking- "What do we do if a bull gores someone to death?" Well, I'm glad you asked. First off you stone the bull and don't eat the meat. But the bullowner is not in trouble. However- if the bull has a reputation for goring- and the owner knows about it and doesn't keep the bull penned up- you kill the bull and the owner. The owner can save himself if he's got enough money to pay whatever is demaded of him (by I guess survivors of the goring). This is the law for the goring of a son or daughter as well (the owner's son or daughter?- maybe you collect the money if your child is gored). However if the bull gores a slave- stone the bull and pay the owner 30 shekels of silver.

Now let's say I'm digging a hole as I'm often want to do- but maybe I forget to cover up that hole- and your animal falls into it and dies- I've got to pay you for the loss- but I get to keep the dead animal.

Finally- if my bull kills your bull, we sell the live bull and split both the proceeds of the live bull and dead bull equally. But- if I know about my bull's goring tendencies, and didn't keep el toro penned up, you get it all.

As I read these laws- I'm still amazed at how little the life of a slave is worth. Curse your parents? Death! Your animal kills a slave? 30 shekels of silver. An interesting component here though is the value placed on the idea of a father. God uses the metaphor for Himself (and as creator, it's more than a metaphor)- but I guess it shows how sacred that bond is, or should be between the creator and createe- in both a biological and spiritual sense.

Why couldn't they eat the meat of the goring bull- was there some aggressiveness in his dna that would damage the eater? I'm always critical of laws that prevent eating- especially eating red meat.

I'm also struck by the randomness of specificity. Do you think there were a lot of pregnant women struck in brawls who gave birth prematurely as a result? Yet there it is, in black and white- there's what you should do! And it seems to me that in that observation lies a lot of the difference between the old law and the new law.

Moses is all about black and white. Thou shalt not. Watch your step. Do it this way. Don't know what to do? We've got a law for everything- even bull goring. Jesus seems to be more about the principle behind the law- a spirit of the law kind of guy. Jesus, what do I do when thus and so happens?

You love them.

So I should pay them how much? So I work for them how long? What's the price? Lay it out for me in black and white?

Jesus doesn't play that game. It didn't work for the Israelites. It created a system that they couldn't live up to. And Jesus's law lightens our load- the uncertainty is often scary- but when the law is grace, the yoke is easy and the burden is light.

Slave to the Law

Exodus 21: 2-11

This section spells out laws regarding Hebrew slaves. This is odd to me. God doesn't comdemn slavery here- He lays down ground rules, but doesn't say that it's something wrong- or even to be avoided. It might be that at this point, all men aren't created equal- since the Hebrews are the whole chosen race and all- but that doesn't make sense because in these instances, the slaves are Hebrew.

How do you come to grips with God being okay with slavery? Does it suggest that we are to endure more in this life than the next? That's ceratinly true- but then wouldn't God have a similar stance on murder, rape, abuse, and similar things that contrast with the next life?

I don't know how these slaves were treated- the existence of rules may suggest that the way slaves existed in that culture is a bit better than our country treated slaves- but even so, you can lump slaves into the category of the treatment of women. Is the idea to contrast this condition with Christ's gift even more. You mean even slaves can be saved?

Or does it suggest that maybe God works within the culture to move His people to Godliness? He doesn't have them start over-He doesn't rework their culture- He says- OK, if you're going to have slaves- you at least have to treat them this way, similar to how He later says- fine- you can have a king, even though I don't like it- but here's how it'll work.

I don't know- it's still hard for me to make it ok- I can't rationalize it away- and maybe that's the real lesson. God is more complex than we're capable of figuring out- I can't put Him into my box, I can't make Him fit my moral code. I do wish, though, that there were a few more clues to figure Him out.

So- enough of my yapping- here are the rules:

If you buy a Hebrew servant- he works for you for six years- and then he is free- he doesn't owe you any money- he's free. If he brings a wife with him- she is free to go when he does. But if he marries another of his master's slaves, she remains a slave- and all their children are the property of the master.

I'm guessing that means if a slave comes with his wife- any children they have remain the possession of the child's parents.

If the servant doesn't want to go free- they take him to a judge- he gets his ear pierced and he remains a slave for the rest of his life. Don't assume this is like going to "ear art" at your local mall- this process involved an awl and a doorpost.

If a man sells his daughter as a slave- she doesn't go free like the men do. If the owner doesn't like her- he has to release her, he can't resell her to foreigners. If he gives her to his son- she gets the rights of a daughter. If he marries someone else- he must still provide food, clothing and marital rights (sex?) for her. If he doesn't provide these things, she is free to go.

These seem to safeguard the servant to some level- but they're actually pretty balanced between the owners and the servants. So...I'm a little puzzled as to what I'm supposed to take from it.

Help?