21. Negligence Laws

Lessons from the Law: No.21 : Laws of Negligence

Ex 22:5,6 If a man grazes his livestock in a field or vineyard and lets them stray and they graze in another man’s field, he must make restitution from the best of his own field or vineyard. “If a fire breaks out and spreads into thorn bushes so that it burns shocks of grain or standing grain or the whole field, the one who started the fire must make restitution.

In modern law a duty of care arises when a person is in a position to foresee that an action or lack of action of theirs is likely to cause to others injury of damage or wrong reliance upon them, and negligence occurs when there is a breach of that duty and as a result another has suffered damages (loss). This is law that has only become clear in the last hundred years.  What we now come to are laws of negligence that applied over three thousand years ago in the Law of Moses and they run from verse 5 to verse 15 of chapter 22 of the book of Exodus.

Verses 5 & 6 are about restitution for loss caused by the carelessness of a land owner. Both of these come more under the law of Strict Liability that we recently considered earlier where, if you have something dangerous on your land you will be liable for the damage it causes if it escapes because of your carelessness. If livestock escape, of course they will eat the grass on neighbouring ground. If fire breaks out and is not contained, of course it will cause damage on neighbouring land. In both cases the original land owner is liable for the dame to his neighbours land.

Verses 7 to 9 are about restitution if a neighbour’s goods, generally, are stolen while in the care of another: “If a man gives his neighbor silver or goods for safekeeping and they are stolen from the neighbor’s house, the thief, if he is caught, must pay back double. But if the thief is not found, the owner of the house must appear before the judges to determine whether he has laid his hands on the other man’s property. In all cases of illegal possession of an ox, a donkey, a sheep, a garment, or any other lost property about which somebody says, ‘This is mine,’ both parties are to bring their cases before the judges. The one whom the judges declare guilty must pay back double to his neighbor.” (Ex 22:7-9). If the goods are stolen the original law of theft applies (Ex 22:4) but if no trace of a thief is found it may be that the neighbour may have taken the good for himself and so it must be taken to court, and if the court determines the neighbour has taken the goods for himself then the normal law of theft applies.

Verses 10 to 15 are specifically about animals left in the care of another.  “If a man gives a donkey, an ox, a sheep or any other animal to his neighbor for safekeeping and it dies or is injured or is taken away while no one is looking, the issue between them will be settled by the taking of an oath before the LORD that the neighbor did not lay hands on the other person’s property. The owner is to accept this, and no restitution is required. But if the animal was stolen from the neighbor, he must make restitution to the owner.” (v.10-12) The law appears at first sight to be the same as for personal property left in safe keeping but the difference is that rather than go to court to settle it, it is settled by a solemn oath before God which is seen as sufficient to deter untruth, and no restitution is required when the animal has simply died or injures itself. The reference to it being “taken away while no one is looking” would seem, to suggest it was taken either from his own property or without the knowledge of the person caring for it, because in this case the other person is required to make restitution for it

When it is in the care of another, “If it was torn to pieces by a wild animal, he shall bring in the remains as evidence and he will not be required to pay for the torn animal.” (v.13) i.e. if a marauding wild animal got in and destroyed the animal being cared for, as long as there is evidence of the remains there are no repercussions.

There is one further stipulation: “If a man borrows an animal from his neighbor and it is injured or dies while the owner is not present, he must make restitution. But if the owner is with the animal, the borrower will not have to pay. If the animal was hired, the money paid for the hire covers the loss.” (v.14,15) This is a case where an animal is borrowed (?possibly a horse or a donkey) and it is injured or dies while with the other man. The outcomes depend on whether the owner was present or not. If he was (and can see there was no mistreatment – implied?) there is no come back, but if he wasn’t then the borrower must make restitution. If it happens when the animal was hired, then it is assumed that the hire cost covers such eventualities.

Again, in an agricultural economy, these things would happen and were therefore very important. God gives the guidelines that are quite reasonable and they operate to protect each person involved.

20. Laws of Theft

Lessons from the Law: No.20 : Laws of Theft

Ex 22:1 “If a man steals an ox or a sheep and slaughters it or sells it, he must pay back five head of cattle for the ox and four sheep for the sheep.

In the Ten Commandments we have already seen, “You shall not steal” (Ex 20:15) but, as we have already commented, laws are not only to restrain sin, as that command does, they are also to legislate for when sin has occurred. Elsewhere in the Pentateuch we have laws for dealing with that sin before God (laws of sacrifice – see Leviticus) but here in today’s verses we have how to deal with that sin in society. It is a recognition that we live in a Fallen World where people will go contrary to the basic laws God laid down.

So, we now come to the law of straight-forward theft. Being an agricultural economy, theft of animals was clearly the worst sort of theft envisaged because it took away a family’s food or livelihood. Domestic theft is that sort covered here. The law here seems to have an element of deterrence in it. The assumption is, of course, that the thief has been found out. The thief has stolen an animal belonging to someone else and has either killed it or sold it on. “If a man steals an ox or a sheep and slaughters it or sells it.” In other words, there is no possibility of giving it back. The original owner has lost his property and there is no way of returning it.

Now here comes the tough part for the thief: he is to pay back fivefold cattle or fourfold sheep to the man he stole from: “he must pay back five head of cattle for the ox and four sheep for the sheep.“ Without any doubt that is a strong penalty and a strong deterrent.  A few verses on the possibility of the animal still being alive is dealt with: “If the stolen animal is found alive in his possession–whether ox or donkey or sheep–he must pay back double.” (v.4) In other words, he’s not going to get away with just giving back the animal; there is an element or punishment or deterrent about it, for he has to give double what he took. Yet there is a further element to be added: “A thief must certainly make restitution, but if he has nothing, he must be sold to pay for his theft.” (v.3b) This surely is the ultimate deterrent: if you steal and can’t pay the appropriate amounts you will end up working to pay for the debt. It is unclear whether this means slavery, which is unlikely in the light of our previous considerations, and so it probably means, more likely, that he will have to work as a servant, a little bit like our modern community service. It is interesting that our modern law is moving closer to the Law of Moses.

Next comes dealing with the situation of where a thief breaks in and the homeowner, defending himself or his home, kills the intruder: “If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed; but if it happens after sunrise, he is guilty of bloodshed.” (v.2,3) The law is very simple: if it happens after dark, the homeowner is not guilty; if it happens in the daylight, he is. Presumably there is a recognition that in the dark there is a greater likelihood of fear and great probability of violent defense, and greater difficulty in being careful to avoid over use of force that might result in death of the intruder. In the daytime presumably there is less fear and it is easier to control what takes place, and therefore the homeowner should do what he can to avoid seriously injuring the intruder. In recent years court cases have come more in line with this way of thinking. It is a recognition of the practical difficulty in carefully defending your home, especially at night.

For those who have the tendency to criticise the Law of Moses as either harsh or outdated, the consideration of these laws should provide an adequate rebuttal for both claims. In each law, that we have been considering in these laws of chapters 21and 22, there is a strong concern for the wellbeing of all the parties concerned. We have also seen that our own legal system now operates in very similar ways to the ways we have been considering. There is nothing haphazard about these laws. They are very down to earth, showing a clear understanding of the failures of the human race while at the same time seeking to provide the best possible guidance for how to deal with those failures. There is nothing ‘religious’ or ’super-spiritual’ about these laws. To the contrary, they simply display the wisdom and compassion and understanding of the Lord.

19. Animal Injuries

Lessons from the Law: No.19 : Injuries by Animals

Ex 21:28,29 If a bull gores a man or a woman to death, the bull must be stoned to death, and its meat must not be eaten. But the owner of the bull will not be held responsible. If, however, the bull has had the habit of goring and the owner has been warned but has not kept it penned up and it kills a man or woman, the bull must be stoned and the owner also must be put to death.

From injuries caused by humans, the law now moves on to injuries caused by animals. In an agricultural society this is a very real issue to be dealt with. Bulls are notoriously dangerous and the possibility of a person being gored to death by a bull is very real. If that should happen, possibly in recognition of the seriousness of a human life being taken, the bull shall be killed but not eaten. Presumably it would just be burnt to get rid of it. As towards responsibility for the bull, the starting place is that the owner of the bull will not be liable for what it has done.

However, as with most of these laws, there is a caveat, which is that if the owner knew of the tendency of this bull to injure people who got near it, then he would be held liable and both he and the bull are put to death for causing the death of another when the owner had known of the likelihood.

The law of “Strict Liability” in our land says that if you bring something onto your land known to be dangerous if it escapes off the land, and it does escape, you are liable for the damage caused if you do allow it to escape. This is the same sort of law behind these verses here. They deal with, first of all, a bull killing a human being, and then a bull killing another bull.

But the laws continue on from our verses above to cover another possibility in a case when the owner has been shown to be liable: “However, if payment is demanded of him, he may redeem his life by paying whatever is demanded.” (v.30) We have seen already that the owner’s life is thus forfeit but the family of the dead person may take compensation instead if they wish and the owner thus keep his life. This was no doubt the more preferable option. It continues, “This law also applies if the bull gores a son or daughter.” (v.31) in other words, the law is no different if the person killed by the bull is a child. This point is made in the light of what then follows: “If the bull gores a male or female slave, the owner must pay thirty shekels of silver to the master of the slave, and the bull must be stoned.” (v.32) i.e. if a slave was killed the compensation goes to the owner for his loss. Because a foreign slave (see earlier meditations) was considered to be less important than a Hebrew, the death penalty for the owner does not apply and he just has to pay compensation to the owner of the slave.

(Note: in the two verses above, death was not mentioned but the assumption is that that is what followed being gored by the bull, as they follow on from our initial verses above. It is also assumed, because of the natural flow of the verses, that they refer to a situation where the owner was aware of the bull’s propensity to harm.)

The law then moves on to cover the loss of animals by the carelessness of others: “If a man uncovers a pit or digs one and fails to cover it and an ox or a donkey falls into it, the owner of the pit must pay for the loss; he must pay its owner, and the dead animal will be his.” (v.33,34). This is simply a case where compensation must be paid for the loss of an animal by his carelessness, but the dead animal remains his for him to do whatever he will with it.

Where the carelessness comes in the form of allowing one bull to kill another, then both dead and live bull values are divided between the two owners: “If a man’s bull injures the bull of another and it dies, they are to sell the live one and divide both the money and the dead animal equally.” (v.35) This assumes that the first owner was not aware that his bull had a propensity to be vicious: “However, if it was known that the bull had the habit of goring, yet the owner did not keep it penned up, the owner must pay, animal for animal, and the dead animal will be his.” (v.36) i.e. if he was aware of its propensity, then he simply has to pay the full price of the dead bull to its owner and the carcass becomes his for him to do whatever he wants with it.

When we read these laws we may have a tendency to think they are completely irrelevant to us today but we would be completely wrong. As we have pointed out, these laws are exactly the same as what is called the law of Strict Liability today. Whether it be an animal or dangerous substances, if we knew or should have known the danger if the animal or substance ‘got lose’ then we are liable for injuries or damage caused by it when it does ‘get lose’. There is, in other words, nothing strange or out of date in these laws we have just considered. It took English law until 1868 to catch up on God’s wisdom in the case, that any Law student will know, of Rylands versus Fletcher which was all about the escape of reservoir water. Water, animals or explosives etc., the law is just the same – you are liable if you know or should know of its danger.

18. Injuries Inflicted

Lessons from the Law: No.18 : Injuries Inflicted

Ex 21:18,19 If men quarrel and one hits the other with a stone or with his fist and he does not die but is confined to bed, the one who struck the blow will not be held responsible if the other gets up and walks around outside with his staff; however, he must pay the injured man for the loss of his time and see that he is completely healed.

From capital crimes the Law moves to minor injuries and four situations are envisaged in verses 18 to 27, two involving fights and two involving slaves or servants. First, the first of the two fight situations: the Law recognises that sinful men will have upsets and disagreements and in the heat of the moment it will turn violent. Murder and manslaughter have already been covered, so now we consider lesser injuries incurred during such upsets. In our verses above there is an argument which turns violent and one man sustains injuries that confine him to bed. Very well, says the Law, that happens and it is no big issue, but there are two things to be considered.

The first is the fact that the man confined to his bed to recover from his injuries will not be able to work and so he should be compensated for his loss of work by the other man who caused the injury. Second, and this is quite delightful, the man who caused the injury is to go to the injured man and “see that he is completely healed.” In other words, he is to care for him, and that means have contact which, by its very nature, gives an opportunity for rebuilding a relationship after the upset. The picture of the one caring for the one he has injured could well be included in our own modern laws. It is part of the reconciliation work that is sometimes being done today in the legal system. Perhaps we are slowly catching up with God’s law.

The second ‘fight situation’ occurs a few verses later:  “If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.” (Ex 21:22-25) i.e. should the pregnant wife of one of the men (for that is the likely scenario) seek to intervene and stop the fight and be injured and give birth prematurely but there is no other injury, then a fine shall be imposed on the other man for having caused it, assessed as a compromise of what the husband demands and the court agrees. For more serious injuries caused, the penalty is to match the injury.  This is a ‘limiting law’, given to limit there being revenge.  The idea is that the punishment should equal the harm caused and no more. It thus stops worse happening through revenge.

Next we move on to the situations involving servants or slaves: “If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property. (Ex 21:20,21) i.e. if a slave is killed by a master the laws of murder and manslaughter will apply. If it is a temporary injury there is to be no penalty. To us today, parts of this appear quite unfair and I think it is right to say that it is unfair. It is, of course a law legislating for a situation that we would not want to happen today but which would continue on for thousands of years.

Slavery is an outworking of a sinful Fallen World. In a redeemed world it would not happen. As I have commented a number of times in other places, I believe the Lord tolerated slavery (never commending it) simply because to abolish it would mean the complete changing of the mindset of a particular nation or series of nations and it would be many years before that could come about. The Lord never forces us to change our thinking and so slavery was an unpleasant face of humanity all over the world for a long time. Thus this law is inhibiting the behaviour of slave masters for they would be fearful of killing a slave because of the repercussions. Striking a slave in the heat of anger, presumably because of disobedience, was not what God wants to happen, but is tolerable in as much as slavery was tolerable until ‘civilised mankind’ could eventually see otherwise.

Finally the second of the servant laws here: “If a man hits a manservant or maidservant in the eye and destroys it, he must let the servant go free to compensate for the eye. And if he knocks out the tooth of a manservant or maidservant, he must let the servant go free to compensate for the tooth.” (Ex 21:26,27) If a servant is injured, the penalty to compensate for that injury is that the servant is to be released. As one commentator has said, slavery in Israel was ‘rural, domestic and small scale’, yet the Law made sure it still was concerned for the welfare of such workers. In the Jewish community, the slave was not without rights as was the case with slavery elsewhere in the world. Yes, slavery may have existed, but the Israelite master who had slaves had to care for them and where his own sinful nature resulted in them being injured, the Law was there to speak up for them. This is not a comfortable area of law but it is law that seeks to work within the failures of a Fallen World and do what it can to protect those without power.

17. Capital Crimes

Lessons from the Law: No.17 : Capital Crimes

Ex 21:12-14 Anyone who strikes a man and kills him shall surely be put to death. However, if he does not do it intentionally, but God lets it happen, he is to flee to a place I will designate. But if a man schemes and kills another man deliberately, take him away from my altar and put him to death.

The Law now moves on to cover murder and manslaughter. The Ten Commandments stated “You shall not murder.” This law spells out what should happen when that basic law has been broken. Note that we have said previously that the purpose of law is to restrain sin and act as a deterrent, but also to provide directions when it has not acted as a deterrent and people have disobeyed it and done the forbidden thing. How to handle that situation is what is at the heart of this law. Because it also goes against a norm that Western societies have taken on board, we also make note of the whole issue of capital punishment which arises here.

Behind our three verses today is the heart of criminal law: premeditated killing is murder; accidental killing is manslaughter. The basic law is that “Anyone who strikes a man and kills him shall surely be put to death.” That is the starting point: it is wrong to kill someone – seriously wrong! But then comes a looking at the motivation for the act: “if he does not do it intentionally.” If it is unintentional that is different from  “if a man schemes and kills another man deliberately.” The secondary reason for assessing motivation, is because of what is going to follow. If it was manslaughter, then the perpetrator could flee to one of the cities of refuge: “When you cross the Jordan into Canaan, select some towns to be your cities of refuge, to which a person who has killed someone accidentally may flee. They will be places of refuge from the avenger, so that a person accused of murder may not die before he stands trial before the assembly. These six towns you give will be your cities of refuge.” (Num 35:10-13) There is within this additional law a realism and an awareness of human behaviour that is admirable. There is the awareness that even though it may have been manslaughter it may take time to prove that and in the meantime the close family of the person killed may be so incensed by the killing that they may want to go out and take revenge on the killer. That would not be justice. No, the cities of refuge were a device to thwart human anger.

But then we come to the penalty for murder – death! In Western societies, in our human wisdom, we have abolished the death penalty. Some of the reasons for it appear good reasons: the police may be corrupt or lazy and so evidence may have been tampered with or simply missed. Those are legitimate concerns especially in an age when DNA testing now questions a number of past ‘guilty’ decisions.  But in so doing this we appear almost casual sometimes about human life, for there are times when it is blatantly obvious that the person murdered another and there is no question about it. When a man carries a gun to carry out a robbery and then guns down a policeman in his escape and is immediately apprehended in full view of the on looking public, we demean the policeman, the killer and ourselves when we put the killer in prison for a number of years. Life suddenly means little. For God, life is the crucial ingredient of the world and it is not to be taken casually. Indeed when it is taken, there is to be a serious accounting.

Another reason for the abolishing of the death penalty is the claim that it is not a deterrent. As we said in an earlier meditation, it may not be for a few, but it will be for many. The horror of the death penalty is to be one of the things to acts as a deterrent. The law went on to demand that witnesses come forward and it is the witnesses and neighbours who are to be the executioners by stoning, a most gruesome form of execution – but that is the point. If you have taken part in or even witnessed such an execution, then you will do all in your power to avoid either that happening to you, or it having to happen to someone else. Oh yes, this was a deterrent and we have removed any such deterrent from modern society and we are witnessing the results!

In the following verses we see variants of the Law: “Anyone who attacks his father or his mother must be put to death.” (v.15) You will see in your Bible a footnote to the effect that the word ‘attacks’ could mean ‘kills’ This focuses the violence of death or attempted death on the sanctity of the family, which was the primary building block in that society that God was creating. Whether it is murder or attempted murder, when it applies to parents, then death is to follow. The consequences of the breakdown of society were too great; this must act as a deterrent.

Then comes, “Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death.” (v.16) The taking away of life by kidnapping (not literal death) is considered just a heinous. We then come to a strange one (in modern eyes at least): “Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.” (v.17) A curse, here, is not a casual slanderous comment; it is a purposeful bringing of an occult curse that will have effect and as such, is put into the same category as the previous laws, for it has the same potential. Again it is linked with the sanctity of the family, the primary building block of society. That is why it is so serious and that is why it will seem so strange to us who live in a society.  Here we are so casual about the family building block that we have made it easy for it to be broken up, and we do so little to support and strengthen it, allowing abuses of many kinds to continue almost unchecked.

If some of these laws seem strange or even abhorrent to us today, perhaps we should ask who has lost perspective – God or us? There is much to reflect upon in the light of the failures of our modern societies and the more we reflect the more, I suspect, we will change our thinking.

16. Women Servants

Lessons from the Law: No.16 : Women in Service

Ex 21:7,8 If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as menservants do. If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself, he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her.

Living in the enlightened times that we do, we probably have a tendency to look with askance on times such as these covered by these laws, when women appeared to be mere chattels – but perhaps that is just how it seems and the truth may be quite different. Without any doubt, in an under-developed country, most of us would agree that women are more vulnerable than men. They are vulnerable because mostly they are physically weaker than men, and also because sexually they could be preyed upon by stronger men. It is that recognition, I suggest, that is the cause for the distinction in verse 7:  “she is not to go free as menservants do.” What follows is the explanation of that. In Laws that seem so far from modern life we need to remember that God is providing protection in a world very different and in some ways less civilised than our own.

In verses 7 to 11 which cover the female servant (and we have explained previously why this applies to servants and not slaves) the word ‘If” occurs five times, indicating five possibilities that are being covered by this law. The first one refers to a Hebrew father who has fallen into abject poverty (for that’s only when this was allowed) and who is seeking to care for his children, as well as income for the family: “If a man sells his daughter as a servant.” (v.7) Arranged marriages, although alien to most of us today, often work better than the short term relationships we so often see in modern Western life. Here the father, in exchange for money, puts his daughter into the family of another to work “in service”.

This is so that she can prove herself, and it acts as a prelude to becoming the wife of the master, or even of his son. It was a practice of the Middle East and so the laws here are to protect her: “If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself, he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her.” (v.8) In other words, after he has taken her as a wife, if that relationship does not work out because for some reason she is unable to live up to the role of wife, then she is not to be sold off but must be redeemed by her family (implied). It is probable that this really means that this occurs if the Master decides not to marry her because she turns out not to be a virgin.  Even within this practice, as alien as it is to us, there is care for the women and protection against her being sold.

In the third option the law covers the possibility that the master chose her for his son: “If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter.” (v.9) If she is taken on as the wife of the son, she is not to be considered a servant but is to have all the rights and privileges of a member of the family.

In the fourth option, it is unclear whether it applies to the master of the house or his son, but the same applies whichever it is: “If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights.” (v.10) In other words, if the man took a second (or even third wife) which was not uncommon, the first girl must not lose out in any way and must still be cared for and provided for.

If that does not happen, then the fifth and final option comes into play: “If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money.” (v.11) i.e. the contract is annulled on both sides.

We need to remember what may appear almost too obvious here, that these are simply possibilities. In a loving family context it would only happen if the family fell into hard times and could not cope, and the father’s intentions are likely to include the welfare of his daughter. Yes, in every situation within the compass of the law, there would always be abuses, but wherever possible the law sought to provide for the care and welfare of everyone covered by it. The law, of course, cannot legislate attitudes which is why Jesus, in the Sermon on the Mount, goes behind the act and DOES cover the attitude or thought behind it. In establishing a new nation, the best any legislators can do, is seek to provide for any eventuality – at least in terms of behaviour, and that is what we have been observing here in these verses today.

Although Israel was a sinful nation – in that all men and women are sinners – at this point in time when the Law was given, it had not fallen into many of the human abuses that came later, and which we tolerate in our modern society. It is obvious from the regular media reports, that many of our children are far more vulnerable than those in Israel at that time. The Law was necessary to legislate against sin, to curb its unrestrained working. Family life was far more highly respected and honoured than in much of the West today, but even so laws were still necessary to protect the weak and limit the potential abuser. As the apostle Paul was later to point out, there were distinct shortcomings in the Law, but in the absence of anything else, it was necessary until the Son of God came along and showed a better way.

15. Servants

Lessons from the Law: No.15 : The Law for Servants

Ex 21:2-4 If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him. If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free.

Remember, we said in the previous meditation, these laws are to bring peace, order and stability to society. Many years ago when I taught Law at college, I would always ask my students in the first lesson, do we need laws, and why?  They would always answer, yes, to protect the weak. That is an answer which corresponds very well with Scripture for the Lord is always concerned for the weak, the poor and the underdog. Someone who has to work for another as their servant is clearly in this category and so the Lord starts off these laws with instructions for caring for servants.

Note that it starts off, “If you buy a servant.” The situation would be that a family was poor and in need and so might sell a family member into servitude. They would become the ‘ownership’ of the master who bought them and the family would receive the payment for them and they would receive their keep and become almost part of the family who bought them, and would work for them. The point that is at issue here is that when such a thing happened, the Lord demands that their period of service be limited to six years only and then they be released without payment.

Now we need to realise that this is very different from the concept of slavery for later in the Law in Leviticus we find the following instructions: “If one of your countrymen becomes poor among you and sells himself to you, do not make him work as a slave. He is to be treated as a hired worker or a temporary resident among you; he is to work for you until the Year of Jubilee. Then he and his children are to be released, and he will go back to his own clan and to the property of his forefathers. Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves. Do not rule over them ruthlessly, but fear your God.” (Lev 25:39-43). The servant is to be treated as a ‘hired worker or a temporary resident’, NOT a slave!

The fact of history is that slaves did exist. For example, Hagar had been Abraham’s slave (Gen 21:10). In the Law, slaves could be bought by the Hebrews but only from other nations (Lev 25:44,45) and many laws protected the welfare of those slaves (e.g. Ex 21:20, 28-32, 23;12,  Lev 19:20). The Lord was just as concerned for them as for servants and for masters. The Law however regulated the practice, already in the world, of owning slaves, and ensured in Israel, at least, slaves were well cared for.

The crucial issue, here at least, is that the period of servant-hood is strictly limited and so if poverty pushes a family into service, that is only for a relatively short period and not for a lifetime. If the servant was married when he came, then his wife went as well and when the period of service came to an end they both left.

Now comes the difficult part (in our modern eyes). If the master gives the servant a wife, she is under the master’s directions and so she and any children remain with the master at the end of the period (unless of course a friendly master should release her as well). However legally she was to stay with the Master. It would be likely that a servant knowing this would either marry with the obligations and stay on at the end, or simply not marry during that time.

We then come to an even stranger part of the Law: “But if the servant declares, ‘I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free, then his master must take him before the judges. He shall take him to the door or the doorpost and pierce his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life.” (v.5,6) There is an implied recognition here that being a servant for a good master actually created a great sense of security. It was just a job and one which had rewards which the servant might wish to continue. For a good master, such a job may have had no more onerous requirements than many jobs today. If the servant did want to stay on, then a simple procedure of creating a permanent body mark (like we pierce ears for earrings) indicated his intent and the master’s agreement to have the servant and his family stay on. Actually piercing the ear against the doorpost of the home probably also added the sense symbolically of him being attached to that home. In reality it was no more different than ear piercing today.  The purpose of these instructions was to formalise a process that often happened anyway – the servant staying on after the six years – in order to prevent abuse and to protect the servant by formalising the arrangement in the eyes of the Law and of the local community.

Although there is much that is taken for granted in these laws or implied by them, the basic guidelines are there that show the Lord’s recognition of what went on in the world but which, in the redeemed community, should be carried out in a caring and humane way. Peace, order and security thus followed.

14. Law

Lessons from the Law: No.14 : The Nature of the Law

Ex 21:1 These are the laws you are to set before them:

So now we get ready to step more fully into the Law of Moses. The Ten Commandments clearly stand on their own and were the only laws to be inscribed on the tablets of stone and were initially kept in the ark of the covenant.  God gave these commands because the first four match reality and anything less degenerates into pagan superstition and fear, and the latter six bring peace, order and stability to society. Remove them and all those three characteristics are also removed. The Ten Commandments apply to any society in the world.

But now we find, as we come to chapter 21, the start of a set of new laws that applied specifically to Israel. For instance in the very next verse, we will see in the next meditation, “If you buy a Hebrew servant…..” These were clearly for Israel and only Israel. There have been those who have tried to apply them to other societies in history but the truth is that they were spoken expressly to Israel and were applied to their circumstances. This was a new nation but most importantly it was a nation under God, founded by God to be a light to the Gentiles. Now we may certainly observe the nature of these laws and learn from them but they are, first and foremost laws for Israel. We need to reiterate, the Ten Commandments are general laws which can be applied to any society, but these, we will see applied to Israel – and at that point of time in history. We say that because, for instance, it was still a time when slaves existed. Circumstances would change and therefore certain laws would simply no longer applicable to them.

Now having said that, we can consider how these laws reflect God’s design for all peoples. What are the characteristics that we find in them, what are the principles that operate? Surely one of the key things to understand when we consider any law or any rule that God brings to His people, is how this fits His design for the human race. Few of us seem to understand these things and every now and then, those who are hostile to God say things which only accentuate this truth. We need to bear in mind certain truths about God.

The first is that God designed and planned this world before He created it, so that it would work in certain ways. We might call these the laws of nature. Science seeks to observe how the world works (or perhaps we should say, how God has made it to work) and different branches of science focus on different aspect of the world. A biologist tends to observe how ‘life’ works whether in plants, animals or humans. A psychologist tends to observe human behaviour. We need to remember in all of this that we are now observing a ‘Fallen World’ a world with sin affecting it, but that wasn’t how it was at the beginning, for when the Lord completed Creation, “God saw all that he had made, and it was very good.” (Gen 1:31) and if God says something is VERY good then it is perfect and without fault. Does this mean that the world is haphazard now? No, for we are still made in God’s image, even if we have tainted that image. We still have the ability to do good, to plan, rationalize, invent and make things that are good. That we have the ability to use what we make for bad or wrong purposes, should be beyond dispute when you observe the history of the world. We should also note that God is still at work in His world!

The second truth, that flows from the first, is that God knows best, but of course in a Fallen World, sinful mankind disputes this. We think we know how to bring peace, order and stability but the truth is that so often our strivings – observed in the changing fortunes of politics – fall short and when we do things without God we simply dig a bigger and bigger hole into which we fall, as we are observing in modern godless societies. We need to reiterate this truth: God knows best. When we look at the incredible way the world works the clear indications are that a benign God is behind it all. His provision for us is staggering but sadly many of us are ignorant of it or take it for granted.

A third truth, that again flows from the previous one, is that God knows that we are sinners and knows that things will go wrong in society and so gives laws that both restrain the wrong and lay down guidelines how to deal with things when they do go wrong. In one sense these are the two primary functions of laws: to restrain evil, and to deal with it when it is expressed. Thus we reiterate, laws will work to bring peace, order and stability to the life of any society. Thus these laws that we will now start examining seek to work to bring these characteristics into the life of Israel as a community.

As we work our way through these laws in the days ahead, bear these things in mind: God designed us and knows best how we ‘work’. God also knows we have fallen and therefore to promote peace, order and stability, He gives laws that restrain wrong behaviour AND deal with it when it occurs. In this sense God is The Realist. He knows how it should work, He knows how it does work, and He plans accordingly, and we ignore Him at our peril.

13. Worship

Lessons from the Law: No.13 : Appropriate Worship

Ex 20:24-26 “Make an altar of earth for me and sacrifice on it your burnt offerings and fellowship offerings, your sheep and goats and your cattle. Wherever I cause my name to be honored, I will come to you and bless you. If you make an altar of stones for me, do not build it with dressed stones, for you will defile it if you use a tool on it. And do not go up to my altar on steps, lest your nakedness be exposed on it.’

As we have come to the end of the Ten Commandments, before we move on to consider our verses today, I want to ask a very simple but obvious question: Do we need the Ten Commandments today? The simple answer to this question is, “Consider the opposite to these commands. Is that the sort of life you want?” Consider the following suggestions.

Number 1:  No other God.  The alternative?  Many gods – like Romans & Greeks – unreal, there is only One. Number 2:  No idols.  The alternative? Worship wood or stone – that is meaningless ritual. Number 3:  Honour God’s name.  The alternative? Abuse God’s name – why? Either He doesn’t exist or He is a Holy God. Number 4:  Have a day’s remembrance. The alternative? Work every day – exhaustion! Number 5:  Honour parents.  The alternative?  Dishonour & abuse parents = family breakdown and family break up. Number 6:  Don’t murder.  The alternative?.  Murder is OK – it is patently obvious it is not. Number 7: Don’t commit adultery.  The alternative?  Stealing another’s partner is OK – breeds hurt, pain, anger etc. etc.  Number 8: Don’t steal.  The alternative?  Stealing is fine – life becomes completely insecure. Number 9: Don’t perjure your neighbour.  The alternative?  It’s OK to lie about others’ activities – injustice prevails.  Number 10: Don’t desire what others have.  The alternative?  Work to take others’ goods – discontentment and insecurity.

No, simply by considering the alternatives, we can see that each of these ten commands is still applicable today.  Reverse the first four and you have pagan superstition. Reverse the latter six and you upheaval of society.

How we view these commandments will be an indicator of how we view God. Our feelings for these commandments will follow what we already feel about the Lord. There are, I suggest, three main ways we view ‘religion’. The first is the way of the atheist who writes religion off as an out dated superstitious belief that has no place in the twenty first century. The second way is the ways of ‘useful religion’, religion that we see recognises that God exists, but He exists for our benefit and religion sooths our feelings about an unstable world. In other words we use ‘religion’ for our own benefit and in fact (and this always happens) we adjust it in our minds to be what we want it to be and we use it almost in a superstitious way.  This is what Jeroboam did when he became king of the northern part of Israel and essentially set up a substitute religion (see 1 Kings 12:26-33). In like ways we create a substitute religion that has elements of real faith built into it – but for our benefit.

The third way is a simple acknowledgment of the Lord who is revealed in Scripture and this is expressed in simple obedience and simple worship. Real worship is an acknowledgement of God’s greatness and wonder, and our weakness, smallness and frailty. Real worship comes out of a right relationship and a right attitude towards God. When we start like that we will see the Ten  Commandments as God’s essential design laws to comply with the way He has designed us and the world, and we will accept them as they are, still as relevant today as they have always been.

Now this takes us on to our verses today which come in a passage between the Ten Commandments and the rest of the Law that soon follows. In one sense they are not part of ‘the Law’ but as an instruction to Israel they are highly significant. Essentially they say, in order to worship, build a simple altar – but keep it simple. There is going to come a series of laws about sacrifice which is all about expressing love to God or contrition for sin. For them worship was expressed very tangibly by a giving up of their livestock, the very heart of their life as acts of love or contrition. That is how they are going to show their love, so the altar is going to become a focal point of their worship, so how they build it is going to be important. It is to be an altar of earth; you can’t get more simple than that! If you want it to become more permanent once you are in the land (implied) then make it simply of stones that have not been worked upon.

What does all this say? It says don’t give any room for the pride of man to creep in – “Look what a good job we’ve made of making it,” and even “My altar is better than yours!” It is to be purely a vehicle for expressing your worship – the worship itself is the all-important thing. How many times, I wonder, have we spent a lot of time, energy and money on creating great buildings for worship but they have ended up glorifying man, and what goes on in them is far from the simplicity that worship is supposed to be. I even wonder, for those of us who have been involved in Bible Weeks, if we have put so much effort into ‘the worship’ that eventually it becomes a show that glorifies the worship leaders – who really should just be humble servants. Our obedience to the Law and the operation of it are supposed to be outworkings of our love for God. Fancy buildings and fancy services are no substitute for simple Spirit-led worship. Let’s make sure we truly worship in Spirit and in truth. (Jn 4:23) There are no substitutes in God’s eyes.

12. Eyes Off!

Lessons from the Law: No.12 : Eyes off!

Ex 20:17 You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbour.”

We have already seen the previous commandment about not stealing but this command now takes us beyond that. We have observed a number of times that each of these Ten Commandments is about relationships and how we relate to one another and to God. We have already observed that behind the command is attitude – what we think about one another. Jesus, in his Sermon on the Mount, made it very clear that the issues were in the mind before they were in actions. Stealing is the end product; coveting is the beginning motivation – I want, because I see and I haven’t got this but you have!

To covet means to yearn wrongly after something. First and foremost it is an indication of lack of contentment, failure to be satisfied with what you already have. In a day of mass production of goods, and high levels of advertising, we are encouraged to want more than we have, not to be content with our lot. This command is a restraint on constantly wanting more. But there is something else. There is a second aspect to this command. It is a restraint on wanting more wrongly, on wanting what someone else already has. It envisages someone looking over their fence, so to speak, and wanting their neighbour’s house, wife, servants or goods and possessions. Not only is this a sign of lack of contentment, it is providing the seeds of temptation to do something wrong. Coveting is first thinking this desire, which can then be followed by some action to bring about the fulfilment of that desire.

One classic illustration of this in Scripture is Ahab coveting Naboth’s vineyard (see 1 Kings 21).  Ahab had an apparently legitimate desire – to acquire a neighbouring vineyard to turn it into a kitchen garden for his palace. The only thing was that Naboth didn’t want to sell it. Ahab’s wrong reaction to this shows he had a covetous heart which, when expressed to his wife, ended in them having Naboth killed and the vineyard taken. Covetousness is essentially rampant greed that flourishes on discontentment.  Jesus’ antidote to wanting more and more possessions (Lk 12:15) and being able to be at peace, was to put seeking God’s will first and allowing the Lord to provide your needs (Lk 12:31). Note here the distinction between needs and wants.  Wants are the things that breed covetousness and all that goes with it!

The apostle Paul knew the significance of coveting when he used it as an illustration of sin working within us: “For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, “Do not covet.” But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire. For apart from law, sin is dead. Once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died.” (Rom 7:7-9). I really hadn’t given it much thought, he was saying, until I saw this command in the law but, being aware of it, I became desirous of what I saw in a whole range of ways. It was there inherent in me, but the Law brought it alive. That is interesting: awareness of the Law makes us conscious of the wrong desire. Until then we probably had the desire but hadn’t been aware of it. As soon as we became aware of it, it intensified in us. That is what desire for things does. The more we think about it the more we want, and if it belongs to someone else – tough! At least that is how the old sinful nature sees it!

The apostle James knew the same thing: “What causes fights and quarrels among you? Don’t they come from your desires that battle within you? You want something but don’t get it. You kill and covet, but you cannot have what you want. You quarrel and fight.” (Jas 4:1,2) It is your inner desires that motivate you into wrong behaviour is what he is saying here.

The story of Achan is another classic example of this: “Achan replied, “It is true! I have sinned against the LORD, the God of Israel. This is what I have done: When I saw in the plunder a beautiful robe from Babylonia, two hundred shekels of silver and a wedge of gold weighing fifty shekels, I coveted them and took them.” (Josh 7:20,21). See the order: “I saw… a beautiful robe… I coveted…and took.“ The apostle John knew the same thing: “everything in the world–the cravings of sinful man, the lust of his eyes and the boasting of what he has and does….” (1 Jn 2:16) That is what coveting is all about – having inner desires that indicate a lack of contentment, and eyes that see and want. Hence the world’s advertising approaches by the use of pictures and images that make us want something because it looks good.

Does this ring any bells? Consider: “When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it.” (Gen 3:6) Just a minute, all the fruit of all the other trees was good as well! Why was this fruit ‘pleasing to the eye’? Because it was forbidden and ’self’ says, Why should I be denied that? Who says I should be denied that? Awareness brings desire and unrestrained desire brings covetousness and covetousness brings the temptation which, when given in to, means sin.  This is the working of covetousness, and inner desires and wrong rationalizing lead on to wrong actions! Beware!