Author: Randall Smith

In the end of the 1990’s, Donald Westlake wrote a novel that was turned into a movie called “Payback”. I did not see the movie, but I am told that Mel Gibson was a stunning actor in the film. The story from the novel intrigued me. The novel jacket said: “Porter is shot by his wife and best friend and is left to die. When he survived he plotted revenge. This is his story.” When I read that, I asked myself one question: “Is payback simply revenge?” Is there some sense in which payback can be redeeming for the abuser and a healing balm for the abused? Biblically speaking, the answer is YES.

 Key Principle: Retribution was not supposed to be about REVENGE, it was supposed to be about RECOVERY FOR THE VICTIM and REDEEMING RESPONSIBILITY for the wayward.

Recompense… retribution… these words have come to mean REVENGE in our language – but that was not so when God gave the CIVIL CODE of the Law. At the beginning of the camping trip through the wilderness, God wanted His people to see His heart in the principles of the Law – not just follow Him the way they followed Pharaoh and their appointed taskmasters. He wanted them to recognize right and wrong, and work through problems in a redemptive way.

We have to admit that our civil society has lost the redemptive sense of retribution. Instead of focusing on healing the abused and helping the abuser, we are focused on the anger of revenge in the penal system. We take people who do bad things, and cage them up with people who have done even worse things. We feed them three meals a day (unless you are in one of the states currently under a budget tightening crisis!) and make them produce even LESS than they did “on the outside”. Many prisons will admit that they are barely in control of the population that has organized itself into gangs of thugs – focused on building their own little society inside the prison walls – based on hatreds and prejudices of the outside world – but magnified in intensity.

God gave a proper pattern for restitution in the Law:

Exodus 22:1 “If a man steals an ox or a sheep and slaughters it or sells it, he shall pay five oxen for the ox and four sheep for the sheep. 2 “If the thief is caught while breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there will be no bloodguiltiness on his account. 3 “But if the sun has risen on him, there will be bloodguiltiness on his account. He shall surely make restitution; if he owns nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft. 4 “If what he stole is actually found alive in his possession, whether an ox or a donkey or a sheep, he shall pay double. 5 “If a man lets a field or vineyard be grazed bare and lets his animal loose so that it grazes in another man’s field, he shall make restitution from the best of his own field and the best of his own vineyard. 6 “If a fire breaks out and spreads to thorn bushes, so that stacked grain or the standing grain or the field itself is consumed, he who started the fire shall surely make restitution. 7 “If a man gives his neighbor money or goods to keep for him and it is stolen from the man’s house, if the thief is caught, he shall pay double. 8 “If the thief is not caught, then the owner of the house shall appear before the judges, to determine whether he laid his hands on his neighbor’s property. 9 “For every breach of trust, whether it is for ox, for donkey, for sheep, for clothing, or for any lost thing about which one says, ‘This is it,’ the case of both parties shall come before the judges; he whom the judges condemn shall pay double to his neighbor. 10 “If a man gives his neighbor a donkey, an ox, a sheep, or any animal to keep for him, and it dies or is hurt or is driven away while no one is looking, 11 an oath before the LORD shall be made by the two of them that he has not laid hands on his neighbor’s property; and its owner shall accept it, and he shall not make restitution. 12 “But if it is actually stolen from him, he shall make restitution to its owner. 13 “If it is all torn to pieces, let him bring it as evidence; he shall not make restitution for what has been torn to pieces. 14 “If a man borrows anything from his neighbor, and it is injured or dies while its owner is not with it, he shall make full restitution. 15 “If its owner is with it, he shall not make restitution; if it is hired, it came for its hire.

If we look at the civil code of the Law, we find that it is ten chapters in total. Exodus contains four chapters of that code (and Numbers another six chapters that we will study in the future). In Exodus, the Core Principles that we saw in Exodus 20 – that we refer to as the “Ten Commandments” that exposed God’s broader view of life together in civil society; and three chapters of specifics on living together responsibly as a society. The responsibilities included understanding what God cared about in issues like the sanctity of life, the sanctity of freedom, and the holiness of His divine authority invested in the family structure – God gave you your parents! It included the high view of contract promises, and the care we should take with people under our care.

As we come to the last part of these civil codes in this book, we can identify what some rabbinic scholars have termed “Codes of Retribution”. By that word, they had no view of REVENGE –but rather of replacement to injured parties the things that were taken from them… and sometimes even more than what was taken. The idea was to restore both the abuser and the abused. Sadly, it has become a foreign concept in much of our modern civil society- though its touch is still found in our laws.

The issue today is straightforward: Does God express property rights? Is having and defending property a godly thing to do? Is God communal? Does He view the right way to live as “having all things in common” like the Acts 2 group in Jerusalem. Is it right for me to have property, pass property to my children, and take steps to guard my property?

To Reform a Thief

In cases of theft – God had a remedy that was designed to heal the one stolen from, while teaching the one who stole a view of real responsibility that was lacking in their civic understanding. The focus was not simply on CATCHING the thief. It was not only on RECOVERING the goods. It was on RESTORING the damage and REDEEMING through teaching, the thief. Let’s take a look:

First, God told Israel that in the case of theft, where the thief is clearly caught, the thief had to pay multiple times restitution in value for theft. He said: Exodus 22:1 “If a man steals an ox or a sheep and slaughters it or sells it, he shall pay five oxen for the ox and four sheep for the sheep.

While it is not always true, it was certainly most often true that thieves weren’t wealthy in the encampment of Israel. They obviously had character issues – but they were likely poor men or women that took their neighbors property. If that was so, the retribution of five oxen for the stolen ox as well as four sheep for the sheep would have been a price that would have been difficult to pay. It is very likely that to do so, the thief had to place themselves in an indenture – a servant-work relationship – where most of their earnings went to repay the debt. They had to repay the retribution – so they had to WORK. They didn’t get corralled into tents with bars in the wilderness, surrounded by armed guards provided by Moses’ security detail. They WENT TO WORK to learn to responsibly pay back what they had taken – and restore to the injured person a sense of security and safety disrupted by the theft. In the society, it helped to put the offender back on track through a work program. There was an end to it – and when payback was complete, there was a way to move on in life.

God values the life of the offender and the offended. He isn’t interested in our sense of outrage at the evil of men as much as He wanted civil society to have a viable remedy to care for the evils of theft. God wanted civil society to focus on redemption, not revenge. He wanted them to focus on JUSTICE. It was retribution, but it was SOMETHING THAT COULD BE REPAID within the six years of indenture limits under the law. Instead, a revenge system chooses to award a person millions for spilling coffee that was too hot on themselves, in this supposedly “enlightened and modern society”. I recognize the fault was found in the courts to be on the company and its machines – I am simply suggesting the retribution had little redemptive quality left in it.

People will steal what is not theirs. It is part of the post mutiny fallen condition of mankind. People covet what is not theirs, justify in their own minds that others don’t have it as hard as they do, and that it wouldn’t be so terribly wrong to take what they have not earned. When they do.. what a society does next may either bring resolution to the victim and help to the perpetrator, or it may just make the problem worse. If we identified God’s social contract rules and followed them – many problems would slowly dissipate.

If we upheld the high standard of parental respect – society wouldn’t have so many people that think they are entitled to something.

When a society enacts policy that in effect breaks down the family – it imperils itself….Break down the family, and you break down accountability. Break down accountability and you break down responsibility. Break down responsibility and you will need better locks on your doors. It isn’t rocket science.

To Kill a Thief

God held civil property as sacred. He instructed the people that “Your things were your things”. As a result, no one should expect to be able to simply “take what they want” from you. Yet, in a crowded camp of people with tents for housing – theft was no doubt going to be a problem. In fact, on nights when the children’s bellies were growling from hunger back in Egypt, more than one slave probably learned how to sneak food from the owner’s pantry. They started the process of justifying themselves under slavery, but learn the lesson that theft was a way to pay the bills… so the wilderness camp of Israel had its share of thieves. Any sensible father would keep watch over the tent. As a result, some problems came up….What if you were defending your home against break in – and in the struggle to do so, the thief was killed. Was defense of my property considered WRONG under the Law?

Civil society must be concerned with defense of personal property. It must also be concerned with truth and justice. Exodus 22:2 said: “If the thief is caught while breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there will be no bloodguiltiness on his account.

Defense of property was clearly allowed under the law, even if it included striking the one who was taking your things. A note of caution here – the freedom from guilt of the blood of the perpetrator of the crime by a victim that killed them in the process of the crime was NOT ABSOLUTE. The crime had to have taken place in DARKNESS, when it was unclear what the thief was trying to do – steal or kill the occupants of the tent. This killing was allowed exactly BECAUSE it was dark and the intent of the person breaking in could not be clearly known.

God said in Exodus 22:3 “But if the sun has risen on him, there will be bloodguiltiness on his account. He shall surely make restitution; if he owns nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft. 4 “If what he stole is actually found alive in his possession, whether an ox or a donkey or a sheep, he shall pay double.

If you read verse three quickly it is confusing. Slow down. The confusion comes over who is standing in the daylight because the sun has risen. I love the commenter Gill who wrote: “it matters not which it is interpreted, it is true of both, for when it is risen on the one, it is on the other”. That made me laugh, because it is simple and true! But what does it mean:

If someone is breaking into the tent, but the sun has already risen, you should be able to see if they are attempting to steal, or attempting to harm your family. The law stated that after the sunrise, their response should be more reasoned – and we should use less force. In the case that the perpetrator is caught in the act – restitution is smaller. If he was in the process of stealing and killed an animal for its meat or hide – he owed a double repayment. If he was stealing a getaway donkey, he owed restitution. The payment was to be levied and the thief was to repay, even if he had to indenture himself – sell himself for a time to pay back the owner from which he attempted to steal.

God recognized there was less disruption and less anxiety when someone was caught in the act. As a result, the repayment was less. Part of the restitution was to help settle the offended – and get them back to their normal life.

How do the teachings of Jesus fit such defense of property?

Most Christian groups that teach it is wrong to defend one’s property do so on the basis of Jesus’ teachings about forgiveness and kindness. It is true that one could easily read what Jesus said and make the application that we should drop to our knees in prayer if someone is breaking into our homes, or another country is attacking ours – but I don’t believe on closer inspection that His teaching was directed at these ideas.

First, WWJS – or “what did Jesus say”? In Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus is recorded in the first of His five major addresses called the “Sermon on the Mount” as saying the following:

Matthew 5:38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘AN EYE FOR AN EYE, AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH.’ 39 “But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. 40 “If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also. 41 “Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two. 42 “Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you. 43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR and hate your enemy.’ 44 “But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 “For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47 “If you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? 48 “Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

To be fair to the understanding of Jesus’ intent, we have to admit that dropping into the middle of His sermon isn’t very fair. It is easy to lose what He was saying, so let’s think for a moment about the setting we just landed on. This sermon was early in His earth ministry, and had three major parts: First, the Character Traits of a True Disciple (5); Second, the Practices of a True Disciple (6:1-7:12); and finally the Choices of a True Disciple (7:13-29). Jesus wanted a true disciple to understand that He bought the real estate of their heart, and wanted practices that reflected His ownership in three areas: character, commitments (practices) and choices.

In Matthew five, Jesus offered four character marks of His followers:

• You cannot be about YOU and ME (5:1-12) at the same time. I am seeking one who is not self dependent (3), not self secure (4), not self reliant (5), not self satisfied (6), not self focused (7), not divided (8), not agenda’d (9), not self defensive (10), not impatient (11-12). In short “other person centered (as in Phil. 2).

• You cannot be ALONE (5:13). This emphasized the loyalty of the believers together in their “salt”.

• You cannot remain anonymous (5:14-16). You will not be hidden, and you are not called to be hidden!

• You needn’t be unsure about the standards of discipleship (5:17-48). The law as given is my standard (5:17) when understood with my intent (5:18-48).

The teaching that we referenced is from that last section. To interpret ANY part of that section, we must set it in the context of what Jesus said. The section began with these words:

Matthew 5:17 “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18 “For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 “Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

In other words, Jesus simply said He was putting the Law back into its original context – not that He was trying to wipe it out. Ultimately, a view of Christianity that teaches that we cannot defend ourselves is rooted in wiping out the clear words of the Law regarding property defense – and that is a problem of Biblical interpretation. It forces a modern Christian into the position of saying that God has changed His mind on the importance of property rights, and the words of the Hebrew Scriptures do not reveal God’s real desire for a civil society.

So what did Jesus mean when He said we should “turn the other cheek”?  If He didn’t teach us to let people walk all over us, what was He telling His followers?

Jesus was referencing a problem that could easily crop up even in believers and followers of His…the very problem we have created in the society that bases its laws on PUNISHMENT and REVENGE rather than a civil system that focuses on REDEMPTION and RESCUE.

• He said He came to set the Law back into its context.
• He said that the Law was not irrelevant to making choices.
• He said that there were evil men that would test the resolve of His followers to be known as men of peace.
• They would slap.
• They would mock.
• They would hurt.
• He said that His followers were to be characterized by a willingness to love, forgive and share.
• He said that He expected His new disciple recruits to know this was required.

If they wanted a violence movement that was to take Rome by force, they were in the wrong movement. He is the Prince of Peace – and He wanted nothing to do with a violent insurrection to get people to agree with Him.

• Yet, He would stand in the Temple and overturn the tables of moneychangers.
• He would offend leaders in the Temple and stand in their faces with the truth of the hardness of their hearts.
• He would not wimp out – but He would not use a fist to beat out or a sword to cut out what must be surrendered willingly – the human heart. Men and women must bow inside to the wooing of God’s Spirit. They should not be forced by sword into the Kingdom. It is His kindness that leads us to repentance (Romans 2:4)

Our tradition of the Christian church comes from the Brethren and Anabaptist movement. We as a church have our roots in the Progressive Brethren. I seldom mention it, because the debates that were so terribly important since 1520 somehow seem less relevant and more distant to a church that is set in the slow boil of modern immorality and apostasy. Every now and then it is important to inject a word or two about what IS important in our heritage – especially when it is misunderstood… even by our own people in the church.

Though we come from a family of believers that included pacifists – we are not among them. We don’t believe war is going anywhere anytime soon – and we don’t limit your personal choice to serve in the military or not. We are not PACIFISTS, but we are NON-RESISTANT. What does that mean? Well, we have understood it to mean that there IS a time we won’t fight – and those who are a part of us should know about when that is.

In the sixteenth century, the Catholic and Protestant wars raged in parts of Europe. Pope Julius II commissioned the beautiful but costly expansion of St. Peter’s Basilica into its present grand structure. Many wanted to help, but to raise the money in their parishes they began to essentially “sell salvation” in “indulgences” (I am oversimplifying this for time sake). Priests like Martin Luther pulled away from teachings like this, and valiantly championed the notion that the Bible clearly taught salvation was “by grace through faith” – a personal issue not offered exclusively through the church – and never offered at a price.

Tempers rose, and eventually armies rose to defend ideals. No one was completely right – as the introduction of war in the name of Jesus was an oxymoron. Villagers in Europe suffered as Catholic armies in the banner of the Cross swept through making them bow to Jesus and follow the papacy. In other months, that same village was swept through with Protestant armies that carried the banner of the Cross – and forced them to follow Jesus and denounce the Papacy or be executed. The Cross became a symbol of abuse rather than salvation.

The Anabaptist movement formed some communities that resisted the idea of joining a military force under the banner of the Cross. Some carried that a step further and refused all carnal warfare – or fighting in any military setting. Others argued that a fight was not the problem, but the idea of using a sword to represent force under the banner of the Cross was wrong. That continues to be our view. We won’t fight to get people to be Christians – of any sort. We believe the Gospel is about a work God does in the heart – not a work done in the field of battle.

Let me be clear: we will defend our country if called on to do so. We will defend our property, but we will not fight to force people to believe in Jesus, under the banner of the Cross. We just won’t. Though some very godly men and women disagree with us and believe it is wrong to defend property and country– we do not apply the individual character statements used of Jesus’ followers to our country or civil society. If we did, in our view, any criminal that was repentant would need to be summarily released – and we don’t think that is what Jesus was saying. We believe civil government was charged by God to hold the sword – and not in vain. We believe that Jesus wants us to be personally people of peace – but there is a context to that peaceful behavior –and that is our personal demeanor when living our daily lives. I want to offer grace to those who disagree, but I want to stand for a defense of what I believe the Scripture teaches.

Theft by negligence

Back in our text for this study, we can see that God DID want people to respect property. God wasn’t only concerned about deliberate theft – but about restoring property lost due to the negligence of one over their property. Restitution by negligent animal owner – animal eating from another’s field. God spoke through Moses in Exodus 22:5 “If a man lets a field or vineyard be grazed bare and lets his animal loose so that it grazes in another man’s field, he shall make restitution from the best of his own field and the best of his own vineyard. Letting your animal steal is stealing. God wanted people to respect the property of others – not use other people’s things to spare their own. In fact, God also spoke concerning recklessness specifically in relation to fire. He said in Exodus 22:6 “If a fire breaks out and spreads to thorn bushes, so that stacked grain or the standing grain or the field itself is consumed, he who started the fire shall surely make restitution. There were special laws of restitution for times when a neighbor loaned his animal to his neighbor and the animal was stolen, as in 22:7,  or the animal died as in 22:10-15. There were even judges impaneled for determining rightful ownership over stolen property in 22:8-9.

In all these cases, God was concerned with one thing: restoration of civil society. Retribution was not supposed to be about REVENGE, it was supposed to be about RECOVERY FOR THE VICTIM  and about REDEEMING RESPONSIBILITY for the wayward. Civil society that sets up a response to evil that includes these two primary principles serves its people well.

Fine, you say. But what does that have to do with me? Let me offer four personal applications:

First, admit that WHEN I AM SEEKING REVENGE I am not seeking God’s objective in my life. Lay it down. Cry out to Him about personal injustice, because seeking revenge will keep you distant from Him and eat you up inside.

Second, RESPECT other people’s property. When you are on the clock – your time belongs to the boss and the company. Do your job. Get off the phone and put the text messaging away. Do your job. Don’t play around with other employees. Don’t take home a few extras from the office. Do your job. Jesus is watching, and He knows the truth. Act like His eyes are like surveillance cameras – not that He doesn’t love you, but that He loves you like a responsible parent watching over their child.

Third, take the responsibility of personal property seriously. Don’t leave your things lying around in a way that tempts others to sin. If they take your things… seek a resolution that both settles the issue with you, and helps them learn the lesson and get past it.

Finally, remember that GOD MADE US – and we are HIS PROPERTY. When we live life for ourselves, we deny His right to us – and that is a tragic mistake!

America is in a fight over CIVIL BEHAVIOR. As 2012 opened, we are being challenged on many fronts to decide what is truly civil responsibility and what is individual responsibility. We have chosen in America to publically educate our children, but in spite of the hard work of many believing teachers and administrators – it has become an open season to draw our children into one battle over ever-changing morality after another.

•  Origins: We have long left behind the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial in Dayton, Tennessee – for the Bible is now assumed to hold no real accurate information about our origins and evolution is called a theory but given the hallowed position of fact.

• Sexual Purity: In many school districts, we have essentially left behind teaching sexual abstinence as an absolute cure for the spread of sexually transmitted diseases (in spite of the fact that when practiced it has a 100% effectiveness).

• Parental Authority: We have left behind the inviolable right of parental respect – citing a child’s right over their own body to receive contraception advice and devices, even to the exclusion of parental notification in most places in our country.

• Sanctity of Life: We have educated an entire generation through the contradiction of our laws that state a person causing the death of an unborn child outside of a clinic by wounding the mother is murder, but inside a women’s clinic is simple health care.

• Contracts: We have seen countless cases that upheld education as an absolute right of every child, whether they choose to work at their academics or not. In a number of notable cases in labor disputes, educational institutions have been forbidden to remove tenured teachers in spite of egregious violations and horrible records.

Dr. Stephen Anderson teaches philosophy at A.B. Lucas Secondary School in Ontario, Canada. His students … were about to start one on ethics. To jump start the discussion and to “form a baseline from which they could begin to ask questions about the legitimacy of moral judgments of all kinds,” Anderson shared with them a gruesome photo of Bibi Aisha, a teenage wife of a Taliban fighter in Afghanistan. When Bibi tried to get away from her abusive husband, her family caught her, cut off her nose and ears, and left her to die in the mountains. Only Bibi didn’t die. Somehow she crawled to her grandfather’s house, and was saved in an American hospital. Writing in Education Journal magazine, Anderson relates how he was sure that his students, “seeing the suffering of this poor girl of their own age, [they] would have a clear ethical reaction,” one they could talk about “more difficult cases.” But their response shocked Anderson. “[He] expected strong aversion [to it], … but that’s not what I got. Instead, they became confused . . . afraid to make any moral judgment at all. They were unwilling to criticize,” as he said, “any situation originating in a different culture. They said, ‘Well, we might not like it, but maybe over there it’s okay.’” Anderson calls their confusion and refusal to judge such child mutilation a moment of startling clarity, and indeed it is. He wonders if it stems not from too little education, but from too much multiculturalism and so-called “values education,” which is really just an excuse for moral relativism. Anderson writes, “While we may hope some [students] are capable of bridging the gap between principled morality and this ethically vacuous relativism, it is evident that a good many are not. For them, the overriding message is ‘never judge, never criticize, never take a position.’” Anderson wonders whether in our current educational system, we’re not producing ethical paralytics? Well, if the horrifying example of the students’ reaction in this case is any indication, Anderson already knows the answer. – Chuck Colson, Jan. 11, 2012

We are not picking on public school teachers, nor blaming the school systems for our shildren. This is just a simple observation – the schools that were intended to teach reading, writing and arithmetic have been drawn into a social engineering experiment run amok in many parts of our country – because we have left behind values that were once clearly part of the American fabric derived from the pages of the Bible. It is for this reason we are making this careful study of the Civil Code of Law in Exodus 21. We have seen that God wants civil society to ENCOURAGE VALUES that He set in individual RESPONSIBILITY and SOCIAL CONSCIENCE. He desires people to define maturity by a marked ability to take responsibility for themselves and their community. It is time for the church to be the clear voice of objective truth in a relative culture – because relativism is KILLING our society by WARPING our social conscience to accept wrong as right.

We have to remember that we are all in this together. We are ONE society, even when we don’t agree. How we act in civil society matters.

Babe Ruth had hit 714 home runs during his baseball career and was playing one of his last full major league games. It was the Braves versus the Reds in Cincinnati. But the great Ruth was no longer as agile as he had once been. He fumbled the ball and threw badly, and in one inning alone his errors were responsible for most of the five runs scored by Cincinnati. As the Babe walked off the field after the third out and headed toward the dugout, a crescendo of yelling and booing reached his ears. Just then a boy jumped over the railing onto the playing field. With tears streaming down his face, he threw his arms around the legs of his hero. Ruth didn’t hesitate for one second. He picked up the boy, hugged him, and set him down on his feet, patting his head gently. The noise from the stands came to an abrupt halt. Suddenly there was no more booing. In fact, hush fell over the entire park. In those brief moments, the fans saw two heroes: Ruth, who in spite of his dismal day on the field could still care about a little boy; and the small lad, who cared about the feelings of another human being. Both had melted the hearts of the crowd. Ted W. Engstrom, The Pursuit of Excellence, 1982, Zondervan Corporation, pp. 66-67.

The Civil Code helps to define both COMMUNITY responsibility and personal responsibility. In this section, we will see an important component of personal responsibility…

Key Principle: Responsibility includes not only what I mean to do (intention), but what happens because of what I do (outcome).

Today we will look at the balance of the passage we have been studying in two previous studies – at Exodus 21:18-19, 22-25, 28-36. I am skipping the passages we have taken on in previous studies of this passage to get to the last three areas of responsibility that we have not looked at thus far.

Exodus 21:18 “If men have a quarrel and one strikes the other with a stone or with his fist, and he does not die but remains in bed, 19 if he gets up and walks around outside on his staff, then he who struck him shall go unpunished; he shall only pay for his loss of time, and shall take care of him until he is completely healed…. 22 “If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. 23 “But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise… 28 “If an ox gores a man or a woman to death, the ox shall surely be stoned and its flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall go unpunished. 29 “If, however, an ox was previously in the habit of goring and its owner has been warned, yet he does not confine it and it kills a man or a woman, the ox shall be stoned and its owner also shall be put to death. 30 “If a ransom is demanded of him, then he shall give for the redemption of his life whatever is demanded of him. 31 “Whether it gores a son or a daughter, it shall be done to him according to the same rule. 32 “If the ox gores a male or female slave, the owner shall give his or her master thirty shekels of silver, and the ox shall be stoned. 33 “If a man opens a pit, or digs a pit and does not cover it over, and an ox or a donkey falls into it, 34 the owner of the pit shall make restitution; he shall give money to its owner, and the dead animal shall become his. 35 “If one man’s ox hurts another’s so that it dies, then they shall sell the live ox and divide its price equally; and also they shall divide the dead ox. 36 “Or if it is known that the ox was previously in the habit of goring, yet its owner has not confined it, he shall surely pay ox for ox, and the dead animal shall become his.

This sounds like a laundry list of laws – but it is much more. Look closer…We have seen that God desires respect for life, authority and freedom – and he allowed civil authorities the right to execute those who murder, hurt their parents or kidnap another person. We have seen that God has expressed His expectation that His people would respect contractual relationships in the workplace and in the domestic relationships of their lives… Now we go outside the house and workplace… we enter the society as a whole. These three areas of responsibility can apply to ANYWHERE and ANYTIME.

• What is responsibility as God sees it?
• How will I know if I am responsible in HIS EYES?
• What am I specifically responsible to DO in God’s value system?

First, I must take responsibility for personal reactions. Accidental collateral damage of fighting:

For a good word on responsibility for reactions, look at the words in the personal injury section of 21:18-25. There are two distinct areas defined in the passage:

Hurting someone in a conflict with them. Exodus 21:18 “If men have a quarrel and one strikes the other with a stone or with his fist, and he does not die but remains in bed, 19 if he gets up and walks around outside on his staff, then he who struck him shall go unpunished; he shall only pay for his loss of time, and shall take care of him until he is completely healed.

Two men get into a fight. One prevails. Either through fists or with the help of something grabbed during the fight, one man is left standing while the other is knocked off his feet. The law required the “winner” to be responsible for caring for the one he hurt by paying him for the time lost in work, caring directly for him until he is well. If the wound given is severe enough to cause death, he will be forced to flee to a refuge place.

Hurting someone else (collateral damage) in he process of a conflict. Exodus 21:22 “If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. 23 “But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

In the fight between the two men, a pregnant woman was inadvertently hurt. If the woman gave birth right after the struggle – the baby was to be examined to determine if any injury fell to the child. That injury was to be compensated – even up to the life itself.

The two cases both demonstrate clearly one underlying Biblical value:

I alone must be responsible for how I react to things that happen to me. I dare not drop into a “victim mode” without damaging my reputation and ignoring responsibility.

Responsibility is a LEARNED concept. Every stage of a child’s development is marked by their mastery of responsibility:

 In Living with Men, E. James Wilder points out each stage of the maturing process, and pushes us to make sure our little boys are mastering each stage toward manhood. He defines maturity as “fully developed for our age” which can be measured in stages by the way we master both “giving” and “receiving” life. He claims that there are five stages of a male’s life:

• Infant: where the boy largely receives without giving, but must learn to quiet himself. He must learn to synchronize his mind and learn to rest. He must learn to appropriately communicate needs in the most basic ways to those who can help him. The goal is a child that can laugh, rest and communicate well.
• Child: where the boy progressively learns to care for himself. He must learn to identify limitation, ask for help and explore what satisfies him each day. He must learn to give and receive freely. Eventually, he must learn to curb appetites, doing things he does not want to do for greater long term benefits. He must learn to connect cause and effect. He must learn where he is on the map of the family, and become self sufficient in care.
• Adult: where the man learns to care for others at the same time as caring for himself. He must learn to take joy from caring for others and protect the needy ones around him. He must not be intimidated, but should not become arrogant. He wants his personal effects to reflect his personal style and character. His goal is to truly understand his impact on others and gain satisfaction from his part of history.
• Father: where the man learns to give life without receiving. This is the peak of a man’s strength and productivity – and it must be balanced with learning sensitivity to those around him. He can express his feelings (“I love my child more than life!”) and he can portray God’s attributes to his family. The goal is to learn to guide others and give joyfully – offering strength and life to his family.
• Elder: where the man offers the care once given to his family to a broader community. He is not simply focused on his own biological offspring, but the greater good of the community. He builds trust through transparency. He offers a history to those around him and finds a recognized guiding place to others. His goal is to help the community grow up and raise a community the way parents raise children.

I mention all this to state clearly that learning responsibility requires reliable guides. We must understand that every adult is, in effect, a parent to the generation that follows them. We are in this CIVIL SOCIETY together. It is why the struggle for values is such a vital one. A boy unprepared with be a man defeated. A man defeated will leave a trail nearly impassable to those who follow him. We see it everywhere in our society… this is a battle worth fighting. It is for the future – and it has been placed on our shoulders by God Himself.

God clearly says that when someone attacked another – The attacked will also be responsible for the response. They should not seek to blame anyone else. The other may have been wrong for attacking, but the attacked must learn to control impulses and reactions and act in a mature fashion. Following this principle, I should recall that when I am defending myself, I must be careful to use only the force necessary to bring the situation under control. I must always be responsible to watch out for collateral damage. I am not only to DRIVE defensively, I am to LIVE circumspectly – recognizing that my behavior affects others in ways beyond my comprehension.

• Do you really believe that Moses knew taking off his shoes and listening at the burning bush would result in God opening the revelation of how the world was made?

• Do you think that Abraham recognized that choosing to follow Sarah’s path into her bondwoman’s tent and father a child would lead to an intractable conflict in the Near East three thousand years later?

• DO you truly think that the Apostle Paul could grasp, with all his Biblical knowledge, that his imprisonment in Rome would open the door to the vital Epistles to the Philippians, Colossians, and Ephesians?

It is hard for us to imagine how events are going to play out in the future – so we must act carefully and thoughtfully. An essential sign of maturity is life “handled with care” based on a circumspect view. Look at the passage again for a second area we must learn responsibility.

I am sure our kids don’t realize how their actions wear us out. I love the story about the mom and dad with a son who was a freshman in college. He blew off his freshman year. He wasn’t very responsible, didn’t make good grades, squandered his money, & finally came back home. His parents told him, “If you go back to school you’ll have to pay your own way.” So he had to work that summer & not go on the family vacation. That was part of his punishment. The family went to Greece that year & the mom sent him a postcard, “Dear Son,” she wrote. “Today we stood on the mountains where ancient Spartan women sacrificed their defective children. Wish you were here.” (Melvin Newland, sermon central illustrations).

Second, I must take responsibility for acknowledged oversight. The more I own, the more I am responsible for. Damage by owned beasts:

Exodus 21:28 “If an ox gores a man or a woman to death, the ox shall surely be stoned and its flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall go unpunished. 29 “If, however, an ox was previously in the habit of goring and its owner has been warned, yet he does not confine it and it kills a man or a woman, the ox shall be stoned and its owner also shall be put to death. 30 “If a ransom is demanded of him, then he shall give for the redemption of his life whatever is demanded of him. 31 “Whether it gores a son or a daughter, it shall be done to him according to the same rule. 32 “If the ox gores a male or female slave, the owner shall give his or her master thirty shekels of silver, and the ox shall be stoned.

Here the law provides for a statement of responsibility over what I have taken in oversight. If a man owns something – he becomes responsible for the maintenance necessary to keep it from harming innocents. If he is found lax in this, he is forced to pay a tremendous price for his irresponsibility. If the property destroys another’s property – the damage must be compensated. If the property causes loss of lie, it cost the owner his life. This had the effect of deterring an owner from laziness in regards to maintaining his property well. The second form of this rule is…

Exodus 21:35 “If one man’s ox hurts another’s so that it dies, then they shall sell the live ox and divide its price equally; and also they shall divide the dead ox. 36 “Or if it is known that the ox was previously in the habit of goring, yet its owner has not confined it, he shall surely pay ox for ox, and the dead animal shall become his.

If my property harms another’s property through no real fault of either owner – the two owners will need to share the loss. This acknowledges liability without malice.

Since few of us are oxen owners, what is the practical help for modern living from this archaic rule? First, we are reminded that we are to increase our diligence as we increase our holdings. We must be sure when we BUY something, that we can MAINTAIN what we bought – or it will become potentially harmful to us and others.

Second, the principles here demand that we understand how our behaviors affect others – and ourselves. We must gain control over our own emotional structure, then we must care for how we cast a shadow on other lives. I recall reading in None of These Diseases, where Dr. S.I. McMillen says, “Medical science recognizes that emotions such as fear, sorrow, envy, resentment and hatred are responsible for the majority of our sicknesses. Estimates vary from 60 to 100 percents.” One patient was told by his doctor, “If you don’t cut out your resentments, I may have to cut out your intestinal tract.” (sermon central illustrations). We have to gain mastery over our own feelings, then watch out for those around us…

When you drive a poorly maintained vehicle – you put others on the road in danger. We don’t often think of it that way, but it is true. Many accidents are caused by irresponsible drivers operating unsafe vehicles. This standard leads us into our third area of responsibility….

Third, I must act in a way that accepts responsibility for public safety. Damage by negligence:

Exodus 21:33 “If a man opens a pit, or digs a pit and does not cover it over, and an ox or a donkey falls into it, 34 the owner of the pit shall make restitution; he shall give money to its owner, and the dead animal shall become his.

Two important truths are evident from these verses:

• I am responsible to clean up my own messes and leave the world safer after me.

• I must see myself as responsible even if I didn’t MEAN to have it happen – because my actions caused part of the problem.

It may be hard for us to grasp, but a view of the future is important for real maturity. Mature people try to look at what MAY happen if we don’t act responsibly – immature people just don’t think ahead. I was moved when I read what Stephen Covey wrote about Viktor Frankl, the Austrian psychologist who survived the death camps of Nazi Germany. Frankl made a startling discovery about why some survived the horrible conditions and some did not. “He looked at several factors – health, vitality, family structure, intelligence, survival skills. Finally he concluded that none of these factors was primarily responsible. The single most significant factor, he realized, was a sense of future vision – the impelling conviction of those who were to survive that they had a mission to perform, some important work left to do. Survivors of POW camps in Vietnam and elsewhere have reported similar experiences: a compelling, future-oriented vision is the primary force that kept many of them alive.” – Stephen Covey, First Things First, p 103

That is significant. The responsible develop the ability to peer into the future. That offers HOPE when they are in trials, and VIGILANCE when they need to clean up after themselves.

Philip Yancey, in Reaching for the Invisible God describes the terrible misunderstanding of responsibility prevalent in our society this way…

“When Princess Diana died in an automobile accident, a minister was interviewed and was asked the question “How can God allow such a terrible tragedy?” And I loved his response. He said, “Could it have had something to do with a drunk driver going ninety miles an hour in a narrow tunnel? Just How, exactly, was God involved.”

In our weakness and wavering faith, God often gets blamed for things. And we need to be careful about that. Years ago, boxer, Ray “Boom Boom” Mancini, killed a Korean opponent with a hard right hand to the head. At the press conference after the Korean’s death, Mancini said, “sometimes I wonder why God does the things he does.”

In a letter to Dr. Dobson, a young woman asked this anguished question, “Four years ago, I was dating a man and became pregnant. I was devastated. I asked God, “Why hav eyou allowed this to happen to me?”

Susan Smith, the south Carolina mother a couple years ago who pushed her two sons into a lake to drown and then blamed a fictional car-jacker for the deed, wrote in her confession: “I dropped to the lowest point when I allowed my children to go down that ramp into the water without me. I took off running and screaming, ‘Oh God! Oh God, no! What have I done? Why did you let this happen?”

Now the question remains, exactly what role did God play in a boxer beating his opponent to death, a teenage couple giving into temptation in the back seat of a car, or a mother drowning her children?”

The thread that bound all these quotes was the misunderstanding in our society of what it means to be RESPONSIBLE. God defined responsibility in His Word. Responsibility includes not only what I mean to do (intention), but what happens because of what I do (outcome). With God’s marvelous freedom – where He has opened the door to me making choices… there comes an awesome set of responsibilities.

America loves the MUSH GOD.

Nicholas Van Hoffman wrote about him: “The Mush God has been known to appear to millionaires on golf courses. He appears to politicians at ribbon-cutting ceremonies and to clergymen speaking the invocation on national TV at either Democratic or Republican conventions. The Mush God has no theology to speak of, being a Cream of Wheat divinity. The Mush God has no particular credo, no tenets of faith, nothing that would make it difficult for believer and nonbeliever alike to lower one’s head when the temporary chairman tells us that Reverend, Rabbi, Father, or Mufti, or So-and-So will lead us in an innocuous, harmless prayer, for this god of public occasions is not a jealous god. You can even invoke him to start a hooker’s convention and he/she or it won’t be offended. God of the Rotary, God of the Optimists, Protector of the Buddy System, The Mush God is Lord of the secular ritual, of the necessary but hypocritical forms and formalities that hush the divisive and derisive. The Mush God is a serviceable god whose laws are chiseled not on tablets but written on sand, open to amendment, qualification and erasure. This is a god that will compromise with you, make allowances and declare all wars holy, all peaces hallowed. SOURCE: Nicholas Van Hoffman as quoted by Adrian Rogers in Ten Secrets for a Successful Family, pp. 29-30.

It may seem harsh to open with the idea that this MUSH GOD Divinity is what our country truly believes – but it is a long standing truth of the ancient world that most major cultures developed their own gods, and we are no different. Be he Molech, Baal, Anat, Yarikh – or she Ashtarote, Hathor or Diana… each culture shaped a god or goddess that made them comfortable… and modern Americans have clearly done the same. Sadly, when we call upon this “god” of our own making, many less discerning people – even some believers in Jesus – think we are addressing the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of the Bible.

The importance of really living the Christian life is illustrated in the life of the famous author Mark Twain. Church leaders were largely to blame for his becoming hostile to the Bible and the Christian faith. As he grew up, he knew elders and deacons who owned slaves and abused them. He heard men using foul language and saw them practice dishonesty during the week after speaking piously in church on Sunday. He listened to ministers use the Bible to justify slavery. Although he saw genuine love for the Lord Jesus in some people, including his mother and his wife, he was so disturbed by the bad teaching and poor example of church leaders, that he became bitter toward the things of God. (sermon central illustrations).

How do you know we are NOT living for the “mush god”? We know by the standard of truth and the standard of ethical behavior. If one is addressing the God of the Bible, they will address Him in a way consistent with what His Word teaches. If one is truly Christian – they will live by those standards. The Bible is neither silent on the character of God, nor His unchanging standard of truth and right. We can know God according to the Bible, and that would delight Him for us to know, love, obey and follow Him.

Key Principle: God gave the Law in part to help us identify real values that emanate from Him! The Law reflects His character and His cares – what He thinks is important (which is what defines what truly IS important!)

Where is God found, according to the Bible? His “fingerprints” are found in nature, but He is seen clearest in His Word. That is why we are passionate about studying the Bible. When we were studying last time in Exodus 21, we found some truths about what the God of Abraham cares about, and what standard He uses for “what is right.”  Last time we picked out of this text four specifics that God demonstrated were essential in living properly in civil society:

• We saw that God expects civil society to respect His image stamp and breath in man, and therefore He wants men to understand the “sanctity of life”. He made a rule that civil government had the right to terminate the life of one who took another’s life – both as a deterrent to a would be murderer, and as a statement of His Divine LOVE OF LIFE.

• We saw that God expects civil society to respect the positions of authority like that of parents, because He placed us in the family we came into. It was His choice and not ours. To reject a respect for their position was to reject HIS POSITION of authority. God made an onerous penalty to protect parents from both physical and verbal attack by children. God held the family unit as absolutely essential to the success of civil society. He allowed civil government to execute someone for their overt disrespect and rebellion against their parents. Though that law is not in operation in our society, there is no question that God wanted us to know HE DESIRES RESPECTFUL PEOPLE.

• We saw that God expects civil society to respect the freedom of other men and women – and even allowed civil government to terminate one who kidnapped or held captive one against their will. God made a statement against any who would not allow BASIC FREEDOM.

• Finally, we saw that God expected His people to respect CONTRACTS and be people of their word – especially when it came to their financial or economic life. They were forbidden to OVERBORROW by law, and were always allowed to sell their personal services to one another in exchange for contractual remuneration – but it was never SLAVERY in the way we used the term in the antebellum south of the United States – that was NEVER upheld in the Bible. The term slave meant indentured servant, and was an employment strategy of the ancient economy.

Today, I want to keep looking at the CIVIL CODE of Law and investigate another kid of contract called the BRIDE PRICE contract. When you read the word CONCUBINE, your mind is rightly reminded that you are reading about a different time and place than where you live in the modern period. God didn’t call modern people to lock into this form of reproduction  – but He did regulate carefully an ongoing practice that was active among the ancients… and in that He related timeless truths about what He cared about. Read a few verses that we skipped in the last study from Exodus 21…

21:7 “If a man sells his daughter as a female slave, she is not to go free as the male slaves do. 8 “If she is displeasing in the eyes of her master who designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He does not have authority to sell her to a foreign people because of his unfairness to her. 9 “If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her according to the custom of daughters. 10 “If he takes to himself another woman, he may not reduce her food, her clothing, or her conjugal rights. 11 “If he will not do these three things for her, then she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money.

On the first reading of this text, it sounds like you call up “Dial a girl” and order from a catalogue a wife. In our oversexed modern world, it does not quickly occur to us that the entire system was not based on the lust of men, but on the very opposite impulse – the value and protection of a woman.

William Luck: Modern people, when reading “bride price” passages in the Law, often jump to the conclusion that to pay for the bride amounts to her having been sold, and that this reduces her to the level of a slave….( It is really better to translate the word “bride price” rather than “dowry,” as a dowry was given by the father of the bride to the bride as a present when she left the nuclear family, whereas a bride price was paid by the groom to the father of the bride. …some fathers, like Laban, mismanaged the bride price (Gen. 31:15).

Let me explain the passage this way, verse by verse. Before I do, let me set the scene back into THEIR WORLD and THEIR TIME:

Imagine a tribe long ago that was brutally overthrown by a ruler they had come to trust. Imagine that ruler placing them in bondage and taking from them the opportunity to follow the teachings of their fathers – as they became the forced labor pool of a dictator. Fast forward ten generations, when no one recalls freedoms of their ancestors long before. Imagine that God called a man and his family to revive His witness and turn God’s people out of the land of the dictator. All of them had been slaves – so the only economic reality they knew was indentured service. They didn’t use money, they used barter, and the services of their hands and feet became a trade commodity like paper money or credit cards. They were raised with few luxuries, but came into great wealth just before they broke ranks with their captors. They had jewelry, fine cloth, gold and silver – but no place to spend it and no real idea how to value it. They were used to attaining what they needed by offering services of their hands and feet, for specific periods of time to barter for their needs.

They were from large tribes of a single family, but the numbers had now grown outward to the point that little blood was common to them – they were very distant cousins. In order to meet the demands of a very high infant mortality rate, as well as a life expectancy that was averaged a bit over half of our average length – the family and marriage customs had developed in a way that is not only foreign to us – but entirely unnecessary to us. As a result, they had multiple wives – since they needed five children to raise enough crops in the field to feed six. There was no way out of poverty that did not include bearing many children – most of whom would not live. They had differing contractual relationships designed to have children. They weren’t living in a world where they were choosing a “date” based on beauty, but mating based on probability that mother and child will survive the process of child bearing.

In short, they were not in our sex crazed, convenience oriented, sanitary, long life-spanned world. They lived in a harsh and brutal landscape on a forty year journey, followed by an embattled desperate people who were trying to assert strength among a foreign population in their old homeland.

Applying these kinds of texts takes WORK – but it is well worth the effort –FOR IT SHOWS US HOW OUR FATHER IN HEAVEN THINKS. If we don’t work for it, all we will do is lose ourselves in the curiosity of the differences.

As many of you know I lead travel programs in different countries each year. When I first started taking young people, I asked them: “What have you noticed that is so different about this place?” Invariably they would tell me about toilets. In Turkey, the hole in the floor was usually much more than most young ladies could figure out without explanation. In Israel, the two handled flush – a small flush for liquids and a large flush for solids – was a novelty. In the end, I tried to get them to understand how these simple differences revealed a difference in values. Americans valued sanitary conditions that meant flushing away refuse with as little odor as possible. Turks in villages never used water for something so superfluous (in their view). Haul a bucket to get the water, and your use of it will change over time! Israelis secure water and don’t waste it – because it means life to them. By looking at the different ways a bathroom was made, we could see VALUE STATEMENTS by the people.

With that in mind, let’s dissect the verses and place them in context – on our way to finally applying them to our VALUE SYSTEM.

21:7 “If a man sells his daughter as a female slave, she is not to go free as the male slaves do.

“Tom needed a new plow to break the ground for the crops of next season. His was simply broken and beyond repair. Tom approached Ed, the local blacksmith and plow maker in the tent down the way. He knew that Ed had three girls from his wife, but she seemed unable to give him sons – and he needed sons to grow his business into a place where both he and his wife would be secure in their old age. Tom pulled Ed aside and offered to present his young daughter Suzie as a second wife, to bear children with Ed. In this way, Ed would supply the plow, and Tom would supply his daughter as payment so that Tom would have crops next season, and Ed could grow his ability to have a secure business when he was too old to care for his family. Suzie was considered a BRIDE OF PRICE or “concubine” – not the same as Ed’s first wife that was chosen by his parents for him.

The law in 21:7 was intended to apply protection for Suzie. This BRIDE OF PRICE contract was made to be a permanent arrangement – unlike the six year temporary climate of the male indentured worker in the verses of Exodus 21 just preceding these. It was still contractual between two families, but this contract did not have the same kind of severance required in the earlier passage.  That way, Suzie’s way was secure in the future as well. Ed had to work many hours to get Suzie, and his desire for her was probably based far more on his need for sons than his desire for a new partner with which to procreate. That may sound strange – but we are probably projecting many ideas into the relationship of men and women that were not a part of the lifestyles of ancient Israelites. It is for this reason – living on the edge of starvation with little security aside from these practices, that the arrangement was normal and un-offensive to both Suzie and Ann – the other wife of Ed. Ann needed to know who would care for her after her girls and Ed were gone – it was a real consideration.

21:8 “If she is displeasing in the eyes of her master who designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He does not have authority to sell her to a foreign people because of his unfairness to her.

If Ed finished the work on the plow and took Suzie home to the tent where Ed and Ann lived with the three girls – Suzie entered the tent to bear children with as his second wife. This was all lawful and completely moral in this time. To shade it as less than moral is wrong – God hadn’t told them NOT to at this point. Now Ed and Suzie try to have a child together, attempting multiple times. Meanwhile, Suzie is young, contentious, stubborn and makes Ed’s household life terrible. Ann cannot take it. Ann’s girls are being infected with her stubborn willfulness. Ed decided that Suzie was not a suitable woman to raise his son – if they ever had one – and he and Ann want out of the agreement. The law provided that he could not simply FIRE HER and  “cut her loose” to send her home. He couldn’t get the plow back, because the deal was legally consummated on both sides. Ed was entitled to get something back for all his labor used to secure Suzie, but there were rules. First, he was to present her to be bought back by Tom – her original nuclear family. Under no circumstances could Ed make any deal to exchange goods or services for her to any other group of people – Ed was to protect Suzie for Tom’s family – it was part of the original agreement. If Ed wasn’t discerning enough to choose the right woman, he was bound to take a substantial loss because of his poor ability to choose – and the shame brought to Suzie was stated as Ed’s unfairness to her – his fault was choosing poorly. Tom was not shamed for Suzie’s character – for Tom had little interaction with his daughter on a daily basis as she grew up.

21:9 “If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her according to the custom of daughters.

If Ed made the plow to get a wife for Joe, his son – Ed had no right to treat her as property, but is to treat her as a daughter – in spite of the fact that he may have worked long and hard to secure her for Joe. She was to be Joe’s wife, and her body was to be respected as such. Ed made the payment as a dad, and he was to act as a father to Suzie at all times.

21:10 “If he takes to himself another woman, he may not reduce her food, her clothing, or her conjugal rights.

If Ed and Ann have decided not to keep Suzie in the home, Ed may send a message to Tom to offer her back to him for a part of the BRIDE PRICE. In the meantime, the clock is still ticking for Ed and Ann to get a son. If Ed is able to make another plow for Jose in exchange for his daughter to be a BRIDE OF PRICE wife, he must care for Tom’s daughter Suzie while Tom prepares to take her home. Since Suzie has already been in a home and rejected – her best option now is to go back to her father’s house with children that will increase her dad’s net worth and work force. As a result, the law provided that Ed could not deny her food, clothing and even sex – that she may bring home a child to her father Tom’s house – that will increase his family’s asset value. Ed must care for her until Tom redeems her without exception or excuse.

Ed’s decision have more than one wife was allowed under the Law, but would be incredibly expensive to do. As a result, he may be tempted to tighten up rations and restrict the family budget to take on another second wife, but he was not allowed to do so.

21: 11 “If he will not do these three things for her, then she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money.

If Ed refused to care completely for Suzie during the time her family was attempting to redeem her,  Suzie would have the right, under the law, to leave Ed and return to Tom at his family home with no need to pay anything back to Ed on the plow.

Our culture has but one system for attaining a wife – and it is primarily based on the relationship between the MAN AND THE WOMAN that choose to be married. The ancients, and many other cultures today are based primarily between the MAN’S PARENTS AND THE WOMAN’S PARENTS – arranged marriages. There is often an economic relationship in these cultures between marriage and status or finance. Ironically, the concubine wife or BRIDE OF PRICE was the wife chosen in ancient society MOST LIKE our way of choosing – the man chose for himself. The NORM of marriage was a young woman chosen by PARENTS of the groom.

Our values and ways of doing things are relatively recent. For instance, a man that didn’t take his new wife on a honeymoon today would be considered incredibly CHEAP, denying her a basic GIVEN in our society. Yet, this practice is largely POST VICTORIAN.

Does Exodus 21 INFORM THE VALUES OF modern families? The answer is a resounding YES!

First, God was keenly interested in development of wholesome families. He was aware of the needs of the people to procreate, but He set strict boundaries around COMMITTING ADULTERY. Fidelity matters to God – fidelity of heart, fidelity of hands and feet, fidelity of eyes…That means, sexual purity was always a part of God’s thinking – even in the polygamist system. Those who were married were specified and contractual – it was not a “one night stand” license.

Second, Women were to be protected by civil society because God said so! God was not willing to leave it up to human ingenuity to devise a rights system – but made the offspring of every type of wife full sons and daughters, and the protection of every woman’s needs a priority. The charge that the Bible values were to subjugate women as slaves is not valid, and does not reflect God’s heart at all. God made women. God loves women. God made laws to protect women – that needs to be clear.

Third, Before a man could “have” a woman as his wife, he had to show he was willing to earn the right to be a husband. What a concept! She was not to allow him the entitlement of her procreation unless and until he took all the steps to earn her covenant relationship. Like Jacob worked for Rachel for seven years, he was not simply “buying” a wife as much as he was compensating Laban for his loss when she would leave Laban’s home – underscoring her value to the home.. At the same time, Laban had ample opportunity to see to it that Jacob was truly responsible and hard working before entrusting his daughter to Jacob. In that story, Laban cheated Jacob and substituted Leah – causing Jacob to work another raft of years for Rachel. When the second wife was added to the family, Jacob still had full responsibility to care for Leah, if he wanted to please God. The Law was not yet given – but the Law revealed God’s value system – men should not be able to take from women without the protections of a family and having to work for the right.

Fourth, God placed protective boundaries around women before men in power in their society. He said neither a daughter nor a daughter in law were allowed to be treated as a wife. This law made sexual contact illegal and emotional contact within specific boundaries. Women workers in the home were to be treated like a daughter (Exod. 21:9). Deuteronomy later (21:15) limited disinheritance of an unloved woman. They could not be attacked by the man through disinheriting her children, etc.

Fifth, God was deeply concerned with the reputation of a wife, and told men they should have that value as well. In later codes of law, Numbers 5 and Deuteronomy 23 relate great fines against a man who tarnished his wife’s reputation. A smear against her reputation brought a one hundred month fine and the prohibition of divorce in the future. The divorce option of the Bible had little to do with the casual way we handle such things in our society.

In Numbers 5, there was a law for how a man could bring his wife before God if he thought she was unfaithful in relation to the marriage bed. I only want to mention one aspect of this complicated passage to help illustrate God’s concern with her reputation. He could accuse, but the law said: “if she is guilty…the man shall be free from guilt.” The guilt referred to was simple – if he was wrong he tarnished her reputation – and God was concerned that men protect the reputation of their wives.

Sixth, women had unmitigated rights under the law – apart from any “good old boy” network.  Exodus 21 revealed four in 21:10,26-27. These included three things “he may not reduce”  – food, clothing and sex. These also implied a fourth RIGHT- his presence. He could not offer these three in an absentee position. Much later, in 1 Corinthians 7:3, Paul admonished husbands to show their wives “due benevolence,” which, in the context, certainly means to “grant sexual intercourse.” Other protections afforded her included the freedom she had to LEAVE if he harmed her physically in a way that was demonstrable: “And if a man strikes the eye of his male or female servant and destroys it, he shall let him go free on account of his eye And if he knocks out a tooth of his male or female slave, he shall let him go free on account of his tooth. She was not obligated to be beaten out of some unusual twisting of the Bible that a man could beat her to the floor. She was protected by God – that was always His way.

Let’s make it abundantly clear to every believer today:

• Our God is not the Mush God on the issue of sexual purity. If you want to sleep around, don’t call yourself a Christian – you are a Mushian – for you serve a made up Mush god.

• Our God is not the Mush God on the issue of female protections. If you want a license to slap her around – don’t call yourself a Christian – you are Mushian– for you serve a made up Mush god.

• Our God is not the Mush God on the issue of choosing a man well, ladies. If you feel so poor about your own self image that you only believe you can “keep him” by giving him what is not his to have – don’t call yourself a Christian– you are a Mushian – for you serve a made up Mush god.

• Our God is not the Mush God on the issue of abusing power over people who you should be protecting in your home. If you want to play with people’s bodies because you have the power to keep their mouth shut – don’t call yourself a Christian – you are a Mushian – for you serve a made up Mush god.

Christians need to wake up to the reality of the way they treat people. We need this MUCH MORE than some new class on evangelism or some new night to go on door to door visitation. Our testimony is in DEEDS that match CLEAR WORDS:

Pastor Steven Chapman wrote: I heard recently of a business owner who, as a seeker, had employed scores of Christians in his company. He watched them like a hawk. “You know, I was naturally drawn to God by observing Christian workers who were conscientious and kind and thorough and aggressive on the job,” he said. “But I’ll tell you what really impressed me. One day a guy who I knew to be a fresh convert asked if he could see me after work. I agreed to meet with him, but later in the day I started to worry that this young religious zealot might be coming to try to convert me, too.” “I was surprised when he came in my office with his head hanging low and said to me, ’Sir, I’ll only take a few minutes, but I’m here to ask your forgiveness. Over the years I’ve worked for you I’ve done what a lot of other employees do, like borrowing a few company products here and there. And I’ve taken some extra supplies; I’ve abused telephone privileges; and I’ve cheated the time clock now and then. “’But I became a Christian a few months ago and it’s real – not the smoke and mirror stuff. In gratitude for what Christ has done for me and in obedience to Him, I want to make amends to you and the company for the wrongs I’ve done. So could we figure out a way to do that? If you have to fire me for what I’ve done, I’ll understand. I deserve it. Or, if you want to dock my pay, dock it whatever figure you think is appropriate. If you want to give me some extra work to do on my own time, that would be okay, too, I just want to make things right with God and between us.’” Well they worked things out. And the business owner said that this conversation made a deeper spiritual impact on him than anything else ever had. It was the single most impressive demonstration of true Christianity he had ever witnessed. What was it that made this new believer so contagious? Was it a clever new gospel presentation? Was it a well-rehearsed testimony? Obviously not. It was merely a genuine and humble admission of wrongdoing along with a willingness to make it right. It was consistent Christianity.

God gave the Law in part to help us identify real values that emanate from Him! The Bible isn’t outdated and irrelevant, because sin is nothing new. It isn’t so hard to understand, but it is impossible to follow if we don’t truly have a relationship with Him!

In the next few studies, we will be examining the CIVIL CODE of Scripture. It is easy to shy away from these passages. Some dismiss them, because they were given long ago to our “older brother” Israel – believers from before our “Age of Grace”. Still others, seem to poke in and out of the texts of the Torah to justify some modern political ideal – abortion, capital punishment, etc. Yet when pressed they quickly retreat when the Torah says something that offends their sensibilities – like the issue of regulation of slavery. The point of studying the Civil Code, as with all the Law of God, is to recall the areas He cares about, and the principles by which He judges something right or wrong. We are not “under these laws” to keep them, but they are given to us as EXAMPLES as Paul reminds:  (1 Corinthians 10:11) “Now these things happened to them as an example, and they were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come. 12 Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed that he does not fall.”

The Law, when given, had several purposes – most prominent among them was the gathering into a nation a tribe after ten generations of slavery in Egypt. They knew how to take orders, but lacked the insights to be able to form a nation – so God did it for them.

What do we do with the law? We take timeless principles from it. In fact, what we will be looking at in the Civil Code of Exodus and Numbers are not simply individual codes of conduct, though there certainly are some there. What we will search out are the underlying principles of SOCIETAL STANDARDS – what God said made a civil authority and civil society.

Before we begin, let me admit something… we live in a mess. Right (by Biblical definition) has become wrong (by popular sentiment). We are being fed a whole new set of moral rules to replace our Biblical based societal code. Killing babies is not bad if done for good reasons like a woman’s personal convenience, but killing whales is always bad. Sex before marriage is normal, but smoking indoors is intrinsically immoral. I believe that soon, you will not recognize the foundational moral code of the Bible in the rules. It is for that reason I refuse to skip this section of the Word, but will camp here as long as it takes to reset the boundaries on what God called a civil society. I will challenge assumptions of our modern “freedoms” when the Word outlines a better path. It will be uncomfortable at times, but I will do my best not to allow the attack on truth we have been subject to make these messages negative- for that will not help. Let’s get started…

The Little Prince is a novella first published in 1943, and has become the most read and most translated book from an original French language story. It has been translated into more than 250 languages, and more than 200 million copies have been sold worldwide, ranking it among the best-selling books ever published. It is a creative story. A narrator wove a tale from his childhood, when he attempted to draw a boa constrictor that was eating an elephant – but adults around him didn’t see it. He drew a second picture to clarify the first, but they were even more disturbed by that one. Frustrated, the boy decided to pilot a plane and leave – but he eventually crashed in the Sahara desert. In the aftermath of the crash, the boy met the little prince, who seemed to understand his drawings without any explanation and requested the boy to draw a sheep. Not knowing how to draw a sheep, the boy drew a box, claiming it held a sheep inside. The little prince was gleeful at the result. The little prince’s home was an asteroid called B-612, about the size of a house, with three volcanoes, a rose, and a few other objects. The Prince spent his days caring for his little planet, pulling out baobab trees that were constantly trying to take root there. Before the various episodes of the novella unfold, there is a simple line with a profound meaning:

“It’s a question of discipline,” the little prince told me later on.  “When you’ve finished washing and dressing each morning, you must tend your planet.”  ~Antoine de Saint-Exupéry, The Little Prince, 1943, translated from French by Richard Howard

Discipline… tend… Responsibility… these are terms every decent parent on the planet wants to build into their children. We see responsibility as a benchmark of maturity. In a world awash with victims, we want our children to stand up and take full responsibility for their actions – and move forward in their lives.

Some of you are tugging hard because you feel responsible. The good news to those who HUNGER to be responsible is this: You got it from YOUR CREATOR. God intended His children to be people who took responsibility for their actions. They were not to do so to EARN His love, but to demonstrate the character of His true child. God wanted family likeness. He set guardrails up to show us what He considered important areas to discipline ourselves to tame. That was the basis for the Torah – the Law of God given to the Jewish people at Sinai and during their desert journey.

In a recent study, we examined what we called “The Core Value System” set forth in what is popularly known as the “Ten Commandments”. These set the tone for the whole of the Civil Code of Law – found in ten chapters of Exodus and Numbers. As we begin that code of civility – let’s recall the basic standards. Remember, as we have seen in our past studies, to love and serve God effectively, we need to know what God values, too. For the sake of jogging the memory, let’s recall that the commands fall into three sets:

Vertical Commands

The first 4 commandments we studied dealt with our relationship with God, because we are to love God first. . . These are the VERTICAL commands.

• Standard 1: No other gods before Me. Exclusivity: God said: “I have the absolute right to your undivided loyalty.” (20:2,3).

• Standard 2: Do not make an idol or likeness to worship. Identity: Do not try to shape Me in to your understanding or box Me in to your molds (4-6).

• Standard 3: Do not use my name in vain. Value: Regard My name as high and respect even reference to My Person as important! (7).

• Standard 4: Keep the Sabbath holy. Perspective: My boundaries are the ones that matter – since everything was created by Me for My purpose. (8-11).

Horizontal Commands

The first 3 commandments we studied dealt with our relationship with one another, because our love for God should prompt us to observe boundaries of respect.

• Standard 5: Honor your father and mother. Position: I placed you in the position of life under the authorities of your life. To reject them is to reject My rule. Respect the POSITIONS even when the PEOPLE don’t earn the respect!

• Standard 6: Do not kill. Sanctity of Life: My image in man, and my “spirit breath” makes a man significant. It may not be breached without specific direction from Me. Do not plan and deliberately kill another human being (13). Life is sacred, and is diminished in importance by murder.

• Standard 7: Do not commit adultery. Intimacy: Violation of the sacred circle of your sexual intimacy may not be breached. Remain loyal to your marriage covenant (14). Promises and vows are important and must not be easily passed off. The sexual gift was especially purposed and has specific parameters.

CONTENTMENT LAWS:

The final three are called “contentment laws” and deal with my inner self – because they are caused by attitudes of discontent:

• Standard 8: Do not steal. Contentment in possessions: Don’t use your HANDS to gain advantages I didn’t give you. I give you the time, talent and treasure I want you to have. (15).

• Standard 9: Do not bear false witness. Contentment in words: Don’t use your TONGUE to gain advantage. (16).

• Standard 10: Do not covet. Contentment in heart: settle yourself thankfully on what I allow you to earn and have. (17).

With these basic standards in mind, God then rolled out to Moses the standard of judgment that was to be given to a whole society – and particularly to the leaders who sat as judges over the people, in the earshot of all the people. What does it mean to be a RESPONSIBLE SOCIETY?

Key Principle: God’s intention was to build a society based on personal responsibility and communal protection, where individual freedoms were protected by societal boundaries.

21:1 “Now these are the ordinances (mishpatim) which you are to set before them:

In this study, let’s look at TWO of the basic responsibilities as ask “What does God expect from a Civil Society?”

Death Penalty Cases: Taking responsibility for life relationships in our JUDICIAL SYSTEM (21:12-17).    

Any society must have limits on behavior. In the most extreme cases, communities are forced to permanently remove bad influences in order to protect the rest. That seems logical, but these laws are based on something much deeper – they are God’s Word to men. In this passage of Civil Code of Law, God offered three specific death penalty statutes:

1. Premeditated murder

21:12 “He who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death. 13 “But if he did not lie in wait for him, but God let him fall into his hand, then I will appoint you a place to which he may flee. 14 “If, however, a man acts presumptuously toward his neighbor, so as to kill him craftily, you are to take him even from My altar, that he may die.

The issue of premeditation is the basis of the death penalty in this case of murder. If the person PLOTTED a killing, there was no respite. In the case of clear “crimes of passion”, where no premeditation was involved – the Civil Code allowed a place of refuge and did not force death as the penalty. If premeditation was later discovered, his refuge was removed. This penalty was to specify punishment in violation to standard six, or the “sanctity of human life”.

2. Strike or curse parent

21:15 “He who strikes his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. …17 “He who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death.

In light of standard five – honoring parents – this penalty protected them from both physical and verbal attack. God held the family unit as absolutely essential to the success of civil society.

3. Kidnap someone

21:16 “He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death.

Both standards eight and nine – theft and false witness – are in view here. In order for one to capture another they steal the other’s freedom, and then ostensibly lie about the connection to sell them to neighboring tribes.

Step back a second and look at what we just said. Society should protect life, protect the honor of the family and insure swift penalty to those who would take away basic freedoms of others. People who live in violation to these principles should be warned: God has spoken concerning your perversion of civility.

God took special exception to any that would kill another, capture another against their will, or curse the parents that God gave them.

• Respect for human life.

• Respect for positions placed by God.

• Respect for another’s freedom were at the core of civility.

A responsible follower of Jesus respects people. They are characterized by respect in their speech, attitude and behavior. They do more than hold up placards at pro-life rallies – they speak respectfully of their President, Congressman or Senator (agree or not). They honor those God has placed in positions of authority in their life, and serve HIM by serving them faithfully. At the same time, the government must also be responsible:

• When we give more rights to the State than to the parent – we destroy civil society.
• When parents can pay the bill at school but get no information on the class work of the student – we chip away at the high regard for the parental position.
• When a child cannot get an aspirin without permission of a parent, but can have the school nurse give a condom with no requirement to address the parent – we undermine civil society.
• When legislation has the net effect of making it easy to get out of the commitment of a marriage – we erode the civil society.

We cannot convince people to care for one another in a society when we cannot help them hold the family together. There is little civility when families are destroyed, for one is linked to the other. We must be warned.

The Capital Punishment vs. Christian Pacifist argument

Before we move on, let me address something that many of you may have been exposed to in teaching from various places today. As we seek to understand the standards of God in relation to the Israelites and then apply principles and timeless truths – I am not arguing for the modern political positions and posturing that often accompanies these verses. At the same time, I am concerned about SLOPPY HERMENEUTICS – using the Bible in inappropriate ways. I often hear people say things in public settings in support of the idea that the Bible was not singular in regard to Capital punishment, or that the New Testament reversed the Torah and spoke against capital punishment. Let’s take a moment while we are here to lay these “off the mark” ideas aside:

• First, some argue that the Bible truly supports a “Thou shalt not kill” (Ex. 20:13) standard. Though that is true, it is not applicable to judicial execution – as is clear in the passage we read together, and many relating to war.

• Second, some argue that Jesus stood up against the execution of the adulterous woman in the Temple court, as recorded in John 8:3-11. As we explained when we studied that passage – Jesus did not stand against the execution, but against the illegal one sided penalty. The woman was not to be executed if the man also committed the offense and was let go.

• Third, some have been trained to see the standard of Matthew  5:38-39 as a national standard as well as an individual standard. The statement against the personal revenge interpretation of the “Law of the balances” in the “eye for eye, and tooth for tooth”  passage is also a correction of carrying judicial standards meant to lessen inequity in government and turn them into personal opportunities for revenge. Jesus was speaking out about the very misuse of Scripture that allows people to make Him into an absolute pacifist with that statement. Jesus was saying this” You have taken a standard of judicial government that restrains it and turned it into a standard of revenge –and that is just wrong. His argument bore little on the idea of capital punishment, if at all. Individual followers of Jesus are obliged to learn to forgive – even in cases where others committed criminal acts against them – but that text does not oblige the state to “forgive” apart from their justice system. Nor does the passage anticipate a nation forgiving another national army’s violation of its soil or citizens. If states were held to this idea, parking tickets would violate the idea if the person sought forgiveness.

We live in times when many other issues also must be considered in our court systems. The penalties levied by the state must find a way back to basic justice, for they are often unfairly enacted against the poor and minorities. That is true, and should be rectified for justice to be real – but the death penalty standard was clearly offered by God to His people as a basic civil code, and never rescinded in the later Scripture. Its unfair use aside, the principle remains.

We have time for only ONE MORE basic standard for Civil Society. One of the places civility breaks down quickly when unregulated is that of the Work Place.

I want to take a few minutes to address another area our society is suffering badly from – the definition of both EMPLOYER and WORKER PROTECTION. This blade cuts both ways, since neither companies nor employees seem to find much loyalty to each other. Did God offer any principles for our WORK LIFE that we should be careful to consider?

Bond Servant Laws: Taking responsibility for contract  relationships in our WORK LIFE (21:2-11).

Move back to the beginning of the passage, back to the verse we skipped earlier. Exodus 21:2 “If you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve for six years; but on the seventh he shall go out as a free man without payment. 3 “If he comes alone, he shall go out alone; if he is the husband of a wife, then his wife shall go out with him. 4 “If his master gives him a wife, and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall belong to her master, and he shall go out alone. 5 “But if the slave plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife and my children; I will not go out as a free man,’ 6 then his master shall bring him to God, then he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall pierce his ear with an awl; and he shall serve him permanently.

The second set of responsibility laws regard contract relationships – but the words carry with them several misshapen ideas that have been affected by later history. Using the loaded term SLAVE brings images of southern antebellum plantation life – with all its abuses. Before we look at the economic system of the ancients, we must lay to rest that this is NOT a picture of what the Bible is talking about.

• First, antebellum slavery in the United States was based on kidnapped Africans. The Biblical contract of indentured servitude forbade one kidnapped into service (Exodus 21:16).
• Second, the southern slaves were permanent, whereas a man who indentured himself stayed for a specified work period (Exodus 21:2).

The case of an indentured servant in the Biblical Civil Code was more like a modern worker on an Alaskan pipeline or Gulf oil platform – where one is taken from home and lives in full support of the business owner for a specified period. (To be clear, I am not arguing the conditions were good, just that the business model is similar).The point of the section is to place parameters both of responsibility  and behavior for those they had taken under their employ and financial watch care.

Let me say this plainly: The Bible never supported the kind of slavery that characterized the pre-war south of the United States. That grossly violated various standards of the Word, and at the same time belittled all men – by allowing some to declare others “property” in the sense of less than personhood. The Bible used the term “property” – but for a whole different purpose, as we shall see.

Hebrew Male indentured worker laws:  

The stated conditions for the male indentured servant were:

• Length of Term: The limitation of six years of service (to the day of the seventh year’s beginning) was the total length of service, unless additional remuneration was provided. Civil Society was not to allow people to borrow more than they could pay back in the six years of work. Limits are a societal value, because when people are left FREE to borrow unrealistic amounts of money – others will have to bail out the mess.

• Severance Conditions: If he was obtained single, he leaves single. If he came with his wife – she is to leave with him. If he was given a concubine – the wife and any offspring belong to the household of the home owner. The worker needs to go into every part of the deal with full disclosure and eyes wide open. Before you go into a venture – get GOOD ADVICE, and listen to the advisers.

• Retention Conditions: If the servant decides to stay on, it must be a free will decision publicly declared – consummated by presentation to the Lord and a marker – an earring.

Later in this same another issue arose that God regulated – the need to regulate the discipline of workers.

• Parameters of discipline: 21:20 “If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. 21 “If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property… 21:26 “If a man strikes the eye of his male or female slave, and destroys it, he shall let him go free on account of his eye. 27 “And if he knocks out a tooth of his male or female slave, he shall let him go free on account of his tooth.

On first reading, this throws most people back to the very images of slavery we tried to purge earlier. A good student of the Word must acknowledge that his or her life experience and historical knowledge can taint the text as it was intended to be understood. Take a breath, and look again. The purpose of the law was to limit and warn business owners in caring for their indentured servants. Look carefully:

• First, If a business owner struck his indentured servant, killing him, he was subject to the punishment that belonged to a “crime of passion” in Exodus 2:12-14. He was not executed, for it was presumably not in premeditation to kill the worker – but likely fled to a refuge place, disrupting his entire life. In other words, think before you strike the servant – it could ruin your life  – and theirs.

• Second, if the indentured man survived the striking and caused no injury that was permanent, the business owner was not charged with a crime. He LOST the value of the worker during his illness, and may have damaged his worker’s ability to fulfill the rest of his service well – and that was a loss in the contractual relationship sufficient to penalize the owner. For some that may sound harsh, but think of it this way – when we began as a society to take a public stand against child abuse in the US, it did not take too long before some children turned that into a license to do wrong and hold their parents hostage. In the end, owners needed to guard against anything that would hurt productivity – so it was counterproductive to wound their workers.

• Third, if an injury that was permanent in nature occurred, the contract may have been eligible for complete release – in cases where an eye or tooth was damaged – and any other obvious part. The worker could not simply CLAIM injury –there had to be a way to discern that it was true. Both the worker and the employer needed protection from unfair treatment by the other.

God’s intention was to build a society based on personal responsibility and communal protection, where individual freedoms were protected by societal boundaries. The very least a believer can do in our time and our country is know what God had in mind – so that we aren’t swept into ungodly thinking regarding our society.