In Exodus 21:29, if a bull known to be dangerous was allowed to roam free and it killed someone, the penalty of “life for life” must be paid by the owner. He died and so did the bull.

“However,” verse 30, “if payment (other than death) is demanded of the bull’s owner, he may redeem his life by paying whatever is demanded.” Perhaps there was an element of forgiveness by the family of the dead person, allowing the owner to keep living, but justice in their minds still required the owner to pay for the damage he and his dangerous bull had caused. It was justice in Yahweh’s mind too, in which case the owner had better pay whatever was demanded of him.

And not only pay up for an injured child (31), but also for someone else’s “male or female slave,” paying the slave’s owner “thirty shekels of silver,” and on top of that killing the bull (32) and not eating its meat either (28), so that nothing of value is left of the bull. Thirty shekels of silver amounted to several months wages, so all of these payments added up to considerable loss to the owner. But where serious injury and violent death were concerned there was a heavy penalty to pay and that penalty must be paid.

Imagine reintroducing that law to dog owners today, taking into account that dogs, like bulls, can be dangerous too – witness the horrible stories of children being mauled and even killed by dogs. But how on earth did a dog like that get loose in the first place, when surely the owner knew how dangerous his dog could be? How many dead dogs and dead owners would it take, therefore, to get the point across that a violent killing by one’s dog has only one outcome, the death of the dog, and if the person killed was also due to the carelessness of the dog’s owner, then the death of the owner too?

Which could sound a bit harsh, but what about the unnecessary suffering inflicted on innocent victims because of reckless negligence on the part of a dog owner? Having to pay such a heavy penalty, therefore, would be highly effective in getting dog owners serious about training their animals, and if an animal does not respond, then put an end to its life before it puts an end to a human life (Genesis 9:5).

In this law, Yahweh is merely pointing out the obvious, that a wise and understanding nation with a heart depends on everyone’s commitment to the “Duty of care”….(next blog)

In Exodus 21:28, “If a bull gores a man or a woman to death, the bull must be stoned to death and its meat must not be eaten.” Which sounds like fair justice at work – death for death, punishment in kind – but how come “the owner of the bull will not be held responsible”? Shouldn’t he be punished too, since it was his bull?

But fair justice in Yahweh’s mind was only punishing the one causing the damage, which in this case was the bull, not the owner. On the other hand, verse 29, “If the bull was known for goring people and the owner had been warned about it but he hadn’t kept the animal penned,” then “both bull and owner must be put to death.”

Yahweh was introducing yet another critical aspect of justice, this time “placing the blame where it belongs,” because when damage is done and people are hurt and even killed, the cry for justice requires getting at the person (or animal) to blame and “if there is serious injury,” verse 23, “you are to take life for life.” That would mean death for the bull in the first case. since it was purely the bull to blame, but death for the owner too if it was his own dismissive attitude to safety that led to a person being killed.

And once that blame had been placed where it belonged, there was no appeal or leniency allowed, and no explanations or excuses accepted for why it happened either. Maybe the bull had sat on a thistle a few minutes before the goring, or he’d woken up in an ugly mood after eating something a bit off the night before. And maybe the owner of the bull had been distracted from keeping his dangerous bull penned, or the neighbour who’d warned him about his bull was a pig-headed hypocrite. But none of that was relevant. The only relevance to the case was placing the blame for the death where it belonged, and putting the person (or animal) to blame to death.

If, then, a mother murdered her children, should leniency and “understanding” be given because she was suffering from postpartum psychosis? No, because in a violent killing based on Yahweh’s definition of justice, the focus is purely on the killing, who did it, and the person who did it receiving the death penalty, “life for life.”

Were there ever circumstances that allowed a different penalty instead? Yes (verse 30). But again, no excuses, “The penalty must be paid”….(next blog)

In Exodus 21:26, “If a man hits one of his servants, male or female, causing the loss of an eye, he compensates for the loss by letting the servant go free.” And the same for a lost tooth (27).

Which seems to contradict the previous law of “punishment in kind” (in the last blog). Based on that law, shouldn’t the owner compensate for knocking out his servant’s eye or tooth by having his own eye or tooth removed? But not in this case, so why the difference?

The difference harks back to Yahweh choosing one nation on the entire planet to build a holy, wise and understanding people with a big heart, unlike any nation that had existed up to that point. And the difference would be so great and so noticeable that other nations would wish they had a God like that too (Deuteronomy 4:6-8).

And one area where that difference would really show up was in an owner of servants or slaves treating them so well that, rather than be set free at the end of their allotted six years (Exodus 21:2), they’d wish to remain with him (verses 5-6). So with that ideal set by Yahweh, why on earth would an owner hit one of his servants so hard that it destroyed the servant’s eye or tooth? This was more than just taking a swing at a servant for spilling soup on his favourite dog; this was a vicious assault.

So how to punish the owner, not only for the damage and humiliation he’d inflicted on his servant, but also for the contempt he’d shown for Yahweh’s plan to make Israel noticeably different to the nations around them?

Fair justice would demand a far more serious punishment than the owner losing an eye or tooth in return. And Yahweh thought so too, because this was the time when he introduced fitting the punishment to the crime, by commanding the owner to let his servant go free, which meant the owner lost everything that his servant had done for him. It satisfied justice when punishment in kind was not possible, or not enough.

A modern equivalent would be justice for those horribly injured by a vaccine that was known to be dangerous. Punishment in kind wouldn’t be possible or satisfying in this case, but a punishment to fit the seriousness of the crime would. Absolutely crucial in such serious cases, therefore, would be “Placing the blame where it belongs” ….(next blog)

Accidents and lack of care happen, but what if, Exodus 21:23, they cause “serious injury”? Yahweh’s answer in verses 24 and 25 was, “eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, and bruise for bruise.”

A “bruise” doesn’t sound like  a “serious injury,” but all the other injuries mentioned involve debilitating or permanent damage, so the bruise must be serious enough that the person injured is left with a major loss or handicap, perhaps for the rest of his life.

Fair justice would naturally demand that the one causing the injury pay up, but money or court awarded damages don’t bring the injured person’s lost eye, tooth, hand or foot back. So what would satisfy the injured person’s need for justice instead?

Yahweh’s answer was a law requiring “punishment in kind.” It was a law too. The injured person, therefore, had the right to expect the person who injured him to be inflicted with the same injury. What could be fairer than that? And what better deterrent to causing such injuries in the first place, than knowing you pay up by having your own eye, tooth, hand or foot removed too?

Put in today’s terms, what if the penalty for driving around like a maniac risking life and limb of innocent people, guarantees the court sentencing you to receiving the same injuries you cause? Or what if a company is lax in its safety measures and someone is badly injured, the people responsible for the lack of safety are given the same injuries?

It’s totally fair to the victims, is it not, so is this what Yahweh was aiming at in such a law? Because he certainly knows how victims feel when they haven’t been fairly dealt with. They have a deep yearning for justice that must be satisfied. If it isn’t, a feeling of hopelessness can easily turn into bitterness, suicide, or an insatiable desire for revenge leading to vicious feuds lasting for generations.

An injured victim, therefore, would need to know for absolutely certain that the law of punishment in kind would be rigorously enforced, with no fight for justice on his part needed. But what if there’s a situation where punishment in kind cannot be done? Yahweh provided for that too, in “Fitting the punishment to the crime”….(next blog)

In the heat of the moment unfortunate things happen, like what happened in Exodus 21:22, when “two men are fighting and one of them hits a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely.”

It seems like an odd example, because what are the chances of something like this actually happening? But if it did and “there is no serious injury” to mother or newborn baby, “the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows” (22).

Holiness in practical terms, then, included “the rule of compensation” – or in our terms “court awarded damages” – to compensate a person for harm or loss caused by someone else. It takes into account that wrong things happen, and once damage is done, it’s done, and it can’t be taken back. But that leaves victims seething, who might then wish harm in return, resulting in an all out battle that may never be resolved, with relationships ruined and even worse harm done.

That risk is real, because it seems so unfair that an innocent bystander should get caught in the crossfire of other people’s uncontrolled emotions, and be harmed for no fault of his own. But Yahweh knew it would happen, and he prepared the Israelites in advance to know how to deal with it and prevent things escalating.

And compensation was the key. But what made it so effective was that all those hurt by the accident – like the pregnant woman’s husband in verse 22 – had a say in what the compensation should be. It’s given to them as a right too, allowing them to express whatever they feel would be just and fair in the circumstances – for everyone involved.

Perhaps, as in restorative justice practices today, offender and victims work through it together, so that everyone involved comes away from the experience – a bit bruised still – but with healing well on the way and above all wanting the relationship settled and back on firm ground, no scars, no regrets, and no awkwardness when meeting together in future. No such form of justice existed in Egypt, so this was something totally new, where repairing the emotional damage to the victims was the top concern, as well having the offender pay for any damage caused, which in turn would release him from any lingering guilt he may have as well.

But why, then, would Yahweh include in his rules of justice the strange law in verse 24, requiring an “Eye for an eye and tooth for tooth”?….(next blog)

So if “a man hits his male or female slave so badly that the slave dies, should he be punished?” Well, yes, and rightly so according to Exodus 21:20. On the other hand, verse 21, “If the slave gets up after a day or two, his owner is not to be punished, since the slave is his property.”

It seems odd that Yahweh would be talking about “slavery” at all, having just freed the Israelites from slavery. But for years and years slavery was all they’d known, so Yahweh is getting a point across in terms they understood. And his point was very different to what they’d known, because in Egypt there’d be no punishment for beating a slave to death. Slaves were expendable, and if they didn’t fulfill their duties adequately, the slave owner had the right to inflict whatever punishment he liked, including death.

But in the “holy nation” Yahweh was developing with the Israelites, the right to punish as one liked was out of the question. And also in huge contrast to what the Israelites had known in Egypt, a slave owner who killed a slave would himself be punished with death (20).

On the other hand, Yahweh did give a slave owner the right to punish, “since the slave is his property” (21). In the custom of the time, a slave was bought, and being bought he was now the property of the one who’d bought him. In which case the slave owner had the right to expect the person he’d bought to do what he’d been bought for. Just as, in our terms, an employer has the right to expect the employees he pays to pull their weight. And if they don’t he has the right to fire them.

But Yahweh is also cautioning slave owners, picturing anyone with authority over others, against being so severe in their treatment of those under them that livelihoods and even lives are destroyed. Authority can be taken too far, creating resentment in others so strong it could turn into violence, risking not only the business and livelihood of the one in authority but possibly his life as well. Overreach, in other words, is self-destructive, and deserves to be so according to verse 20.

On the other hand, those in charge have the right to expect loyalty and respect so they can get the job done. And the right to punish resistance too, like any parent punishing a child for a rotten attitude affecting the whole family, but not punish so severely that it wrecks the relationship. But when such damage does unfortunately occur, Yahweh provided “The rule of compensation” to help out….(next blog)

In setting the Israelites up as a holy nation, the next key principle Yahweh gets across in Exodus 21 is “being responsible and accountable.” With a practical example in verse 18, that “If a quarrel between two men breaks out and one of them hits the other hard enough to put him out of work for a few days but he recovers from his injury, then the one who hit him (19) isn’t held responsible, but he is held accountable for the loss of the injured man’s time until he’s completely healed.”

That seems fair. Yahweh accepts that quarrels happen. A holy nation isn’t where everyone is absolutely perfect all the time. People are people, and sometimes people being people do things or say things that  get other people upset enough to retaliate. And maybe retaliate rightly too, where the one causing the upset maybe needs a good punch on the nose to wake him up to his abrasive nature.

But that doesn’t justify an entire nation going around taking swings at each other any time there’s an upset. It’s not good for the nation economically either, if on most days a large portion of the population is laid up in bed from constant punch ups. But it’s also not good for a nation if quarrels aren’t satisfactorily settled. Emotions explode, but usually for an understandable reason. An imperfect person says or does something that another imperfect person doesn’t think is right at all. So there’s a flare up, and for two imperfect people finding no solution through reasoning together, there’s usually only one recourse left and that’s to “have it out,” and if yelling at each other doesn’t seem to make any impression, then maybe fists will.

And in such a case Yahweh doesn’t hold anyone responsible. But he does hold the one who lands the punch rendering the other person immobile, accountable for the injured man’s lost wages. Which is a brilliant solution because how can either man grumble? One gets the satisfaction of landing a well deserved punch, the other the satisfaction of the person doing the punching having to pay for any damages.

Perhaps in future, then, both men can look back on this situation and realize the importance of being responsible for what one says and does not causing upset in the first place, and that way no accountability cost would be required either.

But in settling differences, does Yahweh also include “The right to punish”?….(next blog)

In Exodus 19, Yahweh promised that “out of all nations” (5) the Israelites would be for him “a holy nation” (6). But holy in what way? According to Exodus 21 it’s holy in practical terms, in very much down-to-earth things that happen to imperfect people in close community. 

But why in verse 16 should “Anyone who kidnaps another – and either sells him or gets caught with him still in his possession – be put to death”? That seems a bit drastic, but there’s a clue in Deuteronomy 24:7, because “Anyone caught kidnapping a fellow Israelite, and has treated him violently or sold him, is a thief who needs to die to purge such evil from among you.” 

A kidnapper is classed as “a thief.” And that makes him evil on two counts: first if all, it’s contempt for God and his clear command to not steal (Exodus 20:15). And secondly, it’s contempt for God again, in treating a person made in his very own image as mere property for personal benefit or abuse.

Such contempt for a human being is utterly evil in Yahweh’s sight, and no nation, family or community should remotely tolerate it for a second. And he placed this law between the two laws requiring death for a child who treats his parents with contempt, which surely gets the point across that for any community to survive and thrive it has to “purge such evil from among you.” Stop it in its tracks. Make absolutely sure there are clear and serious consequences, so that “All will hear of it and be afraid” (Deuteronomy 21:21).

Fear of consequences, therefore, is vitally necessary as a deterrent to evil, or as Exodus 20:20 phrases it, “to keep you from sinning.” Imagine a society with no consequences for stealing, or a culture that allows or even encourages kidnapping people to sell as slaves. Nations turning a blind eye to such practices are horrible places to live in. No person or property – or business – is safe. 

So what’s the cure? According to the wisdom of Yahweh in Exodus 21, it’s the death penalty. Because in practical terms, what other solution is there for incurable evil? What can anyone do about a person who has no conscience, no intention or even desire to change, views God and people with contempt, and has absolutely no understanding or even interest in the practical holiness in Exodus 21 of “Being responsible and accountable” either?….(next blog)

It would have to be something hugely serious to justify putting a child to death. Exodus 21 provides that justification: it’s when a child “attacks” or “curses” one of his parents (15, 17). So this wasn’t a young child, it was a child fully capable of carrying out a violent physical or brutal verbal assault on an adult, but worse still, on his very own parents.

Deuteronomy 21:18 also explains that this wasn’t an occasional thing that happened, or a moment of rage that blew over. It speaks of “a stubborn and rebellious son who won’t do a thing his mother and father tell him, and even though they discipline him he still won’t obey.” So this is a child, maybe in late teenage while still at home, whose attitude toward his parents has become one of total and constant defiance and contempt. In front of his parents or behind their backs he is always – in Jesus’ own words about such a child in Matthew 15:4 – “speaking evil” of them. He hates his parents so much it would only be a small step to “striking” them or “attacking” them with intent to injure, or even kill.

He’s also of an age, according to Deuteronomy 21:20, that he’d become “a glutton and a drunk.” And also of an age, according to Leviticus 20:9, that because of his constant, unchanging evil attitude, “his blood will be on his own head.” He’d brought this on himself, not only by deliberately flouting his parents’ teaching, dishonouring the family name and making life utterly miserable for them, but also by making light of Yahweh’s clear command in Exodus 20:12 to hold one’s parents in high regard at all times, and especially into the parents’ old age when, in that society, aged parents were hugely dependent on their adult children to care for them.

Imagine, therefore, being a parent and in Deuteronomy 21:19-20, having to “forcibly bring their son before the leaders at the city gate and say to the city fathers, ‘This son of ours is a stubborn rebel; he won’t listen to a thing we say. He’s a glutton and a drunk.’ Then all the men of his city (21) shall stone him to death; so you shall remove the evil from your midst, and all Israel will hear of it and fear.”

So, what justified the killing of a child was removing an evil that could not be removed otherwise. Even the people who loved him the most couldn’t make a dent in his attitude. What purpose did it serve, then, in allowing such an incurable menace to live? But Yahweh was very much into “Holiness in practical terms”….(next blog)

Two verses in Yahweh’s second set of rules in Exodus 21 are deadly serious about respect for parents. In verse 15, for instance, “Anyone who attacks his father or mother must be put to death” and in verse 17, “Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.”

But why would smiting or cursing a parent warrant the death penalty for a child? There’s a clue, first of all, in why Yahweh was setting up these rules in the first place. He was building a nation like no other. Crucial to that purpose was “obeying God fully” (19:5-6), because if the Israelites were super careful about following his “decrees and laws,” other nations might wish they had a God that close to them making them “wise and understanding” too (Deuteronomy 4:6-8). 

Which is where the attitude of children to their parents comes in, because it’s through the parents that the wisdom and understanding of these “decrees and laws” would be taught and passed on down through the generations. And the health of the entire nation depended on just that happening, on each generation of parents teaching the laws and each generation of children obeying them. Breaking that cycle in a family would not only be going against God’s purpose of Israel becoming “a holy nation” (Exodus 19:6), it would also be going against his authority (5). 

But could a young child be held responsible for that, who in a moment of frustration has a tantrum and lashes out with arms and legs to resist being restrained – or lets loose with a screaming fit yelling at his parents “I hate you, I wish you were dead”? Would that lapse of uncontrolled childish emotion be reason enough for a young child to be put to death? 

But what if Yahweh wasn’t aiming his laws in Exodus 21 at young children? There’s a clue that he wasn’t too, in Exodus 20:12, in the fifth commandment, “Honour your father and your mother.” It was written to people who also understood what “murder” and “committing adultery” meant (the next two commandments) – and were capable of murder and adultery too, meaning adults, not youngsters. 

These were adult children capable of independent thinking, the crucial direction and maturing of which would have come from their parents. So continuing to honour and respect their parents, therefore, would effectively keep adult children on track with what their parents had taught them. But in Exodus 21, “What justified killing adult children?”….(next blog)