Our hope is to get from 12 to 21. But this section deals with the laws concerning homicide and bodily injury. Remember chapter 21 verse 1. Now these are the judgments which you shall set before them. So the principles, the general principles of the Ten Commandments are given in chapter 20. that's the moral law of God, and then chapters 21 to 23 are called the Book of the Covenant, well, chapters 21 to 24, but 21 to 23 contain what's called the judicial law, where the application of those general principles in the life of Israel as they possess the land. So, laws concerning homicide and bodily injury are covered here in verse 12 to verse 32. So, I'll pick up reading in chapter 21 at verse 12. "'He who strikes a man so that he dies "'shall surely be put to death. "'However, if he did not lie and wait, "'but God delivered him into his hand, "'then I will appoint for you a place where he may flee. "'But if a man acts with premeditation against his neighbor "'to kill him by treachery, "'you shall take him from my altar that he may die. "'And he who strikes his father or his mother "'shall surely be put to death. He who kidnaps a man and sells him or if he is found in his hand shall surely be put to death. And he who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. If men contend with each other and one strikes the other with a stone or with his fist and he does not die but is confined to his bed, if he rises again and walks about outside with his staff, then he who struck him shall be acquitted. He shall only pay for the loss of his time and shall provide for him to be thoroughly healed. And if a man beats his male or female servant with a rod, so that he dies under his hand, he shall surely be punished. Notwithstanding, if he remains alive a day or two, he shall not be punished, for he is his property. If men fight and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely, yet no harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly, as the woman's husband imposes on him. And he shall pay as the judges determine. But if any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. If a man strikes the eye of his male or female servant and destroys it, he shall let him go free for the sake of his eye. And if he knocks out the tooth of his male or female servant, he shall let him go free for the sake of his tooth. If an ox gores a man or a woman to death, then the ox shall surely be stoned, and its flesh shall not be eaten, but the owner of the ox shall be acquitted. But if the ox tended the thrust with its horn in times past, and it has been made known to its owner, and he has not kept it confined, so that it has killed a man or a woman, the ox shall be stoned, and its owner also shall be put to death. If there is imposed on him a sum of money, then he shall pay to redeem his life, whatever is imposed on him. Whether it is gore to son or gore to daughter, according to this judgment it shall be done to him. If the ox gores a male or female servant, he shall give to their master thirty shekels of silver, and the ox shall be stoned. Amen. As I said last week, we're dealing with an ancient law code and the application of the general principles of the Decalogue in society. Some of this is a bit difficult, this far on the other side of the civil polity in the Commonwealth of Israel. So some of the the things I especially the stuff dealing with slaves and servants and injuries done to them and the identification is the slave as property or his money are a bit difficult to get our minds wrapped around so I don't know that I can exhaustively explain all of those particular things but hopefully we can get a good overview of what's happening in this particular section. Again, the laws concerning homicide and bodily injury have, first of all, the prohibition against murder in verses 12 to 14. Secondly, the prohibition against parental assault and kidnapping in verses 15 to 17. Thirdly, the laws concerning bodily injury in verses 18 to 32. So you have first the injury sustained in a fight, verses 18 to 19. Second, the injury sustained by slaves. God willing, that's where we'll get to tonight. And then next, you have that woman, threat to a woman and her pre-born baby. And then you have the punishment for a vicious master in verses 26 to 27. And then the laws concerning the goring ox in verses 28 to 32. All of those instances again causing bodily injury upon innocent victims. But let's take up first the prohibition against murder in verses 12 to 14. The prohibition is pretty clear. Verse 12, he who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death so obviously this is the application of the sixth commandment which in exodus 20 verse 13 says simply you shall not murder and again verse 12 he who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death it is a capital offense in fact all of the crimes in this particular section are capital in nature and with reference to this law notice he who strikes a man Stuart is a commentator that I've been using with profit. He's a modern commentator, and he makes this observation concerning ancient Near Eastern law codes. He says, in other ancient Near Eastern law, murder was punished by death only when a person murdered someone of an equal or higher class. Murder of someone of a lower class was punished either by the payment of a fine or by putting to death someone in the murderer's household who was of the same class as the person murdered. This kind of class distinction is never allowed in biblical law, which represents a quantum leap in fairness over the prevailing attitudes in all societies outside of Israel." That was an interesting point. to be observed there in verse 12. He who strikes a man. There's no basis for a particular class or social strata or anything like that. If you murdered somebody, you are liable to capital punishment, liable to the death penalty. And obviously, this isn't the first instance that the death penalty is introduced. You can turn back to the book of Genesis in Genesis chapter 9. We see the giving of the Noahic Covenant, and one of the things that prevailed prior to the flood was an earth that was exceedingly corrupt and filled with violence. So when Noah and his family comes out of the ark, it shouldn't surprise us that God provides redress or God provides a remedy for the violence that obtained on the earth. And one of those means was the execution of murderers. And you see that specifically in Genesis 9. At verse 6, whoever sheds man's blood, again the same sort of an emphasis, whoever, there's no class distinction, there's no sort of, you know, only if it's somebody that's in your economic level, but it's whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God he made man. Now, the Noahic Covenant is applicable to all creation at all times. It's not simply given to Israel, and one of the ways that we know that is Romans chapter 13. Romans chapter 13 obviously is a call by the Apostle Paul to let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. He then says, For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore, whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. For he is God's minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain, for he is God's minister and avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil." Now, the sword represents the civil government's power to engage in the death penalty. It doesn't mean that every single crime is capital in nature, but if there is a crime that's capital in nature, then the government has the prerogative, the duty under God, to execute that offender. So when we go back to Exodus 21, we see the application of the Sixth Commandment in society as a whole. And the book of Numbers underscores the necessity for the death penalty for the specific crime of murder. Now, there's other crimes. Again, in this particular context, we see other capital offenses, but the Mosaic Code entails or covers many capital offenses. But with reference to the crime of murder, it is absolutely mandated that there is the execution of the criminal offender. In Numbers 35, specifically at verse 31, it says, Moreover, you shall take no ransom for the life of a murderer who is guilty of death, but he shall surely be put to death. So it's not just a suggestion by God in terms of, you know, this is the better way to do society. It is mandated by God. And again, it's a Noahic covenant issue. We see it operative in the New Covenant as well. So it's not something relegated to the Old Covenant, to the Mosaic addenda, that is only operable for that particular time. For sure, the crime of murder is always to be punished by execution. So he who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death. But in verses 13 and 14, we see qualification given, a necessary distinction built into the law. Not every time somebody dies at the hand of another is it necessarily murder. And so the scripture makes that distinction. Notice in verse 13, However, if he did not lie and wait, That's the crucial aspect that defines murder. It is premeditation, it is malice aforethought. That is the distinction given to us in the law, if you look specifically at verse 14. But if a man acts with premeditation against his neighbor, you see the same sort of distinction made in Numbers 35, 16 to 24, and then Deuteronomy 19, verses four to seven. And we'll look at those passages in a bit, Because if you look at verse 13, it says, So Numbers 35, Deuteronomy 19 indicate those cities of refuge. And again, what is in view there is that if it's an accidental or an unintentional homicide, that man has not committed murder. Therefore, he should not be executed for that particular misdeed. Now, it's obviously a bad thing. When you go into the forest to chop wood, you should make sure your axe head doesn't fly off and find its way into your neighbor's head. but at the same time it wasn't premeditated, it wasn't malice aforethought, and so the avenger of blood does not have the prerogative to execute that particular person for the crime of murder. So the distinction is built into this law, however, if he did not lie in wait, but then it goes on to say, but God delivered him into his hand. In the providence of God, sometimes ax heads do fly off handles and find their way into person's heads. That is the providence of God. I think that's the emphasis here. But God delivered him into his hand for whatever reason, whatever prerogative God most high in his sovereignty had for that, you know, sort of innocent or hapless soul to wander into the to the woods with his buddy who had an axe head that was faulty, that's just the way, you know, the cookie crumbles in terms of God's world. So it's the distinction being made between murder and accidental or unintentional homicide. And then as it says, then I will appoint to the cities of refuge, then I will appoint for you a place where he may flee. You can turn to Deuteronomy 19, where it spells this out in detail. Deuteronomy chapter 19. Again, Numbers 35 deals with the same material, gives essentially the same information. We'll just pick up the text in Deuteronomy 19, specifically at verse 4. And this is the case of the manslayer who flees there that he may live. We'll back up. When the Lord your God, verse one, has cut off the nations whose land the Lord your God is giving you, and you dispossess them and dwell in their cities and in their houses, you shall separate three cities for yourself in the midst of your land, which the Lord your God is giving you to possess. You shall prepare roads for yourself and divide into three parts the territory of your land, which the Lord your God is giving you to inherit, that any manslayer may flee there. When you get to the book of Joshua, in Joshua chapter 21, combine Joshua and judges there, Josh's, Joshua 21 gives us those cities of refuge. And it is intriguing on this side of the entrance into the promised land, God is legislating things that are going to be issues. God is giving us concrete applications of the law because no doubt there's sinful men, there's accidents that happen, there's homicides, unintentional homicides, there's all these things that are going to take place when a large group of people occupy a particular area. And so God in His wisdom gives laws to regulate the conduct of persons that find themselves in that particular situation. So in verse 4 it says, and this is the case of the manslayer who flees there, that he may live. Whoever kills his neighbor, notice, unintentionally, not having hated him in time past. And then the illustration of verse five. As when a man goes to the woods with his neighbor to cut timber, and his hand swings a stroke with the ax to cut down the tree, and the head slips from the handle and strikes his neighbor so that he dies, he shall flee to one of these cities and live. Lest the avenger of blood, while his anger is hot, pursue the manslayer and overtake him, because the way is long, and kill him, though he was not deserving of death. Notice the last part of verse 6, since he had not hated the victim in time past. You have to establish that for the crime of murder. Malice of forethought, premeditation, some sort of motive that was operative in the heart of the murderer to get rid of the man that's murdered. Verse 7, therefore I command you saying, you shall separate three cities for yourself. Now if the Lord your God enlarges your territory, as He swore to your fathers, and gives you the land which He promised to give to your fathers, and if you keep all these commandments and do them, which I command you today, to love the Lord your God, and to walk always in His ways, then you shall have three more cities for yourself besides these three. Now notice verse 10, lest innocent blood be shed in the midst of your land, which the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, and thus guilt of bloodshed be upon you. So if the avenger of blood prevails upon the manslayer who engaged in this unintentionally or accidentally, then the avenger of blood actually sheds innocent blood. And so this city of refuge principle is absolutely crucial to prevent the spilling of innocent blood upon the land. And then notice in verse 11, but if anyone hates his neighbor, lies in wait for him, rises against him and strikes him mortally so that he dies, and he flees to one of these cities, then the elders of his city shall send and bring him from there and deliver him over to the hand of the avenger of blood. that he may die. Your eyes shall not pity him, but you shall put away the guilt of innocent blood from Israel, that it may go well with you." So that's what the law is sort of foreshadowing in Exodus 21 at verse 13. So, however, if he did not lie in wait, but God delivered him into his hand, then I will appoint for you a place where he may flee. So those cities of refuge were another sort of barricade against the shedding of innocent blood. You could see why the Avenger of Blood, who would be a kinsman to the person, the victim that was killed, the victim that suffered at the hands of the person that didn't have his axe head fitted on securely, you could see why he'd be outraged. I mean, that was my brother, that was my cousin, that was my relative, and your carelessness brought him to the place of death. You can see where that avenger of blood would want to prevail upon the person, but that city of refuge was in place to build another barricade against the shedding of innocent blood. The man did not commit murder. The issue of intentionality, the issue of premeditation, those things were absent, so therefore the crime of murder was not engaged in. So having given that qualification, the text returns to murder in verse 14, but If a man acts with premeditation against his neighbor to kill him by treachery, there's that idea of hatred, there's that idea of planning. Notice what it says in verse 14, you shall take him from my altar that he may die. Now, the Geneva Bible has a good comment here. It says the holiness of the place ought not to defend the murderer. So the idea being is that the murderer would go to the altar and lay hold of the horn of the altar thinking that that holy place would be sanctuary and therefore he would be exempt from capital punishment. Stewart again makes the observation. He says the Israelites at Sinai were well aware of the ancient practice of seeking sanctuary at a sacrifice altar. The practice is not endorsed in the Bible, though it is twice described as taking place. It happens in 1 Kings 1, in verse 50, Adonijah tries to do that, and then it happens in 1 Kings 2, verse 29, Joab tries to do that. So the idea being, I'm in a holy place, the altar is set apart, it's a place where God is met with by his people, so persons shouldn't come in here to do the unholy task of executing me for my crime." He goes on to say, its logic ran as follows, the altar represented God's acceptance of the transfer of sin from people to animals and was therefore a place of forgiveness as well as a specially sanctified most holy object. Those seeking a fugitive criminal would not want to risk angering God by approaching it improperly because of the prohibitions about approaching an altar casually. And so God is heading off that mindset at the pass. Robert Alter, a Jewish commentator, makes the same observation. Israel would have known of that. Israel would have understood that. In the world around them, this would have been the tactic to take to try to avoid the eventuality of being punished capitally for the crime that you had committed. So God says, no, you shall take him from my altar that he may die. And Solomon uses that specific language relative to Joab in 1 Kings 2. So we have the prohibition against murder, the necessary distinction between murder and accidental or unintentional homicide. There are penalties attached to unintentional or accidental homicide. You have to leave your home, you have to leave your family, and you have to go to the city of refuge. Hopefully in that time, when you're in the city of refuge, you'll learn to figure out to make sure that your axe head is attached carefully to your handle before you go out chopping wood again with a neighbor or with a friend. Now notice, secondly, the prohibition against parental assault and kidnapping in verses 15 to 17. Verse 15 is assault against parents. He who strikes his father or his mother. So this is an obvious contrast with the fifth commandment in Exodus chapter 20 at verse 12. Honor your father and your mother. The word honor there means to treat them as heavy, like with God. You don't treat them in a casual or in a light manner, but rather you esteem God as the one who is sovereign and the one who is over us. The same is stipulated with reference to parents. Honor your father and your mother that your days may be long upon the land which the Lord your God is giving you. So in the case law application, verse 15 of chapter 21, he who strikes his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. Now notice the inclusion of both parents, not just the father, but the father and the mother. Leviticus 19.3 specifies a crime against parents, and the mother comes first. So the mother is equally protected under the law, just like the father is, with reference to these ethics. As well, notice the demand of the law or the punishment involved in this particular crime. He who strikes his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. Now the seriousness of the offense is underscored by the seriousness of the punishment. Notice that the particular prohibition does not necessarily involve the death of the parent. Now the parent may die as a result of having been assaulted by his son or daughter. The parent may be incapacitated, but that's not what the text says. The text says, he who strikes his father or his mother shall surely be put to death, irrespective of whether or not that mother or father dies. In other words, it's a horrific thing for a child to attack or assault their parents. It's a wretched thing. So the parents are attacked, not necessarily killed. The parents are protected above the general population. You look at verses 18 and 19. There's injury there, but it's not mandated that the injured or the injurer is executed. And then with reference to servants or slaves, verses 20 to 21. So the parents are in a class that is distinct from the general population or the servant class. And then the heinousness of the offense. I mean, think about it. If somebody is going to attack their parents, what kind of a person is that going to be in society? I'm not sure that I want to hang out with persons that have the wherewithal to physically assault their father or their mother. John Gill said this crime was made capital to show the heinousness of it, how detestable it was to God, and in order to deter from it. In other words, if you heard this, hopefully you would hear and fear and never think to raise your fist against your parents. Matthew Poole says, nor will any think this law too severe that considers that this is an act full of horrid impiety against God, who hath so expressly and emphatically commanded children to honor their parents. of highest and most unnatural ingratitude and utterly destructive to human society." I think he's right. It is utterly destructive to human society that a person would raise their fist against the father or the mother indicates that that person is in a bad state or is in a bad condition. They're going to do that at home. They're going to do that to the person that they have the most natural affection for or should. What will they do to somebody who cuts them off in traffic? What will they do to somebody who gets in their face in the grocery store? That person is volatile and that person is in fact a danger or a threat to society. Notice as well the crime of kidnapping, another capital offense according to verse 16. It is the unlawful taking of another man and selling him, or the unlawful taking of another man and keeping him. Either way, you are guilty of kidnapping and thus deserve to die. Deuteronomy 24.7 specifies the same prohibition as does Paul in 1 Timothy 1. 1 Timothy 1 verses 8-10, the apostle says we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully. And then he runs through the Ten Commandments. He does so according to couplets, he does so according to the very gravest expression of the command in play, but he does so nevertheless consistent with what we find here. Kidnapping is a wretched thing. So the kidnapper is guilty of a capital offense. Notice again verse 16, he who kidnaps a man and sells him or if he is found in his hands, whether you're just trafficking him in order to get him to his final destination or you're keeping him, either way you have committed a capital offense and thus you are worthy of the death penalty. Stuart again says kidnapping is a capital crime. God regards taking someone away from home and family by force for relocation elsewhere, usually to be sold into slavery, as sufficiently horrendous that it requires kidnappers or slave traders to be put to death when apprehended. He says, people's freedom from such oppression is important to God. Note that a slave trader cannot escape capital punishment by arguing that he was merely a middle man, holding a kidnapped person whom he had not yet resold. That is, that he had not actually done much harm to the man kidnapped. The law condemns to death anyone trafficking in slaves, whether or not the original captor. Perhaps you saw Don Lemon's little interview. Some woman from Britain asked him about, or no, he asked about the payment of reparations to black people that had been affected by slavery. And this British woman says, I absolutely, positively agree with you. We should start at the source or at the origin point. right back in Africa with the persons that sold them. Everybody along the way should be guilty as well, but we don't neglect the persons from the originating point that were involved in that trafficking also. As well, that southern border that is open to just about anybody and everyone They are speculating a gross amount of child sex trafficking happening in the United States, which is absolutely, utterly detestable and loathsome. That persons would engage in that kind of activity, and that a government would allow such an activity to go unchecked? Certainly, what we see is a violation of kidnapping. We see a violation of the law of God at the point of depriving a man from liberty. And if you look at this particular implication, or you look at this particular law, there is that obvious implication. To steal a man's liberty is right up there with taking a man's life. If you take another man's liberty, you are liable to capital punishment just like if you had taken that man's life. And that is an inescapable implication from this particular law. And then back to parents, the crime of cursing parents. So not only the assault against parents, but to curse his father or his mother according to verse 17. He who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. This again is the antithesis to the fifth commandment. You're supposed to honor your father and your mother. You're supposed to revere them. You're not supposed to speak ill against them. And you're certainly not supposed to repudiate their authority or their rule in your life. That's probably what's in view here. The act of the repudiation of a parent. no obedience to the parent, no care for elderly parents, and no concern for parents in general. Remember Paul in 1 Timothy chapter 5 says that the family bears the first responsibility to care for widows. The family has a vested interest in their older members also. When we think of 1 Timothy 5.8, if a man does not provide for his own, he's worse than an infidel, we typically apply that to the deadbeat dad who doesn't buy his kids new shoes. but it's also the deadbeat son that doesn't provide for his elderly parents when they are in need. The apostle says that the people of God, in terms of the Christian church, the family is the first line of responsibility to care for aging parents. If there are no family members to care for aging parents, then the church steps in and the church offers that aid creates a widow's list so that the widows in the church can make sure that they can eat and whatnot. So this particular law underscores the reverence, the kindness, and the love that is to be afforded to parents. Those who curse them are liable for the death penalty. Leviticus chapter 20. Verse 9 repeats this, for everyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother, his blood shall be upon him. It's an unthinkable crime, brethren, when you really knock it all down and when you start to sort of wade through things. What is the most basic and fundamental building block in all of society? It is the family. And if the family has deteriorated to such a point where the child repudiates or curses their own parents, again, that child is likely not going to be a great citizen when he enters into the workforce. Turn over to Proverbs. Proverbs repeats this particular law in a couple of places. Proverbs chapter 20. And verse 20, whoever curses his father, this is 2020, excuse me, whoever curses his father or his mother, his lamp shall be put out in deep darkness. And then over in chapter 30, Perhaps I was the barbaric parent who threatened my kids with the Bible, but I often, well, I don't know if it was often, but once in a while I referred to not just verse 11, but verse 17. Notice in Proverbs 30, 11, there is a generation that curses its father and does not bless its mother. Let's just follow out that train. There is a generation that is pure in its own eyes, yet is not washed from its filthiness. There is a generation, oh, how lofty are their eyes and their eyelids are lifted up. There's a generation whose teeth are like swords and whose fangs are like knives to devour the poor from off the earth and the needy from among men. So, verse 11, if that generation curses its father, it doesn't take a lot to realize that this is the generation that's going to devour the poor from off the earth and the needy from among men. And then dropping down to verse 17, I used to warn my kids, you know, watch out for the ravens if you're not on good behavior with your parental units. 3017, the eye that mocks his father and scorns obedience to his mother, the ravens of the valley will pick it out and the young eagles will eat it. So going back to the law code in Exodus chapter 21, you see that God takes seriously the fifth commandment. God takes seriously the sixth commandment, and if we jump into this new covenant setting, where we understand from our confession of faith that we are not obliged to the judicial laws of Moses with the same obligation that the theocratic nation of Israel bore under direct rule by God in the land that he gave them. Nevertheless, there is a general equity principle. If we move into the new covenant era with that general equity principle, I would suggest we've got big problems in society when there's an utter disregard for the sixth commandment that we see so flagrantly, but as well for the fifth commandment, parental authority not being respected in the home. Parental authority not being enforced in the home. Not all the blame lies in the wretched kids, a lot of the blame lies in the wretched parents that don't take seriously their responsibility as God's vice-regent to bring up these children in a manner that is consistent, not with conversion, we can't change their hearts, but is consistent with restraint and consistent with those things that God condemns and those things that God forbids. So this antithesis to the fifth commandment results in capital punishment, according to Exodus chapter 21 at verse 15, for the one who assaults his parental units, or in verse 17, those who curse their father or mother. So those are laws concerning homicide. Now notice the laws concerning bodily injury. The first is the injury sustained in a fight in verses 18 and 19. So if men contend with each other and one strikes the other with a stone or with his fist, again brethren, look at the wisdom of God. If I was going to develop a law code, I don't know that I'd be thinking down the the road to two morons getting in a fist fight in the street. I mean, I would now because I have the Bible, but I'm not sure I would then if I was going to, you know, regulate life on an island. Well, we're going to have to make sure that, you know, anybody that gets in a fist fight on the way to the grocery store, we need to have a law in place to be able to deal with that particular thing. You do see the wisdom of God in the application of those general principles in the civil polity in Israel. So verse 18, if men contend with each other, and one strikes the other with a stone or with his fist, and he does not die but is confined to his bed, if he rises again and walks about outside with his staff, then he who struck him shall be acquitted. He shall only pay for the loss of his time and shall provide for him to be thoroughly healed. So you have two men engaged in a fight, with or without a weapon, signified here by fist or stone. So either he has a fist or no weapon, or he has a weapon. One of the men is injured. I would call him the loser in this particular fight. The winner hurts the loser, and the loser is confined to his bed. Notice, if the man recovers, according to verse 19, if he rises again and walks about outside with his staff, then he who struck him shall be acquitted. In other words, he's not guilty of the crime of murder, he's not incapacitated the man, he has not rendered him inoperative or ineffective in terms of his work. But there is a financial recompense or remuneration involved. He shall only pay for the loss of his time and shall provide for him to be thoroughly healed. He pays for the loss of time, presumably he can't go to work because you whooped him in a fight and he needs to recover in his bed. So those days that he missed at work, you need to pay for that and you need to make sure that he's compensated until he's thoroughly healed. But beyond that, he doesn't get several sessions at his local therapist because now he's mentally harmed or he's got a loser mindset and he needs to get back into therapy. That stuff, the pain and suffering and all of that rigmarole, that's not involved here. And again, I think Stuart is right here. He says, behind the logic of this law appears to be the assumption that people who choose to fight choose to take the risk of injury and cannot expect compensation beyond their actual out-of-pocket expenses for injuries they incur in fighting. If you're gonna go ahead and go to blows, you gotta understand, you may lose, you may be incapacitated. So you can't charge that guy who won you, who bested you for two years of therapy because you got bested in a brawl. He says there is no assumption of premeditation in this law. And so essentially what you have is a law with reference to bodily injury, and it basically says that the man who is injured in the fight is compensated to the point where he lost time and he is provided until he's thoroughly healed. And then finally, the injury sustained by slaves. Again, all of these passages dealing with slaves, we wrestled a bit with this last time in chapter 21, verses 1 to 11, are difficult. They are tough. This is not the slavery that we saw that happened in the U.S. taking persons, kidnapping persons from Africa and bringing them back and putting them into slavery here. So there's something different here in terms of the origin point. Some commentators speculate that what's in view here are foreign slaves. If you turn to Leviticus chapter 25, There's some warrant or merit for that particular reading, that what Exodus 21 is dealing with are foreign slaves. Leviticus chapter 25, specifically at verse 39. And if one of your brethren who dwells by you becomes poor and sells himself to you, you shall not compel him to serve as a slave. As a hired servant and a sojourner, he shall be with you and shall serve you until the year of jubilee. So there does seem to be a distinction in terms of those that were within Israel. And remember, we saw last time that somebody could, yes, sell themselves into slavery. We'd call that indentured servitude. They don't have enough money, so they put themselves in that position, and they serve, they're provided room, they're provided a board, they do so for a period of six years, and then they're free to go. With reference to the thief that is found out and does not have the wherewithal to pay his debt, chapter 22 verse 3 deals with that situation. If the sun is risen on him, there shall be guilt for his bloodshed. He shall make full restitution. If he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft. So those were at least two instances as to why an Israelite would become a servant to another Israelite. Either A, he was too poor to make a living on his own, or B, he was a thief and he needed remediation. He needed remedial training and to pay back the debt that he incurred in his crime or his life of crime. So going back to this particular situation, We notice in verse 20, if a man beats his male or female servant with a rod so that he dies under his hand, he shall surely be punished. So the discipline of a slave resulting in the death of the slave, or the discipline of the slave by the master. The assumption is, and this is a tough assumption, especially for us in the 21st century, that a master had the right to discipline his slave. Now, Stewart again, I'm going to lean on him here with reference to corporal punishment. I think he makes a good point, and a point that obviously would cause everybody outside this room to lose their minds. So let's just kind of try to keep it together, at least in this room. Corporal punishment remains widely in use in the modern world, being built into the familial and even formal legal structures of many nations. It was virtually universally practiced in the ancient world and predominated in the modern Western world until the latter part of the 20th century. I don't think that's inaccurate. I think that's right on. It's only been in the last generation or so where we have this outrage against the infliction of corporal punishment, especially with reference to the family. It can be reported or ratted out. to social services, your children can be taken away from you for simply doing what the Bible commands us to do. The Bible is not silent with reference to disciplining children. Well, obviously the Bible isn't silent with reference to a master disciplining a servant. He goes on to say, although many modern Westerners would today regard slapping, spanking, caning to be forms of abuse, it should be noted that their opinions are not historically grounded. So maybe revulsion because we just can't envision it, or it might be something that is so contrary to our modern thought But if you look at the history of the world, up until the latter part of the 20th century, it was pretty commonplace for persons to be spanked, or slapped, or caned, or other forms of corporal punishment in order to deal with their infractions, to deal with their issues. And again, it's not to abuse them, to go wild against them, and to just inflict the most pain you can. Chapter 21, 26 to 27 applies the lex talionis, to a vicious master of a servant. If the master knocks out a tooth, then the servant goes free. If the master pokes out an eye, then the servant goes free. So there were laws in place to protect the servant class, the slave class, and that's precisely what's happening here in 2120. Again, it seems offensive to us, but let's just try to jump back into the theocratic situation. If a man beats his male or female servant with a rod so that he dies under his hand, he shall surely be punished. Notwithstanding, if he remains alive a day or two, he shall not be punished, for he is his property." The old King James has it, the ESV has it, and it is literally, for he is his money. It's his possession. He spent the money for this particular servant or this particular slave. and therefore he is not held criminally responsible with reference to murder in this particular instance. Again, it seems offensive and it seems difficult, but it does protect the servant and it does protect the master. And I would say practically, I don't know many people that have tools in their business and they try to sabotage them. You don't go out and buy a John Deere tractor, not that I have any concept of this, but if I did, I wouldn't put sand in the gas tank. I wouldn't do anything to purposefully disable that piece of equipment. From what I understand, a John Deere tractor is pretty expensive, and you wouldn't do things that would depart or deprive you of that capital investment. I can't imagine that a conscientious slaveholder in Old Covenant Israel would haphazardly beat his servants or beat his slaves any more than I can imagine a farmer putting sand in the gas tank of his John Deere. So again, some of these laws are in place to protect you know, the vicious master, the one general sort of exception to the rule. But for the most part, as I would imagine, most people would probably want to secure and protect their investment, secure and protect those things that made them money and that was or were tools in their hands to accomplish the particular tasks that they had at hand. So again, tough, dealing with servant-slave situation here, verses 20 and 21. Verses 26 and 27, God willing, we'll look at next week, but it's a lot more cut and dry. It simply demands the punishment of a vicious master who is that, perhaps, exception to the general rule of a responsible master taking care of his slave or servant in such a way that everybody's happy. Remember in chapter 21, verses 1 to 11, the master had a vested interest in what happened in terms of his home, he provided the room, he provided the board, he provided all those things that were necessary to sustain the life of the servants and so therefore he had interest in making sure that everything went well and according to plan. In conclusion, as I said, with reference to the general equity of these laws, With the exception of the servant laws, the slave laws, we have a pretty cut and dry application of general equity. Somebody that has absolute disregard for parental authority is probably going to have absolute disregard for the police, they're going to have absolute disregard for teachers, they're going to have absolute disregard for employers, should they even get jobs. These are laws that I think should have application in our society today and of course the whole idea of murder and specifically if the crime of murder is to be punishable by death and our civil government is absolutely contrary to that way of thinking. You know, I've said it before, when I look at our Prime Minister's Twitter feed, I see a lot about climate, I see a lot about equity, I see a lot about all kinds of things, but nothing about justice, nothing about crime, nothing about punishment, nothing about the actual job that is given by God to the civil government. They do not bear the sword in vain. That's the specific purpose. It isn't to feed us. It isn't to educate us. It isn't to give us health care. It isn't to do all those things that they've undertaken. It is to make sure that criminal offenders don't run rampant on our streets, raping, pillaging, and destroying everybody and everything they see. if the civil government has a particular task she is coming up very short in our own generation when everything else concerns the government besides the actual punishment of criminal elements within society We know the train is off the tracks, and we know that there are bad things happening, and we ought to pray that they not only do those things, which, you know, we might have a vested interest in, more this, more that, more this, more that, but pray that they do the thing that God commands them to do. We have an epidemic, a pandemic of crime on our streets, and those things are running rampant, and we need redress for those things. So the heinousness of the particular crimes, the capital offenses, murder, parental assault and cursing, and kidnapping. And then the justice of capital punishment, it's assumed. It is assumed based on that statement given by God to Noah in Genesis 9. We see it reaffirmed in the New Covenant under Paul in Romans 13. Whether there's a whole litany of crimes that should be punished by the civil state, we can at least say this much. The crime of murder demands the execution of the criminal offender, because if not, we are in rebellion against the living and true God. Well, let's pray, and then if there's any questions... We'll try to deal with those. Father in heaven, we see your wisdom as revealed in the law code here. We see your justice and your righteousness, your concern for innocent parties, innocent victims and crimes. And God, we see in our own generation, our own society, something what Solomon writes of in Proverbs chapter 30. That is dangerously close to what we witness each and every day, Lord God. We pray that you would be merciful With reference to our civil government, we pray that you would grant them wisdom, grant them that prudence necessary to do the actual job they've been instituted by God to do. I pray as well, Father, that you would cause us, as your people, to think your thoughts after you in terms of prayer. in terms of our civic involvement and those things that we seek to be as citizens in this body politic. And we just pray that you would be merciful, send forth your glorious gospel. We pray that more and more people would be saved by grace through faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.