We're in Exodus chapter 21. Exodus chapter 21, we're considering the laws concerning homicide and bodily injury. So that section is found in chapter 21 at verse 12 to verse 32. And then there's laws concerning property damage and theft from 21, 33, and following. Remember, these are concrete applications of the general principles of the Ten Commandments found in Exodus chapter 20. Exodus chapter 21, one begins with this statement. Now these are the judgments which you shall set before them. So then it gets into these applications of the commandments for life in Israel, for life in the civil polity. They will ultimately go into the land of Canaan, and they have a law to regulate their conduct while they are in that land. So I'll read verses 12 to 32, and then our focus tonight will be 22 to 32. So 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 to thrust with its horn in times past, and it has been made known to his 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. Well, as I said, these are laws concerning homicide and bodily injury. There's a big difference between life in Chilliwack, British Columbia in the 21st century versus life in Israel in this second millennium. So, there's going to be some things I simply don't understand, some of the stuff that deals with servants and slaves, some of the other particulars involved, but we're just going to do an overview to try to get the gist out of these concrete applications of the Ten Commandments in the judicial laws of Moses. Remember our confession of faith speaks to the law of God. It says that the moral law is that which was communicated by God to Adam in the Garden of Eden, and then it was codified at Sinai in the Ten Commandments. So that moral law is binding upon all men everywhere. It doesn't matter what covenant you're under, you're under the moral law. The Ten Commandments are for everybody, everywhere, at all times. But to Israel he also gave ceremonial laws which were typical and prefigured and foreshadowed the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ. Those were fulfilled by him and therefore abrogated in this new covenant arena for the people of God. There were also judicial laws and that's what we're studying here. The application of the Ten Commandments to civil society. Our Confession speaks to this and it says that this Law is no longer binding on the people of God in the New Covenant because of the nature of the theocratic situation that Israel found themselves in. That is no longer the case, so therefore judicial law that governed Israel in the land is no longer binding. The confession does go on to say that the general equity is of use. So that means the principle involved that is applicable to our present situation, we can apply with earnestness from the Old Testament. So as we looked last week, we saw the prohibition against murder in verses 12 to 14. There we saw the distinction between murder and manslaughter, or murder and accidental homicide. And the primary emphasis with reference to murder is lying in wait. premeditation, hatred, some sort of a malice of forethought involved on the part of one person to take the life of another. There's accidental homicide, and the Bible makes that distinction. Not here specifically. It highlights the premeditation in verse 14, but when you look at Numbers and you look at Deuteronomy, the concrete example is the axe head. If I went out to the forest to chop wood with Mac and my axe head flew off into his head, then I would not be held liable for murder. I had no malice in my heart toward Mac. I had no hatred or premeditation. However, there would be still punishment for me. I would have to go to one of these cities of refuge and bide my time there for a season. The reason for that was to discourage that kind of behavior. In other words, when you live in a civil polity, you're to exercise responsibility. We see that same sort of an emphasis tonight, or we will, with reference to the goring ox. So we've got this distinction between murder and manslaughter. And then in verses 15 to 17, you had the prohibition against parental assault and kidnapping. So parental assault is covered in verse 15, kidnapping in verse 16, and then back to parents in verse 17. But in terms of the kidnapping, look at verse 16. He who kidnaps a man and sells him, or if he is found in his hand. So he can't say, well, you know, I was just going to move him along. I'm just trafficking in him, but I'm not going to actually hold on to him. Either way, any involvement that somebody had in this act of kidnapping was indeed a capital offense. So with reference to murder, it's a capital offense. With reference to the assault of parents, whether the parent dies or not, that is such a grievous act that it demanded execution. Kidnapping, of course, to steal a man's liberty, is akin to stealing a man's life, and that's what the scripture sets forth. And then, of course, somebody who would curse his father or his mother. Probably not going to be a contributing member of society. Probably not going to be an asset to the body politic if he has that kind of a waywardness with reference to his parents. Then we move to the laws concerning bodily injury. Verses 18 and 19. The injury sustained in a fight. If two men fight, one of them gets injured, the only thing he has recourse to is time lost at work until such time that he is healed and able to go back to work. And then the servant law in verses 20 to 21. Injuries sustained by slaves. Again, difficult in terms of our orientation with reference to our experience or the most that we know of of slavery as the shadow slavery that we saw take place in America and Africa, with reference to verses 20 and 21, the essence of the law is that a master was culpable, he was responsible. However, if the servant remained alive, then it was obvious that he never intended to murder that particular servant, so there is that stipulation involved. Now we move on to the threat to a mother and her children in verses 22 to 25. Next, the punishment of a vicious master in verses 26 to 27. And then finally, the goring ox of verses 28 to 32. A great name for a heavy metal band, the goring ox. But if you look first of all, and this is a passage I hope you're all familiar with, I typically preach on it, or around it, or at least include it on Sanctity of Life Sunday, because this does in fact cover not only a pregnant woman, but the baby in the womb. I was surprised today to learn that it's International Safe Abortion Day. Didn't know there was an International Safe Abortion Day, but our Prime Minister tweeted that with some degree of glee and with the absolute promise to always protect a person's right to choose, which seemed a bit ironic in light of the COVID mandates to get vaccines if you didn't want them. But this passage speaks with specificity to the issue of abortion. So notice in the first place the specific situation that is occurring. We already had in verse 18, if men contend with each other, we drop down to verse 22, we see these same sorts of men in the civil polity that get into a fight. They get into a fist fight. It says, if men fight and hurt a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely. So most likely she's a pregnant woman that's a wife of one of the two fools that's out there brawling on the street. Most likely she could have been a passerby, but probably one of the guy's wives. So these men fight and they hurt a woman with child. Now there's a translation issue that I typically cover when we look at this verse on Sanctity of Life Sunday. Some of the English translations translate it this way. If men fight and hurt a woman with child so that she miscarries, yet no harm follows. At that point, the yet no harm follows only applies to the woman. No longer is there a baby because she's miscarried the baby. But if we understand the passage correctly, we'll understand that the law specifically speaks not only to the mother, but it speaks to the baby as well. So if men fight and hurt a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, this is a good translation, yet no harm follows. So she's given birth prematurely. So now you've got a mother and you've got her baby. And no harm follows to either mother or her baby, then there's a monetary fine affixed to the particular individual that did that activity. So the text specifically, or literally, is if man fight and hurt a woman with a child and her children, it's plural, there was the potential of twins or triplets or whatever it goes on from there, four, five, six, a whole heap of children could be in there. If, and her children come out, yet no harm follows. So the if, or so it goes on to say later on in verse 23, but if any harm follows. So we're dealing again with two people. You've got a mother, you've got her child. There is a specific Hebrew word for miscarriage. That's not in this passage. That's not the language that's used. There's also a specific Hebrew word for the product of a miscarriage, or one that is untimely born. Again, that word is not present in this particular passage. So to translate it as miscarriage, or to translate it as one untimely born, would be wrong or incorrect. The language used here is that used elsewhere for childbirth. So again, if a man fight and hurt a woman with child, and her children come out, that language of coming out is something that you see throughout scripture in terms of the birth of babies. You can turn to Genesis 35. We'll go to the ones that we've looked at in the past. Genesis chapter 25. Genesis chapter 25, same sort of language that's involved here. And again, it's very important because you've got some English translations that blur the distinction here, and then basically have a law that protects the woman, but doesn't protect the pre-born baby, the baby that is born prematurely. If you notice in Genesis chapter 25, at verse 22, The children struggled together within her. Interesting that the Bible refers to them as children. And she said, if all is well, why am I like this? So she went to inquire of the Lord. And the Lord said to her, two nations are in your womb. Excuse me, two peoples shall be separated from your body. One people shall be stronger than the other, and the older shall serve the younger. So when her days were fulfilled for her to give birth, indeed there were twins in her womb. And the first, notice the language, came out red. That's the exact and precise language that's seen in the judicial law in Exodus chapter 21. You've got children coming out. You've got the potential or possibility for twins or triplets to be in a woman's womb. And those children, because of the result of this fight, she's struck, there's some sort of trauma, and she goes into labor, and these children come out, or the child comes out. So the first came out red. He was like a hairy garment all over, so they called his name Esau. Afterward, his brother came out, and his hand took hold of Esau's heel. So his name was called Jacob. You see the same thing over in chapter 35. chapter 35 at verse 11. The promise made to Abraham, and to Isaac, and to Jacob in terms of the extension of the kingdom of God through the seed of Abraham, which is Christ ultimately. So 3511, also God said to me, I am God Almighty, be fruitful and multiply. A nation and a company of nations shall proceed from you, shall come out from you. That's the language that is employed with reference to childbirth. You see it in chapter 38. Chapter 38, specifically at verses 28 to 30. Chapter 38 at verse 27. Now, it came to pass at the time for giving birth that, behold, twins were in her womb. And so it was, when she was giving birth, that the one put out his hand, and the midwife took a scarlet thread and bound it on his hand, saying, This one came out first. Then it happened, as he drew back his hand, that his brother came out unexpectedly, and she said, How did you break through? this breach be upon you." Therefore, his name was called Peres. Afterward, his brother came out, who had the scarlet thread on his hand, and his name was called Zerah. So, going back to chapter 21 in the book of Exodus, the Scripture uses language that is conspicuous here to refer to the birth of children. And so, what you have is a law that protects not only the woman that is struck, but the child or children that proceed from her womb. Going back to the law, we see if men fight and hurt a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet no harm follows to the woman or to the new baby, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman's husband imposes on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. It's obviously a traumatic experience. That's obviously undue duress. It is definitely distressful for that particular woman. They didn't have the nursery set up. Perhaps they didn't have the crib yet. They were still looking at paint colors and that sort of thing. So there was a lot of things involved. And so this moron has to pay because he's caused this kind of a hardship upon this particular family. But if harm does follow, notice in verse 23, but if any harm follows, again, to the mother or to the child that has come out, or the children that have come out, he then invokes what's called the law of retaliation, or the lex talionis. Now, that is inserted here, obviously, for this incident, with reference to the two men fighting that strike a mother, a woman, that is pregnant, but it's also for the rest of the law code. So it's there, and it does double duty. It does business with this particular situation in verses 22 and 23, but it also sets forth a particular and abiding principle in terms of penal sanction. So it says, if any harm follows, then you shall give life for life. Now notice that, with reference to the unborn baby that comes out prematurely, if there is harm to that baby or to that mother, that baby is as much covered in this law as is the mother. Again, it's a law that speaks with great specificity to the act of abortion. So if any harm follows, then you shall give life for life. And it's intriguing because this would be accidental homicide. These two guys fighting didn't intend to hit a woman. The two guys fighting didn't intend to cause her to have a premature birth. The two guys fighting didn't intend for any harm to come to this pregnant woman's baby. And when we look up in the passage before us, accidental homicide is usually met with a trip to the city of refuge. If I let my axe head fly off, it falls into my neighbor's head, I've killed him, that's wrong, but I'm not a murderer, and so I'm allowed to go to the city of refuge and I keep my life. But in this instance of accidental homicide, there is the demand for execution. There is the demand for that penal sanction of life for life. And then it goes on in terms of this law of retaliation to speak to other things. Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. Now, when we consider this Lex Talionis, it's probably curious to us to wonder if there was a particular squad in Israel that had as their job the gouging out of eyes and the breaking out of teeth. Most likely, that probably didn't happen. More likely, it's the principle that is enjoined by this particular statement of law. This giving of life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe, demands that the punishment must fit the crime. The punishment must fit the crime. If you look at verses 26 and 27, in the case of a vicious master, the servant doesn't get to poke out his eye or break out his tooth. The servant gets to go free. He doesn't have to oblige that contract that says he's in servitude for six years. So that's one indicator. But with reference to this principle, if it were applied literally, there was a great potential for imbalance. If a one-eyed man gouged out the eye of another man, then it would be cruel and unusual punishment ultimately to gouge out the other eye of the criminal in that particular instance. If it was the case that somebody burned somebody or gave a stripe, it would be hard to replicate that just so. with reference to the victim. If the victim had the opportunity for financial remuneration or the joy of seeing his offender, the guy who victimized him, if he'd rather have his eye poked out or his teeth his tooth yanked out. I'm pretty sure that most likely what is going on here is that emphasis on the punishment must fit the crime. Matthew Poole makes the observation, this is a sure and righteous rule. Punishments may be less, but never should be greater than the fault. So if a one-eyed man poked out your eye, and then in return you poked out his last remaining eye, he'd be a whole lot worse off than the punishment that was fit for him at that particular point. Some of the older commentators get into this in detail. I think it's worth reading because I think it's a very helpful discussion to have. But in terms of this lex talionis, or the law of retaliation, it was designed to do double duty. In the first place, it would ensure that we wouldn't have too lenient of sanctions, right? It would be the case, or it could be the case, that somebody would get off without due recompense. I think we see that happening all the time, and I think that that only institutes a challenge to the morale of the civil polity. So with reference to the law of retaliation, it would have been a check against leniency in punishment. Again, too severe is not enjoined by the law, but leniency is certainly frowned upon. But it would check severity in punishment as well. When Modern says that far from promoting unbridled vengeance, the lex talionis prohibits excessive retaliation. And we can be guilty, maybe you can't, I shouldn't include you in my sin, I can be guilty of wanting excessive retaliation. I can be guilty of wanting excessive punishment for individuals. Now again, that's not necessarily the worst thing if it is requisite in terms of the violation. But we need to make sure that we understand that there are principles of justice and righteousness and equity built into the law of God, and we're not supposed to be too lenient, but we're also not supposed to be too harsh either. And so, cruel and unusual punishment is not honoring to God. In fact, if you turn to the book of Deuteronomy, Deuteronomy chapter 25, you see an instance of this. Deuteronomy chapter 25. this is the infliction of corporal punishment upon a criminal offender in the civil polity of Old Cops Israel and it demands attention because it demands very much notice in verse 1 of chapter 25 if there is a judge, the judges may judge them and they justify the righteous and condemn the wicked of corporal punishment before we get to people sanctioned there has to be a proper trial You can't punish people without a trial. You can't punish people if they haven't been indicted and arraigned and arrested and read their rights. All those things have to obtain before you throw somebody into solitary confinement, before you throw somebody into jail, before you inflict corporal punishment upon them, or before you inflict capital punishment on them. I mean, the purges of the Soviet Union under Stalin are famous, right? I mean, the trial was at the end of a barrel. That was about all you got, and that was it. So there had to be a proper trial, and we notice that there's also proper supervision. They come to court, that the judges may judge them. They justify the righteous and condemn the wicked. Notice in verse 2, then it shall be, if the wicked man deserves to be beaten, that the judge will cause him to lie down and be beaten in his presence, notice, according to his guilt, with a certain number of blows. Okay, you couldn't be overly excessive. Couldn't say, well, you know, the spirit overtook me. I know we're at 25 and we weren't supposed to go past that, but yeah, I just got a fresh burst of energy, so I gave you 15 more. That's unlawful. That's ungodly. It's unrighteous, brethren. Even at some base level of our hearts, we might rejoice in the reality that a notorious criminal got perhaps more than he deserved. We have to abide by the law of God when it comes to these things. So there is proper proportion. He is beaten in his presence according to his guilt, and then there is a limitation imposed upon the punishment with a certain number of blows. And then it says in verse 3, 40 blows he may give him and no more. And then notice the rationale, lest he should exceed this and beat him with many blows above these, and your brother be humiliated in your sight. So the man still retains the character of an image bearer. The man still has intrinsic dignity even as a criminal that's being punished corporally for a particular crime. And a crime that was probably pretty bad if he's getting up to 40 lashes with a whip. So this man nevertheless is an image bearer, he hasn't forfeit that, he hasn't become an animal, and he does deserve the proper trial, proper supervision, proper proportion that his punishment deserves, a proper limit with reference to that punishment, and then dignity maintained on his behalf. So 40 blows he may give him and no more, lest he should exceed this and beat him with many blows above these, and your brother be humiliated in your sight. We never stop being the creature of God. We never stop being the image bearer of God. We cannot get to that place of the animal where we just rejoice in bloodlust and forget all manner of consistency and discipline relative to the punishment of criminal offenders. So going back to the law code in the book of Exodus, we have the lex talionis appended to or attached to these men fighting and hurting the woman that is with child, and she gives birth prematurely. So the law protects the woman, the law protects the baby or babies that come out of her, and the law does so in a manner that in some sense even exceeds accidental homicide that is spoken to previously in the chapter. Not an exceeding in the sense of, it is a compromise or jeopardizing dignity and justice and all of that sort of thing. It's just underscoring that protective nature of God relative to the vulnerable and the weak that are in society. And then notice in the second place with reference to the punishment of a vicious master in verses 26 and 27. If a man strikes the eye of his male or female servant. Notice it's male or female. This isn't just a You know, if the man gets hurt, well, that's all there is to it. No, the male or the female. We've got the man, the woman, and the ignoring ox laws. We've got the child, boy or girl. We've got the slave, the servant. All of us, all persons, were covered under the provision of God's law. It wasn't a two-tier society. It wasn't, well, you know, if you happen to have money, you're going to be okay. If you don't have money, well, tough on you. No, the law spoke with equity to various people groups within Old Covenant Israel. And in verses 26 and 27, we know or we already have the assumption based on verses 20 and 21, that it was legit, or the Bible at least recognizes the chastisement or the discipline of a servant by a master. And so verses 26 and 27 function as a check to that. You can discipline your servant, but you cannot be excessive. If you are excessive in that discipline, if you jeopardize the servant's life, if you endanger that person, if you gouge out an eye, or if you break out a tooth, you're going to be liable for that. And it's going to affect you financially. male or female servant and destroys it, he shall let him go free for the sake of his eye. Remember, he was obliged to serve for six years, according to chapter 21, verses one to six. There were rules there governing the servant-master relationship, and ultimately it was a contractual obligation wherein the master had the prerogative to provide room and board and all things necessary to govern the life of his, or to sustain the life of his servants. Now, when we look at these particular laws, it's probably the case that most servants wouldn't jeopardize their property this way. I used the illustration of a John Deere tractor last week. You wouldn't pour sand into the gas tank. You wouldn't go out and buy that beautiful, wonderful machine for, I'm guessing, billions and billions of dollars and take it home and pour sand in it. Why would you jeopardize a piece of property that is going to be useful to you in terms of the management of your land? Well, why would anybody in their right mind do that with their servant? Why would you gouge out his eye? Why would you break out his tooth? But the law is there in the eventuality that somebody does break that. So we could look at this and say, wow, that's terrible. There was servanthood in Old Covenant Israel. Remember last week or last time, two weeks ago, we considered why were people servants in Old Covenant Israel? Well, you certainly had foreigners or pagans or heathens that you would bring into that service. But within this context, at least in the first part of chapter 21, it seems to be the persons within Israel. Why would an Israelite be in a servant situation? One, if he was a thief. 22.3 tells us, if a man is caught stealing and he doesn't have anything to pay back with, then he sells himself into slavery, indentured servitude, to work off that debt. But as well, a man could be poor. And if he was poor, he would sell himself into indentured servitude for a six-year contract. It's not a lot different than working at an Amazon distribution center. It's not a lot different than working at, you know, Canada Post. It's a contractual obligation wherein we get something for services rendered. So this particular law, we could say, wow, it's terrible that they had servants in Old Covenant Israel. Yeah, but it's amazing that God Most High, the living and the true God, has laws built into His law code to protect them, to keep them, to watch over them, and to make sure that if there was a vicious master, that God is jollies out of gouging out eyes and breaking out teeth from servants, that man would be financially ruined. And so the law speaks specifically to that particular situation. Even though a servant was the money of his employer in the sense of being his contractually obligated property, the right of a master to enforce his contract with his servant was not absolute. This is Stewart. He says, human rights were more important. So that's what that text or that's what that law sets out before us. It's already said that he is his money or he is his property in chapter 21 at verse 21. So if it is his property, then he does have that contractual situation with him, but if he breaks that or he breaks the guy's tooth or gouges out his eye, then that invalidates that contractual obligation and the man gets to go free. And then as well, we've got the goring ox. So the general law or the general principle is verse 28. 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. This kind of goes back to Genesis chapter 9, prior to the statement concerning capital punishment for humans. In 9.6, 9.5 tells us, Surely for your lifeblood I will demand a reckoning. From the hand of every beast I will require it, and from the hand of man." So if an ox gores a man, and again, this probably wouldn't happen on a regular basis. I mean, most farm animals are pretty docile and they do what they're supposed to do, but if you had one that wasn't castrated and He had a bit of a nasty streak about him and he saw something that looked intriguing to him. Well, that just might happen. So again, you're dealing with a law code where it's most likely the case that people aren't wandering around day by day poking out eyes and breaking off teeth and letting their oxen out so they can go gore people. Probably wasn't like that, but you needed laws on the books for that instance, or for that particular situation, so you're not left sort of scratching your head. And of course, these are general laws as well, from which you could extrapolate other principles into other specific situations. So, if an ox gores a man or a woman to death, then the ox shall surely be stoned, its flesh shall not eaten. But notice, the owner of the ox shall be acquitted. He didn't kill anybody. He didn't do it maliciously. He didn't open the gate or send his ox on a mission of hatred and destruction. Go take out the Jones family next door. He didn't do that. It was an accident. It was accidental on his part. Now, why doesn't he get to eat the animal? Well, probably twofold reason. One, the death of the animal ensured that the animal wouldn't gore again. And two, probably punishment. If, you know, there was some irresponsibility on his part, this would hopefully discipline it right out of him when he lost that money, when he lost that meat, when he wasn't able to avail himself of his capital investment. But the bottom line is, he's not criminally responsible. But now notice the repeat offense in verses 29 and following. But if the ox tended to thrust with its horn in times past, and it has been made known to his 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. Notice again, the law covers man and woman. How many times have you heard, oh, the Old Testament. Oh, it's so chauvinistic. Oh, women are second class citizens. That's simply untrue. That's not the case. We've got the protection of men and women in the body politic. But in this particular instance, you've got this one fly that's driving me nuts and flying around my head here. In this particular instance, this ox tended to thrust. In times past, it's the case, what are you going to do? You're going to guard the ox. You're going to keep it so that it doesn't get out to kill the next door neighbor. In this particular instance, you kill the ox at 29. Its owner also shall be put to death. This would be a case of criminal negligence. This would be an instance where you had knowledge that there was a problem with your particular animal, which this is what the law ultimately speaks to. As a human being who owns animals, you're supposed to own those animals and use them in a responsible manner. When you're dealing with however many pound beasts that have the ability to gore people to death, there's a certain amount of responsibility that you have to own for that. So in this instance, he could be executed. He could be put to death. But then notice the turn in verse 30. The decision of a fine could be made in lieu of execution. There might be mitigating circumstances. So verse 30 builds into the law a provision for the judges in the future. It may not be a cut and dry case where the guy had the ox, the ox got out last week, it gored a neighbor, that ox was, you know, for whatever reason brought back and nobody found out about it except for the, they never got the judges involved, and then it got out again and killed somebody. the eventuality was, or another situation was, is that time had passed, and that this ox was loaned out to somebody, and the owner did not give the apparent warning, and yet, there was a recklessness on the part of the person. Let me just read Stuart, I think he gets this. It says, the second part of the verse gave necessary leeway to the judges in complicated cases. Suppose the bull had tried to gore someone only once, many years previously. Tried to. If it had, it would have been dead. Tried to. Many years previously. And someone had borrowed the bull against the owner's advice and had mistreated the bull and then was gored to death. Under such circumstances, a judge might well decide, and this law gave him the freedom to do so, that the death penalty for the bull's owner would not be fair, a fine being more appropriate to the actual level of culpability. Again, when you're dealing with laws, not everything is cotton dry. It's not always, you know, the black and white situation. I'm sure that's a challenge to modern judges and modern attorneys and all that sort of thing. there are things that aren't always as clear cut. And I think that's the transition between 29 and 30. If it is a clear cut of criminal negligence, the man will be executed. If it's not a clear cut case of criminal negligence, the man may not be executed, but he's going to be held responsible financially. It's going to cost him so that he learns his lesson and that he does not do that sort of a thing again. So 29, if it does, if it tended to thrust in times past, it was known, the man could be executed. If there are mitigating circumstances, the judges may impose on him a sum of money. In verse 30, then he shall pay to redeem his life, whatever is imposed on him. And then the law again goes to cover those whom we wouldn't normally think of. You'd think of the adults, you'd think of the man, you'd think of the woman. But whether it is gore to son or gore to daughter, according to this judgment, it shall be done to him. There were other cultures that didn't regard children. Perhaps they didn't get the rights, they didn't get the protection. There wasn't equal protection under the law for the pre-born or for little children. And then it goes on to deal with the servant. In verse 32, 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. Again, some difficulty in terms of the whole idea of the arrangement of having a servant, but the law speaks to the protection of even servants in Old Covenant Israel in the eventuality that an ox would gore them and kill them. Now from here on out, we've got property damage and theft. So again, some of this stuff is a bit difficult on this side of it, but hopefully we're getting the gist of it. The sixth commandment is central to the commands in this particular section in terms of murder and manslaughter. When we turn to the next section concerning property damage and theft, it'll be the eighth commandment. When you get to the laws concerning sexuality, it's the seventh commandment. You get the general principle, do not murder. Well, what does that look like in society? Well, it looks like a man premeditatively sitting, you know, hiding in a man's bush and murdering him with hatred in his heart. It looks like criminal negligence when you have an ox that has the tendency to gore people and you didn't secure the fence, the leash, or whatever it was necessary to keep that ox from engaging in that particular activity. So the general principles are most excellent, it is a reflection of God's holy will, it is for all men everywhere at all times, but this gives us that application in terms of civil society. So from this particular section, or this vantage point, we learn at least a few things. First, the need for responsible citizenship. If you're going to live in a civil polity and you decide to fight on the streets, realize there are repercussions for that. We are not animals. We don't just break out in fights without any regard for persons around us. In verses 18 and 19, if you beat someone up in a fight and you put him out of work, you might have some financial responsibility in terms of his inability to work. If you fight and you hurt a woman that's pregnant and she gives birth prematurely, that may cost you your life. And so responsible citizenship is a most important element in terms of civil society. Obviously, as well, the risk involved in owning an ox. Oh yeah, it's going to do a lot of work on the farm, it's going to help you immeasurably, but with that privilege comes the necessity of tending to it in such a way that it doesn't hurt or harm another person. We see in this section as well the potential criminality of negligence. You could extrapolate this to a whole host of things in our own generation. I mentioned the whole idea of putting a fence around your swimming pool so that your neighbor doesn't die, your neighbor kid doesn't die. Drunk driving. Somebody drinks and drives and they get caught and then they do it again. Well, you're in the arena of the goring ox. If you have done this in the past and you do it again, there's criminal negligence there that may render you in a world of hurt. So with reference to negligence, so responsible citizenship, but as well this idea of not being negligent, spending the few moments to make sure your axe head is sufficiently attached to the axe handle. making sure that the fence that surrounds your prize-winning ox with the horn that is able to bring down armies, make sure that you secure that beast or else you're going to be in trouble. And then, of course, we see in all of this the justice and the wisdom of God. Justice in terms of the reality that in a civil society, there can't be two or three tiers of justice. There must be law that covers all men everywhere. There must be law applied consistently and regularly in a manner that is responsive to the reality of the needs of civil society, but as well as wisdom. Mentioned last week, if I was going to plan how to do civil polity, probably would have never thought of the goring ox. Just going to tell you the honest truth. Never would have thought of some of the things that are built in here on this side of the land of Canaan and their life in the land when this would come to full fruition and operation. Certainly prior to the actual entering into the land and taking it and dividing it and all that sort of thing, they'd have need for a detailed law code. But all of this reflects the wisdom of God. Not Moses. Moses was the mediator. This is God's law. This is God's will. This is God's mind. relative to the civil polity in Old Covenant Israel. Well, I'll pray, and then if there's any questions, we can deal with that. Our God and our Father, we thank you for your word, we thank you for its clarity, we thank you for the consistency that we find in both the Old and the New Testament in terms of an emphasis on law. We know that we're not animals, we are governed, we are regulated, we have a lawgiver that has called us to a particular type of activity as creature and as new creatures in Christ Jesus. So help us to embrace these things, help us to delight in your law, and help us to glorify you. And we ask through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen. Any questions or comments? to both children and the womb. If you show us the ear, the same as you do with the legs, it shows how God thinks of that. He said, child, well, you have your womb, but that other passage, too, just sort of struck me that, you know, it says he chose to give life for life, which means it was a life in the womb. Yeah. Oh, yeah. You know, contrary to what these people argue nowadays, that's not until it's born. That's right. Oh, yeah. No, absolutely. Positively. Yeah. Just the use of the phrase, with child, in the history of the English language. I think there's the emphasis on using the word pregnant. That seems to be a more recent convention. Because even with child, you see that in Shakespeare, prior eras. So it's just our language has shifted. And I think it was last Saturday, I think it was the African young lady that spoke. Oh, you've already had lunch in it. But there was a luncheon after the Walk for Life. There was a couple of kids with scholarships that had presented essays or wanted some sort of essay context. There was an African girl who read her paper, and she alluded to how in some cultures somewhere, they didn't even have a word for abortion until Westerners came into play. They didn't even have a word for the concept. until people from the outside brought the concept that doesn't practice. So it's to say that words matter, language matters in this arena of pro-life ethics. And exactly, the dehumanization of the babies is what we're dealing with. Yeah, they like to use the word fetus. And the joke's on that. It means pre-born baby. Yeah, I'm just following the link on Newsome's sign that goes to abortion.ca.gov and it talks about, it ties to abortion, talks about removing pregnancy tissue from your uterus. There's actually billboards in California right now that say, if you need an abortion, come to California, and then quotes a scripture verse. Quotes Jesus. Quotes, love your neighbor as yourself. If you'd have told me a year ago that they'd be using scripture to justify abortion, even a year ago, I'd have said, come on. That's nuisance. It's interesting in Korea, when a baby's born, it's already one year old. So they mark birthdays. Makes sense. Well, there's probably more coffee if anybody wants to have a coffee.