“And if one man’s ox
hurts another’s so that it dies, then they shall sell the live ox and divide
its price equally; and also they shall divide the dead ox. Or if it is known that the ox was previously
in the habit of goring, yet its owner has not confined it, he shall surely pay
ox for ox, and the dead animal shall become his.”
-->
This to me looks like the original version of “no fault”
accidents policy that many jurisdictions have today. If two oxen belonging to two different
individuals get into a goring battle between them and one of them dies, then
both owners jointly sell the ox that stays alive and equally divide the money
they receive for it. With both being
involved in the sale, there was a greater chance of the deal being honest and
fair. And in keeping with earlier
principles that God had given the Israelites, the two owners also divide the
carcass of the dead ox.
But those approaches are only implemented in the case
where neither ox ‘had a record’ of previous such accidents. Clearly, since no one could correctly assess
which ox was to blame for causing the fight, both owners could be said to have benefitted
and also both may have lost. (The idea reminds me a little of the story of the
two women who each claimed before wise Solomon that they were the mother of a
baby they both wanted. Not being able to
carry out DNA tests at the time, Solomon dictated a very unusual solution –
simply cut the baby in half. Of course,
Solomon knew exactly what he was suggesting because the real mother would
rather give the baby to the other woman than to see it killed.)
But where one of the oxen (and it implies the one that
remains alive) had a previous ‘goring record’ or a habit of goring other oxen
or people, then the owner of that animal incurs the entire blame and
compensates the owner of the other animal.
Not unlike how our courts approach the establishment of blame today.
Is there a lesson here for us? I think so.
The commentator Robert Jamieson suggests this principle led to laws in
certain eastern regions that were intended to inspire caution in us, and help us to “keep noxious animals
under restraint”. As a minimum, we
should heed that caution. Commentator
David Guzik suggests that this principle was God’s way of helping us deal with
human negligence. He goes on to imply
that these various laws were intended as instructions to judges who were to
adjudicate matters between the Israelites.
As such, the judges were required to investigate, to the extent
possible, any wrongful intent and then to rule accordingly keeping fairness as
the goal.
Those
principles can well be applied to the responsibilities of parents or
grandparents who are often asked to break up an argument or a fight between
siblings. Our goal should be to
investigate and then to act fairly.
Finally, supervisors, managers, and owners can apply these principles
where their subordinate employees (assuming there are no labor unions involved)
are at odds with each other. In all
these circumstances, the “no fault” decision may be appropriate, but sometimes
through observance and investigation we may conclude it is not. As ‘judges’ of the behavior of others where
we rightfully have that responsibility (e.g. as parents or employers), we can
only pray that we would have Solomon’s type of wisdom to adjudicate fairly and
virtuously.
- - 30 - -
[Are you looking for a speaker at your church,
your club, school, or organization? Ken is available to preach, teach,
challenge, and/or motivate. Please contact us.]
Thanks for dropping
by. Sign up to receive free updates. We bring you relevant information from all
sorts of sources. Subscribe for free to this blog or follow us by clicking on
the appropriate link in the right side bar. And please share this blog with your
friends. Ken Godevenos, Church and Management Consultant, Accord Consulting. And while you’re here, why not check out some
more of our recent blogs shown in the right hand column. Ken.
It would be great if you would share your thoughts or questions on this blog in the comments section below or on social media.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your comment.