God’s Laws Regarding Theft -- Exodus 22:1-5

“If a man steals an ox or a sheep, and slaughters it or sells it, he shall pay five oxen for the ox and four sheep for the sheep.  If the thief is caught while breaking in, and is struck so that he dies, there will be no blood guiltiness on his account.  But if the sun has risen on him, there will blood guiltiness on his account.  He shall surely make restitution; if he owns nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.  If what he stole is actually found alive in his possession, whether an ox or a donkey or a sheep, he shall pay double.  If a man lets a field or vineyard be grazed bare and lets his animal loose so that it grazes in another man’s field, he shall make restitution from the best of his own field and the best of his own vineyard.”

Exodus chapter 22 begins with laws on how those that are involved in various types of theft are to be treated. To begin with, contrary to what liberal minds may think, stealing is not a God-given right regardless of one’s circumstances.  Responding in forgiveness may well be encouraged, but the activity that initiates the need for forgiveness, is not.  The Bible calls for some restitution or repayment for theft.

We note in verse 1, that God calls for different amounts being paid as restitution for a stolen (and killed or sold) ox versus the amount paid for a stolen sheep.  Expositor John Gill (who preached in the same church as C. H. Spurgeon over one hundred years earlier) says this about the reason for the difference:

“ . . . because the one was more valuable than the other, as well as more useful, and also more easily stolen, and therefore the greater mulct or fine was laid upon the theft of it, to deter from it: the Targum of Jonathan expresses the reason of the law thus; five for oxen, because the theft of them hindered from ploughing, or made to cease from it; and for sheep but four, because there was trouble in the theft of them, and there was no tillage or agriculture by them: and Saadiah Gaon observes, that the damage that comes to the owner of the ox is more than that by a lamb, because with it, the ox, he ploughs, which is a creature that was used in those countries to be employed in that service, as well as in treading out the corn: Maimonides accounts for it thus:

“The restitution of the theft of oxen is increased by one, because the theft of them is easy; sheep are fed in flocks, and are easily kept and watched, and can scarcely be taken away by theft but in the night; but oxen are fed scattered here and there, and therefore cannot be so easily kept by the herdsmen; hence also their theft used to be more common:”

“Fourfold restitution was in use with the ancient Persians, with whom it was a rule,

“Whoever took any substance of another, in retaliation they took fourfold from him, and if he restored it, he gave fourfold of the same.''”

The text then turns to a matter of great debate of late.  What happens when the owner of the property kills the thief during his attempt to steal?  Or put another way, “do I as a guardian of my home and family, have the right to attack and perhaps kill an intruder in my home or on my property who is clearly stealing?”  I do not venture to answer the question from a legal standpoint – as I not a lawyer.  I will leave that to my friends.  But the Bible clearly states that in such a case, “there will be no blood guiltiness on his (the dead thief’s) account”.  John Gill explains it this way:

“There shall no blood be shed for him: as for a man that is murdered; for to kill a man when breaking into a house, and, by all appearance, with an intention to commit murder, if resisted, in defense of a man's self, his life and property, was not to be reckoned murder, and so not punishable with death: or, "no blood" shall be "unto him"; shall be imputed to him, the man that kills the thief shall not be chargeable with his blood, or suffer for shedding it; because his own life was risked, and it being at such a time, could call none to his assistance, nor easily discern the person, nor could know well where and whom he struck.”

This interpretation of the verse goes far into outlining some of the key considerations one must look at today in such cases, including: What would have been the intention of the thief if and when his/her action was resisted? Was anyone’s life at risk? Was other help available? Did the one that kill the thief know what he was doing? Etc.  (I am reminded of the case of Oscar Pistorius, the famous “Blade Runner” who is charged with killing his girlfriend in the bathroom because he thought the person in there was an intruder. He went to prison for five years at the end of 2014.)

Matthew Henry on the other hand, suggests the following on the interpretation of verse 2:

“He that does an unlawful act bears the blame of the mischief that follows to others, so likewise of that which follows to himself. A man's house is his castle, and God's law, as well as man's, sets a guard upon it; he that assaults it does so at his peril.”

But God’s rules on this now add another dimension – that of time of day.  If the attempt to steal took place during the day, the “blood guiltiness” referred to above would be paid by him (supposedly the owner of the property, or perhaps a servant) who killed him.  The idea is that we must be considerate of all life, even of those who we know or believe to be evil.  Our reparation must not come from our vengeance, but from the legal system, and especially for Christians, from our God.  When we take the law into our hands beyond that, we start to stand on shaky ground.

So, where possible, we are to “catch the thief” but not kill him.  And then in that case, as he is still alive, he must make restitution for all he has stolen.  And if he can’t afford it, he then is to be sold (one assumes into slavery) and the money goes to the owner of the property he stole.

And still more twists to the law: if he stole animals and they are found alive, that is the thief is caught red-handed with the goods, he shall pay double the amounts he otherwise would have paid.  Interesting, but why? Matthew Henry explains it like this:

“Thus he must both satisfy for the wrong and suffer for the crime. But it was afterwards provided that if the thief were touched in conscience, and voluntarily confessed it, before it was discovered or enquired into by any other, then he should only make restitution of what he had stolen, and add to it a fifth part, Leviticus 6:4,5.”

So, there is clearly an advantage to admitting and pleading guilty if indeed it is a true confession, rather than a forced confession.

Finally, we are told that if one simply uses things that are not his to use, without permission (a form of stealing one might say), then he repays from the best of his own possession or equivalent.  I live with two of my granddaughters.  They borrow each other’s stuff (clothes, accessories, etc.) without each other’s permission.  Needless to say that the volume of discourse rises greatly depending on whether the owner wanted to use it that day herself, if the borrower misplaced it, or if the borrower damaged it or worse still, lost it.  Whereas my solution would be to ban all so-called “borrowing”, God’s approach seems to indicate that the ‘owner’ could then help herself to the best of the ‘borrower’s’ goods.  But then again, my ways are not necessarily His ways.

For us, the facts remain: we are not to steal, we are to know how to deal with those that do, and in all cases, we are to make restitution for things we have taken or misused or lost that belong to others.

- -  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.

BLACKFACE, POPE, FREEDOM, LAWYERS & ‘JE SUIS TWU’, and THE COMING HELL

Here’s what I gleaned from the news today:

 [BLACKFACE]  A theatre company in Montreal had a year-end review skit that lasted 90 seconds; they were poking fun at a Montreal Canadians’ hockey player who happens to be black.  To play the small part they used another cast member who was already on board.  Problem was he was white and they painted his face ‘black’ for this part.  All hell broke loose from the art and acting community for the production company’s insensitivity.  Without boring you with all the arguments for and against the action, let me just tell you that when I first heard about the complaints, I thought, “Get a life.  It’s a show for Pete’s sake.  No one is making fun of a prophet or a religion.  It’s a comedy skit.”

But then I read some of the background.  Apparently “blackface” (according to Graeme Hamilton writing in the NationalPost) is the word that was assigned to the old practice that originated in the racist 19^th-cetury minstrel shows depicting blacks as buffoons.  The argument is that doing so now is a throwback to that time and racism, something many feel mocks and belittles blacks.

Furthermore, there is no excuse for this in Quebec where the issue has been discussed and brought to mind several times with respect to recent theatre.  On the other hand, one black actor is quoted as saying he would be really ticked (he used a stronger word) if someone white was portraying him and they didn’t paint his face black.  So he was okay with this – it’s theatre for Heaven’s sake.

So I considered the history and the fact those in the profession (in Quebec at least) should have been aware of the concern and known better than to do this.  Of greater potential influence on my personal thinking, however, is the admonition in the New Testament that, at least Christians (if not all men, and women) should be careful not to offend (James 3), especially if the offense is not based on fact and truth and reality.  [Sometimes we go out of our way to tell lies to people in order not to offend them and that’s not what I’m talking about here.]  For all of the above, I came down on the side of those that opposed the ‘act’.

[THE POPE]  Which nicely takes me to the Pope.  Although, I haven’t agreed with a number of his actions and/or statements lately and his single-handed attempt to save the world through the acceptance of other religions (we’re not just talking about being at peace with them), I did appreciate his comments in the Philippines yesterday on the issue of “freedom of speech”.  Here is what CNN provided on the subject:  “Freedom of expression is a right, but there are limits when it comes to insulting faiths, Pope Francis told reporters today, referring to events surrounding the Charlie Hebdo attacks in Paris.  ‘One cannot provoke, one cannot insult other people's faith, one cannot make fun of faith,’ Francis said. Likewise, he said, people have religious liberty, but ‘one can't kill in the name of God.’ He said this after a reporter asked him about religious liberty and freedom of expression.”

I must admit, it appears the Pope is indeed right on with respect to this issue.  But while reading his quotes again, I just noticed he makes another interesting point that President Obama may not like or accept.  The Pontiff implies the killings in Paris were done “in the name of God”.  Since the killers were Muslims, the entity that the Pope must have been referring to was Allah.  And Allah is the god of Islam.  Why the American President refuses to accept that connection is beyond many minds.  Especially when even the Pope, as well as some world leaders, and a majority of Mr. Obama’s constituents, relate this terrorism to an issue with Islam – maybe Islam gone wrong – but Islam nonetheless.

[FREEDOM OF RELIGIOUS THOUGHT, LAWYERS, & TWU]  Freedom of speech leads me to freedom of religious thought.  And that is very much currently being violated right now with respect to all the Law Societies trying to block graduate lawyers from Trinity Western University’s Law Program practicing their profession in their provinces.  Not only are their rulings illegal but they have no logical basis.  Rather than get all upset about this personally, I’ll let Marni Soupcoff’s excellent piece present a position I fully support on the issue.  You don’t want to miss it.  Click: Defending the TWU Dissenters. 

 

(Picture accompanying article from the National Post Jan. 15, 2015)

It’s a pity that the matter will require the decision of the Supreme Court again just as TWU’s successful court case to have their graduate teachers practice their profession did a few years ago.  And just so know, professional bodies in neither field had problems with the actual courses the students were taking at TWU.  It was their beliefs they objected to.

[THE COMING HELL]  What do all of the above have in common?  Simply this.  We’re in a terrible ideological war but one side is failing to recognize the true enemy.  Some of that side’s leaders even think we’re winning.  And worse still, they turn a blind eye to more and more atrocities each day – the latest being the massacres in Nigeria.  I guess the estimated 2,000 murdered recently are not a big enough number of deaths to really get excited over.  But this stupidity has its ultimate consequences that are best summarized by Francois Bugingo, writing in the “Le Journal de Montrèal”.   There he warns the West for ignoring “the slow death of Nigeria” because in so doing, we “gradually open the door to our own hell.”

Now you can never say, Bugingo and I, didn’t warn you.  – Ken Godevenos, Toronto.

- - 30 - -

It would be great if you would share your thoughts or questions on this blog in the comments section below or on social media.

The Original “No Fault” Approach To Accidents Exodus 21:35-36

“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.

A Word of Caution Regarding Construction Projects -- Exodus 21:33-34

-->

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

A few years back my family took on a building project. We were replacing my parents’ home built in 1953 with a new one that we moved into in 2009.  I learned a lot during that process.  Getting permits for various aspects of the job was a monumental exercise in patience and determination.  As I now study this passage, I realize it may well have been the origin of all of today’s rules, regulations, by-laws, and restrictions that are in place when someone tries to build anything that alters or involves the earth we dwell on.

So whether we are doing new construction, or repairing an old structure, or adding on to an existing structure, this verse and today’s laws apply.  If we are negligent in the way we do so and that negligence causes harm to others, we are liable for legal consequences.

Our Exodus verse talks about an ox or a donkey falling into uncovered pit.  Many of us do not use oxen or donkeys these days, but the principle is the same.  In the days of Exodus, an ox or a donkey could well mean the difference between having a living and starving.  These animals were the means to a livelihood for many.  Injure or kill their animals and they have no means of income.  And then the owner of the pit or the “construction site” needs to make financial amends to the owner of the animal for any loss in terms of the ability of the animal to do its job.  And so it is with today’s laws and lawsuits involving injury where someone has been negligent in the process of the construction they are carrying out.

Of course, in current day situations, this gets a little more complex.  Who is the actual owner of the “pit” at the time – is it the owner of the property or is it the owner of the construction company?  Is it the worker or workers operating the backhoe or the excavator?  Well, it does not matter – an injured party, trying to play it safe, sues everyone involved and the courts have to determine who was really to blame and what portion of the payments due would be assigned to each.

The later portion of verse 34 does require some closer examination.  Why would God give the “dead animal” to the owner of the pit after he pays the original owner of the animal for the harm caused?  The reason is that there is value in the carcass of a dead animal – either for their skin value, or possibly as fodder for other animals.  The original owner cannot have full compensation for his loss as well as maintain the residual assets of the animal.  David Guzik suggests that this is original “you break it, you bought it” principle that we find in many stores today.

Matthew Henry sums it all up nicely when he suggests that this passage alerts us to the fact that it is not enough “not to do mischief” or wrong.  He suggests that we are also to “contrive to prevent mischief, else we become accessory to our neighbors' damage. Mischief done in malice is the great transgression; but mischief done through negligence, and for want of due care and consideration, is not without fault, but ought to be reflected upon with great regret, according as the degree of the mischief is: especially we must be careful that we do nothing to make ourselves accessory to the sins of others, by laying an occasion of offence in our brother's way.”  But we’ll save that last point of Henry’s for when we study Romans 14:13.

-- 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.

A Word of Caution to Animal Owners -- Exodus 21:28-32

--> “And if an ox gores a man or a woman to death, the ox shall surely be stoned and its flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall go unpunished.  If, however, an ox was previously in the habit of goring, and its owner has been warned, yet he does not confine it, and it kills a man or a woman, the ox shall be stoned and its owner also shall be put to death.  If a ransom is demanded of him, then he shall give for the redemption of his life whatever is demanded of him. Whether it gores a son or a daughter, it shall be done to him according to the same rule.”
 

Picture by: PAT MCGRATH / POSTMEDIA NEWS: Pitbulls account for 3% of dogs, but almost a third of fatal dog attacks. They are bred for battle.   (from the National Post, January 2, 2015)

The actual words of this passage are clear.  If your animal has a ‘habit’ of goring, and it kills a person (male or female), it is to be killed and so is its owner.   The owner's life can be redeemed if such a redemption is acceptable by those suffering the loss.  It is its application in today’s world that may require some careful thinking.  What is this passage saying to us now?

What oxen do we have today?  The following come to mind: our personal vehicles, large pieces of equipment in businesses that we own, and of course, our animals, be they working animals or pets.

If we are to follow the principles given to us in this passage, we are personally responsible for the damage that our vehicles cause to others, whether we are driving or our dependents are.  And to protect us from the losses that we can incur, we purchase insurance.  We do, however, fall short in the case of dealing with drunk drivers, and even repeated drunken driving by the same driver – even if injury has been caused on previous occasions.  For some reasons, we seem to allow these people to keep on driving – and unfortunately, drinking.

We are also responsible for any damage caused to others by our machinery, be it at home (by our lawnmower, our skill saw, or snow blower, etc.) or at our place of business (by heavy machinery e.g.).  Homeowners have insurance for that and employers are also insured against lawsuits for accidents at work.

There seems to be little opposition to applying penalties in these two areas, although imprisonment or capital punishment seems to be reserved for occasions where it is proven beyond any reasonable doubt that an individual acted with ill intent and planned to actually do harm or kill another individual using such machinery.

The most difficult of the three most common potential applicable scenarios identified above is that of the ownership of pets.  And here we are talking about owning pets that are potential killers.  For example, pets that are known to have the ability to harm others include members of the wildcat family (lions, tigers, cougars, etc.), some dogs (pit-bulls, Dobermans, etc.), and some members of the snake family (boa constrictors, pythons, asps, etc. come to mind), among other animals.  Of course, there is great argument by many that these animals are only dangerous when handled without care or handled inappropriately.

Assuming we accept that for the moment, the problem arises in that there is no guarantee you the owner (who knows how to handle these so-called pets) will keep them from having access to someone who does not.  On the other hand, exposing a gold fish to such a person is not likely to endanger their life.  And therein lies the difference.

The debate still goes on even today and as recently as January 2, 2015, columnist Barbara Kay wrote about it in Canada’s National Post (see Pit Bull Denialism).

The waters of course get even more muddled when an owner of a pet in this category (i.e. one having the greater likelihood of harming a person) argues that all guns have the potential of killing or maiming someone when exposed to the handling of an untrained or unstable individual.  True enough.  And therein, lies our dilemma in not knowing how to address these issues.  There’s no consistency and thus no sense of fairness.  What we allow in one area, others can claim they expect in another.  We have lost our moral compass and thus we argue from the position of what suits us best.  Let me close our own study with this thought.

It is noteworthy to point out that God allows the owner of an ‘ox’ that has killed a person to go unpunished if the ox has not gored anyone before.  The owner is only killed if the ‘ox’ has been in the ‘habit’ of goring.  So, even here there is some forgiveness for those who own or are responsible for the animals (or machinery) that kill the first time.  But notice, the animal would be destroyed and by implication today, any machinery (think vehicle) would be taken away from the person forever – even the first time. 
   

The bottom line is that God does not expect us to kill or hurt others or to have possessions or animals that kill or hurt others.  I think we can all agree on that.  With that being the case, we must all do what we can to prevent, minimize, and eliminate all such possibilities to the best of our ability.

-- 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.

Striking One’s Servants (Workers) -- Exodus 21:26-27

--> “And if a man strikes the eye of his male or female slave, and destroys it, he shall let him go free on account of his eye.  And if he knocks out a tooth of his male or female slave, he shall let him go free on account of his tooth."
 

We return once again to instructions regarding the treatment of one’s slaves.  For whatever reason, God in the days of the Old Testament did not abolish slavery.  Perhaps we will never know why He did not at the time.  Looking at the history of mankind after God created Adam and Eve, He pretty well left us alone to exercise our free will, sometimes not positively and often beyond what Cain had done to Abel.  We slowly fanned the flames of our sinful nature and developed a number of practices that were not to God’s liking.

Slavery was one of these.  Another was how we thought of, and actually treated, females.  So in the Old Testament God takes steps to curb our behaviors in those areas.  But as we progress through the centuries and move into the New Testament, we see God’s ultimate plan for ending slavery as a means of economic gain being played out, and eventually being outlawed many centuries later.  Similarly, God intended for male and female to be different, but equal.  This too is taught in the New Testament and is also what we believe today.

In our current Exodus passage, God is giving His people instructions as to how they need to treat their slaves.  And while doing so, He emphasizes His position on equality of the sexes, in this case in the equality of male and female slaves.  The ordinance He gives here applies equally to both genders of slaves.

God, in this passage, is focusing on the master-slave or servant relationship.  And the general principle He imposes is twofold.  First, there are limits to what masters can do to slaves without consequences, and secondly, when you physically harm one of your slaves to the point of permanent damage, he or she is to be given their freedom.

In today’s world, the context changes from a master-slave relationship, to an employer-employee one.  In keeping with what God was imposing on His people in Exodus, employers are still limited in how they are allowed to treat their employees.  And if they neglect paying attention to the laws that prescribe such treatment, at a minimum, they can suffer considerable financial penalties.

But what does all this teach us in 2015?  Let me suggest the following:  We must understand that God never intended for one man (or woman) to be owned by another.  He believes in the equality and dignity of all men and women.  It is with this understanding that the American Pledge of Allegiance (since 1954) is what it is, and I quote, “I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

Furthermore, we who care about what God thinks and desires from us, have a responsibility to work to eliminate anything in society which allows one person to ‘own’ or ‘misuse’ another.  As a minimum, we should call it out and make it public.

And finally, we have a responsibility to make sure we personally and genuinely value the intrinsic worth of all individuals, of both genders, alike – be it our children, spouse, parents, co-workers, employees, and employers.

Are you really there?

________________________________________________________________________

[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.

Eye For Eye, Tooth For Tooth -- Exodus 21:22-25

“And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide.  But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.”
 

Here is that famous passage, the words of which we have often heard quoted when we talk about “getting revenge” – wanting equal value compensation for what was taken from us.  From this stems the idea of a ‘victim’ being made ‘whole’ at the expense of the ‘offender’ or ‘criminal’.

Again what we notice is that God knew men would be fighting each other and that often such a fight would involve a woman, one way or another.  Thus we have these verses dealing with just that, and in particular, what is to happen when the woman is pregnant and she loses the child as a result of being injured during the fight between the men.

If the woman miscarries a fetus after being involved in a physical struggle but she herself does not suffer other injury, then only a fine is to be levied.  The ‘life for life, eye for eye’ principle does not go into effect unless the woman herself is further injured.  But we may well ask “What about the baby? Was that not a life? Should not the principle of life for life have applied in this case?”  Good questions.

I do not believe God was ignoring the fetus at all.  Elsewhere in scripture God shows His true feelings about the miracle He creates in a woman’s womb.  Here are some of them:

·      Did not He who made me in the womb make him, And the same one fashion us in the womb? (Job 31:15)

·      Yet Thou art He who didst bring me forth from the womb; Thou didst make me trust when upon my mother's breasts. Upon Thee I was cast from birth; Thou hast been my God from my mother's womb. (Psalm 22:9-10)

·      For Thou didst form my inward parts; Thou didst weave me in my mother's womb. I will give thanks to Thee, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Wonderful are Thy works, And my soul knows it very well. My frame was not hidden from Thee, When I was made in secret, And skillfully wrought in the depths of the earth. Thine eyes have seen my unformed substance; And in Thy book they were all written, The days that were ordained for me, When as yet there was not one of them. (Psalm 139:13-16)

·      Thus says the LORD who made you And formed you from the womb, who will help you, `Do not fear, O Jacob My servant; And you Jeshurun whom I have chosen. (Isaiah 44:2)

·      Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb, "I, the LORD, am the maker of all things, Stretching out the heavens by Myself, And spreading out the earth all alone, (Isaiah 44:24)

And if that is not enough to convince you He does not ignore the fetus, the Scriptures also speak of at least five key figures of history who were called from the womb:
Samson:

Then the woman came and told her husband, saying, "A man of God came to me and his appearance was like the appearance of the angel of God, very awesome. And I did not ask him where he came from, nor did he tell me his name. "But he said to me, `Behold, you shall conceive and give birth to a son, and now you shall not drink wine or strong drink nor eat any unclean thing, for the boy shall be a Nazirite to God from the womb to the day of his death.'" (Judges 13:6-7, see also Judges 16:17)

Jesus (prophecy):

• Listen to Me, O islands, And pay attention, you peoples from afar. The LORD called Me from the womb; From the body of My mother He named Me. (Isaiah 49:1)
• And now says the LORD, who formed Me from the womb to be His Servant, To bring Jacob back to Him, in order that Israel might be gathered to Him (For I am honored in the sight of the LORD, And My God is My strength), (Isaiah 49:5)
• Yet Thou art He who didst bring me forth from the womb; Thou didst make me trust when upon my mother's breasts. Upon Thee I was cast from birth; Thou hast been my God from my mother's womb. (Psalm 22:9-10)

Jeremiah:

"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations." (Jeremiah 1:5)

John the Baptist:

"For he will be great in the sight of the Lord, and he will drink no wine or liquor; and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, while yet in his mother's womb." (Luke 1:15)

Paul:

But when He who had set me apart, even from my mother's womb, and called me through His grace, was pleased (Galatians 1:15)

Scripture answers scripture.  Where there appears to be a conflicting idea or thought, we look to the whole of the Bible and see what the overwhelming position on the issue is.  So, in our current passage, the focus is not the fetus but on punishing those who do harm to others.  It is not that there is no punishment for causing a miscarriage, but it is left up to the husband of the woman and the courts to determine what it is.

However, damage caused in the case of men struggling with each other and a woman is injured further, then the punishment reverts to the ‘eye for eye, tooth for tooth’ principle.

I was wondering about the point, or points, of the passage.  They didn’t seem to come out as clearly as they do in some of the other passages.  However, on some further reflection and study, I did come up with three:

1.     God again indicates how He comes to the defense of the weak and vulnerable.

2.     God does not support punishment that exceeds the crime.

3.     The victim and the victim’s family matter, but they also have to be reasonable as determined by the courts.

We would do well to examine our current justice systems to see how we are doing in these areas.  A comparative study between countries or cultures would yield some interesting results.

[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.

WHEN CALLS THE HEART – SECOND SEASON COMING IN 2015

-->

The Hallmark Channel has announced, to the glee of many, a “second season” in 2015 for the well-received When Calls the Heart, with no given start date.  To find out what the excitement was all about I viewed on DVD the 11^th (out of 12) season one episode entitled Rules of Engagement.  In fact, I sat down recently with my wife, my daughter, (none of us are big TV fans), my son-in-law who prefers action movies, and three of my seven grandchildren (13 and 11 year old girls, and a 9 year old boy) to watch it.  We were all thoroughly engaged throughout it and found it a pleasure to watch and discuss.

It all takes place in sleepy Coal Valley, in the Canadian West, where a young Miss Elizabeth Thatcher (played by Erin Krakow) teaches school in a saloon because the local church has burned down.  At the same time a mining company whose owner runs the town is being investigated for an explosion that took the lives of 46 of the Coal Valley miners a while back.

Besides her father, there are two other men in Elizabeth’s life – Jack Thornton (played by Daniel Lissing), the local Royal Canadian Mounted Police Constable overseeing Coal Valley with whom she is deeply in love, and 16-year old Wyatt Weaver (played by Ty Wood) who although brilliant cannot to go to school since he has to work in the mines to help feed his fatherless family (his dad having died in the mine explosion).

Miss Thatcher also has some competition for Jack in the person of Rosemary LeVeaux (played by Pascale Hutton), a woman who had been engaged to Jack but dropped him and now has come to claim him.  There’s also a forensic investigator (Bill), who takes an interest in Abigail.  She runs the local and suffered the loss of her husband and a son in the mine accident.  The ‘bad guy’ that every good film needs is the mine owner and big shot in town.

The script is rich with great lines and dialogue time and time again.  Clearly not an extremely big-budget production as one could see some aspects that could have benefitted from additional research and/or some shooting expertise.  For example, I question the plausible existent of a female church leader back in the 1800’s and the scene where Rosemary jumps on a horse is just a tad phony visually.

But let me take you back to the incredible script.  Thomas Edison is quoted as having said, “We will make electricity so cheap, that only the rich will burn candles.”  That makes the 21^st century viewer stop and think.  As did much more in the film.

There’s a wonderful scene where Jack the Mountie is drawing a comet in the classroom, improving on the dismal attempt that Elizabeth had made.  It is a special moment indeed.

From a theological perspective, the movie is more than acceptable, and the only questionable thinking I found in the 85 minute episode was some teaching regarding lost loved ones, which may be comforting to hear, but also deceiving in many cases.

Ah, but back to the script.  When the café owner (Abigail) is challenged by her friend (Elizabeth) regarding the obvious amour that is developing between herself and the forensic investigator (Bill), Elizabeth says, “Maybe you’re not just mourning the past, [a reference to the death of her husband and her son], but looking towards the future as well [a reference to what might be between Abigail and the investigator].”  Is that not what life is all about for many of us who have suffered loss?

At one point the mine owner accuses Abigail’s husband himself of killing the people in the mine, pushing them to take risks because he was paid bonuses based on production rates.  And Abigail’s husband allegedly had personal debts that many didn’t know about.  When Bill asked Abigail about how she was feeling with what had just happened, she replied with a classic, “I’ve been better and I’ve been worse.”  Again, that is life.

The problem with these ‘series’ productions is that they (intentionally and for good commercial reasons) leave you hanging about what happens next.  What did the Judge Jedidiah Black (played by James Brolin) really decide, if anything, about who was really at fault with respect to the mine accident?  Did Wyatt Weaver ever get out of the mine and become famous?  Did Bill and Abigail marry?  You get the idea.

The productions are inspired by Janette Oke’s bestselling book series about the Canadian West.  Neal Dobrofsky and Tippi Dobrofsky are the writers, and the Executive Producer and Director, is Michael Landon, Jr., known to many of us for his memorable roles in the Bonanza and Little House on the Prairies series.

Will I watch it again once it starts in 2015?  You bet.  Either that, or I might as well cancel my cable services for, besides enjoyment of FoxNews (and that even during major political or major news events only), there’s very little for a family of three generations to watch together.

________________________________________________________________________

[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.