Seducers and Sorceresses -- Exodus 22:16-18

Seducers and Sorceresses

Exodus 22:16-18: “And if a man seduces a virgin who is not engaged, and lies with her, he must pay a dowry for her to be his wife.  If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the dowry for virgins.  You shall not allow a sorceress to live.”

We come next to three short but very pungent verses describing God’s laws with respect to seducers and sorceresses.

To begin with if a man takes away a young unengaged woman’s virginity, he must pay the appropriate dowry (payment given to the family of the woman one is to marry) and then take her as his wife.  Notice there is no reference to the need to get her pregnant to have to marry her, just to sleep with her.  Getting a woman pregnant when she should not be is just a potential outcome of the wrongdoing of sleeping with her.  It is simply the means by which the matter becomes public.  But God is getting at the private sinful acts we undertake.  There is also no reference here to the case in which the woman is already engaged or even married.  Not sure why except perhaps that such behavior was even more rare in those days.  God does in fact address this situation in even stronger ways later in Deuteronomy 22:23-27 where we read:

“If there is a girl who is a virgin engaged to a man, and another man finds her in the city and lies with her, then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city and you shall stone them to death; the girl, because she did not cry out in the city, and the man, because he has violated his neighbor’s wife. Thus you shall purge the evil from among you.

“But if in the field the man finds the girl who is engaged, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lies with her shall die. But you shall do nothing to the girl; there is no sin in the girl worthy of death, for just as a man rises against his neighbor and murders him, so is this case. When he found her in the field, the engaged girl cried out, but there was no one to save her.”
 

Secondly, we note that the woman’s father can refuse to allow the man, who slept with her, to marry his daughter.  So there was no pointing using that as a surefire method of getting the girl you wanted.  The man involved still had to pay for the injury and disgrace he had caused to the single woman.

Matthew Henry suggests that “This law puts an honor upon marriage and shows likewise how improper a thing it is that children should marry without their parents' consent: even here, where the divine law appointed the marriage, both as a punishment to him that had done wrong and a recompense to her that had suffered wrong, yet there was an express reservation for the father's power; if he denied his consent, [there] must be no marriage.”  Not sure how far too many fathers would get with that kind of power today.

Two things come to mind as I study this passage.  First, God has never made provision for what so many today call “casual sex”.  Sorry, it may be fun, but do not for a moment think you are in the will of God when you participate in it or any sex outside of marriage.  Pre-marital sex is still a form of immorality even if it may not always be specifically adultery.  I was recently reading Max Lucado’s book entitled Grace:More Than We Deserve, Greater Than We Imagine. In it, there is a paragraph in which Lucado so potently describes the feelings that David must have had after admitting his sin with Bathsheba.

“Sin’s reality replaced sin’s euphoria.  David began to see in Bathsheba not a picture of beauty but a symbol of his own weakness.  Could he see her face without imagining the face of her husband, whom he had betrayed?  Most of all, could he look at her and not sense the gaze of God upon himself?”

Lucado goes on to explain how even in that situation, God’ Grace flows just as strong to those that approach Him in a sincere prayer of confession.  “Confessors,” Lucado writes, “find a freedom that deniers don’t.”

The second thing that comes to mind as I study this and note the refusal rights of the father to allow his daughter to marry someone we could today call a “cad” [a person whose behavior is unprincipled or dishonorable], is the so-called felt-right of Muslim fathers to force their younger daughters to marry someone they are not in love with, perhaps a much older man, or a man who already has one or more wives, or a real ‘cad’.  You don’t have to look long on the Internet to find pictures of young women who have been doused with acid for refusing to marry the person their father, sometimes with the support of their mother, was forcing upon them.  Much more loving the right to forbid a marriage based on one’s faith, experience, and sheer love for one’s daughter, than to force that same daughter to marry someone she is not in love with for your own selfish reasons, be it money or injudicious honor.

Thirdly this passage lays out the law for the Israelites not to allow a sorceress in their midst to live.  She is to be killed.  Those were pretty strong words and orders.  Until of course we realize what a sorceress was and is.

Here’s what another portion of Deuteronomy says about sorcery and sorcerers:

"Let no one be found among you who sacrifices his son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, or casts spells, or who is a medium or [spiritualist] who consults the dead. Anyone who does these things is detestable to The Lord, and because of these detestable practices The Lord your God will drive out those nations before you. You must be blameless before The Lord your God." (Deuteronomy 18:10-13 NIV)

What we have here is God saying to the Israelites – “These things, these practices, have no room in the lives of my people.  They belong to heathen nations.  I detest those practices.  You are to live purely before me without them.”  The best way for the Israelites to have done that was to eliminate anyone who so practiced among them.

Matthew Henry gives us this insight:

“Witchcraft not only gives . . . honor to the devil which is due to God alone, but bids defiance to the divine Providence, wages war with God's government, and puts his work into the devil's hand, expecting him to do good and evil, and so making him indeed the god of this world; justly therefore was it punished with death, especially among a people that were blessed with a divine revelation, and cared for by divine Providence above any people under the sun.”

David Guzik adds:

The practice of sorcery was almost always associated with "medicinal arts" (the taking of drugs) in the ancient world, and was therefore a connection between drug taking and occultist practices . . . Not permit[ing] a sorceress to live: This was considered a severe enough threat that sorcery was considered a capital crime. The link between drugs and the occult was rightly seen as deadly.

The question remaining for us is twofold: First, why specific reference to a female who is involved in sorcery and second, why introduce this practice in a portion of scripture tied to pre-marital sex?  Good questions, perhaps with no absolute satisfactory answers.

Here is a list of all the references in Scripture to 'witches'.  Well worth looking up.  And here’s the much shorter list of all the references in Scripture to 'wizards'.  Both existed in Bible times as they do today.  So why then do we just have a reference to females here in Exodus 22?  Perhaps Guzik is correct when he talks about sorcery being almost always associated with ‘medicinal arts’ – something perhaps (and I say this at great risk of offending some today), was more associated with females at the time.  After all, we more often refer to a ‘witch’s brew’ than we do to one concocted by a wizard.  Also, one such witch or sorceress that was actually described in Scripture did become known as the Witch of Endor (see I Samuel 28).  She is depicted in the painting pictured above The Witch of Endor painted in 1857 by Dimitri Martynov.  An earlier painting entitled The Shade of Samuel Invoked by Saul painted by Bernardo Cavallino about 1650-1656 can be seen here.

And finally why was this law introduced here as part of the passage on pre-marital sex?  I do not know the actual answer.  But I can only imagine that the writer (Moses) was thousands of years ahead of his time because as we search the Internet for images of sorceresses today, we are presented with pictures and drawings of extremely seductive (in some people’s minds) women – the kind that deep down only have one’s spiritual and moral demise in mind and all through his desire for sexual pleasure.

- - 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.

MEDICAL ERRORS: ONE MAN'S RECENT EXPERIENCE

MEDICAL ERRORS: ONE MAN’S RECENT EXPERIENCE

-- by Ken Godevenos, Toronto, 15/01/22

On December 29, 2014 my wife’s doctor advised us to take her to emergency because of how she was describing the pains in her chest.  She had suffered a heart attack.  The next day, she was transported to another hospital where she underwent an angiogram and angioplasty. Two stents were inserted into her arteries.  Then back to the admitting hospital for overnight observance and home by New Year’s Eve.  So far, so good.

Between then and Thursday, January 15, she had felt some chest discomfort three times and used her nitro spray to counteract it.  It seemed to go away, but not totally. That morning, she had a previously scheduled appointment at her cardiologist’s office to be equipped with a 24-hour monitoring device for her heart, a routine post-heart-attack procedure.  Thinking she would here cardiologist that day, she had made some notes of what she wanted to tell him.  When she found out he was still doing his rounds, she left the typed notes with the staff.  Upon his return to his office, her doctor immediately called and wanted to see her.  He had read the information she had left.  That action alone made a very positive impression on us. 

He sent her right back to the admitting hospital and arranged for a second angiogram at the other hospital the next day.  In the meantime, he had an echocardiogram done on her.  Thankfully, her cardiologist wanted to take no chances.  After all, this woman is still a young sixty-seven years of age and she is very spry, exercising regularly, eating well, and weighing around 113 pounds soaking wet.  The bottom line (after the second angiogram) for my wife at least was: her heart was as strong as a twenty-year’s old; her arteries were all clear; and the two stents were operating perfectly.  We brought her home later on that day.

So what caused the pains she was still feeling after her first angioplasty?  The excellent doctor who performed the second angiogram, although extremely busy that day with both emergencies due to procedures as well as in the recovery room, took the necessary time without being rushed, to explain two potential reasons for the pain.  The first was what he called “heightened awareness”.  A patient who undergoes such a procedure is often super-sensitive of any pain he/she experiences afterwards, often worrying if it could be a heart attack again.  Under normal circumstances, the same individual could well simply exercise right through the pain (and that in fact is what the doctor suggested in my wife’s case; all in due time, of course).  The second reason given was equally plausible.  Because the stents are stiff (made of stainless steel mesh), the arteries they are attached to are not accustomed to them yet.  So when the patient exerts some effort which causes more blood to rush through the flexible arteries, the irritation becomes more noticeable and thus the pains.  Again, these would decrease over time.  And sure enough, to the point of writing, a few days after coming home again, no pain at all.  We expect her to be her old self, showing the rest of us all up, very soon.

But in the five whole days she was in the hospital and I was with her for the majority of that time, in emergency, in recovery, and in a regular room (that wasn’t so regular as you’ll soon read), we observed and learned a lot about hospitals and the medical profession and how they work.  It was no surprise then when I read the leading article of the National Post on Saturday, January 17, 2015 written by Tom Blackwell entitled, “How Much Do We Know About Medical Errors?”

First let me assure you that in the process, we met some very wonderful and very professional people – the doctors that took care of us, almost all the nurses, the ambulance teams, and even the cleaning staff.  These people work hard and they do a lot of good for a lot of people.

I remember once kidding a friend’s young teenage daughter about her dad not making it to what I considered was an important board meeting one night, to which she replied, “Yes, sorry, he was up all night saving lives.”  Her father, my friend, was a senior cancer surgeon at one of our well-known hospitals.  I learned my lesson as to what really matters that night and then again recently as I watched so many others doing the same thing – saving lives.

But I also learned some other things – things that if addressed would make these wonderful men and women even better and more valuable to all of us.  Here are just but some of my experiences.

Over the years, I have had my share of experiences with hospitals.  Some of them were great ones, and some a little worrisome.  Besides being born in one, I suffered peritonitis (a potentially fatal inflammation of the abdomen's lining) at eleven months of age.  My father hid under my bed (they weren’t allowed to stay overnight at that time) in the hospital in Athens so he could be with me.  I lost my mother in a hospital after she had gone into a coma on her 64^th birthday.  My daughter was incorrectly diagnosed with a blood clot in her lungs, when all she had was pneumonia, because of failure to correctly interpret the x-rays.  In my own case, after they all thought I had three heart attacks, it was eventually concluded that I had pericarditis (an inflammation of the pericardium [the fibrous sac surrounding the heart]).  I lost my father in a hospital of advanced cancer when the doctors told me they could help him live for a few more hours, maybe a day or so, but then it would be over. Together, we decided to let him go earlier rather than later and I was thankful for their guidance and honesty.  More recently I lost my loving grandson after having him for six hours – just long enough to hold, hug, kiss, and pray with, and then return him to his Creator, even though everything went perfectly right through the delivery.  And that’s just the family; I’ve also watched others, friends and associates, die in hospitals.

In our most recent experience, we observed numerous problems that were more often than not clearly a result of process glitches and/or fatigue rather than inexcusable human error.

When my wife returned to her admitting hospital right after her first angiogram and accompanying angioplasty, she was returned to her previously assigned regular two-bed room on the appropriate ward in the hospital.  There was only one problem – when she had left it she was the only patient in the room but on her return that night, there was someone in the second bed with a bad cough.  By morning, that patient was put in isolation due to suspected MRSA (and actually had it as we found out later).  The Mayo Clinic says this about MRSA: “Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection is caused by a strain of staph bacteria that's become resistant to the antibiotics commonly used to treat ordinary staph infections. Most MRSA infections occur in people who've been in hospitals or other health care settings, such as nursing homes and dialysis centers. When it occurs in these settings, it's known as health care-associated MRSA (HA-MRSA). HA-MRSA infections typically are associated with invasive procedures or devices, such as surgeries, intravenous tubing or artificial joints.” And while this patient’s visitors had to wear masks, all we could do to protect ourselves was make sure the curtains surrounding her bed, that only went so far down, were drawn.  We were not even asked to wear a mask.  Fortunately, so far, neither of us has caught the infection, but its existence created another problem down the road.

When we returned to emergency in the admitting hospital on the second occasion, a number of things didn’t seem right.  Again the doctors involved were wonderful.  No problems there.  But other things happened that shouldn’t have.

At one point, the medication my wife was being given by a nurse was wrong.  We asked the nurse to check the records and we had to show her the problem.  She apologized.
At another point, while the doctor and one nurse had told her not to eat anything after midnight because of the procedure due early the next morning, the next nurse on shift in the morning offered her breakfast.  We had to remind her that my wife was not allowed to eat and this nurse also apologized.

One staff person came into the prep and recovery room for the procedures that my wife was getting and informed a patient that they were not going to do her procedure as scheduled.  Needless to say the lady was very distraught.  It turned out that the staff individual didn’t even know which patient she was talking to and had her mixed up with someone else.  That mistake not only upset the patient, but also embarrassed the rest of the nursing team who had been doing their best to keep things under control with a very busy caseload that day.  But that didn’t stop the ‘team’ being human, from talking about it in an obvious manner and volume, when the staff person had left.  The impression that resulted for those that could hear them was not good.

And then there was what I considered the biggest problem.  It happened on her second visit in this whole experience while waiting in the emergency room overnight before going by ambulance to the hospital where her repeat procedure would be done the next morning.   When we arrived the second time at the admitting hospital, I was told I had to wear a mask because, and I quote, “The whole emergency department is under isolation.”  I put one on, as uncomfortable as those things are, trying to be obliging.  But then I noticed that my wife didn’t need to have one on.  As a matter of fact, most of the staff walking around and other visitors and patients didn’t have one on.  That seemed odd.
A short while later my wife started to get up to use the bathroom.  A nurse rushed over and said, “I’m sorry but you have to stay in bed and we’ll bring you a commode.”  I hit the roof.  My wife was quite capable of using the bathroom as she had the last time she was in the same emergency ward two weeks previously.  We exchanged some words and finally they let her go to the bathroom.  They then explained that “she” was the one in isolation and that she would continue to be for her future visits until she was found to test “negative three times in a row” from having the MRSA virus.  So, that was it.  They unnecessarily exposed her to a patient with MRSA on her last visit and told her there was nothing to worry about.   Then they admit her again and lie to us about why I had to wear a mask.  And things got worse.  The doctor on duty clearly supported us and said there was absolutely no reason for her to be in isolation – there was nothing on ‘his’ files to that affect (which begs the question of whether all files are synced properly) and her blood results were negative.  She was perfectly capable of getting up and around.  The nurses argued that they had no choice; it was beyond their control because of the IPAC (Infection Prevention And Control, Canada) rules.  The doctor tried to change their mind unsuccessfully.  A hospital higher up was brought into the picture as well and he prevailed.  But, in the meantime, my wife had gone to the bathroom.  And again the impression we, and anyone who was watching, were left with was not good and unfortunately due to my frustration, I had a part in that.

My anger, especially with the charge nurse who seemed to wander in from nowhere and started telling me off because I got somewhat excited, had to do with the fact that they had lied to me in the first place, and secondly that they weren’t agreeing among themselves over what they claimed to be a “common practice”.  Thirdly, I felt we had a right to know that we had been exposed to on the last visit at that time (not just now) and that IPAC would require my wife to be in isolation each time she came to the hospital until she tested negative in her blood tests for MRSA (apparently even if that took five years or more).  We should have been told that before we left the hospital the first time.  And we certainly should have been told it when we returned the second time rather than the lie to us and tell us the whole ward was in isolation.  They must have thought we were blind or that we’d never stick our head out beyond the curtains around her bed.  Holding her defensive position, the charge nurse would admit to no fault on her part or that of her nurses and failed to recognize any of my points.  All she was concerned about was my raising my voice.  That “holier than thou” attitude ticked me off even more and unfortunately often reminds me of how some other positions of authority defend themselves (but we’ll save that for another story).

And remember that nitro spray?  It was originally prescribed by one doctor and concurred with by another, for when she felt pains.   But the truth is it does not work for all pains accompanying heart or coronary problems.  As it turns out, we find out later that nitro spray works well when the pains are caused by narrowed arteries (so wisely prescribed in my wife’s case), but not when the pains are due to the two potential causes described above, one or both of which were possible in my wife’s case.  Now we know.  Perhaps that would not have been as big a surprise had we been told about other possible causes of pain, albeit it would still appropriately require the “checking out through a second angiogram” to be certain.  And good knowledge of possibilities also helps minimize fear or worry.

My heart goes out to all those who are not fluent in English; to the very aged; to all those who have been taught that doctors and hospital staff are gods (like lawyers) and one is never to question them; and to all those who do not have an advocate who looks out for them constantly while they are in the hospital.  (There must be a business opportunity there somewhere.)  I say this because mistakes do happen.  And while taking the wrong medication, being fed when she should not have, or putting her unnecessarily under isolation may not have physically harmed or killed my wife, the data indicates, according to the National Post’s investigation, that “the true number of preventable deaths is likely in the realm of 35,000 annually.  That’s four (deaths from medical or in-hospital errors) every hour.”
I don’t want anyone’s head.  These are all good people working hard and doing their best.  Some of them are phenomenal and go out of their way to do all they can to help their patients. But the system has weaknesses.  No one is learning from the mistakes.  No one reports, let alone records, the errors as the National Post piece pointed out.  Many patients just can’t wait to get out of hospital and get on with their lives.  Mum’s the word.  If they get out, like my wife, they are among the many fortunate ones.  But what about those that don’t get to go home – not because they died from their wounds or illnesses, but because the system failed them?

A newspaper exposé series like the one that got me thinking about our recent experiences with hospitals is a very valuable tool for the public.  But clearly, it also can have a negative impact on how the public feels about the medical profession.  It is with some justification.  But it is not something we want.  I remember the days when my own parents would never think of asking for a “second opinion” and I remember many a doctor back then actually getting angry if one of their patients did insist on one.  Hopefully, those days are gone – at least for good doctors.  They welcome a second opinion.

But there’s more work to be done in minimizing the errors that do take place.  Let’s hope that the good doctors (and there are many more of them than the other kind) will take it upon themselves to demand their hospitals start keeping records, without blaming those that make them once (we all make mistakes), so that improvements can be built into the processes we all so very critically depend on.

- - 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.

Borrowing Has Its Risks -- Exodus 22:14-15

“And if a man borrows anything from his neighbor, and it is injured or dies while its owner is not with it, he shall make full restitution.  If its owner is with it, he shall not make restitution; if it is hired, it came for its hire.”
 

Two verses dedicated to borrowing rules.  You borrow it, use it, and if you break it or harm it (or kill it if it is an animal), you do so at your own expense and you will be responsible to compensate the owner for it. Unless of course, the owner was with you when this happened.

Here’s an example of how this may work out today:  “Yes, you can borrow my extra pair of skis while we ski together this weekend, and if they break, no problem.  But if you borrow them again to go skiing with your friends when I can’t and they break, you have to replace them.”

Chuck Smith suggests that the last two phrases of this passage, namely “if it is hired, it came for its hire,” are, because they are part of the whole last sentence implying that if someone borrowed or hired you and your equipment or animal (to till the ground or for any other purpose) and the equipment or the animal is damaged or ruined (or killed), then that was a known inherent possibility in the deal and since the owner was present, the borrower or the one that hired you and your equipment or animal is not responsible.  Again, if I borrowed your pick-up truck to move some furniture, and it broke down – I have to fix it.  But if I asked you (or hired you) to bring your truck and help me move some furniture, and it broke down, I am not responsible morally to pay the costs of fixing it.  (Unless, of course, I go over and above what the law says.)  When the owner is present, the user is not as responsible.

Bottom lines continue to be: Lender, be aware of the risks.  Borrower, be responsible when the risks occur.

- - 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.

Returning Goods Damaged -- Exodus 22:10-13:

“If a man gives his neighbor a donkey, an ox, a sheep, or any animal to keep for him, and it dies or is hurt or is driven away while no one is looking, an oath before the Lord shall be made by the two of them, that he has not laid hands on his neighbor’s property; and its owner shall accept it, and he shall not make restitution.  But if it is actually stolen from him, he shall make restitution to its owner.  If it is all torn to pieces, let him bring it as evidence; he shall not make restitution for what has been torn to pieces.”

  

This passage is also about the case of asking people to safeguard something for you and then the item is lost, damaged, or stolen from them.  It then becomes your word versus their word.  So God calls for an oath to be made before Him by each of you – both the person under whose care the item was when lost, stolen, or damaged and the owner.  The former would be required to swear before God that he/she had nothing to do with the loss or damage.  The owner would then accept that as sufficient proof if the item was only lost or damaged and not demand to be repaid for the item.  However, if it were stolen from the person who was supposedly guarding it, he would have to pay for it.  God seems to be placing a high emphasis here on our human responsibility to safeguard the property of others, at least from being stolen.  We need to have taken the proper precautions to prevent theft.

One may ask why this is not the case if the property was simply lost or stolen?  The only thing that comes to mind is that in the passage before us, God was dealing with the turning over of animals to someone else’s care.  If we stick with that context, it becomes next to impossible for a person to prevent all the trouble that an animal could get into on its own and thus some grace is given to the one who was charged with safeguarding it.  The only condition where he/she would be responsible for an animal getting lost or damaged is if he/she willfully arranged for that to happen.

In today’s world, at least in North America, we tend to live our adult lives more self-sufficiently, seldom asking others to take care of our things.  As an example, even when going away, those who own dogs or cats often take them to a cat- or dog-sitting establishment rather than ask their neighbors or relatives to feed them or check in on them daily.   Secondly, it is not always the case when we do ask others to take care of our possessions that they are people who would make an oath before God.

In its context, one area this may apply today is when a farmer sends his/her cattle or other animals to market or to the stockyards.  These animals would be entrusted to the care of the transporter.  But again, today these lawful outfits would be well insured for the goods they transport.

In the days of Exodus, one could rely more on this oath from the other person.  But even then, the onus was on the owner to accept the oath made by the person under whose care the item was lost or damaged.  The owner had to trust in God that this was right and to accept the outcome.  Much more so today when sometimes we have to act alone in so many things, because the other person is not a believer – it becomes a personal matter of our own trust in God.

Finally, the passage speaks of the animal being “torn to pieces” in which case if the torn carcass can be presented to the owner, no restitution needs to be made or paid.  One would assume that this has nothing to do with the animal being stolen, but rather with the animal being killed by another animal, again without any willful intent of the person who was to safeguard it.  The fact that the remains are presented should be sufficient to free him/her of any guilt.

Here are Matthew Henry’s comments with respect to the “oath of the Lord”:

It is called an oath for the Lord (v. 11), because to him the appeal is made, not only as to a witness of truth, but as to an avenger of wrong and falsehood. Those that had offered injury to their neighbor by doing any unjust thing, yet, it might be hoped, had not so far debauched their consciences as to profane an oath of the Lord, and call the God of truth to be witness to a lie: perjury is a sin which natural conscience startles at as much as any other. The religion of an oath is very ancient, and a plain indication of the universal belief of a God, and a providence, and a judgment to come . . .. That there is no reason why a man should suffer for that which he could not help: masters should consider this, in dealing with their servants, and not rebuke that as a fault which was a mischance, and which they themselves, had they been in their servants' places, could not have prevented.

Two interesting points that Henry’s writing brings out.  First of all, the lesson here today may well be for employers with respect to their employees.  We cannot hold employees responsible for something that they could not have prevented.  And that includes the things that we had not properly instructed or trained them in.

Secondly, his writing about “the religion of an oath” as he calls it, causes us to consider that such religion, especially with its direct dependence on God, does not exist for many today.  One only needs to look at the oaths taken by many politicians, and their subsequent practices.

All to say, “entrusters beware”.

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

Be Careful What You Borrow From, or Be Safekeeping For, Others -- Exodus 22:7-9:

“If a man gives his neighbor money or goods to keep for him, and it is stolen from the man’s house, if the thief is caught, he shall pay double.  If the thief is not caught, then the owner of the house shall appear before the judges, to determine whether he laid his hands on his neighbor’s property.  For every breach of trust, whether it is for ox, for donkey, for sheep, for clothing, or for any lost thing about which one says, ‘This is it,’ the case of both parties shall come before the judges; he whom the judges condemn shall pay double to his neighbor.”

 

I was telling a friend of mine that a snow-blower I share with two neighbors was in the shop for repairs.  One of the owners thought we could save money by letting him do last year’s end-of-season cleaning and storage.  Not so.  My friend, before he knew the machine was jointly purchased, said, “Surely, you don’t loan things like that to others, do you?”

The truth is, it took me close to five decades of life before I realized that even a brand new automobile that I purchased was not really mine, but a blessing from God for me to share with others.  Up to that point, I’d drive you anywhere you wanted to go, but don’t ask me to lend you my car.

But here we have a little different spin, not so much on the lending of things, but more on asking others to safe-keep valuables for us.  And interesting enough, the major focus of these three verses is not on the owner, but on him who agrees to keep things safe for us.

Now, true to form with respect to previous laws God had given, if you ask someone to keep something for you and it gets stolen from their possession but the thief is caught, the thief will pay double.  No problem there.

But what happens if the thief is not caught?  Well, it appears that the first suspect is the person you asked to take care of your valuables.  And he/she needs to be cleared first. The implication is that the person responsible for keeping the owner’s goods safe appears before a judge.  But, in today’s terms, how does he/she get there except that the owner of the goods lays charges against them?  Now what?  Is that what we are to do?

First of all, remember that today one remains innocent until proven guilty and that has to be beyond reasonable doubt.  Secondly, assuming the individual to whom you turned your possessions over for safe-keeping was a friend or a relative, accusing them through the legal system is a pretty sure way of ending any relationship you may have had.  Finally, if, like you, the other person was a Christ-follower or believer, then you are instructed elsewhere in Scripture not to take him/her to court.  So what can you do?

There’s an adage in Human Resources dealing with problem employees that goes like this: “The best time to fire someone is before you hire them.”  The point is that if we are not prepared to lose something (or have it damaged) that we lend to someone else or something that we ask someone else to safeguard for us, we should never be lending it or asking them to guard it.

As we can see from the rest of the passage, the issue is first and foremost about trust.  We lend things or ask others to take care of them for us because we trust them to be able to do so.  If they do not, we are the ones that erred in our estimation of the person’s integrity or ability to do so.  We cannot blame them or at least doing so would only get us so far – in the wrong direction.  That said, borrowers of integrity would normally, of their own accord, actually replace anything lost or damaged that they borrowed.

However, if we do pursue court action, and the person is found willfully negligent or criminally involved in the loss or damage of the goods, and the courts so find, then he/she shall be required to pay whatever the judge levies on them.  While the Old Testament calls for double-payment, unfortunately in today’s world, we cannot demand it.

As those with whom people entrust their valuables to for safe-keeping, we also have a great responsibility, assuming we are willing to do so, to do all in our power in protecting the owner’s property until it is returned to him/her.  David Guzik suggests that this is required of us as faithful stewards or managers, and it includes what God gives us to manage or steward for Him.

Bottom line, let’s live by these principles: Think carefully before you lend something to others or ask them to keep it for you for a while, and consider whether you are prepared to lose it.  And, think carefully before you accept the responsibility of borrowing someone else’s goods or guarding their possessions.

- - 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.

Dealing With Fires -- Exodus 22:6

-->
-->“If a fire breaks out and spreads to thorn bushes, so that stacked grain or the standing grain or the field itself is consumed, he who started the fire shall surely make restitution.”

I remember as a very young boy setting a hydro field on fire when my cousin and I tried to smoke our first cigarette.  We were not adept with matchbooks, and needless to say the fire spread through the tall dry summer grass, well, like ‘wildfire’ – exactly what it was.  We were scared as the field started to be consumed.  Fortunately the wind was blowing towards the road where the fire came to a natural extinction and not towards the ravine in the opposite direction.

We had started the fire for sure.  I cannot remember whether it was my cousin or I that actually dropped the culprit match, but it did not matter.  We had to pay restitution.  While the fire engine came with sirens blaring and the firefighters made sure everything was safe, my father came with a broom and I assure you it was not to put the fire out.  He must have thought our rears were burning because he certainly did his best, alternating swats at the posteriors of each of us, until we foolishly believed death by natural burning might have been easier to take.

The point in this verse is simple: What we do foolishly or in ignorance may well have a drastic result or consequence for others – their livelihoods or even their lives.  We are therefore to live our life carefully thinking out our actions before we do them.

Let me give you an example, albeit an insignificant one, but I believe the point will be made. Our grandchildren eat breakfast at our kitchen island counter.  Recently our nine year old was enjoying a full bowl of cereal at one end while his eleven-year-old sister was doing the same thing at the other.  He was sniffling and his sister asked him to blow his nose for she could not stand the noise that made.  He ignored her until she finally got up, went and got a recently opened box of tissues (thus still heavy) and slide it at him across the island hitting his bowl and forcing him to block, like a goalie in hockey, the bowl from crashing onto the floor at which point the consequences would have been obvious, not to mention that I would have blown up even more than I did.

Our granddaughter was trying to be helpful and did what she thought was appropriate.  But the way in which she did it and perhaps her attitude were not worthy of praise.  The consequences could have been pretty drastic on a morning when time is limited and one needs to head off to school.

David Guzik says the following on this verse:

This translates into a proper concern for the property of others today. A Christian, if he backs into someone else's car, will certainly leave a note and make good the damage. A Christian will have proper insurance, guaranteeing they can compensate for someone else's loss. If someone gives you something to hold for them you are responsible for it as a faithful steward or manager. This includes what God gives us to manage or steward for Him.

Matthew Henry adds:

If the fire did mischief, he that kindled it must answer for it, though it could not be proved that he designed the mischief. Men must suffer for their carelessness, as well as for their malice. We must take heed of beginning strife; for, though it seem but little, we know not how great a matter it may kindle, the blame of which we must bear, if, with the madman, we cast fire-brands, arrows, and death, and pretend we mean no harm. It will make us very careful of ourselves, if we consider that we are accountable, not only for the hurt we do, but for the hurt we occasion through inadvertency.

For all of the above, let us be careful to consider in advance the impact of all our actions and while we are at it, our words.

-->

- - 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.