Judgments So Righteous
I was listening to an audio recording of Exodus and a verse jumped out at me, Exodus 21:35. This is what it says,
"And if one man's ox hurt another's, that he die; then they shall sell the live ox, and divide the money of it; and the dead ox also they shall divide."
What surprised me about it is that rather than give the live ox to the owner of the ox that was killed, the judgment is to sell the live ox and divide the money and also divide the dead ox. Why? Well, to answer that fully we must also see the next verse:
"Or if it be known that the ox hath used to push in time past, and his owner hath not kept him in; he shall surely pay ox for ox; and the dead shall be his own."
The next verse has a different circumstance and a different judgment. So, since the judgment of v. 36 is for an ox that was not properly kept in even though its dangerous behaviour was known, we can conclude that the ox in verse 35 was not known for prior dangerous behaviour. As such, the owner is not blamed for the damage. So in verse 35 we have a pure case of one thing being valued against another. Why then the complexity of the judgment involving selling and splitting the money for the live ox and dividing the dead ox? Why not simply switch oxen? The living ox to the owner of the dead and the dead ox to the owner of the living? This is what I would have expected and why I was surprised at the judgment of God given in the Scriptures.
So I thought more deeply on it and I found the answer: if a living were to be given for a dead where no human culpability was added to the balance, then that would be a judgment equating life with death. But as the Scripture says, a living dog is better than a dead lion (Ecclesiastes 9:4).
So, in the judgment of God, this equation is not made but rather, the living is split (by means of being sold and the money divided) and the dead is split as well. Both parties end up with equal but avoiding the equation of living with dead!
As the Scripture says, "And what nation is there so great, that hath statutes and judgments so righteous as all this law, which I set before you this day?"
The question might be asked, why then in verse 36 is the simple exchange of living for dead made? Does that not equate the two? No, it does not because human culpability must be added to the balance. The living ox is given for the dead ox only because of the guilt of the original owner of the living. The essential inequality between the living and the dead is preserved and we are also taught that innocence is the value of life over death.
Studying the law can be a source of great delight in God when we perceive His wisdom.
When I first heard this verse, I entered a note into my tablet using voice recognition to cue my memory for later. I said, "Live ox and dead ox not equal," but this is what was recorded:
Liveoak synthetics not equal
This also taught me something, in light of the Scriptural teaching that living and dead are not equal. The Scripture often likens people to trees, so I took 'liveoak' to refer to a living human being, and 'synthetics' as the humanoid robots surely soon to come. Android of course is the proper term but at the present time that is understood to refer to a mobile phone operating system. I am reminded that the 'scientific' terms inanimate and non-living are not Bible terms. I thought that what the Bible would call an android is "dead". God breathed into Adam's nostrils and Adam became a living soul. Even an android that walks and talks and calculates is not a living soul. The category it belongs in is that of "dead". So, what happens when we have 'android-human' relations? Unequal yoking at an extreme. The living joining themselves to the dead.
"They joined themselves also unto Baalpeor, and ate the sacrifices of the dead." Psalm 106:28
"Dead things are formed from under the waters, and the inhabitants thereof." Job 26:5
Baalpeor specifically refers to shameful idolatry of lust, this can refer to human-android relations. These issues are already beginning to be discussed in the world in anticipation of their arrival.
"And if one man's ox hurt another's, that he die; then they shall sell the live ox, and divide the money of it; and the dead ox also they shall divide."
What surprised me about it is that rather than give the live ox to the owner of the ox that was killed, the judgment is to sell the live ox and divide the money and also divide the dead ox. Why? Well, to answer that fully we must also see the next verse:
"Or if it be known that the ox hath used to push in time past, and his owner hath not kept him in; he shall surely pay ox for ox; and the dead shall be his own."
The next verse has a different circumstance and a different judgment. So, since the judgment of v. 36 is for an ox that was not properly kept in even though its dangerous behaviour was known, we can conclude that the ox in verse 35 was not known for prior dangerous behaviour. As such, the owner is not blamed for the damage. So in verse 35 we have a pure case of one thing being valued against another. Why then the complexity of the judgment involving selling and splitting the money for the live ox and dividing the dead ox? Why not simply switch oxen? The living ox to the owner of the dead and the dead ox to the owner of the living? This is what I would have expected and why I was surprised at the judgment of God given in the Scriptures.
So I thought more deeply on it and I found the answer: if a living were to be given for a dead where no human culpability was added to the balance, then that would be a judgment equating life with death. But as the Scripture says, a living dog is better than a dead lion (Ecclesiastes 9:4).
So, in the judgment of God, this equation is not made but rather, the living is split (by means of being sold and the money divided) and the dead is split as well. Both parties end up with equal but avoiding the equation of living with dead!
As the Scripture says, "And what nation is there so great, that hath statutes and judgments so righteous as all this law, which I set before you this day?"
The question might be asked, why then in verse 36 is the simple exchange of living for dead made? Does that not equate the two? No, it does not because human culpability must be added to the balance. The living ox is given for the dead ox only because of the guilt of the original owner of the living. The essential inequality between the living and the dead is preserved and we are also taught that innocence is the value of life over death.
Studying the law can be a source of great delight in God when we perceive His wisdom.
When I first heard this verse, I entered a note into my tablet using voice recognition to cue my memory for later. I said, "Live ox and dead ox not equal," but this is what was recorded:
Liveoak synthetics not equal
This also taught me something, in light of the Scriptural teaching that living and dead are not equal. The Scripture often likens people to trees, so I took 'liveoak' to refer to a living human being, and 'synthetics' as the humanoid robots surely soon to come. Android of course is the proper term but at the present time that is understood to refer to a mobile phone operating system. I am reminded that the 'scientific' terms inanimate and non-living are not Bible terms. I thought that what the Bible would call an android is "dead". God breathed into Adam's nostrils and Adam became a living soul. Even an android that walks and talks and calculates is not a living soul. The category it belongs in is that of "dead". So, what happens when we have 'android-human' relations? Unequal yoking at an extreme. The living joining themselves to the dead.
"They joined themselves also unto Baalpeor, and ate the sacrifices of the dead." Psalm 106:28
"Dead things are formed from under the waters, and the inhabitants thereof." Job 26:5
Baalpeor specifically refers to shameful idolatry of lust, this can refer to human-android relations. These issues are already beginning to be discussed in the world in anticipation of their arrival.
