Compensation - Exodus 22:1-15

22:1-15 - Chapter 22 continues with the case law with an emphasis on stealing and one thing that TB noted that is that intent is very important in the considerations of punishment. Just as a note along with that, I didn’t realize that I hadn’t finished the lecture on chapter 21 when I finished it last night, so when I finally did finish it, TB made a point about the “eye for an eye” concept that changed a lot for me. When I discussed the “eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth,” concept of punishment, my question was “who could possibly be ok with carrying out that type of mutilation even if it was justified?”

TB noted that, unlike the rest of the ancient world at the time, mutilation was completely forbidden in Israel so the “eye for an eye,” etc was supposed to be the ground level of what compensation would be sufficient. For instance, I would imagine they would have to ask themselves something like “this man was a carpenter before the perpetrator attacked him and he lost his eye, therefore sufficient compensation for that injury would be whatever level of work he will not be able to do because he is now half blind,” or something like that. It was an important note that I missed and wanted to revisit before moving on.

As far as the stealing goes the punishment concepts are similar, in that the perpetrator must restore to the victim what was stolen, and in the case of the law of Moses “restore five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep,” meaning that it wasn’t simply returning what you stole, but multiple times more than what was taken. The IM describes is as “the ratio of restitution,” which sounds like an accurate assessment. The IM makes a very long statement about why sheep and oxen are meant to be restituted at different rates, one is that sheep reproduce at a higher rate and are not only useful for their meat but also their wool.

An ox was not only useful for it’s meat but also it’s ability to be trained to pull a cart and plow a field. So when someone steals an animal from another person, they have not only taken the meat away from the family, but also the wool, the ability to plant and harvest other foods, and also the training that went into teaching that ox how to do that. It would not just be a matter of repaying a set amount for restitution, but also what that family could have used that animal for in the future. The IM explains, “restitutio must calculate not only the present and future value of a thing stolen, but also the specialized skills involved in its replacement.”

How a thief was to be treated if they were caught in the act is also spelled out and the difference of what was acceptable surprised me because it depends on the time of day. If a thief is caught breaking into someone’s house during the night, that thief is able to be killed on the spot, abut if the robbery happens during the day, then the thief cannot be killed. I was surprised that the time of day was the distinguishing factor, but TB explained it and it made sense. He said that if a robbery happened at night, the thief was allowed to be killed because in the darkness, “you can’t evaluate the overall situation very well; whether tis’ one thief, or more; whether or not he has a weapon; whether this mane may be a known murderer on the loose. But, in daylight you CAN tell. So, if you can reasonably see that you are only in danger of losing property but not being harmed, then to kill in that instance is murder.”

There are a list of offenses that their individual consequences, but I think the overall point that is the most poignant is that all consequences are rooted in restoring what was lost by the perpetrator and not punishment. TB notes that Israel didn’t have a prison, which he explained was partially because of logistics, how difficult it would be to carry around a prison in the desert, but even once Israel was settled in Canaan, no prison was built because that’s not the way that God deals with wrong doing, which is an interesting concept if you think about the beliefs in heaven and hell. Hell as a holding place where people go to suffer for their sins forever makes absolutely no sense when it comes to the way that God details consequences in the Mosaic law.

The Mosaic law is about compensation and it makes sense that the eternal justice system created by God would be have the same focus. But here’s the thing, if someone does something to us that is wrong and hurts us, which happens to all of us, there is no way that they can compensate for that happening beyond what was done. What I mean is that if someone punches someone in the face, the just thing would be for the perpetrator to be punched in the face in return with the same force, the same duration, in the exact same spot. That is justice. But it doesn’t repair the damage that has been done to the person who was punched in the face initially, and by absolutely no means would the perpetrator be able to take the damage done and pay recompense any more. Like with stealing an ox, you have to give back five oxen. Well if you get punched in the face, justice requires that the perpetrator be punched in the face in return, but they can’t give back five face punches, and that doesn’t heal the damage done anyway.

I just think it’s a really interesting commentary on the atonement and the law of compensation that Jesus promises to give us. I’m going to have to think about this more because it’s a really interesting concept and way to think about these more complex concepts.