Just as the Ten Commandments can be linked up with the two fundamental laws of love, there are many of the detailed instructions found in the five books of Moses which can be linked with the Ten Commandments. These details are like the precedents which are so important in British law, but, instead of being mere interpretations of the law made in different ages by different judges, they were clearly stated at the beginning by the Lawgiver.
Some of these instructions are drastic, and to modern thought may seem terrifying in their severity. This is especially so in relation to the first, second, third and fifth of the Ten Commandments. Death was to be the penalty for idolatry, death was especially decreed for the man who blasphemed God and cursed, and death was to be the punishment for one who struck or cursed father or mother (Ex. 21:15,17).
A modern Gentile may protest against such severity, but sober reflection will surely see wisdom in these decrees. Men who do not recognize a revealed religion, and have not perceived conclusive and compelling evidence of a divine way, may well hesitate to attempt any compulsion in these matters. We can see the evil of intolerance in past history, persecution provoking counter-persecution according to the changes in fortune and power, and we may well feel that a broadminded tolerance is better than any attempt to impose a state religion on people who cannot honestly accept it. Let it be granted, however, that God revealed Himself in the manner recorded in the Bible, and surely all must admit that the most stringent of regulations to maintain the Divine authority were reasonable and just.
Here we may take note of a fact which is certainly significant and may possibly have some effect even on the critical minds of men who do not tremble at God’s Word (Isa. 66:2). It was not merely obscure ‘sons of Belial’ who brought sudden death upon themselves by transgression. Some of the highest were condemned for failure to set the right example. In ordinary history the party in power has done the persecuting, whilst their vengeance has fallen on those who for the time at least have been weak and defenseless. In the days of Moses, the outstanding acts of judgement in the assertion of the Divine way fell upon men of exalted positions.
ONE of the most remarkable was upon the sons of the high priest while they ministered in the service of the sanctuary (Lev. 10:1-7). Nadab and Abihu took their censers, “and offered strange fire before the LORD” (v. 1). They were immediately slain. The instructions in the matter had been perfectly plain (Ex. 30:1-10). There was an altar of incense at the door of the most holy place and the priests were commanded that in the offering of incense the fire in their censers should be kindled at this altar. Christians may see a symbolic meaning in this; and if they see, it is to be hoped that they will remember always to offer the incense of their prayers through Christ.
But although Nadab and Abihu could not have been expected to have seen any hidden meaning, they knew that God had commanded and that should have been enough. “I will be sanctified in them that come nigh Me”, God said to Moses (Lev. 10:3). This is a principle which links up with the first and second commandments. It is surely a perfectly reasonable command which should have been meticulously observed.
There is reason to believe that the taking of strong drink had something to do with the fatal error of Aaron’s sons. Immediately after this tragedy Aaron was given instructions that no wine or other strong drink should be taken by the priests when they came near to minister, and this was to be a statute for ever (vv. 8-11). This certainly suggests that there was a connection between strong drink and the fatal error of the young men. We can see the need for such a rule if we are at all observant. A very little wine will make the mind less conscious of objective truth. Long before a drinker has reached a stage of physical or mental incapacity, even before an observer would notice anything wrong with him, he is slightly less alert, and certainly less disposed to recognize the sanctity of matters not properly understood. There is more disposition to make light of danger and to turn sacred things into mockery.
The modern motorist, stimulated by a little wine, will feel that he ‘drives superbly’, with increase of self-confidence and a greater capacity for taking risks with immunity from accident. The ancient priest would also feel an increase in self-confidence and a proportionate reduction in humility in approaching to his God.
We may feel confident that if the Law given through Moses could be extended to the days in which we live, there would be a complete prohibition of wine or other strong drink for all who go forth to drive those engines which take such a toll of life on our roads. There would be no excuse for guilty men because of wealth or social influence.
SOME friends of the jug or bottle will protest that very few accidents are caused by drunkenness, and will give figures to support their claim. All who have any knowledge of the subject are aware how utterly misleading these statistics are. Even when motorists have been drunk ‘within the meaning of the Act’ they are often given time to become sober—again within that meaning—before there is a medical examination. There is far greater danger, however, with the many thousands who would not be condemned as drunk by any doctor but who by a very moderate amount of strong drink are stimulated to a little increase of daring and a correspondingly slight decrease of alertness and capacity.
There have been opponents of the Bible who have suggested that the Law was at fault in permitting the use of strong drink at all. Mahomet forbade it altogether, and he has sometimes been held up as wiser than Moses. It is a debater’s point and nothing more—an argument presented for the effect it may have in a verbal battle rather than for any cogent reason. Wine is good when properly used. The fact that it has been grossly abused is no reason for abolishing it any more than the many other things which have been wrongfully applied by man, including the act which brought us into being, abused most fatefully of all.
The Law of Moses regulated all these matters. In moderation, wine was good for a tired worker at the end of a strenuous day; strong drink was sometimes good as a medicine when natural functions were temporarily impaired; but neither must be used when priests drew near to the most holy, for then there must be complete humility coupled with the keenest of mental, moral and spiritual alertness. There are important lessons for us in these matters.
There would no doubt be times in the history of Israel when the judges appointed to adjudicate upon the various problems brought before them would experience difficulty in applying the just laws, for human disputes are sometimes extraordinarily complex. A man might complain that in effect his neighbour had been guilty of theft, for he had caused his cattle to trespass and fill their appetites in the field of the complainant. The one accused might protest that he was faultless in the matter. He was no more to blame for the cattle straying than the neighbour who had failed to fence the field against them.
The rule in Exodus 22:5 would cut out argument and offer a just solution. Whether the accused had schemed to take his neighbor’s goods or not, his cattle had fed on them, therefore “of the best of his own field, and of the best of his own vineyard, shall he make restitution”. If a man had indeed schemed to fatten his cattle at his neighbor’s expense, he would feel chagrined at having to make compensation, and such a selfish man would probably think he had lost more than he had gained. On the other hand, if a man had not so schemed, but was innocent in the matter, no injustice would be done to him by the exchange of goods involved in making restitution. A principle was thus laid down to guide judges in the difficult problems which would so easily arise.
Another principle was presented in the well-known words, “eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot” (Ex. 21:24; cf Lev. 24:20). Some people have quoted these words in contrast to the Law of Christ, which teaches us to return good for evil, and so forth. The idea of such critics has been to show the fundamental difference in the guiding principles of the Old and New Testaments. It is surprising that anyone should suppose that there was any basis for such a comparison.
The Lord Jesus was not suggesting laws for the guidance of a nation. He was giving instruction to disciple who are ‘in the world but not of it’. He always envisaged them as a feeble and persecuted minority, and he gave them rules which would impose a severe self-discipline in preparation for the exalted positions to which they were called. He told disciples that if they were persecuted in one city they should flee to another (Mt. 10:23).
This surely was not a measure for rulers in this unruly world, or for statesmen trying to guide the affairs of a nation. It was part of the severe discipline good for those who follow the one who was rejected and slain. The disciples, like the Master, “are not of the world” (Jno. 17:14). Like him they have often been hated and rejected. Many have followed him even unto death. They were told not to seek for martyrdom. They were to escape from persecution if possible, but to endure it faithfully if they could not escape.
It is not for magistrates to say to a thief, ‘You have taken a coat, take the cloak as well’, or to a man of violence, ‘You have dealt a blow at the state, we now invite you to deal another’, or, You have deeply wronged society, so we will pray for you’. Surely every intelligent person should be able to see the complete distinction between rules for individual disciples in a time of probation and rules for an established state. The two matters are so completely different that it is astonishing that anyone can have been so confused in thought as to compare them.
It is still more astonishing that anyone should try to blend them. A measure of this astonishing blending has been attempted in England, resulting in an illogical compromise which is neither good statesmanship nor good Christianity. The nation could not be utterly unprepared for war, but could be ill-prepared, with enough show of armies to excite enmity but not enough to forbid aggression.
IN dealing with crime, the law has been equally unsatisfactory when a compromise has been attempted between Christian precepts and legal necessities. Cruelly severe fines have been imposed on men who have unwittingly transgressed in technical matters of no importance, whilst brutal ruffians have been treated gently. It has been argued that they would be further brutalized by giving them such pain as they callously and habitually are ready to inflict on others.
In the Old Testament hardly less than in the New, the principle is affirmed that vengeance belongs to God. Men are exhorted to be merciful. In the book of Proverbs we find the well-known Christian precept, “If thine enemy be hungry, give him bread to eat; and if he be thirsty, give him water to drink” (25:21). In the book of Exodus we find the admonition: “If thou meet thine enemy’s ox or his ass going astray, thou shalt surely bring it back to him again. If thou see the ass of him that hateth thee lying under his burden, and wouldest forbear to help him, thou shalt surely help with him” (23:4,5).
THE law, however, was a different matter altogether from the amenities of private life. The judges were the ministers of Divine commands and sometimes of Divine vengeance. The general principle of “eye for eye, tooth for tooth” was laid down to guide the judges who had to punish wrong doing. Brutal men will not be more brutalized by being made to experience the kind of pain they inflict upon others. They certainly will be restrained by the fear of such punishment and they may even be reformed.
An incident from a generation ago, described by an eyewitness, illustrates the effect of such a law. A brutal man had robbed a girl, using violence in the act of thieving. He looked ready for another such crime, for he was brazen and impudent before the judge. When a sentence of penal servitude was passed, he accepted it with jaunty indifference and was turning away when the judge sharply called him to attention. “And I also direct that on two separate occasions he shall receive six strokes . . .”. The end of the judge’s sentence was drowned in the screams of the condemned man; he was led away howling like a wild beast. Bodily pain was the only thing he feared and the only punishment that would restrain him.
This principle seems to be applied, rather surprisingly, with animals. The rules to curb the savage ox seem rather drastic, but they were no doubt necessary (21:28-32). If an owner had been warned that his ox was dangerous, he was held responsible if he failed to restrain the animal. If a human being was killed, the guilty owner was held to have forfeited his life by his carelessness. He might be permitted to redeem his life, but he would have to pay whatever ransom was demanded.
Perhaps even modern readers will appreciate the need for such regulations in a land where so many oxen were used and where there would be constant danger if ill-tempered animals were not held in check. Readers will also see the justice of a rule that where one ox killed another, the question was raised as to whether one of them was known to be dangerous. It was surely just and reasonable that, if an owner had been negligent, he should make full restitution to the neighbour whose animal had been killed or injured. It was just, too, that if there had been no previous warning of danger, the two owners should stand on equal terms, both live and dead ox being sold and the money divided.
Where a modern reader would be puzzled is the rule that when a human being had been killed, whether by an ox that was known to be vicious or by one which had not hitherto shown ill-temper, the animal should be stoned and the flesh should not be eaten (v. 28). It is of course clear that if an ox were killed by stoning the flesh would not be accounted fit for human food, but why should the ox be stoned if not morally guilty?
Perhaps an answer could be given by some of those hardy, courageous men who have much experience in the control of animals. These lowly creatures are more observant than is generally supposed, however dim and subconscious their mental processes may be. If in a herd of oxen there is one that is unusually strong, and it becomes vicious towards its fellows, they quickly learn that he is one to avoid. Repeatedly we have seen evidence of this degree of intelligence. If the vicious one turned on a human being and killed him, the others would notice, and however dimly their lowly brains might perceive the fact, the effect would be detrimental to human authority.
If in such an event a crowd of men suddenly appeared and delivered a terrible shower of stones, the oxen anywhere near would run away, for cattle fear stones almost more than anything. They would return with that cautious, timid curiosity which is characteristic of them. Slowly they would approach, with questioning eyes and nostrils. When they saw the battered and lifeless body of the vicious ox with great stones all round him, there can be little doubt that they would receive a lesson.
God said of man, “the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth” (Gen. 9:2). We know that men who have to control the more powerful members of the animal kingdom sometimes have to administer severe lessons in order to retain this supremacy. A vicious old elephant is sometimes publicly hanged and all his fellows drawn up to witness the execution. They learn the lesson that men are the masters. It seems reasonable to suppose that such an object was included in the regulations we have been considering.
The Solution