Striking A Blow For Human Rights - Exodus 21

      He who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death (main rule).  But if he did not lie in wait for him, but God let him fall into his hand, then I will appoint you a place to which he may flee.  
      If, however, a man acts presumptuously toward his neighbor, so as to kill him craftily, you are to take him even from My altar, that he may die.  
     He who strikes his father or his mother shall surely be put to death.  
     He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death.
     He who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death.
     If men have a quarrel and one strikes the other with a stone or with his fist, and he does not die but remains in bed, if he gets up and walks around outside on his staff, then he who struck him shall go unpunished; he shall only pay for his loss of time, and shall take care of him until he is completely healed.
     If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished.  If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property.
     If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no 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.
     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. (Exodus 21:12-27 NASB)

This set of laws or judgments deviates from what precedes it only in structure.  A very typical structure used here to differentiate where laws break is to use the word “For” or a participle to begin a new circumstance, and then “if” to begin corollaries.  In addition, there have been paragraph marks added to the Hebrew text to show where it was thought a paragraph ended.  It doesn’t always line out easily, so I have followed the grammatical structure over the paragraph marks where they differed.

 
One element that sets these laws apart from the typical laws of that day is the absence of class structures to differentiate people, and the inclusion of slaves.  It’s different because slaves aren’t even included in personal injury laws of cultures surrounding the Hebrews, and class distinctions were.  Here slaves are included; they can be freed or avenged in certain circumstances.  Regardless of wealth or social standing, anyone killing another is subject to some sort of punishment whether death or banishment (fleeing to a city of refuge).   This is a huge cultural deviation in that social setting.

I believe that God is taking advantage of the teachable moment of His people having just left slavery in a very class-conscious culture.  They would have been excluded from any benefits under the law, and they would have witnessed the legal protection of the wealthy and powerful over the poorer craftsmen and tradesmen.   It was not to be this way among and between them.  These protected abuses were not to be characteristic of their society and culture.  While social and economic status may have differentiated people, the law did not.  All were protected even, to a lesser extent, slaves.

Here the Creator of all life takes an opportunity to strike a blow for the elevation of humanity, in all levels of society.  Cultural traditions had been removed through centuries of slavery, so He could instate ones that reflected His perspectives and priorities.  This set of laws is one way the Chosen People could display the holiness of the One who chose them.  They would be different and stand out among cultures, societies, and economies around them.  Or, at least they should have.  The record of the judges and kings does not record how often these rules were ignored or deviated from.

In so many other ways the Hebrews deviated from following their Divine King to follow the nations around them.  There are accounts after accounts of how they followed foreign gods, chased foreign political structures, and sought the friendship and trade with them.  I suspect they did so with their legal processes as well.  It is one thing to have a law written, and another to practice it.  The kings did not follow the laws for kings, but behaved as the kings around them.  It would follow the people would practice the laws of surrounding cultures as well, or at least a mixture that suited them at the moment.

In this day, with those who claim the name of Jesus as their Master, the difference between what is written and what is lived is often dramatic.  Yet, we have here in the Hebrew Scriptures what I believe serves well as an indicator of how our Master would have us treat others.  There are not to be “class” or “economic” distinctions in our treatment of others.  James says as much in his letter (James 2:1-9).  It is difficult though.  There are expectations that the wealthy give more, and often they give less.  Assumptions that worldly distinctions will be the means to provide for a church are dangerous.

What I see here is in line with James, Paul, and others who wrote to correct the reliance upon worldly class distinctions in churches.  The reality is that God provides from means only He sees.  All should give, and give without reservation.  All people stand before Him on level ground, and none of it is very high.  The real distinction between people before God is that some know Him and Jesus Christ whom He has sent (John 17:3), and some don’t.  So, some are alive, and some are not.  In our eyes, as in the eyes of our Father, that should be the only distinction as well, whether they wear loin cloths or 3-button suits.

"Upstairs Maid" or Expensive Wife - Exodus 21

If a man sells his daughter as a female slave, she is not to go free as the male slaves do.  If she is displeasing in the eyes of her master who designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He does not have authority to sell her to a foreign people because of his unfairness to her.   If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her according to the custom of daughters.   If he takes to himself another woman, he may not reduce her food, her clothing, or her conjugal rights.   If he will not do these three things for her, then she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money. (Exodus 21:7-11 NASB)

Back in the late 90’s, right when Y2K was becoming a looming fear, a guy in our church brought me an email he had been copied on by a friend of his.  It was a forward going around generated by an atheist in response to Dr. Laura Slushinger advocating her Jewish roots, and saying the Jewish Law was valid for today.  It was posed as a lot of questions for “clarification” but the questions were very derisive, disrespectful, and, as it turned out, completely ignorant.  The person responsible clearly had not read the passages, but had “heard” of them.

One of these I had never heard of had to do with selling a daughter into slavery.  The guy misquoted the reference, so it took me some time to find it, but I did find it.  What I found surprised me.  Actually it surprised me in two ways.  First it really was there and didn’t prohibit the sale of a daughter into slavery, but gave rules regarding such a transaction.  That meant my Master condoned it.  Second, as I read it, considered the culture, and then looked up some contemporary laws from surrounding cultures, I found that it actually elevated and protected the status and life of the daughter.

This passage breaks down in much the same way as the previous one, structured almost exactly the same.  It has the place following the previous law for the likely reason brought out in the Message paraphrase, to show the difference between how a daughter sold into slavery differs from the “six-year” rule in the previous passage. The outline is below:

• Situation Judged:   If a man sells his daughter as a female slave
• Main condition:  she is not to go free as the male slaves do (i.e. the previous law does not apply here)
• Main rule:  If she is displeasing in the eyes of her master who designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed
• Corollary 1:  He does not have authority to sell her to a foreign people because of his unfairness to her
• Corollary 2:  If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her according to the custom of daughters
• Corollary 3:  If he takes to himself another woman, he may not reduce her food, her clothing, or her conjugal rights
• Corollary 4:  If he will not do these three things for her, then she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money

It might be difficult to see how this law protects the daughter sold into slavery.  A historical context might help.  For a marriage to be binding in ancient Mesopotamia there had to be a contract, a betrothal-cost, and often a dowry (one of the main attractions for a perspective husband).  The laws surrounding such transactions sound a bit like this law here.  The marriages were arranged by the Father and perspective groom or groom’s father. 

In the case of a debt where a person is used as a pledge, a son, daughter, wife or slave could serve as the pledge.  The rules in such a case were very distinct from marriage transactions.  In debt pledge situations, the time limit was 3 years, and no distinction was made between males or females used as the “pledge”.  This could be very problematic for the father who only had a daughter and a debt that prevented a dowry for her.  If his daughter were taken advantage of while in the house of his creditor, he would never be able to have her marry, even with a dowry.  God’s solution is to blend the laws.

So, while a law permitting the sale of a daughter into slavery was in there, I found that it was a “blow for women’s rights” struck by their Creator.   While my Master does not try to remove social structures already in place, He does modify how His people will practice them.  Even the case of a creditor distraining their debtor, the Creator of both people wades in on the side of the one in pledge.  It is surprising actually.  He changes a harrowing disaster into a marriage arrangement.  The alternative would dehumanize the daughter, who is already disadvantaged in these early societies and cultures.

I made sure that my response to the atheist included my confusion about why he was so vehemently against the status of women being elevated, even in a “historical” setting.  I’m sure that reading through the passage, anyone visiting this blog page would initially be shocked.  First, it’s in there at all, and second, I would publish it.  How embarrassing for my Master to have such a faux pa on His record.  It’s like airing His dirty laundry.  But is it really?  The principle I see applied by my Master to the culture 3000 is that He values women as people, on equal terms with men.

That may seem like overstepping the passage, but remember the context is that Hebrew males in slavery went free after six years.  A woman in the same culture/society in the same situation would be ruined for life if that happened to her.  While the rest of the world makes no provision for this problem in social and family situations, my Master does.  He defends women in a society where there were limits on such protection.  I have a daughter, and I for one, really appreciate the fact of my Master’s concern for her.  She is really His daughter entrusted to me for a while.

The Servant of the Pierced Ear - Exodus 21

"Now these are the ordinances which you are to set before them:   If you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve for six years; but on the seventh he shall go out as a free man without payment.   If he comes alone, he shall go out alone; if he is the husband of a wife, then his wife shall go out with him.   If his master gives him a wife, and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall belong to her master, and he shall go out alone.   But if the slave plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife and my children; I will not go out as a free man,’ then his master shall bring him to God, then he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost.  And his master shall pierce his ear with an awl; and he shall serve him permanently. (Exodus 21:1-6 NASB)

So far, the legal texts examined have been easy to fit into the two guidelines of commands or prohibitions with either consequences or explanation (or both, and).  Now though, I have finally reached a formal legal text, one of the first.  The chapter before with the famous Nine Commandments still fit into the working definition.  Here it does, but it is formatted in such a way that it forms yet another element I feel I need to add to my guidelines.

This text is labeled a “judgment” which is translated at “ordinance” in the version above.  The reason this is significant is that it reads like the results from legal decisions compounded over time from dealing with a similar topic; a categorical legal treatment.  It uses the allusion to precedents without the date and case title citations used today.  But the development is really easy to see.  Not everyone may be able to spot it, so I outlined it below:

Main Category:  “If you buy a Hebrew slave”

Main Rule:  “he shall serve for six years; but on the seventh he shall go out as a free man without payment.”

Corollary 1:  “If he comes alone, he shall go out alone”

Corollary 2:  “if he is the husband of a wife, then his wife shall go out with him.”

Corollary 3a:  “If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall belong to her master, and he shall go out alone”

Corollary 3b:  “But if the slave plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife and my children; I will not go out as a free man,’ then his master shall bring him to God, then he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost.  And his master shall pierce his ear with an awl; and he shall serve him permanently”

I hope that helps.  It may not seem like a big deal, but when the next passage is examined, you might think differently.  I believe the structure draws attention to pieces that God considers important.  The structure provides clues as to the development of the topic, each piece answering a question having arisen previously.  So, what was happening that this law corrects?  Slave owners were keeping Hebrew slaves more than six years, or not taking them as servants at all.  Then they weren’t permitting them the freedom of six years if they were provided a wife.  It also protects the owner from losing a slave if his slaves marry.  Finally it provides a means by which the slave can remain with his family if he so chooses that situation rather than freedom apart from his family.

So, I find in this text two important essential truths.  The Creator of the universe cares about and has an opinion about how His people treat each other, even in “master”-“slave” relationships among Hebrews.  And it seems that He does not treat one greater than the other, but equally.  The power does not lie with the rich, but neither does it lie with the slave, at least not here.  Family is a unique element here, and God weighs in on the issue, but, again without seeming to favor one over the other.  Slaves cannot take advantage of the owner by keeping a wife he gained while indentured, and the owner cannot keep a Hebrew’s wife he had when he indentured himself.  And finally, God permits the indentured situation to become permanent, perhaps for filial devotion.

If these elements are important to God, I believe they should be important to me, and I should seek to find out why He thought they were important.  Of course, I am not saying that this structure is unique to the revelation from God made through this book.  I realize that it is a rather common structure in ancient legal texts.  I believe that adds to the clarity of what my Master reveals to the people of that age rather than detracts from the importance of what it reveals.  That God cares about slaves, masters, and families is important to know.

This text has an interesting parallel in Deuteronomy 15:12-18.  It is interesting because it changes several elements, expands on the social context, and gives rational support for the law.  That text also abandons this structure and is more constructed like the previous texts I have examined.  The social setting is a poor Hebrew indenturing himself to a wealthy Hebrew master.  An interesting change from the Exodus passage is that the slave goes out paid for his service rather than empty handed.  Another interesting change is the absence of family circumstances.

The focus in the Exodus passage regards equitable treatment between Hebrews.  The Deuteronomy Passage focuses on care for the poor (the context supports such a view of the Deuteronomy passage).  God is interested in both, and gives His opinion on both.  I believe other passages in Exodus will support the high view God has for how His people treat each other.  He elevates the status of the poor out of socio-economic structures and puts them on more level playing field with the wealthy.  I believe that’s important, even among Jesus followers today, in our modern culture.

In order to interpret this passage, I had to abandon some prejudices I have held dear.  I want the underdog to win, so I want my Master to favor the poor and let the wealthy take a hit.  It seems my Master doesn’t.  I’m rooting for the family, I want love to win out, and for them to live happily ever after, free.  This is not my Master’s point.  Slavery is permitted, but controlled.  Family is permitted, but subjected to societal structures (slavery).  The field is leveled, not tilted in favor of those typically oppressed by the rich.  This is not the “American Way” perhaps, but it seems to be God’s way.

I can’t play favorites.  Jesus doesn’t.  Paul, James, and Peter all argue against it.  But that also means I don’t favor the poor.  That sounds strange, but I have to accept that as my Master’s perspective.  That’s not easy for me.  Walking that fine line between favoring one group over another can be confusing.  I can question everything I do, I can worry that I’m being equitable; I can let it cause me stress.  But I don’t have to let that happen.  I believe that in dealing with people, my Master will guide me to those things which glorify Him most.  If I can ignore the wealth or poverty and focus on what my Master reveals to me about what He is doing, and where He is working, then He will be glorified.  That is what I must hold most important.

Decalogue or Novilogue, How Many Were There Again?

Then God spoke all these words, saying,   “I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery:

1. “You shall have no other gods before Me.  You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth.  You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing lovingkindness to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.
2. You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not leave him unpunished who takes His name in vain.
3. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.  Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you.  For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
4. Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be prolonged in the land which the LORD your God gives you.
5. You shall not murder.
6. You shall not commit adultery.
7. You shall not steal.
8. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
9. You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife or his male servant or his female servant or his ox or his donkey or anything that belongs to your neighbor.

Exodus 20:1-17 NASB

I’m going to make this one short because the disorientation from how many commandments are on the “Tablets” is probably enough to throw most Christ-followers off center anyway.  You have probably noticed I refer to what most Gentiles refer to as the “Old Testament” as the “Hebrew Scriptures”.  While it’s not wrong to call it that, it is weird, and intentional on my part.  The main reason I do that is because I believe in a much stronger continuity between the two sets of Scripture than do most other Christ followers.  The term “Old” makes it easier to relegate to irrelevance.

But one spin off from this is a perspective of these Scriptures from the Hebrew standpoint.  In the Hebrew text used by most scholars of the Hebrew Scriptures, the Masoretic Text, there have been punctuation and notation elements added to aid in translation and recitation.  This text is not that old, and the elements have been added, and they are clearly a construct of human nature.  But they are interesting because they provide insight into how the culture from which these texts arose used and understood them.  Jesus lived and ministered in this culture as well; it would be good to be aware of it.

One difficulty is determining how if any of them are reactions against a rising Christian-based culture, and how many developed independently.  I don’t know, but I suspect that the way we have arrived at 10 instead of 9 commandments is part of why the Hebrew text is punctuated for 9.  Jewish scholars count them as 10 “Sayings” because they count the “prologue” as one “saying”.  The Catholic tradition numbers them differently than most Protestant traditions. 

What I have listed as 1, most Protestant traditions break into the first and second commandments, using the first sentence as the first commandment, and the rest as the second.  Reviewed together here, I think it makes more sense to keep them together than apart.  To maintain the count of 10 requires either splitting the last law about coveting (as do the Catholics and Lutherans), or considering them “sayings” and adding the prologue (as does modern Judaism).  Just because I kind of like the controversy, I like just leaving them commandments, and counting 9.  You will need to read them for yourself.

So why focus on the number and not the content?  Where’s the application?  Where’s the point?  At least I hope you’re asking these questions.  In the day of Moses, ink was precious and so was paper.  So where did my Master spend most of His precious ink and paper?  On Himself, and on His creatures, but not evenly split.  Jesus summarized the whole law and prophets with, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your mind, and all your soul, and your neighbor as yourself.”  If you split this list at law four, you will find something akin to this emphasis here.

But you will also find a Sabbath emphasis missing for most Christ followers.  It used to be a huge emphasis in this country, culturally as well as religiously.  But to understand the Sabbath, I think the wording is important.  It specifically refers to your “occupation”, not just anything done with your hands.  It’s as if God is telling His people to “get a hobby!”   If a break from the concept of a harsh and distant God of the “Old Testament” can be imagined, then this can be seen as an element of grace; which it is.

The intent in focusing on numbers is a renewed consideration of the structure to discover emphasis and importance.  It becomes clear that my Master has designed these commandments to focus my attention on Him primarily.  And in the midst of that focus He tells me to “chill out” one seventh of the time, because He did (in Exodus, in Deuteronomy it is because the people used to be slaves).  Making this day a day of worship is good, but I should worship every day.  It needs to be a day I “fast” from my occupation in order to re-center my life on my Master.  Fasting any more I would call a “vacation”. 

A Painful Reminder - Genesis 17

God said further to Abraham, “Now as for you, you shall keep My covenant, you and your descendants after you throughout their generations.  This is My covenant, which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: every male among you shall be circumcised.  And you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin, and it shall be the sign of the covenant between Me and you.   And every male among you who is eight days old shall be circumcised throughout your generations, a servant who is born in the house or who is bought with money from any foreigner, who is not of your descendants.   A servant who is born in your house or who is bought with your money shall surely be circumcised; thus shall My covenant be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.   But an uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant." (Genesis 17:9-14 NASB)

This is not a guy’s favorite topic.  It hurts just to consider it.  That God would use such a practice makes a painful point, but doesn’t necessarily make it clear.  This is something that is not unheard of in the time of Abraham, but it is not common by any means.  The medical reasons aside for such a practice (that would not be common knowledge in that day, if anyone knew of them) it is one that put the person practicing it in a small sub-group of people.  That may be part of God’s point.

Circumcision is mentioned in Scripture 87 times.  Of those 32 are in the Hebrew Scriptures, and this is the first reference.  So, in a sense, the law that became such a distraction for the Jews really started with the covenant between God and Abraham.  Using the criteria for what constitutes a law in Scripture, this command to keep this “sign of the covenant” fits in nicely.  It has both a reason and a consequence tied to it.

First, the reason is to be a sign of the covenant between God and Abraham.  Every male in the household, slave or free, is to have this sign.  Abraham made the covenant, but every male in the house carries the mark of it.  There are several things that make this not only interesting, but also important as a law to be used by Christ-followers in a modern setting (but don’t panic!).

Second, the consequence is really severe.  If a male refuses the sign, then that person is cut off from the household (or his people).  One of the interesting items in this passage is the flipping back and forth between second person singular (Abraham) and second person plural (everyone affected by this: his household and descendants).  So the consequence becomes an ethnic consequence as time goes on.

My observations that make this both interesting and important to modern Christ-followers stem from elements of the setting then; obvious elements.  This isn’t a sign to everyone else around the household/people.  It’s a “private” sign.  Only the household and members of Abraham’s descendants are aware of it.  The covenant of which this is a sign was that God would give Abraham descendants and the land of Canaan.  His part was this circumcision element.

This isn’t the first covenant that God enters into with Abraham, but it the first one where God requires anything but faith on Abraham’s part.  He and the males of his household will carry about the sign that this land will be given to the descendants of Abraham and Sarah, who had no children.  Every male would know and have a reminder of what God was doing through this man and his descendants.

Where I see the importance for Christ followers is in the importance of the covenant we are under.  Ours, like Abraham’s, has been ratified by a huge act on the part of our Savior.  But what is our mark?  What is it that we use to pass this covenant on down to our children?  Unlike Abraham’s covenant with the Creator, our Savior did not make this covenant with us and our descendants, but with persons.  I don’t receive my salvation because my parents were in this covenant.

If I want my child to enter into this same covenant, what am I doing to pass it along?  What reminder do I have or use a sign of this covenant?  Does my Master prescribe a “sign” of this covenant?  There are only two things that my Master prescribes, and they are not prescribed together.  One is baptism, which I believe is to be performed on a person once they become a Christ follower.  The other is Communion or The Lord’s Supper.  This is also for Christ followers.

The differences between circumcision and these two acts are huge.  Neither one of these are for males alone, everyone is included regardless of social or gender differences.  They are not painful (unless one is kept under water too long, but that almost never happens).  There are two, not one sign of this covenant.  The two signs are performed among individuals rather than within social structures (with one exception).

Communion is called that for at least two reasons.  First it celebrates the communion between the Creator and His human creatures with whom He relates.  Second it celebrates the communion of fellow Christ followers, regardless of other differences; at least it’s supposed to.  This one is performed within a social structure of “called-out ones” or church.  Churches come in various sizes, but share a lot in common, both within and out between different groups.

Another observation about this law is that this was done by parents to sons on the eighth day.  Initially, the adults and young men were circumcised, but this was to be continued by parents to sons.  These sons aren’t going to remember what happened, and won’t know the significance until they are taught it.  This continues the transmission of the covenant from one generation to the next within the household and among Abraham’s descendants. 

Scripture notes that sometimes groups of believers are baptized on a “household” scale as well.  Usually a prominent or sizable household, and it is not specified if the slaves or just the family members participated.  I’m not sure how to take this because I’m not told whether all the participants did it because “dad did” or because they too wanted to accept the covenant he accepted.  Scripture seems to accept it, so it may not be “normative” but it is acceptable to my Master.

The last observation is related to the first element; that this is done to those in the household who are not necessarily relations but are closely associated with the family.  In other words, once a person becomes a part of the social structure of Abraham’s house or of his descendants, they fall under this sign of the covenant between Abraham and God. 

This is where I believe this law became such a distraction for the Jews of Jesus’ day.  It was the private “club card” exclusive among the cultures around them.  It set them apart.  They saw it as a means of survival; to keep their society from being consumed by the ones in which they lived, which ruled over them.  This was not a new problem, because Canaan or Palestine had always been overrun by different cultures.  That they have maintained their identity as a people is miraculous; it is a confirmation of God of His continued love for these people.

Yet, this attitude of isolation or entrenched life means that while they separated themselves from distracting cultures, they also separated those cultures from God.  That was not really the plan.  It is my interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures that God intended all along to include the nations in His family; to redeem all of humanity, not just one people.  But I also see a struggle in and with His people to accept this element. 

This is a danger for Christ followers as well.  Both on an individual and on a church scale this attitude of isolation from the cultural enemies of our Savior also separates those in that culture from our Savior.  There are enough barriers inherent to this covenant without additional ones being created by fearful believers.  It is not the will and design of my Master that I restrict or dictate who and who will not be admitted to His family.  Yet, in a way, I do this whenever I refuse to engage with others outside my comfortable ring of safe fellow Christ followers.  That is not my Master’s way, and should not be mine.

So, this law, only a few verses, might be a bit more complex and meaningful than at first imagined.  Is it possible that it should be examined and mined by Christ followers for a better understanding of what Christ wants for them?  I believe so.  I believe it would be very profitable for believers to dive deep into this topic in order to better understand the will and design of our Master.  I believe we will find a missing part of the heart of Jesus when we do.