CHAPTER XVII.

THE CIVIL INSTITUTES OF MOSES; OR THE HEBREW CODE OF CIVIL LAW.

IN scripture phrase, the code is most often called “The statutes and the judgments”――the “commandments and precepts” which the Lord gave by Moses (Deut. 6: 1 and Ex. 21: 1).

I approach this subject with a feeling of regret that the necessary limits of this volume forbid any attempt to make my presentation of this topic exhaustive. The utmost I can do within the limits prescribed is to give an outline rather than a full development of this code. I shall aim to make this outline full enough to show the _steps and stages of progress_ in the science of legislation which are obvious in these “statutes and judgments.”

I must first call attention to certain points of a general nature, most of which will need only a brief statement.

1. This code of laws was _given to the Hebrews by God himself, through the hand of Moses_. For the sake of brevity and to distinguish it from other codes we may speak of it as the code of Moses and may speak of Moses as the Hebrew lawgiver; yet let it be said once for all that we recognize no authority――no authorship other than that of God himself.

2. This code was built upon the moral law of Sinai――the ten commandments. It simply expands and applies the general principles expressed or implied in that summary.

3. It was framed with the purpose of reaching the highest moral standard practicable in the circumstances of the people――the highest which it was possible to enforce. This doctrine assumes that any special statute which is so far above the moral status of the people as to be practically inoperative and void may be for this very reason an evil rather than a good inasmuch as it may break down rather than build up the law-abiding spirit of the people. Consequently the best statute for any given people may be the best that can be in the main enforced――the best which they can be brought up to respect and obey. Hence it may happen that some of the statutes in the best practicable system will be only second best――_i. e._ not theoretically perfect, but only the best practically for the circumstances. We may illustrate this by the law of divorce, as to which Jesus himself remarks that Moses “because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives, but from the beginning it was not so” (Mat. 19: 8). The provisions for an easy divorce were a concession to a sadly low morality among the people――the best under the circumstances――the best that could be made operative with that people, but by no means theoretically perfect.――――The reader will take note that we had no occasion to apply this principle to the moral law of the ten commandments, nor indeed to the underlying principles of this code of “statutes and judgments,” but only to some of its practical applications of these principles.

4. It is an inference from our last-named point that this code must needs _take the people as they were_; must have regard to existing usages, to the common law under which they had been living, and perhaps must be compelled to tolerate some undesirable usages until better principles could be inculcated and a higher moral tone of public sentiment could be established. Illustrations of this principle appear in the prevalent system of servitude, and in polygamy.

5. Another inference from the point above made is that this code can not be held responsible for what was in existence before its promulgation; _e. g._ personal slavery. It can be held responsible only for doing the best that could be done with such a people――a people so educated, accustomed to such usages and trained in such ideas.

6. That this code, though given by the Lord himself, was not theoretically perfect but only the best practicable, is obvious from the fact that it was from time to time modified. Cases of this appear in the law respecting the six years’ emancipation of Hebrew servants (compare Ex. 21: 2–7 with Deut. 15: 12–17); the taking of pledges from the poor for the payment of debts: (compare Ex. 22: 26 with Deut. 24: 6, 10–15). See also the law of inheritance in a family consisting of daughters only (Num. 36).

7. That this code was framed with the design of a special adaptation to the Hebrew people appears in such facts as these, viz. that though it went into immediate effect and continued in force during their wandering life in the wilderness forty years, yet it anticipated their ultimate residence in Canaan, especially in its land-law and its provision for the entailment of real estate. Also it anticipated the future demand for a king according to the usage of contiguous nations and provided for this modification in the general government.

8. At the point where the administration of justice first appears, the sole responsibility seems to have rested on Moses (Ex. 18). At the suggestion of Jethro (as we have seen) important modifications were introduced. Further modifications were made after the settlement in Canaan. In consequence of the close connection between the church and the state――the religious law and the civil――the same class of men were to a great extent put in charge of both. The tribe of Levi became the ministers of religion and the administrators of civil law as well. Exempted chiefly from agriculture and from military service, they became the learned class――the lawyers of the nation. “The priests’ lips should keep knowledge and they should seek the law at his mouth” (Malachi 2: 7).

9. The question how far this divinely revealed code of law is authoritative upon human legislators and should control legislation in this Christian age, should be carefully considered. With no attempt to exhaust this question, I may suggest briefly:――(1.) That the great principles of this code should underlie every code of human law. These principles must be good for all time――for man in his social and civil relations every-where. For example, its doctrine of equity; its law of love; its regard for the personal rights of life, chastity, property; its doctrine of the essential equality of every man’s rights before the law; and its assumption that the poor, being otherwise defenseless, have special need of the protection of law, and should be regarded therefore as the special wards of government and its officers.――――(2.) As the moral law of the ten commandments is obviously the compend and summary of the great principles which underlie this Hebrew code, so should this moral law be the compend and summary of the principles that should underlie every human code of law in whatever age of the world and in whatever stages of civilization.――――(3.) As the Hebrew code while accepting the supreme authority of the ten commandments and aiming to embody and apply its principles did yet allow to itself a certain latitude in adjusting its “precepts and statutes” to the condition of the people, so may human legislators. Lessons of wisdom may be drawn from this code in both these lines of its example; viz. its fidelity to the principles and doctrines of the perfect moral law of Sinai; and its careful adaptation of these principles to the actual status of the people so as to reach the highest possible amount of practical efficiency in securing the ends of justice and of virtue.

* * * * *

The brief analysis and treatment of the _civil code_ here attempted will follow mainly the same order of subjects which appears in the law of Sinai; thus:

I. Crimes against God:

1. Idolatry;――2. Perjury;――3. Presumptuous sins;――4. Violations of the Sabbath;――5. Blasphemy;――6. Magic.

II. Crimes against parents and rulers (Fifth commandment).

III. Crimes against the person and life (Sixth commandment).

IV. Crimes against chastity (Seventh commandment).

V. Crimes against property; laws respecting property (Eighth commandment).

VI. Crimes against reputation; violations of truth (Ninth commandment).

VII. Hebrew servitude.

VIII. Judicial procedure.

IX. Punishments.

* * * * *

I. Crimes against God:

1. _Idolatry._ The laws against idolatry included both the professed worship of the true God by means of images, and the worship of other gods. As the law of Sinai forbade both these practices with no special discrimination between them, so did the “statutes and judgments”――the law apparently holding it of small account to attempt any discrimination. In the case of the golden calf (Ex. 32) Aaron having more knowledge of the true God than the body of the people, may have thought only of worshiping the Lord (“To-morrow is a feast to the Lord”); but the people bringing their notions from their Egyptian life, may have had no thought beyond the calf, and so may have worshiped it as their God. Plainly the professed worship of God by means of images was a perpetual temptation to let slip all just conceptions of God and to worship images only, or some other object than God. No discrimination in point of penalty appears in the law. Both forms seem to have been condemned and punished with no attempt to discriminate between them. Individual idolaters, after careful examination and clear proof of guilt, were stoned――the witnesses casting the first stone (Deut. 17: 2–7). No man might allow himself to be seduced into the worship of other gods――no, not by a brother, or a son, or a wife, or by friend dear as his own soul, but must expose the sin of his seducer and spare not his very life (Deut. 13: 6–11). A city given to idolatry, if the case be proven, must be utterly destroyed and made a perpetual desolation (Deut. 13: 12–16). The statutes were absolutely sweeping against any possible form of similitude, image, or representation, made for an object of worship; and also against the worship of the heavenly bodies――a form of idolatry both ancient and widely diffused (Deut. 4: 13–19).――――To guard them against temptation in the social line, they were forbidden to eat in idolatrous festivals (Ex. 34: 15). Apparently many special usages were forbidden because of their associations with idol worship (Lev. 19: 27, 28). The prohibition to eat blood or fat may have been in part sanitary, but probably was also anti-idolatrous. The distinction between things clean and unclean helped to make them a peculiar people, and may have been so intended.

* * * * *

2. _Perjury._ The law of Sinai tacitly indicates that the Lord himself would take the perjurer in hand, would never hold him guiltless, and would be responsible for his punishment. The statutes touch only a single case――“A false witness rising up against any man to testify against him that which is wrong”――ordaining that the case be brought before the judges who are to make diligent inquisition. If found guilty, the evil he thought to bring upon another must be visited upon himself (Deut. 19: 16–21).――――In general the sanctity of the sacred oath was shielded by Jehovah himself, searching out and punishing the guilty. Oaths seem to have been far less frequent than in the modern administration of law――less frequent, but more sacred, this binding force being laid on every conscience and left to the awful sanctions of Jehovah.

* * * * *

3. _Presumptuous sins._ The law against such sins sought to impress due reverence for God’s authority. A broad distinction was made between sins of ignorance and sins where knowledge of duty was presupposed and the offense involved deliberate contempt of God. The external act was of smallest consequence. The law said, “The soul that doeth _aught_ presumptuously”――no matter what it be. Certain cases are specified having these common elements――that the law was plain; the duty palpable; and innocent ignorance not even supposable;――_e. g._ the law of the Sabbath against all [needless] work (Ex. 31: 14, 15 and 35: 2, 3). The case (Num. 15: 32–36) of the man who gathered sticks on the Sabbath, stands in the closest connection with the law against “presumptuous sins,” showing that the offense was seen in that light. The most emphatic condemnation of presumptuous sins immediately precedes (vs. 30, 31) in these words: “The soul that doeth aught presumptuously, the same reproacheth the Lord; and that soul shall be cut off from among his people” (_i. e._ by capital punishment). “Because he hath despised the word of the Lord and hath broken his commandment, that soul shall be utterly cut off; his iniquity shall be upon him.” He must bear it himself, with no atonement provided for his pardon.――――Other cases specified are――the eating of unleavened bread during the Passover (Ex. 12: 15); neglect of the Passover when its observance was practicable (Num. 9: 13); eating certain sacrificial offerings while unclean (Lev. 7: 20, 21); eating fat or blood (Lev. 7: 23–27).

The reason for laws of this sort, apparently so stringent and severe, lies in the facts――that God was their king; that he looked on the heart; and that whatever acts manifested contempt of his authority and treason against his throne were in their very nature the highest possible crimes.

* * * * *

4. _Laws against violations of the Sabbath_ have been indicated sufficiently under the previous head. The statute was so entirely definite; the line of duty so easily defined and understood, it seemed to be assumed that palpable violations of the Sabbath were presumptuous sins, and they are treated accordingly. The case of the man who gathered sticks was carried up to the Supreme King, apparently because though the law was clear, the external act was in itself trivial. God’s answer amounted to this; No offense _can be trivial_ if the spirit of it contemns God’s authority and reproaches his name.

* * * * *

5. _Blasphemy._ A case of blasphemy is specially described (Lev. 24: 10–16, 23). It was referred to God, the Supreme Ruler. “They put him in ward that the mind of the Lord might be showed them.” The Lord replied through Moses: “Bring forth him that hath cursed without the camp; and let all that heard him lay their hand upon his head, and let all the congregation stone him.” The law was enacted accordingly: “He that blasphemeth the name of the Lord shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him.” The majesty of the Great King――the infinitely holy God, must be held sacred. No punishment could be too severe for a crime which struck so fatally against the reverence and homage due to Jehovah.

* * * * *

6. _Magic Arts._ In examining the statutes on this point, we are struck with the number and variety of names which designate these arts. The standard enumeration (Deut. 18: 10, 11) gives at least _eight_; viz.――――(1.) “He that useth divination”――professing to gain knowledge and power more than human and in some sense divine:――――(2.) “An observer of times”――the Hebrew word being related to _cloud_, perhaps in the sense of covering, hiding, as the cloud shuts off the sun’s light; practicing covert arts:――――(3.) “An enchanter”――the original suggesting the serpent, and implying either a hissing, in imitation of the serpent; or the practice of charming serpents, yet always connected with the arts of divination:――――(4.) “A witch”――the Hebrew word signifying one who mutters incantations, its cognate words having the sense of praying, but in Hebrew only in the bad sense of seeking help from others than God:――――(5.) “The charmer”――a word which suggests _binding_ as with the spell of enchantment――“spell-bound”; often used of the charming of serpents:――――(6.) “A consulter with familiar spirits”; (Heb.) one who prays to the bottle-man――the Hebrew word for bottle being applied to the ventriloquist from whose body came forth unearthly sounds as from a second being imprisoned within him. Ventriloquism was one of the arts practiced by the ancient magicians to excite the wonder and to command the belief of the credulous.――――The English phrase――“familiar spirit”――signifies spirits who stand in such a relation to the performer that they _come at his call_, like servants of his _family_, he having the power to evoke them at his will. Of course it is pretended that these spirits are other than human and greater than human spirits can be while yet in the body. The original Hebrew [Ob] comes down to us in the African “Obe-man” who still follows the same profession, by means of similar arts.――――(7.) “The wizard” is one who claims superhuman wisdom――the old English accurately translating the Hebrew: the distinctively _wise one_. Of course the word is restricted in usage to this sort of superior wisdom――that which is gained by the arts of magic.――――(8.) “The necromancer”――precisely the spiritist of modern times――or rather, of all time――who claims to have communion with the spirits of dead men.[41]

I have led the reader through this analysis of the original words, to aid him toward some just conception of the associated ideas which cluster round the _magic arts_ of the Hebrew age. Their name and their arts are legion. Think of so many classes――professions――of men and women naturally shrewd, sharp, cunning; practicing upon the superstitions, the fears, the gullibility of the millions; gaining an almost unlimited control over them; working upon their imagination, haunting them with the dread of unknown powers, bringing up to them ghosts froth the invisible world, claiming to give auguries of the future, playing in every way that may be for their own selfish interests upon their fears and their hopes to extort their money or to make sport of their fears, or to gratify their own or others’ malice. Or go still deeper and see all this machinery subsidized by the devil to impress men with his supremacy, to extort their homage, or at least their fear of himself; and perhaps, most of all, to turn them utterly away from the true God and to displace him from his proper sphere as the supreme hope and joy and trust of mortals.――――It will always be an unsettled question――How much help in the line of superhuman knowledge and power does Satan give to his servants who work the infernal machinery of magic arts? But on the point of his interest and sympathy in these arts, there need not be the least question whatever. A system so near akin in spirit and influence to idolatry――which so thoroughly displaces God from the hopes and fears of men, and which seeks so successfully to instal these horrible superstitions in his place;――a system which perverts the powers of the world to come to subserve ungodliness and which practically rules out the Blessed God from the sphere of men’s homage, fears, and hopes;――this system has always been worked by wicked and never by good men――has always subserved all iniquity, but piety and morality never;――this has been a master stroke of Satan’s policy and one of the most palpable fields of his triumph through all the ages.――――Let it not surprise us that God’s law given through Moses denounced it unqualifiedly and made it punishable with death.

The nations whom God drove out of Canaan were steeped in its abominations and ripened under its influence for their righteous doom.――――I am not aware that even one pagan, idolatrous nation, known to history since the world began, has been free from this abomination――the arts of magic. Egypt, Canaan, Babylon, India, Africa, historic Greece and Rome; the old nations of Northern Europe, the savages of America――all come up to testify that they have been cursed by its presence and power. The latest edition, modified slightly to adjust it somewhat to an age of Christian civilization, is the “spiritism” of our day――of which I need at this point to say but two things:――(1.) That its principles and policy, its spirit and its influence, are essentially the old “_necromancy_” of the ages of all history: and (2.) That it naturally becomes the nucleus around which chrystallizes whatever elements in society are irreligious and unchristian.――――This last remark would not deny that some are attracted toward it temporarily by curiosity; but it would maintain that the animus, the soul of the system, is congenial to those who know not God, and who choose not to know him;――who therefore gladly seek a substitute for God, for his Bible, for prayer, and for trust in his providence in these new revelations from the future, unseen world.

Passages in the Old Testament treating of this subject are Ex. 22: 18 and Lev. 19: 26, 31, and 20: 6, 27, and Deut. 18: 10, 11, 14, and 1 Sam. 28: 7–20, and 1 Chron. 10: 13, 14, and 2 Kings 21: 6, and 2 Chron. 33: 6, and Isa. 8: 19, 20.

II. _Crimes against Parents and Rulers_; (Violations of the Fifth Command).

Of crimes against parents, the statutes of Moses specify smiting and cursing (Ex. 21: 15, 17); the penalty in both cases, death. The precept forbidding to curse a parent is repeated impressively (Lev. 20: 9); “For every one that curseth father or mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.” This crime stands in the list of those that are anathematized――in Deut. 27: 16: “Cursed be he that setteth light by his father or his mother; and all the people shall say, Amen.”――――In Mat. 15: 3–6 and Mk. 7: 9–13, our Lord seems to give this law forbidding a son to curse father or mother, coupled with the fifth command, a construction broad enough to require him to give them an adequate support――of course in their years of infirmity and want.――――That God had a high regard for this filial duty toward parents is manifest in the place of priority accorded to the fifth command and in the special promise made to those who fulfill its obligations.

In Deut. 21: 18–21, the case is supposed of a son incurably stubborn, rebellious, gluttonous, and drunken, upon whom parental chastisement is unavailing. The law very considerately provides that his father and his mother shall lay hold of him and bring him before the elders of his city unto its gates (_i. e._ into open court), and there, as a public example and warning, the men of his city shall stone him with stones that he die:――“So shalt thou put evil away from you and all Israel shall hear and fear.”――――Parental love and partiality would guaranty this law against abuse. It is pleasant to note that no case of its execution is on record. Perhaps the severity of the law forestalled its violation.――――The spirit of this precept is so fully in harmony with the book of Proverbs that we naturally expect to find it there. (See Prov. 20: 20 and 30: 11, 17.)

A precept forbidding insult and reproach of magistrates stands in Ex. 22: 28: “Thou shalt not revile the gods [Elohim used probably in the sense of _judges_], nor curse the ruler of thy people.” The word “gods” here can not refer to false gods, idols (as the English reader might suppose), for the Hebrew word can not bear that sense, nor would it be pertinent. The parallelism with “ruler of thy people” favors the sense above suggested――_judges_――acting under God and in his behalf before the people. Their sacred office under God is assumed to be good reason for treating them with respect and against offering them insult.――――No penalty is attached to the violation of this law――perhaps because the penalty ought to depend so much upon the aggravation of the offense.――――Under the kings, it was apparently a capital crime, for when Shimei cursed king David (2 Sam. 19: 21–23) Abishai assumed that he ought to die; and his temporary pardon was manifestly due to David’s sad consciousness of deep personal ill-desert and of God’s righteous visitations upon him.

III. _Crimes against Person and Life_; (Violations of the Sixth Command).

Under this head the salient and vital points are:

1. That the _real murderer must be put to death_, and no “satisfaction” be ever taken in place of his life.

2. That the law discriminated with the utmost care and wisdom between real murder, and homicide, more or less justifiable. [Special laws touching injuries done to servants will be treated under the head of Hebrew servitude.]

3. A special law provided cities of refuge.

4. Another special law met the case of murder by unknown hands.

5. Inexcusable carelessness causing injury or death was punished.

6. Personal injuries not fatal were specially punished by statute.

1. Real murder was punished capitally. “He that smiteth a man so that he die shall be surely put to death” (Ex. 21: 12 and Lev. 24: 17). The law appears fully in Num. 35: 9–34 and Deut. 19: 4–13, 20, 21, in connection with provisions for the cities of refuge. With firm and solemn tone the law declared “Ye shall take no satisfaction for the life of a murderer who is guilty of death, but he shall be surely put to death. So shall ye not pollute the land wherein ye are; for blood it defileth the land, and the land can not be cleansed of the blood that is shed therein but by the blood of him that shed it. Defile not therefore the land which ye shall inhabit wherein I dwell, for I the Lord dwell among the children of Israel” (Num. 35: 31–34).――――This reaffirms and amplifies the doctrine of the law as given to Noah and to the repeopled world; “And surely your blood of your lives [life-blood] will I require at the hand of every beast will I require it, and _at the hand of every man_; at the hand of every man’s brother [such a case as that of Cain and Abel] will I require the life of man. Whoso [with no exception] sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed; _for in the image of God made he man_.” Human life is sacred, and God protects it under the sternest possible penalties――nothing less than the life of the murderer. That God intended this law _for the whole race, for the entire repeopled world_ from and after Noah, is too plain to be denied or even doubted. It is not easy to see how another word could be said to make this more plain. The law of Sinai and the code given through Moses are intensely emphatic, indeed, perfectly decisive.

The law does not prescribe the mode of this capital punishment. In various other crimes punishable with death, the mode is by stoning, done, however, not by any one executioner, but by many; in some cases by “the men of the city.” The penalty for murder would often be executed by the blood-avenger――the nearest relative of the murdered man; and it seems to be assumed that he would use any deadly weapon he might choose (Num. 35: 19, 21, 27 and Deut. 19: 6, 11–13).

2. The law discriminated with the utmost care and wisdom between real murder, and homicide, more or less justifiable. Real murder was to be proven as follows:

(1.) By previous hatred and enmity. Of course this could be known by human judges only by its manifestations.

(2.) By violent passion in the act――which I take to be the sense of the words in our translation: “If a man come _presumptuously_ upon his neighbor; [in Heb.] if a man _boil up with rage_ against his neighbor to slay him with guile,” etc. (Ex. 21: 14).

(3.) By evidence of premeditation――“lying in wait” (Ex. 21: 13, and Num. 35: 15–23, and Deut. 19: 4–6).

(4.) By the sort of instrument used (Num. 35: 16–18). “An instrument of iron;” “a stone;” “a hand-weapon of wood,” _i. e._ _wood of the hand_, large enough to fill the hand and deal a death-blow.

On the other hand it would be in favor of homicide if one had killed his neighbor “ignorantly”――“whom he had not hated in time past;” or thrust upon him suddenly without enmity; without lying in wait; or cast upon him a stone seeing him not, nor seeking his harm, etc. (Num. 35: 22, 23 and Deut. 19: 4–6). A case for example is given――the head of a man’s ax flying off when he is at work and killing his neighbor.

3. A special law provided for _cities of refuge_. (See Ex. 21: 13 and Num. 35, and Deut. 19 and Josh. 20).――――At the era of Moses it was already a time-honored usage that the nearest blood-relative should avenge the blood of his slain friend. The prevalence and strength of this sentiment were due of course, primarily, to the instincts of human nature; but secondarily to the fact that as an institution for the protection of person and life, the family was prior to the state.――――The Goel [as he was called in Hebrew]――the blood-avenger or Redeemer, could not be expected to exercise cool and impartial discrimination over the questions lying between murder in the first degree and homicide. To obviate this evil the Lord introduced an important modification upon the previously current usages of blood-revenge. It was this. Six cities in Palestine――three on each side of the Jordan were selected in such convenient geographical position that from any point of the whole country the man-slayer might make the nearest one within less than one day’s run.――――All these were cities of the Levites; hence the leading men of the city would be competent to hold a preliminary investigation. The man-slayer fled for his life to the nearest of these cities. The legal authorities there protected him against the Goel――the blood-avenger. The elders of his own city, if the case seemed to demand it, might send and fetch him; try him, and deliver him up to the blood-avenger; or remand him back to his city of refuge. Thus this city shielded him against sudden and indiscriminate vengeance, and secured for him a trial before the congregation or elders of his own city. If his case was proved to be homicide, he must remain within the city of refuge till the death of the high priest, after which the avenger’s right to take his life (outside the refuge-city) ceased and he could go at large in safety. This provision affixed a limit to his quasi-imprisonment. Perhaps it was also significant of the pardon for sin provided for in the death of our Great High Priest.――――If the man-slayer allowed himself to be caught by the blood-avenger outside his city when he should be within it, the avenger might take his life with impunity.

The law was specific on the point that human life must not be taken on the testimony of one witness only――a plurality of witnesses being required (Num. 35: 30, and Deut. 17: 6, and 19: 15).――――It was no crime before the law to kill a thief breaking into a house by night (Ex. 22: 2, 3). After sunrise, it became a crime of blood to take his life――it being assumed that he might be caught and compelled to make restitution, and that the peril to your own life and that of your family is materially lessened. The law carefully guarded the defenseless hours of sleep by night. If a thief in defiance of this law played the burglar by night, he must run his own risk of death in the attempt.

4. A very remarkable statute met the special case of a murder done by unknown hands (Deut. 21: 1–9). The authorities from all contiguous cities took up the case; measured carefully to fix upon the city lying nearest to the bloody spot. Then the elders of that city were to take a heifer never worked in yoke; bring her down into a wild, uncultivated valley――the home of all weird and thrilling associations――and there strike off the heifer’s head――the priests coming near and all the elders of that city washing their hands over the headless heifer, solemnly protesting――“Our hands have not shed this blood, neither have our eyes seen it. Be merciful, O Lord, unto thy people Israel, and lay not innocent blood unto thy people Israel’s charge.” “And the blood shall be forgiven them. So shalt thou put away the guilt of innocent blood from among you when thou shalt do that which is right in the sight of the Lord.”――――The entire scene was well adapted to make the impression that murder is no trifle, and that God held the whole people responsible to some extent for the safety of every human life.

5. _Inexcusable carelessness_, followed by fatal results, was punishable by law. A supposed case for a specimen appears in Ex. 21: 28, 29. The goring ox――wont to push with his horns――reported to his owner but not “kept in” by him――killing man or woman――must be put to death and _his owner also_, for his culpable negligence.

6. Personal injuries, not fatal, came under special statute. In the case of a mutual quarrel and fight, personal injuries, less than fatal, were punished by requiring their author to pay for the wounded man’s loss of time and for his being “thoroughly healed” [nursing and medical services].――――The master who smote his servant unto immediate death, must surely be punished. But if the servant survived a day or two, the presumption would be that the master did not intend to kill. His loss in the services of his servant was considered his punishment.――――Other special cases appear Ex. 21: 22 and Deut. 25: 11, 12 which were better read than rehearsed.――――The principle of punishment by retaliation――[“lex talionis”]――like for like――was applied in all appropriate cases (Lev. 24: 18–21). “If a man cause a blemish in his neighbor, as he hath done, so shall it be done unto him: Breach for breach; eye for eye,” etc. (Ex. 21: 23–25 and Deut. 19: 21).

IV. _Crimes Against Chastity_; (Violations of the Seventh Command).

The necessity for laws on this point at once discriminating, wise, and stringent, will be sufficiently obvious when we consider (1.) The strength of the passion to be controlled――constitutionally common to all ages of the world:――――(2.) The sacredness of the marriage relation and the inestimable value of moral purity in all human society――also common to all ages of the world’s history:――――(3.) (Peculiar to the earlier ages) the necessity of defining the limits of consanguinity within which marriage should be prohibited, and all sexual connection sternly forbidden. Perhaps we need to remind ourselves that the race having sprung from a single pair and the world having been repeopled a second time from one family, those primitive examples may have sent down for many generations a certain looseness which called for special restraint and a carefully defining law:――――(4.) The crimes of Sodom, their polluting influence in so good a family as that of Lot; the low morals of Egyptian life; some sad manifestations in the early history of Jacob’s family; the horrible contagion of Moab and Midian when the tribes of Israel came socially near them;――these and kindred facts will be readily recalled as in point to show the necessity of vigorous legislation in the Mosaic code to counteract these untoward influences of their antecedent life and of surrounding society.――――The thoughtful student of the Mosaic code as expanding and applying the seventh commandment will be painfully impressed with the disadvantages under which it labored by reason of the toleration of polygamy, concubinage, and domestic servitude. In some points the law bore with special severity upon woman as compared with man――a sort of imperfection which was simply an inevitable result of tolerating those ancient evils.――――It scarcely need be suggested that the value of this part of the Mosaic code as a definite model for Christian legislation is greatly lessened by this class of facts. Woman’s place in society then was by no means that which the genius of Christianity has given her. Unquestionably this code alleviated her condition as compared with what it had been, and brought to her relief as large a boon of blessing as the genius of the age would bear.

In view, partly of the difficulty of treating this subject with minute detail in a way to make its discussion really useful, and partly of its inferior value in some points as an example, for reasons above indicated, I shall excuse myself from any minute and extended presentation of these laws.

In general: The laws accord ample space to the condemnation of the unnatural crimes of sodomy and bestiality (Lev. 18 and 20, and Deut. 23: 17, 18, and 27: 21): also to incest, which for historic reasons needed to be thoroughly and stringently defined (Lev. 18 and 19 and 20): to adultery proper; to the case of a suspected wife (Num. 5: 11–31);――to seduction and rape; aggravated whoredom in the form of public prostitution; of prostitution to an idol; of impurity in a priest’s daughter; in a woman betrothed, etc., etc.――――The study of these laws would impress pure-minded readers with a sense of the great pains taken to lift up and regenerate a sadly low and debased condition of social morals on these points; and also with a sense of special difficulty arising from the fact that society was quite too low to bear the introduction and enforcement of the Christian law of marriage as against concubinage, polygamy, and the debasement inseparable from even modified slavery. We shall rise from the careful study of this department of the Hebrew code with gratitude for the wisdom and goodness which attempted so much, yet with a deeper gratitude that a purer and higher code came to mankind through the law of Christ and the spirit of an enlightened Christian age.

V. _Statutes Protecting Rights of Property_; (Expanding the Eighth Command).

In Ex. 22: 1–15, 25–28, and 23: 4, 5, we have the earliest instalment of statutes on this point. The staple penalty for theft was restitution, yet varying widely in amount to meet the peculiarities of the case. In pastoral life cattle were specially exposed; therefore the law ordained that if the thief had killed the animal or sold it, he must restore――of oxen five for one; of sheep, four. But if the animal was found alive in his hand, the restitution was only double――two for one. The law made the charitable supposition that the thief might yet repent and bring back the stolen property, and purposely favored this result. On the other hand the selling or destruction of the animal would indicate a fixed purpose to have the avails of it, and also to render detection more difficult――both of which purposes the law punished sharply.――――It may well be noted that restitution was a telling, stinging penalty, touching the sensibilities of the thief in a very tender point. The indolent or unprincipled man who thought to live upon his neighbor’s toil, would find stealing very unprofitable. The law had the more grip in those times because if a man tried to put his property out of his hands to evade the demand for restitution, or were in fact too poor to restore four or five fold, there was always the last resort――the law could take him for a slave (“servant”) and make him _work it out_.――――This was one of the incidental benefits of a hard system: it could be applied so as to make the penalties for theft very effectually stringent.

The law punished trespass upon another’s property and want of care for its due protection――on which points, subsequent, statutes reaffirm and expand what we first find in Ex. 22. (See Deut. 22: 1–4.)

* * * * *

While the law was vigorous, not to say severe, against criminal theft, it was yet _exceedingly lenient towards the unfortunate and innocent poor_, _e. g._,

(1.) It gave permission to eat another’s property for the supply of present want. The specifications are――The grapes of thy neighbor’s vineyard; and his standing corn. Thou mayest eat grapes, but not put one in thy vessel; mayest pluck the heads of grain in thy hand, but never move thy sickle against thy neighbor’s grain (Deut. 23: 24, 25).

(2.) It regulated thoughtfully and compassionately the whole subject of _pledges_, _i. e._ securities for the payment of debt. As first announced (Ex. 22: 26, 27), it provided that if the poor man’s garment were taken in pledge, it must certainly be restored to him by sundown, because it was his bed-covering for the night; and God would surely hear the poor man’s cry if he were compelled to lay himself down to sleep with no covering.――――As subsequently revised or enlarged (Deut. 24: 6, 10–13, 17), the statute peremptorily forbade taking the upper or the nether millstone in pledge, because no oriental family could subsist without these. It also forbade the creditor to go in to the poor man’s house to get his pledge lest he fix his covetous eye on something there, but required him to wait patiently outside for the poor man to bring it out――a provision which manifests a specially delicate regard for the feelings of the poor. He was not obliged to expose his deep poverty, nor to disclose all he had to the greedy gaze of his more wealthy neighbor.――――The law also forbade the taking of a widow’s raiment in pledge.

(3.) The law was entirely explicit and positive in its prohibition of _usury_. By “usury” the Hebrew meant, not merely excessive or illegal interest, but _interest_ itself――_all_ interest――money paid for the use of money, or any thing valuable paid for the use of any other property borrowed.――――The first statute (Ex. 22: 25) was general, yet fully covered the principle: “If thou lend money to any of my people that is poor by thee, thou shalt not be to him as an usurer, neither shalt thou lay upon him usury.” The law contemplated the poor only; for the rich are presumed to be above the necessity of borrowing money. The borrowing of money as capital to be used in trade, or in manufacture, or in the purchase of land, had no place at all in the business economy of Israel. The borrowing which the law contemplated was only that of the poor man to meet his imperative necessities. A man who had no accumulations to draw from for a sick day or a casualty, must borrow or go hungry. God speaks of such poor as “my people,” and forbids taking interest on what they must needs borrow.

In the later books (Lev. 25: 35–38 and Deut. 23: 19, 20) we have perhaps a later and revised form of the statute. “If thy brother be waxen poor, thou shalt relieve him. Take thou no usury of him or increase; fear thy God, that thy neighbor may live with thee. Thou shalt not give him thy money upon usury, nor lend him thy victuals for increase.” In Deut. (as above) the law discriminates between “thy brother” and a stranger. “Thou shalt not lend upon usury to thy brother; unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon usury.” The ground for this discrimination against the stranger may be a purpose to discourage his residence in the land; or it may be related to the general fact that foreigners were the men of traffic. (The original words for Canaanite and for merchant were the same.) Tradesmen, doing business on borrowed capital, might afford to pay interest; and on every principle of right and justice, ought to do so. But God did not encourage the Israelites in traffic with other nations. It would have been quite too perilous to their morals, and to their religion.

The reader will scarcely need the suggestion that the Hebrew law against interest applies in our Christian age only to the case of loans made to the poor to meet their necessities. The spirit of the law unquestionably _does_ apply in such cases, and does _not_ apply to any other.

(4.) _Many special statutes contemplated relief for the poor._――――The corners and the gleanings of the harvest field; a forgotten sheaf; a few clusters of grapes also and some olives on the olive tree, must be left for the poor and the stranger (Lev. 19: 9, 10, and 23: 32, and Deut. 24: 19–22)――each of these successive statutes adding somewhat in detail to the preceding.――――The day wages of the poor laborer must be promptly paid, even on the very same day (Lev. 19: 13 and Deut. 24: 14, 15). But especially the sabbatic year (each seventh) was designed to be a special benefaction to the poor. This law (Deut. 15: 1–11) uses chiefly the word “release” in regard to the debts of the poor. Critics are sharply divided over the question whether this release was an entire _remission of debts_, or only a _stay of collection_, putting it over for this one year. In favor of the latter view, Michaelis and others urge that the reason for stay of collection was that no cultivation of land was permitted during this year, and hence there were no crops of this sort, and therefore only diminished means of paying debts. Also that the law might be so abused as mostly to annihilate all rights of property, inasmuch as the statute (v. 9) would virtually put the property of the more wealthy within the control of the less wealthy. Thou shalt not withhold because the year of release is at hand, etc.

On the other hand, the arguments for construing the law to mean an actual release of debt in the case of “thy poor brother” or neighbor, are strong, and in my view, conclusive; _e. g._

(a.) This is the legitimate meaning of the original word translated “release.” There should never be any deviation from the legitimate sense of the original staple word, without cogent reasons――a principle which is doubly strong _in the words of a law_.

(b.) This construction is fully in harmony with the genius of the entire code in all its statutes for the relief of the poor.

(c.) On this construction the limitations of the statute are precisely in place; _e. g._――to the case of “thy poor brother.” “Thou shalt release _save when there_ shall be no poor among you”: also――“If there be among you a poor man of one of thy brethren, etc., thou shalt not harden thy heart nor shut thy hand from thy poor brother, but shalt open thy hand wide unto him, and shall surely lend unto him sufficient for his need in that which he wanteth”――[not all your property: you are not required to make over every thing you have]. “Beware that there be not a thought in thy wicked heart, saying――The year of release is at hand” [and I shall never get my money or my grain back again], “and he cry unto the Lord against thee, and it be sin unto thee.” This shaping of the statute plainly contemplates a real remission of this sort of debts on each seventh year.

(d.) To the same purport is this――that the law excepts debts against a foreigner: “Of a foreigner thou mayest exact it.” Our translators have taken the liberty to add the word “again,” but without the least authority from the Hebrew. The word “again” seems to come from the theory that this statute required a stay of collection for one year in the case of the foreigner: but of this there is no proof in the law as it came from the hand of Moses.――――In the time of Nehemiah (5: 1–12) there was unquestionably an entire remission of debts to the poor, and not the least hint that this was going beyond the Mosaic law. On the contrary it is implied that “the fear of our God” (v. 9)――equivalent to obedience――would require just this.

This seventh or sabbatic year had other special features besides the remission of the poor man’s debts as in Deut. 15: 1–11. These additional features appear in Lev. 25, which provides (vs. 2–7) that this year shall be a Sabbath of rest to the soil――rest from its usual cultivation.――――In this chapter we find also a kindred institution――the Jubilee――each fiftieth year――next following each seventh Sabbatic year. Inasmuch as this arrangement would bring two years of land-rest together, the Lord gave a special promise that the fertility of the year immediately preceding should suffice against the necessities of these two years of rest――a fact which testifies that God ruled his people Israel under a system of special providences. If Moses is to be considered as even in a secondary sense the legislator of the people, he must have had unbounded confidence in God’s special direction and counsel in these statutes.

The law of the Jubilee gave personal liberty to all bondmen. Of this, more must be said under “Hebrew servitude.” It also provided for the return of all real estate――all the lands of Canaan――to their original possessors. Lands could be alienated only till the jubilee. They were sold, if at all, subject to this law. Consequently a sale of land was only a lease for at longest forty-nine years――_i. e._ for the years intervening till the next jubilee. They were subject to redemption at any time――the price to be graduated by the years which the lease had to run. Houses in walled cities were redeemable only within one year from sale; but in unwalled cities, houses followed the law of land, returning with the land to their original owner at the jubilee. The houses of Levites were accounted as land.――――These statutes had a twofold purpose; to afford relief to the poor; and to prevent the entire alienation of the lands of Canaan from the tribes, families, and individuals to whom they were originally given.――――The question, how far these institutions――the Sabbatic year and the Jubilee――were observed in the future history of Israel is foreign from our present purpose.

VI. _Crimes against reputation_; (the details of the ninth commandment).

Here are stringent statutes against _false accusation_ and _false witness_. Under this general head fall two distinct cases:――(a) Testimony given to favor the guilty (Ex. 23: 1, 3);――――and (b) allegations designed to condemn the innocent (Deut. 19: 16–21).

(a.) The former class (as given Ex. 23: 1, 3) forbids not merely originating (“raise”), but _taking up_ a false report and seconding it by indorsement. It warns men not to be drawn in to help the wicked in their malicious plots to screen each other, though they be many. The cause of the poor man which you may not favor (v. 3) is certainly supposed to be a bad one. Your sympathy for him as poor must not override justice and truth.

(b.) False witness, purposed to condemn the innocent, is met by the statute (Deut. 19: 16–21). The accuser and the accused are to be brought face to face before the Lord and before the priests and the judges who are to “make diligent inquisition,” obviously hearing both parties, and if the accuser is proved to be a false witness, “Ye shall do to him as he thought to do to his brother; thine eye shall not pity, but life shall go for life; eye for eye,” etc.

Tale-bearing, _i. e._ tattling, retailing scandal maliciously or for a past-time, needed the force of law to abate and suppress it in those times as in most other ages. “Thou shalt not go up and down as a tale-bearer among thy people, neither shalt thou stand against the blood of thy neighbor. I am the Lord” (Lev. 19: 16–18)――“Standing against the blood,” must mean――taking ground against the very life, and must not be construed to forbid truthful testimony against the real murderer. But the informer should constantly remember that his neighbor’s interests and life are too precious to be lightly tampered with. Thy neighbor may have said or done something wrong. Your duty in the case is not to scatter broadcast all you know and more than you know of his misdeeds; but first of all――“Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thy heart,” but “love him as thyself” (v. 18); and next, “Thou shalt in anywise [by all means] rebuke thy neighbor, and not suffer sin upon him.”――――This last clause has been understood in two ways:――(a) Thou shalt not suffer the sin to lie upon him with no effort on thy part to bring him to repentance: or (b) Thou shalt not bear on thine own conscience the sin of neglecting to admonish him; _i. e._ thou shalt not submit to bear this sin on his account――a sin which comes of knowing his crime and of failing in your duty to save him by means of judicious and fraternal rebuke. The latter construction is best sustained by Hebrew usage of the words. See the same words, Lev. 22: 9 and Num. 18: 32, and the preposition “_upon_ him,” in Ps. 69: 8――“_For thy sake_ have I borne,” etc. The verb in this clause means rather to “_bear_” in your own person, than to “suffer” to exist in another.――――The passage, so interpreted, assumes it to be your solemn duty to labor to bring your neighbor to repentance if you are cognizant of his wrong-doing, and implies that you must lie under a load of sin if you fail to do so. But do it _in love_ (loving him even as yourself) as well as in all fidelity to his soul, as also to your own. Do this instead of going up and down to scatter this scandal among those who will do nothing to save your erring neighbor, and nothing to relieve your conscience of your responsibility in his behalf.

While this statute bears against giving information about misdeeds of minor sort, there were two crimes of such magnitude that every man was bound to testify in the proper form against them; viz. idolatry and murder. See the case of idolatry in Deut. 13: 6–14: “Neither shalt thou conceal him, but thou shalt surely kill him: thy hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterward, the hand of all the people.” (Also v. 14)――――The expiation for murder by an unknown hand included this most solemn protestation: “Our hands have not shed this blood, neither have our eyes seen it.” Of course, whoever might have seen was most sacredly bound to testify.