If an Ox Gore a Man or a Woman (Exodus 21:28-32)

2023-12-26

Consider this comparison between the Pentateuch and the Code of Hammurabi:

If an ox gore a man or a woman, that they die: then the ox shall be surely stoned, and his flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall be quit. But if the ox were wont to push with his horn in time past, and it hath been testified to his owner, and he hath not kept him in, but that he hath killed a man or a woman; the ox shall be stoned, and his owner also shall be put to death. If there be laid on him a sum of money, then he shall give for the ransom of his life whatsoever is laid upon him. Whether he have gored a son, or have gored a daughter, according to this judgment shall it be done unto him. If the ox shall push a manservant or a maidservant; he shall give unto their master thirty shekels of silver, and the ox shall be stoned. (Exodus 21:28-32)

If while an ox is passing on the street (market) some one push it, and kill it, the owner can set up no claim in the suit (against the hirer). If an ox be a goring ox, and it shown that he is a gorer, and he do not bind his horns, or fasten the ox up, and the ox gore a free-born man and kill him, the owner shall pay one-half a mina in money. If he kill a man’s slave, he shall pay one-third of a mina. (Code of Hammurabi 250-252, translated by L. W. King)

Scholars are quick to say that the Israelites copied from their Ancient Near Eastern counterparts, citing such examples as above. If we assume a conservative date for the Pentateuch, it was written down in the 15th century B.C. The Babylonian Code of Hammurabi is from the mid-18th century B.C., about three centuries earlier. Did the Israelites not really get the Law of Moses from God, but rather copied it from Hammurabi? Or maybe the Israelites and the Babylonians both look back to a shared tradition? We see that both these views circumvent the divine origin of the Scriptures and allow for “help” from pagan literature.

However, we cannot and would not deny the parallels between these texts. The ox parallels include an ox with no history of violence, an ox with a history of violence, and an ox that pushes/harms a servant. The owner parallels include one that owns an ox that gored in the past, but he did nothing about it.

There are also key differences. Exodus says that in all three cases, the first offending ox, the ox with a history, and the ox that harms a slave, the ox is stoned and put to death. For the ox with a history, the owner is also put to death, with the possibility of redemption.

Moreover, it is a curious thing that random laws, such as these about oxen, are right after the Ten Commandments, the core of the Law of Moses. Why?

I believe that this code of Hammurabi was not only well known in its time but also generally reflected Semitic values. Even after centuries in Egypt, Israelites would have heard of some of these laws and God had to reset some expectations.

Recall after the Flood, God told Noah and his sons, “And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man’s brother will I require the life of man. Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man” (Genesis 9:5-6). The pagan cultures, who, like the Israelites, descended from the sons of Noah, had long forgotten about people being created in the image of God and that both man and beast would be put to death for murder. This was God’s postdiluvian decree for all humanity before they spread across the world into nations. This law, which would have been known in some form throughout the Ancient Near East, was redeclared considering the sanctity of human life. The killing of an Image of God, a human being, is a sin against God, not just the victim and his kin.

A ransom may have been placed on the ox owner in a special case, where maybe he took the proper precautions, but the ox still hurt someone. Murder involves intention, and in this case, there were opportunities for grace in some cases since it was not killing in cold blood.

This Babylonian law makes no mention of punishing the ox. God tells us that justice against the killing of a person applies to animals also.

The owner of the first offending ox is clearly innocent; this attack came out of nowhere. There was neither negligence nor malice in the owner in this case. The ox was still put to death, and no one could benefit from the ox’s death by making a meal out of it.

Moreover, whoever owned the ox was held responsible for the death. Nobody else could be held responsible, regardless of who the victim was, such as a child. “The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin” (Deuteronomy 24:16).

The reason why this law is in the Scriptures is because a similar law in the Near East was already known, but God recast the law with His true justice. The highly esteemed Code of Hammurabi was flawed. The people’s sense of justice needed correction by the Lord. From here, using a similar law with which the people were already familiar, they could apply it to whatever similar situations they may encounter.