For some time, I have relatively infrequently written articles that are meant to be published less than up to a year or more in advance. Coming across article after article about human deaths preventable if greater care had been taken or due to non-wild animals, often by happenstance, compelled me to write this one in light of fairly recent occurrences. As far removed as a spontaneously dangerous encounter with a bull's horns might be from the lives of many people in my country today, Exodus 21:28-32 is still highly relevant to modern life, and not just because the exact scenario described in the case law should be universally handled in the manner prescribed (as directly taught by verses like Malachi 3:6 and Matthew 5:17-19 independent of other reasons and verses).
Read the verses if needed. The moral principles entailed by Exodus 21:28-32 are not limited to specific parts of an animal that can be dangerous (horns as opposed to claws or feet, for example), specific animals (a bull as opposed to a heifer or dog), or even non-human animals altogether. Really, this passage is about how human negligence leading to the death of a man, woman, or child is a sin so great it deserves the same punishment as murder (Exodus 21:12-14) and other severe sins like rape (Deuteronomy 22:25-27).
For one thing, a dangerous factory machine that goes unrepaired despite worker complaints would be subject to the same obligations, including the obligation to execute anyone negligent enough to take no precautions to save human lives when they have warning (such as the situation addressed by Deuteronomy 22:8). It is not just bulls or animals Exodus 21:28-32 addresses by logical extension! And if being protected from injury or death stemming from neglect is the right of every "man or woman", "son or daughter", and "male or female slave", the same would logically be true of intentional injuries, the greater category of sin, according to this passage alone in isolation from the rest of Exodus 21. One can find a multitude of examples of reported negligence leading to human death or of circumstances that, though negligence was not necessarily always involved, are still within the scope of Exodus 21:28-32.
More recently, a woman named Blanca Ojanguren Garcia is said to have been gored to death by an elephant in a Thai care center while traveling early this very year [1]. Since the elephant killed Blanca, using the same kind of bodily instrument (horns) mentioned in Exodus 21:28 at that, the creature should be killed according to Biblical philosophy because a non-human animal has killed a human. That the animal had never killed anyone prior to this at least as far as the article mentions has no relevance. It cannot be known in advance that a domestic/agricultural animal will kill a person. Though the owner/caretaker is not necessarily guilty in this case depending on the specifics of what happened, the animal still must die. A woman was reportedly killed by an animal that was not residing out in the wild, and that is all it Biblically takes for the animal responsible to need to die if the claim is true. Yes, certain cares must be taken with handling non-human animals for the sake of their own moral rights (see passages like Exodus 23:4-5 and Deuteronomy 25:4), but human life always merits priority.
Another example of an incident relevant to Exodus 21:28-32 is the death of three men in India, who drove off of an unfinished bridge in 2024 while seemingly following a Google Maps route [2]. Yes, Google Maps getting updated to prevent tragedies like this is not something that always be ensured quickly. At a minimum, still, local government doing nothing to block the drivable surface of the unfinished bridge whether or not navigation apps would guide anyone on such a road is absolutely the same kind of negligence condemned so explicitly in Exodus 21. Contrary to corporate practices that try to leave consumers with most or all of the risk and no substantial recourse if they survive a dangerous situation in any way related to an organization's products or services, the Torah commands that people who passively disregard human life be put to death. Someone failed to install signs or other obstacles on the Indian bridge in question to prevent injury, loss of property, or loss of life. Exodus is not subtle whatsoever about the deserved punishment, although monetary ransom is permitted as a substitute in verse 30, whereas this is injustice for murder (Numbers 35:30-31).
Yet another relevant event took place in 2024 and culminated in the death of a young woman named Alison Pickering in America [3]. Allergic to peanuts, she ate a familiar dish from a restaurant she had been to before. However, the introduction of peanut sauce to the ingredients unannounced to customers triggered her allergy, and ultimately consuming the sauce killed her. Not even the wait staff was allegedly informed of this change. Anyone at the restaurant who knew as much as they could that the ingredients would change and said nothing about it would be guilty of the class of negligent sin addressed in the first chapter of Mosaic Law after the Ten Commandments. The absence of an unconfined animal that injured Alison here would not make a moral difference. By logical necessity, this situation would have to be connected to the same rights and obligations as that of a farm animal that attacked someone and was never penned up, only to later kill a person.
Other stories similar to these can be found [4]. Perhaps Judeo-Christianity is true and perhaps it is not, like many worldviews consistent with true rationalism. Either its veracity or falsity is logically possible irrespective of fallible evidences. But aside from its truth, the ideas behind Exodus 21:28-32 are not irrelevant to a host of circumstances common in modern times. Thus, on Biblical theology, it does not matter it you do not own bulls or are not exposed to animals that could show dangerous behavior whether or not they attacked or killed anyone in the past. Each human should be protected from incidental harm or death as much as possible. Each human is also responsible for ensuring as much as they can that others are not placed in danger due to passivity. Other case laws in Exodus have analogous ramifications beyond the exact things the words speak of.
The principles of Exodus 21:10-11, for instance, are not just about a polygamous marriage specifically; logically and textually, all husbands and wives can divorce for neglect of material or relational needs/rights (Genesis 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 7:2-5). The concepts of Exodus 21:26-27 are not just about literal slaves; all people can or must Biblically go free from relationships for abuse no matter their promises of commitment beforehand (Exodus 21:5-6, Deuteronomy 15:16-17), including from any marriage relationship. Exodus 21:18-19 is not just about a stone or a fist, Exodus 21:23-25 is not just about negligent injury to a pregnant woman (21:22), etc. Exodus 21:28-32 is certainly no different!
No comments:
Post a Comment