Introduction: Read Exodus20v22to21v36

My commentaries on Exodus do not make a very good job of showing the relevance of the laws given by God to his ancient people to his modern people. Indeed, someone like Peter Enns in his NIV Application Commentary, suggests it is unwise to do so. Preachers generally also steer clear of this topic. I have never heard a sermon on Exodus 21. There are not many on the internet site: SermonCentral. Yet these laws are important because they help to produce the sort of society of which God approves. They indicate the principles God expects us to live by.

(1) Building to the glory of man prohibited. See20v22to26.

It may seem strange that God forbade the Israelites from building an altar with dressed stones or making it so high steps were needed to mount it.

Men love building things and too often they build to their own glory rather than God's glory. So God tells the Israelites not to build anything fancy upon which to offer their sacrifices. He does not want the erection of huge shrines which become objects of worship in their own right.

In the time of Jesus the disciples gloried in the magnificence of the temple - but Jesus was not greatly impressed. As he was leaving the temple, one of his disciples said to him, "Look, Teacher! What massive stones! What magnificent buildings!" "Do you see all these great buildings?" replied Jesus. "Not one stone here will be left on another; everyone will be thrown down." Mk13v1and2.

There have always been Christians more interested in the church building than in people. It is often easier to raise money for a new building than it is to help poor and disadvantaged people overseas or to take the gospel to the unenlightened.

The Church of England bears a huge financial burden maintaining old and crumbling buildings. They look good and are of historical interest but they are not conducive to worship or community activities. I attended a funeral service in a big Anglican church recently. I could hardly hear a word because of the echo. The church needs modern buildings that can be used in several different ways - for teaching, singing, for play groups, for youth clubs, indoor bowls, badmington, luncheons, coffee mornings and so on. The buildings need not be fancy - but an asset to the community - not an unproductive drain on the finances of the Anglicans.

(2) The law protected the interests of the poorest.

The poorest in society were the slaves. A poor man could sell himself as a slave to pay off a debt or because he just could not support himself or his family. The law gave him the right to be free after seven years unless he chose to remain with his master.

If a woman was bought as a concubine she could not be sold on to a foreigner. Her family had the right to redeem her if she in some way displeased her master.

A woman bought to be a wife for a son should be given the rights of a daughter-in-law. She must retain the rights of a wife even if her husband married for a second time.

There are other instances where the law makes some provision for the poor. For example: When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. Do not go over your vineyard a second time of pick up the grapes that have fallen. Leave them for the poor and the alien. I am the LORD your God. Lev19v9and10.

It is right that the law of our land protects the interests of the poor and disadvantaged. So I am in full agreement of there being a minimum wage to protect the poor from being exploited. Employers should receive some tax relief for employing handicapped people. God expected farmers to bear some small loss to provide gleanings for the impoverished. Perhaps, he still expects employers to suffer a similar small loss for employing handicapped folk. I don't think God is in favour of ruthless capitalism.

(3) The punishments prescribed by the law reflected the seriousness of the offence.

The death penalty was reserved for the most destructive and threatening offences against the person; offences that threatened the stability and well being of society. Death was the penalty for:

• Murder - intentionally killing someone for base and unjustifiable motives.

• Kidnap - capturing people and selling them as slaves in neighbouring countries. This is what, in effect, Joseph's brothers did. They unlawfully sold him to Midianite slave traders on their way to Egypt. It was a capital offence.

• Cursing parents - treating them as your enemies - wishing them ill or harm.

It is very important for society that the law punishes crimes that cause great distress. One crime which in my view is not dealt with seriously enough is fraud. It is not a high priority with the police and fraudsters are not punished severely enough. There is a huge amount of internet fraud and it causes a great deal of misery. Perhaps the authorities think that the victims of fraud have brought it on themselves by being gullible. However the victims, unlike the perpetrators, have no evil intent.

It is equally important that relatively trivial offences are not punished harshly. I read recently that a private 'faith school' was facing closure because it would not allow the leaders of other religions to conduct assembly. Maybe the state would be justified in cutting off funding - but not closing the school. The rationale of a 'faith school' is that children are educated in 'the faith' of their parents. If the parents do not choose to worship in a Hindu temple or Muslim mosque - why should their children's act of worship be led by representatives of what they consider to be false religions. I believe it is important that children learn about other religions - but in RE lessons not in the school's act of worship.

Christians need to be careful that they do not discriminate against people over trivial matters - for having tatoos, wearing studs and sporting outlandish hairstyles. I have known believers who think a person can be summed up by the state of their shoes or finger nails!

(4) The law depends on the belief that we are responsible for our actions.

Punishment is retributive. The person who commits an offence is punished - not his wife, brother, friend or workmate. The only reason for punishing the offender is because he or she is held responsible for their actions.

A distinction was made in ancient Israelite society, as it is now, between deliberately killing someone and accidentally killing them. A distinction was made between the man whose bull had no history of goring people and a man whose bull was known to be dangerous. In the latter case the man was held responsible for keeping his bull fenced off from the public. If he failed to do this he was responsible for any death his bull caused and would be put to death himself.

The legal system of Britain depends upon the belief that we are responsible for our actions. There are exceptions. Some people are so mentally ill that they are deemed not responsible for their actions - and are never even charged with an offence. The law does not apply to them.

So our law has no truck with the idea that we are essentially the product of hereditary and our environment - things we have little control over. People who break the law cannot site the genes they have inherited or even their disadvantaged background as an excuse. In the vast majority of cases offenders are held liable for their behaviour and punished for it. Nothing else is acceptable!

Some Christians refuse to accept that we are responsible for the most fundamental of choices: whether to believe in Jesus or reject him. If I was to whack a Calvinist in the eye he would not accept the excuse that I couldn't help it because I was born to sin as the sparks fly upward. The Calvinist does not accept that I am so dead in trespasses and sin that I cannot refrain from punching him in exasperation at his foolishness. If I can choose to behave properly I can surely choose to submit to Jesus. Many reach out to him, like the woman who touched the hem of his garment, in desperation.

(5) The law curbs the excesses of retaliation.

When I was a boy of about 14 or 15 I tried to leave the changing room after a physical education lesson. I didn't want to be late for my next lesson. I was also suffering from an asthma attack and feeling far from well. I couldn't open the door of the changing room because a boy on the other side was pulling on the handle. Eventually, after a super human effort that exacerbated my asthma, I wrenched the door open. John Plumb stood smirking on the other side. I hit him hard once on the chest. He hit me back once? By no means! He struck me 6 or 7 savage blows by way of retaliation.

That is how we are. If someone upsets us our response is often excessive. It is the only time we give good measure.

Some parents teach their children to retaliate. My brother and his wife fostered a four-year-old girl. She looked so sweet - but had been taught to retaliate by her natural father - so much so that she took pre-emptive action. My friend Denis picked her up on one occasion and gave her a hug whereupon she kicked him in the goollies. He never made the same mistake twice and I didn't make it once!

The law curbs this tendency. If anyone injures his neighbour, whatever he has done must be done to him: fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. As he has injured the other, so he is to be injured. Lev24v19and20. See also Ex21v23to25. By the time of Jesus a monetary value was put on these injuries and money was paid by way of compensation.

Jesus brought the law curbing retaliation to completion. He said: "You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye and tooth for tooth'. But I tell you ...... if someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.'" Mt5v38and37. Jesus does not mean that a person guilty of grievous bodily harm is not punished by the law of the land but that we should not have the spirit of retaliation. That spirit has been difficult for me to control.

(6) The law promotes health and safety.

A farmer was held liable for the behaviour of his bull. If a man dug a hole, pit or trench he had to ensure it was not a hazard to livestock. He would have to pay compensation if a neighbour's ox or donkey fell into his pit.

There is no doubt that health and safety officers employed by local councils can be over zealous but nonetheless health and safety legislation has saved lives. It has cut deaths in the construction industry for example. There has been a steady decline in fatalities from 1982 onwards.

As a country we have been very slow to make dog owners responsible for the behaviour of their pets. There are still far too many dog attacks - especially on postmen.

I think there is a conflict of interest between farmers who keep cattle including bulls on meadows and ramblers using public rights of way across these meadows. There have been 18 deaths caused by cattle in the last 8 years although not all the victims have been ramblers. Some of the deaths have also been the result of walkers not keeping their dogs under control. However I always find it a slightly unnerving experience to cross a field with a bull loose in it.

I feel very few farmers would put a bull of uncertain temper in a field traversed by a public right of way if the law of Israel applied and a farmer was likely to be put to death if his bull gored a rambler.

(7) The law upholds the principle of fair play.

One of the crucial roles of the law is to ensure fair play or justice. This is what we all want for ourselves but it is not something we are committed to by nature. This is evident to everyone who watches a professional football match. The players are always seeking to gain an advantage by fair means or foul. An awful lot of cheating goes on during a match. Diving, holding, grappling, pushing and tripping are all used to gain an advantage. It is the referees' job to uphold the rules of the game, to ensure fair play, to punish cheating and to make certain justice is done. The referees lot is not a happy one!

It is very important for the well being of society that the law of the land ensures fair play for all. In some respects it does not do so in Britain. The investment bankers and others who pursued reckless policies, earned fat bonuses and brought the country to the brink of financial ruin did not pay a price for their greed and stupidity. It often seems that whereas whistle blowers often get the sack for their pains those responsible for poor practice in hospitals, schools and social services never seem to pay a price for their inadequacies.

Surely Christians should be committed to fair play especially when it comes to rewarding hard work, competence and faithfulness. So why is it that among professionals clergymen are the lowest paid? The apostle Paul argued that a labourer is worthy of his hire. He quoted Deut25v4 in support of this principle: Do not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain. 1Cor9v9 If God was concerned to ensure fair play for the ox he surely expects his servants to be fairly remunerated.

I think one of the reasons that the author of Psalm 119 delights in the law is because of the benefits it brings to humanity. A just society is infinitely preferable to an unjust one. Without the law there would be no justice.