The Pulpit Commentary — Genesis — Section 53

Tm!: CrvrL L.&ws OF TUE MosArc Comi:. 54. Those secondnry lows, given by Moses, which were the development and npplicntion of the fund11ment11I principles of man's duty to his neighbour, are, ns before observed, intermingled in the T01'ak with those of a religious and cere- monial character. The reasone for this we have e.lready considered; e.nd it has been noticed (§ 26) thnt in the development even of hume.n law, the mingling together of "religious, civil, nnd merely morn! ordin11nces without any regard to difference~ in their essential cbnre.cter," is inve.riably found in the early fonns of written la,~. In the Divine law this wae, we may say, necessary; for its authority, being that of God, extended to 1111 these spheres of human life and conduct. It must be observed, also, that even among those which we must consider as the civil laws of the Mosaic code, there are many directed against offences that are far more directly and clearly sins against God and his image in us, than against our neighbour. Under this hea,! fall the most abominable of all crimes,1 and others which might be considered very trivial offences if our duty to man only were regarded. It is remarkable that dnmk- enness, a sin of this class, the evil consequences of which to a man himself are ex- emplified in the sacred history by two most emphatic instances, while its evil result3 to society are only too well known in the present day, was not the subject of any law, except as connected with other sins, 2 or in reference to sacerdotal duties. 3 Perhaps the abstinence from wine and strong drink required of the prie!!ts, "that ye may put difference between holy and unholy and between clean and unclean," was considered sufficient warning of the dangers of excess in those days, and under the circumstances of Oriental life. 4 It is evident, however, both that drunkenness was accounted as a sin,6 and that, at all events in the timee of the kinge, it was a sin common both among priests and people. We must, however, restrict ourselves in this examination of the civil laws of Moses to those which distinctly belong to man's duty to his neighbour, and illustrate the leading principles which govern them by some of the most luminous instances. 55. (1) And first, regarding these laws in reference to the one purpose, which, St. Paul teachee us, was paramount in the whole revelation of Divine law, that is, to con- vince man of sin, not by mere counsels and precepts, but by commands which demanded obedience, and which had the sanction of severe punishment,-we must observe that this purpose itself explains the severity with which offences against the rights o.f others and the order of society were visited in this code. For example, under the head of honouring parents, the law affixed the punishment of death to smiting, or even cursing, either father or mother'. In regard to homicide, wilful murder was punished with death, which could not be commuted into any other penalty; against what would now be called manslaughter the sentence of death was recorded, but in s01ne cases blood-money might be paid as a satisfaction ; for accidental homicide the cities of refuge were provided, where the slayer must remnin till the death of the high priest. There is some difficulty in reconciling the laws, but it seems most pro- bnble that in all cases of homicide, whether wilful, or the result of carelessness, or purely accidental, the Goel, or nearest kinsman, to whom it belonged to execute the eentence, had the right to kill the man-slnyer if he found him outside the city; an,l 1 Levit. xviii. 22-30. 1 Deut. xxi. 20. 1 Levit. x. 8-10. ' It is ce1tain that th.3 Israelite9 would not learn temperance in Egypt, in which country there wns o large consumption of wine, with the usual results among all cl11.Ssen, which ~ro entiricnlly represented in the sculptmes. 6 Cf. l Snm. i. 13-16. - tl 11-i'l'RODUCTION TO TttE l'E~'J'A'l'IWClt.