TRV
See on the biblical-era map
Study This Verse
Public-domain commentary
Matthew Henry
From his Commentary on the Whole Bible. Henry comments on passages, not single verses — this entry covers Exodus 21:22–36. His three-level outline is real structure in the source text, so it is rendered as structure.
Observe here,
I.The particular care which the law took of women with child, that no hurt should be done them which might occasion their mis-carrying.
The law of nature obliges us to be very tender in that case, lest the tree and fruit be destroyed together, Exo 21:22, Exo 21:23. Women with child, who are thus taken under the special protection of the law of God, if they live in his fear, may still believe themselves under the special protection of the providence of God, and hope that they shall be saved in child-bearing. On this occasion comes in that general law of retaliation which our Saviour refers to, Mat 5:38, An eye for an eye. Now,
1.The execution of this law is not hereby put into the hands of private persons, as if every man might avenge himself, which would introduce universal confusion, and make men like the fishes of the sea. The tradition of the elders seems to have put this corrupt gloss upon it, in opposition to which our Saviour commands us to forgive injuries, and not to meditate revenge, Mat 5:39.
2.God often executes it in the course of his providence, making the punishment, in many cases, to answer to the sin, as Jdg 1:7; Isa 33:1; Hab 2:13; Mat 26:52.
3.Magistrates ought to have an eye to this rule in punishing offenders, and doing right to those that are injured. Consideration must be had of the nature, quality, and degree of the wrong done, that reparation may be made to the party injured, and others deterred from doing the like; either an eye shall go for an eye, or the forfeited eye shall be redeemed by a sum of money. Note, He that does wrong must expect one way or other to receive according to the wrong he has done, Col 3:25. God sometimes brings men's violent dealings upon their own heads (Psa 7:16); and magistrates are in this the ministers of the justice, that they are avengers (Rom 13:4), and they shall not bear the sword in vain.
II.The care God took of servants.
If their masters maimed them, though it was only striking out a tooth, that should be their discharge, Exo 21:26, Exo 21:27. This was intended,
1.To prevent their being abused; masters would be careful not to offer them any violence, lest they should lose their service.
2.To comfort them if they were abused; the loss of a limb should be the gaining of their liberty, which would do something towards balancing both the pain and disgrace they underwent. Nay,
III.Does God take care for oxen? Yes, it appears by the following laws in this chapter that he does, for our sakes, Co1 9:9, Co1 9:10. The Israelites are here directed what to do,
1.In case of hurt done by oxen, or any other brute-creature; for the law, doubtless, was designed to extend to all parallel cases.
(1.)As an instance of God's care of the life of man (though forfeited a thousand times into the hands of divine justice), and in token of his detestation of the sin of murder. If an ox killed any man, woman, or child, the ox was to be stoned (Exo 21:28); and, because the greatest honour of the inferior creatures is to be serviceable to man, the criminal is denied that honour: his flesh shall not be eaten. Thus God would keep up in the minds of his people a rooted abhorrence of the sin of murder and every thing that was barbarous.
(2.)To make men careful that none of their cattle might do hurt, but that, by all means possible, mischief might be prevented. If the owner of the beast knew that he was mischievous, he must answer for the hurt done, and, according as the circumstances of the case proved him to be more or less accessory, he must either be put to death or ransom his life with a sum of money, Exo 21:29-32. Some of our ancient books make this felony, by the common law of England, and give this reason, "The owner, by suffering his beast to go at liberty when he knew it to be mischievous, shows that he was very willing that hurt should be done." Note, It is not enough for us not to do mischief ourselves, but we must take care that no mischief be done by those whom it is in our power to restrain, whether man or beast.
2.In case of hurt done to oxen, or other cattle.
(1.)If they fall into a pit, and perish there, he that opened the pit must make good the loss, Exo 21:33, Exo 21:34. Note, We must take heed not only of doing that which will be hurtful, but of doing that which may be so. It is not enough not to design and devise mischief, but we must contrive to prevent mischief, else we become accessory to our neighbours' damage. Mischief done in malice is the great transgression; but mischief done through negligence, and for want of due care and consideration, is not without fault, but ought to be reflected upon with great regret, according as the degree of the mischief is: especially we must be careful that we do nothing to make ourselves accessory to the sins of others, by laying an occasion of offence in our brother's way, Rom 14:13.
(2.)If cattle fight, and one kill another, the owners shall equally share in the loss, Exo 21:35. Only if the beast that had done the harm was known to the owner to have been mischievous he shall answer for the damage, because he ought either to have killed him or kept him up, Exo 21:36. The determinations of these cases carry with them the evidence of their own equity, and give such rules of justice as were then, and are still, in use, for the decision of similar controversies that arise between man and man. But I conjecture that these cases might be specified, rather than others (though some of them seem minute), because they were then cases in fact actually depending before Moses; for in the wilderness where they lay closely encamped, and had their flocks and herds among them, such mischiefs as these last mentioned were likely enough to occur. That which we are taught by these laws is that we should be very careful to do no wrong, either directly or indirectly; and that, if we have done wrong, we must be very willing to make satisfaction, and desirous that nobody may lose by us.
Continue studying Exodus 21:36 across the web’s major study libraries — every link below opens this exact verse, chapter, or book on the destination site.
Read & Compare
BibleGatewayThis verse in more than 200 translations and 70 languages.
Bible.comThe YouVersion reader — hundreds of translations, reading plans, and highlights.
ESV.orgCrossway's official English Standard Version reader.
NET BibleThe NET translation with 60,000+ translators' notes on every rendering decision.
STEP BibleTyndale House's free study tool — original text, vocabulary, and scholarly resources.
BibliaLogos Bible Software's free web reader.
USCCBThe New American Bible (Revised Edition) with the U.S. bishops' study notes.
Commentaries
BibleHub CommentariesDozens of classic commentaries on this verse, gathered on one page.
StudyLightMore than 100 commentary sets — the largest collection on the web.
BibleRefPlain-English commentary on what this verse means, verse by verse.
Enduring WordDavid Guzik's free commentary on this chapter, widely used by Bible teachers.
Bible Study ToolsVerse commentary alongside Greek and Hebrew study aids.
Original Language & Research
- BibleHub InterlinearThe verse word by word — original language, transliteration, and English.
- BibleHub LexiconEvery word's original-language definition and Strong's entry.
Blue Letter BibleDeep-study tools — Strong's numbers, concordance, and word studies.
SefariaThe Hebrew text with Rashi and centuries of Jewish commentary.
Sermons, Hymns & Audio
TrulyRandomVerse is not affiliated with these sites and doesn’t control their content. They’re linked because they’re genuinely useful.
Summary
Exodus 21:36, a pivotal statute within the "Book of the Covenant," meticulously outlines the legal consequences for an ox owner whose animal, known to be habitually aggressive, causes harm to another's livestock. This law underscores the critical principle of negligence, stipulating that if an owner was aware of their ox's dangerous propensities but failed to adequately restrain it, they are held fully accountable. The statute mandates complete restitution, requiring the owner to provide an "ox for ox," and further imposes the forfeiture of their own goring animal. This legislation powerfully emphasizes personal responsibility, the severe ramifications of failing to act on known risks, and the divine imperative for comprehensive compensation to the injured party, reflecting God's unwavering demand for justice, order, and diligent stewardship within the covenant community.
Context
Literary Context
Exodus 21:36 is situated within the "Book of the Covenant" (Exodus 20:22-23:33), a foundational legal corpus that immediately follows the Decalogue. This section transitions from broad moral principles to specific civil and criminal statutes governing daily life in ancient Israel. Within this comprehensive legal framework, Exodus 21 focuses particularly on laws concerning personal injury, property damage, and the treatment of slaves. Verse 36 directly builds upon the preceding statute in Exodus 21:35, which addresses accidental goring by an ox, where the loss is shared. Exodus 21:36 introduces a crucial distinction: the element of prior knowledge and negligence, leading to significantly heightened culpability. This law also stands in stark contrast to the even more severe penalties prescribed for an ox that gores a human, as detailed in Exodus 21:28-32, where the owner's knowledge of the ox's dangerous nature could even result in their own death. This progressive structure of laws demonstrates a sophisticated legal system that meticulously differentiated between various degrees of harm and culpability.
Historical & Cultural Context
In ancient Israel, an agrarian society, livestock such as oxen were indispensable assets, representing significant wealth, labor capacity, and a primary source of sustenance. Consequently, laws governing their management, ownership, and the damages they might inflict were paramount for maintaining economic stability and social harmony. The concept of legal liability for property damage was not unique to Israel, with similar principles found in other ancient Near Eastern law codes like the Code of Hammurabi, though the specific nuances and theological underpinnings within Israel's covenant context were distinct. This particular law reflects a deeply ingrained societal understanding that property ownership carried inherent responsibilities, especially concerning the safety and well-being of the community and the property of neighbors. The emphasis on "known" dangerous tendencies highlights the importance of scienter (prior knowledge) in determining culpability, a principle that remains foundational to many modern legal systems. The penalty of "ox for ox" combined with the loss of the goring ox ("the dead shall be his own") ensured full restitution for the victim and imposed a substantial deterrent for negligent owners, reinforcing the value of diligence and care within the Israelite covenant community, aligning with God's character as a God of order and righteousness (e.g., Deuteronomy 16:20).
Key Themes
Exodus 21:36 contributes significantly to several key themes woven throughout the "Book of the Covenant" and the broader Pentateuch. Foremost among these is the theme of Justice and Righteousness, demonstrating God's meticulous concern for equitable dealings and the protection of the innocent. The law underscores the principle of Responsibility and Accountability, particularly for those who own property or hold positions of influence; knowledge of a risk demands proactive measures, and failure to act incurs severe penalties. It also highlights the theme of Restitution and Reparation, emphasizing that justice is not merely punitive but restorative, aiming to make the injured party whole. This aligns with the broader biblical emphasis on repairing harm and seeking reconciliation. Furthermore, the law subtly reinforces the theme of Holiness and Community Order, as the meticulous regulation of daily life, even down to animal husbandry, reflects God's desire for a well-ordered, just, and harmonious society that reflects His own character. The differentiation between accidental and negligent harm also speaks to the theme of Intent and Culpability, a nuanced understanding found throughout biblical law, from accidental homicide (e.g., Numbers 35:9-34) to intentional murder.
Exposition and Analysis
Key Word Analysis
This word (H3045) signifies more than mere information; it implies an intimate understanding, a settled awareness, or even an acknowledgment. In this context, it means that the ox's aggressive nature was not a secret or a one-off event, but a recognized, established fact. The owner, or the community, had a clear and undeniable awareness of the ox's dangerous propensity, making any subsequent failure to restrain it a deliberate act of negligence rather than ignorance.
This term (H1167) literally means "master" or "lord," emphasizing the absolute authority and, by extension, the full responsibility that comes with possession. The use of baʻal here highlights that the individual in question is not merely a caretaker but the one who holds ultimate dominion and, therefore, ultimate accountability for the actions and management of their property. This reinforces the idea that ownership is inherently tied to a duty of care.
This verb (H8104) means "to guard," "to watch," "to preserve," or "to protect." In its negative form here ("hath not kept him in"), it directly points to the owner's failure to actively and diligently restrain, supervise, or secure the dangerous animal. It implies a dereliction of duty, a lack of vigilance, and a failure to take the necessary preventative measures despite having full knowledge of the risk.
Verse Breakdown
"Or if it be known that the ox hath used to push in time past,"
This opening clause establishes the critical precondition for the owner's heightened liability: the existence of scienter, or prior knowledge. It's not enough for the ox to have merely pushed once; the phrase "used to push in time past" (literally, "he is a gorer from yesterday and the day before yesterday") signifies a habitual, established pattern of aggressive behavior. This implies that the ox's dangerous nature was a recognized fact, either through previous incidents, community reputation, or direct observation, making the owner's awareness undeniable.
"and his owner hath not kept him in;"
This clause pinpoints the owner's culpable action (or, more accurately, inaction). Despite possessing clear knowledge of the ox's dangerous propensity, the owner failed to exercise due diligence. They neglected to restrain, supervise, or otherwise prevent the animal from causing harm. This is the essence of negligence—a failure to act responsibly when aware of a significant and known risk.
"he shall surely pay ox for ox;"
This is the direct and emphatic consequence for the negligent owner. The repetition of the verb "pay" (an infinitive absolute construction) serves to intensify the command, meaning "he shall surely pay" or "he must certainly pay." The phrase "ox for ox" specifies the complete and direct restitution required. The owner is mandated to provide a replacement ox of equal value to the one that was gored, ensuring the victim is made entirely whole and suffers no financial loss due to the owner's negligence.
"and the dead shall be his own."
This final clause clarifies an additional punitive measure. The gored ox, which is now dead, reverts to the negligent owner. This means the owner not only has to provide a new, living ox to the victim as restitution but also loses their own goring ox, which is now a dead carcass of no value. In essence, the negligent owner effectively pays for two oxen: one as full compensation to the victim and their own animal as a direct consequence and deterrent for their failure to manage it responsibly.
Literary Devices
Exodus 21:36, as a legal statute, employs several literary devices to convey its stipulations with precision and authority. Primarily, it utilizes Casuistry, a form of legal reasoning common in ancient Near Eastern law codes, presenting laws in an "if...then" or "when...then" format. This structure ("Or if it be known... then he shall surely pay...") provides clear, case-specific guidelines and their prescribed outcomes, ensuring clarity in judicial application. The use of the infinitive absolute ("surely pay," shallēm yəšallēm) provides powerful Emphasis, intensifying the command and underscoring the certainty and mandatory nature of the restitution. There is also an implicit Contrast with the preceding verse (Exodus 21:35), which highlights the crucial legal distinction between accidental damage and damage resulting from negligence, thereby emphasizing the heightened culpability in the latter case. Finally, the Symbolism of the ox itself is significant; as a valuable asset, it represents property, livelihood, and the economic stability of the Israelite household, making the detailed regulations concerning its management and the consequences of its destructive behavior highly relevant to the social and economic fabric of the covenant community.
Theological and Thematic Connections
Exodus 21:36 profoundly articulates God's unwavering demand for justice, personal responsibility, and social order within His covenant community. It reveals a divine character deeply concerned with the protection of property and the prevention of harm, even in what might seem like mundane matters of animal husbandry. The principle of negligence, where prior knowledge of a danger incurs greater responsibility and more severe consequences, reflects a divine expectation for proactive care, diligent stewardship, and ethical foresight. God's law, as exemplified here, is not merely about punishment but fundamentally about restoring what is broken and upholding righteousness. The mandate for full restitution ("ox for ox") and the additional loss of the goring animal underscore the gravity of failing to act responsibly when aware of a potential risk, demonstrating that negligence has tangible, costly consequences. This law teaches that true justice requires making the injured party whole and holding the culpable party fully accountable, aligning with the broader biblical call for ethical conduct, neighborly love, and a societal structure that reflects God's own perfect order.
Reflection and Application
The ancient law of Exodus 21:36, though rooted in an agrarian context, offers timeless and profound principles for personal and communal responsibility that hold immense relevance in contemporary life. It compels us to introspectively identify our own "goring oxen"—those areas of our lives, our possessions, our influence, or even our character traits where we are acutely aware of potential dangers or risks that could inflict harm upon others. This extends beyond mere physical property (such as maintaining a safe home, vehicle, or business premises) to encompass our words, our online presence, our financial dealings, our professional conduct, and even our spiritual influence within our communities. The verse challenges us to move beyond passive awareness to proactive vigilance, prompting us to ask if we are truly "keeping in" those things we know could cause harm, or if our negligence, whether active or passive, is inadvertently creating avoidable damage to others. It serves as a stark reminder that knowledge brings greater accountability; indeed, to whom much is given, much is expected. Furthermore, the stringent demand for full restitution ("ox for ox") pushes us to consider not just avoiding punishment, but actively seeking to make whole those we have harmed, whether through direct action or through our failure to act responsibly. This law calls us to cultivate a posture of diligent care, ethical awareness, and restorative justice in all our interactions, thereby reflecting the character of a God who is both perfectly just and profoundly merciful.
Questions for Reflection
FAQ
What is the difference between Exodus 21:35 and 21:36?
The fundamental difference between Exodus 21:35 and Exodus 21:36 lies in the element of prior knowledge and negligence. Exodus 21:35 addresses a scenario where an ox accidentally gores another ox, and neither owner had prior knowledge of their animal's aggressive tendencies. In this case, the gored ox is sold, and the proceeds are divided between both owners, resulting in a shared loss. Exodus 21:36, however, deals with a situation where the owner knew their ox had a history of goring ("used to push in time past") but failed to take adequate measures to restrain it ("hath not kept him in"). This culpable negligence results in a much stricter penalty: the owner must provide a full replacement ("pay ox for ox") and also forfeits their own goring animal, effectively bearing a double loss.
How does this law relate to modern legal concepts of negligence?
Exodus 21:36 demonstrates a remarkable alignment with modern legal concepts of negligence, particularly in tort law. The phrase "if it be known that the ox hath used to push in time past" directly corresponds to the legal principle of scienter, which refers to an animal owner's knowledge of their animal's dangerous propensities. If an owner possesses scienter and subsequently fails to exercise reasonable care to prevent harm (captured by the phrase "hath not kept him in," analogous to a breach of duty of care), they are held strictly liable for the damages caused. The "pay ox for ox" clause reflects the modern legal principle of restitution or damages, aiming to make the injured party whole. This ancient law reveals a sophisticated understanding of culpability based on knowledge and responsibility, a framework that remains foundational to legal systems today, influencing everything from pet ownership laws to corporate liability for known hazards, thereby reflecting timeless principles of justice (e.g., 1 Peter 4:15).
Christ-Centered Fulfillment
While Exodus 21:36 is a civil law concerning property damage in ancient Israel, its underlying principles of justice, responsibility, and restitution find profound and ultimate Christ-centered fulfillment. The law vividly highlights the gravity of negligence and the imperative for full compensation when harm is caused by a known danger. In Christ, we witness the perfect embodiment of God's justice and the complete "restitution" for humanity's greatest negligence—sin. Our sin, like a known "goring ox" within us, has caused irreparable damage, leading to spiritual death and separation from God (Romans 6:23). Yet, Christ, the innocent and spotless Lamb of God (John 1:29), willingly bore the full penalty for our negligence, becoming sin for us so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God (2 Corinthians 5:21). He "paid ox for ox," not by merely providing a replacement, but by offering His own perfect life as the ultimate sacrifice, making full atonement and reconciling us to God (Romans 3:25). Through His cross, the "dead" (our sin and its devastating consequences) became "His own," absorbed and conquered, so that we might receive new and eternal life. Furthermore, Christ's perfect obedience to the Father's will and His fulfillment of the righteous demands of the law (Matthew 5:17) demonstrate the perfect responsibility and diligence that we, in our fallen state, could never maintain. As believers, empowered by the Holy Spirit, we are now called to live lives of vigilance, responsibility, and proactive care for others, knowing that our ultimate restitution and redemption have been perfectly secured in Him (Ephesians 2:10).