PDF Format – 1999 Voters Guide

Side Bars – Who We Are – The Name – Christian, not Conservative – A 19th Century Christian Theologian’s Comments on Secular Conservatism – Crime and Restitution – Juries: Past and Present – The Notorious Ox and Safety – Self-Incrimination and the Bible – Judges versus Computers – Open Pits and Paying Your Own Way

Ballot Recommendations Summary Measure 68 Measure 69 Measure 70 Measure 71 Measure 72 Measure 73 Measure 74 Measure 75 Measure 76

The Notorious Ox and Safety
“For what great nation is there that has God so near to it, as the LORD our God is to us, for whatever reason we may call upon Him? And what great nation is there that has such statutes and righteous judgments as are in all this law which I set before you this day?” Deuteronomy 4:7,8

This text tells us that the civil laws of Israel were given not just for her. They were also to be a model for perfect social justice in other lands. In other words, the truths that were the foundations for Israel’s laws were to form the basis of the laws of nations that wanted to be wise. Hebrews 2:2 tells us that under Old Testament law “every transgression and disobedience received a just reward.” The Westminster Confession of Faith, written at the zenith of the Protestant Reformation, says that there is a “general equity” of the judicial laws of Israel that is still to be applied today.

One of the clearest summaries of these laws is found in the Law of the Covenant, Exodus 21-23. These three chapters are loaded with intensely practical laws that are fairly easily applied to our situation today. One of these laws is the case of the “notorious ox” found in Exodus 21:33 and 34.

In an agricultural economy, you would inevitably have trouble with one animal attacking or killing another animal, and this is addressed in Exodus 21:35 and 36. In most cases, if your animal got in a tussle with another, and one ended up dead, the value of both animals, one dead and one alive, would be split between the two owners. Fair enough. But if your animal was “notorious,” that is, if your animal was known to be aggressive and had killed before, and you failed to keep it penned up, then you were liable and you had to pay the owner of the dead animal the full value of his beast. The idea was that you were supposed to be aware if you had a dangerous animal, and keep it fenced up.

Occasionally, an animal would kill a person. Since this is a perversion of God’s order of things, the killer animal was to be killed. But if the owner knew his beast was dangerous, and had failed to keep him penned up, and as a result, a person was killed, the owner’s life was also forfeit. He could “ransom” his life. That is, he could pay a large amount of money, determined by the victim’s family and the judges. But God wanted His people to have a high regard for human life, and to take steps to protect it.

Measure 71 is an attempt to protect human life. Like the steward of the notorious ox, the judge makes a determination that a man under his jurisdiction is a probable threat to the well being of a human if he is released before his trial. As the notorious ox is penned, the judge puts constraints on the man’s freedom to protect human life. We believe Measure 76 is in accord with the truth of the notorious ox laws of the Old Testament, and that it therefore should be supported.

This voters' guide produced by Parents Education Association, PAC.