Exodus 21:29 kjv

But if the ox were wont to push with his horn in time past, and it hath been testified to his owner, and he hath not kept him in, but that he hath killed a man or a woman; the ox shall be stoned, and his owner also shall be put to death.

Exodus 21:29 nkjv

But if the ox tended to thrust with its horn in times past, and it has been made known to his owner, and he has not kept it confined, so that it has killed a man or a woman, the ox shall be stoned and its owner also shall be put to death.

Exodus 21:29 niv

If, however, the bull has had the habit of goring and the owner has been warned but has not kept it penned up and it kills a man or woman, the bull is to be stoned and its owner also is to be put to death.

Exodus 21:29 esv

But if the ox has been accustomed to gore in the past, and its owner has been warned but has not kept it in, and it kills a man or a woman, the ox shall be stoned, and its owner also shall be put to death.

Exodus 21:29 nlt

But suppose the ox had a reputation for goring, and the owner had been informed but failed to keep it under control. If the ox then kills someone, it must be stoned, and the owner must also be put to death.

Exodus 21 verses

Exodus 21 29 Meaning

Exodus 21:29 establishes a strict legal precedent regarding culpability when a previously warned, dangerous animal causes a human death. It declares that if an ox, known to its owner and the community to have a propensity for goring, kills a person (either male or female) after its owner had been explicitly warned to control it but failed to do so, both the ox must be stoned, and its owner is also subject to the death penalty. This law distinguishes gross negligence from unforeseen accidents, holding the owner fully responsible for the loss of life due to their blatant disregard for safety.

Exodus 21 29 Context

Exodus chapter 21 introduces the "Book of the Covenant" (chapters 21-23), which elaborates on the Ten Commandments given in chapter 20. This section comprises casuistic laws—specific legal cases beginning with "If..." followed by the prescribed judgment. The laws in Exodus 21 primarily deal with regulations concerning slaves, personal injuries, property rights, and various damages. Verses 28-32 specifically address incidents involving goring oxen, delineating scenarios based on the owner's knowledge and diligence. Verse 29 provides a critical escalation from the previous verse (Exod 21:28), shifting from an accidental death where the owner is innocent, to a death caused by gross negligence, where the owner becomes legally culpable and subject to the death penalty. Historically and culturally, these laws served to establish justice within Israel, reflect the sanctity of human life made in God's image, and distinguish Israelite law from contemporary Near Eastern codes by its emphasis on justice for all and the accountability for negligence leading to death.

Exodus 21 29 Word analysis

• But if: Implies a distinct conditional case, contrasting with the prior scenario of unforeseen accident (Exod 21:28). It highlights a shift in legal culpability based on a new set of circumstances.
• the ox: Hebrew shor (שור), referring to a domestic bovine. In an agrarian society, an ox was a significant economic asset, essential for labor and meat, highlighting the value of both property and human life in this legal equation.
• has been accustomed to gore: Hebrew nagach (נגח) signifies "to butt" or "to gore." The phrase "accustomed to gore" (מִתְנַגֵּחַ֙, mitnaggêach) indicates a consistent, repeated, or known dangerous behavior, establishing a history of aggression.
• in the past: Reinforces the persistent nature of the ox's violent habit, implying the owner's prior knowledge of the danger.
• and its owner: Identifies the responsible party. The law's focus immediately turns from the animal to the human, highlighting personal accountability.
• has been warned: Hebrew hu'ad (הוּעַד), passive voice from the root ya'ad (יעד), meaning "to appoint, summon, warn." This is a crucial legal threshold: it signifies an official or public notice/warning given to the owner regarding the ox's dangerous nature. This warning elevates the owner's failure from simple neglect to culpable negligence, demonstrating willful disregard.
• but has not kept it in: Hebrew lo shamar (לא שמר), literally "did not guard/keep." This phrase denotes the owner's failure to take appropriate measures to restrain, confine, or otherwise prevent the ox from causing harm, despite the prior warning. This negligence directly links to the fatal outcome.
• and it kills: Describes the fatal consequence, underscoring the preciousness of human life.
• a man or a woman: Emphasizes that God's law regards male and female lives as equally valuable, a significant point in ancient societies that sometimes devalued certain lives.
• the ox shall be stoned: This specific form of capital punishment for the animal (similar to Exod 19:13, Lev 20:15-16) signifies the purging of guilt and pollution from the community and implies that the animal’s meat is unfit for consumption.
• and its owner also shall be put to death: Hebrew mot yumat (מות יומת), a legal idiom for the strongest and inescapable form of capital punishment. This penalty, "dying he shall die," underscores the extreme gravity of the negligence. The owner’s failure, despite a warning, is treated as culpability akin to intentional homicide, holding them responsible for the human life lost.

Exodus 21 29 Bonus section

The direct implication of this verse's severe penalty, particularly when contrasted with verse 21:30, reveals a nuanced application of justice. Verse 21:30 allows for a "ransom" (Hebrew: kopher) to be imposed and paid instead of the owner's execution. This crucial provision differentiates this case from intentional murder (Num 35:31, where no ransom is permitted for a murderer) and highlights that, while severely negligent, the act did not arise from premeditated malice. The ransom amount would likely have been determined by the judges based on the circumstances, serving as a significant deterrent and a financial redemption for the owner's life. This demonstrates that God's law, while unyielding in its valuation of human life and condemnation of negligence, also provided pathways for restitution and redemption short of literal life-for-life retribution in certain instances. This emphasizes both accountability and the potential for a substitute payment where intent (premeditation) was absent, illustrating a facet of divine mercy within the strictures of divine justice.

Exodus 21 29 Commentary

Exodus 21:29 stands as a pivotal judgment within Israel's covenant laws, delineating responsibility where life is at stake. It is not simply about an ox killing a person, but about the profound moral and legal culpability of an owner who, with foreknowledge and a formal warning, fails to prevent a foreseeable tragedy. The distinction between Exod 21:28 and 21:29 is crucial: the former describes an unfortunate accident; the latter describes criminal negligence. The "warning" is the turning point, transforming a passive situation into one demanding active precaution.

The severity of the death penalty for the owner reflects the high value God places on human life, created in His image (Gen 1:27, 9:6). Such gross negligence, when it results in death, is akin to murder in its ultimate outcome, though it lacks pre-meditation. This law compels individuals to be conscientious stewards of their property and responsible members of the community, taking every reasonable step to prevent harm to others. It implicitly demands a carefulness of heart and action, knowing that inaction in the face of known danger can have deadly consequences and spiritual ramifications. This provision reveals that neglect, especially when coupled with knowledge and prior warning, is not morally neutral but incurs severe divine judgment. The stoning of the ox cleanses the land of the bloodguilt, and the owner’s potential death (or ransom, Exod 21:30) atones for the transgression.

Examples:

• A homeowner knowing a railing on their porch is loose and unsafe, has been told to fix it by authorities, but neglects to, and a guest falls and dies.
• A vehicle owner knowing their car has faulty brakes (perhaps flagged by a mechanic), is warned of the danger, yet continues to drive it, and causes a fatal accident due to brake failure.