In this series, we are examining some of the many commandments which are found in the law of Moses.  It is our aim to understand them better, build faith, and answer critics.  We are considering them topically.

1.  Property boundaries.  Landmarks or boundary marks were not to be moved (Deuteronomy 19:14; 27:17; Also, Proverbs 22:28;23:10).

Let’s clarify the meaning of a couple of words.  The word “landmark” (KJV, NKJV) refers to a “boundary mark” (NASB).  The word “remove” (KJV, NKJV) may be better rendered in our modern English “move” (NASB, ESV). 

The moving of boundary markers between you and your neighbor to enlarge your land was a means of theft.  The Torah recognized and protected private property (e.g. Deuteronomy 5:19; 19:14; 20:5; 23:25; 27:17).

2.  Property defense.  Property owners were allowed to defend their property (Exodus 22:1-4).

Why the distinction between night and day?  The E.S.V. Study Bible suggests, “This condition distinguishes between what is permissible retaliation when a thief is caught breaking in during the night (v. 2) vs. during the day (v. 3).  The stipulation protects both the one who is surprised by a thief at night (v. 2) and the thief himself, who could be identified during the day and should be brought to the judges for punishment (vv. 3b, 4).”  This seems to be a reasonable answer.

3.  Property responsibilities.  Ownership came with certain responsibilities (Exodus 21:28-32, 33-34, 35-36; Deuteronomy 22:8).

(a) One was to make a parapet on his roof for the safety of others (Deuteronomy 22:8).  Dennis Prager comments, “A parapet is a barrier along the perimeter of a roof.  In the ancient Near East roofs were generally flat, and people spent much time on them – resting, eating, sitting, and speaking with family and friends… The Talmud sees this verse as the basis for outlawing the keeping of dangerous items or animal in one’s house, such as a rickety ladder or a vicious dog” (The Rational Bible: Deuteronomy, p. 341). Negligent harm and negligent homicide were to be avoided. Life was considered precious.

(b) Ownership or animals come with responsibility.  (1) If one’s animal destroy or kill another’s property (e.g. servant, animal), then there was financial responsibility (Exodus 21:32, 35-36).  (2) If one’s animal killed someone, and if the animal had a known history of aggressive behavior, then the animal owner was to be held guilty.  He could be punished with death or have a redemption price placed on him for his life (Exodus 21:28-31). It was the owner’s responsibility to protect the public.

“Son” and “daughter” are mentioned (Exodus 21:31).  Why?  Dennis Prager comments, “Until about 1900, this verse caused quite a bit of confusion; it read like a non-sequitur… What does it matter if the victim of the attack was someone’s son or daughter?  However, with the discovery of related ancient semitic legal codes at the turn of the twentieth century, it became clear that this law was intended to distinguish the Torah law from contemporaneous codes, which ruled that if a man’s ox killed another man’s son or daughter, then the son or daughter of the ox owner would be killed.  The Torah, therefore, expressly forbids such reciprocal vicarious punishment (see also Deuteronomy 24:16).  No matter who is killed, it is the ox’s owner alone who is punished, and not his son or daughter” (Exodus, p. 308). Consider: The Hammurabi code of laws (18th century Babylon) says, “229. If a builder builds a house for someone, and does not construct it properly, and the house which he built falls and kills its owner, then the builder shall be put to death. 230. If it kills the son of the owner, the son of the builder shall be put to death.” (Hammurabi’s Code of Laws, adapted from the L.W. King translation, faculty.collin.edu).

(c) If one dug or uncovered a pit and left it open, then another’s animal fell into the pit and was killed, the owner of the pit was financially responsible for the loss (Exodus 21:33).  Dangerous hazards were not to be carelessly left.

4.  Property use.  One was not to let his animals graze on another’s land (Exodus 22:4). 

Dennis Prager comments, “Neighbors often make such arrangements in which they agree to allow their livestock to graze on one another’s property.  This verse is referring only to the land of those people who have not granted such permission” (Exodus, p. 313).  Once again property rights are maintained.