By David W. Gill.
Recently I happened to re-read Israel’s Book of the Covenant, the section of Exodus (chapter 20 forward) that lists (and often explains) the laws and regulations for the people of Israel. It is commonly held that there are actually 613 commandments (mitzvot) in the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament. The famous Jewish philosopher Moses Maimonides (1138-1204) divided the 613 into 248 positive, “do this” commandments and 365 negative, “do not do this” commandments. The first ten, what we call the Decalogue, really stand out. Alone among the 613 total, the Ten Commandments were spoken directly by the voice of God to the people. Alone, they were written by the finger of God onto the two tablets. Alone, they are called “the Covenant” and were stored in the Ark of the Covenant. The Ten commandments begin: “And God spoke all these words: “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. “You shall have no other gods before me.” (Ex 20:1-3)—followed by nine more great statements.
As we learn from Jesus (and then Paul), these ten stand uniquely as ultimate and ongoing guidelines for our attitude, speech, and action. Jesus came not to abolish but to fulfill, not just the righteous/just requirement but the meaning of these commands. They are ten principles, following and preserving, not preceding, the liberation, salvation, and freedom initiated by a merciful, gracious God. Together they describe the way of righteousness and justice. Together they describe how to love God and how to love our neighbor. Jesus, above all, with all of Scripture, the Holy Spirit, and the community of faith, help us figure out how, and how not, to apply these ten core principles. My Doing Right: Practicing Ethical Principles (2004) explores all of this in depth. It is important to see that these ten describe not just how we are to relate to God and our neighbors but, in a profound way, how God relates to us. This is a covenant between God and us.
So then, what is the status of the other 603 laws in the Old Testament? They are part of Holy Scripture, inspired by God and “profitable for teaching, correction and training in righteousness” (II Timothy 3:16). But they are mediated by Moses (not directly spoken by God to the people as in the case of the Decalogue) and addressed to a particular people and time. So they begin with phrases like this: “Then the Lord said to Moses, “Tell the Israelites this” and “These are the laws you are to set before them” (Ex 20:22, 22:1). Yes, God is the authority but they need to be interpreted in context. The most obvious case are the many ceremonial and ritual holiness provisions—which the New Testament book of Hebrews (especially) explains are fulfilled in the sacrificial death of Christ. Many of the holiness regulations concerning food, time, and other matters go away (remember the story of Cornelius and Peter in Acts 15), though the basic, general call to be holy (pure and separate or different from the world) remains.
Still, those subsidiary laws can give us some guidelines with important lessons for us today. As I was re-reading these laws, two in particular struck me as especially relevant to our technological society. First, “If anyone leaves a pit open, or digs a pit and does not cover it, and an ox or a donkey falls into it, the one who dug the pit must pay the owner for the loss” (Ex 21:33-34). Second, “If a bull gores a man or a woman to death, the bull is to be stoned to death. . . 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. . . . This law also applies if the bull gores a son or daughter. . . [or] a male or female slave, the owner must pay . . . and the bull is to be stoned to death. . . If it was known that the bull had the habit of goring, yet the owner did not keep it penned up, the owner must pay” (Ex 21: 28-36).
Each of these two cases represent applications of the fundamental message of the 6th commandment, “You shall not murder.” The core command is about protecting human life (just as the other commands are about protecting truth, property, and so on). It is profoundly wrong to “dig pits” and not protect others from falling into them. And it is wrong to raise powerful bulls and not protect people from being gored by them on the loose. This is not about never digging pits or raising powerful bulls! Both have importance and value. But it is about protecting people and where major responsibility lies..
Are we creating technology (or business) which could be a “pit” someone could fall into? Our law defines an “attractive nuisance” as “a dangerous condition on a landowner’s property that may particularly attract children onto the land and pose a risk to their safety.” Children are a particular concern but doesn’t the ethical principle apply more generally? Of course, people need to take responsibility for their choices, for their carelessness and folly. But the diggers of pits are also responsible to create reasonable safeguards. The negative impacts on young people falling into the social media pits are an obvious case, as Jonathan Haidt’s Anxious Generation abundantly illustrates. The lesson is that the creators and owners of potentially dangerous pits that users could fall into should be sure to create reasonable safeguards—and pay the price if they fail to do so..
A pit is, we might say, a passive hazard. A bull, on the other hand, has the capacity to get out of the pen and actively gore victims. Technology can be and often is a powerful tool—like a bull pulling a cart. But how often does technology “bull its way” through our lives, our private information and communication, our food supply, our politics, our culture, crushing the innocent? Shouldn’t there be a degree of caution, of warning, of protection against such bulls? Shouldn’t the creators and owners be held accountable and liable? Best of all, shouldn’t the creators and owners choose to take responsibility rather than just charge ahead with a caveat emptor (“let the buyer beware”) for “buyers”—and even more care for those who did not choose this bull in their lives? Bulls must be controlled. Sometimes the offending bull must be killed!
It is interesting, and a hopeful sign for sure, that not just the consumers but many creators of AI have stepped up to ask for thoughtful regulation (“fences”)—and, still more, “kill switches” if the AI bull gets loose and threatens to “gore” the innocent. Our OT law suggests that there may be an extreme situation where not just the raging bull (the AI program) but the irresponsible owner (the company) should suffer the “kill switch.” These are two simple cases in ancient Israel’s law and the applications of such laws today are not always simple. But the Deuteronomy texts urge our attention. As in those old days, unguarded pits and dangerous bulls not only harm humanity, they make God angry.
David W. Gill is a retired university, b-school, and seminary professor of theological and business ethics. The most recent of his eleven books is Questioning Technology with Jacques Ellul (co-edited with Lisa Richmond; Eugene, Oregon: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2025).
