(Exodus 21:1) “Now these are the judgments which you shall set before them."
In the last chapter, the Lord had just verbally given the Ten Commandments in the hearing of all the people. Moses had returned to the mountain where the Lord was, and the Lord had begun to speak to Moses alone. The people feared the Lord and His awesome power that He demonstrated with the giving of the Ten Commandments, and had asked that Moses be their mediator and tell them the words of the Lord. The Lord now gave Moses some additional laws called judgments, apart from the Ten Commandments. John Wesley explained them this way: "These laws are called judgments; because their magistrates were to give judgment according to them. In the doubtful cases that had hitherto occurred, Moses had particularly enquired of God, but now God gave him statutes in general, by which to determine particular cases."
(2) "If you buy a Hebrew servant, he shall serve six years; and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing."
God began with judicial laws concerning servants. The Israelites had recently been servants themselves, and the Lord thought it most important that they not abuse their servants as they had been abused, but know how to justly treat them. Adam Clarke, in his Commentary on the Bible, laid out six reasons why a Hebrew might lawfully become a servant (actually he credited Augustin Calmet with these reasons):
- In extreme poverty they might sell their liberty. (Lev. 25:39)
- A father might sell his children. (Ex. 21:7)
- Insolvent debtors became the slaves of their creditors. (2 K. 4:1)
- A thief, if he had nothing, could be sold for his theft. (Ex. 22:3)
- A Hebrew was liable to be taken prisoner in war, and so sold for a slave.
- A Hebrew slave who had been ransomed from a Gentile by a Hebrew might be sold by him who ransomed him, to one of his own nation.
God said that for whatever reason one might buy a Hebrew servant, that servant was to serve for only six years and then was to be freely released in the seventh year.
(3) “If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself; if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. (4) If his master has given him a wife, and she has borne him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master’s, and he shall go out by himself."
God added several qualifiers to the judgment about servants. If the servant was bought and came into a household by himself, then he was to leave by himself the seventh year. However, if he came into the household married, then his wife was also to leave with him. If the servant came in by himself, but was given a wife by his master, and even if she had since borne him children, the wife and the children were to be considered property of the master, and the servant was to leave by himself in the seventh year. That is not to say a servant husband and wife were not ever allowed to be together again; the wife would have her own set of seven years to serve, and she might be allowed to go free at the end of her years of servitude (although I am not sure about her children). If this still seems harsh, we will see that the husband had a choice about whether or not he would go free at the end of his six years and leave his family.
(5) "And if the servant shall plainly say, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,’ (6) Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or to the doorpost, and his master shall pierce his ear with an awl; and he shall serve him forever."
Here we see that God indeed allowed a servant to make a lawful choice about whether he wanted to go free at the end of his six years and leave his wife and family. He could declare his love for his master and for his wife and children, and could choose not to leave. It appears he needed to make this declaration before judges. Then the servant was brought to the master's door and the master bore the servant's ear with an awl, a ceremonious act that meant permanent servitude, the hole in his ear being a permanent reminder of his intention to hear and obey his master forever. "Forever" meant till the death of the master (or obviously of the servant) or until the year of Jubilee, which will be introduced later.
(7) “And if a man sells his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do. (8) If she does not please her master, who has betrothed her to himself, then he shall let her be redeemed; he shall have no right to sell her to a strange nation, seeing he has dealt deceitfully with her."
If a man sold his daughter as a maidservant, she was to be treated differently with regard to her freedom after six years. Her servitude was considered a betrothal. I am assuming that this might have been because a family was poor and had no dowry to give, so the daughter herself was given as a servant with the intention of becoming a wife. In this case, she wouldn't be set free after six years because she was a wife or a concubine, and the rules must be different in this situation. However, if she didn't please her master as a wife, he must let her be redeemed by her father or another family member. Actually, I have read that she could redeem herself. If she wasn't to be the master's wife (or his son's), then she was to be redeemed and allowed to leave the household. That could be done at any time with a pro-rated redemption fee according to how much time was left on her six-year term of servitude. The term "strange nation" actually more accurately meant a different or non-relative tribe. She could only be redeemed by her family or herself. The original master could not sell her to be a wife of another man, just because he chose not to fulfill his promise to the girl's father (acted deceitfully). If he had taken her as a wife and had consummated that marriage, then passed her on to the highest bidder, she would be no more than a prostitute, and that was not allowed by God.
(9) “And if he has betrothed her to his son, he shall deal with her according to the custom of daughters. (10) If he takes him another wife, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, and her marriage rights. (11) And if he does not do these three for her, then she shall go out free, without paying money."
Rather than marry a young servant girl himself, if the master instead betrothed her to his son, then she was to be forever treated as his daughter. She was to be given a dowry as any other daughter, and if the son took another wife, the servant girl's food, clothing, or any other rights of marriage, could not be diminished or denied. If the original master did not do one of the three things mentioned above for the servant girl, that is, allow her to be redeemed, give her in marriage to his son and treat her as his daughter, or allow her to retain her place and privilege in the event the son married another, then she was to be allowed to go free from servitude without paying anything for her freedom.
(12) “He who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death."
One of God's commandments was not to kill. He now began a series of judgments regarding murder. The first statement is that if a man strikes another and he dies as a result, he shall be put to death.
(13) "And if a man did not lie in wait, but God delivered him into his hand, then I will appoint for you a place where he may flee."
Now God added qualifiers. If the murderer did not actually lie in wait and plan to strike and/or kill the victim, a description of premeditated murder, but rather the opportunity happened to present itself, then a provision was made for the murderer to flee to a safe place. I don't believe the point is that God personally delivered the victim into the hand of the murderer to murder him, but because God is in control of everything, and nothing happens that He doesn't allow to happen, in that way God delivered him. However, God did use people to bring His judgment to other people, so I suppose that could be a literal statement. But then again, I believe no one ever loses his free will to kill or not to kill, but if it was not premeditated and just came about as a result of a chance encounter that turned violent, God would appoint a safe place to which the killer could flee. A person who had killed another accidentally, having had no previous malice against him, might be killed by the avenger of his relation's blood, so God would provide a safe place to which the accidental manslayer might flee until the incident was investigated and judged. God would later come to provide cities of refuge for such cases.
(14) “But if a man comes presumptuously upon his neighbor, to kill him with guile, you shall take him from My altar, that he may die."
However, if a man came upon his neighbor rebelliously or arrogantly proud in order to kill him with shrewdness or trickery, he would not be allowed safe haven. There apparently came about superstitions that merely taking hold of the horns on the altar of God would somehow protect the murderer (1 Kings 1:50 and 1 Kings 2:28), but God said you could take such a person from His altar and he should die for the murder.
(15) “And he who smites his father or his mother shall surely be put to death."
The original word for "smite" is "nakah" and it is the same word translated as "strikes" in verse 12. It means "to strike, smite, hit, beat, slay, kill". In verse 12, it said to smite (or strike) so that the victim died. In verse 15, God speaks of striking either parent, period! A man need not kill his parent to be put to death himself. It seems harsh in this day and age when we hear of parents beating and abusing children, and the normal and healthy and nurturing parent/child relationship is so broken. However, all the old commentaries wrote about why respecting parents was so important to God. Adam Clarke said it the most succinctly: "As such a case argued peculiar depravity, therefore no mercy was to be shown to the culprit." To strike a parent in a manner which showed contempt or malice, or left marks of violence, was seen as proof of so ungrateful and unnatural a disposition, that no provocation was admitted as an excuse. It has already been discussed about how the commandment to honor your parents is one about filial relationships. Thomas Scott wrote, "The law of God, as delegated to parents is honoured when they are honoured, and despised when they are despised, and to rebel against the lawful exercise of this authority is rebellion against God."
(16) "And he who steals a man and sells him, or if he is found in his hand, shall surely be put to death."
Stealing a person against his will would be kidnapping, and that was strictly forbidden and punishable by death, period.
People often find it uncomfortable that the Bible seems to condone slavery, especially when they think of slavery as it was portrayed in more recent times especially in the U.S. It never bothered me so much that the Bible spoke of it, because it just dealt with customs of the time, and God laid out just laws about how servants should be treated. The Israelites in Egypt were true slaves against their wills, and God certainly did not condone that. However, in most cases of slaves in the Bible, people usually sold themselves as a means of living when they had no money. They might sell their children, which makes us shudder, in this day of human trafficking, but once again, there was a more honorable reason for it. A daughter was sold with the intention of becoming a wife, with all the rights and privileges of marriage. In all cases, slaves were to be well treated, and given their freedom after six years, so they were never permanent "property" of free men. It can be argued that a person should never be a slave to another, but to have forbidden it back then in Biblical times may have meant a person starved to death because he had no other way of feeding himself or his family. It was a way to make a living, not that being a slave was a "living" as a job, but it was a way to live or survive.
When I saw the movie, "The Help", I thought about my grandmother's maid, Eva, with whom I grew up, whom I considered almost a second grandmother. Eva was always part of our family, and my sisters and I, as well as some cousins, were all her "babies". That movie had an underlying message that it had been wrong to hire black women as maids for the low pay they received. In the movie, there was a line from one of the maids about not receiving social security. Even one of my sisters commented about it being wrong, after having seen that movie. However, I thought about Eva, and her babies, and her employment with my grandmother for 40 years, and wondered what her life would have been like without it. It was her choice to work for my grandmother. She could have certainly left, and found another position, if she was not happy with us. Maybe it could be argued that was the only type of position available to a relatively uneducated black woman back then. But it was an option as a living, and now it no longer is. Today, there would have been no way my grandmother could have afforded to pay mandated minimum wage, and social security, and benefits. Eva would have probably been sitting at home living off government benefits, and both sides would have missed a great deal with regard to love and human relationships. It just made me think. With that thought, in a Biblical time before government hand-outs, some people survived by selling themselves into slavery, but God had laws about how they were to be treated. In verse 16, He said that if a man kidnapped another for the purpose of selling him, he was to be put to death, even if he was caught before he actually sold the slave.
(17) “And he who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death."
Once again, we see how important respect for one's parents is to God. Parents are the instruments through which God chose to bring us into this world. They are the instruments through which we first learn about God and all authority. At our youngest stages, they may even seem to stand in place of God to us; therefore rebellion against their lawful instruction is considered rebellion against God. Once again, it may be argued that some parents do not seem worthy of that respect, but God has said otherwise. Just by being our parents, they are due respect. From an early age, it teaches us about authority. How often must we obey corrupt laws in government? There are times when we must obey God rather than government (Acts 5:29), so I do believe if a parent asked a child to do something against God's laws, and the child refused, that would not be considered a breach of the commandment to honor his parents. Likewise, if a child felt he must honor his parents, and do something contrary to God's laws, God would do as He always does, and judge the hearts of the child and the parents, and judge righteously. Some people are eager to come up with "gotchas" when it comes to the word of God; we forget that God is always fair and just (Deut. 32:4, Psalm 19:9).
(18) "And if men strive together, and one strikes another with a stone or with his fist, and he does not die but is confined to his bed, (19) If he rises again and walks about on his staff, then he who struck him shall be acquitted; he shall only pay for the loss of his time, and shall provide for him to be thoroughly healed."
If men argued or fought with one another, and one struck the other with a stone or with a fist that it injured the other so that he was taken to his bed, then the one who stuck him was required to pay for the injured man's healing and loss of time. Provided that the injured man recovered and was able to walk about on his own, with only the aid of his staff, then the deliverer of the injurious blow would be acquitted.
(20) “And if a man strikes his servant or his maid with a rod, and he dies under his hand, he shall surely be punished. (21) Notwithstanding, if he remains alive a day or two, he shall not be punished; for he is his money."
As this law initially made me a little uncomfortable, I defer to the words of Albert Barnes in his Notes on the Bible: "The protection here afforded to the life of a slave may seem to us but a slight one; but it is the very earliest trace of such protection in legislation, and it stands in strong and favorable contrast with the old laws of Greece, Rome, and other nations. If the slave survived the castigation a day or two, the master did not become amenable to the law, because the loss of the slave was accounted, under the circumstances, as a punishment."
Additionally, other early commentators referred to the even earlier writings of Jarchi and the Targum of Jonathan, that said this referred to only the use of a rod for the correction of servants, and not to a sword or any weapon designed to kill. If the servant died immediately or on the same day of the beating, the man was punished for his cruelty. However, if the servant continued a day or two after the correction was given, the master had supposedly suffered enough by losing his servant. This law was made to deter masters from using severity and cruelty toward their servants.
(22) "If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth, yet no harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman’s husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. (23) And if any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, (24) Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, (25) Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."
If men fought together and hurt a pregnant woman so that she delivered her baby prematurely, as long as no harm followed, like injury or death of the mother or baby, the one who struck the woman and/or caused her premature birth would be punished and pay damages to the husband as determined by the judges. However, if harm did occur, and either the mother or the baby died, then it was to be considered as in verse 12--one who struck another so that he died was to be put to death. If injury or loss of limb was done to the mother or child, then the perpetrator was required to pay like for like damages, equal to the harm done. This law was not meant for the public to exact revenge by literally cutting off the hand of someone who accidentally cut off the hand of another, but was designed for the judges to protect the community and to execute judgment equal to the harm done.
I have always loved this passage that shows the importance of an unborn baby to our Lord. These verses absolutely speak of an unborn baby, and say that if any harm is done to that baby, the baby is considered a life as important as the one who harms him. I believe this positively relates to the issue of abortion.
(26) "And if a man strikes the eye of his servant or the eye of his maid, and destroys it, he shall let him go free for the sake of his eye. (27) And if he knocks out the tooth of his male or female servant, he shall let him go free for the sake of his tooth."
Back to God's laws regarding servants, if their masters abused and maimed them, they were given freedom as an equivalent for permanent injury, including even the loss of a tooth. This was another law certainly designed to deter masters from using severity and cruelty toward their servants.
(28) “If an ox gores a man or a woman that they die; then the ox shall surely be stoned, and its flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall be acquitted."
An ox that killed a man or woman was to be destroyed, but its flesh was not to be eaten. I would imagine it was considered an unclean murderous beast, but also the owner would receive no benefit from the animal. He would be acquitted as his punishment was losing the animal.
(29) “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."
However, if the animal had been known to thrust with its horns in times past, and the owner had done nothing to protect people from his dangerous animal, then he would be held responsible and found negligent. His animal would be stoned to death, and the owner would also be put to death.
(30) “If there is laid on him a sum of money, then he shall give for the ransom of his life whatever is imposed on him. (31) Whether it has gored a son or gored a daughter, according to this judgment it shall be done to him. (32) If the ox gores a male or female servant, he shall give to their master thirty shekels of silver, and the ox shall be stoned."
It appears that although his life was required for his negligence in not confining a dangerous animal, that sentence could be commuted for a monetary fine. Whether the animal gored an adult or a young son or daughter, any age or gender of human life was regarded the same with the same laws of retribution. However, in the case of a servant that was considered the owner's property (at least for six years), the owner was fined the standard cost of a slave, thirty shekels of silver, whether the servant be big and strong and worth triple that, or small and weak and worth much less. It's interesting to note that this was the exact amount at which our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ was sold. In all cases, the animal was to be stoned.
(33) “And if a man opens a pit, or if a man digs a pit and does not cover it, and an ox or a donkey falls in it, (34) The owner of the pit shall make it good, and give money to their owner, and the dead animal shall be his."
Once again, a person had to act responsibly and would have to pay if found negligent. If he left an open pit and another's animal fell into the pit, then he would have to reimburse the owner for the animal. However, as he had paid for the animal, the dead animal would be his.
(35) “And if one man’s ox hurts another’s, so that it dies, then they shall sell the live ox and divide the money from it; and the dead ox they shall also divide. (36) Or if it was known that the ox tended to thrust in time past, and its owner has not kept it confined, he shall surely pay ox for ox, and the dead animal shall be his own."
If a man's animal killed another man's animal, assuming it was accidental and not known that the first animal was a danger, then the two men were to sell the live ox and divide the money from it, and divide the dead ox. However, if it was known that the first animal was dangerous and prone to thrusting its horns, and its owner was negligent in not keeping it confined, then that owner would have to pay full price for the lost animal, but the dead animal would be his since he paid for it.
The laws in this chapter are moral laws and common sense rules of natural justice. You can see the bases of some of our current laws, especially with regard to capital punishment and to negligence. The laws in this chapter deal largely with the treatment of slaves, and deal with human life, in general. You can really get insight into how much the Creator of all life values each and every life, including the unborn baby and the slave.
