Deeper Commentary
The Hebrew mishpat, "ordinances", has a wide range of
meaning. The idea is of judgment, as if God and His Angels gave these laws
as their considered judgment after considering the human condition, and
Israel were to abide by them. But the word also the idea of a right or
privilege; and that is how we should see God's laws. They are only felt as
a burden because of human hardness of neck towards God's ways. His laws
are not of themselves burdensome, but rather a privilege and blessing. The
law was indeed "holy, just and good" (Rom. 7:12), designed to inculcate a
holy, just and good life (Tit. 1:8), a way in which a man should "walk" in
daily life (Lev. 18:4), a culture of kindness and grace to others which
reflected God's grace to man. If we dwell upon the idea of "rights"
carried within the word mishpat, we note that the law begins in
Ex. 21:1,2 (also Dt. 15:12-18) with the rights of a slave- those
considered to have no rights in the society of that day. The "rights" to
be afforded by us to others are the essence of God's rightness / justice.
Exo 21:2 If you buy a Hebrew servant, he shall serve six years and in the
seventh he shall go out free without paying anything-
Slaves could be bought out of slavery by others or by themselves
somehow raising the required amount. Often they went into slavery in order
to pay a debt. But six years was the maximum they could serve- that was
enough to pay any debt. They could not be then forced to still pay some
debt. This total freedom from debt may look forward to the intended "rest"
of the Kingdom at the end of the 6 days / 6000 years of Biblical human history.
T
Exo 21:3 If he comes in by himself, he shall go out by himself. If he is
married, then his wife shall go out with him-
This reflects God's desire that husband and wife not separate nor be
separated by others, especially for material reasons. The idea here seems
to be that the husband could as it were save his wife from slavery; if he
was the one in debt who had gone into slavery, or her debt was greater
than his; then all the same, his redemption became hers. This too looks
forward to the redeeming work of the Lord Jesus, "the servant of Yahweh"
par excellence.
Exo 21:4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or
daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master’s, and he shall
go out by himself-
This might possibly suggest that the "him" in "She bears him"
is the master and not the husband. But this apparently oppressive ruling
is to be read in the context of the next verses. The servant could retain
his wife and children if he devoted himself to his master's house for the
rest of his life. The situation was set up in order to make the servant
pay a price for his wife and children. He made a free choice to marry
whilst a servant; and he was to make that choice aware of the huge long
term price he was going to have to pay for it. That was in order to help
him understand the long term commitment required from a man in marrying
and having children. It was a resignation of his personal freedom (:5),
and the man had to knowingly make that choice. We can deduce that the
marriage was completely his choice; if it were forced upon him by the
master, then this would be the kind of personal manipulation and robbing
of personal freedom which the law of Moses outlaws. And that is the take
away lesson from this- all the more relevant in our age of casual
relationships, married men refusing to resign personal freedom and
fathering of children without taking personal responsibility. See on :5.
Exo 21:5 But if the servant shall plainly say, ‘I love my master, my wife,
and my children. I will not go out free;’-
Exo 21:6 then his master shall bring him to the elohim, and shall bring
him to the door or to the doorpost, and his master shall bore his ear
through with an awl, and he shall serve him for ever-
This
This custom is alluded to in Ps. 40:6, and applied to Christ in Heb. 10:5-10. For love of us, the wife whom He was given by God His “master” (:4), Christ chose to stay in the Father’s house for ever. The nailing of the ear to a piece of wood is understood in Hebrews 10 as prophetic of Christ’s nailing to the cross. The ear represented obedient listening to the Master’s word. Christ on the cross was ultimately obedient to God’s word- for our sakes. That we are seen as His wife should inspire us to the utmost faithfulness and support of His cause in this world.
The question is whether this apparently lifelong commitment was undone by the provisions for the release of slaves at the year of Jubilee. The nature of the language used here would suggest that the freedom of the year of Jubilee didn't apply in this case. So we again see how the law of Moses, like any legal code, had internal contradictions, and times when one law must take precedence over another. These features of the law of Moses were in order to elicit thoughtful obedience to it, rather than blind obedience of a perfectly consistent legal code. For the law was to inculcate thoughtful relationships, both with God and man.
Exo 21:7 If a man sells his daughter to be a female servant, she shall not
go out as the male servants do-
Men in debt would typically sell their daughters as servants, but
they were often bought with a view to marrying them- either by the
purchaser, or by his children.
Exo 21:8 If she doesn’t please her master, who has married her to himself,
then he shall let her be redeemed. He shall have no right to sell her to a
foreign people, since he has dealt deceitfully with her-
The servant who was bought may have been bought blind, never having
met her. Or the 'being evil in the eyes' (Heb.) of the master may be
because she was found not to be a virgin. He could then sell her to
another, but not to a Gentile. His 'deceit' was in that he had purchased a
woman ostensibly as a female servant, when it was his plan to marry her.
Exo 21:9 If he marries her to his son, he shall deal with her as a
daughter-
Although she had been purchased as a servant, she was now effectively
to be set free from that by her marriage to his son. She was not to be
allowed to slip into the category of 'wife second class'. She was to be
treated fully as his daughter in law and not as a servant, to run his
errands.
Exo 21:10 If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her
food, her clothing, and her marital rights-
Exo 21:11 If he doesn’t do these three things for her, she may go free
without paying any money-
"These three things" may not refer to the three things of Ex. 21:10,
but rather to the three courses of action in Ex. 21:8-10. She would go out
free, her father would not be required to repay any of the money which had
been paid for her. Going out free might also imply that she was free to
remarry. Clearly second marriage was envisaged and tolerated under the law
of Moses.
Exo 21:12 One who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to
death-
"Surely" foresees situations whereby there was a temptation for the
death penalty for murder not to be enforced. In surrounding cultures, a
wealthy person could murder their servants with impunity; the fits of rage
of the wealthy and powerful were excused. But that was not to be so with
God's people.
Exo 21:13 but not if it is unintentional, but God allows it to happen-
This is a comforting perspective on manslaughter- it was allowed by
God to happen.
That place was the altar (:14). Later, when Israel were in the land,
cities of refuge were designated for these cases. And they were promised
more cities of refuge if they continued in the path of obedience. We see
here how God's saving purpose expands and changes form over time. It would
also be an example of where many of the commands of the law of Moses were
only relevant to the wilderness generation. Although in this case, using
the altar as a city of refugee is found in 1 Kings 1:50; 2:28.
Exo 21:14 If a man schemes and comes presumptuously on his neighbour to
kill him, you shall take him from My altar, that he may die-
Exo 21:15 Anyone who attacks his father or his mother shall be surely put
to death-
Significantly, the mother is treated on the same level as the father.
The law of Moses afforded the same human dignity to both genders, and was
far ahead of its time in this- for it reflects the huge value which God
places upon the human person. As in :17 the law exalts the value of
parents, and seeks to inculcate particular honour towards them. Instances
of hitting or cursing parents (:17) were most likely to occur in heated
domestic squabbles where there was no outside witness. So here again we
have an example of God's law legislating about intimate personal matters,
rather like the law not to covet. There was no way that this could be
legally proven. The law was intended as a personal dialogue between God
and the individual Israelite.
Exo 21:16 Anyone who kidnaps someone and sells him, or if he is found in
his hand, he shall surely be put to death-
To deprive someone of their personal freedom is treated here in the
same context as murder (:14). Whilst we may not be tempted to kidnap
anyone, there are other ways in which in essence we can deprive another of
their personal freedom, treating them as a thing rather than a person. The
selling of the kidnapped Israelite (Dt. 24:7) was likely to a Gentile
nation. This was going to distance the person from the sanctuary and the
ways of God. To cause another to spiritually stumble is worthy of eternal
death, the Lord was to later teach.
Exo 21:17 Anyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put
to death-
Exo 21:18 If men quarrel and one strikes the other with a stone, or with
his fist, and he doesn’t die, but is confined to bed-
The idea seems to be that the injured party was also guilty because
he had been involved in the quarrel. AV "strive together" may imply that
the two men were in an actual fight, rather than simply quarreling.
Exo 21:19 if he rises again and walks around with his staff, then he who
struck him shall be cleared: only he shall pay for the loss of his time,
and shall provide for his healing until he is thoroughly healed-
This is not a light punishment. Rather the injured man was paying the
price for having been involved in the fight in the first place; see on
:18.
Exo 21:20 If a man strikes his servant or his maid with a rod, and he dies
under his hand, he shall surely be punished-
A slave was to be respected as a person no less than anyone else. A
person’s social or economic standing can never excuse abusing them.
However we note the lack of a specific death penalty. The law does allow
meaning to the fact that a person was a servant, and thereby the property
of another. There appears to be the acceptance of corporal punishment even
for a slave (Prov. 10:13; 13:24).
Exo 21:21 Notwithstanding, if he gets up after a day or two, he shall not
be punished, for he is his property-
Exo 21:22 If men fight and hurt a pregnant woman so that she gives birth
prematurely, and yet no harm follows, he shall be surely fined as much as
the woman’s husband demands and the judges allow-
The situation may be of men fighting between themselves, and a
pregnant woman being unintentionally damaged. These may have been the
situations which Moses had so far encountered whilst leading the people.
Or perhaps Moses had been asked to judge a situation like this at the time
of Ex. 2:13.
Exo 21:23 But if any harm follows, then you must take life for life-
The "harm [which] follows" appears to be to the child when it is
born. "Follows" implies that the harm is only later revealed, and
therefore the reference is to the child and not to the woman. The value of
the health and state of a newborn child is thereby taught.
Exo 21:24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot-
Exo 21:25 burning for burning, wound for wound, and bruise for bruise-
"Burning" or (Heb.) 'branding' would refer to permanent scars, and
that is likely also the idea of 'wound' and 'bruise'.
Exo 21:26 If a man strikes his servant’s eye, or his maid’s eye, and
destroys it, he shall let him go free for his eye’s sake-
This may seem fair enough, but then there is juxtaposed against this
the command in :27 that this is also true if the tooth of a servant was
knocked out. To loose a tooth is far less than to loose an eye. But the
sense was that any permanent damage to another, even if they were a slave,
was to result in the granting of freedom. Most people were in slavery
because they had been sold into it because of debts. The debts were
thereby cleared and the master stood at a financial loss because of his
fit of temper.
Exo 21:27 If he strikes out his male servant’s tooth, or his female
servant’s tooth, he shall let him go free for his tooth’s sake-
See on :26. We note that the law stressed the equality of male and
female servants; whereas female servants were considered of far less legal
value under the surrounding legal codes.
Again we see the huge value attached to the human person by the
Divine law, regardless of gender.
Exo 21:28 If a bull gores a man or a woman to death, the bull shall surely
be stoned, and its flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the bull
shall not be held responsible-
These laws are almost verbatim with the laws of Hammurabi 250-252.
The question is, who copied whom? In this section of Ex. 21 there are
various allusions to the Hammurabi laws- but with significant differences.
Exo 21:29 But if the bull had a habit of goring in the past, and it has
been testified to its owner, and he has not kept it in, but it has killed
a man or a woman, the bull shall be stoned, and its owner shall also be
put to death-
Exo 21:30 If a ransom is laid on him, then he shall give for the
redemption of his life whatever is laid on him-
Exo 21:31 Whether it has gored a son or has gored a daughter, according to
this judgment it shall be done to him-
Exo 21:32 If the bull gores a male servant or a female servant, thirty
shekels of silver shall be given to their master, and the ox shall be
stoned-
The price of a slave was thirty shekels of silver, and this was the
price of the Lord Jesus. He is constantly hinted at throughout the Mosaic
law, as the consummate "servant of Yahweh".
Exo 21:33 If a man opens a pit, or if a man digs a pit and doesn’t cover
it, and a bull or a donkey falls into it-
Exo 21:35 If one man’s bull injures another’s, so that it dies, then they
shall sell the live bull, and divide its price; and they shall also divide
the dead animal-
Arguments amongst herdsmen were infamous. We think of the various
conflicts which the patriarchs were involved in. God shows Himself
absolutely aware of and sensitive to such very common human situations.
Truly man is not alone, but God knows and is aware. And seeks to guide us
through them.
Exo 21:36 Or if it is known that the bull was in the habit of goring in
the past, and its owner has not kept it in, he shall surely pay bull for
bull, and the dead animal shall be his own-
We see here the principle that knowledge brings responsibility. The
abiding principle is that of restraint of situations which are likely to
lead to damage.
Previous Chapter
