“Now these are the ordinances which you shall set before them:
“If you buy a Hebrew servant, he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free without paying anything. If he comes in by himself, he shall go out by himself. If he is married, then his wife shall go out with him. 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. But if the servant shall plainly say, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children. I will not go out free;’ then his master shall bring him to God, 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 forever.
“If a man sells his daughter to be a female servant, she shall not go out as the male servants do. 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. If he marries her to his son, he shall deal with her as a daughter. If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, and her marital rights. If he doesn’t do these three things for her, she may go free without paying any money.
“One who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death, but not if it is unintentional, but God allows it to happen; then I will appoint you a place where he shall flee. If a man schemes and comes presumptuously on his neighbor to kill him, you shall take him from my altar, that he may die.
“Anyone who attacks his father or his mother shall be surely put to death.
“Anyone who kidnaps someone and sells him, or if he is found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.
“Anyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death.
“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; 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.
“If a man strikes his servant or his maid with a rod, and he dies under his hand, the man shall surely be punished. Notwithstanding, if his servant gets up after a day or two, he shall not be punished, for the servant is his property.
“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. But if any harm follows, then you must take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, and bruise for bruise.
“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. If he strikes out his male servant’s tooth, or his female servant’s tooth, he shall let the servant go free for his tooth’s sake.
“If a bull gores a man or a woman to death, the bull shall surely be stoned, and its meat shall not be eaten; but the owner of the bull shall not be held responsible. But if the bull had a habit of goring in the past, and this 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. If a ransom is imposed on him, then he shall give for the redemption of his life whatever is imposed. Whether it has gored a son or has gored a daughter, according to this judgment it shall be done to him. 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.
“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, the owner of the pit shall make it good. He shall give money to its owner, and the dead animal shall be his.
“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. 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.
Geneva Bible translators 1599 · Public Domain On vv2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 18, 19, 21, 22, 24, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34 Paying no money for his liberty.
Paying no money for his liberty.
Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain.
John Trapp 1656 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 36 Exo 21:1 Now these [are] the judgments which thou…
Exo 21:1 Now these [are] the judgments which thou shalt set before them.
Ver. 1. Now these are the judgments,] i.e., The judicial laws, fitly annexed to the Decalogue, whereof the civil magistrate is the lord-keeper. It was written upon the sword of Charles the Great, Decem praeceptorum custos Carolus.
John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Matthew Poole 1685 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36 Or, the judicial laws, by which thou and the…
Or, the judicial laws, by which thou and the judges before mentioned shall govern thyself and the people in civil and criminal causes.
Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Matthew Henry 1710 · Public Domain On vv1, 12, 22 The first verse is the general title of the…
The first verse is the general title of the laws contained in this and the two following chapters, some of them relating to the religious worship of God, but most of them relating to matters between man and man. Their government being purely a Theocracy, that which in other states is to be settled by human prudence was directed among them by a divine appointment, so that the constitution of their government was peculiarly adapted to make them happy. These laws are called judgments, because they are framed in infinite wisdom and equity, and because their magistrates were to give judgment according to the people. In the doubtful cases that had hitherto occurred, Moses had particularly enquired of God for them, as appeared, Exo 18:15; but now God gave him statutes in general by which to determine particular cases, which likewise he must apply to other like cases that might happen, which, falling under the same reason, fell under the same rule. He begins with the laws concerning servants, commanding mercy and moderation towards them. The Israelites had lately been servants themselves; and now that they had become, not only their own masters, but masters of servants too, lest they should abuse their servants, as they themselves had been abused and ruled with rigour by the Egyptian task-masters, provision was made by these laws for the mild and gentle usage of servants. Note, If those who have had power over us have been injurious to us this will not in the least excuse us if we be in like manner injurious to those who are under our power, but will rather aggravate our crime, because, in that case, we may the more easily put our souls into their soul's stead. Here is,
I. A law concerning men-servants, sold, either by themselves or their parents, through poverty, or by the judges, for their crimes; even those of the latter sort (if Hebrews) were to continue in slavery but seven years at the most, in which time it was taken for granted that they would sufficiently have smarted for their folly or offence. At the seven years' end the servant should either go out free (Exo 21:2, Exo 21:3), or his servitude should thenceforward be his choice, Exo 21:5, Exo 21:6. If he had a wife given him by his master, and children, he might either leave them and go out free himself, or, if he had such a kindness for them that he would rather tarry with them in bondage than go out at liberty without them, he was to have his ear bored through to the doorpost and serve till the death of his master, or the year of jubilee.
Read full note →
1. By this law God taught, (1.) The Hebrew servants generosity, and a noble love of liberty, for they were the Lord's freemen; a mark of disgrace must be put upon him who refused liberty when he might have it, though he refused it upon considerations otherwise laudable enough. Thus Christians, being bought with a price, and called unto liberty, must not be the servants of men, nor of the lusts of men, Co1 7:23. There is a free and princely spirit that much helps to uphold a Christian, Psa 51:12. He likewise taught, (2.) The Hebrew masters not to trample upon their poor servants, knowing, not only that they had been by birth upon a level with them, but that, in a few years, they would be so again. Thus Christian masters must look with respect on believing servants, Plm 1:16.
2. This law will be further useful to us, (1.) To illustrate the right God has to the children of believing parents, as such, and the place they have in his church. They are by baptism enrolled among his servants, because they are born in his house, for they are therefore born unto him, Eze 16:20. David owns himself God's servant, as he was the son of his handmaid (Psa 116:16), and therefore entitled to protection, Psa 86:16. (2.) To explain the obligation which the great Redeemer laid upon himself to prosecute the work of our salvation, for he says (Psa 40:6), My ears hast thou opened, which seems to allude to this law. He loved his Father, and his captive spouse, and the children that were given him, and would not go out free from his undertaking, but engaged to serve in it for ever, Isa 42:1, Isa 42:4. Much more reason have we thus to engage ourselves to serve God for ever; we have all the reason in the world to love our Master and his work, and to have our ears bored to his door-posts, as those who desire not to go out free from his service, but to be found more and more free to it, and in it, Psa 84:10.
Concerning maid-servants, whom their parents, through extreme poverty, had sold, when they were very young, to such as they hoped would marry them when they grew up; if they did not, yet they must not sell them to strangers, but rather study how to make them amends for the disappointment; if they did, they must maintain them handsomely, Exo 21:7-11. Thus did God provide for the comfort and reputation of the daughters of Israel, and has taught husbands to give honour to their wives (be their extraction ever so mean) as to the weaker vessels, Pe1 3:7.
Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Gill 1763 · Public Domain On vv1–36 Now these are the judgments,.... The judicial laws respecting…
Now these are the judgments,.... The judicial laws respecting the civil state of the people of Israel, so called because they are founded on justice and equity, and are according to the judgment of God, whose judgment is according to truth; and because they are such by which the commonwealth of Israel was to be judged or governed, and were to be the rule of their conduct to one another, and a rule of judgment to their judges in the execution of judgment and justice among them:
which thou shall set before them; besides the ten commands before delivered. They were spoken by God himself in the hearing of the people; these were delivered to Moses after he went up to the mount again, at the request of the people, to be their mediator, to be by him set before them as the rule of their behaviour, and to enjoin them the observance of them; in order to which he was not only to rehearse them, but to write them out, and set them in a plain and easy light before them: and though they did not hear these with their own ears from God himself, as the ten commands; yet, as they had the utmost reason to believe they came from him, and it was at their own request that he, and not God, might speak unto them what was further to be said, with a promise they would obey it, as if they had immediately heard it from him; it became them to receive these laws as of God, and yield a cheerful obedience to them; nor do we find they ever questioned the authority of them; and as their government was a Theocracy, and God was more immediately their King than he was of any other people, it was but right, and what might be expected, that they should have their civil laws from him, and which was their privilege, and gave them the preference to all other nations, Deu 4:5.
John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Wesley 1765 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 6, 8, 9, 20, 24 The laws recorded in this chapter relate to the…
The laws recorded in this chapter relate to the fifth and sixth commandments; and though not accommodated to our constitution, especially in point of servitude yet are of great use for the explanation of the moral law, and the rules of natural justice.
I. Here are several enlargements upon the fifth commandment, which concerns particular relations. (1.) The duty of masters towards their servants, their men servants ver. 2-6. and maid-servants, ver. 7-11. (2.) The punishment of disobedient children that strike their parents, ver. 15. or curse them, ver. 17.
Read full note →
II. Upon the sixth commandment, which forbids all violence offered to the person of man. Here is, (1.) Concerning murder, ver. 12-14. (2.) Man-stealing, ver, 16. (3.) Assault and battery, ver. 18, 19. (4.) Correcting a servant, ver. 20, 21 (5.) Hurting a woman with child, ver. 22, 23. (6.) The law of retaliation, ver. 24, 25. (7.) Maiming a servant, ver. 26, 27. (8.) An ox goring, ver. 26-32. (9.) Damage by opening a pit, ver. 33, 34. (10.) Cattle fighting, ver 35, 36.
The first verse is the general title of the laws contained in this and the two following chapters. Their government being purely a theocracy; that which in other states is to be settled by human prudence, was directed among them by a divine appointment. 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 inquired of God, but now God gave him statutes in general, by which to determine particular cases. He begins with the laws concerning servants, commanding mercy and moderation towards them. The Israelites had lately been servants themselves, and now they were become not only their own matters, but masters of servants too; lest they should abuse their servants as they themselves had been abused, provision was made for the mild and gentle usage of servants.
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.
Adam Clarke 1810 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, 21, 22, 24, 26, 27, 28, 30, 32, 33 Laws concerning servants. They shall serve for only seven
CHAPTER XXI
Laws concerning servants. They shall serve for only seven
Read full note →
years, 1, 2.
If a servant brought a wife to servitude with him, both should go
out free on the seventh year, 3.
If his master had given him a wife, and she bore him children, he
might go out free an the seventh year, but his wife and children
must remain, as the property of the master, 4.
If, through love to his master, wife, and children, he did not
choose to avail himself of the privilege granted by the law, of
going out free on the seventh year, his ear was to be bored to the
door post with an awl, as an emblem of his being attached to the
family for ever, 5, 6.
Laws concerning maid-servants, betrothed to their masters or to
the sons of their masters, 7-11.
Laws concerning battery and murder, 12-15.
Concerning men-stealing, 16.
Concerning him that curses his parents, 17.
Of strife between man and man, 18, 19;
between a master and his servants, 20, 21.
Of injuries done to women in pregnancy, 22.
The LEX TALIONIS, or law of like, 23-25.
for injuries done to servants, by which they gain the right of
freedom, 26, 27.
Laws concerning the ox which has gored men, 28-32.
Of the pit left uncovered, into which a man or a beast has
fallen, 33, 34.
Laws concerning the ox that kills another, 35, 36.
NOTES ON CHAP. XXI
Verse 1. Now these are the judgments] There is so much good sense, feeling, humanity, equity, and justice in the following laws, that they cannot but be admired by every intelligent reader; and they are so very plain as to require very little comment. The laws in this chapter are termed political, those in the succeeding chapter judicial, laws; and are supposed to have been delivered to Moses alone, in consequence of the request of the people, Ex 20:19, that God should communicate his will to Moses, and that Moses should, as mediator, convey it to them.
Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Joseph Benson 1811 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 14, 15, 16, 18, 20, 21, 22, 24, 26, 30 Exo 21:1. The first verse is the general title…
Exo 21:1. The first verse is the general title of the laws contained in this and the two following chapters. Their government being purely a theocracy, that which in other states is to be settled by human prudence, was directed among them by a divine appointment. 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 inquired of God, but now God gave him statutes in general, by which to determine particular cases. He begins with the laws concerning servants, commanding mercy and moderation toward them. The Israelites had lately been servants themselves, and now they were become not only their own masters, but masters of servants too; lest they should abuse their servants as they themselves had been abused, provision was made for the mild and gentle usage of servants.
Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Albert Barnes 1834 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 11, 12, 13, 15, 19, 20, 22, 26, 28, 33, 35 Judgments - i. e. decisions of the law.
Judgments - i. e. decisions of the law.
Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary 1859 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 19, 21, 22, 24, 26, 28, 32 Judgments, or laws directing the civil conduct of the…
Judgments, or laws directing the civil conduct of the Israelites. (Menochius)
George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures 1864 · Public Domain On v1 c.—First form of the law of the political commonwealth
c.—First form of the law of the political commonwealth
Exo_21:1 to Exo_23:33
Read full note →
a. Right of Personal Freedom (according to Bertheau, ten in number)
1Now these are the judgments [ordinances] which thou shalt set before them. 2If [when] thou buy [buyest] an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. 3If he came [come] in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were [be] married, then his wife shall go out with him. 4If his master have given [give] him a wife, and she have borne [bear] him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master’s, and he shall go out by himself. 5And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free: 6then his master shall bring him unto the judges [God]; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door-post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl; and he shall serve him foreExo Exo_21:7 And if [when] a man sell [selleth] his daughter to be a maid-servant, she shall not go out as the men-servants do. 8If she please not her master who hath betrothed her to himself,1 then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her. 9And if he have betrothed [betroth] her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters. 10If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage [marriage due] shall he not diminish. 11And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free [for nothing], without money.
b. On Murder and Bodily Injuries. Sins against the Life of one’s Neighbor. (Ten in number, according to Bertheau.)
12He that smiteth a man, so that he die [dieth], shall be surely put to death. 13And if a man lie not in wait, but God deliver him into his hand [make it happen14to his hand2]; then I will appoint thee a place whither he shall flee. But [And] if [when] a man come [cometh] presumptuously upon his neighbor, to slay him with guile; thou shalt take him from mine altar, that he may die. 15And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death. 16And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death. 17And he that curseth [revileth]3 his father, or his mother, shall surely be 18put to death. And if [when] men strive together, and one smite [smiteth] another [the other] with a stone, or with his fist, and he die [dieth] not, but keepeth his bed: 19If he rise again, and walk abroad upon his staff, then shall he that smote him be quit: only he shall pay for the loss of his time, and shall cause him to be 20thoroughly healed. And if [when] a man smite [smiteth] his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die [dieth] under his hand; he shall be surely punished. 21Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he Isaiah 22 his money. If [And when] men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her [depart], and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished [fined], according as the woman’s husband will [shall] lay upon him: 23and he shall pay as the judges determine.4 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, 24Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25, 26Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. And if [when] a man smite [smiteth] the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish 27[and destroyeth it]: he shall let him go free for his eye’s sake. And if he smite out his man-servant’s tooth, or his maid-servant’s tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth’s sake.
c. Injuries resulting from Relations of Property. Through Property and of Property. Acts of Carelessness and Theft. (Ten, according to Bertheau.)
28If [And when] an ox gore [goreth] a man or a woman, that they die, then the ox shall be surely stoned, and his flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall be quit. 29But if the ox were [hath been] wont to push with his horn [to gore] in time past, and it hath been testified to his owner, and he hath not kept him in [keepeth him not in], but that he hath killed [and he killeth] a man or a woman; the ox shall be stoned, and his owner also shall be put to death. 30If there be laid on him a sum of money [ransom], then he shall give for the ransom [redemption] of his life whatsoever is laid upon him. 31Whether he have gored a son, or have gored a daughter, according to this judgment shall it be done unto him. 32If the ox shall push [gore] a man-servant or maid-servant, he shall give unto their master 33thirty shekels of silver, and the ox shall be stoned. And if [when] a man shall open a pit, or if [when] a man shall dig a pit, and not cover it, and an ox or an ass fall therein; 34The owner of the pit shall make it good, and [good; he shall] give 35money unto the owner of them; and the dead beast shall be his. And if [when] one man’s ox hurt [hurteth] another’s, that he die [dieth]; then they shall sell the live ox, 36and divide the money [price] of it; and the dead ox also they shall divide. Or if it be known that the ox hath used to push [hath been wont to gore] in time past, and his owner hath not kept him in; he shall surely pay ox for ox; and the dead shall be his own.
Chap. Exo_22:1 If [When] a man shall steal [stealeth] an ox, or a sheep, and kill [killeth] it, or sell [selleth] it; he shall restore [pay] fiveoxen for an ox, and four sheep 2for a sheep. If a [the] thief be found breaking up [in], and be smitten that he die 3[so that he dieth], there shall no blood be shed [no blood-guiltiness] for him. If the sun be risen upon him, there shall be blood shed [blood-guiltiness] for him; for he [him; he] should make full restitution; if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft. 4If the theft be certainly found in his hand alive, whether it be ox, 5or ass, or sheep; he shall restore [pay] double. If [When] a man shall cause [causeth] a field or vineyard to be eaten [fed upon], and shall put in his beast [letteth his beast loose], and shall feed [and it feedeth] in another man’s field; of the best 6of his own field, and of the best of his own vineyard, shall he make restitution. If [When] fire break [breaketh] out, and catch [catcheth] in thorns, so that the stacks of corn [grain], or the standing corn [grain], or the field, be [is] consumed therewith; he [consumed; he] that kindled the fire shall surely make [make full] restitution.
d. Things Entrusted and Things Lost
7If [When] a man shall deliver unto his neighbor money or stuff to keep, and it be [is] stolen out of the man’s house; if the thief be found, let him pay double. 8If the thief be not found, then the master of the house shall be brought unto the judges [unto God], to see whether he have put [have not put] his hand unto his neighbor’s goods. 9For all manner of trespass [In every case of trespass], whether it be for ox, for ass, for sheep, for raiment, or for any manner of lost [any lost] thing, which another challengeth to be his [of which one saith, This is it], the cause of both parties shall come before the judges [God]; and [he] whom the Judges 10[God] shall condemn, he [condemn] shall pay double unto his neighbor. If [When] a man deliver [delivereth] unto his neighbor an ass, or an ox, or a sheep, or any beast, to keep; and it die [dieth], or be [is] hurt, or driven away, no man seeing 11it: Then shall an [the] oath of Jehovah be between them both, that [whether] he hath not put his hand unto his neighbor’s goods; and the owner of it shall accept thereof [it], and he shall not make it good [make restitution]. 12And if it be stolen from him, he shall make restitution unto the owner thereof. 13If it be torn in pieces, then let him bring it for witness; and [witness;] he shall not make good that which was 14torn. And if [when] a man borrow [borroweth] aught of his neighbor, and it be [is] hurt, or die [dieth], the owner thereof being not with it, he shall surely make 15it good [shall make full restitution]. But if [If] the owner thereof be with it, he 16shall not make it good: if it be an hired thing, it came for his [its] hire. And if [when] a man entice [enticeth] a maid [virgin] that is not betrothed, and lie [lieth] with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife. 17If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.
e. Unnatural Crimes. Religious and Inhumane Abominations. (Arranged according to Bertheau.)
(1) 18Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. (2) 19Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death. (3) 20He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto Jehovah only, he [only,] shall be utterly destroyed [devoted to destruction]. (4) 21Thou shalt neither vex [wrong] a stranger, nor oppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt. (5) 22Ye shall not afflict any widow, or fatherless child. 23If thou afflict them in any wise, and they cry at all unto me, I will surely hear their cry; 24And my wrath shall wax hot, and I will kill you with the sword; and your wives shall be widows, and your children fatherless. (6) 25If thou lend money to any of my people that is poor by thee [with thee that is poor], thou shalt not be to him as an usurer; neither shalt thou [shall ye] lay upon him usury [interest]. (7) 26If thou at all take thy neighbor’s raiment to pledge, thou shalt deliver [restore] 27it unto him by that the sun goeth down: For that is his covering only [only covering], it is his raiment for his skin: wherein shall he sleep? And it shall come to pass, when he crieth unto me, that I will hear; for I am gracious. (8) 28Thou shalt not revile the gods [God], nor curse the [a] ruler of [among] thy people. (9) 29Thou shalt not delay to offer [not keep back] the first of thy ripe fruits and of thy liquors [the first-fruits of thy threshing-floor and of thy press]:5 the first-born of thy sons shalt thou give unto me. 30Likewise shalt thou do with thine oxen, and with thy sheep: seven days it shall be with his [its] dam; on the eighth day thou shalt give it me. (10) 31And ye shall be holy men unto me; neither shall ye [and ye shall not] eat any flesh that is torn of beasts in the field; ye shall cast it to the dogs.
f. Judicial Proceedings
Exo_23:1(1) Thou shalt raise [carry] a false report: (2) put not thine [thy] hand with the wicked to be an unrighteous witness. (3) 2Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil; neither shalt thou speak in a cause to decline [turn aside] after many [a multitude] to wrest judgment: (4) 3Neither shalt thou countenance [be4partial to] a poor man in his cause. (5) If [When] thou meet [meetest] thine enemy’s ox or his ass going astray, thou shalt surely bring it back to him again 5[to him]. (6) If [When] thou see [seest] the ass of him that hateth thee lying under his burden, and wouldest forbear to help him [thou shalt forbear to leavehim], thou shalt surely help [release it] with him.6 (7) 6Thou shalt not wrest the judgment of thy poor in his cause. (8) 7Keep thee far from a false matter; and the innocent and righteous slay them not: for I will not justify the wicked. (9) 8And thou shalt take no gift [bribe]: for the gift [a bribe] blindeth the wise [theseeing], and perverteth the words of the righteous. (10) 9Also thou shalt not oppress a stranger: for ye know the heart of a stranger, seeing ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.
g. Rules for Holidays and Festivals
(1) 10And six years thou shalt sow thy land, and shalt gather in the fruits thereof: 11But the seventh year thou shalt let it rest and lie still [fallow]; that the poor of thy people may eat: and what they leave the beasts of the field shall eat. In like manner thou shalt deal with thy vineyard, and with thy olive-yard. (2) 12Six days thou shalt do thy work, and on the seventh day thou shalt rest: that thine ox and thine ass may rest, and the son of thy handmaid, and the stranger may be refreshed. 13And in [unto] all things that I have said unto you be circumspect [take heed]: and make no mention of the name of other gods, neither let it be heard [gods; let itnot be heard] out of thy mouth. (3) 14Three times thou shalt keep a feast unto me in the year. (4) 15Thou shalt keep the feast of unleavened bread: thou shalt eat unleavened bread seven days, as I commanded thee, in the time appointed [at the set time] of [in] the month Abib; for in it thou camest out from Egypt: and none shall appear before me empty: (5) 16And the feast of harvest, the [of the] first fruits of thy labors, which thou hast sown [sowest] in the field: (6) and the feast of ingathering, which is in [ingathering, at] the end of the year, when thou hast gathered [thou gatherest] in thy labors out of the field. (7) 17Three times in the year all thy males shall appear before the Lord God [Jehovah]. (8) 18Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leavened bread; neither shall the fat of my sacrifice [feast] remain until the morning. (9) 19The first of the first-fruits of thy land thou shalt bring into the house of Jehovah, thy God. (10) Thou shalt not seethe [boil] a kid in his [its] mother’s milk.
h. The Promises
(1) 20Behold, I send an angel before thee, to keep thee, in [by] the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared. 21Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not: for he will not pardon your trangressions: for my name 22is in him. But [For] if thou shalt indeed obey his voice, and do all that I speak; then I will be an enemy unto thine enemies, and an adversary unto thine adversaries. (2) 23For mine angel shall go before thee, and bring thee in unto the Amorites, and the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Canaanites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites: and I will cut them off. 24Thou shalt not bow down to their gods, nor serve them, nor do after their works: but thou shalt utterly overthrow them, and quite break down their images. (3) 25And ye shall serve Jehovah your God, and he shall [will] bless thy bread and thy water; (4) and I will take sickness away from the midst of thee. (5) 26There shall nothing [no one] cast their [her] young, nor be barren, in thy land; (6) the number of thy days I will fulfil. (7) 27I will send my fear [terror] before thee, and will destroy [discomfit] all the people to whom thou shalt come, 28and I will make all thine enemies turn their backs unto thee. (8) And I will send [send the] hornets before thee, which [and they] shall drive out the Hivite, the Canaanite, and the Hittite, from before thee. (9) 29I will not drive them out from before thee in one year; lest the land become desolate, and the beast of the field multiply against thee. 30By little and little I will drive them out from before thee, until thou be increased, and inherit the land. (10) 31And I will set thy bounds from the Red Sea even unto the sea of the Philistines, and from the desert unto the river: for I will deliver the inhabitants of the land into your hand; and thou shalt drive them out before thee. 32Thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor with their gods. 33They shall not dwell in thy land, lest they make thee sin against me: for if thou serve their gods, it will surely be a snare unto thee.
TEXTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL
[Exo_21:8. The Hebrew here, according to the K’thibh, is לֹא, and if this were followed, we should have to translate with Geddes, Rosenmüller and others: “so that he hath not betrothed (or will not betroth) her.” The K’ri reads לוֹ, “unto him” or “unto himself.” This yields much the easiest sense, and is especially confirmed by the consideration that יָעַד of itself means, not “betroth,” but “appoint,” “destine.” Followed by the Dative, it may in the connection convey the notion of betrothal; but used absolutely, it cannot convey it.—Tr.]
[Exo_21:13. אִנָּה cannot mean “deliver,” and no object is expressed. It is therefore unwarrantable to render, with A. V., “deliver him,” or even with Lange, “let him accidentally fall into his hand.” The object to be supplied is the indefinite one suggested by the preceding sentence, viz. homicide.—Tr.]
[Exo_21:17. קִלֵּל, though generally rendered “curse” in A. V., yet differs unmistakably from אָרַר in being used not merely of cursing, but of evil speaking in general, e.g. Jdg_9:27 and 2Sa_16:9. The LXX. render it correctly by κακολογέω. And this word, where the passage is quoted in the New Testament, is rendered by the same Greek word, viz. Mat_15:4.—Tr.]
[Exo_21:23. The Heb. reads בִּפְלִלִים, lit. “with judges” or “among judges.” Some render “unto the judges;” others “before the judges;” but the preposition does not naturally convey either of these senses. The A. V. probably expresses the true meaning: “with judges,” i.e. the line being judicially imposed.—Tr.]
[Exo_22:29. Literally: “thy fullness and thy tear.” The phrase “ripe fruits” is objectionable as including too much; “liquors” as suggesting a wrong conception. The first refers to the crops generally, exclusive of the olive and the grape, from which oil and wine, the liquid products (“tear”), were derived. Cranmer’s Bible renders, not inaptly: “thy fruits, whether they be dry or moist.”—Tr.]
[Exo_23:5. The rendering of A. V.: “and wouldest forbear,” is utterly untenable. Not less so is the rendering of עֲזֹב by “help.” The simplest explanation assumes a double meaning of עָזַב, viz. to “loose,” and to “leave.” We might borrow a vulgar phrase, and read: “Thou shalt forbear to cut loose from him, thou shalt cut loose with him.” De Wette and Murphy attempt to avoid the double meaning by emphasizing “with.” Thus: “Thou shalt forbear to leave it to him: thou shalt leave it with him.” But this is a nicety quite alien from the Hebrew.—Tr.]
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
This section is very clearly to be distinguished from the two preceding, so that after the purely religious and ethical legislation, and after the ritual, now the social and political legislation is instituted. The genuinely theocratic character of this legislation here at once appears. It is not a criminal law in the first instance, but a system of legal regulations for a people that is to be trained for freedom. Hence these ordinances begin at once very significantly with the regulating of the laws concerning emancipation; and indirectly all the main points of this law point to the rights of freedom. Just as the sacrificial usages were found already existing, and were thenceforth theocratically regulated, so now the relations of slavery, found as an existing fact, were regulated in the spirit of the typical people of God. So Keil entitles the section: “The fundamental rights of the Israelites in their civil and social relations.” Less satisfactorily Knobel: “The further rights, i.e. laws,” etc. But the parallels which he draws between the Jewish legislation and that of other ancient people, and of heathen people in general, as also of the modern Mohammedan Arabs, are excellent. We divide thus: (a) The law of personal freedom. That this may correspond with the first commandment of the decalogue, the duty of holding sacred the divine personality, is obvious. (b) The second division, on murder and bodily injuries, quite as unmistakably aims to secure the human form from abuse or disfigurement, as the second commandment to keep the divine image from being deformed; but it is also connected with the commandment: Thou shalt not kill, (c) The third division, on injuries which result from the relations of property, points to the commandment: Thou shalt not steal, (d) Akin to the foregoing, and yet different, are the regulations concerning goods put in another’s care, and goods lost, (e) The regulations concerning unnatural crimes, offences against religion and humanity are more specially connected with the first and with the fifth and tenth commandments. (f) The section on judicial processes reminds us of the prohibition of false witness. (g) The division relating to holidays and feast-days reminds us of the third commandment, but is more especially an unfolding of the law of the Sabbath. (h) Also the promises which are annexed to the fifth and second commandments are in the last division expanded into a fuller form.
Here must be noticed one more circumstance. When regulations of similar import are found in different sections of the law, this is not to be regarded as mere repetition, still less as confusion. The moral law of the Sabbath, e.g., comes here (Exo_23:12) under consideration again, from a social point of view; in Leviticus still again as connected with the ceremonial law. For the Sabbath, there are moral and ritual reasons, and likewise social or civil reasons, the latter uniting the two former. In like manner the great festivals of the Israelites are here regarded from a national, or civil, point of view: in Leviticus they are associated with the idea of worship. The occasional precepts concerning purification and sacrifice in the book of Numbers relate to the keeping pure of the social commonwealth of Jehovah, and are therefore not primarily ceremonial. The tabernacle is found in Exodus, not in Leviticus, because it is primarily the house of the theocratic lawgiver, and is the repository of the decalogue; only secondarily the place of worship, the place where the lawgiver meets his people.
a. Law of Personal Freedom
(1) The Hebrew man-servant, Exo_21:1-6; (2) The Hebrew maid-servant, Exo_21:7-11. The further development of, and reasons for, the law of emancipation, vid. in Deu_15:12-18. “The Hebrew man-servant after six years of service is to receive his freedom gratis. According to Deu_15:12 this holds also of the Hebrew maidservant. The attributive עִבְרִי designates the servant as an Israelite (comp. אָחִיךָ in Deut.) in distinction from the slaves derived from non-Israelitish foreign nations, to whom this law does not apply” (Keil). The law evidently tends towards securing the universality of personal freedom. But it also knows that within the theocracy, in the servitude which is mitigated by it, there is an element susceptible of education. Therefore the servant is not compelled to become free in the seventh year. We are to consider that the sons of the household also then stood in the relation of strict subjection, so that a dutiful servant became more and more like them. Vid. Exo_23:12, Lev_25:6, etc. The servant might also be led by devotion to his wife, given to him by his master during his servitude, and to her children, to remain a servant. With reference to this the three cases in Exo_21:3-4 were to be distinguished. The fixing of the seventh year as the year of emancipation is connected with the sabbatical year, but does not coincide with it. How one could become a slave among the Israelites is told in Exo_22:3, Lev_25:39. But how the emancipation was to be beautified and enriched is seen in the parallel passage in Deuteronomy [Exo_15:12-15]. On the manner of emancipation vid. Keil p. 130. Unto God.—Not to the priests, but to the court of the assembly, which passed judgment in the name of God, and whose sentence was a divine dispensation. Similar expressions vid. in Knobel, p. 214. There had therefore to be a public declaration that the servant voluntarily remained a servant. “The boring of the ears was among the Orientals a sign of slavery” (Knobel). The ear-rings among the Carthaginians from being a symbol of slavery came to be an ornament, like the cross among Christians. The case mentioned in Lev_25:39 is probably a modification, but according to Knobel is a contradiction, of the law before us.
Exo_21:7-11 : The Israelitish daughter as servant and concubine. Knobel makes no distinction between concubinage as it is found among the patriarchs, and the usual custom of the Jews. But in reply see the Commentary on Genesis, p. 80. She shall not go out as the men-servants do.—It follows from the nature of her position that it is a benefit to her if she can remain in the house of her master, provided that the rights of the concubine are respected. It is therefore presupposed either that he takes her for himself, or gives her to his son, or maintains her honor by the side of his son’s wife. In the first case, he must let her be redeemed; in the second case, he must accord to her the domestic rights of an associate wife. If he is not willing to give her this protection, he must let her go free for nothing. In this connection the precepts of Deu_15:12 are also to be considered. Exo_21:8-9. Who hath betrothed her to himself.—“The לֹא before יְעָדָהּ belongs to the 15 passages designated by the Massorah in which לֹא stands for לוֹ” (Keil; compare Knobel). To sell her unto a strange people.—Knobel: “The Greek, too, did not sell a Greek slave to go beyond the boundary of the land.” Seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.—It would certainly create a difficulty to translate, “on account of his infidelity towards her,” as if this unfaithfulness were the only reason why an Israelitess might not be sold to heathen. Therefore the emphasis probably lies on the thought that his injustice would be doubly great if even in this case, in which he has gone so far as to send her away, he should also in his treachery to her violate the theocratic law. That the word בָּגַד has a specially important meaning, is seen from Psa_73:15. Comp. Deu_21:14, and the account of the Arabian customs in Knobel, p. 216. If he betroth her unto his son.—Comp. Knobel also on a Persian or Arabian custom of a similar sort. As his son’s concubine she is to be regarded by him as a daughter. Exo_21:9. If he take him another wife.—That is, the father for his son. So Keil; but Knobel understands it to mean: If he takes another for himself. Keil well disposes of the views, according to which either the son is the subject, or the father takes for himself.7 Her food, etc.—All of her domestic rights are to remain secure. שְׁאֵר, meat, as the chief article of food, “because the lawgiver has men of wealth in mind.” (Keil). To understand עוֹנָה, which properly means lying, of cohabitation, yields no tolerable sense. How could the father in this thing control the son? Or how could the son be obliged to conduct himself towards several wives in the same way as towards one. Either, therefore, the expression has in it something figurative, meaning: She must not as wife be neglected; or it refers to a seat, a resting-place (see the meaning of עוּן), which would well harmonize with the reference to food and raiment. It is therefore assumed that under the conditions imposed she has in the house of her servitude a much better position than if she should be dismissed, especially if she has borne children who belong to the permanent members of the household.
b. On Murder, Homicide, and Bodily Injuries
(1) Homicide proper, Exo_21:12-14. (a) Simple homicide in consequence of beating; (b) unintentional, resulting from misfortune and mistake; (c) murder proper. (2) Spiritual homicide, (a) Smiting of parents; (b) deprivation of freedom (as spiritual fratricide); (c) cursing of parents (spiritual suicide). (3) Bodily injuries, (a) Of uncertain, perhaps fatal result; (i) to a free man; (ii) a man-servant or maid-servant; (iii) a pregnant woman, in which connection is to be noticed that the jus talionis is laid down in close connection with an extremely humane law of protection, Exo_21:22-25; (b) local injuries to men-servants or maid-servants.
Exo_21:12. He that smiteth a man.—Says Keil: “Higher than personal freedom stands life.” It may then be asked, why is capital punishment prescribed (Exo_21:16) for the violent taking away of freedom? The slavery treated of in the preceding section was no innovation, but as a traditional custom it was restricted, and moreover in great part was based on guilt or voluntary assent; it had besides an educational end. It is true, the law of retaliation, as instituted in Gen_9:6, underlies all this section; but it is noticeable that this law is expressly prescribed just where the protection of a pregnant woman is involved. It is repeated (Lev_24:17) in connection with the ordinance that the blasphemer shall be stoned. The reason for the repetition is the principle that in respect to these points perfect equality of rights should be accorded to the stranger and the Israelite; and it was occasioned by the fact that the blasphemer was a Jew on his mother’s side, but an Egyptian on his father’s side. So that he dieth.—Three cases are specified: first, the severe blow which in fact, but not in intention, proves mortal; secondly, the unfortunate killing through mistake, a providential homicide; thirdly, intentional, and hence criminal and guileful, murder.
Exo_21:13. And if a man lie not in wait.—When, therefore not only the murderous blow, but any blow, was unintentional, so that the case is one of severe divine dispensation. I will appoint thee a place.—A place of refuge, with reference to the avengers of blood who pursue him. A check, therefore, upon the custom, prevalent in the East, of avenging murder. It is worthy of notice, from a critical point of view, that no place is now fixed; this was done later, vid. Num_35:11; Deu_19:1-10. Here too the innocent homicide is expressly distinguished from the violent one, Num_35:22 sqq. Together with the prescribed place of refuge for the one who kills by mistake is found the stern provision that a real murderer, who has committed his murder with criminal and guileful intent, cannot be protected even by fleeing to the altar of the sanctuary, as it was customary in ancient times for those to do whom vengeance rightly or wrongly pursued, because, as some would say, the altar was a place of expiation. Even from the altar of God he is to be torn away. The expression יָזִד is not adequately represented by “behave viciously, or arrogantly.” It denotes the act of breaking through, in ebullient rage, the sacred restraints which protect one’s neighbor as God’s image. Particular cases, Num_35:16, Deu_19:11. Murder could be expiated only with death, Num_35:31. Examples of fleeing to the altar, 1Ki_1:50; 1Ki_2:28. This was also customary among the Greeks.
Exo_21:15. Smiteth his father.—The simple act of smiting, committed on a father or mother, is made equivalent to man-slaughter committed on one’s neighbor. “Parricide, as not occurring and not conceivable, is not at all mentioned” (Keil). Similar ordinances among the Greeks, Romans, and Egyptians are mentioned by Knobel, p. 217. The two following provisions rest on the same ground. The parents are God’s vicegerents for the children; the neighbor is God’s image; hence a violent abuse of his person is equivalent to murder, vid. Deu_24:7. We explain the insertion of the prohibition of man-stealing between verses 15 and 17 by the fact that in cursing his parents the curser morally destroys himself, vid. Lev_20:9, Deu_27:16. The order is: undutifulness, man-stealing, self-destruction.8 See various views of Exo_21:16 in Keil, p. 133.
Exo_21:18 sq. And when men strive.—The section concerning bodily injuries as such is distiuguished from the section beginning with Exo_21:12 in that there injuries are spoken of which result in death. The injuries here mentioned would accordingly also be punished with death if they resulted in death. This is shown especially by Exo_21:20. Here, then, an injury is contemplated which only confines the injured one to his bed. The penalty is twofold: First, the offender must make good his sitting still, i.e. what he might have earned during this time; secondly, he must pay the expenses of his cure, Exo_21:19. In the case of a man-servant or maidservant a different custom prevailed. If manslaughter took place, the manhood of the slain one is fully recognized, i.e. the penal retribution takes place. Probably sentence was to be rendered by the court, which was to decide according to the circumstances. According to Jewish interpretations capital punishment was to be inflicted with the sword; but vid. Knobel for a different view.9 On the one hand, the danger of a fatal blow was greater than in other relations, for it was lawful for a master to smite his slave (vid. Pro_10:13; the rod was also used on children); but on the other hand an intention to kill could not easily be assumed, because the slave had a pecuniary value. Furthermore, the owner is exempted from punishment, if the beaten one survives a day or two; and the punishment then consists in the fact that the slave was his money, i.e. that in injuring the slave he has lost his own money. The Rabbins hold that this applied only to slaves of a foreign race, according to Lev_25:44. This is not likely, if at the same time, in case of death, execution by the sword was to be prescribed; also according to this view there would have been a great gap in the law as regards Hebrew slaves. It is true, reference is here had only to injuries inflicted by the rod. When one was killed with an iron instrument, an intention to kill was assumed, and then capital punishment was inflicted unconditionally, Num_35:16, Lev_24:17; Lev_24:21, Deu_19:11 sqq. On the Egyptian, Greek, and Roman legislation, see Knobel, p. 219.10
Exo_21:22-25. Special legal protection of pregnant women. It might often happen that in quarrelling men would injure a pregnant woman, since wives on such occasions instinctively interpose, Deu_25:11. In the latter passage the rudenesses which the woman, protected by law, might indulge in are guarded against.—So that her fruit depart. Literally: so that her children come out; i.e., so that abortion takes place. According to Keil, the expression designates only the case of her bearing real children, not a fetus imperfectly developed; i.e., a premature birth, not an abortion, is meant. “The expression יְלָדֶיהָ is used for the sake of indefiniteness, since possibly there might be more than one child in her body.” Strange interpretation of the precept, according to which the plural in individual cases denotes indefiniteness! According to this view, the most, and perhaps the worst cases, would not be provided for, since women far advanced in pregnancy are most apt to guard against the danger of such injuries. The plural may also indicate that the capacity for bearing was injured. “If no other injury results from the quarrel, reparation is to be made, according as the husband of the woman imposes it on the perpetrator, and the latter is to give it ‘with judges,’ i.e., in company with, on application to them, in order that excessive demands may be suitably reduced. The amount of indemnity demanded doubtless was determined by the consideration, whether the injured man had many or few children, was poor or rich, etc. The law stands appropriately at the end of the cases which relate to life and the inviolability of the person. The unborn child is reckoned as belonging to, and, as it were, a part of, the mother” (Knobel).
Exo_21:23. And if any mischief follow. It is to the credit of the legislation that the law of retaliation (vid. Lev_24:19, Deu_19:21) is here so particularly laid down. In its connection it reads: The injury of such a woman must be most sternly expiated according to the degree of it. But even this explication of the law of retaliation must be guarded from a lifeless literalism, as is shown by the provisions in Exo_21:26-27. It would surely have been contrary to nature to put out the eye of a master who had put out his servant’s eye, or to make him lose tooth for tooth. Keil says, “ The principle of retaliation, however, is good only for the free Israelite, not for the slave.” In the latter case, he adds, emancipation takes place. Emancipation, even on account of a tooth knocked out, has nevertheless the force of retaliation, which, even in the relations of free Israelites, could not have been everywhere literally applied, e.g., in the case of burns. On the jus talionis in the ancient heathen world, and generally in the Orient, vid. Knobel, p. 220.
c. Injuries resulting from Property relations. Specially from acts of Carelessness. Chs. Exo_21:28 to Exo_22:6.
We follow in general Bertheau’s classification, which makes property the determining thought. Keil and Knobel divide otherwise. Keil with the words, “Also against danger from cattle is man’s life secured.” The conflict between life and property, and the subordination of property is here certainly everywhere observed. In a critical respect it may not be without significance that there is here no trace of horses; also the dog is not mentioned. At the time of Solomon and Ahab the case was quite different. First are to be considered the accidents occasioned by oxen that hook, Exo_21:28-32. But this list is connected with the following one, which treats of the misfortunes which men may suffer in respect to their oxen or asses through the fault of neighbors, in which case a distinction is made between the injuries resulting from carelessness and those resulting from theft, Exo_21:33 to Exo_22:4. Then follow injuries done to fields or estates through carelessness in the use of cattle or of fire, Exo_21:5-6. Then the criminal misuse of goods held in trust constitute a separate section, Exo_21:7-17, which we do not, like Bertheau, make a subdivision of the division (c), but must distinguish from it.
Exo_21:28. First case. And if an ox.—The instinct of oxen to hook is so general that every accident of this sort could not be foreseen and prevented. Therefore when an ox has not been described to the owner as properly a goring ox, the owner is essentially innocent. Yet for a possible want of carefulness he is punished by the loss of his animal. But the ox is stoned to death. Legally it would involve physical un-cleanness to eat of the flesh. But the stoning of the ox does not mean that the ox is “tainted with capital crime” (Keil), but that he has become the symbol of a homicide, and so the victim of a curse (חֶרֶם). It is therefore an application of Gen_9:6 in a symbolical sense, on account of the connection of cattle with men. Comp. also Lev_20:15. Similar provisions among the Persians and Greeks vid. in Knobel, p. 220.
Exo_21:29. Second case. The owner has been cautioned that his ox is given to hooking. In this case he himself is put to death as well as his ox. This is the rule. But as there may be mitigating considerations, especially in the case of the injured family; as in general the guilt was only that of carelessness, not of evil intention, the owner might save his life by means of a ransom imposed on him by the relatives of the man that had been killed. Probably with the mediation of the judges, as in Exo_21:22. Reference to the Salic law made by Knobel. Ransom.—כֹּפֶר, covering, expiation.
Exo_21:31. Third case. The son or the daughter of a freeman are treated in the same manner as, according to the foregoing, he himself is treated.
Exo_21:32. Fourth case. The ox gores a manservant or a maid-servant to death. The stoning of the ox is still enjoined, but the owner in this case is not doomed to death. He must pay the master of the slave 30 shekels of silver. “Probably the usual market price of a slave, since the ransom money of a free Israelite amounted to 50 shekels, Lev_27:3.” (Keil). On the value of the shekel (שֶּׁקֶל σίκλος) vid. Winer, Realwörterbuch, p. 433 sqq.11 The result of the perplexing investigation is that its value Isaiah 25 or 26 silver groschen.12 The shekel afterwards used for the revenue of the temple and of the king was different from that used in common life. This legal inequality [between the slave and the freeman] is to be explained by the consideration that the capital punishment inflicted on the owner formed an offset, to the revenge to which otherwise the relatives of the murdered man might resort. But this revenge for bloodshed was in no danger of being exercised in the case of a murdered slave, since he was removed from the circle of his relations. The seemingly great difference in the penalty amounts finally to this, that the ransom money for a free man was 50 shekels, and that for a slave 30 shekels. On the estimate of the Attic slave, vid. Knobel; but the great difference in the period of time must be taken into account. “In the legal codes of other ancient nations also are found laws concerning the punishment of beasts that have killed or injured a man. Coop. Clericus and Knobel on this passage. But no nation had a law which made the owner of such a beast responsible, because none of them had recognized the divine image in human life” (Keil). The responsibility of the owner could certainly be grounded only on the mysterious solidarity of the Hebrew household (“thy man-servant, nor thy maid-servant, nor thy cattle”), a unity which was not taken into account where a more atomistic view of liberty prevailed.
Exo_21:33-34. Fifth case. And when a man shall open a pit (cistern). This is connected with the foregoing cases as coming under the head of punishable carelessness. The ox or ass are named as examples of domestic animals in general. In this case only property is destroyed; and the careless man has to pay for it, but receives the dead beast, of which he could only use the skin and other such parts, since the flesh was unclean.
Exo_21:35. Sixth case. A specially fine provision. In the ox that has killed another ox there is nothing abominable, but yet a stain; the sight of him is obnoxious. He is therefore sold and comes into another place where his fault is not known. But the two owners share the price of sale and the dead animal. This is an alleviation of a misfortune that is common to both parties. Without doubt the dead ox also must have hooked.
Exo_21:36. Seventh case. But here too is to be considered the special circumstance that the ox may have been a notorious hooker. In this case the owner must make full compensation for the loss with a live ox, in return for which he receives the dead beast.
Exo_22:1-4. Eighth case. The cattle-thief. Five-fold indemnity for the stolen ox; four-fold for the stolen sheep or goat. In the case of the five-fold indemnity any kind of large animal may be delivered over. The difference of five-fold and four-fold points to the greater guilt of the greater theft. “The four-fold restitution is also mentioned in 2Sa_12:6 : the seven-fold, Pro_6:31, is not to be understood literally, but only in a general way as manifold” (Knobel). From the five-fold and four-fold restitution is distinguished the two-fold, which is prescribed in case the thief has not yet slaughtered or sold the animal, but is able to return it alive. The reasons for this distinction are differently given; vid. Keil; also his note, II. p. 137.13 In the latter case the thief had not carried out his purpose to the full extent, especially as he has not put the object of his theft out of the way. The case differed therefore materially from the other. Vid. Knobel on the Roman laws. Others indicating the value set on ploughing oxen, Knobel. p. 222.
Exo_22:2-3. If the thief be found breaking in.—This is obviously an incidental interpolation, which properly belongs to the class (b). There shall be no blood to him; i.e. no blood-guiltiness is incurred by the homicide; vid. Num_35:27; Deu_19:10; Job_24:16. One might understand this chiefly of an attack on the fold, since the topic is the stealing of cattle; at all events a nocturnal irruption is meant, vid. Exo_22:3. Accordingly the watchman, or the one who is awaked, is in a condition of defense. He must protect his property, and therefore fight; and the thief is liable to become a robber and murderer. If the sun be risen upon him.—It might be thought that this refers to the early dawn or early day, when he might recognize the thief, or frighten him away unrecognized, or with the help of others capture him. But inasmuch as further on it is assumed that the thief has really accomplished his theft, the expression probably means: If some time has elapsed. If in this case the owner kills the thief, he incurs blood-guiltiness; but on account of the great variety in the cases the sentence of death is not here immediately pronounced upon him. Since the life of the thief is under the protection of the law, the case comes before the criminal court, vid. Exo_21:20. For Calvin on the “ratio disparitatis inter furem nocturnum et diurnum,” vid. Keil, p. 137. The real punishment for the thief is determined by the law concerning restitution, Exo_22:1; Exo_22:3. But in case the thief can restore nothing, he is sold for the theft, for that which is stolen, i.e. for the value of it. “This can mean only a sale for a period of time. The buyer reckoned the restitution which the thief was to render, and used the thief as a slave until the whole loss was made good” (Knobel). Similar arrangements among the Romans vid. in Knobel, p. 223. Likewise laws concerning theft, p. 224. The thief could not be sold to a foreigner, according to Josephus, Ant. XVI. 1, 1.
Exo_22:5. Ninth case. A field or a vineyard to be fed upon.—There are various views of this. (1) Si læserit quispiam agrum vel vineam, etc. (Vulg.). Luther: “When any one injures a field or vineyard, so that he lets his cattle do damage.” (2) Knobel: “When one pastures a field or a vineyard by sending his cattle to it.” (3) Keil: “When any one pastures a field or a vineyard, and lets his cattle loose.” שָׁלַח bears either meaning, to send away, or to let go free; but according to the connection only the latter can be meant here. The sense given to it by the Vulgate might accordingly be accepted: he injures the field or vineyard of his neighbor so that, (in that) etc. But it is more obvious to assume an incidental carelessness to be meant. The beast feeds on his field (perhaps also on the grass between the grape-vines); from this pasture ground he lets him pass over so that he does damage to his neighbor. Knobel even affirms that an intentional damage is meant. And yet only a simple, though ample, indemnity is to be rendered from the best of his field and of his vineyard. Keil rightly contends against Knobel’s theory. Talmudic provisions on this point are found in Saalschütz, Mosaisches Recht, p. 875 sq.
Exo_22:6. Tenth case. This is about, a fire in a field, which might the more readily sweep over into the neighbor’s field, inasmuch as it was likely to be kindled at the edge of the field, in the thorn-hedge. Clearly an act of carelessness is meant; comp. Isa_5:5. He that hath kindled the fire.—The carelessness is imputed to him as a virtual incendiary, because he did not guard the fire.
d. Things entrusted and lost.
Exo_22:7. First case. The money or articles or stuff (on כֵלִים see Deu_22:5) left for safe keeping are stolen from the keeper, but the thief is discovered. The affair is settled by the thief being required to pay back double, vid. Exo_22:4.
Exo_22:8. Second case. The thief is not discovered. In this case suspicion falls on the keeper; he may have embezzled the property entrusted to him. Therefore such a case must come before the court, which was esteemed a divine court, hence the expression, אֶל־הָאֱלהִים. The penalty is paid according to the decision of the case. The man under suspicion must approach unto God. Such an approach produced an excitement of conscience. The true high-priest is the one who may approach unto God. In case the keeper is adjudged guilty, he has to pay double.
Exo_22:9. The foregoing provision is designated as an example for a general rule. The cleansing of the suspected man was probably often effected by an oath of purification. The LXX. and Vulgate interpolate καὶ ὸμεῖται, et jurabit. In all cases in which the concealer made a confession, an oath was unnecessary. Also dishonesty respecting objects found is placed under this rule. On the oath among the Arabs and Egyptians, see Knobel, p. 225. Knobel seems to assume without reason that the plaintiff also is meant in the words, “whom God shall condemn,” etc.14
Exo_22:10-11. Third case. This is about beasts put in others’ care, which die in their possession, or are mutilated in the pasture, or injure themselves, or are driven away by robbers. Here the oath is positively required, in case the guardian alone has seen the thing; but it is also decisive. On a similar Indian law vid. Knobel.
Exo_22:12. Fourth case. Stolen from him.—It is assumed that the thief is not found. “Here,” says Knobel, “restitution is prescribed, but not in Exo_22:8, because he who has an animal in charge is the guardian of it, whereas he who has things in charge cannot be regarded as exactly a watchman.” But according to Exo_22:9 the judges could even adjudge a double restitution, while here only simple restitution is spoken of. There a complication was referred to, in which the approach of the master of the household to God and the attitude of his conscience formed the main ground for the judicial sentence. In the case described in Exo_22:10-11 the oath determines the main decision; in the present case the simple restitution is prescribed upon the simple declaration: “stolen.”
Exo_22:13. Fifth case. The production of the animal torn by a beast of prey (not, “or a part of it,” as Keil says) proved not only the fact itself, but also that the guardian had watched, and had driven off the beast of prey by a violent exertion. From this we see the severity of Laban who, according to Gen_31:39, required his son-in-law in such cases to make the loss good. Comp. 1Sa_17:34, Amo_3:12. On the Indian law, vid. Knobel, p. 227.
Exo_22:14. Sixth case. A hired beast is injured, or dies, when the owner is not present. The sentence requires restitution, because neglect may be presumed.
Exo_22:15. Seventh case. The owner is present when the accident occurs. In that case it belonged especially to himself to prevent the accident, if prevention was possible.
Eighth case. The borrower is in the hired service of the owner of the beast. In this case he gets the dead beast instead of his pay; it is subtracted from his pay. For the owner as a hired laborer would have had to do only with himself; and a hired servant with a hired beast cannot be meant. It is therefore a day-laborer to whom the animal of the owner has been entrusted. שָׂכִיר can hardly (with Stier and Keil) be referred to the hired beast. Knobel has a forced explanation, in which the hired servant becomes the one who lets the beast.15
Exo_22:16. Ninth case. The seducer of an unbetrothed virgin (the case is different with the seduction of a betrothed one (Deu_22:23), who has entrusted to him the wealth of her virginity, valuable not only in a moral, but in a civil point of view, must make restitution to her by marrying her, and to her father by giving a dowry.
Exo_22:17. Tenth case. The seducer himself cannot refuse the settlement; but the father of the seduced maiden may have reasons for refusing it. In this case the seducer must pay him the dowry (vid. Gen_34:12), with which she is, in a sort, reinstated as a virgin, and as afterwards a legally divorced woman. The case is not differently provided for in Deu_22:28, as Knobel affirms. There only the price of sale is fixed, viz., at 50 shekels; the right of the father to refuse his daughter to the seducer is simply not repeated. The dowry was not properly a price of sale.
“The precepts in Exo_22:18 and onwards,” says Keil, “differ in form and contents from the foregoing laws; in form, by the omission of כִּי [when], with which the foregoing are almost without exception introduced; in substance, by the fact that they impose on the Israelites, on the ground of their election to be the holy people of Jehovah, requirements which transcend the sphere of natural law.” Yet the two divisions are not to be distinguished as natural and supernatural. But Keil has correctly found a new section here, whilst Knobel begins a new section, poorly defined, with Exo_22:16.
e. Unnatural Crimes. Abominations committed against Religion and Humanity.
Exo_22:18. First offence. The sorceress is condemned to death. This term is not to be made synonymous with witch, as Knobel makes it. The mediæval witch may practice, or wish to practice, sorcery; but she may also be a calumniated woman. She gets her name from the popular conception, whereas the sorceress gets her name from the real practice of a lying, dark art. She operates on the assumption that demoniacal powers co-operate with her, and so she promotes radical irreligion. She injures her neighbor in body and life, as being the instrument of hostile passions, which she nourishes; or, when she enters into the mood of the questioner, she nourishes ruinous hopes (Macbeth) or despair (the soothsayer of Endor), and often from being a mixer of herbs becomes a mixer of poisons (Gesina). “The sorceress is named instead of the sorcerer, as Calovius says, not because the same thing is not punishable in men, but because the female sex is more addicted to this crime” (Keil). According to Knobel the expression, “not suffer to live,” intimates that perhaps a foreign sorceress might be punished with banishment; but Keil supposes that she may have been allowed to live, if she gave up her occupation. Sorcery was connected not only with simple idolatry, but in many ways with the worship of demons, and the sorceress was regarded as seducing to such things.
Exo_22:19. Second offence. Sexual intercourse with a beast. Comp. Lev_18:23; Lev_20:15; Deu_27:21. This unnatural thing also was punished with death, like the kindred one of sodomy, a prominent vice of the Canaanites, Lev_20:13.
Exo_22:20. Third offence. Idolatry. Keil’s explanation, “Israel must not sacrifice to foreign gods, but must not only tolerate foreigners in the midst of them,” etc., almost seems intended to intimate that the heathen in Israel had an edict of tolerance for their offerings. Opposed to this conception is the Sabbath law, and the ordinance in Exo_23:24. In both cases, however, the explanation is that a public worship of strange gods was not tolerated in Israel; but an inquisition to ferret out such worship secretly carried on is not countenanced by the Mosaic law. The words are: “whosoever sacrificeth unto any god.” The addition, “save unto Jehovah only” (as likewise Exo_20:24), is a mild expression also as regards the theocratic offerings, and also secures a right understanding of the word “Elohim.”—He is to be devoted, i.e., to the judgment of Jehovah sentencing him to death. Here the notion of חֶרֶם (hherem, ban) comes out distinctly. Every capital punishment was essentially a hherem; but here is found the root of the notion: an idolater by his offering has withdrawn from Jehovah the offering due to Him alone; he has, so to speak, removed the offering away from the true divine idea, and perverted it into its opposite. “He is to be devoted by death to the Lord, to whom in life he would not devote himself” (Keil). It may be that a sort of irony lies in the notion of the hherem; as being consecration reversed, it secures to God the glory belonging to Him alone; but it does this also as being consecration to the judging God in His judgment. “No living thing,” says Knobel, “devoted to Jehovah could be redeemed, but had to be destroyed. Lev_27:28 sq.; 1Sa_15:3.” But only when it was a case of hherem, vid. Deu_13:12 sqq.
Exo_22:21. Fourth offence. A beautiful contrast to the foregoing is formed by the statement, of offences against humanity. Maltreatment of the foreigner is put first of all. He must not be wronged, “for ye were strangers,” etc. A moral principle which re-appears in the N. T. (Mat_7:12). as also in Kant. The particular rules concerning the treatment of aliens are given by Knobel. p. 228, who also gives the appropriate references to Michaelis and Saalschütz. Vid. Exo_3:9, Deu_26:7. Knobel says, “The persons meant are the Canaanitish and non-Canaanitish strangers who staid as individuals among the Israelites; the Canaanites as a whole are, according to this lawgiver also, to be extirpated (vid. Exo_23:33).” It belongs to the definition of the “stranger,” that he is dissociated from his own nationality, and has become subject to another, i.e. here, to the national laws of the Israelites. The failure to affix a penalty to this law implies that the noble emotion of gratitude was probably depended on to secure its fulfilment.
Exo_22:22-24. Fifth offence. Against widows and orphans. On this point see Knobel’s collection of the various passages, p. 229. God takes the place of the deceased fathers and husbands by His special protection; whence follows that they on their part when living are to exercise a divine protection in the house over wife and children. And because, through the selfishness of the strong, widows and orphans were so liable to be oppressed, being easily despoiled on account of their impotence, chief prominence is given to the significance of their crying. This need not always be a conscious prayer uttered in one’s extremity, for crying, on the part of living things and before God, has a special meaning, even down to the crying of the young ravens. The threatened punishment, in the first place, is connected with the guilt, and in the second place corresponds with it. Despotism begins with the oppression of the weak (widows and orphans), and reaches its consummation in unrighteous wars and military catastrophes, out of which again widows and orphans are made. Vid. Isa_9:17.
Exo_22:25. Sixth offence. Prohibition of usury, by which the exigency of the poor is abused, Lev_25:36. Two grounds: the poor man belongs to the people of God as a free man, and has lost his freedom through his troubles. By usury he is burdened.
Exo_22:26-27. Seventh offence. Excessive taking of pawn. The lender may require a pledge of the creditor, but his covering (outer garment) he must return to him before sunset, lest he suffer from the nocturnal cold. The mantle marks the extreme of poverty in general, vid. Deu_24:6 sqq. The compassion which Jehovah here promises to the helpless ones that cry has an obverse side for the pitiless. The expression in Exo_22:27 becomes even a rhetorical plea for the poor. Mat_5:7, Jam_2:13. “The indigent Oriental covers himself at night in his outer garment. Shaw, Travels, p. 224, Niebuhr, Arabien, p. 64” (Knobel). On the pawning of clothes, see Amo_2:8, Job_22:6, Pro_20:16; Pro_27:13.
Exo_22:28. Eighth offence. Contempt, of the Deity and of princely magistrates. Keil says, “Elohim means neither the gods of the other nations, as Josephus (Ant. IV. 8, 10, contra Apionem II. 33), Philo (vita Mos. III. 864) and others explain the word in their dead and Pharisaic monotheism; nor the magistrates, as Onkelos, Jonathan, Aben Ezra and others think; but God, the Deity in general, whose majesty is despised in every transgression of Jehovah’s commands, and should be honored in the person of the prince. Comp. Pro_24:21; 1Pe_2:17,” etc. So Knobel. This explanation is certainly favored by the context, particularly the following; especially also by the fact that the prince (the exalted, the high one) is mentioned next to God. Yet this is to be observed in the line of Josephus and Philo’s opinion, that the theocracy does not reject the divine element in the religions themselves, but the false ideal images of the gods (Elilim), and the actual idols, and that even in this sphere there are reservations in reference to Satan (Epistle of Jude). There are two reasons for it: first, the element of truth which underlies the errors; secondly, the moral injury of the religious feelings of the neighbor who is in error. We prefer to render, “the Deity;” at all events the reviling of the Deity, which may have many degrees, is sharply distinguished from the positive reviling of Jehovah (Lev_24:15-16). The world of to-day would perhaps invert the order of guilt in this relation. Luther’s translation transposes the meanings of the verbs [“Den Göttern. … nicht fluchen, und den Obersten … nicht lästern,” “not curse the gods, and not revile the magistrates”]. The princes are under God as His vicegerents. Passages relative to the defamation of princes are given by Knobel. The word קִלֵּל comprehends all forms of evil-speaking of God.
Exo_22:29-30. Ninth offence. Holding back of the natural products due to the sanctuary. “מְלֵאָה means the produce of grain (Deu_22:9), and the word דֶּמַע, which occurs only here, properly ‘tear,’ something flowing, liquor stillans, is a poetic designation of the produce of the wine-vat, the wine and the oil, comp. δάκρυον τῶν δένδρων. Theoph.: arborum lacrymæ; Pliny XI. 6.” (Keil.) Vid. Exo_23:19; Deu_26:2-11; Num_18:12. These gifts to the temple retained their festal character and their value only as they were freely and joyfully presented. The first-born of thy sons.—Repetition of the precept to sanctify the first-born to Jehovah, Exo_13:2; Exo_13:12. In the passage before us, however, the precept is put under the point of view of the civil commonwealth. This needs religious institutions in order to its perpetuity. Knobel attempts in vain to make out a difference between this passage and others which prescribe the redemption of the first-born. A week of existence with the dam must also be secured to the sacrificial victims taken from the cattle and from the sheep or goats.
Exo_22:31. Tenth offence. Use of unclean meat. As men of holiness consecrated to the sanctuary, they must refrain from the use of unclean meat, especially of that which is torn of beasts. The carcass is to be given to the dogs, whose characteristic here appears. Comp. Exo_19:6; Lev_17:15.
f. Legal Proceedings
Exo_23:1. First precept. Against rashness in cherishing and uttering suspicions. Comp. Lev_19:16; Deu_22:13 sqq. Vid. the references to Michaelis and Saalschütz in Knobel.
Second precept. No one shall allow himself to be misled by wicked men into the utterance of false witness.
Exo_23:2. Third precept. Base compliance with the judgment of the multitude.
Exo_23:3. Fourth precept. Not to favor the poor man in his suit. Affectation in sympathy with the lowly. The error of many modern minds. Against Knobel’s conjecture, vid. Keil.16
Exo_23:4. Fifth precept. To keep even an enemy from suffering loss. One’s enemy is in this case a brother, according to Deu_22:1. Neglect of this duty is positive and culpable violation of law.
Exo_23:5. Sixth precept. It is still harder to labor in company with the enemy (the hater), in order to help him in his extremity. In this case the inclination to avoid the enemy must be overcome. On the pun see Gesenius under עָזַב. Comp. Bertheau, p. 41. The neglect of this difficult self-denial also comes into the category of violation of law.
Exo_23:6. Seventh precept. Of thy poor.—The poor must be the protegé of the rich. But the temptations to violate his rights, to pervert it this way and that, is strong, since he is defenceless. Hence Moses puts him specially under the protection of the law. Comp. Deu_27:19; 1Sa_8:3; Lam_3:35.
Exo_23:7. Eighth precept. This looks like the first. But there the subject is false testimony—here, the false judge; because his conduct may possibly bring death to the innocent man. Here, therefore, judicial murder is specifically treated of, with the declaration that God will not acquit the wicked one, i.e., will judge him; and the wicked judge is probably meant. Bertheau, dividing this one precept into two, fails to make out the tenth—wherefore Keil is led to pronounce his hypothesis of decades to be arbitrary throughout.
Exo_23:8. Ninth precept. Prohibition of the taking of presents in law-suits. Out of such presents corruption grows. They pervert the cause of the righteous—make right wrong.
Exo_23:9. Tenth precept. This is not identical with the general precept in Exo_22:21, since here the question is about law-suits. It should be considered especially in courts of law how a stranger feels. He is timid, faint-hearted, and readily surrenders a part or the whole of his just claim before the mighty judge. Israel is to learn this from his experience in Egypt. Vid. Deu_24:17; Deu_27:19.
g. Ordinances concerning Feast-days and Days of Rest
Exo_23:10-11. First ordinance. The land must rest the seventh year. It is the Sabbath of the years, the continuation of the Sabbath of the months, as of the Sabbath of the days, while they all look back to the Sabbath of God’s creation, and look forward to the Sabbath of the generation, the great year of jubilee, the type of the future foundation and completion of the Sabbath by Christ. The civil side of the religious ordinances here made should not be overlooked, as is done by Keil and Knobel. In Leviticus 25 the ordinance bears a predominantly religious aspect. What the land produces of itself, without culture, belongs to all as a common possession to be freely enjoyed; likewise to the stranger and to the cattle, and even to the wild beasts. Thus this festal year forms a reflex of Paradise. And if this festal year in point of fact, was poorly observed in Israel, critics may well infer that this law was written long before the time of the later national life of the Israelites. In its ideal significance, however, it belongs to all times: not only the field, but also the forest, the river, and the mine, may be spoiled by unintermittent labor.
Exo_23:12-13. Second ordinance. Man and beast must rest on the seventh day. The humane object of the Sabbath in its civil aspect comes out prominently in the text. Mention is first made even of the rest needed by the ox and the ass, then of the hand-maid’s son, i.e., the one born a slave, and the stranger; they must on the Sabbath have a breathing-spell, as the verb properly means. Exo_23:13 enjoins the proper celebration for this sacred list of feast-days, strictly excluding the names of all heathen deities, and containing a suggestion for the revision of the Christian calendar in view of the medieval deifications. Says Knobel: “The most important point is the exclusive adoration of Jehovah. The Hebrew is not even to mention—i.e., utter—the name of another god; not to take it into his mouth, still less recognize or reverence such a god. So, too, the strict worshippers of Jehovah did (Psa_16:4; Hos_2:17; Zec_13:2). Accordingly the Hebrew was to swear only by Jehovah (Deu_6:13; Deu_10:20; Jer_12:16). So the Phenician could not swear ὅρκους ξενικούς (Josephus c. Apionem I. 22).” But we must distinguish between the proper meaning of this command and the superstitious Jewish interpretation of it, which has even imposed a penalty on the utterance of the name of Jehovah. The so-called “killing by silence” [Todtschweigen], generally a sin, has therefore here, too, its moral side.
Exo_23:14. Third ordinance. Three annual festivals are to be celebrated in accordance with the wants of God’s people in their civil capacity. At the head stands the feast of unleavened bread, as the festival of freedom; then follow the two principal harvest festivals, of which the second at the same time marks the close of the year with reference to the notion of the civil year. Vid. Exo_34:23; Deu_16:16; 2Ch_8:13. “Otherwise,” says Knobel, “the Elohist, on which point see Leviticus 23.” But it must be observed that there the festivals are spoken of in their relation to religion and religious rites. Therefore, at that place special prominence is given to the Passover and the day of atonement. The arrangement of the three festivals, however, was, for the most part, prophetic, since in the wilderness there could be no harvesting, nor even sacrifices, vid. Lev_23:10.
Exo_23:15. Fourth ordinance. The feast of unleavened bread as the birth-day festival of the people and of their freedom; whereas the Passover stands at the head of their religious offerings, vid. Exo_12:40 sqq. On Hitzig’s view in his “Ostern und Pfingsten,” vid. Knobel,17 p. 233; Bertheau, p. 57.—“Not empty,” i.e., not with empty hands, but with sacrificial gifts. Even the general festival offerings had to come from the sacrificial gifts of the people—a fact which Knobel seems to overlook; to these were added the peace-offerings made by individuals. So the Oriental never came before his king without presents; vid. the citations from Ælian and Paulsen in Keil. The offering is the surplus of the gain which God has blessed, and by the effort to secure this surplus a barrier is built against want in civil life. While the offerings serve to maintain the religious rites, they also serve indirectly to maintain the common weal. The same holds of the true church and of its wants.
Exo_23:16. Fifth ordinance. The feast of harvest.—Here named for the first time, as also the third feast, vid. Lev_23:15 : Num_28:26. Also called the feast of weeks, because it was celebrated seven weeks after the feast of unleavened bread; or the feast of the first fruits of the wheat-harvest, because the loaves offered as first-fruits at that time were to be made of wheat flour, Exo_34:22. On the Pentecost, see the lexicons.
Sixth ordinance.—The feast of ingathering.—Gathering or plucking characterizes this harvest: the fruit-harvest and vintage. Further particulars, as that it is to be held on the 15th day of the 7th month, seven days like that of unleavened bread, a feast of rich abundance in contrast with that of great privation, see in Lev_23:34, Num_29:12, Winer, Realwörterbuch, Art. Laubhüttenfest, [Smith’s Bible Dictionary, Art. Tabernacles, Feast of]. In the end of the year.—Knobel, on account of this passage, assumes that the Hebrews had two new-years, the one in autumn, when the agricultural season of the year ended with the harvesting of the fruits, and the following one, beginning with the ploughing and sowing of the fields. The former, he says, seems to have been the usual mode of reckoning in the East; and he cites many proofs, p. 235. His view that this is a contradiction of the Elohist, who puts the beginning of the year in the spring (Exo_12:2), is not perspicuous; neither, on the other hand, is Keil’s—that reference is here made only to the agricultural year, by which he must mean the natural seasons, II. p. 148. We find here a new proof that the Mosaic law distinguishes the civil from the religious ordinances. But because the civil is subordinate to the religious, the determinative regulation proceeds from the feast of Passover, as is seen especially from Num_29:12. That in Lev_23:34 the date is religious, is self-evident.
Exo_23:17. Seventh ordinance. Three times in the year;i.e. of course at the three above mentioned feasts. The place where the Israelites are to appear before Jehovah, i.e. in the place where He reveals Himself, is not yet fixed, an omission explained by the fact that they were still wandering. That only the males are held obliged to do this, shows the civil side of this legislation. זָכוּר for זָכָר, thy males. “Probably,” says Keil, “from the twentieth year and upwards, those who were included in the census. Num_1:3. But this does not prohibit the admission of the women (comp. 1Sa_1:3 sqq.) and boys (Luk_2:41 sqq.).” More exactly: by the side of the civil ordinance the religious custom was developed in a natural way. Knobel thinks he finds here another discrepancy, p. 235.
Exo_23:18. Eighth ordinance. Not offer with leavened bread.—The duty of keeping sacred things pure is enjoined especially by references to the feast of the Passover. The connection of the feast of unleavened bread with the Passover is here assumed. Backwards and forwards the paschal feast is to be kept pure in view of the fact that the blood of the offering (i.e. of the offering emphatically so called, the Passover offering) belongs to Jehovah, that therefore the surrender must be unmixed. In reference to the past, therefore, everything leavened must be removed (Exo_12:15; Exo_12:20). In reference to the future, the fatty parts of the paschal offering, which also belong to Jehovah, must not remain over night, and so serve for ordinary food. They must therefore be burned in the night. That cannot mean, as Knobel understands it, that the fatty pieces are to be at the outset separated from the paschal lamb, as was done with other offerings, since the lamb was to remain whole; but it was natural that the fatty parts would be for the most part left over; and then they were to be burned with the other things left over. Thus these fatty remains, which, however, were not burnt on the altar, became a type of the fatty pieces which were from the first designed for the altar. So then this regulation is made to refer to the more detailed laws of the festivals as found in Lev_2:11, etc. As the Passover was to be contrasted with the ordinary mode of life, so also with the feast of unleavened bread. The three stages are: (1) the old life (leaven); (2) the offering of life (Passover); (3) the beginning of the new life (unleavened bread).
Exo_23:19. Ninth ordinance. Precept in reference chiefly to the feast of weeks, or the first feast of harvest, but with a more general significance. “The pentecostal loaves (Lev_23:17) are meant,” says Knobel. Keil with reason understands the precept of a bringing of firstlings in general, vid. Num_18:12, Deu_26:2 sqq. “The sheaf of barley which was to be offered on the second day of the feast of unleavened bread (Lev_23:10) belongs to the same” [Keil]. It may be asked how the expression רֵאשִׁית־בִּכּוּרֵי is to be understood; whether, according to the LXX., followed by Keil, as the first of the first fruits, the first gathering of the first fruits; or, according to Aben Ezra and others, including Knobel (p. 236), as the best, the choicest, of the first fruits. Inasmuch as not the very first that came to hand was also the best, the latter explanation is to be taken as a more precise statement of the other: the first, provided it was the best, or the first-fruits, properly so called (for not even every first-born beast was a true firstling). The chronological element in the term “first,” however, takes precedence, and forbids every delay and sequestration, according to Exo_22:29. The meaning of these offerings is seen from the liturgical forms prescribed for them in Deu_26:3 sqq., 13 sqq. Everything is a gift from Jehovah; therefore the first fruits are brought back to Him, and their acceptance is effected by the priest, who, however, represents also the Levites, the widows and orphans, and the stranger. As in the N. T. Christ pictures Himself to His church as poor, in the person of the poor and the little ones, so Jehovah in the O. T. symbolically pictures Himself as in a human state of want, in the priests under whose protection all, especially all needy ones stand. So then the church ought continually to care for the poor, as a religious duty.
Exo_23:19. Tenth ordinance. Not boil a kid.—This precept seems strange, probably for the reason that it may be in a high degree symbolical. First, we must pronounce incorrect Luther’s translation: “Not boil the kid while it is at its mother’s milk” (vid. 1Sa_7:9). Other incorrect interpretations see in Knobel: (1) not to cook and eat meat and milk together; (2) injunction not to use butter instead of the oil of trees; (3) prohibition of an odious barbarity and cruelty. According to Knobel there is a reference to a custom of heathen religions which is to be kept away from the worship of Jehovah. Vid. his commentary, p. 237, where are accounts of Jewish opinions and Arabian usages. “Aben Ezra and Abarbanel,” he says, “mention, the boiling of the kid in milk by the Arabs of their time: and they are right. Up to the present day the Arabs generally boil the flesh of lambs in sour milk, thus giving to it a peculiar relish (Berggren, Reisen, etc.).” Further on Knobel, following Spencer, professes to give proofs that a peculiar superstition underlay the custom. But the heathen element, if there was one in the practice, might have been excluded without prohibiting the practice itself. If we assume that the precept in Exo_23:18 referred to the first feast, and was designed to prevent the profanation of the offering, and that the one in Exo_23:19 referred to the second one, and was designed to prevent the neglect of the peace-offering and the priesthood with its family of Levites and of the poor, it is natural, with Abarbanel and others, to refer this precept especially to the third feast; and because this was in the highest degree the joyous feast of the Israelites, it is furthermore probable that this prohibition was designed to prevent a luxury which was inconsistent with simple comfort, and which moreover was hideous in a symbolical point of view, the kid here being, as it were, tortured even in death by the milk of the dam. The same precept condemns all the heathen refinements of festive gormandizing, such as are still practiced (e.g. roasting live animals). This epicurism might also pitch upon the eating of unclean animals or other haut goût; vid. Deu_14:21, where the same prohibition is connected with the one before us. Keil’s explanation, that the practice marked a reversal of the divine order of things in regard to the relation between old and young, is less intelligible than that the kids were a very favorite article of food, according to Gen_27:9; Gen_27:14; Jdg_6:19; Jdg_13:15; 1Sa_16:20. To be sure, the usage considered in its symbolical aspect was a sort of unnature such as the keen sense of natural fitness which characterized the Mosaic laws rejected in every form, so that it even denounced the production of hybrid animals and grains, the mixing of different materials in cloth, as well as human misalliances, Lev_19:19-20.
h. The Promises. Exo_23:20-33
That this last division also of the religio-civil legislation relates to the political commonwealth, is seen from the whole contents of it, especially from Exo_23:22; Exo_23:24 sqq., 27, 33. Knobel calls them “Some more promises;” Keil, “The conduct of Jehovah towards Israel.” The promises here given are not some, but a whole; not, however, the whole of Jehovah’s promises, but the sum of the civil and political blessings conditioned on good behavior. (1) Protection of angelic guidance, of the religion of revelation; and invincibility founded on religious obedience. (2) Victory over the Canaanites. Possession of the holy land on condition of their purifying the land from idolatry. (3) Abundance of food. (4) Blessing of health. (5) Fertility of man and beast, (6) Long life. (7) The respect and fear of all neighboring peoples. (8) Mysterious control of natural forces in favor of Israel, ver 28. (9) The subjected Canaanites themselves made to serve for the protection of the growth of Israel. (10) Wide extent of territory and sure possession of it on condition of not mingling with the Canaanites and their idolatry.
Exo_23:20-22. First promise. I send an angel.—That which the people, as the religious congregation of God, afterwards have imposed upon them as a check on account of their misbehavior (chap. 33), is here promised to the civil congregation as a protection. This cannot well be an anticipation, and cannot, with Knobel, be accounted for on the theory of “another narrator” who calls this angel פְּנֵי יְהוֹה. For in Exo_33:2-3 two forms of revelation are clearly distinguished. In Exo_33:18-19 this distinction is between the glory of Jehovah and the goodness of Jehovah. Further on it is said that no one can see the glory in its full display, i.e. Jehovah’s face, but can see its reflected splendor as it passes by in sacred obscurity (Exo_23:23). It is therefore a private relation between Jehovah and Moses, when Jehovah speaks with him face to face (Exo_33:11), and hence in Moses’ consciousness the two degrees of revelation go together. The prophet Moses stands as Abraham’s son higher than Moses the lawgiver. So Paul (in Galatians 3) distinguishes positively between the form of revelation which Abraham received and the form of revelation by which the people of Israel received the law (Exo_23:16; Exo_23:19). This difference in degree is presented antithetically as early as in Jer_31:32-34. It harmonizes entirely with this distinction, when the angel of Jehovah first appears to Hagar, Gen_16:7; also in the circumstance that he directs her to return to the household to which she legitimately belonged. Comp. Gen_21:17. Later also the immediate revelations made by God to Abraham are distinguished from the appearance of the angel of Jehovah in a legal aspect, Gen_22:1; Gen_22:11. The difference resembles that between inspiration and manifestation, as these two through ecstatic vision are made to assume forms different in degree. The angel of Jehovah is therefore the revelation of Jehovah for the people of Israel in a predominantly legal relation; hence also the form of the political theocracy as it is instituted through the mediation of Moses and Aaron, chiefly of Moses. The salvation of the people will depend on their obedience to the theocratic religion, as shaped by the higher form of the ceremonial revelation. This angel prepares the way for the Israelites, and conducts them to their goal. His countenance in the theocratic legal institutions is turned towards Israel; Jehovah’s name, the revelation of His essential being, is within him, under the cover of this angelic form. He requires awe; he can be easily offended; he punishes acts of disloyalty, for he is legal; hence he goes before Israel as the terror of God to intimidate the enemies. Knobel identifies this Angel of the Lord with the pillar of cloud and fire; and in fact this was a sign of the hidden presence of the angel, Exo_33:9.
Exo_23:23-24. Vid. Gen_15:18 sqq. Annihilation of the public heathen worship in Canaan after its conquest by Israel. That the system of worship was connected with the morals, which were horrible and criminal, is even thus early made prominent. Vid. the parallel passages in Knobel, p. 238.
Exo_23:25. The pure service of Jehovah is the condition of well-being and health; vid. Exo_15:26 : comp. Lev_26:16; Lev_26:25; Deu_28:20. Bread and water, the most important articles of nutrition, symbols of all kinds of welfare.
Exo_23:26. Prevention of miscarriages. Only one item in a whole category: diminution of the population through miscarriages, unchastity, conjugal sins against procreation, exposure of children, etc.; comp. Lev_26:9; Deu_28:11; Deu_30:9; vid. Isa_25:8; Isa_65:23. Respecting the blessing of long life, vid. chap, 20; Deuteronomy 5; 1Co_15:51.
Exo_23:27. My fear.—This marks the sphere of intimidating influences exerted by the religious power of Israel on the heathen in general; whereas the hornets (Exo_23:28) represent the terrifying or destructive effects of this power in particular. Vid. Gen_35:5; Exo_15:14; Psa_18:41 (40); Exo_21:13 (12); Jos_7:8; Jos_7:12.
Exo_23:28. Hornets.—Vid. Deu_7:20; Wisdom of Solomon Exo_12:8. Says Knobel: “According to Joshua 24 the kings of the Amorites, Sihon and Og, were driven out not by Israel’s weapons, but by the צִרְעָה. Elsewhere neither the word nor the thing occurs in the O. T.” Different explanations: (1) The promise is literally meant. So Jarchi, Clericus, and others. (2) Plagues in general. So Saadias, Michaelis, and others. (3) The expression is figurative. So most modern interpreters. Yet the text evidently does not mean to identify the hornets with the great general terror of God, as Knobel holds, but distinguishes them from it as small, isolated, but very powerful evils, as Keil, following Augustine, has correctly observed. It is a question even whether the hornets are not meant to represent the same thing as the bees, Deu_1:44; Psa_118:12; Isa_7:18. The bee frightens by the multitude of the irresistible swarm; the hornets by the frightful attack and sting of the individual insect. In the petty religious and moral conflicts between Judaism and heathenism, civilized Christian nations and barbarians, Indians, and other savages, it is just these hornets, these thousand-fold particular sources of terror, moral thorns, and even physical stings, under which the enemies gradually succumb. The three Canaanitish nations which are here named denote the totality; perhaps, however, in the heathen trinity may be found a reference to the spiritual impotence of heathenism.
Exo_23:29. Not in one year.—Comp. Deu_7:22; Lev_26:22; Eze_14:15; Eze_14:21; 2Ki_17:25; Jos_13:1-7. From this it appears that the destruction denounced by Jehovah on the Canaanites was intended primarily for them in their collective and public capacity, not for the individuals. The individuals, in so far as they submit, Jehovah will allow, as individuals, to live; and to live, in so far as they remain heathen and enemies, for the purpose of preventing the wild beasts from getting the upper hand and diminishing the number of the people of Israel, which as yet is far too small to subdue the wild beasts, and the wildness of nature in general. The higher races of mankind are still indebted for this service to the lowest races throughout the five continents. Even savages constitute still a sort of barrier against what is monstrous in nature, which without them would lapse into wildness. These Canaanites serve this purpose only as being incorrigible. In proportion as nature is reclaimed, they sink away. It was therefore not the fact that these individuals continued to live in Israel, but that the Israelites mingled with them, which led to ruinous consequences. Comp. Judges 1, 2.
Exo_23:31. Set thy bounds.—Vid. Gen_15:18. The Red Sea on the south—the sea of the Philistines, or Mediterranean Sea, on the west—the Arabian desert on the east (Deu_11:24), the Euphrates on the north. These ideal boundaries are assured to the Israelites, in so far as they conduct themselves in relation to the heathen according to the ideal standard. Forming alliances with the heathen and recognizing their political existence would not of itself be actual apostasy, but it would be a snare to the Israelites through which they would be drawn into idolatry by way of false consistency in the policy of toleration. The lesson is to be applied even at the present day. The several precepts are given by Knobel, p. 241.
Footnotes:
[1][Exo_21:8. The Hebrew here, according to the K’thibh, is לֹא, and if this were followed, we should have to translate with Geddes, Rosenmüller and others: “so that he hath not betrothed (or will not betroth) her.” The K’ri reads לוֹ, “unto him” or “unto himself.” This yields much the easiest sense, and is especially confirmed by the consideration that יָעַד of itself means, not “betroth,” but “appoint,” “destine.” Followed by the Dative, it may in the connection convey the notion of betrothal; but used absolutely, it cannot convey it.—Tr.]
[2][Exo_21:13. אִנָּה cannot mean “deliver,” and no object is expressed. It is therefore unwarrantable to render, with A. V., “deliver him,” or even with Lange, “let him accidentally fall into his hand.” The object to be supplied is the indefinite one suggested by the preceding sentence, viz. homicide.—Tr.]
[3][Exo_21:17. קִלֵּל, though generally rendered “curse” in A. V., yet differs unmistakably from אָרַר in being used not merely of cursing, but of evil speaking in general, e.g. Jdg_9:27 and 2Sa_16:9. The LXX. render it correctly by κακολογέω. And this word, where the passage is quoted in the New Testament, is rendered by the same Greek word, viz. Mat_15:4.—Tr.]
[4][Exo_21:23. The Heb. reads בִּפְלִלִים, lit. “with judges” or “among judges.” Some render “unto the judges;” others “before the judges;” but the preposition does not naturally convey either of these senses. The A. V. probably expresses the true meaning: “with judges,” i.e. the line being judicially imposed.—Tr.]
[5][Exo_22:29. Literally: “thy fullness and thy tear.” The phrase “ripe fruits” is objectionable as including too much; “liquors” as suggesting a wrong conception. The first refers to the crops generally, exclusive of the olive and the grape, from which oil and wine, the liquid products (“tear”), were derived. Cranmer’s Bible renders, not inaptly: “thy fruits, whether they be dry or moist.”—Tr.]
[6][Exo_23:5. The rendering of A. V.: “and wouldest forbear,” is utterly untenable. Not less so is the rendering of עֲזֹב by “help.” The simplest explanation assumes a double meaning of עָזַב, viz. to “loose,” and to “leave.” We might borrow a vulgar phrase, and read: “Thou shalt forbear to cut loose from him, thou shalt cut loose with him.” De Wette and Murphy attempt to avoid the double meaning by emphasizing “with.” Thus: “Thou shalt forbear to leave it to him: thou shalt leave it with him.” But this is a nicety quite alien from the Hebrew.—Tr.]
[7][The reasons are thus stated by Keil: “If the language in Exo_21:9 is referred to the son, so as to mean, ‘when he takes to himself another wife,’ then there must be assumed a change of subject of which there is no indication; but if we understand the language to mean that the father (the purchaser) takes to himself another wife, then this precept ought to have been given before Exo_21:9.”—Tr.]
[8][This explanation of the order of the verses can hardly he regarded as satisfactory. In fact, any attempt to discover deep metaphysical or psychological reasons for the order and number of these laws is open to suspicion as implying a degree of subtlety and regard for logical order which was quite alien from the Hebrew spirit.—Tr.]
[9][Viz. that the omission of the direction, “he shall surely be put to death,” implies that his punishment was something milder; as does also the spirit of the precept in Exo_21:21.—Tr.]
[10][According to whom, the Egyptians punished all murders with death; the Greeks punished all murders, but punished the murder of a slave only by requiring certain expiatory rites; the Roman law, however, until the time of the emperors, allowed masters to treat their slaves as they pleased.—Tr.]
[11][See also Smith’s Bible Dictionary, Art. Weights and Measures.—Tr.]
[12][I.e., about 60 or 62½ cents. Mr. Poole, in the article above referred to, makes the silver shekel = 220 grains, i.e., about 53½ cents, or 2 shillings and 2 pence.—Tr.]
[13][“The difference,” says Keil, l. c., “cannot be explained by the consideration ‘that the animal slaughtered or sold was lost to its owner, while yet it may have had for him a special individual value’ (Knobel), for such regard for personal feelings is foreign to the law, to say nothing of the fact that an animal when sold might have been regained by purchase; nor by the consideration that the thief in that case has carried his crime to a higher point (Baumgarten), for the main thing was the stealing, not the disposition or consumption of the stolen object. The reason can have lain only in the educational aim of the law, viz., to induce the thief to think of himself, recognize his sin, and restore what he has stolen.”—Tr.]
[14][This is a mistake. Knobel translates: “If God makes (one) a malefactor, (i.e. if the court decides that a misdemeanor has been committed), then he shall restore double to his neighbor.” And in opposition to the translation. “whichever one God condemns, he shall restore double,” he says, “How could the plaintiff be condemned to make restitution, if he, even though the complaint was ungrounded, had yet taken nothing from the other?”—Tr.]
[15][The majority of interpreters (like the A. V.) regard שָכִיר as referring to the beast, not the borrower. Knobel explains thus: “If the beast was not merely lent out of kindness, but let for pay, the loss comes upon the hire by the receipt of which the owner is paid. In fixing the hire he had regard to the danger of the loss, and, when the loss takes place, must content himself with the hire.” So Keil. The explanation of Knobel’s above referred to by Lange, is a second one, evidently not preferred by Knobel, but merely stated as possible, especially in view of the fact that שָׂכִיר everywhere else is used of men.—Tr.]
[16][Knobel’s conjecture is that instead of וְדַל (“and a poor man”) we should read גָּדֹל (“a great man”)—since in Lev_19:15 it is the “mighty” who is not to be “honored,” and partiality to the poor “was not to be anticipated, and needed not to be forbidden.” Keil replies that this is sufficiently answered by the fact that the same passage has a command not to “respect the person of the poor.”—Tr.]
[17][Hitzig l. c. holds that חֹדֶשׁ הָאָבִיב means the new moon of the month of green ears—to which Knobel replies that in that case the phrase “time appointed” would be superfluous; that the Hebrew expression, if חֹדֶשׁ means “new moon,” would have to be rendered “new moon of the green ears”—a very improbable translation; and that according to Lev_23:6 the festival was to begin on the fifteenth day of the month, i.e., at the time of the full moon.—Tr.]
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical), ed. John Peter Lange, English translation edited by Philip Schaff (1864–1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset & David Brown 1871 · Public Domain On vv2, 7, 23, 28, 30 If thou buy an Hebrew servant--Every Israelite was free-born;…
If thou buy an Hebrew servant--Every Israelite was free-born; but slavery was permitted under certain restrictions. An Hebrew might be made a slave through poverty, debt, or crime; but at the end of six years he was entitled to freedom, and his wife, if she had voluntarily shared his state of bondage, also obtained release. Should he, however, have married a female slave, she and the children, after the husband's liberation, remained the master's property; and if, through attachment to his family, the Hebrew chose to forfeit his privilege and abide as he was, a formal process was gone through in a public court, and a brand of servitude stamped on his ear (Psa 40:6) for life, or at least till the Jubilee (Deu 15:17).
Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
Daniel D. Whedon 1874 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 26, 28, 33 1. The judgments which thou shalt set before them…
1. The judgments which thou shalt set before them — As distinguished from the words spoken directly from heaven. Judgments are here to be understood as decisions of law, or judicial statutes and regulations to govern in the administration of justice. These were the rules of judgment by which the rights of individuals were to be maintained and civil order secured.
Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges 1878 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36 1. Now] And—introducing a new element in the collection,…
1. Now] And—introducing a new element in the collection, viz. the ‘judgements’ contained in Exo_21:2 to Exo_22:17.
the judgements] i.e. legal precedents, intended to have the force of law. The Heb. mishpâṭ means a judicial decision, (1) given in an individual case, and then (2) established as a precedent for other similar cases1[184]. No doubt, the decisions which Moses gave, when he ‘sat to judge the people’ (Exo_18:13; cf. on Exo_18:15-16), became thus the foundation of Hebrew legislation (cf. p. 161)2[185].
Read full note →
[184] In its original sense, the word is a term belonging to civil and criminal law; but it is sometimes extended so as to include moral and religious injunctions (as Lev_18:4-5; Lev_19:15; Lev_19:35); it is also sometimes in EVV. rendered more clearly by ‘ordinance’ (e.g. Exo_15:25, Jos_24:25, Isa_58:2, Jer_8:7 RV.).
[185] ‘En-Mishpâṭ (Gen_14:7), the ‘Spring of judgement,’ as Ḳadesh (the ‘sacred’ place) was also called, was doubtless once a sacred spring, at which judicial decisions were obtained (cf. DB. iii. 67a, v. 616b).
set before them] Exo_19:7, Deu_4:44.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers 1878 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 26, 28, 29, 30, 33, 34, 35 (1) These are the judgments.—“The laws” (Knobel), “the rights”…
XXI.
LAWS CONCERNING THE RIGHTS OF PERSONS.
Read full note →
(1) These are the judgments.—“The laws” (Knobel), “the rights” (Keil), “the rules which shall guide judicial decisions” (Pool). The paraphrase alone gives the full meaning.
A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
C. H. Mackintosh 1880 · Public Domain On v1 Exodus 21 - 23
Exodus 21 - 23
The study of this section of our book is eminently calculated to impress the heart with a sense d God’s unsearchable wisdom and infinite goodness. It enables one to form some idea of the character of a kingdom governed by laws of divine appointment. Here, too, we may see the amazing condescension of Him who, though He is the great God of heaven and earth, can, nevertheless, stoop to adjudicate between man and man in reference to the death of an ox, the loan of a garment, or the loss of a servant’s tooth. "Who is like unto the Lord our God, who humbleth himself to behold the things that are in heaven and on earth?" He governs the universe, and yet He can occupy Himself with the provision of a covering for one of His creatures. He guides the angel’s flight and takes notice of a crawling worm. He humbles Himself to regulate the movements of those countless orbs that roll through infinite space and to record the fall of a sparrow.
Read full note →
As to the character of the judgement set forth in the chapters before us, we may learn a double lesson. These judgements and ordinances bear a twofold witness: they convey to the ear a twofold message, and present to the eye two sides of a picture. They tell of God and they tell of man.
In the first place, on God’s part, we find Him enacting laws which exhibit strict, even-handed, perfect justice. "Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe." Such was the character of the laws, the statutes, and the judgements by which God governed His earthly kingdom of Israel. Everything was provided for, every interest was maintained, and every claim was met. There was no partiality - no distinction made between the rich and the poor. The balance in which each man’s claim was weighed was adjusted with divine accuracy, so that no one could justly complain of a decision. The pure robe of justice was not to be tarnished with the foul stains of bribery, corruption and partiality. The eye and the hand of a divine Legislator provided for everything; and a divine Executive inflexibly dealt with every defaulter. The stroke of justice fell only on the head of the guilty, while every obedient soul was protected in the enjoyment of all his rights and privileges.
Then, as regards man, it is impossible to read over these laws and not be struck with the disclosure which they indirectly, but really, make of his desperate depravity. The fact of Jehovah’s having to enact laws against certain crimes, proves the capability, on man’s part, of committing those crimes. Were the capability and the tendency not there, there would be no need of the enactments. Now, there are many who, if the gross Abominations forbidden in these chapters were named to them, might feel disposed to adopt the language of Hazael and say, "Is thy servant a dog that he should do this thing?" Such persons have not yet travelled down into the deep abyss of their own hearts. For albeit there are crimes here forbidden which would seem to place man, as regards his habits and tendencies, below the level of a "dog," yet do those very statutes prove, beyond all question, that the most refined and cultivated member of the human family carries above, in his bosom, the seeds of the very darkest and most horrifying abominations. For whom were those statutes enacted? For man. Were they needful? Unquestionably. But they would have been quite superfluous if man were incapable of committing the sins referred to. But man is capable; and hence we see that man is sunk to the very lowest possible level - that his nature is wholly corrupt - that, from the crown of his head to the sole of his foot, there is not so much as a speck of moral soundness.
How can such a being ever stand, without an emotion of fear, in the full blaze of the throne of God? How can he stand within the holiest? How can he stand on the sea of glass? How can he enter in by the pearly gates and tread the golden streets? The reply to these inquiries unfolds the amazing depths of redeeming love and the eternal efficacy of the blood of the Lamb. Deep as is man’s ruin, the love of God is deeper still. Black as is his guilt, the blood of Jesus can wash it all away. Wide as is the chasm separating man from God, the cross has bridged it. God has come down to the very lowest point of the sinner’s condition, in order that He might lift him up into a position of infinite favour, in eternal association with His own Son. Well may we exclaim, "Behold what manner of love the Father hath bestowed on us, that we should be called the sons of God." (1 John 3: l) Nothing could fathom man’s ruin but God’s love, and nothing could equal man’s guilt but the blood of Christ. But now the very depth of the ruin only magnifies the love that has fathomed it, and the intensity of the guilt only celebrates the efficacy of the blood that can cleanse it. The very vilest sinner who believes in Jesus can rejoice in the assurance that God sees him and pronounces him "clean every whit."
Such, then, is the double character of instruction to be gleaned from the laws and ordinances in this section, looked at as a whole; and the more minutely we look at them, in detail, the more impressed we shall be with a sense of their fullness and beauty. Take, for instance, the very first ordinance that presents itself, namely, that of the Hebrew Servant.
"Now these are the judgements which thou shalt set before them. If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master have given him a wife, and she have borne him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall he her master’s, and he shall go out by himself. And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free; then his master shall bring him unto the judges: he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl; and he shall serve him for ever." (Ex. 21: 1-6) The servant was perfectly free to go out, so far as he was personally concerned. He had discharged every claim, and could, therefore, walk abroad in unquestioned freedom; but because of his love to his master, his wife, and his children, he voluntarily bound himself to perpetual servitude; and not only so, but he was also willing to bear, in his own person, the marks of that servitude.
The application of this to the Lord Jesus Christ will be obvious to the intelligent reader. In Him we behold the One who dwelt in the bosom of the Father before all worlds - the object of His eternal delight - who might have occupied, throughout eternity, this His personal and entirely peculiar place, inasmuch as there lay upon Him no obligation (save that which ineffable love created and ineffable love incurred) to abandon that place. Such, however, was His love to the Father whose counsels were involved, and for the Church collectively, and each individual member thereof, whose salvation was involved, that He, voluntarily, came down to earth, emptied Himself, and made Himself of no reputation, took upon Him the form of a servant and the marks of perpetual service. To these marks we probably have a striking allusion in the Psalms. "Mine ears hast thou digged." (Ps. 40: 6, marg.) This psalm is the expression of Christ’s devotedness to God. "Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of me, I delight to do thy will, O my God: yea thy law is within my heart." He came to do the will of God, whatever that will might be. He never once did His own will, not even in the reception and salvation of sinners, though surely His loving heart, with all its affections, was most fully in that glorious work. Still He receives and saves only as the servant of the Father’s counsels. "All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day." (John 6: 37-39)
Here we have a most interesting view of the servant character of the Lord Jesus Christ. He, in perfect grace, holds Himself responsible to receive all who come within the range of the divine counsels; and not only to receive them, but to preserve them through all the difficulties and trials of their devious path down here, yea, in the article of death itself, should it come, and to raise them all up in the last day. Oh! how secure is the very feeblest member of the Church of God! He is the subject of God’s eternal counsels, which counsels the Lord Jesus Christ is pledged to carry out. Jesus loves the Father, and, in proportion to the intensity of that love, is the security of each member of the redeemed family. The salvation of any sinner who believes on the name of the Son of God is, in one aspect of it, but the expression of Christ’s love to the Father. If one such could perish, through any cause whatsoever, it would argue that the Lord Jesus Christ was unable to carry out the will of God, which were nothing short of positive blasphemy against His sacred name, to whom be all honour and majesty throughout the everlasting ages.
Thus we have, in the Hebrew servant, a type of Christ in His pure devotedness to the Father. But there is more than this: "I love my wife and my children." "Christ loved the church and gave himself for it, that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, that he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing ; but that it should be holy and without blemish." (Eph. 5: 25-27) There are various other passages of Scripture presenting Christ as the antitype of the Hebrew servant, both in His love for the Church, as a body, and for all believers personally. In Matthew 13, John 10 and 13, and Hebrews 2, my reader will find special teaching on the point.
The apprehension of this love of the heart of Jesus cannot fail to produce a spirit of fervent devotedness to the One who could exhibit such pure, such perfect, such disinterested love. How could the wife and children of the Hebrew servant fail to love one who had voluntarily surrendered his liberty in order that he and they might be together? And what is the love presented in the type, when compared with that which shines in the antitype? It is as nothing. "The love of Christ passeth knowledge." It led Him to think of us before all worlds - to visit us in the fullness of time - to walk deliberately to the door post - to suffer for us on the cross, in order that He might raise us to companionship with himself, in His everlasting kingdom and glory.
Were I to enter into a full exposition of the remaining statutes and judgements of this portion of the Book of Exodus, it would carry me much further than I feel, at present, led to go.* I will merely observe, in conclusion, that it is impossible to read the section and not have the heart drawn out in adoration of the profound wisdom, well-balanced justice, and yet tender considerateness which breathe throughout the whole. We rise up from the study of it with this conviction deeply wrought into the soul, that the One who speaks here is "the only true," "the only wise," and the infinitely gracious God.
{*I would here observe, once for all, that the feasts referred to in Ex. 23: 14-19 and the offerings in Ex. 29 being brought out in all their fullness and detail, in the book of Leviticus, I shall reserve them until we come to dwell upon the contents of that singularly rich and interesting book.}
May all our meditations on His eternal word have the effect of prostrating our souls in worship before Him whose perfect ways and glorious attributes shine there, in all their blessedness and brightness, for the refreshment, the delight, and the edification of His blood-bought people.
C. H. Mackintosh, Notes on the Pentateuch — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Pulpit Commentary 1880 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 THE BOOK OF THE COVENANT. Continued.
THE BOOK OF THE COVENANT. Continued.
I Laws connected with the rights of persons (vers. 1-32). The regulations of this section concern
Read full note →
1. Slavery (vers. 2-6);
2. Murder and other kinds of homicide (vers. 12-15 and 20, 21);
3. Man-stealing (ver. 16);
4. Striking or cursing of parents (vers. 15, 17);
5. Assaults and injuries to the person not resulting in death (vers. 18, 19,and 22-27), both in the case of free men and of slaves; and
6. Injuries done by cattle both to free men and to slaves (vers. 28-32). Thechief bodily injury whereto women are liable is not mentioned. A later enactment (Deu_22:25-29) made it expiable by marriage, or else a capital offence. There are no other remarkable omissions.
These are the judgments. The term "judgment" applies most properly to the decisions of courts and the laws founded upon them. No doubt the laws contained in the "Book of the Covenant" were to a large extent old laws, which had been often acted on; but we should do wrong to suppose that there was nothing new in the legislation. The Hebrew mishphat is used with some vagueness.
HOMILIES BY J. ORR Ver. 1. The "judgments.
The "rights" or "judgments" contained in this and the two following chapters show the manner in which the spirit and principles of the preceding moral legislation were intended to be applied to the regulation of the outward life of the Jewish state.
(1) As respects their origin, not a few of these laws have obviously their root in old customs, while others may have been derived from the decisions of Moses in the wilderness. (Exo_18:16) The code, therefore, in its present shape, cannot be supposed to have been verbally dictated by Jehovah to Moses; yet God may have instructed Moses as to the particular laws which were to be embraced in it, and may have revealed his will on special points which were as yet undetermined. The "judgments" were, in any case, given to Israel under express Divine sanction (ver. 1).
(2) As respects their nature, the laws relate to the determination of legal rights, and to the ordering of the course of justice; in part, also, to the behaviour of the members of the community to each other in various out ward relations, and to fundamental religious ordinances. The spirit of the code is throughout that of the moral law; the principles embodied in it are those of the commandments. The point of view from which its statutes are to be regarded is, however, a different one from that which was occupied in considering the moral law as such. Moral law speaks with the voice of "the categorical imperative." It sets up the perfect ethical standard. What falls short of this is wrong, involves sin, and is condemned. It knows nothing of a morality which is merely relative. The practical legislator, on the other hand much as he might wish to do so cannot so mould external institutions as to make them all at once, and at every point, correspond with the requirements of ideal morality. He must, to a large extent, take things as they are must start with existing conditions and usages, and try to make the best of them. Absolute morality, e.g. , would refuse to recgonise such a state as that of war; yet, so long as wars exist and to this hour they are of frequent occurrence some code must be devised, representing such application of ethical maxims as is possible to military life, and to that extent stamping a moral character on the profession of the soldier. The cases of deviation from ideal morality in the laws of Moses are, however, remarkably few, relating chiefly to war, slavery, and marriage. In regard to these subjects, the legislation necessarily partakes of the backward character of the times. The statutes given are not the absolutely best, but the best which the people, at that stage of their moral and social development, could receive; that is, the relatively best the best for them. This leads to a third point
(3) The incompleteness of the law. The statutes here given, so far as they partook of the imperfection of the time, were not intended to be final. Within the law itself, as will be readily perceived, there was large room for development; but even the letter of the law was not so fixed, but that, in course of time, large parts of it might, and did, become obsolete; new institutions, adapted to new needs, and introduced, by proper authority, taking the place of the old ones. Mr. Robertson Smith is therefore not fair in his representation of what he calls the "traditional view," when he affirms Divine laws given beyond Jordan were to remain unmodified through all the long centuries of development in Canaan, an absolute and immutable code" ("Old Testament," p. 333). On such a theory, if anyone held it, his criticism would be quite just say, with all reverence, that this is impossible. God, no doubt, could have given by Moses" mouth a law fit for the age of Solomon or Hezekiah, but such a law could not be fit for immediate application in the days of Moses and Joshua God can do all things, but he cannot contradict himself; and he who shaped the eventful development of Israel"s history must have framed this law to correspond with it." The reply to this is, that the most conservative defenders of the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch do not deny the necessity for, and admissibility of, great developments of the principles of the law. It may suffice to quote Hengstenberg:" First, it is a gross error, though often repeated, that the Pentateuch embraces the whole civil law of the Israelites. In that portion of the Scriptures there is shown the greatest aversion from all untimely interference with the course of historical development. Only those points are determined which must be so, add in no other way, according to the fundamental maxims of the theocracy," etc. ("Authenticity," vol. it. p. 498, Eng. trans.). J.O.
HOMILIES BY D. YOUNG Vers. 1-11. Regulations for the treatment of slaves.
I THE CONDITIONAL ELEMENT RUNNING THROUGH THESE REGULATIONS. What a difference there is here from the strong, uncompromising imperatives of chapter 20! There we feel that we have to do with man, not only as he is at the time, a Hebrew in the wilderness, but with every man, in every age, and in all sorts of social circumstances. The ten commandments simply assume humanity and society. But the regulations now to be considered abound in the word "if." If certain things are done, then certain other things must be done. But then these things need not to be done at all. A man need not buy a servant; a man need not take a woman to be his companion in servitude, knowing that thereby he runs the risk of being separated from her and his offspring afterwards. These regulations have to be made for free agents, acting often thoughtlessly, or in a matter-of-fact compliance with the customs of their country. There was no real need for any of these "ifs" to pass into action. Consider how ludicrous such regulations would appear if propounded as possibilities in modern English society. The actions which they assume would be scouted as scarcely conceivable. Our notions of property, of service, and of the position of woman are quite different. And yet how many things there are even now, commonly accepted indeed as right and proper, which are no more defensible on the highest grounds than these practices of Israel in the wilderness. There are practices among Christians now, considered proper enough according to the present notions of society, and yet the day is assuredly coming when they too will seem as strange and abhorrent as the practice of a man selling his daughter to be a maid-servant. Things done without scruple, even by enlightened Christians, are far enough from what Christ would have them be. And all that can be reached is to regulate and mitigate what there is not sufficient enlightenment of conscience to abolish.
II THE EVIDENT DESIRE TO BE JUST TO ALL THE INDIVIDUALS CONCERNED IN THESE REGULATIONS. The purchased individual must have his benefit by liberation in the seventh year; and yet the master is to be treated justly too by the recognition of the woman whom, as it were, he had lent to be a companion to the slave. So also if the slave has a notion of staying, he is compelled to treat it as a serious matter, and not play fast or loose either with master or companion. She who had been, as it were, a concubine, becomes by his desire to stay, lifted to the full privileges of a wife; and to leave then would be a wrong to her as well as the master. The principle holds good all through human society whatsoever we want in the way of temporal advantages we must take with certain limitations. Whatever benefit there might be in buying a slave must be taken along with the limitation of the seventh year. If the slave chose to have a companion, he must make up his mind how to treat her at the six years" end; either to have liberty and lose her or keep her with life-long bondage. We should choose our position in this world, looking steadily for the guidance of infinite wisdom in our choice. If we be sure of that, then all advantages will be golden to us, and we shall not for a moment think of grumbling because of the disadvantages that must inevitably accompany them.
III Still though there is a desire here to be just to all, IT IS EVIDENTLY THE WEAK AND UNFORTUNATE WHO ARE CHIEFLY THOUGHT OF. It is for the sake of the slave and the despised woman that these regulations are here specified. The strong in such circumstances are as a rule well able only too well able to look after themselves. It is the glorious mark, again and again appearing in God"s dealings, that he loves to bring the enslaved nearer to liberty, the degraded nearer to the normal elevation of humanity. Y.
The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Biblical Illustrator 1887 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 7, 12, 15, 16, 18, 20, 22, 28 These are the Judgments.
Exo_21:1
These are the Judgments.
Read full note →
The judgments
These judgments stood related to the second table of the Law, just as the regulations concerning the worship of the altar stood related to the first. It is to be remembered also that these judgments, and those of the same kind which afterward were added as occasion arose, are to be distinguished from the moral law, not only as applying to the state rather than the individual, but also as local and temporary in their nature, representing not what was ideally best, but only what was then practically possible in the direction of that which was best. Some very superficial people criticise them as if they were intended for the nineteenth century! The Decalogue was, and is, intrinsically perfect; the judgments were adapted to the circumstances and wants of Israel at the time. And it would be a good thing if reformers of modern times would always remember the same wise and necessary distinctions, between that which is ideally perfect and that which alone may be practically possible. Still further it is to be remembered, that these judgments were suitable to the Theocracy of Israel; and hence those are entirely wrong who attempt to use them as precedents for general legislation in the limited monarchies and republican governments, and otherwise entirely altered circumstances, of modern times. Yet if we could only compare these judgments with the laws and customs of the nations around, we should see by force of contrast how exceedingly pure, wise, just, and humane they are; and especially where private relations are dealt with, we have touches which would not shame the New Testament itself, however much they may in another sense shame us, as for instance Exo_23:4-5. The third division of the book of the covenant has to do with matters which relate neither to worship exclusively, nor to civil relations exclusively, but to both. These are the Sabbath year, the Sabbath day, and the yearly festivals (Exo_23:10-19). As for the Sabbath year and the festivals, they will come up again in the fuller details given from the tabernacle and recorded in Leviticus. And as for the Sabbath day, we may simply remark the significance of its presence here in the book of the covenant, as well as in the Decalogue, indicating that while in its principle it belongs to universal and unchangeable law, in its letter it formed part of that national covenant which was merged in the new and better covenant of the later age. (J. M. Gibson, D. D.)
The Hebrew commonwealth founded on religion
There is a very common reflection upon the Hebrew lawgiver, which, though it does not call in question any particular law, is yet designed to vitiate and weaken the impression of the whole--that he was a stern and relentless ruler, who may indeed have understood the principles of justice, but whose justice was seldom tempered with mercy. This impression is derived partly at least from the summary way in which in several instances he dealt with rebellion. To this kind of argument there is one brief and sufficient answer: All bodies of men are acknowledged to have the right to resort to severe penalties when encompassed by extraordinary dangers. The children of Israel were in a position of great peril, and their safety depended on the wisdom and firmness of one man. Never had a ruler a more difficult task. Moses did not legislate for the ideal republic of Plato, a community of perfect beings, but for a people born in slavery, from which they had but just broken away, and that were in danger of becoming ungovernable. Here were two millions and a half who had not even a settled place of abode, mustered in one vast camp, through which rebellion might spread in a day. Moses had to govern them by his single will . . . To preserve order, and to guard against hostile attacks, all the men capable of bearing arms were organized as a military body . . . He suppressed rebellion as Cromwell would have suppressed it: he not only put it down, but stamped it out; and such prompt severity was the truest humanity. But it is not acts of military discipline that provoke the criticism of modern humanitarians, so much as those religious laws which prescribed the God whom the Hebrews should worship, and punished idolatry and blasphemy as the greatest of crimes. This, it is said, transcends the proper sphere of human law; it exalts ceremonies into duties, and denounces as crimes acts which have no moral wrong. Was not, then, the Hebrew law wanting in the first principle of justice--freedom to all religions? Now it is quite absurd to suppose the Hebrews had conscientious scruples against this worship, or seriously doubted whether Jehovah or Baal were the true God. They had been rescued from slavery by a direct interposition of the Almighty, they had been led by an Almighty Deliverer; and it was His voice which they heard from the cliffs of Sinai. But it was not merely because their religion was true, and the only true worship, that they were required to accept it; but because also of the peculiar relation which its Divine Author had assumed towards the Hebrew state as its founder and protector. They had no king but God; He was the only Lord. As such, no act of disobedience or disrespect to His authority could be light or small. Further: the unity of God was a centre of unity for the nation. The state was one because their God was one. The worship of Jehovah alone distinguished the Hebrews from all other people, and preserved their separate nationality. Admit other religions, and the bond which held together the twelve tribes was dissolved. How long could that union have lasted if the prophets of Baal had had the freedom of the camp and been permitted to go from tribe to tribe and from tent to tent, preaching the doctrine of human sacrifices? Hence Moses did not suffer them for an hour. False prophets were to be stoned to death . . . Such was the Hebrew commonwealth, a state founded in religion. Was it therefore founded in fanaticism and folly, or in profound wisdom and far-seeing sagacity? Religion, true or false, says Coleridge, is, and ever has been, the centre of gravity in a realm, to which all other things must and will accommodate themselves. Would it not be well if some of our modern pretenders to statesmanship did not so completely ignore its existence and its power? The religion which Moses gave to the Hebrews was not one merely of abstract ideas; it was incarnated in an outward and visible worship by which it addressed the senses. Even in the desert the tabernacle and the altar were set up, and the daily sacrifice was offered; the smoke and the incense below ascending towards the pillar of cloud above, and the fire on the altar answering to the pillar of fire in the midnight sky. This daily and nightly worship made religion a real because a visible thing; it appealed to the senses and touched the imagination of the people, and held their spirits in awe. The feeling that God dwelt in the midst of them inspired them with courage for great efforts and great sacrifices. (H. M. Field, D. D.)
The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Expositor's Bible 1887 · Public Domain On v1 THE LESSER LAW (continued).
CHAPTER XXI.
THE LESSER LAW (continued).
Read full note →
PART II.--RIGHTS OF THE PERSON.
Exo_21:1-32.
The first words of God from Sinai had declared that He was Jehovah Who brought them out of slavery. And in this remarkable code, the first person whose rights are dealt with is the slave. We saw that a denunciation of all slavery would have been premature, and therefore unwise; but assuredly the germs of emancipation were already planted by this giving of the foremost place to the rights of the least of all and the servant of all.
As regards the Hebrew slave, the effect was to reduce his utmost bondage to a comparatively mild apprenticeship. At the worst he should go free in the seventh year; and if the year of jubilee intervened, it brought a still speedier emancipation. If his debt or misconduct had involved a family in his disgrace, they should also share his emancipation, but if while in bondage his master had provided for his marriage with a slave, then his family must await their own appointed period of release. It followed that if he had contracted a degrading alliance with a foreign slave, his freedom would inflict upon him the pang of final severance from his dear ones. He might, indeed, escape this pain, but only by a deliberate and humiliating act, by formally renouncing before the judges his liberty, the birthright of his nation ("they are My servants, whom I brought forth out of Egypt, they shall not be sold as bondservants"-- Lev_25:42), and submitting to have his ear pierced, at the doorpost of his master's house, as if, like that, his body were become his master's property. It is uncertain, after this decisive step, whether even the year of jubilee brought him release; and the contrary seems to be implied in his always bearing about in his body an indelible and degrading mark. It will be remembered that St. Paul rejoiced to think that his choice of Christ was practically beyond recall, for the scars on his body marked the tenacity of his decision (Gal_6:17). He wrote this to Gentiles, and used the Gentile phrase for the branding of a slave. But beyond question this Hebrew of Hebrews remembered, as he wrote, that one of his race could incur lifelong subjection only by a voluntary wound, endured because he loved his master, such as he had received for love of Jesus.
When the law came to deal with assaults it was impossible to place the slave upon quite the same level as the freeman. But Moses excelled the legislators of Greece and Rome, by making an assault or chastisement which killed him upon the spot as worthy of death as if a freeman had been slain. It was only the victim who lingered that died comparatively unavenged (Exo_21:20-21). After all, chastisement was a natural right of the master, because he owned him ("he is his money"); and it would be hard to treat an excess of what was permissible, inflicted perhaps under provocation which made some punishment necessary, on the same lines with an assault that was entirely lawless. But there was this grave restraint upon bad temper,--that the loss of any member, and even of the tooth of a slave, involved his instant manumission. And this carried with it the principle of moral responsibility for every hurt (Exo_21:26-27).
It was not quite plain that these enactments extended to the Gentile slave. But in accordance with the assertion that the whole spirit of the statutes was elevating, the conclusion arrived at by the later authorities was the generous one.
When it is added that man-stealing (upon which all our modern systems of slavery were founded) was a capital offence, without power of commutation for a fine (Exo_21:16), it becomes clear that the advocates of slavery appeal to Moses against the outraged conscience of humanity without any shadow of warrant either from the letter or the spirit of the code.
There remains to be considered a remarkable and melancholy sub-section of the law of slavery.
In every age degraded beings have made gain of the attractions of their daughters. With them, the law attempted nothing of moral influence. But it protected their children, and brought pressure to bear upon the tempter, by a series of firm provisions, as bold as the age could bear, and much in advance of the conscience of too many among ourselves today.
The seduction of any unbetrothed maiden involved marriage, or the payment of a dowry. And thus one door to evil was firmly closed (Exo_22:16).
But when a man purchased a female slave, with the intention of making her an inferior wife, whether for himself or for his son (such only are the purchases here dealt with, and an ordinary female slave was treated upon the same principles as a man), she was far from being the sport of his caprice. If indeed he repented at once, he might send her back, or transfer her to another of her countrymen upon the same terms, but when once they were united she was protected against his fickleness. He might not treat her as a servant or domestic, but must, even if he married another and probably a chief wife, continue to her all the rights and privileges of a wife. Nor was her position a temporary one, to her damage, as that of an ordinary slave was, to his benefit.
And if there was any failure to observe these honourable terms, she could return with unblemished reputation to her father's home, without forfeiture of the money which had been paid for her (Exo_21:7-11).
Does any one seriously believe that a system like the African slave trade could have existed in such a humane and genial atmosphere as these enactments breathed? Does any one who knows the plague spot and disgrace of our modern civilisation suppose for a moment that more could have been attempted, in that age, for the great cause of purity? Would to God that the spirit of these enactments were even now respected! They would make of us, as they have made of the Hebrew nation unto this day, models of domestic tenderness, and of the blessings in health and physical vigour which an untainted life bestows upon communities.
By such checks upon the degradation of slavery, the Jew began to learn the great lesson of the sanctity of manhood. The next step was to teach him the value of life, not only in the avenging of murder, but also in the mitigation of such revenge. The blood-feud was too old, too natural a practice to be suppressed at once; but it was so controlled and regulated as to become little more than a part of the machinery of justice.
A premeditated murder was inexpiable, not to be ransomed; the murderer must surely die. Even if he fled to the altar of God, intending to escape thence to a city of refuge when the avenger ceased to watch, he should be torn from that holy place: to shelter him would not be an honour, but a desecration to the shrine (Exo_21:12, Exo_21:14). According to this provision Joab and Adonijah suffered. For the slayer by accident or in hasty quarrel, "a place whither he shall flee" would be provided, and the vague phrase indicates the antiquity of the edict (Exo_21:13). This arrangement at once respected his life, which did not merit forfeiture, and provided a penalty for his rashness or his passion.
It is because the question in hand is the sanctity of man, that the capital punishment of a son who strikes or curses a parent, the vicegerent of God, and of a kidnapper, is interposed between these provisions and minor offences against the person (Exo_21:15-17).
Of these latter, the first is when lingering illness results from a blow received in a quarrel. This was not a case for the stern rule, eye for eye and tooth for tooth,--for how could that rule be applied to it?--but the violent man should pay for his victim's loss of time, and for medical treatment until he was thoroughly recovered (Exo_21:18-19).
But what is to be said to the general law of retribution in kind? Our Lord has forbidden a Christian, in his own case, to exact it. But it does not follow that it was unjust, since Christ plainly means to instruct private persons not to exact their rights, whereas the magistrate continues to be "a revenger to execute justice." And, as St. Augustine argued shrewdly, "this command was not given for exciting the fires of hatred, but to restrain them. For who would easily be satisfied with repaying as much injury as he received? Do we not see men slightly hurt athirst for slaughter and blood?... Upon this immoderate and unjust vengeance, the law imposed a just limit, not that what was quenched might be kindled, but that what was burning might not spread." (Cont. Faust, xix. 25.)
It is also to be observed that by no other precept were the Jews more clearly led to a morality still higher than it prescribed. Their attention was first drawn to the fact that a compensation in money was nowhere forbidden, as in the case of murder (Num_35:31). Then they went on to argue that such compensation must have been intended, because its literal observance teemed with difficulties. If an eye were injured but not destroyed, who would undertake to inflict an equivalent hurt? What if a blind man destroyed an eye? Would it be reasonable to quench utterly the sight of a one-eyed man who had only destroyed one-half of the vision of his neighbour? Should the right hand of a painter, by which he maintains his family, be forfeited for that of a singer who lives by his voice? Would not the cold and premeditated operation inflict far greater mental and even physical suffering than a sudden wound received in a moment of excitement? By all these considerations, drawn from the very principle which underlay the precept, they learned to relax its pressure in actual life. The law was already their schoolmaster, to lead them beyond itself (vide Kalisch in loco).
Lastly, there is the question of injury to the person, wrought by cattle.
It is clearly to deepen the sense of reverence for human life, that not only must the ox which kills a man be slain, but his flesh may not be eaten; thus carrying further the early aphorism "at the hand of every beast will I require ... your blood" (Gen_9:5). This motive, however, does not betray the lawgiver into injustice: "the owner of the ox shall be quit"; the loss of his beast is his sufficient penalty.
But if its evil temper has been previously observed, and he has been warned, then his recklessness amounts to blood-guiltiness, and he must die, or else pay whatever ransom is laid upon him. This last clause recognises the distinction between his guilt and that of a deliberate man-slayer, for whose crime the law distinctly prohibited a composition (Num_35:31).
And it is expressly provided, according to the honourable position of woman in the Hebrew state, that the penalty for a daughter's life shall be the same as for that of a son.
As a slave was exposed to especial risk, and his position was an ignoble one, a fixed composition was appointed, and the amount was memorable. The ransom of a common slave, killed by the horns of the wild oxen, was thirty pieces of silver, the goodly price that Messiah was prized at of them (Zec_11:13).
PART III.--RIGHTS OF PROPERTY.
Exo_21:33 - Exo_22:15.
The vital and quickening principle in this section is the stress it lays upon man's responsibility for negligence, and the indirect consequences of his deed. All sin is selfish, and all selfishness ignores the right of others. Am I my brother's keeper? Let him guard his own property or pay the forfeit. But this sentiment would quickly prove a disintegrating force in the community, able to overthrow a state. It is the ignoble negative of public spirit; patriotism, all by which nations prosper. And this early legislation is well devised to check it in detail. If an ox fall into a pit or cistern, from which I have removed the cover, I must pay the value of the beast, and take the carcase for what it may be worth. I ought to have considered the public interest (Exo_21:33). If I let my cattle stray into my neighbour's field or vineyard, there must be no wrangling about the quality of what he has consumed: I must forfeit an equal quantity of the best of my own field or vineyard (Exo_22:5). If a fire of my kindling burn his grain, standing or piled, I must make restitution: I had no right to kindle it where he was brought into hazard (Exo_22:6). This is the same principle which had already pronounced it murder to let a vicious ox go loose. And it has to do with graver things than oxen and fires,--with the teachers of principles rightly called incendiary, the ingenious theorists who let loose abstract speculations pernicious when put into practice, the well-behaved questioners of morality, and the law-abiding assailants of the foundations which uphold law.
It is quite in the same spirit that I am accountable for what I borrow or hire, and even for its accidental death (since for the time being it was mine, and so should the loss be); but if I hired the owner with his beast, it clearly continued to be in his charge (Exo_22:14-15). But again, my responsibility may not be pressed too far. If I have not borrowed property, but consented to keep it for the owner, the risk is fairly his, and if it be stolen, the presumption is not against my integrity, although I may be required to clear myself on oath before the judges (Exo_22:7-8). But I am accountable in such a case for cattle, because it was certainly understood that I should watch them; and if a wild beast have torn any, I must prove my courage and vigilance by rescuing the carcase and producing it (Exo_22:10-13).
But I must not be plunged into litigation without a compensating hazard on the other side: he whom God shall condemn shall pay double unto his neighbour (Exo_22:9).
It only remains to be observed, with regard to theft, that when cattle was recovered yet alive, the thief restored double, but when his act was consummated by slaughtering what he had taken, then he restored a sheep fourfold, and for an ox five oxen, because his villainy was more high-handed. And we still retain the law which allows the blood of a robber at night to be shed, but forbids it in the day, when help can more easily be had.
All this is reasonable and enlightened law; founded, like all good legislation, upon clear and satisfactory principles, and well calculated to elevate the tone of the public feeling, to be not only so many specific enactments, but also the germinant seeds of good.
William Robertson Nicoll, ed., The Expositor's Bible (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1887–1910) — public domain. 65 of 66 books (1 Corinthians is not separately keyed, as that volume carries no machine-parseable verse references); section-level commentary keyed to the opening verse. Introductory and overview sections not keyed to a specific passage are excluded.
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary 1892 · Public Domain On vv1, 7, 12, 18, 28 Exo_21:1. Judgments.] Here begins the second part of “The…
CRITICAL NOTES.—
Exo_21:1. Judgments.] Here begins the second part of “The Book of the Covenant” (ch. Exo_24:7), the entire contents of which seem to range themselves thus:—
Read full note →
1. Safeguards of worship (ch. Exo_20:22-26);
2. Safeguards of justice and mercy (ch. Exo_21:1 to Exo_23:19);
3. Promises, blended with admonitions (ch. Exo_23:20-33). Next to the Ten Commandments stands this “Book,” in importance, as the Divinely-laid foundation of Israel’s nationality, and as the Magna Charta of the people. Here we see more in detail than in the Ten Commandments, but still in a summary and very comprehensive way, what, sort of a nation Israel was laid under the most solemn obligation to become.
Exo_21:6. Unto the judges.] Heb. el hâ ’elthim. literally “unto the gods;” but, according to usage, rather, “unto God,” “unto the God,” “unto the [living and true] God,” or unto “God Himself.” No doubt, however, “the judges” are intended. Compare especially (Deu_19:17): “Then both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before Jehovah, before the priests and the judges, which shall be in those days.” In coming unto the priests and judges, they came “unto the judgment seat of God,” as the LXX. here renders (πρὸς τὸ κριτῆριον τοῦ θεοῦ).
MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.—Exo_21:1-6
SLAVERY AND SOVEREIGNTY
The most influential factor in the process of human development has been the written revelation of God; and without that we cannot suppose humanity would have risen to glorious heights. These judgments are part of that revelation, and indicate the gradual methods by which the Almighty educates the nations. God’s teachings touch humanity at its lowest point, and are adapted to the state of highest development. These judgments, then, must be considered in their relation to primitive conditions. They are the world’s most ancient and most complete repositories of legal enactments. Their spirit is undying, and proclaims infinite wisdom. These judgments of God are the declarations of human rights. We must, in a teachable and impartial spirit, consider these judgments, as severally set forth to the Jews, in their ethical bearings.
I. These judgments dealt with an existing institution. The word most commonly employed in the Old Testament in this connection was one meaning slavery in our modern sense. We have, then, the fact that slavery was an admitted institution in the Mosaic economy. The circumstances under which a Hebrew might be reduced to servitude were—
(1) poverty;
(2) the commission of theft; and
(3) the exercise of paternal authority. We cannot explain the divine methods, and do not know how it was that slavery was not at once abrogated by a divine decree. But we see that divine beneficence was revealed in the regulations.
II. This admitted institution does not sanction modern slavery. The Mosaic sanction of slavery was a strong support of that institution in the Southern States of America. But a candid inquirer will soon, perceive that it had little kinship with that which it claimed for its support. There is in the divine revelation a spirit ever working to the enfranchisement of the race. The letter is for the time then present, but the spirit is for all time; and it shall operate unceasingly and triumphantly till all forms of oppression are banished from the world. More closely consider the conditions of Mosaic slavery.
III. This system asserted the slave’s personal sovereignty. Every step in the process will show the absurdity of instituting a comparison between Hebrew slavery and other forms of slavery, in order to make the former sanction human greed and cruelty. In modern systems, the man is a mere chattel, but in the Mosaic system the slave’s manhood is declared. He is sovereign over himself, and is allowed the power of choice. The Southern slaveholder would not permit his slave to say, “I will not;” but the Hebrew slave is permitted to say, “I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free.”
IV. This system declared the slave’s right to be a man of feeling. The man was not to be separated from the wife he had chosen prior to his days of servitude. The slave is here regarded as one capable of loving, and of feeling distress at separation. Even where the wife was the gift of the master, and there fore she and her children the master’s property, the servant was not to be forcibly separated; but, under other systems, slaves have been treated as if they did not possess the feelings common to humanity. This part of the Mosaic regulations would not harmonise with the painful scenes which took place at slave marts.
V. This system proclaimed the slave’s right to freedom, and that it is the highest condition. The Hebrew slave worked on to the day of happy release. This term of service was no longer than a modern apprenticeship. The bells of the seventh year rang out the old order of slavery, and rang in the new glorious order of freedom. “If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve; and in the seventh year he shall go out free for nothing.” “The fixing of the seventh year as the year of emancipation is connected with the sabbatical year, but does not coincide with it.” The slave might choose to continue in servitude, but he did not choose the highest state. Such an one must have his ear bored before the judges, as setting forth his subject condition, and as sealing the voluntary compact. But no marks are placed on the person of the free man. “The boring of the ears was among the Orientals a sign of slavery.”—Knobel.
VI. This system typically sets forth that the service of love is the highest, and alone enduring. He only was to serve “for ever” who chose continued servitude on account of love to his master, and love to his wife and his children. The service of love outstrips in dignity and surpasses in duration all other forms of service. Love’s bonds are sweet. Its yoke is easy, and its service light. There is a loving service which shall be in the literal sense “for ever”—a service which is highest freedom, and from which the slave will never ask to be liberated. The service of Christ reaches beyond death, and is coeval with eternity.—W. Burrows, B.A.
In considering generally the judgments of that part of the “Book of the Covenant” (Exo_24:3-7) contained in Exodus, chaps. 21–23, three things must be borne in mind.
1. That God was legislating for Jews, and had to deal with such materials as existed and to make the best of them. Remember
(1) The Jews were contaminated by their contact with and bondage under the Egyptians, and these were familiar with and contracted those habits which these judgments were intended to abolish or control. And
(2) How needful a special and minute legislation was, their characteristics through many centuries of their history amply show (cf. Mat_19:8).
2. That this legislation was founded on great moral principles and was referable to them (Exo_20:1-17).
3. That this legislation as such
(1) was not final. Many of the enactments, e.g., those respecting slavery, contemplated a special state of things and made provision for their removal. And
(2) it had respect to a legislation higher and final to which it was preparatory (Deu_18:15; Gal_3:24; Heb_8:6-13).
(3) With that legislation therefore this must be compared.
Chapter 21. exhibits (i.) God’s care for the slave (1–11, 16, 26, 27); (ii.) God’s indignation against the unfilial spirit (15, 17); (iii.) God’s disapprobation of the use of brute force (18, 19); (iv.) God’s regard for the safety of man and beast.
GOD’S CARE FOR THE SLAVE
1. Slavery was an established institution, and thus was only recognised and not established by the Mosaic law.
2. Humanly speaking, its entire abolition at this period was impossible or at least impracticable.
(1.) Subsequent history shows how difficult it was to repress customs far less rooted in the Hebrew mind.
(2.) In the wars in which the Israelites were engaged, it was the only alternative to extermination.
(3.) In a condition of society where a labouring class was unknown, in many cases it was the only alternative to want (Lev_25:25).
(4.) Under circumstances where imprisonment was impossible, it was the only alternative for a criminal to a harsher fate (Exo_23:3).
3. עֶבֶד conveyed a very different meaning to δοῦλος, or servus or serf or thrall or slave. It implied a position of trust, and dealt rather with the duties of the servant than the right of the master.
4. Those who make a difficulty of Old Testament slavery should remember—
(1.) That this is the first, and for centuries the only, attempt to legislate on behalf of the slave.
(2.) That this attempt stands first among those judgments which regulated political and social life. And
(3.) that if fairly carried out it meant the eventual and effectual extinction of slavery, and the establishment of the right of man as man.
5. That bondage could scarcely have been very intolerable from which its subjects should so seldom endeavour to escape (1Sa_25:10; 1Ki_2:39).
The other subjects connected with Old Testament slavery will be dealt with in their proper place in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. The present passage deals with Hebrew slaves.
I. With regard to the slave himself we notice—
(1.) That his term of service was limited. In the sabbatic year (not literally six years) he was to be free (Exo_21:2.)
(2.) Then he was to be made free, legally and without cost, “for nothing.”
(3.) That the service might be of such a character, that, through love of his master or his family, it might be preferable to freedom (Exo_21:5).
(4.) That so precious and divine was liberty, a special enactment was necessary to enable the slave to forego his right to it (Exo_21:5-6).
(5.) That fair play might be observed all round, this preference of slavery to freedom must be expressed in the most judicial, public, and solemn manner (Exo_21:6).
(6.) That with regard to woman (with the exception noted in Deu_15:12-13) she could only become a slave on the condition of marriage with her master or his son, in which case all the rights and privileges of wedlock under all circumstances must be respected, or else her unconditional freedom must be granted (Exo_21:7-11).
(7.) That no man could be kidnapped and sold for a slave under penalty of death for the manstealer (Exo_21:16).
(8.) That the life and limb of the slave must be respected under severe penalties. (a) If he died under chastisement, the master might be indicted for murder (Exo_21:20, cf. Exo_21:12). (b) If he was maimed in the slighest degree, he was entitled to freedom (Exo_21:26-27).
All this minute legislation was for the benefit of the slave.
II. With regard to the slaveholder—
(1.) He was entitled at most to six years of service.
(2.) Only by the free consent of the slave, and the authorities, could he retain his services for one moment longer.
(3.) In the case of punishment inflicted on the slave, only unless the victim survived it two days, did the owner escape the charge of murder, and even then the loss of a valuable servant was no small penalty. A great deal has been made of this last case (Exo_21:20-21). But
(1) it argues a strong public sentiment on behalf of the slave, and implies that indignation might rise so high as to be difficult to repress.
(2) The slave might not die wholly from this cause, and since it might be beyond the power of the master to prove his innocence, the law provides that he should have the benefit of the doubt.
(3) The master was punished if guilty by the loss of valuable service, which was equivalent to money.
(4) Why should “He is his money” be interpreted more literally than “Time is money”? In conclusion—
I. If God cared for the Hebrew slave He will care for the Christian servant.
II. If it was the duty of the Hebrew slave to serve his master with that diligence and affection which this legislation implies, how much more is it obligatory on the Christian servant?
III. If the Hebrew master were amenable to God’s laws, and if those laws distinctly contemplated his relation to his dependent, how much more should he, who himself “serves the Lord Christ,” obey His laws who said, “One is your master, even Christ, and all ye are brethren”?—J. W. Burn.
SUGGESTIVE COMMENTS ON THE VERSES
Exo_21:1-6. Penalties as well as laws God would have made known to His people.
It concerns all Israel to know the judgments of God as well as His laws.
Notwithstanding all the general laws given to men, God has reserved some special judgments for His Church.
Amongst the judgments given to the Church, God has provided much concerning servants.
Servants in the Church must do faithful service for their time.
God in judgment delivers men to certainty of servitude when they choose it.
God’s judgments, about corporal bondage and freedom, should remindus about our spiritual: to hate slavery and love freedom.
ILLUSTRATIONS
BY
REV. WILLIAM ADAMSON
Moral Law! Exo_21:1. Travelling some Alpine pass, where the narrow road, cut out of the face of the rock, hangs over a frightful gorge, it is with friendly eyes you look on the wall that restrains your restive steed from backing into the gulf below. Such are the restraints God’s law imposes—no other. It is a fence from evil—nothing else. Men hate the Divine restrictions as the madman raves against the padded walls which save him from deeds of horror. Thank God, our hearts are not left to themselves.
“For wholesome laws preserve us free,
By stinting of our liberty.”
—Butler.
Slavery-Bias! Exo_21:2. Martin says that slavery, both Indian and Negro, that blighting upas which has been the curse of the West Indics, has accompanied the white colonist—whether Spaniard, Frenchman, or Briton—in his progress, tainting like a plague every incipient association, and blasting the efforts of man, however well disposed, by its demonlike influences over the natural virtues with which the Creator has endowed him; leaving all cold, and dark, and desolate within. But his limitation is unjust to the “pale-faces,” for black and red and white skins have been alike addicted to enslaving their fellows. In Germany, England, and Russia a modified kind of slavery has existed. In the last-named country it was only a few years ago that the masses of serfs were emancipated. Although the serfs of Russia, the old villeins of England, and the like, could hardly be denominated slaves in the sense in which that word is understood to apply to the Roman slave, or to the modern African slave; yet there is no doubt that these servants of feudal chiefs worked for their masters, and were sold by them, very much as the modern serf.
“Thus man devotes his brother, and destroys;
And worse than all, and most to be deplored,
As human nature’s broadest, foulest blot,
Chains him and tasks him, and exacts his sweat
With stripes.”
—Cowper.
Slave-Trade! Exo_21:2. It has been suggested that a great distinction lies between “slavery “and the “slave trade.” The primitive domestic slavery which has for ages prevailed in Africa, bears no comparison with the cruel, oppressive bondage under which the poor negroes so long groaned in America. The Portuguese were the first to begin this infamous traffic at Cape Bajedor in 1442. But the first cargo of slaves was conveyed to Jamaica by some Genoese merchants in 1517, to whom the Emperor Charles V. granted a patent for the annual supply of 4000 negroes to his West Indian possessions. England first sullied her hands with “the blood of bondage” in 1562, when Charles II. sanctioned an expedition of three ships under Captain Hawkins.
“I would not have a slave to till my ground,
To carry me, to fan me while I sleep,
And tremble when I wake, for all the wealth
That sinews, bought and sold, have ever earned.”
Slave-Sufferings! Exo_21:2. Little Benome was an African girl. Sent by her mother to one of Africa’s sunny fountains for water, she saw a slave-hunting party approach. Rushing home, the villagers were alarmed and escaped to the woods. Their village was burnt, and next day themselves pursued. The fugitives were captured by the men-stealers, and Benome with her mother and many others were tied together and marched off to the coast. The way led through a desert and across a river. Here the cruel hunters seized a babe in arms, and flung it alive into the jungle to be devoured by wild beasts. The coast reached, mothers and daughters, brothers and sisters, were sold separately, and shipped to America. Hundreds were imprisoned in the hold of the ship; and there, like bales of goods, kept till the voyage was over. Benome’s ship was, however, captured by a British man-of-war, and Benome and the others were taken to the Island of Trinidad for emancipation. Here she learned to love the Lord Jesus Christ.
“O England, empire’s home and head,
First in each art of peace and pow’r,
Mighty the billow-crest to tread,
Mighty to rule the battle hour,
But mightiest to relieve and save,—
Rejoice that thon hast freed the slave.”
—Carlisle.
Slave-Emancipation! Exo_21:2-4. One of the grandest results of Christian missions to the West Indies was the emancipation of the slaves in all the British Colonies in 1838. The enemies of freedom had predicted anarchy and rebellion. They loudly averred that the freed-men would at once rise against their former owners, and seek revenge. But it was not so. The utmost quiet prevailed. A Watch-night meeting was held in different places. Thousands of men, women, and children were found upon their bended knees before God to receive the blessing of freedom from heaven. When the clock struck twelve, which was the death-knell of slavery, they rose to their feet, and sung with united heart and voice, as they had never sung before—
“Praise God, from whom all blessings flow!
Praise Him, all creatures here below!
Praise Him above, ye heavenly host—
Praise Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.”
Freewill-Serfdom! Exo_21:6. As in nature’s field, says Law, so in Israel’s story, almost every object reflects Christ. A Hebrew servant is the subject of this verse, but one for whom freedom has no charms. Attachment binds him to his master’s home, and a new ordinance is appointed to sanctify this willing offer of perpetual service. It may, perhaps, come as a new thought to some, that in this servant’s choice and constant love, Jesus reveals Himself. In the 40th Psalm, where faith ascends in heaven-high flight, the Eternal Son, in close communion with the Eternal Father, is heard declaring, “Mine ears hast Thou opened,” i.e., digged by Thy hand. Thus we see the God-man stooping to the lowest grade—seeking a servant’s voice—submitting to a servant’s toil. Jehovah’s fellow is Jehovah’s workman in the labour-field of grace. We have, then, in this abject state a speaking portrait of the love of Jesus. “Behold My servant, whom I uphold” (Isa_42:1). “I am among you as he that serveth” (John 13).
“To conquer and to save, the Son of God
Came to His own in great humility,
Who wont to ride on cherub wings abroad,
And round Him wrap the mantle of the sky.”
—Heber.
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.
J. R. Dummelow 1909 · Public Domain On v1 The Book of the Covenant (continued)
The Book of the Covenant (continued)
I-ii. Regulations regarding the Treatment of Hebrew Slaves.
Read full note →
Slavery was universal in ancient times, and the Mosaic Law does not abolish it. Among the Hebrews, however, slavery was by no means the degrading and oppressive thing that it was among other nations. Manstealing, upon which modern systems of slavery are based, was a crime punishable by death (see Exo_21:16), and the Law of Moses recognises the right of a slave to just and honourable treatment. A Hebrew slave might occupy a high position in his master's household and be regarded as a trusty friend, as the case of Eliezer shows (Genesis 24). He could not be bound for more than six years at a time; in the seventh year he obtained his freedom if he desired it (see Exo_21:2); he might hold property and come to be able to redeem himself (Lev_25:49); he was protected from the violence of his master (Exo_21:20-21); he could claim compensation for bodily injury (Exo_21:26-27); and he was entitled to the sabbath rest (Exo_20:10). If a Hebrew girl became her master's concubine he could not sell her to a foreigner, but must let her be redeemed (Exo_21:8); if his son married her he must treat her as a daughter (Exo_21:9); if he took a second wife he must not degrade her, but use her as liberally as before (Exo_21:10). In general the Hebrew master was to treat his slave rather as a brother or hired servant than as a chattel, and the principle which was to govern his treatment was the humane precept 'thou shalt not rule over him with rigour; but shalt fear thy God' (Lev_25:43). These laws, it is true, apply to the slave who was an Israelite, but the lot of even the foreign slave who had been captured in war was only a little less favourable. If it be asked why the Mosaic Law did not at once abolish slavery the answer must be that the time was not ripe for that. Christ Himself did not abolish it; and His apostles tolerated it (see 1Co_7:20-24 and the Epistle to Philemon). Christianity did not violently overthrow existing social institutions or abolish class distinctions. But it taught the brotherhood of all men, and by quietly introducing the leaven of justice, humanity, and brotherly love into society, gradually abolished the worst social abuses and made slavery impossible.
2. If thou buy an Hebrew servant] A man might voluntarily sell himself for debt (Lev_25:39), or he might be judicially sold for theft (see Exo_22:3), or he might be sold by his parents (Exo_21:7). If the year of Jubilee fell before the seventh year of his servitude he went free then: see Lev_25:40, Lev_25:41. Lifelong compulsory servitude was therefore unknown.
3. If he were married] before coming into slavery. If he married after becoming a slave, the case contemplated in the next verse, he would do so subject to the consent of his master, in which case the wife and children remained with the master.
5. Slavery may be preferable to freedom. This shows the mild nature of slavery among the Hebrews.
6. Unto the judges] RV 'unto God.' The expressions are really identical, for the judges would be the priests, or the high priest, and the transaction would take place at the sanctuary and have the sanction of the divine judgment: see on Exo_22:8, Exo_22:28; RV. Bore his ear] The fastening of the ear to the doorpost signifies his perpetual attachment to the house of his master: cp. Deu_15:17. The ear is pierced as being the organ of hearing and, therefore, of obedience.
7. To be a maidservant] The word denotes a slavewife, a consort of inferior rank, like Hagar (Gen_16:3). Her position was permanent. She did not go out at the end of six years, which would have been a degradation. If she were the wife of the master of the house, she was to be treated as a wife; if of the son, as a daughter. If she were dismissed, it must be in an honourable way (Exo_21:8, Exo_21:11), and without repayment of the purchase money.
10. Polygamy, like slavery, was tolerated by the Law of Moses. Its cessation in Christian lands has naturally followed the nobler teaching of Christianity regarding woman: cp. the remarks on the cessation of slavery.
12-17. Three Offences Punishable by Death, viz. murder, manstealing, and the smiting or cursing of parents.
13. For the appointment of cities of refuge as an asylum in the case of accidental homicide, see on Num_35:9-34.
14. From mine altar] The altar seems to have been the place of refuge at first: see 1Ki_1:50; 1Ki_2:28.
15. Smiteth] not necessarily with fatal effect. Reverence towards parents was regarded in ancient times as more a religious than a social duty, and a breach of the fifth commandment, like blasphemy, was a capital offence: see intro. to the Decalogue, and cp. Deu_21:18.
16. Manstealing is to be punished as severely as murder.
17. Cursing, like blessing, is always looked upon as efficacious. It is a solemn appeal to God, who will not permit His name to be taken in vain. He will not respond to the child who invokes His power to the injury of a father or mother. And such an impious appeal is itself a serious crime.
18-32. The Law of Compensation for Injury to Life or Limb.
19. Shall.. be quit] i.e. of the charge of murder. But he must pay for the injured man's loss of time and medical treatment.
21. He is his money] The master himself loses by his servant's inability to work, and is sufficiently punished in this way. If the injury is of a permanent nature the slave is entitled to his freedom: see Exo_21:26, Exo_21:27.
23. Any mischief] beyond the loss of the child (Exo_21:22). The law of retaliation ('like for like') is common to all early stages of civilisation: cp. e.g. art. 'Laws of Hammurabi.' It is a rough and ready kind of justice, but it involves many difficulties and is generally abandoned in favour of a system of fines and penalties. It should be observed that the law of retaliation is not the same as private revenge. The equivalent penalty is inflicted by the judge, not by the injured person: cp. Lev_24:17-21; Deu_19:15-21. Christ refers to this passage in the Sermon on the Mount (Mat_5:38.), forbidding the spirit of revenge, and enforcing the duty of forbearance in imitation of the heavenly Father.
28. The following enactments are a good illustration of the spirit of even-handed justice displayed by the Mosaic Law: cp. Gen_9:5. His flesh shall not be eaten] This would serve to emphasise the horror connected with such an accidental death. It was also in accordance with the law forbidding the eating of blood as unclean. An ox killed by stoning would not be bled: see on Lev_17:10-16, and cp. Exo_22:31.
29. In this case the owner is morally responsible and is liable to be put to death. The death penalty may, however, be commuted by a fine, the amount of which would be fixed by the relatives of the person killed, with probably an appeal to the judges.
32. The silver shekel was in value a little more than half-a-crown. The ordinary price of a slave, therefore, was about £3 10s.: cp. Zec_11:12-13; Mat_26:15. From the latter passage it will be seen that our Lord's life was reckoned of the same value as that of a slave.
33-c. Exo_22:15. Law of Compensation for Injury to Property.
34. The dead beast shall be his] It is assumed that he has paid the full value of the live animal.
J. R. Dummelow, A Commentary on the Holy Bible (Macmillan, 1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
C. I. Scofield 1917 · Public Domain On v24 Eye for eye
Eye for eye
Lev 24:20; Deu 19:21; Mat 5:38-44; 1Pe 2:19-21. The provision in Exodus is law, and righteous; the N.T. passages, grace, and merciful.
The Scofield Reference Bible (1917 edition), notes by C. I. Scofield — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Arno C. Gaebelein 1922 · Public Domain On v1 CHAPTER 21 Different Judgments
CHAPTER 21 Different Judgments
1. Master and servant (Exo 21:1-11)
Read full note →
2. Concerning injury to the person (Exo 21:12-32)
3. Concerning property (Exo 21:33-36)
The Three Chapters which follow the giving of the Ten Commandments give the practical application of the Decalogue in the daily life. The duties towards the fellowman are demonstrated in part. There are seven sections to these three chapters; each section contains ten precepts.
The servant occupies the first place. He was to obtain his freedom for nothing after serving six years. In Deuteronomy we read that the master is commanded not to let him go empty-handed, but give him of his flock, his threshing floor and his winepress. In this Israel was to remember their own deliverance from the house of bondage (Deu 15:12-18). If the servant chose to remain with his master forever, his ear was to be bored through as the sign of perpetual servitude. This was a custom in other nations as well and signified that the servant was, as it were, fastened by the awl to the house (Deu 15:17).
The Hebrew servant is put so prominently in the foreground because the Son of God became a servant and has chosen the perpetual service. Psa 40:6 and Heb 10:5 show that it is typical of the Lord Jesus Christ. Notice what it says in our chapter: “And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife and my children, I will not go out free.” It was love which decided the Hebrew servant to be a servant forever. And it was love which brought Him to this earth to do the Father’s will, and love for the church. “He loved the church and gave Himself for it.” And He loves us as individuals. This corresponds to the love of the servant to his wife and his children. Christ was a servant on earth; He is serving in glory now as the priest and advocate of His people, and in glory “He will gird Himself ... and will come forth and serve them” (Luk 12:37).
This is followed by judgments concerning the injury of a person. Injury of a person had to be punished in a manner corresponding to the injury. The principle of retribution is marked throughout these laws. Smiting father or mother, man-stealing, and cursing the parents was punishable with death. Many pages might be written to follow these laws in detail. Read Exo 21:23-27, and compare with Mat 5:38-48.
Notice again the mention of the servant in Exo 21:32. The price of a servant was thirty shekels of silver. The redemption price of a free Israelite was fifty shekels (Lev 27:3); that of a slave, thirty shekels. How it reminds us again of Him who was sold for thirty pieces of silver (Deu 11:12).
Arno C. Gaebelein, The Annotated Bible (1913–1922) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Paul E. Kretzmann 1924 · Public Domain On vv1, 12, 28 Precepts Regulating the Master’s Relation to Slaves
Precepts Regulating the Master’s Relation to Slaves
v. 1. Now these are the judgments which thou shalt set before them. These were special ordinances concerning the political commonwealth of the Jews. In the New Testament God’s revelation is no longer confined to one single people, and we no longer have any state under the direct government of God. And yet, also these ordinances were recorded for our learning, especially for the purpose of teaching us various applications of the law of love.
Read full note →
v. 2. If thou buy an Hebrew servant, as a slave, six years he shall serve in this capacity; and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing, the idea being that he has earned his freedom by his six years’ service.
v. 3. If he came in by himself, literally, with his body, that is, unmarried, he shall go out by himself; if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. Cf Exo 22:3; Lev 25:39; Deu 15:12-15.
v. 4. If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters, the woman, of course, being a slave also, the wife and her children shall be her master’s, and he shall go out by himself. The man could have his freedom, if he chose, but the woman would still remain the master’s property, and her children as well.
v. 5. And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children, I will not go out free, the slave preferring a continuation of his slavery in the company of his family to freedom without his loved ones,
v. 6. then his master shall bring him unto the judges, before the proper officers; he shall also bring him to the door or unto the door-post of his house; and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl; and he shall serve him forever, the opening in the ear marking the slave as such.
v. 7. And if a man sell his daughter to be a maid-servant, her position being that of housekeeper and probable concubine, she shall not go out as the men-servants do, that is, not be released in the seventh year, the purpose being that she meanwhile become the wife or the concubine either of the master or of his son.
v. 8. If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, that is, who had purchased her with the expectation of making her his wife or concubine, then shall he let her be redeemed by some other man who might desire her for his wife. To sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her, he has broken faith with her, for she came to him, although her father sold her for reasons of poverty, Lev 25:39, with the understanding that she was to occupy the position of wife or concubine. Hebrew girls were not to be sold into unconditional slavery to members of other nations.
v. 9. And if he have betrothed her unto his son, if he have purchased the girl with the intention of making her his son’s wife or concubine, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters, according to the rights of a daughter. That was the second possibility.
v. 10. If he take him another wife, so that he have two or more wives or concubines, her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, the special duty which marriage implies, shall he not diminish. She was on no account to be neglected also in case of this third possibility; the father was to use his power and authority in upholding the rights of the girl.
v. 11. And if he do not these three unto her, that is, if, in the three given instances, he does not do the right thing by her, then shall she go out free without money. The woman would have her freedom, and her father would have the advantage of the purchase-money. Thus was the Hebrew male or female servant protected, for the Israelites were not to forget that the lowly among their people were likewise members of God’s chosen nation. The principle applies to Christian masters also, inasmuch as they will treat even the least among the believers as brethren and sisters in Christ.
Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
unfoldingWord translationNotes 2017 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On vv1, 2, 5, 7, 9, 12, 15, 18, 20, 22, 26, 28, 31, 33, 35 General Information:
General Information:
Yahweh continues speaking to Moses.
Read full note →
you must set before them
"you must give them" or "you must tell them"
translationWords
decree
unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.
Tyndale Open Study Notes 2022 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On vv1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 12, 14, 17, 18, 22, 28, 33 21:1–23:33 The terms of the covenant are now expanded.…
21:1–23:33 The terms of the covenant are now expanded. The beginning section (21:1–23:19) gives specific examples of the general principles stated in 20:3-17. The commitments to which God bound himself if the Israelites kept their side of the covenant are stated in 23:20-33, as are the blessings of obedience.
21:1–23:19 The statements found here are in the typical case-law format of ancient Near Eastern law codes. This format begins with a hypothetical situation introduced by the word “if.” The following statement of what is to be done in such a case is introduced by “then.” While some cases are grouped into categories in these chapters, there is little attempt to separate personal, civil, or ceremonial laws from one another. For God, life is not compartmentalized. All of life is lived in relationship to God, so all kinds of behavior signify whether we are in loving submission to him or in defiance of him.
Read full note →
21:1-11 Slavery was a fact of life in the ancient world. In some cases, it was the only resort for those who were destitute. In much of the ancient world, people who were slaves felt that the gods had abandoned them. But the Lord cares about those who are in this helpless condition, so his covenant people must care also. Ultimately, the revelation that Jesus Christ had died for all people everywhere would make the practice of slavery untenable (Gal 3:28).
Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.