God gave Moses further laws based upon the Ten given in the previous chapter. They covered a large number of subjects and Moses was to set these before the people (v1). These laws were also for the judges who Moses had appointed, and it covered the guidelines with which they were to carry out their judicial roles. God’s law is the basis for good and peaceful living and if we carried them out to the letter the world would be a better place, but sadly, we don’t, and it isn’t and that’s why Jesus had to come to be our Saviour. We are still fighting many of the injustices which these laws were given to eradicate.
God starts with the treatment of servants and slaves (v2-4). It is not surprising because that’s how He began the Ten Commandments – Exodus 20 v 2 – “I am The Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.” God had brought them out of slavery in Egypt. Moses did not institute slavery. It was in existence long before and God was in the process of eliminating it. God was showing them that everyone deserved respect and should be treated well. In a way all of us are servants and should treated with respect. The Bible accepts this but it is clear that even slaves were to be treated well and so well that slaves would be loyal to their owners and employers and even commit themselves to service when given the opportunity to go free. Many of these slaves were not treated badly as we would imagine the term ‘slavery’. The idea of ‘human trafficking’ was not contemplated in the Bible. There was usually a very good reason for entering into ‘slavery’.
I know friends in some countries who had ‘slaves’ or ‘servants’ who were treated very well, even part of the family, paid well, given free board and provisions, respected and were more than happy to have a home and a job. Of course there would be exceptions.
“If you buy a Hebrew servant, he shall serve six years; and in the seventh he shall go out free and pay nothing. If he comes in by himself, he shall go out by himself; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master has given him a wife, and she has borne him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master’s, and he shall go out by himself.” (2-4)
These verses indicate that the position was not necessarily permanent. On the seventh year they could go free and take their wife with them if they were married when they arrived. If the master had provided the man with a wife after he arrived, and they had children, he had to leave alone. They had to stay with the master because they were his property until they had competed their obligation or be redeemed.
Various commentators suggest that this ‘slavery’ was really ‘covenanted labour’ or ‘indentured labour’ or even like a modern apprenticeship and was nothing like the slavery amongst other nations. It was never forced labour for life!
We then came to an amazing ceremony in verses 5 and 6 where the servant had a choice to leave or to stay. This was motivated by love for his master. This showed that many of them were very well treated. If, after six years, he wanted to stay and said that he loved his master, his wife and children, his master was to bring him to the door or doorpost and pierce his ear with an awl. This would indicate that the servant wanted to serve his master forever. He was not forced to say this, he was to say it ‘plainly’ which I take to mean, openly and freely out of love for his master.
One could say that the awl piercing his ear was like the nails piercing our Saviour. He, too, did it out of love for His Father and us. It also is a picture of us committing ourselves to the service of our Master, The Lord Jesus Christ, for ever.
We then come to the rights of a female slave sold by her father to a master with a view to marriage (v7-11). If she does not meet with her master’s approval, he must let her be redeemed. If the master didn’t marry her or didn’t give her to his son, he still had to treat her right. He must not deprive her of proper food or rights, she was to be treated more like a daughter. If the master failed to provide proper food, clothing or marriage rights, he must let her go free without payment. He could not keep her as a slave if she wanted to go and be redeemed by someone else. He cannot sell her to another master. God was making amazing protections for such a female, unlike that of a slave.
God then expands on the details of murder and violence (v12-14). “He who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death. However, if he did not lie in wait, but God delivered him into his hand, then I will appoint for you a place where he may flee. But if a man acts with premeditation against his neighbour, to kill him by treachery, you shall take him from My altar, that he may die.”
Whilst murder is condemned, there is a difference between pre-meditated and accidental. The penalty for murder is death and there was no place for refuge at God’s altar. Such persons would take hold of the horns of the altar as in 1 Kings 2:28 but there was no protection for the premeditated murderer. However, God made provision for the person who commits murder without intent, and He provided Cities of Refuge for them to flee to so that they could escape
the Avenger who was instructed to put them to death. The Cities are listed for us in Numbers 35 and Joshua 20. The cities were appropriately spread around so that one could escape in the case of manslaughter, murder without premeditation or by accident, for protection until their case was properly heard by the judges. God is a Just God and provided for a proper adjudication.
The death penalty is laid down in Genesis 9:6 “Whoever sheds man’s blood by man shall his blood be shed for he is made in the image of God”. God classes murder with intent as treachery and the judges were to examine each case carefully. God’s attitude to murder is described in Numbers 35:31-34 and it makes scary and sobering reading when we think of the present day when hardly a day passes without someone being murdered.
God provided for the murder of a parent (v15-17) and He takes this extremely seriously – “And he who strikes his father or his mother shall surely be put to death.…And he who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death.” Also included here is kidnapping – “He who kidnaps a man and sells him, or if he is found in his hand, shall surely be put to death.” Thus, kidnapping was enslaving a person and was classed as bad as murdering someone and was classed as stealing a person and carried the death penalty unlike stealing property which did not. Most slavery was against that person’s will and thus kidnapping taking and imprisonment of that person. However, some slavery, as recognised in the Bible, was to repay a debt, or towards marriage and entered into willingly and subsequently their release was catered for by God.
These verses go on to say that one must not curse his father or mother. This really means what we would call a death threat. The parents were not given the right to put the offending child to death but, according to Deuteronomy 21:18-21, they were to bring the child before the elders and judges of the city to be judged.
We then come to a subject which has overtaken our society in recent years – the quest for compensation. We are living in a litigious society when money can repay the failures of our fellowmen. Perhaps we should remember who pays it in the end. Hindsight is a wonderful thing and I’m sure we might have done differently if we had known all the facts and outcome.
However, in verses 18,19 the context is for a deliberate act. “If men contend with each other, and one strikes the other with a stone or with his fist, and he does not die but is confined to his bed, if he rises again and walks about outside with his staff, then he who struck him shall be acquitted. He shall only pay for the loss of his time and shall provide for him to be thoroughly healed.”
Men fighting and one uses a stone or even his fist, but the injured party does not die and is confined to bed. If he recovers and manages to walk with his staff, the attacker shall be acquitted but shall compensate the victim for loss of time and pay for his healing. It seems that if they are fighting then they are consenting to the attack thus would be probably covered by self-defence. However, if the victim is able to walk again outside, they don’t get off scot free as they are to pay for compensation and healing. Sadly, today, even this has been abused. Sadly, some are prepared to lie today to get compensation.
Verses 20,21 deal with master and servant relationship – “And if a man beats his male or female servant with a rod, so that he dies under his hand, he shall surely be punished. Notwithstanding, if he remains alive a day or two, he shall not be punished; for he is his property.”
People could misconstrue this by thinking that a master can beat his slave with impunity, but that is not the case. A servant is not just his property, but a person and the master must be punished if he beats him or her with a rod so that he/she dies. If the servant does not die immediately and lives for a day or two, he shall not be punished. This seems to be time for the judges to decide if it was intentionally to kill or just disciplinary. In some societies the master would have complete control and could kill his servant with impunity, but not here. The master would lose out if the servant was murdered. He would lose money and property.
Having laid down the principle, we now come to amounts and levels of compensation or restitution in v22-25. “If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely, yet no harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman’s husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.”
I’m not sure of the facts here. It talks about men fighting and a pregnant woman getting hurt. The term ‘men’ may include women, in which case, I understand how a pregnant woman could get hurt. It may, however, mean males are fighting and a woman gets hurt as a result in the melee or if the woman interfered or maybe tried to stop the fight. Whichever it is, if the pregnant woman gets hurt and it causes her to give birth prematurely. Even if no harm follows, the aggressor is to be punished as the woman’s husband decrees, but that must be ratified by the judges and the penalty determined by the judges if lasting damage follows. If lasting damage does follow, restitution must be paid.
There has been some misinterpretation of this passage, I believe. Some have suggested that this passage supports the Pro-Choice Followers in that it doesn’t protect the unborn child implying that the loss of the unborn carries no harm. However, it is clear that there is a penalty whether there is harm or not and if serious injury even to a death penalty. The idea of miscarriage is not implied in the words used. The premature-born child has the same protection as the mother. The death of the child is accidental in this case which cannot be said about an abortion. Bible commentators agree that Moses uses the Hebrew words for ‘children’ and ‘birth’ and there is no reason to think this refers to a miscarriage. This is the only place in the Bible where the death penalty is for accidental death.
We are made in God’s image, and all human life is inherently precious to God, thus anything that takes away the value of life is totally against God and shedding of innocent blood is punishable under the Old Testament law, life for life.
This is one of the phrases which people with no biblical beliefs use – ‘an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.’ it is most often used by them as a law for revenge but that is taking the phrase out of context. It is a measure to be used by judges when assessing damages in specified cases and would tend to rule out the modern-day practice of claiming huge damages which are often out of proportion.
In verses 26,27 God lays down the law regarding retribution where a servant is the victim. It shows clearly that God protects slaves or servants. In such cases the servant was not compensated an eye for an eye etc. but given his/her freedom. They were to be treated well and not like cattle. One commentator said that this would teach masters humanity and caution, as one rash blow might have deprived them of all right to the future services of the slave. This would clearly be to their loss and the slave/servant’s gain.
Next, we are introduced to the law concerning the treatment of an owner’s animals (v28-32). If an ox kills a person, the ox was to be stoned and its flesh not to be eaten. However, the owner was not to be punished. There was an important proviso to this – if the ox had done this before and the owner knew about it and he had not kept it under control, then the ox was to be stoned, and the owner put to death. The owner would gain nothing from the ox as he could not sell its flesh for food. An ox was referred to here as it was the only animal kept by the Israelites which was capable of goring a person to death. There was a responsibility upon the owner to keep an aggressive animal under proper control.
The owner could redeem his life if he paid a sum of money which seems to mean that if the survivors of the person killed are prepared to accept payment instead, he could pay the sum they required instead of his own life.
If the ox gored a servant to death, the owner must pay thirty shekels of silver to the master of the servant and ox put to death.
This was the price of a slave and that was the price paid for Jesus by the Jewish religious leaders to Judas for betraying Jesus. (Matthew 26:15)
If a man digs or opens a pit and doesn’t cover it and an ox or donkey falls in it (v33-36), the owner of the pit must make it good to the person whose animal falls into it by giving money, but he keeps the dead animal. If one man’s ox kills another man’s ox, the live ox shall be sold and the money divided between the owners, and they shall also divide the dead ox. Maybe they could sell it for food and share the proceeds. If, however, the ox had ‘previous’ for goring and its owner had not kept it under control, he shall repay ox for ox and the dead ox shall be his.
