JULLIAN AND JOSHUA – The World’s First Civil Rights: Exodus 21

This chapter exhibits how God gives Moses further commands to give to the people. Exodus 21
contains many laws on a wide variety of subjects including:

• Employment law regarding the treatment of servants.

• Murder, manslaughter, and violent assault.

These different regulations are as remarkable for their justice and prudence as for their humanity.
Their great tendency is to show the valuableness of human life, and the necessity of having peace
and good understanding in every neighborhood; and they possess that quality which should be
the object of all good and wholesome laws-the prevention of crimes.”

THE GENERAL LAW CONCERNING THE HEBREW SLAVES

With ancient Israel, as in the entire ancient world, there were people who worked for others on
the principle of servitude.
There were four basic ways a Hebrew might become a slave to another Hebrew.

• In extreme poverty, they might sell their liberty.

• A father might sell a daughter as a servant into a home with the intention that she would
eventually marry into that family.
• In the case of bankruptcy, a man might become servant to his creditors.
• If a thief had nothing with which to pay proper restitution.

The first words of this section of law in the Book of Exodus show that God wanted Israel to respect
the rights and dignity of servants.

1. He shall serve six years; and in the seventh he shall go out free and pay nothing
In all of the four above mentioned cases, the servitude was never obligated to be life-long.
The Hebrew servant worked for six years and then was set free. That this servitude could extend,
at the utmost, only to six years; and that it was nearly the same as in some cases of apprenticeship
among us.
2. 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.
At the end of the six years the servant went out with what he came in with. If the master
provided a wife (and therefore children), the wife and children had to stay with the master until
they had fulfilled their obligations or could be redeemed. This provision may seem hard to us, but
the wife was presumably a perpetual slave, and therefore the master’s own property.
THE BOND-SLAVE: A WILLING SLAVE FOR LIFE
But if the servant plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,’
then his master shall bring him to the judges.
If, after the six years of servitude, a servant wished to make a life-long commitment to his master
– in light of the master’s goodness and his blessings for the servant – he could, through this
ceremony, make a life-long commitment to his master. This commitment was not motivated by
debt or obligation, only by love for the master, and the good things that the master had provided
for the servant.

1. His master shall bring him to the judges.

This describes the public and recognized ceremony for recognizing a willing slave, one who had
fulfilled his obligation yet still wanted to serve his master out of love. The ‘judges’ changed the
slave’s status from temporary to permanent by a ceremony at the doorpost of the master’s house.
2. His master shall pierce his ear with an awl.
In the ceremony, the servant’s ear was pierced – opened – with an awl. This was done in the
presence of witnesses, and then he shall serve him forever. That awl represents the nail that
affixed Christ to the cross, and we must expect it in every true act of consecration.
3. He shall serve him forever.
Pagans had a custom of branding the slave with the name or the sign of the owner. This is a
picture of the sinner’s service of sin; there comes a place where the sinner, so filled with a love of
his sin, seals his heart over to sin as his master.
But we are transformed the moment Jesus came to save us.

• We have the power to go free if we want to.

• We must be willing to take the consequences of chosen service.
• We must be motivated by love for our Master.
THE RIGHTS OF FEMALE SERVANTS
1. If a man sells his daughter to be a female slave.
The matter described here seems to describe the selling of a young female as a slave to a family
with the intention of marriage. This is why the text explained, who has betrothed her to himself.
Refers to a girl who is sold by her father, not for slavery, but for marriage.
the origin of the custom was the same in either case: to avoid paying a higher bride-price at a
later age, and to rear the future daughter-in-law within the family, ensuring that she ‘fitted in’. Such
an attitude to slaves abolishes slavery.
2. He shall let her be redeemed.
If her master did not marry her or decided not to give her to his son, the master was still obligated
to respect her rights under God’s law. He had to treat her well and give her the opportunity to
escape the obligation of servitude.
If the marriage stipulations are not met, it is considered a breach of contract, and the purchaser
must allow the girl to be redeemed.
3. No right to sell her to a foreign people.
Even if he has grown tired of her, he cannot sell her to another master since this would be a
violation of his marriage duty to her.
4. He shall not diminish her food, her clothing, and her marriage rights.
If the girl received into the home with the expectation of future marriage did not work out, she was
not to be treated poorly. She was not to be deprived the comforts of the home; instead, she must
be treated according to the custom of daughters – treated like a daughter, not a slave.
5. Then she shall go out free, without paying money.
If the household failed in their obligations toward the girl received into the home with the
expectation of future marriage, she was granted freedom. These were remarkable protections of
ones who might be disadvantaged.
LAWS REGARDING VIOLENCE AND DISABILITY. APPROPRIATE PUNISHMENT FOR
BOTH MURDER AND MANSLAUGHTER
The principle for capital punishment goes back to Genesis 9:6: Whoever sheds man’s blood, by
man his blood shall be shed; for in the image of God He made man. The right for the state to use
the sword of execution is also stated in the New Testament (Romans 13:3-4).

1. He who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death.

God did not place accidents, or crimes of passion or neglect on the same plane as crimes of
premeditation and treachery. God told the judges of Israel to look for evidence of premeditation
and treachery.
The principle of punishing murderers is so important to God that He denied murderers refuge at
His altar. According to almost universal custom in the ancient world, a religious altar was a place
of sanctuary against justice or vengeance. An accused man might find safety if he could flee to
an altar before he was apprehended.
The principle that unpunished murders defile a land is a sobering, humbling thought among His
people, where so many are murdered, and few are brought to justice for those murders. Yet God
told the judges of Israel there was to be no mercy in the sentencing of those guilty of the worst
murders, what we might call first-degree murder. The murderer was to find no protection in
misunderstood, misapplied faith.

2. I will appoint for you a place where he may flee.

God commanded and Israel made cities of refuge. These were selected, prepared cities where
one could flee in the case of manslaughter and be protected until his case was properly heard.
This careful distinction between degrees of guilt and punishment in murder, and the protections
for the one guilty of manslaughter as opposed to murder show the sophistication and concern for
justice in the principles given to Israelite judges.
LAWS CONCERNING MURDER OF A PARENT
The law discouraging conflict between generations is important. Each elder generation, as they
grow older, is at the mercy of the younger generation. If the younger generation is allowed to carry
on open warfare with the older generation, the very foundations of society are shaken – as
reflected in the Fourth Commandment. Some modern laws – including developing laws regarding
euthanasia – may lead to the easy murder of the older generation by the younger.
1. He who strikes his father or mother, shall be put to death.
He who strikes a man so that he dies. A child who murdered, or attempts the murder of a parent,
was to receive capital punishment.
2. He who kidnaps a man and sells him, or if he is found in his hand, shall surely be put to
death.
Kidnapping was also considered a capital offense. In the eyes of God, criminally enslaving a man
was not far from murdering him.
This is a subtle yet important difference between slavery as it was (and is) commonly practiced
and slavery as regulated in the Bible. Most slavery (ancient and modern) was actually a form of
kidnapping – the taking and imprisoning of a person against their will. As regulated in the Bible
(and as practiced in some other ancient cultures), slavery was received willingly (usually as
payment for debt) or, in the case of war, was an alternative to death. In ancient Israel, other
cultures were not kidnapped and enslaved (as was the practice in the African slave trade).
3. He who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death.
The idea was of an adult child who threatened their parent. Though this law was severe, it
preserved a critical foundation for civilized society: respect between generations. The Law of
Moses also had a built-in protection for the rights of the child, according to Deuteronomy 21:18-
21. This meant that the parent – against all contemporary custom – did not have the absolute
power of life and death over their children. As a practical matter, the judges of Israel rarely if ever
administered the death penalty in such cases, yet the child was held accountable.
REGARDING COMPENSATION FOR PERSONAL INJURY
1. If men contend with each other, and one strikes the other.
If, because of a conflict, a man was unable to work (is confined to his bed) because of an injury
received at the hand of another, the one who injured him must pay compensation to the man and
his family.
2. If he rises again and walks about outside with his staff.
If the man could recover from the injury, the guilty party was only required to pay for his medical
recovery and for his lost time.

REGARDING THE BEATING AND DEATH OF A SERVANT

“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.”
1. If the servant was murdered by his master, he shall surely be punished.
This shows that in ancient Israel servants could be murdered. In many other cultures, the master
was held blameless if he murdered a servant, because the servant was not considered a person.
2. If the servant remains alive a day or two, the master shall not be punished.
The master not be punished if the servant did not die immediately. Perhaps this was a way to
determine intent, with the idea that if the servant lived for several days, it was an indication that
the master must not have intended to murder him.
The idea was that if the victim did not die immediately, it was evidence that he was struck with
the intention of discipline and not murder. Additionally, if the slave died through this unintentional
attack, the loss of property was thought to be penalty enough to the master. This reflects a general
principle in the Law of Moses: great consideration to the rights of the accused.
The aim of this law was not to place the slave at the master’s mercy but to restrict the master’s
power over him.
3. The master shall be punished for the servant is his property.
These rules, taken collectively, offer a picture of the concepts behind slavery in ancient Israel. A
servant was a person (who could not be assassinated), but they were also the master's property
until their responsibility was accomplished. These ideas provide a spiritual parallel. Spiritually, we
are the property of those we serve.
LAWS OF RETRIBUTION
“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.”

1. He shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman’s husband imposes on him.

This is an example of a case of retribution, where a pregnant woman was injured in a conflict, and
she gave birth prematurely. A penalty was only to be assessed if there was lasting damage. If no
lasting damage resulted, there are no damages awarded. Perhaps this was recognition that the
law cannot address every loss or consequence, and that only permanent consequences are justly
compensated.
But if any harm follows: If lasting damage resulted – short of death, which was covered by
another law – there was retribution or restitution due. The fee would be set by the woman’s
husband and approved by a decision of the court.
But if any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye: If lasting damage resulted,
the eye for eye principle always limited retribution. This law was meant to block man’s natural
desire for vengeance. It was not given as a license for revenge.
Our tendency is to want to do more against the offending party than what they did to us. This
principle can apply to our modern practice of assessing huge punitive damages in lawsuits, and
this law presents the principle that only the loss itself is to be compensated.
2. You shall give life for life.
This principle leads some to wonder if, in ancient Israel, people were routinely killed for what we
might consider accidental death or manslaughter. It’s important to correlate this principle of you
shall give life for life with Numbers 35:31, which allows a substitute ransom payment for loss of
life that was not willful and premeditated murder.
Thus, we conclude that the defendant must surrender to the deceased child’s father or wife’s
husband the monetary value of each life if either or both were harmed.
LAWS REGARDING ANIMAL CONTROL AND DAMAGE
Determining guilt when an animal kills a human.

1. The Owner shall be acquitted.

This law illustrated the principle of intent and neglect. An owner of a man-killing ox could not be
held guilty if the animal had no history of aggression towards people. Yet the animal must die,
and the owner was forbidden to profit from the animal or its death (its flesh shall not be eaten).
No one was to profit from or regard casually even accidental death.
This served to keep up a due detestation of murder, whether committed by man or beast; and at
the same time punished the man as far as possible, by the total loss of the beast.
2. The Animal shall be stoned and its Owner also shall be put to death.
Whom he knew to be aggressive and he failed to control the animal, he was guilty of murder and
punished as such.