Exodus 21-22
Introduction
This lesson covers civil law rather than religious law. Again, please refer to these resources as well: this commentary, the NETS Bible, and this LXX Interlinear.
Exo. 21
The first six verses are about Hebrew servants. The Greek word there is paida (from which we get pediatric), meaning child or youth, not doulos meaning slave. Though the context doesn’t make a clear distinction between the two meanings, the main point is that these were fellow Hebrews and must not be enslaved for life, unless by the servant’s consent and with the legal sanction of judges. Compared to slavery in the surrounding nations, this was very humane and protected the rights of servants or slaves as human beings. Hebrews were thus treated as indentured servants, more commonly for the purpose of paying a debt. And in this we see that the laws of Moses did not simply mimic existing laws from other cultures but improve them. Remember that Israel did not form in a social vacuum.
However, we see immediately the inferior status of female servants, in line with the fact that all females were considered inferior in being or essence in ancient near east culture. A woman was always the property of some male relative or spouse. She could be bought and sold even if not a slave, and she had no choice in the matter if her father decided to sell her as a concubine. Even so, she had to be treated kindly and given adequate provisions for living; this was an improvement compared to other cultures.
Remember this when people today whine about backlash against patriarchy. Two wrongs don’t make a right, but all human beings should treat each other as equal in rights, opportunities, and respect. Not equality of outcome or disregard of ability or character, but equality of humanity. There’s a huge gap between God’s natural order, and PEOPLE’s natural order.
The next topic is homicide, and if accidental, the offending party could run to one of what were called Cities of Refuge for a certain time, so the deceased person’s family couldn’t avenge themselves. If intentional, there was to be no refuge anywhere, not even at God’s altar. In contrast, the Code of Hammurabi allowed capital punishment even if the death was purely an accident.
We see also that if a child deliberately kills or even insults their parents, that child was to be put to death, though there doesn’t seem to be any evidence that this was actually carried out, as it was left to the discretion of the parents. The point seems to be that this was a last resort for a habit of assault against parents, not a flippant attitude against children over everyday arguments.
The next brief topic is kidnapping, which is considered a capital offense and executed without mercy.
After this the text turns to two men fighting and one being injured. It’s basically an early form of worker’s compensation, because the injured party must be compensated for loss of employment and medical expenses. But if the injured party is their own servant, they’re only punished if the servant dies. The reason is that the servant is the owner’s property, so the owner is already punished by loss of services, and no further legal penalty is imposed. The reason death is worthy of punishment is again because life belongs to God and can never be owned by us, but only leased.
Of course, to our modern western ears, this all seems barbaric. But remember that God is only setting minimal standards in light of human frailty; it was a step, not the whole staircase. Jesus is the top of that staircase, but even in the New Testament we see the teaching of a gradual change so as not to cause chaos in society. However, too many have dragged their feet and clug to what God intended to be superceded, such as flesh-based entitlement.
Next we move on to cases where a pregnant woman is injured and the baby miscarries, and this is where we first see the principle of “an eye for an eye”. Since there was no premeditated intent to harm the unborn child, the punishment is to fit the degree of injury. It seems to indicate that if the child appears fully formed and would have otherwise been born alive, the one causing the baby’s death must pay with their own life. Constable’s notes include an argument against the claim of abortion advocates that this passage treats the baby as not a person, so check that out if you’d like to see the scriptural support for babies as vauled human beings. Regarding permanent damage to various body parts of an owner’s servant, the servant is to be set free as compensation.
Next the topic is harm against humans by animals. Whereas Hammurabi demanded the death of a man’s son if his ox killed another man’s son, these laws of Moses demand the death of the man, but only if he was habitually allowing his ox to run free and cause damage. If not, then only the animal must die, and it cannot be eaten. Even so, if the man is to die, he can offer to pay a ransom for his life. But if the person killed by the animal was a child, no ransom can be substituted. If the victim was a servant, even a female one, the animal’s owner has to pay the full price of a servant, that being 30 pieces of silver― the amount we all know that Judas was offered to betray Jesus, so they only valued him on the level of a common servant.
Next is the case of someone failing to take reasonable safety precautions for a pit they dug, and an animal falls in and dies. Basically the pit owner has to abide by the modern saying, “If you break it, you buy it”. In the case of one animal killing another animal, the killer animal must be sold and the money divided, and the meat of the dead animal divided. But if the killer animal was known to be dangerous, the owner would have to pay the full price rather than half.
In all of this so far, we see that these laws show compassion for victims beyond other societal norms, including the vaunted Code of Hammurabi. In some cases the Biblical laws are harsher, because the value God places on human life is higher. But all of this is to teach people to respect other people and their property.
Exo. 22
The first section of this chapter is about theft. The penalty involved compensation beyond the value of the stolen goods, as a punishment and deterrent. If the thief is caught in the act and dies at the owner’s hands, the owner is not held guilty unless it was daytime. And if the thief can’t pay the penalty, he has to be sold as a slave. One of my ancestors suffered the deaths of her husband and baby on the way to the United States, and she was sold as a slave to compensate the ship’s captain for the trip.
The next section concerns a careless animal owner whose livestock is grazing on someone else’s land, and the demand of suitable compensation for arson or careless burning that spreads to destroy someone else’s crops or stacked grain. It also deals with a person who is negligent in safeguarding what someone else entrusted to them, and cases where the person was actually robbed rather than negligent. More mundane issues are covered up to verse 15./p>
Now the text turns to issues of morality carrying property compensation penalties. If a man seduces an unbetrothed virgin, he has to pay the bride price and marry her, or whatever payment the father demands.
Three other issues are then briefly mentioned: the no-questions-asked execution of sorcerers, those committing beastiality, and those sacrificing to any god but the real God. The Greek word for sorcerer is pharmakous meaning someone who administers potions to induce visions or hallucinations, and the Bible doesn’t care if the intent is “black” or “white” magic. The modern word pharmacy is derived from this but has changed to mean dispensing medications for healing, and the Bible clearly allows the use of medicinal compounds. Too many would-be theologians jump to the wild conclusion that all modern medicine is forbidden by God, because they don’t consider how the Bible uses words, and that these words change meaning over time and between languages and cultures.
In verse 21 the text turns to the issue of hospitality, with the reminder that the people of Israel were once foreigners in Egypt. God makes it clear that he himself will administer severe penalties to those who oppress foreigners, as he did to the Egyptians on behalf of Israel.
But then in verse 25 it deals with the issue of what is commonly called usury, which some mistakenly apply to all forms of charging interest on a loan. However, this text is talking about money borrowed by the poor. The poor are borrowing out of necessity and for that reason must not be charged interest. Money borrowed by the better-off as a business investment is not in view here at all, though in other scriptures interest was not to be charged to fellow Hebrews in any case, but could be charged to foreigners. Extortion and “loan sharking” are cleary forbidden in all scripture, without regard to whether or not the borrowers are Hebrews.
Yet even the permission to charge loan interest to foreigners is held in contempt by modern western critics, as an excuse to hate all Jews without distinction or exception. May such people be held to the same standards of guilt without a trial.
The final section we’ll cover in this lesson is about “first fruits”. We’ve already learned why God reserves the firstborn sons for himself, and now it includes also the first and best of herds and crops, to remind them that everything belongs to God and we’re just leasing it.
Tacked on to the end of this chapter is the command for people not to eat the meat of an animal that they themselves didn’t kill, but to leave it for the dogs. The rationale presumed by most commentators is that since the time and cause of death is unknown, it poses a risk of disease, and the blood had not been properly drained.