Exodus 21: 1 – 36
Human Decency
21 “Now these are the judgments which you shall set before them: 2 If you buy a Hebrew servant, he shall serve six years; and in the seventh he shall go out free and pay nothing. 3 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. 4 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. 5 But if the servant plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,’ 6 then his master shall bring him to the judges. He shall also bring him to the door, or to the doorpost, and his master shall pierce his ear with an awl; and he shall serve him forever. 7 “And if a man sells his daughter to be a female slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. 8 If she does not please her master, who has betrothed 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. 9 And if he has betrothed her to his son, he shall deal with her according to the custom of daughters. 10 If he takes another wife, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, and her marriage rights. 11 And if he does not do these three for her, then she shall go out free, without paying money. 12 “He who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death. 13 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. 14 “But if a man acts with premeditation against his neighbor, to kill him by treachery, you shall take him from My altar, that he may die. 15 “And he who strikes his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. 16 “He who kidnaps a man and sells him, or if he is found in his hand, shall surely be put to death. 17 “And he who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. 18 “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, 19 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. 20 “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. 21 Notwithstanding, if he remains alive a day or two, he shall not be punished; for he is his property. 22 “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. 23 But if any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. 26 “If a man strikes the eye of his male or female servant, and destroys it, he shall let him go free for the sake of his eye. 27 And if he knocks out the tooth of his male or female servant, he shall let him go free for the sake of his tooth. 28 “If an ox gores a man or a woman to death, then the ox shall surely be stoned, and its flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall be acquitted. 29 But if the ox tended to thrust with its horn in times past, and it has been made known to his owner, and he has not kept it confined, so that it has killed a man or a woman, the ox shall be stoned and its owner also shall be put to death. 30 If there is imposed on him a sum of money, then he shall pay to redeem his life, whatever is imposed on him. 31 Whether it has gored a son or gored a daughter, according to this judgment it shall be done to him. 32 If the ox gores a male or female servant, he shall give to their master thirty shekels of silver, and the ox shall be stoned. 33 “And if a man opens a pit, or if a man digs a pit and does not cover it, and an ox or a donkey falls in it, 34 the owner of the pit shall make it good; he shall give money to their owner, but the dead animal shall be his. 35 “If one man’s ox hurts another’s, so that it dies, then they shall sell the live ox and divide the money from it; and the dead ox they shall also divide. 36 Or if it was known that the ox tended to thrust in time past, and its owner has not kept it confined, he shall surely pay ox for ox, and the dead animal shall be his own.
Basic human decency means not doing or saying anything to intentionally cause unnecessary harm to any person or animal who is suffering. This is the core meaning behind history's greatest moral precepts, from the golden rule to the categorical imperative. As beings endowed with a capacity for language and reason, we are uniquely suited to the apprehension of this principle, and most people have an intuitive grasp of it. However it can be difficult to uphold when we have been subjected to the indignity of its violation. But our own suffering is not to be used as a reason to not extend the principle of basic human decency to others--it is in fact a reason to uphold it. The failure to grasp this logic is key to understanding the status of basic human decency in today's (or any) society. The simple truth is that suffering is an inevitable part of life. We all enter this world screaming and we carry that pain with us throughout our lives. Why should we bother making it any worse for each other?
I think it comes down to the Golden Rule; to treat others as you would want to be treated in the same situation. There seems to be a lack of understanding among a lot of people of what it means to be human and recognize what other persons are subjected to. Basic human decency recognizes the humanity of others. It recognizes how we all can get ourselves into difficult binds and need help and compassion at times. Someone with basic decency sees other’s plights and doesn’t take advantage at least and will help if they can. Basic decency doesn’t endlessly contend and nitpick at every opportunity to exploit someone’s minor mistakes. Basic decency sees when someone is hurt or in a bad situation and does basic things to help. Basic decency recognizes the need for human warmth and friendliness and doesn’t stand on procedure and etiquette as the fundamental determinant in the way a person behaves. People with basic decency communicate by listening and computing what others say without first imposing their thoughts on others. They engage in constructive give and take and recognize others’ strengths and intellect.
Basic human decency-to me, and how I live it-means you are just there for people and other living things smaller than yourself. Be nice to your pets and other people’s pets. It means you are a human. You are decent. And you are grateful for your life and happy to help others.
Unfortunately, not everyone is humanely decent. Our Great Merciful and Gracious God understands our sinful nature. He therefore in order to help us understand how we should act and what we should do, He instructed Moses to write it down. Today we are going to learn some of these basics.
21 “Now these are the judgments which you shall set before them:
Having made known His covenant, and having established how they must approach Him, Yahweh now provides detailed treatment on particular cases. The first example is of Hebrew bondmen and bondwomen. This demonstrates that a good number of such must have come out of Egypt attached to Israelite families, and it shows Yahweh’s concern for those who were now in bondage as Israel had been in Egypt. Other law codes put slaves well down in the list. They were of little account.
These laws probably expand on those already established by Moses (15.25). As time went by expansion would always be necessary.
It must be seen as quite remarkable that this coverage of the detail of the ‘judgments’ of the Law from 21-23, begins with these regulations concerning Hebrew bondmen, even prior to those dealing with the fact of the taking of human life. It demonstrates God’s care for the weak and vulnerable, but probably arises because of the mention of menservants and maidservants in the fourth ‘word’ concerning the Sabbath. ‘Hebrews’ had no protector, only God. They were a non-people. And thus His people must have His attitude towards them, for God is the God of the under-privileged. God is saying here, ‘before we consider the details of My commandments regulating your behavior to each other, let us consider these who are a no-people without protection. Because you are my people you must care for the weak, and vulnerable, and helpless’. They were not only not to make them work on the Sabbath; they must grant them a Sabbath at the end of their term of service.
2 If you buy a Hebrew servant, he shall serve six years; and in the seventh he shall go out free and pay nothing. 3 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. 4 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.
At first these provisions seem a little harsh. But further consideration reveals their logic. Firstly we must consider what is probably meant by a Hebrew bondman.
Early Israel never thought of them as ‘Hebrews’. That came much later. They were called Hebrews by outsiders and would refer to themselves as Hebrews when speaking to outsiders, but it was not a name they ordinarily applied to themselves. But the reason foreigners saw them as ‘Hebrews’ was because they saw them as landless and stateless.
This being so the Hebrew bondman who is in mind is such a person, a landless and stateless person who has been bought into regulated bondage by an Israelite. He is a person of no status. It is quite probable that there were many such ‘Hebrew’ bondmen among the children of Israel, for they had been in Egypt where such bondmen would be available, and poverty would have brought others to that situation.
There were a variety of different forms of service in Israel (and among their neighbors). Putting it at its most simple these included hired servants, debt slaves who had to work of a debt by a period of service, and people who entered into a bond to perform service for a certain period in return for an initial payment or a guarantee of a livelihood or some other basis of obligation (bondsmen). Then there were foreign slaves who were purchased or captured. Their position was permanent. And so on. Leviticus 25.39-41 says that no Israelite must be enslaved by another Israelite. He may be purchased but he must be treated as though he were a hired servant and released in the year of jubilee. There the idea was of a semi-permanent ‘slavery’ situation, but somewhat ameliorated because the person was an Israelite. That is different from here for this is a recognized seven year contract.
The Hebrew bondman can only be bound for six years (in a seven year contract). Apart from a captive in war no outsider was to be ‘enslaved’ for more than six years. We are told later that this is because the children of Israel had been slaves in Egypt and should therefore remember and be merciful as they have received mercy (Deuteronomy 15.12). Then he is to go out free for nothing, and is to be well provided for (Deuteronomy 15.13-14). If he brought his wife with him she is a ‘Hebrew’ woman and can therefore go out with him but if he is married to someone (who is probably not ‘a Hebrew’), whom he has received from his master, and then he goes out alone. He cannot take his wife and children outside the covenant community to share his statelessness. They belong to Yahweh and must therefore remain within the community. They remain with their master, to be released in due course depending on their status.
The principle that the wife remained behind was merciful for two reasons. First of all such a wife may find the life of a ‘Hebrew’ hard to bear, and secondly if she went she might be removed from Yahweh’s mercy in the covenant. This was a possibility that could not be allowed.
But the Hebrew slave was faced with an alternative. If he loved his wife and wanted to remain with her there was a course of action he could take. He could become an permanent love servant. This might also especially appeal to an older person without family, or someone who might find it difficult to build a life on the ‘outside’. They would have a place for life in a satisfactory environment, loving and being loved.
5 But if the servant plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,’ 6 then his master shall bring him to the judges. He shall also bring him to the door, or to the doorpost, and his master shall pierce his ear with an awl; and he shall serve him forever.
In order to keep a wife obtained within the covenant community the Hebrew must become a member of the covenant community for ever. Thus he must declare his love for his master, his wife and his children. The love for the master may be to him a secondary matter in real terms if he loved his wife but to the Law it was important that the idea be maintained. It must not be seen as forced on him, for he has the choice. Then his ear is pierced to the tent pole or door post and he becomes a bondman forever.
The piercing of the ear would result in the shedding of blood, and the blood sealed the covenant. Furthermore he is brought to the door. This would at this stage be the door of the tent. Later when they received the land of promise it would be a door with door posts. And the awl is then passed through the ear and into the tent pole or door post (Deuteronomy 15.17). This might be seen as symbolizing his permanent attachment to this home. But from then on he is a bondman forever.
If this seems harsh we must remember that such a person may have nowhere to go, and he would thus be exchanging an uncertain future for a certain future with a good master. That it is conceived of as a possible choice demonstrates that such a life was not necessarily one of continuing harshness. Such a slave could well be beloved. But no genuine Israelite would wish to be a bondman forever, for at the year of jubilee (soon to be established - Leviticus 25.13) his family land would be returned to him, which argues against this referring to an Israelite.
While this seems to be a form of slavery it is so by choice. The initial contract was a normal commercial contract and his keep and any benefits he obtained were his wages, and the contract gave him security.
The remaining provisions protected a woman sold to be a slave wife permanently and were necessary for her. It meant that she could not be discarded when older. It will be noted that this system allowed a form of divorce. It was not really God’s purpose, but controlled a system that already existed because of the hardness of their hearts.
7 “And if a man sells his daughter to be a female slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. 8 If she does not please her master, who has betrothed 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. 9 And if he has betrothed her to his son, he shall deal with her according to the custom of daughters. 10 If he takes another wife, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, and her marriage rights. 11 And if he does not do these three for her, then she shall go out free, without paying money.
The contrast with ‘the male bondservants’ (verse 7), which presumably looks back to the previous verses, suggests that we are here dealing with a Hebrew woman sold by her father for the purpose of marriage. The corresponding situation in was that a father may sell his daughter either conditionally or unconditionally. If sold unconditionally the sale was outright. If sold conditionally it was so that the girl should be adopted into the family of the purchaser, with a marriage situation in view. Thus at some stage they would have a responsibility for arranging her marriage. This is the example in view here.
If the master espouses the girl to him and then finds that she is not pleasing he must allow her to be redeemed, probably to be bought back by her father at a mutually agreed price which was reasonable taking into account the poverty which had caused the original sale. He must be willing to suffer loss because he has dealt with the girl deceitfully. He may not sell her on to a strange people (that is, someone not of the family circle).
The alternative was that he may espouse her to his son. In this case she must be treated as a proper daughter.
If he marries her and then takes another wife he must treat her properly. He must not reduce her food and clothing, nor may he refuse her conjugal rights.
If he does none of these things he must let her go free at no cost. She is to be released immediately. This proviso supports the view that the possible redemption is by the impoverished father. If no agreement can be reached the master gets nothing, a good incentive to reaching a reasonable agreement given all the circumstances.
The importance of this law for us today is that it lays down a principle, the principle of fair treatment for those for whom we are responsible as employers or hirers. It emphasizes that we are to treat them better than others do, and must not manipulate them.
The following regulations all deal with extreme violence towards others. This came first in matters to do with behavior towards each other.
12 “He who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death. 13 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. 14 “But if a man acts with premeditation against his neighbor, to kill him by treachery, you shall take him from My altar, that he may die.
For the deliberate murderer there was only the death penalty (there were no prisons in which he could be incarcerated long term). For such there could be no refuge. Even if he sought sanctuary at the altar (1 Kings 2.29 with 31) it would do him no good for his blood guilt deprived him of the right. But in the case of an accidental killing a place will be provided to which that person can flee. Initially this would be to find sanctuary at the altar until satisfactory recompense could be found. Later on places would be provided called Cities of Refuge (Numbers 35).
The penalty would be carried out by the avengers of blood (Numbers 35.19). These were members of the same family as the victim (theoretically at least acting on behalf of the community. It was their responsibility to bring a murderer to justice. But, if the killer sought refuge, vengeance could only take place once the courts had agreed that the killing was deliberate (Numbers 35.24-27).
‘God delivers him into his hand.’ That is, the death was accidental. It is ‘an act of God’, not deliberate. This law brings out the sanctity of human life. The deliberate intent to kill cannot be excused.
15 “And he who strikes his father or his mother shall surely be put to death.
In a patriarchal society the leader was father of the clan, and then authority went downwards to the fathers of sub-clans or family groups until the lowest authority was reached, the father of the family. Each was seen, within his sphere, as standing, as it were, along with his wife, in the place of God. That is why the command to honor father and mother received such prominence (20.12). To smite such was like striking a judge or even God. It was to hit at recognized authority and demanded the death penalty. By this the authority of the parents was firmly established. It is the principle that is important. Not every father would demand the death penalty for his son; circumstances would be taken into account.
16 “He who kidnaps a man and sells him, or if he is found in his hand, shall surely be put to death.
This refers to kidnapping. The enforced illicit enslaver of people within the community was punishable by death. That this is the central statement in the chiastic arrangement demonstrates its importance.
17 “And he who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death.
This is on the same principle as verse 15. The word for ‘reviling’ or ‘cursing’ is very strong, far stronger than just grumbling or complaining about, or even railing at. It suggests intention to do grievous harm. This is spoken of someone rebelling against all authority.
18 “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, 19 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.
Where men have a disagreement, injury caused which is serious enough to put one in bed for some time must be compensated for, but as long as the wounded person is not permanently bedridden, that is all that is required. The victim must not suffer financial loss for it and the aggressor must pay his medical bills.
20 “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. 21 Notwithstanding, if he remains alive a day or two, he shall not be punished; for he is his property.
Vicious treatment by a master of a bondman with a stick that might cause death is to be punished where death results within a day or two. That this punishment is usually death is not stated but might be suggested by the fact that this law is placed among laws which continually relate to the death penalty, which cease at verse 23 (but see verse 29 also. However redemption is possible there). Possibly it depended on the level of provocation which could be considered by the judges.
Otherwise, if the bondman survives for two days and then dies, consideration is given to the fact that the master has lost his services for good, which has cost him the equivalent in silver. The fact that the man does not die immediately suggests that the death was not intended. Permanent injury such as loss of an eye or a tooth will result in the bondman being released (verses 26-27).
22 “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. 23 But if any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe
A man who is deemed to cause a miscarriage in a woman who is not his wife, as a result of a tussle with another man, is liable to a fine, the amount of which will be decided by the judges on the facts of the case. But only if nothing more serious develops. The hurt is seemingly physical so somehow she must have become involved in the fight, either deliberately or accidentally.
But if the injury is more serious then he will be punished according to the level of the injury. The purpose of this law is to ensure people pay special attention to pregnant women and are more careful when they are around, and reminds them of their special vulnerability. It teaches us concern for pregnant women.
The well known verse ‘Eye for eye, ------ stripe for stripe’ is clearly a technical statement, regularly quoted, covering all situations.
The principle was widespread in early societies and widely accepted. It put a limit on how far people could go in seeking revenge for injury while satisfying their sense for justice. It was not always strictly carried out and often other compensation was accepted instead. But it did act as a brake on excessive revenge.
The principle behind all these laws are the recognition of the sacredness of human life in God’s eyes, and the concern that punishment be in accordance with the seriousness of the crime and not be based on revenge. The circumstances under which we live may be different but the same principles of justice can be applied.
. 26 “If a man strikes the eye of his male or female servant, and destroys it, he shall let him go free for the sake of his eye. 27 And if he knocks out the tooth of his male or female servant, he shall let him go free for the sake of his tooth
The punishment for permanent injury to a bondman or bondwoman is the cancellation of the bond. The man or woman goes free.
.28 “If an ox gores a man or a woman to death, then the ox shall surely be stoned, and its flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall be acquitted. 29 But if the ox tended to thrust with its horn in times past, and it has been made known to his owner, and he has not kept it confined, so that it has killed a man or a woman, the ox shall be stoned and its owner also shall be put to death. 30 If there is imposed on him a sum of money, then he shall pay to redeem his life, whatever is imposed on him. 31 Whether it has gored a son or gored a daughter, according to this judgment it shall be done to him.
A man is not to be blamed for an unexpected attack by an ox even though death results. The only punishment is the slaying of the ox by stoning. It has been rendered blood guilty. Furthermore its meat could not be eaten. It belonged to God in reparation. But if the ox had a reputation for goring people and the owner had not restricted it, then the owner is guilty of manslaughter if it kills someone, and must be put to death. There is, however, in this exceptional case the possible alternative of a ‘ransom.’
‘If there be laid on him a ransom.’ There is the alternative that the owner can pay a ransom fixed by the court and save his own life. He can be redeemed by the payment of a price. The choice as to whether a ransom can be accepted possibly rests solely in the hands of the court, but it may require the consent of the family of the deceased who may help to fix the level of the ransom (compare verse 22).
From our point of view there is a warning here about being concerned for the safety of others. These laws build up a background of righteous behavior that can be applied to many situations. As we study them we learn from them the principles on which they are based, fairness, thoughtfulness and responsibility.
32 If the ox gores a male or female servant, he shall give to their master thirty shekels of silver, and the ox shall be stoned.
In this case the ransom is fixed because thirty shekels is the price of a bondman so that there is no argument.
The principle lying behind these laws is that of the responsibility of an owner for anything he owns which is dangerous. He is responsible to ensure that it can cause no harm. And secondly that blame should not be attached for what could not be foreseen.
33 “And if a man opens a pit, or if a man digs a pit and does not cover it, and an ox or a donkey falls in it, 34 the owner of the pit shall make it good; he shall give money to their owner, but the dead animal shall be his.
A man is responsible to safeguard any pit, well or cistern that he has dug or opened, for they should be covered. So if an ox or ass falls into them he must make recompense, but keeps the carcass. The principle is that someone should not lose through another’s negligence. It reminds us today that God is concerned about our being concerned for the fate of others, including animals.
35 “If one man’s ox hurts another’s, so that it dies, then they shall sell the live ox and divide the money from it; and the dead ox they shall also divide. 36 Or if it was known that the ox tended to thrust in time past, and its owner has not kept it confined, he shall surely pay ox for ox, and the dead animal shall be his own.
Where there is accidental loss through a misbehaving ox any loss is divided between the two parties, but where the misbehaving ox already had a reputation for goring, the owner should have kept it under control; therefore he is responsible for any loss of the innocent party. He does, however, receive the dead animal and can sell its hide. It seems that at this stage the meat could also be eaten or sold.
Leviticus 17.15-16 expresses disfavor at the eating of such an animal that ‘dies of itself’, either by home born or stranger, but as long as the blood is not eaten it only renders the person unclean, a position to be remedied by ritual washing and waiting until the evening. But Deuteronomy 14.21 forbids such food to God’s people because the people are holy to Yahweh. It may, however, be given to ‘strangers’ or foreigners. But no specific consequence is outlined. Both therefore express disapproval, any seeming contradiction probably depending on the type of ‘stranger’ in question, whether temporary, semi-permanent or permanent, or on the fact that Israelites were ignoring the law so that it had to be tightened up.
